Damphousse

Man, this is so true. With a global shutter things wouldn't be as bad but with a rolling shutter all those tremors, shakes, and jerks just make the video go to heck with distortions and jello. And when you try and fix the shakes with warp stabilizer it just turns into a sureal mess. This is one of the reasons I use image stabilized lenses.

No one is saying there aren't outliers. But you can't own a $500K truck when your household income is $51K. In fairness he said months with an "s." I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where someone somewhere could pay off a C300 in months, but for we hobbyists that just isn't realistic. In my hands a C300 would become obsolete before I earned back even a fraction of the price. A Panasonic GH4 is a much smaller outlay of capital and if it's image quality really is everything Andrew says it could be then it will be quite future proof. Don't get me wrong. The C300 seems well engineered and has a stable of lenses that is second to none. It seems like a tight polished professional product. If I had a bunch of paying gigs lined up I would definitely use one. But for those of us who are hobbyists and only make a little money here and there with video the C300 is out of the question. And there are a lot more of us than there are people who have $13,999 in our pocket to use for just a body... which will be obsolete in <2 years.

Canon C300 Price $13,999 Median US houselhold income $51,017 I don't think there are too many people that can successfully run a household while buying $13,999 cameras... at least not in the richest country in the world. Most of us are on EOSHD because we can't afford $13,999 cameras of any sort.

Well part of the problem is a lot of people never see true 1080i... let alone 1080p. I cut the cord long ago. My over the air compressed 1080i picture blows cable compressed "HD" out of the water. I come from a photography background and to us the negative is something you try and make perfect within reason. Yes you will make some quick and dirty prints but you always know that you have a perfect negative in cold storage. If it doesn't take too much effort and money to go out and get a good "negative" then why wouldn't you do it? If I was shooting to feed myself and I was any good at it I would look at something like the GH4. From my experience if you show someone 4K footage from the GH4 on a good screen they immediately notice the difference between that and a 5DMK II. Heck when I showed someone my 50D RAW videos they immediatly noticed the difference.

It's a cost thing. I shoot 6x6 film. My Rollei 6008i even has a rotatable film back if you want to shoot cropped 645 film to save money and have more exposures on a roll. The 645 back costs more than many DSLRs! No one that I know of makes a square medium format digital back chip even though the camers have everything set up to accept them. The answer is simple really. For what you would get a square piece of silicon costs way too much. The problem with chips is they are made on big waffers. It is not a perfect process. On any given waffer there will be a certain amount of defects. The fewer chips per a waffer the greater likelihood any given chip will be defective. If you chop the waffer into smaller chips there is less of a chance any individual chip will be defective. Plus you can spread the fixed cost of the waffer across more chips. Even ignoring square for a minute it is the reason we have cropped censors and the reason full frame will always cost more.

All the time. Rollei 6008i is my favorite camera! That's why I laugh when people say full frame 35mm has a "shallow depth of field." Shallow compared to what?! It's just one stop on a continuum.

Well let be the first to say Berlin looks like a complete Eastern European ph-cking dump. The trash and spray paint everywhere tells you something about the mentality of the people that inhabit that city. I've never been there and based on your videos I may never go. Also you have to realize privacy laws in Germany are different from other places. This is covered a lot in photography forums.

Then say that. Your strategy is good for sports shooting, but not weddings, graduations, birthdays, anniversearies, entire vaction movies, etc. No. Which is why they look like crap with high shutter speed when a ND filter should have been used. I didn't realize why they looked that way until I got into DSLR video and learned about shutter angle. I just knew they looked... amateur. That's why the word "some" is italicized. It's to call attention to the fact most frames will not be ideal. All these strategies have their pros/cons and applications. It's not one size fits all. None of this stuff is a panacea. Heck even with stills I sometimes hike with four different cameras just so I can have the right tool for the job. And sometimes I do all my stills and video with a smartphone.

Yes. The average consumer does not need to make all their home movies look like Saving Private Ryan. Would you really want that?

Yeah but that is a niche application... if you have any sense of taste. You either set the camera to get stills and use a higher shutter speed or you decide you want to shoot a stylistic scene or two and then you can have your video and stills. But you aren't going to do general every day shooting and walk away with an ideal stills situtation and reasonable video... which is okay. As has been mentioned even with 1/48 shutter speed you will still have some sharp stills. Lol. My DSLR doesn't shoot 41 megapixels either. I wouldn't trade it for a camera phone though! The DSLR market was up in 2013... it was the mirrorless market that "tanked." Camera sales across the board are not what they used to be simply because everyone in the first world that wants a quality camera has one. Photographically my $300 refurb T3i does everything most people could ever want from a stills camera. And the harsh fact is most consumers don't care about video. They have smart phones for that. The stills shooters I know with video capable DSLRs rarely if ever use the video function. They aren't going to ditch their perfectly good camera just to get 4k. Heck most of them don't have the horse power to work with 4k files.

Well I think most people were posting "most influential" not their favorite. I mean did that film kick off a revolution of people shooting exclusively with natural light? I posted some films that I thought were influential or the first of a subsequent major trend. They were not necessarily my favorite movies.

Star Wars Pulp Fiction Scarface Platoon The Matrix Really tough to say. There are so many influential movies out there. Star Wars was a special effects and sci fi landmark. Can't believe it is missing from so many lists. Pulp Fiction was great for dialogue. The Matrix came out of nowhere and took special effects to another level. It also made the colorist the star of the movie... for better or worse. I guess something like Batman (1989) should be on the list. It really kicked off the modern superhero movie era. Seems like there have to be a couple of those movies every year now.

Are you sure about that? That would be the first time a kit lens was sharper than it's L equivalent.

Guaranteed to cost more than my car. This will have zero impact on any Canon camera I can afford.

Well a lot of that advice that you see is refering to film SLRs which with rare exception in the consumer world were "full frame" 35mm. You also have to understand that most people who have interchangable lens cameras don't use anything smaller than APS-C. 50mm on an APS-C sensor is still a reasonable and useful lens. People suggest getting it as one of your first lenses even on an APS-C camera because you can get a sharp, low distortion, fast, full auto, OEM nifty fifty for about $100. I look at people funny who don't have one in their bag. You can do a lot of low light and experemintal stuff with bokeh with a fast nifty fifty. I mean you can buy a nifty fifty for about $100 and experiment with it before sinking hundreds of dollars in another lens. I suggest that lens to all my APS-C friends and everyone that has bought it and played with it is thoroughly satisfied. You just can't get any other f/1.8 lens for anywhere near $100. And crop factors make sense because it is a common language. Film makers that actually know focal lengths are a minority. I personally don't know any. Most consumers used a video camera that just said X8 zoom or whatever on the side. The only reference most consumers have for focal lengths is 35mm film. I say this as someone who shoots medium format film. Historically there were far more medium format shooters than movie film shooters. But we don't go around saying we should use 6x6 focal lengths as the reference. It's not really something people should get hung up on. Just use the appropriate crop factor and be done with it.

C'mon man. No need for revisionism. My very first post quoted and reacted to this... I think the antifull frame hysteria has reached an all time high when people are saying there is something wrong with the artful use of beautiful bokeh. A couple of days ago I was shooting a still life in a snow storm. My camera was bolted to a tripod. I was indoors and didn't have a ton of mobility because the subject was outside being drowned in snow. So I used a very shallow depth of field to blurry out the suburban clutter to improve the aesthetic of the video... It never occurred to me what I was doing was wrong. It was pretty easy to focus. I just pressed the autofocus button and it locked focus. Then I pressed record. That's it. Not hard. I was also using a 54 degree and smaller shutter angle... I guess that shouldn't be allowed either because a lot of old film cameras couldn't do that. I don't know. I did all that and the clips looked good. Who cares if a bunch of old film cameras were incapable of doing what I did.

We are discussing asthetics. My eyes don't care whether you call something a video or a picture. If the background is distracting my eyes want it blurred and out of the way. Guys full frame wasn't used in the movie industry because of practical concerns. It was not some asthetic decision. I don't know why people are trying to reimagine the story. You guys realize IMAX film exists. It's gotten pretty good reviews... except the motion sickness from the enveloping experience. If shooting with IMAX film was as easy and cost the same as shooting with 16mm film it would be used in the majority of film productions. We all know this. So moral of the story is regardless of what camera you choose learn to use your equipment. Again as someone who shoots medium format film I am amazed at the number of people who think 35mm permanently has razor thin DoF. Change the apeture and/or subject camera distance.

I was adressing a poster who was saying the Full frame look was undesirable. I don't care when it started to appear on the video side. It's ridiculous to argue that there is something wrong with the full frame look. If that statement was true over 100 years worth of photographic art is terrible. Which of course it is not. To be honest with you I still shoot quite a bit of medium format film. To me 35mm film is small potatoes. You want to talk about shallow depth of field? I've got to really think about what I'm doing and nail my focus when I'm using my 150 mm Zeiss lens wide open. I think this conversation highlights the reason Canon and Nikon have so far chosen to focus on their core market... photography. They aren't going to lose their core customers to cater to someone who thinks there is something wrong with full frame. I never said "cheap." I said "cheaper." Everything is relative. Can you tell me which 4/3 lens costs $800 has a 17-40mm field of view, is metal and weather sealed, and takes excellent pictures? All these cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. That's why there is a discussion.

I like that now that APS-C has been invented 100+ of photographic teaching is wrong. When I was in high school taking photography one of the first lessons was how to use depth of field. I used a 50mm 1.8 lens on a full frame camera. Actually we didn't call it full frame. All consumer film SLRs were "full frame" back then. Any effect can be abused. That doesn't make the camera used in the abuse a PoS. Full frame is about more than just depth of field. It also means if you want a 50mm field of view all you have to do is drop $100. If you want a 17-40mm field of view you can pick up a weather sealed premium lens for about $800. Full frame means less distortion and cheaper lenses. Full frame is versitile. Reasonably priced OEM parts work as intended without utilizing third party adapters with varying degrees of functionality. As far as depth of field is concerned I would rather have the option of having limited depth of field built in and stopping down than being stuck with a limit on depth of field or having to use an expensive third party adapter. My problem is the cost of good full frame bodies. The cost of the bodies are prohibitive for people like me.

C'mon, man! If you are going to make a point, make it. Don't post stuff you know is 100% false. The MSRP for the T5 is $550 WITH kit lens. And those kit lenses easily sell for $100 on Craigslist. So even if for some strange reason you wish to pay MRSP you can get that camera for $450 once you dispose of the kit lens. I agree with Andrew's overall thesis. If you want solid video and you can pay a minimum of $2,000-$3,000 it seems increasingly a DSLR isn't your go to choice. Having said that if you want to spend $400 you can get a refurbished T3i with one year warranty for $300 and a f/1.8 nifty fifty lens for $100 and be shooting some nice low light beautiful bokeh videos with a little help from our friends at magic lantern. That's the situation I find myself in. I am a photography hobbyist. I already have Canon glass. And for me to jump into the video world all I needed was $300 for a Canon T3i. The number of people that are going to drop $800 on a Nikon 5300 is going to be less compared to the number of people that have purchased a T3i. But when you want to talk about small numbers I just don't see the average person buying a $1,500+ camera (body only) just for video. Most people have never heard of black magic. Most people would scoff at the idea of paying $1,500+ for a 16 megapixel mirrorless camera. So these are not mass market items. That doesn't diminish what they can do. I need to see more footage but personally if I had the dough I would use my DSLR alongside some 4K option. I've done multiple videos of intimate indoor events with my humble t3i and 50mm 1.4 lens. It is cheap and it doesn't intimidate people. Full frame 5D MK III raw makes sense for certain things. It is a look that you can't achieve with a Black Magic camera nor anything in that price range from Panasonic. But honestly for an every day kind of shooter for people with the cash the Gh4 looks interesting. Horeses for courses I guess.

The video market is tiny compared to the DSLR market. And I'm sure most of the cameras Canon sells cost less than $1,000. Also I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe a $1499-$1999 GH4 has anything more photographically than my $300 refurbished T3i. The average consumer simply does not drop $1499-$1999 on just a camera body. 4K video is nice and all but my girlfriend has a T3i and she NEVER uses it to shoot movies. She shoots movies with her iphone. And even then she doesn't do that that often. What the average consumer is going to see when they look at this camera is a very expensive camera that has a smaller sensor and fewer megapixels than the $300-$400 camera they have in their hands right now... That makes nice movies. This is not going to be a mass market item. I love the camera. I'm on pins and needles waiting to see what price point it comes in at. But I don't think this is going to save Panasonics photography business. They are not going to move units like Canon and Nikon.

By definition a "race" needs at least two participants. Other than nokia I don't see anyone releasing a 41 megapixel camera phone. And even Nokia has said the main function of the 41 MP was down sampling and cropping. Even Nokia hasn't followed up the Lumia 1020 with another 41 megapixel phone. Their follow up flagship phone has something like 21 megapixels. That phone is more of a phablet though. I'm sure they will come up with another 41 megapixel imaging phone but it's not like they are putting that into every phone nor is it spuring Samsung and Apple to start upping the megapixels on their phones. It's just a niche thing for nokia. I did not say that. Please go back and reread what I wrote. Look for the operative phrases "any time soon" and "mass market." I'm sure five years from now there will be a billionare that has all kinds of weird crap in his or her castle. That has nothing to do with what the mass market is going to be consuming in the next 2, 3, or 4 years. Oh, brother. Please do some research... http://www.howstuffworks.com/tech-myths/5-myths-about-bill-gates3.htm I hope that at least on this forum that particular lie will not be repeated again. Actually it is relevant. The mass market only cares about a very small number of things at one time. That's what the problem is with those cherrypicked specs. That's what drove us crazy about the megapixel race. Companies were putting tiny noisy high megapixel sensors into all kinds of cameras and the mass market drooled all over them. They totally ignored all other numbers and aspects of the chips. Seriously ask the average DSLR owner about their camera and they will probably know the megapixels. They may have a clue whether it is full frame or APS-C but beyond that I would say 80+% of them have no clue. And that is what people have insinuated about video. And my point is once you get to a sharp picture on an 80 inch screen there really is no benefit to the mass market for any more resolution. Why? Because in your false computer example I didn't have to knock out a wall in my living room to add more memory to my first computer. TV screens can only get so big and then people have to move to new houses or start knocking out walls. House sizes do grow on average in the US but even as bad as we are about buying unecessary space we don't need we aren't that wealthy nor obnoxious. Photography forums have calmed way down from the way they were eight years ago. Megapixels, Canon vs Nikon, Full frame vs APS-C, this stuff just doesn't start fights the way it used to. Basically there is a general feeling of calm. Most DSLRs from reputable companies are good enough for whatever you want to do. Yeah there are people here and there asking for wifi, insane ISO levels, ridiculous fps, etc but most people are pretty honest and would say they have no real reason to buy a new DSLR.

I think that is where this thing is heading. Eventually we will go back to very video centric cameras that happen to shoot lower resolution stills and continue to have excellent stills cameras that shoot mediocre video. The costs and challenges of doing both are just too big and the market is too small.

Panasonic looks like it's done a great job with this camera. I am sure there are tons of cost and technological restraints you have to deal with when creating a beast like this. Considering this is only a preview there are tons of unanswered questions. People on this forum really need to chill. Andrew Reid has done a good job giving us this news and giving us a heads up months before this thing was unveiled. I don't know why some guy was giving him a hard time about his Sony 4K Handycam FDR-AX100 coverage. Giving the bitrate limitations of the FDR-AX100. The bitrate on Sony 4K Handycam FDR-AX100 is abysmal compared to the GH4. Why would you want that promoted over this? If you are a follower of this website you will know Andrew told us a long time ago that he expected a better picture out of the GH4. Just because a camera is "first" doesn't mean it should be hyped. And I put first in quotes because the AX100 isn't even out yet.

For some "perspective" look at the digital stills world. The megapixel race ended years ago. Canon is still the number one seller of DSLRs and they haven't bumped up the megapixel count in any significant way in their best selling cameras in years. Good 4K looks very sharp even on non 4K monitors. I don't think there is going to be much outcry to go beyond 4K for quite some time. There are too many other aspects of the video image that need improving. You run into diminishing returns the more you pump up resolution. And no one is realistically going to be buying TVs bigger than 80 inches in mass quantities.