Damphousse

​WTF?! Do you have any links to objective evidence to back this up? Don't be fooled by the Zeiss name. I've had cell phone cameras that had Zeiss written under the lens. I have nothing against Zeiss. I own modern Zeiss medium format lenses and they are excellent in my opinion. But let's not go overboard without proof.

​Telling the truth is not picking a side. Regardless of what I want I will only present reality. There are a lot of financials we are not privy to. What I am openly wondering about is can all these companies stay viable if every six months there is a new hot flavor? Canon didn't become the most profitable and viable company of the past three decades by engaging in 6 month tit for tat fights in it's $1,000+ camera bodies with three or four players. People keep saying they are perplexed by Canon's behavior but then you see how the market has unfolded in the last year and a half... actually less than that. The GH4 was announced in Feb 2014! So GH4 -> Sony a7s -> $500 BMPCC -> NX1 ->LX100, NX500, RX10II, etc. Literally after years of R&D you have a few months to get your camera sold before the next flavor of the month pops up from your competitor. I just have to wonder aloud how long that state of affairs happens before the consumer is left with less choice. Is this a viable long term trend? I'm just amazed how quickly a camera (GH4) and company can go from savior to reviled. This is just a new business model for the prosumer camera business. I don't necessarily think all the people who are dancing on Canon's supposed grave have stopped to consider that Canon may not be the first death in the family.

​They still make Rebels. And even the old warmed over Rebels have more resolution and a bigger sensor than the GH4... and they can be bought for a fifth of the price. Why anyone would use a lower resolution camera that costs five times the amount to do this is beyond me. You spotted Canon's weak @$$ marketing ploy with its BS fullHD multicolored party box but you fell for Panasonic's marketing pretty hard on this one. Anyway there are professional outfits all over the world shooting high dollar commercials with Canon "bullet time" setups. I don't know why they would quintuple their camera budget for less resolution.

Again from years ago... Streets Ice Cream promotion. I guess it was some kind of street fare or ice cream party and they let people try the Canon Rebel setup up.

​Indeed. Half a decade ago canon was using this concept with cheap Rebels... for something a bit more interesting.

​This "research" such that it is doesn't have a single absolute number! It's all percentages! They don't even say percent of what... a million... 100 million? Also there is no discussion of margins. Looking at the knife fight going on in the sub $2,000 hybrid videography world I doubt many of those players are as profitable as Canon. GH4 was praised as the second coming and then months later it was kicked to the curb. A7S was all the rage then the dark horse Samsung NX1 came out of nowhere. LX100 warmed everyone's heart then Sony came roaring back with the RX10 II. G7 is probably going to make a splash. And let's not forget the $500 BMPCC I and many others picked up. With three big hybrid players going after a third of a market that was at one point almost exclusively Canon you really wonder about the viability of the model. I'm enjoying the cameras but I still have my doubts Panasonic is guaranteed to be in the consumer camera business 5 years from now. Panasonic has shifted away from consumer products and concentrated on industrial products and their stock has been rewarded. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/panasonic-sees-tesla-cells-housing-fueling-8-year-high-profit

​Yeah but half of homes don't have drones in them the way half of homes in the US had guns in the 80s. And I doubt 86.8% of people have used a drone... unlike the 86.8% of adults who have used alcohol. It's awfully hard to ban something that 86.8% of adults have used at one point in time or another... we learned that the hard way during a little thing called prohibition. Banning drones for 99% of the population would be a chip shot at this stage. If guns were as rare as drones, trust me, they would be banned by now. My advice is get ahead of the problem. Get common sense regulations on the books before a crazy blanket ban gets introduced. People are doing really dumb stuff with these drones and they will ruin it for everyone.

​It's a lot more difficult to make a 17mm lens without distortion than it is to make a 50mm lens without distortion. As a BMPCC owner I made a beeline for a speedbooster. I looked at all the 8mm lenses and so forth and just decided to steer away from all those extreme wide angles.

​I agree. The best kind of government is the kind that waits until someone dies before doing anything and just regulates nonscary sounding things. Who cares what the motivation is? We all know this needs to be regulated. Engage with your lawmakers now BEFORE someone dies, because once a little blonde girl dies because of a drone there is going to be a draconian blanket ban. Digging in your heels and saying how silly the government is is precisely the wrong reaction. When someone dies then you will see the real meaning of silly.

​100% false. 5 seconds on the google machine reveals THIS. Canon did not invent full frame... neither the technology nor the nomenclature. Full frame is just a handy short hand that everybody understands. It is not a religious term. I have always found it peculiar that videographers get so religious about it. Clearly full frame is SUPERIOR to what videographers have worked with for decades and so called full frame is INFERIOR to what a lot of photographers have worked with for over a century. But as photographers we don't seem to mind using the term. When I shoot film I usually shoot 6cmx6cm. In fact full frame is referred to as "small format" by photographers. As far as camera makers go APS-C (so called "super 35) was late to the party and the format that had the most marketing voodoo... because it was clearly inferior but made business sense for camera makers and people like Kodak. If you want to talk about horrendous marketing BS in the late nineties by camera manufacturers and film makers look no further than APS-C. I've heard really messed up stories about that format's introduction. Having said that as far as digital I happily use APS-C with no ill effects. I use a BMPCC with a speedbooster... again with no ill effects. Frankly without a crew, controlled lighting, and a dedicated focus puller the extra depth of field is welcome.

​Lol. So you base your thesis on three cameras that haven't been released yet... but when someone debunks you with a camera that hasn't been released yet it doesn't count? Sounds to me like you just like 4k for whatever reason and are back solving into that conclusion. I have nothing against 4k. I just don't think motion picture studios are going to throw all their old Alexas in the trash bin because an RX10 with 4k comes out. Seriously?

​ The 1080p Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera with internal raw recording on SD cards and global shutter for less than $1,000 says "hi".

​I modded my Canon 17-55mm 2.8 by ripping off the back. I use it on an EF to BMPCC speedbooster and it works great. I know you are a BMPCC fan. Did you happen to do the mod on your Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 and use it with the EF to BMPCC speedbooster? The reason I ask is I need to know whether the modded lens will hit the front optical element of the speedbooster at the extremes of zooming. ​I didn’t realize the Samsung 15-50mm S is more like the Canon 16-35mm F2.8 L. Thanks for the information. But if the Samsung 15-50 is more like the 16-35mm 2.8 L why would you prefer it over the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8? The Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 is sharper overall than the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L. Why would you pay $500 more for a lens that is less sharp? This is my problem. Everyone points out what a great deal the Samsung NX-1 body is but they fail to mention you have to swap out an $800 lens and pay $500 more. And now you are telling us the lens that costs $500 is less sharp. ​ I doubt it’s noticeably better. Do you have a link to this information? My problem is any company that is a competent lens designer can come up with an excellent 50mm 1.8 lens. Fast zooms are a different animal. 50mm prime lenses are one of the best understood and least complex lenses to design. You see this time and time again on internet forums. People assume that the optical quality of the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM, 1.4 and 1.2 L is vastly different. Well if you stop down a little they are virtually identical when viewing the final product (print or video). The big difference between them is build quality, focusing system, and some performance wide open. I just don’t think at f/2.8 and f/4 any normal person is going to be able to tell them apart. And don’t get me started on the 4k myth. I have routinely used Canon 50mm lenses on APS-C bodies with 18+ megapixels for years. Now 4k is supposed to be stressing these lenses? Seriously? Overall my problem with Samsung and a lot of second tier camera makers is the lack of choice. I mean it’s great if you want to shell out $500 more for build quality and less than a stop faster lens that isn’t as sharp but what if I don’t… or more realistically can’t? It’s nice to have a cheapy zoom, something in the $800 range and something substantially north of $1,000 on offer. Considering my BMPCC cost less than $500, $500 is a lot of money to me. So if you want to spend over $250 on a “cheap” nifty fifty that’s your choice. But I prefer to have the option of paying something closer to the traditional $100… like the $125 Canon 50mm 1.8 MK II. I tell every person who has the slightest interest in photography to buy a Canon 50mm 1.8 STM. At $125 there is no excuse not to own it. But $256? That is not a casual purchase.

By the way the $300 Canon EF-S 10-18mm is a close focusing monster. It blows the Tokina 11-16 out of the water in that category and it also has IS for hand held shots. Plus it is a sharper lens. Its major downfall is it is slower. While the Tokina’s low light advantage is obvious to people just looking at the spec sheet the close focusing ability of the Canon EF-S 10-18mm is often overlooked. In daylight if I am not trying to go for shallow depth of field I would go with the Canon ef-s 10-18mm. For low light and greater depth of field control for more distant subjects the Tokina is the way to go. I guess my point is they aren’t really interchangeable lenses.

I think what you are beginning to realize is the Samsung NX1 isn’t a free lunch. They can knock $200-$300 off the retail price but they more than make it back when you have to buy their lenses. I have a BMPCC and BMPCC EF Speedbooster. I could go out and sell them both and add $100-$200 and get a Samsung NX1, but I would end up hemorrhaging cash buying Samsung specific lenses. The Canon 18-55mm 2.8 is $800. Samsung doesn’t have anything comparable. You have to spend over 60% more for the Samsung 16-50mm 2-2.8! Want a cheap OEM nifty fifty? Canon 50mm 1.8 mk II is $125… Samsung 45mm 1.8 $256! Over 100% more! If you use only manual lenses and have no need for things like aperture control, autofocus, and IS then the NX1 could be for you. But if you want to replicate Canon functions like IS for a comparable price you are out of luck. Samsung has made a truly revolutionary product but they haven’t delivered the total package. Those lens prices need to come way down.

$1,700 for GH4... $650 for EF M43 speed booster... Total $2,300. There is your price Canon. Come out with a APS-C 4k DSLR with the same feature set as the Panasonic GH4 and you've got a hit on your hands.

​ Not “camera movement,” “camera movements” Camera movements allow you to move the lens and the film plane in relation to each other. It allows you to change the focus plane and allows the elimination of things like converging parallel lines when shooting architecture. Tilt shift lenses allow this type of thing to a degree. But they are far more limited than large format cameras.

I think the commentary at the end was very useful. There is a lot more to a lens than just image quality in a handful of poorly shot scenes. First of all the build quality difference between the plastic fantastic Canon 50mm and the upper end Zeiss lenses is a world apart. If I was shooting a multimillion dollar project I would not depend on the Canon 50mm in a remote location. Also I think anyone who is interested in lenses and has a photography background already uses several sites that give good reviews. The test chart thing is a strawman. What site solely tests their lenses by using test charts? Every site I look at uses test charts AND real life examples. They note the differences between lab setups, what you see zoomed in 100% and what you can actually see on the print. I like the commentary about things like flares and corners. A lot of the time various lens/body combinations work fine. But eventually you run into situations where a certain lens/body combination ruins a shot. I use a BMPCC with various canon lenses and I run into limitations all the time on various shots. Now I won’t be able to pick out a particular lens on any given shot but I do know if I run into an issue like flaring in a particular shot I can try a different lens to eliminate the problem. So in a way this test is informative and educates amateurs but in a way it is useless to people who have experience because we know that at times you run into situations that need a specialized solution and that solution sometimes costs $15,000. It’s not always about the equipment… but sometimes it’s only about the equipment.

​Camera movements. IF this is true and the price is reasonable it would be an architecture beast. 12 MP is a bit limited for print. But think of all the real estate stuff on the web. Even pamphlets don't need anything beyond 12 MP. This would make shooting tricky interiors and exteriors a breeze.

​The only person that thinks FF is the end all be all for photography is an amateur with a narrow experience. The irony of you denigrating people looking at Amazon sales ranks is your posts clearly indicate you are ignorant about 8x10 and medium format film. Long ago when prices fell on pro film equipment I added medium format film to my repertoire. You keep saying FF 35mm and using the word bokeh in the same sentence. If you want real bokeh move up in format to something approaching the gold standard. With medium format film and larger bokeh just happens. I spend most of my time trying to just make sure the critical stuff is in focus. The bokeh in 35mm is laughable by comparison. I lurk on a film camera website that gets far more traffic than this place and if they read you going on and on about bokeh and 35mm they would laugh. These guys are routinely ordering sheets of film for cameras larger than 8x10! It's cool that you draw your line at digital and 35mm but that doesn't mean that it is king of the hill. As far as video I think a bunch of people with BMPCCs who would beg to differ... Myself included. Medium format is tricky enough for stills. I actually don't mind a super 16 sensor. I am a one man band doing casual private little projects. I don't have a single person dedicated to follow focus. And I don't like all these videos floating around with shallow DOF where the actors' eyes are going in and out of focus. Dave Dugdale did a nice commentary on DoF in his GH4 review. It was very eye opening. Don't get me wrong I like FF digital for video and stills, but I definitely see that it has it's downsides and there are other things that best it in certain categories. I am just glad prices are falling and we have choice.

​Wasn't the camera they were working with a prototype that, "almost works perfectly"? At 1:10 into the Canon NAB XC10 video that's what Tim Smith says. Is this sliding issue in the final version? ​I don't do drone work and I am not a professional. I'm trying to understand this. douglaurent is saying you can't rely on a GH4 with an Olympus 12mm because it isn't professional. The GH4 with an Olympus 12mm is 27.6mm full frame equivalent (12mm * 2.3 crop factor). Right? So that's about the same as the XC10? So for a total noob is about 27mm full frame equivalent okay for drone work? I would love for this thing to be $1,000 but nobody is giving you internally recording 4:2:2/8-bit 4k at up to 305 Mbps for that price. Even Blackmagic is charging $1295 for their 4k micro studio camera with no lens and no screen. Add their screen and the price jumps to $1795. Get a lens to match what Canon is giving you and you are well over $2,000... and of course you have Blackmagic quality tossed in for free. And of course you have a body from one company and a lens from another. And everything is tied together with a rig from yet another company.

​One thing I will say about the BMPCC is I get a few hot pixels at ISO 1600 even with a speed booster. Depending on how things are lit though you can get away with a speedbooster and a 50mm 1.4. I haven't tested it out but if you are shooting in cool weather and not shooting too long I think the hot pixel thing isn't as big of a problem.

​I am not a drone shooter. I am not a professional. I'm trying to understand this. The Canon Canon XC10 on the wide end is 27.3mm in video. How are you getting 50mm from that for drone work? This is a drone video shot on a BMPCC with a 12mm lens. No Speedbooster. So I guess it is starting off with 34.56mm (12mm x 2.88 crop factor). This stuff seems okay.

​It's a camcorder just like the Sony AX100. Where is your thread demanding a detachable lens and raw still capability from the AX100?

​Polarizers can do that. Honestly the simplest thing for you to do is use 1/60th of a second shutter speed when you are using 29.97 fps. Just set it there and leave it. The next thing you have to do is get some good ND filters. You can go with the variable ND like the Tiffen variable ND. It is convenient. Anything you put in front of your lens has the potential to affect quality. You absolutely must read reviews and/or try before you buy or you could very well have issues. Also I don't know how much IR pollution is a problem on the GH4. On the BMPCC it is a big issue so in addition to an ND filter I also use a UV IR cut filter. To get an idea of some issues with variable NDs check out Dave Dugdale's review. Variable NDs are basically two polarizers stuck together so the issues you see with a polarizer you will see with a variable ND. I am not familiar with Kenko. For the BMPCC Hoya PRONDs are what is suggested along with a Hoya UV IR cut filter. That is pretty much the gold standard for that camera. Variable NDs are a step down.