Search the Community

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 !!