HurtinMinorKey

Checked back into EOSHD for the first time in a while to see if Andrew would flame Canon for the 5D mk IV. Was not disappointed.  
Cheers! 

Am i the only one who wishes they still made plasma?

Am i the only one who wishes they still made plasma?

Am i the only one who wishes they still made plasma?

Am i the only one who wishes they still made plasma?

Am i the only one who wishes they still made plasma?

It's resolution may not be on par with the GH4, but the image seems much nicer. But the the $6500 doesn't really seem like a bargain as much as it just seems like closer to a sensible price.  

It's resolution may not be on par with the GH4, but the image seems much nicer. But the the $6500 doesn't really seem like a bargain as much as it just seems like closer to a sensible price.  

It's resolution may not be on par with the GH4, but the image seems much nicer. But the the $6500 doesn't really seem like a bargain as much as it just seems like closer to a sensible price.  

​No improvement in DR after 7 years in unforgivable...for a stills camera. 

​No improvement in DR after 7 years in unforgivable...for a stills camera. 

I'm surprised they made no improvement to the DR (for stills or video). That's 7 years of no DR improvements in this line. Pretty disappointing.  Are people really going to pay that much more just for more MPs?

​No improvement in DR after 7 years in unforgivable...for a stills camera. 

​No improvement in DR after 7 years in unforgivable...for a stills camera. 

How so?
1.) The retail price on these things is well above what BM is charging for their current cameras.
2.) Then there is that whole development process thing.  I'd be surprised if we see a retail unit on the market in 2015.
3.) For the Super 35, DR is listed as 10 (15 in HDR mode, which i assume means a loss of resolution). Let's see how that works in practice. 
 
Don't get me wrong. I hope the Axiom is awesome. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. 

I've gone back and forth about this over the years. But i really think the most important things are aspect ratio and lighting. I used to think DOF, but not so much anymore. 

Haha, for someone uncomfortable socialising with other people you sure do a great job of marketing your stuff.

Anyway, that aside, commendable stuff! It's a hell of a lot of work doing this kind of stuff alone so well done. How long did the whole process take you?

The cameras they're selling for $495 are the same ones the stores were selling for $995 last week, they didn't ship new cameras specifically for this deal, so that doesn't make much sense.
 
It's likely they won't restock before the sale ends though, which will make the promotion limited to while stocks last, as they stated.
 
No idea if the price will ever go up, but at this price it's worth getting and keeping!

weird....
 

at adorama u can Save up to $300.00 with bundle!!!!    BMPCC $495 + Metabones Leica R  Speed Booster $169 or Metabones Nikon G Speed Booster $189   and this is insane:   BMPCC $495 + NEW Metabones Canon EF Lens to BMPCC Speed Booster $659 = $1154 - $300 = $854!!!!!   holy sh++++!

Reasonable arguments.
In practice, however, there is a simple reason why I would like to stay fullframe for ever  - I'm socialized with 24x36 since decades and as a wideangle prime lover, a 20 mm is not only a focal length nor an angle of view, but a special look of exactly that old glas. Allthough I like to keep my gear simple and small, I regulary found use for three totally different 20 mm lenses, for example a modern rectalinear zoom for straight lines (architecture, some landscapes), an old prime with a lot of moustache distorsion that IS GREAT for shooting people and sometimes a 16 mm fish with an 1.4 extender and an extension ring for some special closeups...
Of course the same could achieved with a speedbooster and Super35 might be the future as bigger sensors are disproportionally expensive. But 4/3 is obviously a nogo.
 
 
Regarding shallow DOF, I would agree on using it sparingly - more like an effect. It could be a great tool for portraits in special moments; IIRC both in 'Private Ryan' and in 'Gladiator' for example the DOP chooses to isolate the protagonist for a single short shot in the opening sequence(s). But all this shots are mostly done by at least f=4 and by having a greater distance to the now blurry background, so in short it's for me mostly a question of composition - remove all non-essential stuff out of the frame with an ultra shallow DOF as last resort...  :-)

There is some dodgy stabilisation going on (presumably all part of the charm) but it isn't rolling shutter you're seeing.
 
Creatively I think the video succeeds. Give the pixel peeping a rest on this one guys.

Better camera i guess, but it doesn't look as good to me. 

Honestly I think none of the recent 4k cameras can hold a candle to the image of the BMPCC and the BMCC.  

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor.  
 
With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart.  MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light.  
 
If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT?  
 
Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography.  Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video.  The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. 
 
You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor.  If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch.
 
I agree.  there is nothing "magical" about FF video.  Quite the opposite.  I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems.  The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs.  When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.