fuzzynormal

Actually, the stabilization is better for stills. Of course, it's awesome for video, but it really increases your ability to get great shots while taking photos. After all, that's why they put it in their cameras. I can't stress it enough. You should try it for at least a few minutes to see how cool it is. I put Oly's 75mm on the EM-5 and was getting rock solid/sharp hand held photos in low light. Why does it help with stills? Well, if you're on a longer focal length, say a 150mm full frame equivalent, the photo rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should be double that full-frame number to compensate for motion blur created by the shakiness of a handheld camera. So, without good stabilization I would normally shoot a m43-75mm lens at a shutter of 300! Yikes, that sucks up a lot of light. And don't forget, longer lenses are more flattering for portraits, which is what you'll want to be doing. Thus, with Oly's superior stabilization (and it's really really really superior) you can lower that shutter speed to 50, 30, 20 even...on a long lens! All of a sudden you're shooting with available light, the ISO's aren't high/grainy, you get great naturalistic photos, the images stay sharp, all that good stuff. No one's more surprised at how evangelical I am about these cameras, especially considering I just bought a GM1 and GX7, but if a camera has a killer feature that's superior to everything else on the market, and it fits perfectly for your situation, it deserves to be touted.

Yes, but only insomuch as at a certain point (I happen to think we're effectively there already) image quality will be so good and so cheap that there's no real barriers to acquiring tools that are close to on par with what professionals use. Make no mistake, pros will always have the better stuff, but that margin will be indistinguishable to all but the most discriminating. But sure, in the consumer market it looks like Panasonic is just out front a bit right now. But you know how it goes, there's always something that's coming out that's juuust a little better. And a lot of people will covet whatever it is, just because it is. There's still a legacy of the old attitude: I now have Widget "A," so I'm an notable maker of "A's." I liken it to a dude I know that buys Leica's and considers himself an accomplished photographer, even though his photos are just glorified snapshots. He has at least 20K invested in his kit --yet anyone with a good eye and a disposable camera could easily outshoot him. Anyway, the whole change is cool though. A generation ago, you could be a "filmmaker" just because you happened to acquire a film camera. That was enough to legitimize you in some way, regardless of actual film making skill. Now, my nephew can easily buy a camera/lens from WalMart that makes better images than what Hitchcock used. So then, what makes a filmmaker these days?

For home movies (sometimes even professional ones) I think this 3 or 5-axis stabilization feature is far more beneficial than superior resolution. You should go try one in a camera store to really get a sense how powerful this ability is for your movies. Stable handheld shots without much effort? That's incredible. And your viewers will thank you as well.

For what it's worth, one of my favorite films is "Man With A Movie Camera," and that film has so much visual magic in it, most modern filmmakers still can't equal the creativity they managed.

Agreed. I shot one of my last films deliberately 24p, FF, a single 50mm lens, and always @f1.4 whether day or night. Those were the considered parameters I decided to use for my own exaggerated aesthetic reasons. I felt that particular visual look supported the narrative, so I utilized it. The issue I'm driving at stems more from the assumption I've seen that without 24p one's work could be dismissed as not "pro" --whatever that means. Obviously, based on my posts, I tend to believe that so many other considerations are more important. In the case of the Oly, the 5-axis feature is so incredible it makes that camera a viable choice for productive shooting. The lack of 24p is too bad, but more than a worthwhile concession. BTW, I shoot my corporate gigs @30p almost all the time.

Granted. "Story" is my current perspective and maybe I'm convoluting the semantics here. Ironically, my last film was almost wholly impressionistic.

He just means that if you're going to add an effect that introduces a lot of activity to your image (like film grain) in post-production, you need to convert your video to a codec that can handle all that "new" motion information. A codec like H.264 can't compensate for all that new visual activity, because the data rate is too minimal, so it "crushes" those details and makes them mushy. Thus, he changes his format from from the camera, H.264, to ProRes444 and then edits with that converted footage. Essentially ProRes444 is a big wide pipe and data flows through it easily. H.264 is a thin garden hose and can only handle so much data before it starts to fail under pressure.

Of course I have. Just because it's something that exists and can be done well doesn't mean everyone should be giving it a go without informed consideration, however. I shoot my own films with zoom moves every once in a while. It's a good visual tool. However, knowing how to utilize a zoom move as a pro and having a neophyte go at it tend to be two wildly different things. Let's just say it's part of cinematic vocabulary, but the zoom move would be a word in that dictionary with a whole lot of syllables. You better have a strong grasp of the language before you start dropping it into conversation.

Well, for starters, you can't really escape "I don't like this or that" on the web. And, yes, technical seems to be the focus here of a lot of people for logical reasons. However, this blog is called "EOSHD, Directed by DSLR Filmmakers." So, if one filmmaker suggest to another filmmaker that they might be making an bad assumption about motion picture imaging, and that they would be better off not worrying about their perceived problem and consider another style of shooting, seems like that would be productive a little bit. Even if they agree or disagree. That's up to them, but it's a viewpoint they might not have even considered otherwise. Believe it or not, (this is the internet after all) I'm not trying to win an argument about how to do things, my suggestions and opinions are just there to offer a personal perspective. If you think zoom moves in motion pictures are better than sex and chocolate, and the coolest thing you could do with a lens while having sex with chocolate, then that's up to you. I could have easily said to the OP, just buy a constant aperture lens to do your zoom moves. That would solve a technical problem, but IMHO the artistic short comings are still there.

Indeed, what tends to get overlooked by tech heads is the fact that content trumps all else. If you're constantly getting caught up in the notion that you can't effectively tell a story because an imaging device does't shoot at an certain frame rate, it has less resolution than some other camera, or maybe it's missing a few extra steps of dynamic range, I'd wonder if you're the type that'll ever be an effective filmmaker. Having all those premium features help make a story look better, but that's not going to help you TELL the story at a fundamental level. (in fact, there's a strong argument to be made that technical obstructions foster creativity rather than hinder it.) Are you consistently worried more about image quality than narrative? You're probably a technician, not a storyteller. And here in the lower-end marketplace of filmmaking with all this democratized gear, the latter really tends to matter a whole lot more. These cameras are just tools, they're not the craft.

Yeah, I'll confirm, all Canon cams I've worked with skew 'red.' But really, if you shoot vanilla and tweak colors in post, that issue takes care of itself. I've cross cut with many different brands before. Recently did a doc with Canon DSLR, Canon HDV, Nikon DSLR, and a GH1, was able to unify stuff in post without too much trouble; just gotta start as bland and flat as possible when acquiring your footage.

I really like the approach to this particular list. It's compelling theory and comparison just 'kuz it's fun to consider the tech. But, as AR alludes, the best camera is the one you actually go and use for making something interesting. Resolution charts aren't exactly great narrative.

For shooting weddings you'll need so much more than a good cam and lenses. And I'm not talking about gear. That said, an Oly with 5axis stabilization would be my choice. The production value of that feature trumps all other considerations, I think. Simulated slider, crane, and steady cam shots all via handheld? That's a ridiculous advantage. Then a 12-35/2.8 zoom. That would cover it for me. Less is more I say. Worry more about the shots than carrying misc gear all over the place.

I love zoom lenses too. I have 4. They're great run and gun lenses for getting the best focal length quickly. I bought my last one specifically to do one shot in a western movie, and that was just to do a direct homage to a Sergio Leone film I like. Plus, the shot was part of a montage meant to convey an unnatural/uncomfortable scenario. I'm not condemning the lenses when I say "Zoom" I'm complaining about how they're too often used. I don't like actual zooming during shots unless it's well considered. The human eye doesn't work that way, so if you use a zoom, you better regard seriously how it fits into your narrative. Too often I see video where people do a pull or push because they can, not because they should. I come from a broadcasting background. Lenses are built to do "zooms" on those field production cameras and lazy TV shooters abuse the heck out of it. It drives me nuts and it's an unfortunate visual cliche' when done wrong.

Why would you shoot a shot with a zoom move anyway? Are you trying to make a 1970's movie? In that case, just buy a nice old vivitar manual zoom and an adapter. Seriously, zooms (edit: the zoom 'move' not the lens itself) are horrible.

Not bad. I'm not partial to shooting with a shoulder rig myself, but if you find it helps, no problem. Using that LED light though? I'd ditch it. IMHO, that's not going to do you any favors with creating an attractive image. I'd say, at the most, use it as a rim light on subjects. Have a assistant hit 'em from the side or behind if need be, but direct like that? Nah, not a good thing. No assistant? Roll with natural light and then find your angles that compliment your subject. This is a much better approach to documentary style film making. Modern cams are great in low light. Keep it naturalistic and try harder to find your shots rather than just illuminating the first thing you see. Is that the Oly45mm on there? If so, that's a great focal length (90mm Full Frame Equivalent) for portraiture and will look awesome...but not handheld --unless you're some sort of zen master shooter. You'll need a tripod or at least a good monopod. If you can handle it, I'd recommend shooting the whole thing longer lens @2.8/fps50/and a shutter speed of 100. (adjust exposure with ISO and/or ND filters) It would make your work look much more elegant and cohesive. But again, only if you can effectively control the lens movement on that longer focal length. Easier said than done. More practically, shooting @50mm (FF equivalent) would still look nice and give you a bit more flexibility with space. Personally, I'm not a fan of wide angles with documentaries. Useful for a few special shots, depending on the subject, but I stay away from them if I can. I like to pick one prime and shoot at least 80% of my footage with it. Good luck!

For making truly "Cinema-Like" images? I don't think it really matters. Having the skill to make those "Cinema-Like" images does. Once you can utilize that skill effectively, then you can use that wisdom to make smart choices. You can't just walk outside and randomly point a camera with an old lens on it and have the lens create cinema magic. There's just way too much more involved with it than that. That being said, yes, all lenses have different characteristics. Knowing which ones to use in order to support the narrative is the key. I've shot an entire film with a cheap uncoated 50mm lens from the 60's because the flawed visuals it created supported that particular story. or...at least that's how I rationalized it. ;-)

Rarified air you're breathing. How's it smell?

Was that about cameras? Must've missed it.

That's lens flare. You can only solve that "problem" by flagging the lens so lights aren't directly shining on the glass. Or, just not shooting into lights. Also, the next time you direct a movie in the Star Trek franchise you can do that on purpose with Zeiss lenses and everyone will think it's awesome and want to emulate it.

For what it's worth, if you're shooting a f2 on m43, you have an effective DOF of f4 in regards to full frame cameras. Considering that feature film cinematographers like to shoot around f5.6, I'd say that m43 sensors work well getting that shallow/skinny DOF look. Something like a f1.4 on a full frame is useful for specialty shots, but shooting motion pictures that way all the time would be a bit much. Anyway, I'm just saying m43 does good motion picture DOF.

Probably a simple photo CGI composite mix with the "practical" shot.

Awesome. Thanks for this. I shot at this temple 5 years ago in HD and it doesn't look half as good as your footage. Very encouraging.

Content and technique are more important on high-end professional shoots as well. Creatives are the ones that control the production. The tech side makes sure they maintain impressive standards, but content is king; at least with storytelling.

That right there is why, for some people, the Olympus will always be a better camera overall. I don't care if it's not as sharp as a GH3 or my GX7. It's a camera that's perfect for some shooting situations. --And if it's solving a problem or helping you be more creative, resolution is hardly a priority. I'll put it this way: The best imaging machine isn't always the best camera.