Damphousse

I think that is one of the big issues a lot of people are losing sight of. I have a T3i which is 18 megapixels. I remeber when I had a 3 megapixel "prosumer" all in one camera and dreamed of getting something like the 16 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II. That camera was the gold standard of 35mm cameras. They used to compare that camera to the medium format cameras of the day. Nobody in their right mind ever said the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II wasn't enough for professional gigs. So now here we are almost a decade later and 18 megapixels can be had for a pittance in a consumer camera. No consumer in their right mind needs anything more than 18 megapixels. Yes of course sometimes I take a bad shot and need to crop so I am limited in how big of a print I can make but for the most part 18 megapixels gets the job done. No the GH4 is not hurting 5D mk III sales. Mirrorless sales in general are a small fraction of DSLR sales. And as you stated most people getting a 5D mk III are photographers. The natural progression in photography is towards bigger sensors. The overwhelming majority of photographers feel upgrading to full frame is the next logical step. They seem going to m4/3 as a step backwards. I posted some links on hear long time ago that linked to photography forums that were full of photographers complaining about Canon putting video features into their cameras. The fact of the matter is I'm pretty sure the majority of 5D mk III owners probably don't even use the video function.

My... God... Dark Knight was a better movie than the majority of stuff out there and that is saying a lot considering it is a summer popcorn action movie... Based on a comic book. I mean to me the part where the Batmobile of all things rams the underside of a multiton garbage truck was beyond realistic. You think I am going to accept that but be tweaked because I can't pinpoint exactly where in a truck a couple of guys are sitting in a chaotic action sequence?! People go to those types of movies to switch their brains off. I personally like comic book movies. The problem is so many of them are terrible. Did anyone get tricked into seeing the first Captain America movie of the modern era? Wow. Talk about a real waste of time. I can't watch garbage like Captain America and then criticise Dark Knight. Dark Knight wasn't a masterpiece. But there are far worse specimens out there.

You would have to wonder about the horse power to analyze and pull that off on every frame.

Nice job Andrew! Finally someone posts one of the real reasons I still shoot analog film in my stills cameras! In addition to realistic shots I also like to do extreme things like using a contrast filter and stacking a polarizer on it with B&W film. I also use a polarizer sometimes with Velvia 50. I turn chunks of sky black! With analog film this looks striking. You get some very rich dark gradients. With digital unless you can expose to the right without blowing highlights get ready for banding city in many situations. Everyone says digital is wonderful because you can to so much edititing after you've got the shot. Yes and no. There are many times those rich dark gradients look like crap out of the camera and other times they just fall apart if you try and push them around too much. It's an expensive hassle but if you want idiot proof dark gradients that fill the sky shoot film. Nice solution for video. I will have to keep that in mind.

As a content producer (photography) I don't mind selling my work for a low amount of money to people who are only going to use it for a small noncommercial project. I rarely if ever sell my work royalty free. The bulk of my work I charge as much as I can. But if someone says I saw you sold a picture for $500 for an ad campaign but I need to use one of your pictures for a small local commercial thing for six months, I slash my fee. I am accessible. I am not a pro. I will right size my fee for the project. The problem is even if you contact record labels you won't even get a reply let alone be charged a fee in proportion to what your use is. The problem with your example is no sane person thinks a record label or an artist is harmed by some "hipster" as you put it using their music for some boring video on vimeo. It doesn't cost the artist or the label any sales and in fact can actually generate some sales. I've been turned on to bands and bought music because some dirty stinking awful pirate had the audacity to include some decent music in their online tutorial video. Wholesale music theft on the internet did wonders for music consumers. It finally forced the hand of record labels to sell us just the 2 songs on the album we actually like for a total price of $1.99. And it also forced artists to earn an honest living by getting their butts out there and touring for their money. Can you name the top three touring soloists/groups? I bet you can't. The music industry is made up of studio one hit wonders and real workers. Two things need to be done. First of all record labels need to chill and understand some of the benefits of music being used on some low profile videos such as tutorials and wedding videos. The second thing is they need to come up with some kind of fee structure that is proportionate to the use. Sure, sure we can say that Andrew is running a business and that he should pay but c'mon. I mean Dre is about to make $1 Billion dollars! Surely we can come up with some kind of fee structure so Andrew can use some Dre instrumentals on a couple of test videos.

That's kind of a big deal. Being able to pick up a fast low distortion high contrast OEM lens with built in IS and have it work as intended for a reasonable price is a huge advantage. I am interested in a GH4 but it is what it is. You buy one knowing the trade offs you are going to have to make.

No. The industry has been "decimated" because they were forcing you to spend $15 on a CD that had at most 2 good tracks on it. The music industry screwed over talent and fans. That's why when the opporunity to circumnavigate them appeared consumers embraced it whole heartedly. The music industry never should have had the profits it had in the past. You are starting the analysis off at a greatly inflated base line. I mean lets say there was no piracy. Well in today's world I can still go out and pay $2 for the two actually good tracks on an album as opposed to $15 for two good tracks and eleven wastes of time. You guys want to talk about music and video well my advice is to look at photography where people got really screwed and the quality has nose dived. I sell some of my photographs. I don't do royalty free unless the fee is really high. For the majority of my work I do rights managed. But you know what? I don't mind selling an image for $5 if someone wants to use it for school project. If it's noncommercial and not for a newspaper or magazine I am willing to deal. I don't see that with a lot of music for use on vimeo videos that only get a handful of hits... I certainly have bookmarked a few places that sell generic stock music. I don't mind paying a few dollars, but don't charge me $1,000 to add music to my little home movie.

Try ebay. I have more medium format lenses than 35mm lenses or APS-C lenses. Actually the price of medium format lenses really make m4/3 lens prices look ludicrious. And they do have adapters for mounting them on 35mm cameras just nothing like speedboosters.

I think you mean financially prudent amateurs. Do you think it would be intelligent for someone who only shoots travel videos a couple of times a year and the odd birthday or sports game to drop $5K on a C100 body only? The thing is going to be obsolete and lose thousands of dollars before the owner makes 10 solid edited movies. Something like the GH4 makes sense. Even in the worst case scenario you would lose maybe $1K in depreciation if you kept the thing for years. A pro with paying jobs that demand quality, reliability and fast turn around is not irresponsible for getting a $5K C100. Just like an amateur who doesn't have paying jobs lined up isn't a cheapskate for getting something less expensive.

Is it just me or was the guy's rant totally unnecessary? I could understand if m4/3 sales were booming and eroding Canon's bottom line but that simply is not the case. m4/3 sales are anemic. Panasonic can say whatever they want. The sell hardly any cameras to the average consumer. And the idea that you would start introducing ISOs and aperture nomenclature that varied from the norms is insane. The average consumer doesn't understand ISO, aperture and bokeh as it is. The examples he pulled up in his video are just m4/3 fanbois. I mean comparing a m4/3 camera to a Hasselblad?! C'mon. Only an idiot would do that. The fact of the matter is you don't have to be a genius to go over to DPreview and compare different cameras at different ISOs. You can see for yourself the noise difference. The guy is acting like no one every compared noise levels between cameras. I'm sorry it's like I said, for most people m4/3 is a solution looking for a problem. Just like this guy's video is a solution looking for a problem. The fact is m4/3 sales are small to tiny. On top of that many people that go spending a thousand dollars on a lens have the common sense to look at sensor noise comparisons and make an informed decision. If I was lucky enough to be able to afford a GH4 right now I would get it for its wonderful video. I would not get it to compete with a EOS-1D X stills. I am sure there are some uninformed consumers that think a sub $1000 m4/3 camera can compete with a full frame camera that costs as much as a small car but most people are smarter than that.

Pixel peepers? You are using that word but I don't think you know what it means. This was a test video and it did have rolling shutter artificats. You don't have to observe the video in 4k on a pixel level to see that and it is a valid observation. The aforementioned rolling shutter is one of the reasons I prefer OEM stabilized lenses to exotic all manual primes. I reach for primes when I need apetures of 1.4 or larger. If 2.8 works then I use my zoom that lives on my Canon. All these people looking to spend a fortune on a bunch of primes when they are starting out baffles me. I dropped $800 on a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS and it lives on my T3i. I break out the 50mm 1.4 for night filming.

I think most people if they could would get a camera that made their life easier and made their work look better. Sadly a lot of us can't afford to so we shoot with hacked Canon Rebels.

I think the "Canon sucks" stuff got a little over done. I picked up my refurb T3i for $300. Magic Lantern was of course free. The camera can make some nice images under certain circumstances particularly when considering the price. I've been looking to upgrade to something substantially better but I'm not will to part with over $1,000 for somthing that still has faults. I said this long time ago. The problem that a lot of us had with Canon was videos like the one posted in this thread sucked us in. We knew nothing about film making. Of course now looking back I can see all the tricks. The Canon videos used close ups, shallow depth of field, and of course grading to paper over a lot of the faults. The sentence should read "Canon rebels make nice images" and then there should be a big asterisk which goes on to explain shallow depth of field, close up shots, and grading like crazy.

I did a little bit of searching and came across this. No weird blown highlights there. Obviously shot in much softer light. Overall it seems pleasing.

I think what you have wisely pointed out is just because something is famous or made more money doesn't mean it is aestheticly pleasing or shows great talent. That movie was pretty hilarious. How did they make that and have everyone involved keep a straight face.

Relax Andrew. The Germans can now rely on clean burning Russian natural gas. What could possibly go wrong?

Probably an alpha particle emitter. Skin is enough to block alpha particle absorption but if the particles find their way in through some other route say mouth, nose, etc then you are definitely in trouble.

Why would anyone in this price range buy a Panasonic? Why not wait to see how good the Sony Alpha A6000 is? Andrew is currently ranking it above all Pansonics save for the GH4. Only thing is audio without some kind of adapter might be an issue.

Try out the Canon 70D. Just touch the screen to tell the camera what you want to focus on. It also does focus tracking.

So do you tell everyone who watches your movies a harrowing tale about how you got each shot or do you let your work speak for itself? Art is about the result in front of the viewer... not some gear related back story. And if you must know my back story I have a fully stocked darkroom in my basement with multiple enlargers for everything from microfilm up to large format. I develop my own film and print my on pictures. I do it because I am going for a look. I don't do it because I expect anyone who sees my pictures to care. And I am always down to use things that make my life easier. On the digital side I shoot raw from time to time with a hacked 50D but that doesn't prevent me from realizing what a pain in the @$$ the damn thing is. Auto focus doesn't work. I would not call that a "glitch." Errr... what kind of "services" are you purchasing from Black Magic?! You paid a fair retail price for a camera with no reliable autofocus... and that is what you got. It's reasonable for some people but not a bargain. If autofocus worked they wouldn't be charging $1,000 in the US. It's as simple as that.

I think what he is saying is Panasonic actually finishes their low end products before pushing out newer high end products. It's not about having "fancier" firmware. It is about having working firmware. The BMPCC doesn't even have basic functions that lowly $300 DSLRs have. The autofocus is worthless. Let's talk about things that are actually going to happen vs fantasy. Honestly I've said it since I saw the first BMPCC review that Black Magic puts out beta cameras. And I said they couldn't compete with the big boys. The reason being is while the GH4 costs 60-70% more it is a $4k FINISHED product. If Black Magic ever decided to put out FINISHED products the costs would go up substantially. Tossing an off the shelf sensor into a box and slapping an LCD screen on it is something anyone can do. Refining that concept into a tight final product is what will drive your costs up. And all along I stated that quoting the $1,000 price for a BMPCC was pure rubbish. To actually deliver a FINISHED BMPCC would cost substantially more. So the "savings" with a BMPCC is you pay less... and get less.

I don't think every time a new camera comes out people call it a "game changer." It's only a small minority of cameras that get that designation. I think only the BMPCC and now the Panasonic GH4 have really gotten that monikor. Uh.... Blackmagic≠Panasonic The BMPCC had serious design and QC flaws. A lot of people were blindsided because they had never bought a product from a company like Blackmagic. I've said it before and I'll say it again Blackmagic puts out beta cameras. It does not produce finished products. Panasonic puts out finished products. There is simply no way the GH4 rollout is going to be anything like the BMPCC roll out.

First of all I don't think you are ranting. And what prompted my remark was reading posts by various people who bring up the Alexa in conversations where we are discussing a sub $2,000 4K camera. I don't think anyone who is advocating for these consumer friendly 4K cameras thinks that they go toe to toe with an Alexa. I think the problem is that a lot of offerings from the likes of Canon have soft output and these 4K cameras, at least in the few test clips we've seen, address that issue marvelously. We obviously haven't seen extensive tests of any of these cameras so there may be other pros and cons to them we have yet to discover. But what I can say is I haven't seen anything in the video field other than Blackmagic's Prores and Magic Lantern's raw that has caused as great a stir in the low end video world. I have seen camera test after camera test comparing various bodies and to be honest with you most of them were not compelling enough to make me think switching from one body to another really made a substantial difference in the final product. But, as with raw and 10 bit 4:2:2 Prores, 4K looks like it is a game changer. 4K has the wow factor. You put downsampled 4K material in front of a lay person and they notice it. I think there is a lot of excitment about it because for years we were told 4k is unecessary and you can't tell the difference. I believed that line. People walked you through logical thought exercises, biology, and physics and in the end you were convinced. What they didn't do is show you any footage. Well now that we've seen only a handful of clips we are all astonished that there is indeed a very clear noticable difference. And even more surprisingly you can get that in a package that costs less than $1,700 at launch! The GH4 may not be a C300 killer for a whole host of reasons, some of which have already been discussed, but it really does have the potential to be a game changer for a certain segment of the market. There really doesn't seem to be a single major issue that Panasonic didn't try in some way to address.

Why does this keep getting said?! Do people not realize an Alexa is an $80,000 camera? Neither Andrew nor anyone else has said the 4K video from a Samsung Note 3 is better than any 1080p camera out there. Let's have a reasonable conversation fellas. There are multiple routes to improving image quality. Going to 4k in a well engineered camera is one way... and dropping $80,000 on a 1080p Alexa is another. Even if the $80,000 option looks better it isn't an option for 99% of us.

I am sure with the capitalism race to the bottom there are many regional differences. I was just speaking about my on personal experience. But you confirmed my main point. OTA 1080i is the best most people ever see unless they rent a bluray... which few people do. I personally have never failed to wow someone when showing them 4K output. They just don't know stuff can be that sharp and detailed. So it really boils down to do you want your work to be "good enough" or do you want your work to have the "wow" factor. No one is suggesting 4K replaces a good script. That's a false choice. The real choice is good script or good script+4K. If I can swing it I think I know what my choice would be.