maxotics

14-bit colour is nicer than 8-bit colour
 
raw looks nicer than 4:2:0
 
5D3 highlight rolloff is smoother, there's more dynamic range. It's great in low light.
 
however
 
5D3 raw requires huge fast memory cards that are expensive, lots of fast hard-disk space that's very expensive
 
5D3 raw requires long-winded workflow with various awkward workarounds as it's not Red-style compressed raw
 
add to that the GH4s 4K and GH4 is a much more sensible choice for most shooters out there.
 
If final image quality at all costs is what's needed, the 5D3 raw is beautiful... for student film, for example, or personal project. Place any real-world restrictions on it and it's harder to get away with when all's said and done.
 
I've seen some amazing 5D3 raw films, but I think far more work will actually be done with GH4.
 
It's an indie film-maker's dream!

I watched this, and clearly the 5d3 walked circles around the "quarter size" sensor.  I see a dramatic difference at ISO 6400 - do you not?  Might also be "fair" to not use the speed booster as many people getting a GH4 won't be using one.  Just sayin'.  Yes, you can use fast glass and special adapters to get the micro four thirds sensor to look good at ISO 1600-3200 - but let's see some tests straight out of the camera with each 24-70 equivalent @ F/2.8.  The 5d3 will crush the gh4 in low light, period.  You have 4x the sensor size - how can you expect anything else?  It's physics...

Right on cue the BMC Users are declaring GH4 as "horrible" and "atrocious". I feel like a peace keeper because i love both!

The high mpx full frame sensors around now are incredible for archi work needing perspective control since they open up more movement capability with smaller medium format solutions.  I have made a custom mount to allow the A7R to be used on a medium format technical camera:-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/melting_bloke/sets/72157641407451984/
 
not a fun camera for creative stuff, but amazing for technical work

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

I've realised I have no beef with larger cameras - and my plan is to just use the replacement of the Fuji x100s for everything when I want smaller size. Dont need a small video cam. Full frame for intercheangle lenses, fixed for smallness.

This is doing the rounds....
 

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.  

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.  

I have a 550d and it is a great first dslr.  Canon to me do have a good look with good colours.  It has the advantage of phase detect focus for stills (as long as you only use the center focus point and use the focus and reframe technique). But I wouldn't describe it as a small and compact camera.  It's compact in the sense that you can carry it round with one hand, but compared to the GM1 it is humongous.   You will end up taking the GM1 out more because it is smaller.   You may want to look at the EOS M.  Its bigger than the GM1 but more compact than a dslr but with practically the same canon sensor.  The 22mm lens is also really compact and sharp.  Whatever you get make sure you shoot raw for stills.  The video on the canons - while having a good overall look - wont be as detailed as the GM1 and may have more aliasing.   Overall it will probably an idea to look at what kind of lenses you will want and look at the systems as a whole comparing size, weight, functionality and price.

now you can buy a Gold Plated G6 - as last !!  join the club !

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.  

Lets stop talking modern lenses and talk real lenses.  
 
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CARL-ZEISS-Distagon-for-ROLLEI-HFT-35-1-4-35mm-F1-4-lens-/171312671882?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27e307ec8a
 
build up a complete set of these.  35, 50 and 85, remount with Leitax, and you have optics made in West Germany, of the same quality as those used on real Hollywood films in the 70's.  With still phototgraphy capabilities yet to be bettered by modern lenses.

Hey, the GM1 works for a lot of stuff.  I'm using effectively and I'm happy with it; shooting a lot of night city stuff without a light kit and it does the job...  Ain't perfect, but no camera is, so you learn to work with what it offers.
 
BTW, I've set my F1 button to control the ISO for quick exposure adjustment.  Be sure to get in there and customize the thing to your liking.  That does help.

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.  

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.

Everyone on this forum should be buying this its a wealth of lens info !! get to it!!  dont let the Sony tag put you off buying it , its a great lens guide that is relevant to any camera ....

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 ;)

there are these things called lights !
stick 2 Redheads either side of the person being interviewed and f5.6 is just fine...
 
I have done 100s of corporate interview talking head films in my time and NEVER have I turned up without lights indoors - you would just get laughed off the job .....
 
I would not advise anyone doing talking head interviews with just available light - it will not look professional ...
 
get a set of lights to do this properly
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Professional-Studio-Video-Continuous-Lighting-Kit-800w-Red-Head-with-Dimmer-x-2-/111125966407?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19df9fae47

It will look better as soon as you touch the colors ,contrast and/or sharpening , the macro blocks pop right in your face.
Also the shadows look cleaner so you can underexpose and use flat profiles.

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

just had a quick look through it , it's good folks so buy it - hardcore lens porn!! you will end up buying more lenses after reading this haha!!
 
seen a few nice examples I dont have ......oh no here we go!!

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. :)
 

Excellent! I do appreciate the information.