schnorgie

I have a copy of the original RX 1, which I have used as a travel camera, with excellent results. The draw is, of course, the full frame sensor. The shallow-depth-of-field thing is the one thing that I have never satisfactorily been able to achieve with a smaller sensor camera (such as the RX100), especially for portraits. The limitation of the fixed 35mm lens, great as it is, is, well, limiting, no matter what Cartier-Bresson fantasies I might have entertained. My 5D3 (with zooms) still beats it (the RX1) pretty handily for photos, but traveling.......not so easy to drag all the lenses around (with the 5D3). My original idea was to carry a very small, but capable 2 or 3 camera "rig" for traveling.....something so small and light that I could carry the whole kit on the plane (less lights, sound, and accoutrements), without having to worry about checking it with the baggage. But now, many airlines, like Lufthansa and United, are beginning to enforce the weight allowances of what one is allowed to bring onboard. My "carry on" bag is limited to 8kg.....tough to conform to including laptop, ipad and"kit" consisting of the RX1, and one (or two) RX100s as "b" cameras. So I am now thinking more about possible ways of "armoring" my luggage, as to take a more "normal" kit. That said, I have actually seen the flight crew physically drop "carry on" bags to the ground from the plane (while sitting on the tarmac) that they felt were too bulky to take onboard and needed to be checked in with the baggage. Gulp! Video-wise, I could always sneak by with inserts shot on the RX100's; but I found the RX1, truthfully, never was a really great video camera.....stills, sure, but to use it as a video camera was pushing the envelope of acceptability a little bit. So, now the RX1 mk2. I like the articulated screen, pop up EVF. The increased resolution is also welcome, and especially, the improved auto focus (which is often a bit of a problem on the RX1). Will I buy one? Probably not, or at least not right away. It's just too expensive, bottom line. But looks to be a great camera. Thanks for the site, Andrew. I do enjoy it.

Thanks for posting, and the blog. It's articles like these that illustrate the sheer folly of "upgrading" to this year's model camera. Why invest thousands of $$$ this year, when something cheaper and logarithmically better will be available next year, or next week? AND, you never know WHAT will happen, after you click "add to cart"..... ....p.s., the first line from Andrew's drone post today...."Well, DJI Phantom 2 is toast!". ;-)

Thanks for posting this, Andrew. IF I didn't already have an RX100 III, I would probably opt for this camera. In fact, I had very seriously considered it as a "B" camera in a (VERY light-weight) traveling rig......but although the sensor is bigger than the 1" sensor in the RX100, as you point out, the actual space used on the sensor by the image circle is not the full 4/3. So, in effect, the DOF will be similar to the RX100, 4k video aside. I was impressed by level of detail you are able to get in the video (seeing the guitarists' eyelashes, for example), even if the cut to the guitarist and violinists playing in front of the abandoned drumset did have serious continuity issues..... :huh: After much hand-wringing, I ended up buying a used RX1 online, even with the relatively primitive video capability if offers. Why? Because it offers a shallow DOF I could never achieve in a comparably-sized compact camera, and it fills a niche in my travel kit that another (relatively) smaller sensored-camera can not. Having said that, it is pretty amazing the shallower DOF you were able to get in the video. Still, quite an achievement for Panasonic; my hat is off to them. I would probably have gotten one if they had caught me a little earlier. I might end up going there, still. Hard to see how you could go wrong with this camera, im Allgemeinen.....

Nice piece, especially the score.....it is.....otherworldly. I admire you, Andrew. You are out there, doing it. I am sitting here, reading about it. Kudos, and thanks for the great site.

I have heard of day for night.....but who would want to shoot night for day?

"Solved! The RX100 M2 adds both the cinema frame rates 24p and 25p at a bitrate of 24Mbit/s. The old model only had 1080/60p and something called ‘interlaced’ which dates from 1984. Generously the RX100 M2 adds both 24p AND 25p because it is PAL / NTSC switchable. Hooray!" Unfortunately does not appear to be true with North American model......but thanks for the review.

Pretty amazing that you would post this today. I have my 550D on my desk....had been considering selling it as I haven't used it lately, but thought I would see if I could install Technicolor Cinestyle on it (which has so improved my 5D3's capabilities). I think log is a BIG contributor to the "cinematic" look, the way the highs roll off. This is a great post, Andrew. It's so easy to be a gearhead and get lost in the technology, rather than thinking about people and content. You are right that his approach wouldn't work on everything, but it sure works here (although there were places I wish he'd linger rather than cut away to the next shot, and others [the dance] where I might have used a wider lens]. The main takeaway is to get out there and shoot something..... Thanks, and great blog.

I have a C100....and I love that camera. Sure, it could be better, and yes, I would much prefer a more sophisticated (native) codec than AVCHD with higher bit rate, etc. But I do love the ease and economy of working with the camera and its' MUCH smaller file sizes.....perfect for a one-man-banding it, or a no-budget production. This camera sits right on the border of "cinematic" possibility. With good glass and well lit, it can and does make a very clean, detailed, color-accurate image.....a big improvement over the 5D3, no question. So I often ask myself what it is, that makes for a "cinematic"- looking image? Good lighting, for starters. Log gamma makes a big difference. Shallow DOF can help, but not always. Blacker blacks, but keeping a modicum of dynamic range. 2:35 to 1 aspect ratio. Oval out of focus highlights, as in anamorphic lenses. Blocking and composition. Everything contributes; but of course, getting something worth watching to happen in front of the camera will always be #1. Great thread and posts all around, and Kudos to Andrew for bringing it all to us.

Excellent review, thanks for posting. "Currently I get just 45 minutes of footage per 256GB SSD in 4K mode. You wouldn’t believe how much this adds over the year, until you have no option but to do the unthinkable and make compressed copies and delete the masters. Because let’s face it – who with $3000 to spend on a camera has $20,000 per year to invest in storage?" Amen, Brother! Bring on the H.265....!

Looking forward to seeing something shot on your new Cookes....

Another excellent post, and discussion here. Much appreciate the forum. One thing I haven't heard anyone talk about much is the price of storage (and backup), at 4K resolution. In practical terms, my M.O. is a lot like the short film running on the Apple home page at the moment (which was shot on an iphone and looks great, by the way!). They shot about 72 hours worth of material for this (excellent) short (1:26) internet piece. You can read about the BTS here: http://www.apple.com/30-years/1-24-14-film/#video-1242014-film .....which is pretty interesting, in terms of how they pulled it off, technically. My point is, they shot a lot of material and cut it down to 1:26, so they essentially threw out 99% of what they had shot. Sounds extreme, but as a documentarian, that's kind of what they (Ridley and Jeff Scott) and I, too, do. So yes, no question that 4K looks better than 1080 HD. And for a scripted, narrative film or project (with a budget to handle it), sure. But as a documentarian (who travels) and has to think about portable drives to store and backup the material I shoot.....maybe not so practical for me. Price out some portable (powered from USB or Thunderbolt) drives, and you'll see what I mean.....plus backup. I am not aware of anything in this category with more than 2TB, anyway. I'm sure it will come, just not there yet.

Agree that most Arri client won't mind the price....and an awesome R&G, one operator camera, no doubt about it.....but isn't the title of this article "Arri Amira priced to compete with the Canon C500, plus the secret of Arri's success".....? $40K vs $20K....? Appreciate the post and the fantastic site, BTW.

Another view from Matt Allard: http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/01/31/arri-sets-amira-pricing-who-will-pay-it-asks-matt-allard/

"........Yuppies spend several times over this price for a midlife crisis sports car, a sail boat, a motor home or on vacation. I have friends with much more than this invested in their gun collection. " A mid-life crisis camera!! ;-)

1. Great post. 2. Looks like a great camera. 3. It should be, for $35,000 and change. People don't buy cameras like this; they rent them.....which would still put a dent in most people's "low budget project". .......ps, scratch the "$35,000 and change". Looks like the price in the US is starting at $39,999......