andrgl

Cheese plate and a pistol grip: USD$35
Add whatever monitor you want.

 (sorry for the halfassed picture, didn't bother trying to find pics with correct perspective.)

Ugly, ugly post. Here's a clean table:

I'm not against tech and I don't see threads like this as being against it at all. Like said above, you can go both routes. 
But it's good to be reminded in a thread like this once a month when there is threads about the next camera started a hundred times a day.
I rewatch the Revenge of the shootout video from Zacuto every now and then for the same reasons.
One part in there I like is when one of them says something like, not even three hotshots in Hollywood knows what camera is being used and most of them don't care.
A recent example is the guy I bought the Bolex from. Im pretty sure it's the first copy sold used in Sweden ever but still he lowballed it. And he was totally unaware of how rare it was here and that before today it wasn't even in stores this side of the Atlantic. 
And then it struck me. The guy is an awaward-winning director with an impressive portfolio on imdb, and he doesn't give a crap about which camera does what. 
Again, I'm not an Anti GAS crusader, on the contrary, I run a tech review youtube channel for God's sake.
It's just good imo to be reminded of this topic every now and then. Once a month sounds good imo

There seem to be no interest here on EOSHD in the new JVC GY-LS300. Just wonder why as it seems to have most - if not more - features than most here on this forum have been hoping for in new Canon/Sony/Panasonic cameras. This camera seems to be quite innovative in several areas. 
Here is a link : https://vimeo.com/121192570
Is the lack of interest because JVC is not having a good reputation? Well, Samsung had a so-so reputation before the NX1, right? I¨m by no means a camera tech expert, but this JVC looks pretty interesting. Maybe this camera turns out to be the big surprise of the year

​Your problem? Your problem is being a major prick. That's what your problem is. You're going to define my entire life, my entire career, from the random shit I've uploaded to my Vimeo channel - something I haven't even used in over a year? You think someone's Vimeo channel is the be all and end all of what makes them a "professional"? Are you that friggin' daft?
Who the f**k are you to condescend me? To tell me I have "no idea what I'm taking about"? To call me "kid"? To tell me that I might "learn something"? To say the small amount of work I have shared is "NOTHING"? Huh? Who the f**k are you to cut me down and burn me like that? You arrogant prick.
99% of the work I do for major artists can't even be shared on Vimeo. I'm under contract, you daft f**k. I don't own the footage. I can't share it, no matter how good it looks and how bad I want to show it off.
Whatever. F**k it. You just keep doing your thing, J.F.R. Keep being a major, hypocritical wanker. Keep condescending and character-assassinating others based on a handful of words and Vimeo uploads. Nothing but another friggin' keyboard warrior.

​That was cg. Reflection shows no evidence of cameras, tripods, jibs, etc.

​Haha. Get a grip, mate.

I didn't say the DoP's work was shit. I said the "C300 MKII looks shit" - the colours, the motion-cadence, the highlight roll-off. Don't put words in my mouth. You're trying to teach me a lesson in respect by disrespecting me? How sophisticated and wise of you. Get off your moral high-horse.
And, well, hmmm, I dunno, "J.F.R", but I like to consider myself a "professional". Yeah, I didn't go to filmschool, nor am I apart of any cinematography society, but I think my portfolio in my signature speaks for itself. Or, perhaps you're right and all those famous musicians and their management teams are wrong for hiring me - cause, I mean, after all, according to you, I'm a "non working pro" - just an "enthusiast" that knows nothing, right?
Move along.

That was terrible. Big mistake trying to pull off something "cinematic".

The Micro doubles as good lens mount cap. 

How wide do you need? The 14mm pancake will be a dream for copter shots, with global shutter and 13 stops DR... I'm buzzing for it.

The Micro doubles as good lens mount cap. 

​The funny thing is, you can completely turn this around.
You could say this is a 10 grand camera originally, but if you don't need certain features such as WiFi, Dual SDI or that battery grip you can knock the price down let's say by 1.5 grand.
A different example: I like the URSA, but the iPad on the front annoys me. I would gladly save £500 and get rid of it, buying an extra CFast card instead.

Some interesting viewing...
 
Russell is almost spot on -
 
And you could make a nice headline out of this one - "F1 is homosexual" - Clarkson
 
 

I would like to see Clarkson do a show for someone like HBO or FX. 

Unless RJ Speedboosters have drastically improved in the last 6 months, i would avoid. Blue spots appearing out of nowhere in footage. If you're using for paid jobs, just go for Metabones.

I've found the key to getting accurate skin tones on the A7s to be ALWAYS do a good manual white balance, and using the right picture profile.
Like you, I do corporate work where you can't get away with arty skin tones. When required you need a straightforward look that just looks right and doesn't draw attention to itself.
I tried S-Log and I'm still finding my way into it, but I'd recommend Kholi's picture profiles from another message board. I won't link to it here as I'm not sure if that's against the rules, but you can find it easy enough with a google search or drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction.
This profile really gave me colour which matches almost exactly with my 5D mk2. It's from a guy called Spreeni who slightly modified one of Kholi's profiles. It's a cine2 profile which is relatively flat but perks right up with minor colour correction and is much easier than S-Log 2 to deal with. Try this out before you drop your A7s altogether. And remember to do that white balance! I recently got an Expodisc 2 and it's really helped a lot.
 
Black Level: -11
Gamma : Cine2
Black Gamma > Range: Wide , Level: +7
Knee > Mode: Manual , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid, Manual Set > Point: 105%, Slope: 0
Colore Mode: Pro
Saturation: +6
Color Phase 0
Color Depth > R+3, G-3, B+1,, C-3, M-1, Y-0
Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0
 
White balance: No Grid setting needed !

BMPCC-specific Speed Boosters have a magnification of 0.58x, and are only available in Canon-EF, Nikon-F, and Leica-R lens mounts.  You could mount Yashica lenses to the Canon-EF BMPCC Speed Booster via a EF-C/Y adapter ring.  Another possibility is to use the normal 0.71x m4/3 Speed Booster, which is available in a C/Y mount.  However, you lose the extra speed increase and focal length reduction you get with the BMPCC-specific version.  Also, the BMPCC version is optimized to work with the non-standard filter thickness of the BMPCC camera, which makes a difference if you are shooting with fast optics (e.g. f/1.4).

So, I've just shot a quick test using my GH4 and a Ninja Star. The test is to check the differences between the internal HDMI-based 4K downscale and the 4K -> 1080p downscale using the 4:2:0 8-bit H264 as a source.
The images can be downloaded in full resolution here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6o06zoowk7z5fh/GH4%20Test%20Images.zip?dl=0
See the attached files for some side-by-side 100% comparisons.
Images are from the GH4 (set to a gently tweaked CineV, 4K 100M 24p - really 23.98, 180 degree shutter, Sigma 18-35 at f/2.8 on a Speedbooster at ISO 400, auto white balance, tungsten lighting).
They were captured to 1080p using the following workflows:
Clip 1: Recorded in GH4 (4:2:0 8-bit H.264 4K) then downscaled in Red Giant Bulletproof to 1080p ProRes 422HQ.
Clip 2: Recorded in GH4 (4:2:0 8-bit H.264 4K) then downscaled in FCPX by adding to a 1080p timeline.
Clip 3: GH4 HDMI out (4:2:2 8-bit) to Atomos Ninja Star (ProRes 422HQ)
Clip 4: GH4 HDMI out (4:2:2 10-bit) to Atomos Ninja Star (ProRes 422HQ)
All clips were then placed in an FCPX timeline (Clip 2 was placed as a 4K file), then a frame was exported as a TIFF uncompressed file at full 1080p resolution. No effects, grading, or anything else was applied.
I tried to choose a subject (ColorChecker Passport and tomato, lit just off-axis with a side light accent) that would both provide some sharp edges as well as gentle gradients, and the green/red of the tomato should hopefully accentuate any actual chroma sub-sampling issues that exist. Camera was on a beanbag so please excuse any pixel-level misregistration, I don't have my tripod handy right now.
I hope this helps someone.
GH4 Test Image 1.tiff
GH4 Test Image 2.tiff
GH4 Test Image 3.tiff

Source: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=66581&p=425881
Irrefutable proof that the Cinema Camera and Pocket Cinema Camera produce the best picture under $2000. Lighting and composition are the cornerstones to producing filmic work. So is grading. 13 stops of RAW is an incredible canvas and medium to work with.
The counter arguments to these cameras are so laughable. It all comes down to effort. These cameras are "hard" to work with because they take just a little more time to work with. What's ironic is that producing filmic works always takes a little more effort. If you're not constantly chasing for that extra little bit, you're producing schlock. If a camera makes X easy, then you should be tackling Y. No camera should let you settle. This work isn't easy.
 

Source: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=66581&p=425881
Irrefutable proof that the Cinema Camera and Pocket Cinema Camera produce the best picture under $2000. Lighting and composition are the cornerstones to producing filmic work. So is grading. 13 stops of RAW is an incredible canvas and medium to work with.
The counter arguments to these cameras are so laughable. It all comes down to effort. These cameras are "hard" to work with because they take just a little more time to work with. What's ironic is that producing filmic works always takes a little more effort. If you're not constantly chasing for that extra little bit, you're producing schlock. If a camera makes X easy, then you should be tackling Y. No camera should let you settle. This work isn't easy.
 

Source: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=66581&p=425881
Irrefutable proof that the Cinema Camera and Pocket Cinema Camera produce the best picture under $2000. Lighting and composition are the cornerstones to producing filmic work. So is grading. 13 stops of RAW is an incredible canvas and medium to work with.
The counter arguments to these cameras are so laughable. It all comes down to effort. These cameras are "hard" to work with because they take just a little more time to work with. What's ironic is that producing filmic works always takes a little more effort. If you're not constantly chasing for that extra little bit, you're producing schlock. If a camera makes X easy, then you should be tackling Y. No camera should let you settle. This work isn't easy.
 

Source: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=66581&p=425881
Irrefutable proof that the Cinema Camera and Pocket Cinema Camera produce the best picture under $2000. Lighting and composition are the cornerstones to producing filmic work. So is grading. 13 stops of RAW is an incredible canvas and medium to work with.
The counter arguments to these cameras are so laughable. It all comes down to effort. These cameras are "hard" to work with because they take just a little more time to work with. What's ironic is that producing filmic works always takes a little more effort. If you're not constantly chasing for that extra little bit, you're producing schlock. If a camera makes X easy, then you should be tackling Y. No camera should let you settle. This work isn't easy.
 

Ran across this article on Nikon Rumors. This process wouldn't work at all for narrative work (aside from exteriors, cutaways, and such) but if you have the patience and hard drive space for it, it produces some pretty fantastic results. 
Oh for the day that we don't have to devise crazy workarounds and hacks to receive image quality of this level. 
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/03/07/capturing-8k-video-with-the-nikon-d800-camera-quicklapse.aspx/#more-89496

​Zero problems handheld shooting. No cage, just the camera and a lens. This is ProRes too with a single node grade (basically nonthing): https://vimeo.com/44653311
Audio is fine: http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17695#p168461
 
My original question stands: why shouldn't he use an iPhone? It has more features and can be edited directly on the phone. It's easier than using a Panasonic DSLR.
 
If anyone thinks I'm being argumentative, consider this: I'm not knocking the GH2/GH3 with wrong information. I'm straight up saying the BMCC and BMPCC will produce a better image than the GH2 and GH3 (4:2:0 vs RAW).