fuzzynormal

Since you know what you're doing you won't have any issue with a bump up in camera gear. I still think you'd be okay with what you're doing as is, but I suppose it depends on the situation you have to navigate with your particular TV station. Getting your footage up-to-scratch probably isn't an issue for you at all. Having a great camera is nice, no doubt. If you're good, you should own or rent a great camera. Doing so if fun and awesome --but to think automatically that something is unworthy because of the tech of how it's acquired? I just don't buy into that. Everything is relative. FWIW, I have a colleague that's been shooting an emmy award winning sports program for 5 years on 8-bit Canon DSLR's. (some of their cameras are as low-brow as the T2i) They broadcast their show all over the TeeVee airwaves. Source camera has never been a problem.

I say if you're comfortable with your gear and you feel it offers you creative flexibility, stick to it. Have a conversation with the station manager. Send the broadcast station some of your work, have one of their goofball engineers scope it out, and just go ahead and ask for the special permission. Broadcast specs are guidelines. If it looks good and the story is good, they'll make exceptions. If they don't, then there's something wrong with them not what you're providing them. Good craft and story should trump limited specs. You should see the stuff that's presented on the local PBS station where I'm at. The fact that they shoot on "pro" cameras is irrelevant. Bad shooting is bad shooting. And if you're doing great audio then that already makes it better than most, so see what they say.

Anchovies. If you don't like em, then you don't like real pizza. ...and you're stupid.

But being pedantically critical on the interwebs about something that reflects a skill set vastly superior to my own is the way I attempt to assert my self worth. Dang, now I don't even have that?

Well, if you shoot in 60p, you can always down-covert it to 30p, so there's a little flexibility there. I bet the 2D cinematic narrative storytelling is going to last a nice long time. Multitudes of generations. It will be supplanted with something incredible, yes, but there's always going to be people watching Casablanca, you know?

Blasphemy!

Works well enough when doing video though.

Ha! "Hormoans" That's awesome. Well, I suppose that local-band stuff probably hasn't changed much since I was spitting bubblegum.

Yeah, but there's definitely a market for it. More people have looked at dpreview A7RII studio charts than all the movies I've ever made. Now, I'd like to say my movies have probably made more people cry than dpreview studio charts, but I suspect that's somehow wrong too.

Might be irrelevant, but: 1) You have to make sure your stabilizer is set for the proper focal length. and 2) The stabilizer is actually working. I have 2 gx85's. On one of them the stabilizer has actually got "stuck" a few times. The description of your ibis performance does make it sound like it's not performing adequately; through user error or malfunction. I'd also advise that your moire could well be a computer display issue rather than the actual footage. I just did a shoot with a lady in tight stripes. Morie looked pretty bad in the edit window, but when I watched the footage full-rez, it was fine.

Well, I do prefer what analog film (or emulated analog film) offers for most situations, such as those you mentioned, but I'm not closed off to the idea that advances in tech can allow for some new artistic expression. Where Peter Jackson's bad judgment of wielding hfr led to failure, someone else may be able to succeed.

Agreed. Also, I like the film look @24fps with grain, scratches, and gate drift... but that is an anachronism. I'm also certainly curious about digital films shot and projected @120, for example. I mean, why not? It offers a psychological description of things that are unique. Of course it can be implemented artistically and effectively. It can be misused as well. We shall see.

Nothing wrong with that. I admit I'm partial to images that look analog, but I realize it's a nostalgia thing, and nothing that's wholly artistically rational. If you're interested in the new, then be sure to check out Ang Lee's break from traditional cinema in his next film.

You could always exploit the benefit of shallow depth of field. Position full frame cameras with fast lenses at a distance ( if possible ) that allows for focus on foreground subjects but knocks out background into a good bit of that 'ol "circle of confusion." If you never focus on the screens, you'll never have to worry about the Moire. Of course, this kind of prohibits wide shots...

Eh, those that are technically inclined will fret about this sort of stuff. If you've got an artistic bent chances are you just use whatever and make it happen. I envy the latter as they're the ones that are more likely to have successful careers. Wish I could be so, but cameras to me are like jangly shiny keys in front of a baby. I can't help but be enthralled with 'em for some reason. It's a stupid concern as I realize the chances of that interest having a positive effect own my career is minimal --and growing more so by the day. Sure, but how do they feel about the actual productions and stories made with those skin tones? What's really the more important pursuit after all? Hey, idealized skin tone might be the end-all-be-all for some people. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, just asking about priorities. Are the priorities more creative than technical or visa versa? Depends on the camera op's responsibilities I guess.

Who knows? Not sure what type of shooting you're looking to accomplish. The T2i might be perfectly adequate for you. FWIW, I own two GX80/85's and like 'em just fine. You'll get better image quality out of the LUMIX.

Well, I like that it's a hybrid camera that's rumored to do 60p @4K. That's pretty cool. When shooting docs, it's always nice to have some room to crop in post if needed.

In the immortal words of the worst music creators on the planet: "Fcking magnets, how do they work? And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist Y’all motherfckers lying, and getting me pssed." Kinotehnik be keeping it real, yo.

It's a purposeful rig if it suits your purpose. As such it's fine. I have a client that shoots outdoor tourism travel stuff, so this would be an ideal camera for that. Somehow it's amazing that folks have high expectations for gear that's not trying to exceed any.

Grrrrrr... Google serves up that ridiculous piece of software for just about any transcoding question. Brorosoft has vomitted this sort of manufactured content everywhere to exploit SEO. Heaven forbid one actually tries to locate legitimate advice about video transcoding through a search engine --as wading through the algorithmic garbage dump of information is barely useful. But then again, Monica660, you already knew that, didn't'cha? That's why you're here.

I got no problem with opinion. I'm just weary of the YT culture that extolls about this camera or that camera. Usually with click-bait titles like "Best Ever," "[insert brand here] Killer," "Camera of the Year!" etc. And the cliche' of apologizing about 20 things wrong about their production at the top of the video? That's always common and amusing. "Sorry for the noise. My cat has explosive diarrhea, but I need to film this right next to the kitty litter box. Also, I left my polarizer in my Mom's basement so please excuse the over-exposure."

Hmm, yeah. Everything that's wrong with youtube digital "content" on display with that vid. Amazing, really. I do wonder when/if people will move on from this sort of stuff? I guess if the printed published word hasn't been able to get away from hacks in the half a millennium since it's been around, video won't be able to either. Actually, I suppose if one is mentally at the level to appreciate this sort of clickhole, then they'll probably keep coming back to it. Folks will always be drawn to that which caters to their level.

If any major company isn't bound by the prejudices of what a "stills" camera should be, I suppose it would be Panasonic. They seem most flexible in that regard. So, if they go for it with the video, they'll make a lot of motion picture folks happy. But then what? Would it ultimately impress the stills folks too? After all, consumer enthusiasts love the fluff.

Ha! Not quite as simple as all that, but then again...maybe it should be. ;-) Funny thing is, I still use my 5D for a lot of interviews. Full frame with a 50mm lens wide open. Hard to beat that FOV and shallow DOF for a talking head shot.

I do agree that if you're gonna buy a full frame camera for video, having it do full frame video in all modes would be nice. But it doesn't, and is that really a big deal? Are we sad that Canon has decided to not compete in the hybrid segment that they accidentally created all those years ago? Are we disappointed that Canon's legacy is somehow jepordized? Above all, how is this camera's reality anything new? We've known that Canon isn't going to compete against their own cinema line, right?