Tone13

Put any of todays video shooting DLSR's in the hands of a talented professional and you will get the 'filmic' (I hate that word) look. In the hands of someone who doesnt know anything about lighting or grading you will get 'videoish' looking images. I have to disagree with Julian here, a few magic bullet film presets will not make your video look like film. Lighting is the key ingredient and working within you cameras boundaries. Then, grading plays a huge part.
 These days the video look is a trait of the operator/grader and lack of lighting knowledge rather than the camera. The cameras we have today are amazing. Never has the divide between the picture quality of $60,000 camera been so small compared to a $1600 one. Its just that now you have lots of people able to afford these cheaper cameras that don't know how to get the most out of them.
 
Amateurs that need an over sized sensor like that in the 5DIII to help give them what they think is filmic (shallow depth of field) just show how little they really know about film making. Kendy's film on the previous page is a prime example. Shot on a crop sensor, at no point did I think it needed shallower DOF or that it would have benefited from a larger sensor.

Fughen (spelling?) make one specifically for the GH3 with HDMI lock.

Agreed, if you are using the GH4, YAGH and an external SDI recorder, you are more than likely using a small rig at the very least. Easy to mount an external battery to power all devises.

I'd like to see a third party manufacturer release a battery grip similar to the current Photo one that has a battery compartment and just the XLRs and preamps. That way it would be perfectly viable to shoot handheld without a rig and use XLR mics. Then they could include a multi pin port and have an external break out box or even recorder for all the SDIs for when you needed them. Patent Pending 2014 Tone13 :-P

Content is king?
 
I don't know. I've seen many films that have made decent money that have been very lacking in the content department.
 
I like to use the builder building a house analogy. The end result may be an architectural masterpiece and the quality in workmanship may be exemplary but if the builder was using poor quality tools that made his life difficult and meant that the build took longer, wouldn't he want to upgrade his tools to make his life easier?
 
I'm sure that if content really was king and our tools were unimportant, studio accountants would have started to insist that films were shot on handycams long ago.
 
Both are important. Its a pointless argument

Did anyone really expect Nikon to step up and meet the expectations of video users? Name one DSLR they have released that has done this?
 
Nikon is playing to the stills shooters and stills shooter think that if a stills cameras video function is too good then it mustn't be a good stills camera. A lot of photographers are stupid and Nikon goes along with it.

Why do people come to a site that is primarily discussing film making EQUIPMENT and then go on about 'content is king'.
 
The technical side of film making is also extremely important at telling a story.

Ok, I know this list is purely for cameras in their stock form (EDIT: there are many cameras here not in their stock form) but I would be very interested on how you would rate something like the GH3 or GM1 with Speedbooster. I say this because you say you scored some cameras higher because you like the look of the larger sensor (subjective). If you add a Speedbooster to the GH3 or GM1 to level the playing field on your subjective taste for larger sensors, where would they score then?

Is that aimed at me? I guess not because I never made that strange assumption. ^

While there is no doubt that the 4K codec brings many advantages, it's just plain wrong to say 4K is better when many factors (mainly the sensor) contribute to the image properties. So will the Sony 4K handycam have better DR over Alexa because it is 4k and Alexa is not?
I can see where your coming from but stating that 4k has better DR just because it's 4k is plain wrong.

Now while the 4K codec is impressive on paper, the same qualities could have been given to a 1080p codec at much lower data rates with similar results (other than resolution obviously). Why would they now create a killer 1080p codec when they are trying to force 4K down our throats?
Business men in suits have given the massed 4K, 99% if consumers and professionals alike have not requested it.

This camera is purely for posers with money to burn. Unfortunately, in this world there are plenty of rich posers.

I don't understand the mentality of stills guys who want a stills only camera. You do not sacrifice any quality in stills by having a video mode. Considering live view uses a video stream, it's a natural progression to include a video mode. I personally will never buy a stills only camera again. There is just no point.

Personally, I'm desperate for a phone that doesn't have a music playing feature. I just can't handle my phone being able to play music!!!!

Stupid stills guys

Speed Booster gives it a larger than Super 35mm sensor so I really don't think that's a problem.

Steps to becoming a fanboy/girl (or any kind of ideologue):
1. Invest time, money or effort into something
2. Ignore all evidence that might subsequently call the wisdom of that investment into question so as to maintain faith in one's own judgement
 
This doesn't work for people who would rather weed out the mistakes in their beliefs than cling to an illusion of infallibility.

Where do i start!?
 
I started off using Sony cameras around 20years ago when I worked as a corporate shooter. Betacam, BetaSP, Digibeta....I suppose I was a Sony fanboy because they had the best cameras and formats back then. I then worked as a camera assistant (high budget) and operator (lower budget) on music videos and promos all shot on 35mm. The cameras we went for 90% of the time were Arri 435 & 535's. So I guess I was an Arri fanboy? Then the 5D came out and for my own personal use (and a lot of paid work) I used the 5DII so I guess I became a Canon fanboy? Nine months ago I used a GH3 on a shoot and was sold on one. Went out and bought one a week later. I guess that makes me a Panasonic fanboy now? Or, do I just choose the tool that I feel is right for the job regardless of brand? I am not a 'fanboy' here defending Panasonic to justify my purchase.
 
I good camera is more than just the end image. What if the camera you were using hindered your ability to capture that image in the first place?
The BM cameras may be great for narrative where you can do retake after retake but imagine shooting something that needed to be captured first time with no second chances and then your card being full because the camera gives no indication how much remaining time or space the card has? Your end image doesn't exist, no amount of DR or bit depth will get back that shot you missed. Going back 20years I can't remember a camera that didn't give the operator any visual indication of remaining media. You could, I suppose, ask the interviewee to re-say that last response to the question but how unprofessional does that make you look in front of them and your producer?
 
I find it amazing how new technology makes people forget their art. VFX aside, an 8bit camera can generate fantastic images if you know what your doing. All of a sudden everyone wants RAW so that they don't have to white balance, can get sloppy on exposure etc. Yes, RAW has it's place but many of the productions I work on don't want me to hand over RAW files.
 
The BMPCC is almost a fantastic camera, if BM can fix a few of its querks as well as reliability then it would be a cheap camera to complement the GH3.

Where do i start!?
 
I started off using Sony cameras around 20years ago when I worked as a corporate shooter. Betacam, BetaSP, Digibeta....I suppose I was a Sony fanboy because they had the best cameras and formats back then. I then worked as a camera assistant (high budget) and operator (lower budget) on music videos and promos all shot on 35mm. The cameras we went for 90% of the time were Arri 435 & 535's. So I guess I was an Arri fanboy? Then the 5D came out and for my own personal use (and a lot of paid work) I used the 5DII so I guess I became a Canon fanboy? Nine months ago I used a GH3 on a shoot and was sold on one. Went out and bought one a week later. I guess that makes me a Panasonic fanboy now? Or, do I just choose the tool that I feel is right for the job regardless of brand? I am not a 'fanboy' here defending Panasonic to justify my purchase.
 
I good camera is more than just the end image. What if the camera you were using hindered your ability to capture that image in the first place?
The BM cameras may be great for narrative where you can do retake after retake but imagine shooting something that needed to be captured first time with no second chances and then your card being full because the camera gives no indication how much remaining time or space the card has? Your end image doesn't exist, no amount of DR or bit depth will get back that shot you missed. Going back 20years I can't remember a camera that didn't give the operator any visual indication of remaining media. You could, I suppose, ask the interviewee to re-say that last response to the question but how unprofessional does that make you look in front of them and your producer?
 
I find it amazing how new technology makes people forget their art. VFX aside, an 8bit camera can generate fantastic images if you know what your doing. All of a sudden everyone wants RAW so that they don't have to white balance, can get sloppy on exposure etc. Yes, RAW has it's place but many of the productions I work on don't want me to hand over RAW files.
 
The BMPCC is almost a fantastic camera, if BM can fix a few of its querks as well as reliability then it would be a cheap camera to complement the GH3.

Strange conclusion, huh, 5d mk 3 best of the 3 ???????
First of all, playing with ML shooting raw is not an option for a paid job, unlles you have some low end jobs where people don't care much for the work you do and get the "cheapest one", I guess you can screw up there, nobody cares.
Then the pocket cinema, good video quality but very poor ergonomics, how much will you pay for that quality, well, less than 5d mk 3 but still, you can't go shoot a wedding with one little pocket cinema, you need a few and some patient people.
Then the gh3, the most balanced out of the 3, amazing ergonomics, for chirst sake you could do rack focus by tapping on the back of the screen, instant auto exposure by pressing one button, you can even go all auto and works like a camcorder but we are pro's so no need.
In the world of event videographers those 5d's are dying in favor of modern tools made for video, fs100,fs700,gh3 DUH,c100,c300, all of these little babies have good ergonomics and image that looks professional, not that plastic look of the standard canon DSLR's.
My point is who the heck uses 5d mk3 shooting RAW an event like a wedding, or uses pocket cinema with that tiny sensor, in the real world where money is made you can't be toying like that.
My rating for money making in event shooting is 1. gh3 by far for anything 2. 5d mk3 as a second camera for details and use of full frame sdof 3. pocket cinema for moments when you have all the time in the world from shooting to postprocessing.
 
 
LE
OR none of the above in favor of fs700 or c300.

Why don't manufacturers concentrate on making better cameras rather than higher res ones. High res and quality do NOT go hand in hand.
 
1080p, no moire, 13+ stops DR, 5DIII low light capability, 10bit 422 codec, Peaking, Zebras etc.......... this will be a much more valuble production tool to the 'consumer market' than a 4K, 9stop DR, 8bit codec, No Zebra, No Peaking camera.
 
Most people who bought the GH3 for video use it for Low/No budget shoots, corporates and events. Having 13 stops DR, great low light ability, Zebras and Peaking makes your shoot sooooo much easier than having 4K in a crappy camera.

They should take the lead from Canon and leave raw video there to be "discovered"

Hang on, why do we need to wait 2-3 weeks for a rumor? If there is rumor out there spill it, isn't that what 43rumors is all about?  Or is 43rumors only allowed to publish what Panasonic and Olympus allow it to publish?
 
Hmmmmmm