MattH

It could be Micra yet.  A camera specifically disgned to be mounted to a nissan micra.

It could be Micra yet.  A camera specifically disgned to be mounted to a nissan micra.

It could be Micra yet.  A camera specifically disgned to be mounted to a nissan micra.

​Its a higher reduction than the regular one.  o.58 instead of 0.71.
But as can be seen here on the table half way down the page, http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-BMPCC-BM1
It warns that it may cause physical damage if mounted to a normal micro four thirds camera.
The bmc speed booster on the otther hand (at 0.64) aparently wont damage but has a smaller image circle.  So full frame will vignette, but 4k crop will probably not.

I like Russel Brand, and he is well meaning, but god does he talk a load of bollocks.   It's developing countries burning vast amounts of coal that produces pollution, not modern cars.

Why is it called dog shit optics?  Is it supposed to be funny?  Is it supposed to get my attention? How does associating the product with dog shit making me want to buy it?  It just makes me think it must be shit quality made by immature people.  Best case for a re-brand ever!

​I am here because I’m interested in the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.
That was sort of the point of my response.  That you are criticising behaviour that is the entire purpose for most people even being here.
Its like going to an antique website and saying “What do you care how old it is”?
It’s perfectly acceptable to hold that point of view, but then why go to an antique website?
And you could hardly expect to go to an antique website with that point of view and not be told to fuck off.
It doesn’t matter why I want to learn about the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.  I do it for my own reasons.  I certainly do not do it with any concern to providing you with material you may or may not care about.
Your comment was supercilious and a pathetically transparent attempt to belittle peoples interests and curtail their passion for knowledge.  Therefore, it deserved nothing but antipathy.
 

​​Pro DPs have Alexas.  They don't need to care about this stuff because the problem is solved.  The DPs who don't know or care about the difference between a camcorder and an Alexa or even a C300 and an Alexa are not worth their day rate.

​I am here because I’m interested in the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.
That was sort of the point of my response.  That you are criticising behaviour that is the entire purpose for most people even being here.
Its like going to an antique website and saying “What do you care how old it is”?
It’s perfectly acceptable to hold that point of view, but then why go to an antique website?
And you could hardly expect to go to an antique website with that point of view and not be told to fuck off.
It doesn’t matter why I want to learn about the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.  I do it for my own reasons.  I certainly do not do it with any concern to providing you with material you may or may not care about.
Your comment was supercilious and a pathetically transparent attempt to belittle peoples interests and curtail their passion for knowledge.  Therefore, it deserved nothing but antipathy.
 

​​Pro DPs have Alexas.  They don't need to care about this stuff because the problem is solved.  The DPs who don't know or care about the difference between a camcorder and an Alexa or even a C300 and an Alexa are not worth their day rate.

​Fuck off!   That is my response to that.
This is a gear head website, if we weren't interested in the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities, then why would we be here?

​​That sounds awesome!  Way beyond my expertise.  Please share your progress on this forum.

This was never going to be suitable for video, everyone new that from the start.  50mp is way too much.  Canon did everyone a favour by not even suggesting it would be good for video.

Did you actually set out to write the snobbiest post ever or did it just sort of happen? because to do that by accident is quite an achievement.

Did you actually set out to write the snobbiest post ever or did it just sort of happen? because to do that by accident is quite an achievement.

Did you actually set out to write the snobbiest post ever or did it just sort of happen? because to do that by accident is quite an achievement.

I didn't even need to read the article or the forum responses as the answer is obviously yes.    The only thing is, you got tense in the question wrong.  It should have been:  "DID cinema eos mark the end of canon dslr video in 2012?"

In relation to the original question:  I think if a person uses one system exclusively they will get used to what field of view a certain lens or focal length gives them.  That person has no need for knowing full frame equivalents or crop factors.   But for people that use different sensor sizes you have to have some way of knowing what you are going to get.
"Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that.  I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame:  Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context,  but this is just an issue of nomenclature.  Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format.

Why not use super 35mm as a standard?  well what is super 35mm really?  super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984.  Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide.  I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity.  But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide?  But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide.   Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor.  Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t.  Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa.  Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35.  Micro four thirds is certainly no standard.  You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4.

All this is just way too confusing.

135 format is the only one that stays the same with no variations and has multiple existing examples from different companies.  It’s always 36mm wide.
For that reason all crop factors relating to it have a fixed meaning.  So I think it is the sensible option as a standard for describing field of view.
There is nothing to stop people trying another way like using degrees, but you would have an uphill battle trying to get it established as a standard, and after all who really knows what 10 degrees field of view looks like.

So for you personally there isn't much of a problem, you have already associated a visual field of view with its 135 format focal length.   So you can think in that focal length, you then just work out the precise crop factor for the camera you are using and write down or remember which setting gives you which focal length.

I try to think in 135 equivalents even though I have never owned a 135 camera.

You probably cant go that far wrong with an a6000.  Fairly small, APSC sensor, viewfinder, decent video if you need it. compact zoom kit lens available. Other lenes to expand to. many with OSS (although nex lenses are fairly expensive).  You can use adapters to use nikon lenses.  
 
EOS-M has very good quality stills and is cheaper and has great lenses which are also cheap, but it doens't have a viewfinder and video is meh. 
 
I think if you personally want a camera with a particular feature like 4k you should save up and buy one for yourself.

Just watch any videos on youtube.  Iphone 6 plus is excellent.  Great colours and range (it looks almost semi hdr) Excellent stabilisation, really good detail without having to record 4k then downscale it.   The normal iphone 6 is really good too, but the +'s optical stabilization just makes the stabilisation that little bit better.
 
The Z2 has 2 levels of digital stabilization. The 2nd level can only be used in HD which isn't that detailed.  4k can be taken with the first level, but If you compare its 4k to that of a samsung it is really soft.  I think its the lens.  Stills look soft as well. So even with 4k I dont think you are getting the detail of the iphone 6/6+ in HD.
The samsungs in 4k have more detail, but to me the image is too contrasty with no range and over sharpened.
 
The fact that you already use Iphone, Its a no brainder.  Get the +

Just a brainstorm idea, but you could invite them to a viewing if youve got a place good enough to do it, then theres no chance. Unless he runs off with the disk/player/laptop.

The video is more about delivery format. And it's about professional cameras.
The guys say that:
- to get proper 4k you will need 6k camera
- to get proper 2k they often use more than 2k camera.
They are using right now true 2k (or more than 2k) professional cameras with perfect image quality: professional codec or RAW, no banding, moire, blockiness, digital noise and sharpening etc..
 
So they can produce stunning 2k image right now and the only thing they would like is more DR and more color depth. I agree with them - 2k output is sufficient (for me). But we are talking about professional quality true 2k.
 
Consumer cameras is different story - until now they were not even true 2k and suffered from much bigger problems than DR and color depth. We had to deal with softness, banding, moire, rolling shutter, digital noise, low bitrate, false colors and different other artifacts. If you just add 10bit and 15 stop DR to this crap it would be just a little better crap. 4k recording format is one of the solutions for many consumer camera artifacts - not only resolution.
 
Panasonic and Sony are making huge improvements in consumer level cameras from the other side. Full pixels readout, better codec (higher bit-rate) etc.:
Sony A7S: great resolution -could say true 2k (it is not 4k camera [without other gear]), great DR, codec, low-light, picture profiles like SLOG...
Panasonic: 4k cameras with high bit-rate, great DR and full pixel readout - it is huge step up for 2k delivery format - 4k downscaling means true 2k resolution, less banding, blocking, digital niose...
 
For 2k delivery format Panasonic Sony and Samsung made HUGE leap forward in consumer (budget) level cameras, while Canon and Nikon did nothing.
 
PS.: You want just 10bit and 13 stop DR 2k? Just get BMPCC, it has all of that and more (RAW).
But if you want other improvements, here comes Panasonic/Sony/Samsung with true 2k delivery resolution, no moire, less digital noise, more professional settings etc..

I think we all know what the deal is.  You have said it before, so theres no confusion:   Video sucess on dslrs was an accidental success for canon.  A nice suprise at the extra interest and sales.  So they created the spin off cinima eos lin to carry the pro video forward and charge as much as the market will pay for it.   The dslrs then just continue to be 100% stills orientated.  The 7d mk1 and mk2 are mainly for sport protographers.  Where the crop is an advantage (as long as the sensor is higher resolution) and high frame rate (with good autofocus) is of prime importance.  The video is just an added extra.  Its just there if they happen to need it.  But kept at consumer level quality, with all video improvments like better autofucus squarely in the consumer arena.

I think we all know what the deal is.  You have said it before, so theres no confusion:   Video sucess on dslrs was an accidental success for canon.  A nice suprise at the extra interest and sales.  So they created the spin off cinima eos lin to carry the pro video forward and charge as much as the market will pay for it.   The dslrs then just continue to be 100% stills orientated.  The 7d mk1 and mk2 are mainly for sport protographers.  Where the crop is an advantage (as long as the sensor is higher resolution) and high frame rate (with good autofocus) is of prime importance.  The video is just an added extra.  Its just there if they happen to need it.  But kept at consumer level quality, with all video improvments like better autofucus squarely in the consumer arena.

I think we all know what the deal is.  You have said it before, so theres no confusion:   Video sucess on dslrs was an accidental success for canon.  A nice suprise at the extra interest and sales.  So they created the spin off cinima eos lin to carry the pro video forward and charge as much as the market will pay for it.   The dslrs then just continue to be 100% stills orientated.  The 7d mk1 and mk2 are mainly for sport protographers.  Where the crop is an advantage (as long as the sensor is higher resolution) and high frame rate (with good autofocus) is of prime importance.  The video is just an added extra.  Its just there if they happen to need it.  But kept at consumer level quality, with all video improvments like better autofucus squarely in the consumer arena.