4K Mirrorless for vacation landscape

[riogrande100]

I am going to be heading on Holiday in September and looking for a 4K camera to be able to capture some video of landscape locations. I want 4K for flexability of cropping and also i like when a wide angle shot has a lot of small things moving around. I have have had gas in the past so have EF, m43 and E mount lenses around.

 

Not really looking to grade deeply, just a few sharpening and to make colors pop without looking to processed. I am looking at the LX100,G7 and even the A7RII. If i get the A7RII the Canon gets left at home but the Fuji's will travel for stills.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

size,

weight, 

resolution,

dynamic range,

low light performance,

lens adaptability,

codec,

length of shooting,

build quality,

ability to sustain very high tempratures

ability to shoot in rain

stills quality,

buttons/ergonomics, 

grade-ability, Log/or straight off the camera

Price range

-start by telling us what do you need in these. 

Dig deeper into the details of what you want and don't want and what you don't care a lot about in a camera so we could point you towards the best for YOU.  

Aside note to EOSHD and members, I think one could build a database with camera information where the user inputs comprehensively what he needs and doesn't need in a camera that suggests his best camera choice automatically, there are a few out there but pretty lame. What do you think? I am saying this because as you see the ''what camera should I buy'' question never ends, and I think it can have a more sophisticated answer. 

[Chrad]

Do you really need 4k?

I think if you're primarily shooting landscapes 4K has a lot of benefits. The '1080p' out of DSLRs really falls apart on wide shots with a lot of details.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

I am looking at the LX100,G7 and even the A7RII. If i get the A7RII the Canon gets left at home but the Fuji's will travel for stills.

I think you left maybe the best one for that: Panasonic FZ1000, now it's really cheap!

[Snowfun]

For a casual carry everywhere 4k it's hard to beat the rx100iv. 

[Mattias Burling]

For a casual carry everywhere 4k it's hard to beat the rx100iv. 

A friend got one and returned it. Overheated constantly.

[Chrad]

Next 4k would not be enough and I would need 8k or else I'm an amateur. DSLRs fall apart unless they are given the third party treatment they need.

This was shot in 480p and was landscapes: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/mali_malidesert

 

No, I'm pretty happy with good 1080p, like what you get out of A7s. Unfortunately the 1080p you generally get out of stills cameras tends to be quite soft and lacking in fine detail. On the other hand, I'm always pleased with the level of detail when I watch a 1080p video created from 4K source footage. 

What is the National Geographic clip meant to prove? That was shot in the SD era. It was shot with 480i televisions in mind. The footage riogrande100 is shooting is going to be viewed on screens that can display much more detail than there is in a standard DSLR/mirrorless '1080p' file.
There is, as you say, virtue in working with what you have, and it does save a lot of money. But maybe the OP thinks the 4K acquisition format is worthwhile for their purposes? It's not as though it's without benefits. He already stated in the OP that he likes wide shots with a lot of small moving details.

[Mat Mayer]

NX500 seems to be the bargain compact choice for 4K off eBay. 15 minute limit and no need to grade. Ignore the thread here where the color has been removed. There is a lack of wide angle on it because it takes a massive crop of the sensor, but that may be fine for landscape. RX100iv is twice the price and might not even get 5 minutes. Photos from the NX500 should be better because it has a big sensor. 

Or if you want zoom the FZ1000 will be nice on holiday, I much prefer it in my hand to the Rx10ii which is twice the price but will be better. Both do 30 minutes. Both far bigger than the previous options.

or the LX100 has a nice 15 minute 4k video....

[Chrad]

 

I hate having to talk like this. If having the best equipment mattered the most in art, there would be no art or memory to go on.

Okay?
What's the point of this?
The guy posted on a forum about equipment asking what a good 4K camera was (GH4 is great for me, but maybe G7 is better for travel) and your response is 'you don't need it, art isn't about equipment'.

[riogrande100]

size,

weight, 

resolution,

dynamic range,

low light performance,

lens adaptability,

codec,

length of shooting,

build quality,

ability to sustain very high tempratures

ability to shoot in rain

stills quality,

buttons/ergonomics, 

grade-ability, Log/or straight off the camera

Price range

-start by telling us what do you need in these. 

Dig deeper into the details of what you want and don't want and what you don't care a lot about in a camera so we could point you towards the best for YOU.  

Aside note to EOSHD and members, I think one could build a database with camera information where the user inputs comprehensively what he needs and doesn't need in a camera that suggests his best camera choice automatically, there are a few out there but pretty lame. What do you think? I am saying this because as you see the ''what camera should I buy'' question never ends, and I think it can have a more sophisticated answer. 

My main requirement is resolution, codec, grade-ability. My main goal is to make sure the images are sharp been disappointed in the past shooting with the 5D Mark III as the images were always blurry and missed the fine detail. For portraits and close-up the 5D is amazing. But when the composition is the subject I want the resolution to pick up the fine details.

NX500 seems to be the bargain compact choice for 4K off eBay. 15 minute limit and no need to grade. Ignore the thread here where the color has been removed. There is a lack of wide angle on it because it takes a massive crop of the sensor, but that may be fine for landscape. RX100iv is twice the price and might not even get 5 minutes. Photos from the NX500 should be better because it has a big sensor. 

Or if you want zoom the FZ1000 will be nice on holiday, I much prefer it in my hand to the Rx10ii which is twice the price but will be better. Both do 30 minutes. Both far bigger than the previous options.

or the LX100 has a nice 15 minute 4k video....

Thanks I did not research the FZ1000 will look into that now. In the past Panasonic has always impressed me with video which is why the LX100, Gh4 and G7 are highest on my list. NX500 is a good option my only concern is don't want to have another mount system. bad enough worrying about new Fuji, M43, Sony and Canon's without adding Samsung's into the mix.

Though as reviews for the A7RII start trickling out my GAS fever is rising a lot for the camera.

 

[Chrad]

We all understand your point and have heard it many times before. In the context of this thread it's an off-topic rant. 

[riogrande100]

Thanks a G7 it is, as for the people discussing artistic impression and the likes. I have an idea in my mind for what I am looking to create and resolution is what I need to track small objects moving at large distances. Muddy images is not an option. Thank you all for assistance.

[Zach Ashcraft]

 

The gist of this is: Is it the resolution of the travel video or landscape video that separates him from the others or what he shot in a different country that no one could have ever felt or seen. Honestly for landscape look at some of Ansel Adams photographs. The sheer beauty of what he did with a camera that was from the 1800s: 

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article8294659.ece/alternates/w620/The-Tetons-and-the-Snake-Ri.jpg

 

Which likely had massive amounts of resolution and dynamic range compared to a 1080p camera. Not a great example. 

 

 

[Cinegain]

We all understand your point and have heard it many times before. In the context of this thread it's an off-topic rant. 

Amen brother!

I mean... if someone would come up to you and say 'hey, I have no money, just this crappy 550D/T2i with the kitlens and 50mm f/1.8, I really want to make something, but I'm holding off on creating stuff, because my gear is so cheap and crap, what do I do now? Sell a kidney?', then sure go reassure them that the core thing to get right is the idea and proper execution and one shouldn't rely on gear to make something 'good'. If the gear you're shooting with should make the difference between something good or something bad, you already lost. It's better to keep creating with lesser gear, than not creating anything in order to avoid pixel peeping comments. But really. I think we can all agree on that.

Ultimately though... not all situations are that black and white. Can you have cheap gear and great creative skills and be excellent at what you do and still create captivating content? I'm sure of it! Can expensive gear make up for lacking creative skills? Nopes. But again, you know, that's not even in question here. Who says everyone with cheap gear is creative? And people who care about gear as well suck? Being creative and good at what you do is really not exclusive to people with a T2i you know. If you're really talented and creative, I agree, it doesn't matter that much what gear you use. But if that's the argument, why would you have something against using fancier equipment/better cameras if you just said it didn't matter?

And fact is, it IS ABLE to make a difference. It can up the quality and feel of your productions and shooting gets easier because your camera is more capable and you're dealing less with its limitations. So in the end, it takes away some of the struggle and opens up capacity for you to focus more on the creative side of things. Isn't that what we wanted? By the way. Who isn't perfectionistic about how their image looks? Or do you just love blownout highlights and noise? Don't you aspire to create the best visual experience one has ever seen? If not and you exclusively care about story/content, then maybe focus on screenwriting or something and hire a camera crew. If shooting isn't your thing, give the job to someone else who does care about how stuff looks. You won't be able to convince me you don't give a darn heck about dynamic range, colors, details, rendering, lighting, noise performance, nicely executed and motivated camera moves, a stable image and so on. And gear can help you out greatly there!

If you have ambition and want to become better at what you do and increasingly deliver better stuff, you'll not only have to grow creatively, but it also includes getting some new gear to make your visions a reality. It's all just tools. And maybe you only see it as a status symbol, maybe you can't afford something else, maybe you just don't want to go with the times. That's all fine. I mean, some want to keep shooting film. Awesome! But you aren't the world standard everyone should adhere to. Let others do their thing. Others might embrace what's availlable in the digital world and what it allows them to do. Just as awesome! If you have the creativity, skills, right mindset and everything, why not have the right gear as well? Especially if you can spare the money (sure... if you aren't doing well for yourself and can't spare the money, well, then yeah, it doesn't make much sense to look at purchasing new stuff. But if you are doing well for yourself and you have good arguments to justify a purchase, by all means: go for it!).

Now, there might be people looking for excuses to buy new gear. But maybe the opposite is true as well. Maybe people that can't afford new gear are looking for arguments not to. And that's great to keep themselves in check. But please come to terms with the fact that gear has its part to play and if you want to fool yourself '4K's just a gimmick' and so on, that's fine. But don't confuse your situation with that of others. They might hugely benefit from upgrading their gear. See it from their needs and options, not your own. You might be stuck with the T2i out of neccessity for now, but I bet you will eventually upgrade to better things as well when you can afford 'em along the way. Because it makes sense to go with the times and let the level of gear evolve with your creativity and skills. It's not mandatory, but it sure is nice.

Anyways. Attributing to the offtopicness. Hopefully we can get past this subject on EOSHD. So to get back to it.

The FZ1000 indeed is great. It really does handle like a baby GH4 and for travelling what's greater than something allround like that? Well, surely there's a catch. Yup. You're going to struggle a bit more with lowlight, highlights, noise and the ability to create a shallow depth of field obviously. It's also a pity that it didn't inherent the constant f/2.8 feature of the FZ200. There's some lens noise audible in (near) silent conditions. The SD-slot is co-located at the battery compartment, so might be a bit of a pain if you're shooting locked down/with a cage of some sorts. But overall... it does have some exciting features and is a great all-in-one travel camera with lots of flexibility.

It's kinda the flexibility you might miss a little with the LX100. And you can't just throw on a tele lens (well, maybe a cheapo crappy extender). But if you're good without that much tele reach, there's hardly anything so appealing. For me personally atleast. The LX100 is just a killer camera for casual stuff and everyday use. And the price of both the FZ1000 and LX100 is more than fair.

Now... the RX10M2 might just take the new lead here (although also as 'most expensive' of the bunch). That's one exciting camera!

I do love the fact that there's great cameras that have an integrated non-changeable lens. It keeps travelling light and compact and won't have regrets of leaving that one lens at home to cut some of the carrying bulk. But... if you aren't bothered with some bulk. Then interchangeable lens cameras do give you a bit up in quality and possibilities. I wouldn't really take the FZ1000 out as an A cam for some corporate video or short film (but I'd bring it for travelling in a heartbeat). A GH4 or BMPCC with some sweet hand picked lenses specifcally to the project might be way nicer to work with to create the kinda thing you want. It's the difference between a controlled and non-controlled environment, mostly. But if you think you can make that work whilst travelling, all the greater! What options concerned. I'm curious to see if the A6100/A7000 will pop up and if it will be any good. But the G7 seems offer a lot of bang for buck, I can't really see how you'd go wrong with that. The A7RII appears killer too. Personally I just don't have the lenses for it and I'm attracted by the M43 charm of having really compact setups (incl. small lenses!). And don't we all rather just keep money in our pockets?

[Zach Ashcraft]

You seem like a good intentioned guy Zach (and you've got a great name!) but I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here buddy. He just wanted a little advice on cameras for a particular situation, and he was given it. No need to go on an artistic-merit rant!  

[Cinegain]

People should make it their own decision what to buy and sell. It bothers me when I first see a thread that says I need it for business, for a movie, for anything. We keep on suggesting the same three brands: Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung to these people. If we were to have B & H as our profile pictures would it make a difference? I hate having to talk like this, but I feel I have to because we keep on suggesting to buy a camera and not move on to other important things. Like acting, cinematography, editing, lighting, and directing. This thread gets filled easily. The share your work hardly. I'm asking you guys to let these people decide and quit telling everyone to buy the biggest, greatest, expensive camera and sell every equipment they own to get it. I think he chose for himself what to get which is good. In fact I remember when I asked my professor what to get, his response, a camcorder.

Yeah, but if you order a pizza you're not expecting the delivery guy to show up with a caesar salad. He was probably just having your best interest... 'you know, the salad is a much cheaper and healthier approach than a fat dripping but yummy kingsize pizza, hey, I think this guy would really appreciate it'... but c'mon, that is not what was asked. If someone asks for a 4K camera it doesn't help to say 480p works just fine. People are on a certain path already (A->B) and when they come to a crossroad, they might need some input on which way to turn it (but in the end all roads end up in B). You're like a GPS saying 'make a U-turn and go back' (A->A). Not sure how that's helping them, they specifically ask for directions how to get to B. And you criticise people for helping out. Really. Why do you have such gearfobia? I thought I had explained it very well, that having the right gear can help you be more creative and create more stunning things. Getting a better camera doesn't mean you lack creativity and need to compensate for it. It mostly means you've outgrown your gear and need something that can keep up with you growing so much as a filmmaker, which in turn will only boost you to get even better.

[Damphousse]

A friend got one and returned it. Overheated constantly.

In Sweden?!

[Mattias Burling]

In Sweden?!

no, Australia