maxotics

I resemble that comment! :) This is a video forum, so of course I'd have to give the nod to the 5D3 (actually any Canon that can run ML) over the high end Nikons. I was just making a point that both the d800 and 5d3 are primarily stills cameras. Don't forget that RAW on the 5D3 is NOT from Canon and you can't change the bootflag back. Again, video RAW from those Canons is fantastic. I've spent oodles and oodles of hours on it. In stills, however, Nikon tweaks their sensors like Panasonic teaks their video CODEC. There are certain situations where the D800 will outperform the 5D3 as a photographic camera. You never feel stupid until you wish you had that extra DR ;)

I agree, the 5d3 is a beast. My problem with it is the size and expense. If you're always going to do prepared set-shots, in both photo and video, then that would be the camera to have. I have a Sigma DP1m, which is under $1,000 and does 28mm shots as well (actually better to me) as a similarly configured 5D3. Another poster mentioned the X100S, same thing. The Blackmagic Pocket camera is $1,000, and it's much easier to shoot RAW than the 5D3, or at least significantly smaller. So for $2,500 you can get both stellar photo and video in small packages. You can portability AND great photo and video. Finally, unless you are really going to shoot RAW a fair bit, the Nikon D800 is a better stills camera than the 5d3 (IMHO), so you would end up overpaying for photo. Sony and Panasonic are going down the right path. Canon and Nikon, as Andrew said, Whas-up?

I know there are issues with the silent shutter, didn't know about the banding issue...thanks! As you imply, the silent shutter isn't a replacement for a mechanical shutter. It's just a great option for situations where noise will draw attention.

The funny thing about the GM1 is that it is probably TOO small. It's difficult to turn the selection wheel without pressing it and bringing up a menu. So I have to grip the wheel with two fingers like a crab and twist. I love the size and feel of the GF3. The price of the GM1 is a bit high, if you ask me. What I like about it over the GF3 is o. Much better low-light video o. The "silent" shutter is awesome! o. As close to weighing nothing as you can get with a camera I will miss the BMPCC, but I have to be realistic about what I have time for and what I end up shooting. I sold my d600 too (great cameras!) and will probably get an a7 because I want an electronic viewfinder and am always looking to cut size/weight. Will be interested to see what the video looks like

The BMPCC isn't well-suited for long-form video. To get the best out of it, you're shooting DNG at about 4 gig a minute. It will give the best low-light performance, in my opinion, because the image is uncompressed, so shadow noise become film-like grain. However, the problem with RAW video is that IF you're getting the benefits out of it you're getting an image you can't get with other compression-in-camera cameras--so matching becomes a problem. It becomes your A-cam and your b-cams look too contrasty. The crop factor of the BMPCC is 3x, vs 2x of the MFT. So a NIkon 24mm becomes 72mm on the BMPCC and 48mm on the GH4. It's a drag! BMPCC internal audio is not really usable, so plan on syncing everything in post. When the Sony a7s comes out, that should be an exciting camera for that kind of work. The ability to re-frame a 1080 image, from the 4k image, in the gH4 would probably be VERY helpful in weddings and concerts.

Well, Andrew started it ;) My 2-cents on those. If you'll have time to set up a scene, and know what you want to do, and will need wide latitude of emotional "looks" then go with the BMPCC. If you're doing comedy (bright and cheery), or need a photo camera too, go with the GH4. If you need something that fits in your pocket go with the GM1/Gx7/a6000. If you need better photography go with the Nikon D5300 (some great stuff coming out of that camera). I wouldn't wait for Sony.

Right now it's on Amazon for $895. Sorry, shipping to Europe is just too much hassle; I'm sure for both of us. I'm going to regret selling it. I seriously have zero desire to see it go.

As much as I love the BMPCC, and I do, I can no longer ignore how much time and effort I work on shooting, copying and grading the footage. Video is secondary for me. So I bought a GM1 based on Andrew's insight and have to agree that when time is at a premium I can get more done with the GM1. I'm going to sell my BMPCC because I know I'll be tortured knowing it's here. If I was making films, there is NO WAY I would do this. The BMPCC is an extraordinary camera. It is truly a "cinema" camera. What surprised me about the GM1 is how small it is. It makes the BMPCC look big. That gave me a laugh. The physical dial is very delicate (con). The smartphone app is what I've always wanted (plus). The image is much better than the GF3. I wish I had the GX7, but I saw a GM1 body used, for cheap, so that's what I got. Still, the image from it is nothing sort of phenomenal. IMHO it blows the d600 video out of the water. I'm surprised they got a MFT sensor to do as well as it does in low light. So, tail between my legs, I go back to H.264 land. Thanks Andrew ;) Top Reasons I'm switching 1. Copy, grading is very time consuming. My hard-drives over-floweth. 2. As soon as I start shooting I worry about running out of card space, battery, etc. 3. The screen is not good enough to make me confident I have focus 4. If I run up against moire I may have to degrade the image to h.264 type quality 5. Davinci Resolve has been buggy lately. I question BM's support of camera. Took them days to respond to support request. 6. 3x crop factor is a killer because I like wide lenses 7. Center button brings up slate if not clicked double for focus zoom, annoying. Audio is not good. Little quibbles everyone writes about. Again, I love this camera. It's just too much for me. BTW, the "silent shutter" feature of the camera is something I would now struggle to give up if I changed my mind.

I'm coming to the same conclusion in amateur land. As much as I love the image out of BMPCC, it is a LOT of work. And moire is definitely an issue. I don't believe moire is a technical "bug" with the camera, but unavoidable when you expect full 1080 resolution with 25% red and green sensels SPREAD OUT on a sensor not specifically built for 1080 video. You can go ProRes, which is certainly easily, but you lose some quality and then if you're going to have in-camera de-bayering then you have compare against any other camera. My other problem is good film requires good narrative. Even when I did some real estate videos, with no one in the house, it required a lot of thought about where to put the lights, camera. How to get those few creative shots to break up the footage. Sounds like you know that story. With the BMPCC every minute I use worrying about space and every minute I use in post takes away from that limited time. I'm very torn. For the past few months I've been driven crazy by Andy's love of his g6. He OBVIOUSLY knows what he's doing. Then some footage I saw from the Gx7/gm1 looked very similar to the DR I want. I then went back and looked at a bunch of C100 footage, shot at dusk in NYC and thought, maybe I don't know what f- I'm talking about. So I just got a GM1. If I can get it close enough to the BMPCC I'm going to sell the BMPCC. Again, I LOVE the camera. It's just too distracting and I'm not in a place in life (20-something) where I can take all the time in the world to make movies with it, or whatever. So far, Andrew is right, that GM1 is a marvel. Hopefully I'll get some time today and do posts, but it shoots nice indoor video that my GF3 can't. I also shot some outdoor stuff of my wife, where I first did RAW form the 50D, and it had a very nice DR look. The only benefit to me for 4K, like you, would be better 1080. However, the GM1 tells me that technology is not dead. They keep improving it. Bottom line, I may be following you in making some realistic decisions about what I want to do with my time. As for the a7s, I might get an a7, to replace my d600. I don't believe in waiting for cameras. But that's a whole other long story ;)

We have to get these realistic professionals off this forum :) :) Fun suckerers ;)

That's what I keep telling Andrew! Felt the same way about the 50D guide, lots of great stuff beyond RAW.

For video, no. For photography, yes. There are "photo stacking" techniques out there, which use tethered shooting to take multiple shots at different focus points. Most cameras can't even output a full-frame of video in 1/30th of a second, let alone 1/900th of a second! Global shutters, which can output a whole frame within a 30th of second, are still high-end.

Andy, what's going on with your "lens" thread? What happens if the OP does want to buy some primes :) What if I want to buy some!!!! Hope Andrew hasn't forgotten. BTW, I love the Zenit 16mm I have.

The OP wrote "They will be shot by someone who has little experience with cameras. Decent audio is important." I think we've all got a little off-track. Seems to me the g6 with wired Technica lav plugged into it would be the best option. The Sony hotshoe thing is a pain, and it may overheat, or at least run down faster than Panny. I think we all agree, if we're talking video only, the g6 is almost idiot proof or, rather, I wasn't able to make many mistakes with the g5 I once owned ;) I'm curious what camera you use Dishe and more about how you do it. Thanks! Like, do you still feel LED too color -problematic to use over lowels? Etc.

And you don't want shoot wide either. If the person moves back and forth out of focus you won't notice on your camera LCD. That embarrassment will be saved for later ;)

Ah. Didn't realize that. Thanks!

Yes, if millions of years led to the lens and iris system in animals it's probably because we'd need a brain the size of a truck to process vision in that way.

In photography there is mostly one kind of compression, how to use the least amount of data to represent the same STILL image visually. The Nikon patch does not effect that part of the compression, so you will not see any difference in the image. When you look at a RAW image on your screen, compared to a JPG that you compressed and is 1/10th the size, can you see much of a difference? No. Image quality is a function of the quality of the display/print. In video, there is a second kind/part of compression. How to use the least amount of data to represent the same MOVING image. Again, a lot of data can be thrown out when the image moves before we notice it. So in video compression, another "pass" of compression is applied to the images, taking detail out when the image changes a lot. So taking a video comparison of a subject that doesn't move would not show a difference in the "still" image compression, which the patch doesn't change. The hack reduces the amount of compression that happens between images. That is, when the image changes drastically between frames, it throws out less data and you see more detail. If you look on the web for other comparisons you'll see things like people shooting rain. With less compression in those sequences the rain drops will look more distinct. So try a test where there is movement. However, I don't believe the patch worth it in most cases. I did it more out of curiosity.

Probably the blind leading the blind here, but here's my shot. As you know, light reflects of objects in every conceivable angle. The lens essentially "selects" a subset of those rays (at specific angles) and focuses each one onto a pixel in the camera. So if you're looking at a telephone pole, for example, the lens in your eye, or camera, is selecting those rays that come off it relative to the distance to which you are standing. Other rays are coming out, which a camera could focus on in front of, or behind you, but your lens is not "tuned" to them. A polarizing filter is another "selector" of specific light rays. The iris also performs a similar "selection" process for the sensitivity of the sensor. Why can't we get all the brightness values from one image? Why is exposure so important? We are bombarded by radiation from every which angle in a very wide range of values. In order to deal with all that information we use physical filters/selectors/focusers, whatever you want to call them. The lens, the iris, the shutter. What light field camera does is capture information about the lights "angles", by using micro-lenses, for each part of the image, and then uses complex math to abstractly create what a lens does physically--create a 2D matrix of light values from a specific set of angles (focus). You could take multiple photos, like you suggest, but I believe it would then be more difficult to know which photo is in focus with which object. With light field data, when you select a ray of light, you can calculate it's direct angle (focus). Computationally, there is a lot more you can do. I think I'm hurting my brain here ;)

If only I had money to burn! :( I'm glad they're still in business. Wouldn't you like a camera where you could take someone's photo and know FOR SURE that you could get the focus you want? Many people believe Cell phones are the eventual market. Imagine getting a shallow DOF portrait from your phone? Interesting stuff. Go Lytro!

Ditto thanks!

Interesting you say that. Try as I might, I am never confident that I have the BMPCC properly focused. The focus assist only works in a general way. If I go into zoom mode, then I don't know how it's framed exactly. The ONE update they could have easily made is to stop that OK button from bringing up the slate menu, or reverse it, make one click focus zoom and two clicks slate. When I don't double click fast enough that slate screen is very jarring. As much as I want the DR, I don't want it enough to sacrifice focus. I'm curious your opinion. I find the ProRes nice, but NOT as nice as the DNGs. Resolve is having some problems lately and ProRes is the most dependable. So if the ProRes isn't quite as good, then I'm one step closer to the GX7/GM1. In good light, my GF3 takes a very pleasing image. And still the file size, it just slows everything down, from copying, to grading, to editing. As for the d600, two nights ago my Niece wanted a quick video of her playing guitar. I had the BMPCC with me, but knew I wouldn't be able to get it on Youtube that night (didn't have my pc with me). Lots of the moire in the d600 footage. Was okay for what it is. I did shoot some BMPCC, but when I got home realized she wouldn't have seen the difference and the audio was BETTER on the d600. So... Then there is the crop factor of the BMPCC. It is really challenging. You nailed it right on the head "isn't getting any use since it still lacks too many features." I've been using it to do my silly tests, but in the real world, it works against me shooting creatively (obviously, it has benefits in post). All that said, think it a great camera for a film-maker who is going to spend time setting up shots. For a run-and gun fart like me...I think you're right. It's too "raw" for me to use in the "real world" :(

Below was shot on a d800 (with Atomos Ninja) and I don't believe it could have been any better. As you pointed out, Andrew isn't primarily a stills photographer, so if he wants to have fun dissing the optical view-finder why should we begrudge him ;) In the end, I think we all agree, ALL viewfinders are limited. There are pros and cons. In the end, the viewer doesn't know what viewfinder was used, if any! What I love about the video below is how it demonstrates the a perfect transition from photographer to filmmaker. Jacek Dylag obviously started out, and is primarily, a stills photography. If he had used Blackmagic cameras, or any other non-still camera, would he have been comfortable working? I wonder. My epiphany this morning is DSLRs are perfectly capable of giving professional results to the stills photographer, and should be used by them. However, artists starting out IN film should work with RAW or Panasonic. We have to give credit to Andrew for looking into the d800 again. It shows a very open mind. I loaded the hack. It won't make me switch to the d600 as a primary video camera, but it did improve it and that wouldn't have happened if Andrew didn't pave the way. I don't want to sound like I'm a fan of Andrew, that would be going too far! Yet credit must be given where credit is due due. :)

I was just out today shooting with the d600 and realized late that I hadn't turned AF back on and was not in perfect focus.

I did a quick test with my d600 using the 50mbit hack. I can see no improvement in dynamic range, as expected (though I hoped for it anyway). Motion DOES look better. So when you move the camera, even some camera shake, there is an improvement. It's something. Better than nothing ;) Applying the hack was very easy.