TheRenaissanceMan

I meant it as a general you.

What's with the "equivalent" apertures? Just tell us the actual aperture of the lenses. Also, if you were one of those people who went around touting Sony's superiority because of the size/weight equation and buy either of those full-frame telephotos, how much egg is on your face? Well...you may not notice with all the wrist strain.

In video mode? Slightly, yeah. Noam Kroll had a comparison article a while back that's worth checking out.

Perfect. Fair price, requires a dongle (so no piracy issues), keeping the GH4r as just a GH4 with firmware pre-loaded...alright. I can get on board with this.

Nearly identical, actually. The biggest difference is in depth, due to the GH4's deeper, more comfortable grip. http://camerasize.com/compare/#381,624 That's an outright lie. The Blackmagic cameras use active thermoelectric cooling to keep their sensors at peak performance and prevent stopping for cool-downs. In fact, this is one of the reasons they're such battery hogs--that cooling system sucks a ton of juice. Clearly a smart engineering decision, since neither camera has heat management issues. That stabilization sucks compared to Olympus'--and even most lens-based stabilizers--anyway. Those cameras are also less than half the price of the A7R II. The E-M5 II has a 2.7mm increase in width, 3.9mm decrease in depth from the original. Clearly the articulating screen isn't adding bulk. No, we're criticizing them because they can't match their competitors in basic areas, like bit depth, heat management, AF performance, battery life, stills compression, color science, IS performance, and general ergonomics. Last time I checked, falling behind your competitors was a valid reason to criticize a company. It's not my job to think about the physics of it. It's theirs. And if they can't think about it long enough to come up with solutions instead of ways to buff their spec sheets, they're going to get this reaction next time, too. Yes, we are complaining that the headline feature of the camera (4K internal) craps out in 15 minutes. Too bad they didn't manage to pack in a proper heatsink, an intuitive UI, or a battery that lasts more than an hour and a half.

I meant focus peaking. Do you find it effective enough to rely on? And aww man, no zebras? Lame. Thanks so much for the information. The new E-M10 II is looking more and more interesting by the minute...

He never said it was a frame. I got it right with the same information you did.

I've also heard nice things about the Genus, as well as Lightcraft, Heliopan, and SLR Magic.

Actually, I've found that you can easily just convert the image to BMD Film, right click, and add the BMD Film to REC709 V2 LUT if you just want a punchy, neutral starting point. You can then go nuts and push your footage around with all the benefits of RAW and LOG. It's an easy camera to work with if you know its little tricks.

Man I love Samsung colors. Stabilization's okay too.

It's good enough for almost anything, man. Check out this wedding photography work taken on the last generation of M4/3 cameras. http://www.mu-43.com/threads/61628/ I'm not saying the Nikon isn't a great camera, but the difference in stills quality between APS-C and M4/3 isn't nearly as devastating as forumites would have you believe.

I switched from APS-C to M4/3 a while back and didn't see a ton of difference in the RAW files. The biggest difference I saw was in ergonomics, size, and the selection of lenses made for the format. If the OP is used to the LX100 and wants to keep the kit small, I think a GX8 or a used GX7 are probably the best options. Maybe a GH4/G7 if he wants better video and doesn't mind something with more bulk.

I wouldn't recommend an A7-series camera if you're looking for a good stills experience. Sony's menus are convoluted, battery life is short, and the AF is much slower and less precise than Panasonic's. The lenses--especially the nice primes like the Sony Zeiss 55mm--are a lot more expensive, too. The GX8 should, judging by what I've read, be an excellent stills camera, but second to the G7 and GH4 for 4K video. If your priority is stills, I think you'll love it. 20MP, great DR, the new Dual IS system for stills, big new viewfinder, weather sealed, and still a nice handy size for casual use.

Absolutely. For as much as Olympus color is hyped for stills, you'd think it would excite more of us video guys (who do nothing but bitch about color science). If you're talking lush color and beautiful skin tones, Olympus is where it's at--and produces much better files than Canon's DSLR H.264 garbage. Nice call with the battery grip hot swap. I do the same thing with my GH3 and it works a treat. You could use any audio recorder all. I just don't know enough about the subject to suggest anything besides Zoom or Tascam. 8-bit isn't ideal imo, because you have to really nail your settings at capture compared to the more forgiving BMPCC; however, it's definitely doable if you're on the ball with your aperture/iso/focus. Using vintage primes with IBIS is the biggest benefit of shooting Olympus, but I feel like a nice zoom like the 12-40mm would be more ideal in unpredictable situations. Depends what you shoot, I suppose. A Canon FD 35-105 on a speedbooster might work better for stage performances, interviews, sports, and the like. How's the E-M5's peaking in video mode? How does the sensor/codec handle highlights? How much can you push the internal codec in post? How are the higher ISOs?

I don't know what the EM-5 II's battery life is like in video mode, but it could actually be a nice documentary cam with a 12-40 and an H4N. Hell, you could even add an Atomos Ninja or BM Video Assist and get around the internal codec entirely.

NX1?

Also, Ming Thein says Leica MF glass is the best of any system. Perfect from wide open--every lens. That combined with their custom sensors delivers a really unique look compared to other FF/"Medium Format" options. One thing has me confused, though. Why are people talking about "Leica's famous color science?" They've never been known for their color science. Ever. Their JPEGs have always sucked.

The .71x depends on the booster itself, not the camera. The Contax/Yaschica mount booster is only offered with the .71x optics, so that's what you have.

Multiply your focal length by .71 to get the new "real" focal length of the lens. If you want the full frame equivalent, multiply that number by 2.88.

You can get great colors out of the Panasonic cameras if you play with the picture profiles a little. It's a little less straightforward than the Canon cameras and requires different treatment (for example, don't turn contrast down in-camera), but they're capable of great results. That codec muddiness and blotchy noise bothers me way more. Panasonic's clean, crisp details and fine monochromatic grain ticks all the right boxes for me.

35mm is as wide as I've ever needed for doc work. The BMPCC handles great handheld with a stabilized lens like the 12-35. Add a 50mm for interviews and you're set. In-camera sound is simple--add a Zoom H1 or H4N and sync in post. Battery life can be mitigated with a cheap, portable external battery solution like this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkwJFgyrF6k I've yet to have a problem with moire in ProRes (which is what you'd use for a doc), and the sensor grid pattern affected very few cameras. I recently did a short film with mine lit primarily by halogen work lamps and it looked excellent. Ditto flourescents--it takes a little prodding, but the codec handled it beautifully. I think it depends how the OP likes to work and what subject matter he tackles, but the BMPCC is absolutely a viable option for doc work. Also look at a used FS100, C100, or F3. All of them are great options.

What Speed Booster are you using on what camera?

Does anyone else find it hilarious that he straight up admits Panasonic's processor kicks the Bionz X's ass?

A7S. The A7R II doesn't do a full sensor readout in 1080p mode.

BMPCC with a 12-35, 50mm 1.4 on an adapter, external battery, and a Zoom/Tascam recorder.