yiomo

Shooting with m4/3? This sort of depth of field is usually at FF..

Had a quick look at ebay. Seems like the Yashika 50mm 1.4 would cost me around €200. With an aditional €60 I could get the much smaller(?) OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm F1.8 . Would the Yashika be much better?

Wow andy, you really love lenses! Of course, from what I read it is better to get vintage or ff lenses as they produce better results on m43 and they are better for future proofing, but then again one looses the advantage of having a small system to travel with. I mean ok, on a set it is probably better to have this big glass. No problems. But I am thinking, I just put my 5d and trusty 24-105 on sale to get rid of the weight and to invest in a seemingly better system for video that can also do decent stills. A system that I can use to travel wherever with low weight and volume. Investing in this glass might be a wise thing to as a set of lenses to have for narrative productions/controlled environments. The same goes for the samyangs and other big lenses I guess.. But any recomendations for more a portable solution? Or do you really think it is a very bad idea/investment to go for native m43 lenses? p.s Tried to check your web but couldn't open it.

thanks. will check it out.

You mean you don't see any difference at all between the image quality of the Lumix videos and the bmpcc videos ? No doubt, a good dop and good lenses help and are greatly important but so does real life technology (13 stops, 422 10bit).

I am building a new simple m43 system. It will consist of GH4 and possibly bmpcc as well. Well, besides the bodies I'll need some lenses, so would like some thoughts. I want to spent around €1100 max. and my partner agreed so I am in good luck. I have around a month to decide :) My work is documentary and fiction and I will be using them handheld occasionally. I also shoot photos and coming from a FF format I still have (a minor) fear that I will miss the (somehow-not too much) shallow DOF when I need it, so I would like to get an as fast lens as possible. My initial focus was the lumix 12-35 OIS f/2.8. But I've read that it has a lot of barrel distortion on the bmpcc. Otherwise it is probably the best cost-effective solution and helpfull for documentary stuff (zoom, OIS). But...thinking that I could perhaps squeeze 3 primes out of my budget, I started looking for more options... So the **** is for my favourite option up to today. 1. ? Cannot find the wide one... that would give a 24mm equivalent on the bmpcc. 2. Medium ***** OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12mm F2.0 (GH4 -24mm) (BMPCC -34mm) (€ 266) Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f1.8 (GH4 - 34mm) (BMPCC - 47.6mm) (€ 395) LUMIX G 20mm/F1.7 (GH4-40mm) (BMPCC -56mm) (€332) 3.Tele **** OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm F1.8 (GH4 - 90mm) (BMPCC - 126mm) - Read great reviews. ( €266) 4. I have read good things about the samyang cine lenses but then I'd need a speed booster and bigger cost. Plus a DOP said at an interview that although he has worked with them (speed boosters) he believes they are too limiting and can mess with the image occasionally. I know that others praise them.. internet.. don't know who to trust ! 5. Read good things about the slr magic 12mm but too expensive. 6. Last option is... the most unpractical and unwise perhaps.. to get just ONE lens, the **** Voigtlander NOKTON 17.5mm F0.95 (€980) that gives a nice equivalent for both cameras (GH4 -35 mm) (BMPCC - 50mm), and will probably live more than I will, and with it I can build up a nice kit with a couple of good lenses later on.. The following combination is €150 above my budget. Perhaps I can find a way to overcome that.. just hoping she doesn't read the forum. What do you think? OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12mm F2.0 (GH4 -24mm) (BMPCC -34mm) (€ 266) Voigtlander Nokton 25 mm f/0.95 (GH4 - 50mm) (BMPCC - 72mm) (€717 ) (not the 17.5 which I'd prefer for now) OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm F1.8 (GH4 - 90mm) (BMPCC - 126mm) - Read great reviews. ( €266) If you have ANY idea what lenses NOT to use in order to avoid this super crisp/clinical look of the GH4, I would appreciate to hear it. I heard that lumix lenses are to be avoided for this reason? thank you !!!

Perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I am talking about the opposite thing: i am wondering If the "cinelike d" profile will be flat "enough" to be used as a log-like profile for grading, dimilarly to the bmpcc flat profile which is ideal for grading. What follows from this question is if there is really a chance to get a 13 stop dynamic range that would come closer to the organic film like look of bmpcc. I don't think I am being subjective when I say that lumix footage is too crisp and too video-y. The bmpcc iq which I find fantastic, I think is a result of a combination of the 13 stops, of the 422 10 bit, and possibly of some of secret blackmagic ingredients? Just hoping that GH4 could recreate this. Otherwise will have to buy both... :wacko:

I am glad there are more people who find that the bmpcc is very "film-like" in contrast to other dslr footage, even if this other footage comes from a flat profile. Since you are a new user, I am interested to hear if you hesitated between the bmpcc and the new GH4.

Thank you for your input. Ok, so after a lot of reading, and balancing things out, it seems to me right to sell my 5d with the 24-105 a dozen cards, batteries etc. Trying to pinpoint what I am looking for, I came to the conclusion that up to now -for my budget- nothing compares with the bmpcc image quality. As much as I would like to have one single body to do all- i.e. the GH4, i doubt, from the reviews and technical info I read, that it will match the cinematic quality and 13 stops of dynamic range of the bmpcc. As I am also interested in still photos and shooting video in a more flexible way it makes sense for me to move to a m43 system. That is, to purchase GH4 as well and interchange lenses with the bmpcc. So as far as the question of the thread goes, I reached my conclusion. I have already put a local add and hopefully I will complete the sale soon. If I can get a good price on the 5d + lens and add another $1500, I can buy the GH4 and three good primes and later on the bmpcc or the other way around. I still do have one question though and I am interested to hear your thoughts but basically I would prefer if they could be backed up with data/facts. Do you believe after reading the GH4 reviews and specs that there is any chance that the GH4 will have the same dynamic range as bmpcc and therefore the same cinematic quality? Although I do think that the new lumix looks like a great allaround hybrid, I can personally see a huge difference between the lumix color gammut /resolution ( don't know how to put it) which looks more videoy/plasticky, and the bmpcc, which comes closer to film gradation. My technical knowledge is limited, so I am not sure if this is the result of the 13 stops of dynamic range or because of the 422 10 bit, which would consequently mean that with a good flat profile the GH4 can reach the same iq (even with 1-2 stops less DR) and therefore I would only need one camera to buy.

Indeed the 10 4.2.2 bit question is there and I need to consider it. I am not interested in fast results i.e. corporate/news gathering but for the best image on a budget for films and docs (video + stills). I do believe the tonality + DR of bmpcc are fantastic for my needs. Not just technically/scientifically, due to the video compression on paper, but also because I have seen the quality online. But just to make sure I have not given the wrong impression regarding my needs for DOF : I am not interested in the super shallow depth of field that a 50mm 1.8 on a FF would give. That's not for me. :) I find it too impractical and not necessary. As I have mentioned I have been using successfully an f.4 lens and that is the maximum I would feel comfortable on a FF for video. If it was really important I would consider 2.8 - but not really. With this in mind + the "equivalence" with a x2 more open aperture, it seems that any 1.8 lens would be fine for me on a m4/3. So I guess, Shirozina you've nailed the real question I should be asking myself at the present moment: Do I go for the 4.2.2 10 bit that is available now and keep my 5d for great stills or do I compromise with an all around solution that might be able to give me the dof for stills and video, but at least on paper looks like a worse choice in terms of iq. Of course all this might be irrelevant in a few months as new models surface dramatically fast...

I know, i was speaking theoretically. I could use prime lenses for a given focal length, or the one you mentioned, or the 12-35 f2.8. The important think is that there *can* be an equivalent aperture to use on the m4/3 to create the same DOF. I will wait for now though. First for gh4 footage and then decide between that and perhaps the BMPCC as an addition to my 5d. The more videos I see online, the more I believe that the bmpcc has the best image quality (for me). Of course if i go this way I won't have the convenience of one body.. But I am thinking if I am going to make a leap to another system I should be 120% confident that that system deserves my time and money. Let's wait to also see the dynamic range of the gh4 as this is important. One other thing I learned is that bmpcc does 422 10 bit, without add ons, whereas gh4 does not. So, I am really curious to see those videos appearing.

I would really appreciate it if someone with access to a m4/3 or specifically the gh4 and a full frame could do a dof equivalence. Or perhaps someone could point out to me a photo comparison of a subject shot with a FF and a MFT at the aperture that would give the equivalent DOF. Although I do understand it from a technical viewpoint, It is still difficult for me to believe that the DOF of a FF@f/5,6 = MFT@f/2,8. I think if this is really the case and I could come to terms with the fact that I would need to open the aperture x2 that could be the selling point for me. As I have been using for several years the 24-105 f.4 with satisfactory for me results, it follows that if I would purchase a lens wider than f.2, I would be at home. Right?

Thank you all. It has been very informational. Etidona, Andy, you wrote what I wanted to read... and very concisely. My only concern is I cannot test the whole m4/3 thing (aperture equivalence mainly). As my recording gear consists of one piece I am very hesitant for now. Perhaps when more reviews come out my concerns will disappear. Michael, I have experimented a bit with Magic Lantern but it's not my cup of tea. Too much hustle, concerns about bricking and if I understand correctly raw on mark 2 has many limitations. I.e. it would be best applied to mark 3. These hacks are not even final... I really need a "proper" dynamic range solution that would be so better than the one I get now from 5d, that would justify the change. Maxotics, for a moment I forgot the possibility of using the canon lenses with the BMPCC. This could be an alternative, and possibly a cheaper one. Of course I would end up with two bodies, which would be a nightmare when travelling. That was my initial thought but saying that, I am leaving in two days for a week long film festival and would like to be able to shoot video and photos. I won't carry my 5d but will get my x20. I was hoping the gh4 would fill that need. Also I am doing backpacking and one does it all body would be a bliss. But I understand your point. I think I have a bit of thinking and prioritising to do before I decide. You've been very helpful.

Hi all. I need your opinions on a matter that has been troubling me during the last days : In brief: the question is if it is a good idea to sell my 5dmk2 + 24-105 and buy a gh4(body). Little background info about me: I am a filmmaker and photographer so I need good quality in both modes. I am not a "pro" in the sense I do not live from either arts but I have made short films (one award winning) and a feature documentary, that all have been in festivals. The documentary I shot was made just with the 5dmkii / 24-105mm / manfrotto 055xprob tripod legs / 701hdv. The reason I am saying all this, is to make a point that I am working low budget with the most budget equipment possible. I have also participated in photo exhibitions and want to be able to make a large print (not billboard) but enough for a house (40x50 cm). Saying that I have left my photography a bit behind but I want to catch up. But I always, always wanted a more portable and lighter solution because I like to travel a lot also. And although my fuji x20 is great, it is not real substitute for photos from my full frame 5d. Not to speak about video. The problem : During the last days I have been considering purchasing a new lens for my 5d and also the possibility of getting the BMPCC - only because of the dynamic range which sucks on the 5d. I was thinking of slowly building a prime lens collection and the cine Samyang 14mm looked like a good candidate. Now, I have not been reading a lot about the developments (which are happening tremendously fast) in the indy/dslr world, mainly because my 5d works fine and also because I have no money to spare. But this last week was cursed! I caught up with some of the developments bmpcc/gh3/alpha 7 etc. and saw that there is a huge shift towards mirorless and hybrid cameras. So, as I was doing my research, I kept asking myself the question: does it make sense to invest in full frame glass? Will it be obsolete - for my needs? The only advantage at the moment, as I see it, that the 5d has (and any full frame for that matter), is the shallow depth of field. I am not interested in entering a debate as many mirrorless evangelists do, who have created blogs about "why shallow depth of field is not so important" and "if you care about the shallowness of the dof it means that your vision is shallow" !!! , etc. For me, this is something I like in my images and am not sure how easy it is to replicate this to the m4/3 cameras. I.e During the above mentioned doc I also tried the 550d and the image quality was horrible in relation to the 5d. To conclude, I am mainly interested in a pragmatistic opinion regarding the following two things: a) Staying with the 5d/full frame in terms of investment. I am considered that in a year or two I won't be able to sell it, whereas now, I can get at least the gh4 (body) and jump on the m4/3 wagon. Yes I do need to spend a lot for a good glass that will be the equivalent of the 24-105. b ) I know it is a bit early to make any conclusions but, on paper, the gh4 looks pretty good. I would get it for (in this order): 1. Dynamic range 2. Better image (?) - ( Not interested in 4K for know but HD) 3. Variable frame rates 4. Portability Weatherproofness is a nice thing to have but not so important for me. I would not get it : 1. Because I am afraid I cannot replicate the dof of my full frame. 2. Stills not as good (?) 3. Because sony alpha 7 showed that mirorless full frame is something very possible and more full frame mirorless might appear in the future. Nevertheless the bulk will be the same with the big full frame lenses. Thank you for your thoughts !!