Where Is The MFT Cinema Camera? (Or Fuji X)

[Kisaha]

2 hours ago, currensheldon said:

And I do love the MFT mount for the possibility to go super lightweight with MFT lenses or throw on the 0.64x speedbooster for a FOV greater than Super35mm. As long as they can deliver the same low light ability as the GH5s, they negate a big advantage of larger sensors while being much smaller and more compact (depth of field isn't a huge deal if you snag a f1.2 lens for interviews and the new f1.7 zoom for everything else). 

 

I am using the Olympus 12-100mm 4f on so many jobs the last couple of years (just finished a prime time talk show comedy scetch with 3 GH5 and 3 such lenses) that I am seriously past all that thin DoF madness. I was never into it anyway, but now I am past S35 also!

For specific applications a couple, or three, logically priced primes are more than enough.

[currensheldon]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

I am using the Olympus 12-100mm 4f on so many jobs the last couple of years (just finished a prime time talk show comedy scetch with 3 GH5 and 3 such lenses) that I am seriously past all that thin DoF madness. I was never into it anyway, but now I am past S35 also!

For specific applications a couple, or three, logically priced primes are more than enough.

Yea I would say I generally shoot at f2.8 - f4 full frame equivalent DOF for most of my work. So, for MFT that means either F1.2 - f1.8 primes or speedboosted zooms. Though, if the GH6 or a new MFT video camera delivers, I'll have that Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 lens on that camera most of the time (and then maybe snag a 50-200mm to complement).

The Olympus 12-100mm might be the best documentary b-roll lens ever made. It's fantastic for such work. 

[colepat]

I'm trying not to get my hopes up with the rumors about Panasonic dropping something May 31. But man, it would be awesome if they did. 

[Kisaha]

9 hours ago, currensheldon said:

Yea I would say I generally shoot at f2.8 - f4 full frame equivalent DOF for most of my work. So, for MFT that means either F1.2 - f1.8 primes or speedboosted zooms. Though, if the GH6 or a new MFT video camera delivers, I'll have that Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 lens on that camera most of the time (and then maybe snag a 50-200mm to complement).

The Olympus 12-100mm might be the best documentary b-roll lens ever made. It's fantastic for such work. 

I shoot 4-5.6f S35. Most DoP I have ever worked were shot at 4-5.6f also, and I am talking since film days.

Usually we were (and still) achieving separation through tele lenses. It is a lot different to shoot 2.8f 24mm and 4f 135mm. 

Depending the lens, some need to stepped down a bit to perform best anyway.

[anonim]

15 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I hope this is the one I was waiting for!?

I'm afraid its price, whenever it comes, by immediately self-defense reflex of mind will makes that product totally transparent, with two letters behind to rest a view: BM

[Kisaha]

1 hour ago, anonim said:

I'm afraid its price, whenever it comes, by immediately self-defense reflex of mind will makes that product totally transparent, with two letters behind to rest a view: BM

Depends..the BM sitiation is great, but not amazing.

For pro work other factors are important too. Ergonomics, rigging, ease of use, media, codecs, internal ND, XLR, timecode (which I do not expect to see at this price point anyway), fast turnarounds, maybe IBIS and AF too (which I am avoiding so far but can be helpful).

It is different to shoot your personal artistic projects, and a lot different to give footage to a client just after you shoot it, or deliver a final project on 2 days.

That is why one of the most succesful cameras ever were the C100 cameras, still in use today. You could shoot something and be instantly ready for delivery.

Now, if you shoot a short film per year, even renting an Alexa can be cheaper than own your own camera. Even if that camera is as cheap as the P4K is.

[anonim]

49 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

It is different to shoot your personal artistic projects, and a lot different to give footage to a client just after you shoot it, or deliver a final project on 2 days.

That is why one of the most succesful cameras ever were the C100 cameras, still in use today. You could shoot something and be instantly ready for delivery.

Now, if you shoot a short film per year, even renting an Alexa can be cheaper than own your own camera. Even if that camera is as cheap as the P4K is.

I think that tools for-, and  fast delivery capability in general, today are in extremely different situation than at the time of C100.  Not just time, but easiness of achieving great results. Practically any top of the line mirrorless camera gets remarkable broadcasting result with one corrective lut. Slow computer dealing with codecs now is past, but at C100 time didn't exist laptop enough powerful to deal with Premier's or FinalCut's must-render-to-see-in-real-time demand: even Resolve, once upon a time mythic software for wider user base, now go smoothly on modest laptop in 4k timeline, ready to deliver everything instantly on plethora media indeed cheap by any standard. Small and cheap and powerful Saramonic or Beactech XLR recorders/preamps are easy to put on smallest rig. What at the time for NX1 was bizarre codec decision, now is fast delivery standard.

What I wanted to point to, is that trend of upping comparative price level for Panasonic tools, even just in regard to its biggest hits - say GH4 - doesn't look so promising not just for buyers, but for Panasonic also... regardless of reliability of their products. My opinion is that Panasonic management simply lost balance and don't enough accurate listens arising competitors. Probably Fuji is at the best position and the most progressive between bigger name - but, alas, I'm not Fuji user.

[IronFilm]

23 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Lumix would seem to indicate M43, no? 

I would think so! 

Nothing L Mount is branded Lumix? 

(funnily so! Seeing as "Lumix" starts with "L"...... mount?)
 

Edit: oh wait... there are all those sh*t P&S cameras which are branded "Lumix"

So nah yeah, I guess "Lumix" could mean anything!  :-/ 

 

[currensheldon]

17 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I would think so! 

Nothing L Mount is branded Lumix? 

(funnily so! Seeing as "Lumix" starts with "L"...... mount?)
 

Edit: oh wait... there are all those sh*t P&S cameras which are branded "Lumix"

So nah yeah, I guess "Lumix" could mean anything!  ?

 

All of the new full-frame L-Mount cameras (S1, S1R) are LUMIX. 

[newfoundmass]

They're saying is an L-Mount cine camera ?

[Video Hummus]

36 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

They're saying is an L-Mount cine camera ?

Yeah, if it's a S1 video only camera I would be worried about MFT moving forward. I think they might do a GH6 and charge a premium for it but beyond that...it's full frame hype machine...until medium format video comes along...then large format. Can't wait to watch youtube videos at f0.85 FF equivalent ?

[colepat]

Super bummed to hear it's L-Mount. I could care less for full frame, Micro 4/3 is spectacular especially for the small form factor. Super 35 is perfect for bigger productions. Full frame doesnt hold a place in my book. 

[newfoundmass]

The "need" for full frame is largely manufactured by camera companies looking to charge you a premium and people have bought into it. The profit margins are greater for full frame cameras and lenses, so it makes sense. 

But as this push for "bigger is better" unfolds, sensor technology has improved by leaps and bounds. While camera phones have hurt the camera market, that so much is able to be squeezed out of these tiny sensors tells me that there's still tons of more progress that can be achieved. 

[anonim]

5 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The "need" for full frame is largely manufactured by camera companies looking to charge you a premium and people have bought into it. The profit margins are greater for full frame cameras and lenses, so it makes sense. 

But as this push for "bigger is better" unfolds, sensor technology has improved by leaps and bounds. While camera phones have hurt the camera market, that so much is able to be squeezed out of these tiny sensors tells me that there's still tons of more progress that can be achieved. 

Although I'm not at all Hollywood industry judge, but what I have seen dealing with industry so far - necessity of full frame for movie making is extremely marginal, some sort of special effects toy for certain look. Actually, from artistic side, need for it for actual film making is far less than for nobles s16 sensor cameras. Of course, if and when advertising industry collects enough numbers of bored brainwashed users, we all have to listen and view world by eyes of, say, lemurs (or just my myopic eyes without lenses but with extremely capable shallow depth of field). 

[Kisaha]

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The "need" for full frame is largely manufactured by camera companies looking to charge you a premium and people have bought into it. The profit margins are greater for full frame cameras and lenses, so it makes sense. 

But as this push for "bigger is better" unfolds, sensor technology has improved by leaps and bounds. While camera phones have hurt the camera market, that so much is able to be squeezed out of these tiny sensors tells me that there's still tons of more progress that can be achieved. 

Also, they have to differentiate from smaller sensors.

When mobile phones get great 1" sensors, bigger companies will push for full frame and medium format. APS-C will be the m43 of the future.

As the latest releases indicate, full frame cameras can be made cheap. It is not about the sensor size anymore, it is more about features and extra features! 

[newfoundmass]

Yeah, if the industry moves towards full frame it will do so because the camera and sensor companies have moved them in that direction as opposed to a genuine overwhelming demand. 

All the films that inspired us didn't need full frame. Heck a lot of them didn't need Super 35; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of my favorite films of all time and is Super 16. Another favorite, 28 Days Later, was shot on a standard definition DV camcorder! 

It reminds me of this manufacturered need for 8K. Are there genuine reasons someone might need 8K? Absolutely. For visual effects, etc. the more resolution to work with the better. But when most of us are still exporting for clients / web use at 1080p, 4K is more than enough. And as I've said before, even 4K is overrated, given I don't think any of us have large enough televisions to actually truly appreciate it! ? If I'm not within 3 feet of my 55 inch 4K screen the difference is virtually impossible to see! 

[KnightsFan]

25 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

All the films that inspired us didn't need full frame. Heck a lot of them didn't need Super 35; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of my favorite films of all time and is Super 16. Another favorite, 28 Days Later, was shot on a standard definition DV camcorder!

Both of those films have strong characteristics of those formats. I don't think any Marvel movies would be satisfied with the look of 28 Days Later, they'd rather use cameras with more dynamic range and less noise. A lot of projects want the clean noise floor and higher dynamic range of larger sensors.

I agree that 8k is pretty much useless.

However, 4k is not being used to its potential. You can easily tell 1080p from 4k in a video game game from normal viewing distance on a TV. I think that with recorded video, a combination of lens softness, missed focus, CFAs, motion blur, and compression is the limiting factor that makes it so hard to tell the difference. So while 1080p is almost always "enough" resolution, I think there is still plenty of room to improve 4k. 4k isn't intrinsically overrated, but the compromised 4k video we see isn't maximizing the image size's potential.

[webrunner5]

Yeah I just bought a new 50" Samsung 4K HDR TV and there is a big difference games wise from 1080p and 4K. And one of the tricks my son turned me onto is if you use 59hz instead of 60 games sync better motion wise. There have been lots of discussion for and against. But I can see a real gain using 59 instead of 60 on this new TV. I guess it depends on the content and the quality of the TV. I bought it new at Best Buy and they said it was the best mid range 4k HDR you can buy. The next jump up was nearly twice the price for actually not a lot of gain. The biggest advantage is 120fps on them which would be nice but.  Now OLED TVs, well out of my range. But they are damn impressive.

[IronFilm]

On 5/23/2019 at 2:35 AM, Video Hummus said:

Yeah, if it's a S1 video only camera I would be worried about MFT moving forward. I think they might do a GH6 and charge a premium for it but beyond that...it's full frame hype machine...until medium format video comes along...then large format. Can't wait to watch youtube videos at f0.85 FF equivalent ?

It was already very concerning when they didn't release the EVA1 with a MFT option :-/ 

 

[IronFilm]

22 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The "need" for full frame is largely manufactured by camera companies looking to charge you a premium and people have bought into it. The profit margins are greater for full frame cameras and lenses, so it makes sense. 

But as this push for "bigger is better" unfolds, sensor technology has improved by leaps and bounds. While camera phones have hurt the camera market, that so much is able to be squeezed out of these tiny sensors tells me that there's still tons of more progress that can be achieved. 

Even the wording in the phrase "full frame" is itself one of the biggest marketing wins Canikon has ever pulled off!

Making many newbie (and not so newbie!) photographers (has leaked over and infected filmmakers too) feel inadequate if they have anything less than their "full" frame.