fuzzynormal

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?

The outside looking in is always an interesting perspective. The USA is typically a bit of a mess, and there's a blessing in that. You might as well. We all do over here too. And I wouldn't worry too much about it. Intellectual films will always be niche. Dumb films just have broader appeal. It's quite simple, really. A genius, sitting amongst a crowd of morons, can appreciate stupid slapstick and a fart joke. However, those morons wouldn't feel comfortable at an art house while that same genius chuckles knowingly at the cutting cultural insight of a witty turn of a phrase or convoluted allegory. So what'cha gonna do? Smart films have to stay small, dumb films go big. Some try to have it both ways and succeed. It's all part of the mix.

Big budget spectacles have always been in the DNA of Hollywood. What was killing it at the box office about 100 years ago? Some big budget racist claptrap that was an incredible technical achievement. Beyond that the film was an abomination. I guess you could say the 70's were a bit of a gritty renaissance in American cinema, but even then the artistic successes weren't always the biggest hits. It is interesting to go back and look at American movies through the prism of the box office. There's a lot of crap in there that we tend to forget. Film was more diversified simply because it was the premiere motion picture media, but it's not like what's happening in U.S. movies is all that removed from the past.

The digital revolution is an incredible thing. The first globally cultural phenomenon. Bigger businesses can try as hard as they can to monetize it, but that sort of process demands way too "lowest-common-denominator" sort of stuff to be truly compelling. Normally, it's dry and boring "content" not actual writing. Lousy Corporate speak and intellectual junk food. Those of us that are more curious than normal folks will always require niche corners, like eoshd, to keep it real. There's plenty of room inside the Internet. Writing created by people that really do care about what they're saying will always have a place. Whe I first came here I spouted off my typical egalitarian camera rants and was quickly chastised by the head-honcho because of it, which I really appreciated. Finally, I thought, a place where someone has an opinion they really care about! Its not some unpaid intern just regurgitating a PR sheet from corporate marketing. I don't know, maybe these sorts of corners will have a harder time existing as newer generations get more sophistically exploited by content-providers. Perhaps not. After all, Humans have always tended to have alternatives to the mainstream. From philosophy to books to camera blogs.

I've gone to 0° shutter on a lot of my LUMIX footage. Shot my last doc almost exclusively as such. I do like the motion blur.

I wore a h1 on the top of my hat once. Silly, I know, but I needed clean audio that didn't have rustling while I handled the camera. So, better than the hot shoe mount anyway.

Well, I get more out of "Better Call Saul" than I do from any Marvel vehicle. But then again I'm a grown up. I'm not the demographic that's buying tickets. This is the golden age of TeeVee. It's something incredible really, and cinema might not be dying, but it's got a heck of a cough. You can't stop progress. It's a brave new world. The king is dead, long live the king. Take your pick at the cliche. It may be banal, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Exactly. Is it worth the difference? What do you want to do with your footage? A lot of people will go down a rabbit hole chasing superior IQ, and for some things that certainly makes sense. For other things...not so much. I've lost count of the number of videos I've seen that are unwatchable, but look great, knowhatimean? There's so much more than just IQ when it comes to crafting a successful production. Ohmygoodness, so so much more.

OMG. Thanks for this. I don't know how this has flown under my radar! ...oh...looks like this is why: "I then saw that before they were even released they were discontinued in the US. I did quite a bit of research and it looks like Zaxcom sued Tascam for patent infringement and Tascam had to stop selling them in the US. Zaxcom has a similar device but it's over $1000."

I read all of that with my inner-head Werner Herzog accent. Also Casablanca. One of the "Hollywood-ist" films ever made, and all the better because of it. RIP Ed. :-(

If the EM5II had slightly better video, I would have never bought two GX85's for my current project. The EM5II with the battery grip feels and works like a "real" camera. It just jibes with my old school sensibilities. I swear to you, and it's almost embarrassing to admit this, but I have carried that EM5II camera around a few times simply because it felt good! Not because I wanted to do anything with it, just simply because I liked the way it felt in my hands. Crazy. I really do like the GX85's. I don't love them. Aside from the IQ, the model comes up short for me in the ergonomics. It's not bad per se, just not as reassuring as a EM5II. When you're using a camera 8-14 hours a day, that really makes a difference. And son-of-a-bitch, I hate the GX85's EVF. Gah! Believe me, there's been times recently where I've thought to myself, "The heck with it, I should take the IQ hit and go back to the EM5II. The video is 'good enough'." Also, I can do (good 'nuff) on camera audio recording. Man, that is such a god-send when dealing with hundreds of hours of b-roll. But these are concerns that lean more to the pro-side of things. If you want something for more personal use, getting the most video IQ out of a hybrid might not matter. So, if you're looking to get a stills camera FIRST, and then a video camera second. I'd definitely recommend the EM5II. Keep in mind this: The video from the EM5II isn't bad, it's just not as good as the GX85's clean and crisp 4K. I'm pretty sure, if I can rustle up the cash, when the next gen of OMD comes out with 4K, I'm hopping back onto that line.

Yes it is. --I'm not aware of any still camera from any manufacturer that has a good mic in it. I don't believe that anyone in their right mind would use the camera mics from hybrids to record the main sound track, however. The best the gx85 offers is that it creates an audio reference track for post sync to a proper recording, and that'll have to do. (It would be nice if it had an audio input, but it doesn't. Oh well) That's never not an issue. I'd recommend that if you think otherwise to seriously reconsider.

Really? Wow, I never would have thought it would cover aps-c. The lenses are so small to begin with...

No time for that.

I'm a few months in shooting with 2 GX85's. I've noticed one of 'em has had the IBIS get "stuck" a few times. Camera needs to be power cycled to bring it back online. No big deal at the moment, but concerning. Posting the info here to note it. If someone else runs into this issue let me know your camera's symptoms. Thanks.

What cantsin said. And remember, when putting together a prime kit, grab those focal lengths you want from a single manufacturer/era. That way you get image rendition uniformity. I'd really doubt that you'd want a 1950's 35mm Nikkor and a 1990's 50mm Nikkor, for example. I'm using mid-generation Canon FD (1980's) lenses at the moment, FWIW. As for all that other stuff, you'll have to put in the footwork. The market is pretty firm these days from what I can tell. If you want old fast glass, you pay for it, doesn't matter who made it or when. If you want to get weird and cheap, the best value I would suggest would be the prime lenses of the goofy (but super cool) Pentax a110 camera. You can get a 4 lens set for under $200. They're all f2.8 lenses too -- but never mind, they only work on M43 and I see you want stuff for a s35mm sized sensor.

I'm shooting a documentary wherein I'm trying to capture around 80% of the footage with a FD 1.2 55mm on a speedbooster. I think it looks great in an imperfect way. Typically I'm getting most of my shots @f2.8, which is pretty darn sharp with that lens. But, I've done some low light stuff where I open it to f2 or f1.4-ish, and the chroma aberration really starts to be noticeable. Which isn't all bad, depending. It's a "look" anyway. It's certainly nice being able to shoot low-light if needed. f1.2 on a speedbooster with 1600ISO captures a lot of light. I've even pushed to 3200ISO with useable results...depending on what you consider "useable." Here's the thing some people fail to take into consideration when it comes to IBIS bodies and m43 cameras: The cameras are very light. The lack of mass makes them prone to hand held jitters. But, once you adapt some hunking piece of glass and metal to the body, then the weight of the camera actually becomes beneficial for steadier handheld shots. My take is that the ergos are actually better for shooting video when old vintage glass is on the body.

I went with a affordable PC build using Premiere. Was very hesitant to do so, but the price performance ratio was too tempting. I do miss OSX. Ain't gonna lie. Premiere is okay. Not in love with it, don't hate it either. Anxious to see if Resolve will turn into a useable editing platform. My initial go at it was too frustrating, so I gave up on it for now.

I'm thinking that perhaps there's a better place for ALL CAPS political rants. The interwebs is a big place.

Russian media and the word "censorship." Huh. Interesting, that... Man, it's all so weird. Used to be most voters in the States would view anything Russian with heavy skepticism. Now, if info serves to support one's ideological purpose, no problem. The source is almost irrelevant. Augh, political years in the USA. Oh well. I'm burnt out on it.

No budget lighting? Don't use lights. Search for locations that give it to you naturally. Work with that. It's a challenge that's more rewarding than you might think.