maxotics

Seems a lot of people here have the same thoughts, including me.  I've owned both the Nex7 and G5, both of which I liked, and miss, for different reasons. My 2-cents.  
 
o. Mic input.  If I have time to mic somebody I'm going to have time to sync external audio which I would do no matter what in those situations.  Really, only crucial if I'm going to lock the camera down in a studio, which I'm not. So NEUTRAL
 
o. Larger sensor.  If I shot still photography and had to choose only one camera it would be A6000.  However, I have other cameras so this is neutral for me.
 
o. Off center focused, as mentioned above, I could never get this right with the Nex7.  I doubt they've improved this.  I don't have any hard evidence, but felt the g5 kept focus better. (partially due to smaller sensor).
 
o. Video.  Now that I have a BMPCC I see most H.264 cameras as the same in image quality, but different in ease-of-use.  Shooting video with the g5 was EFFORTLESS.  Shooting with the d600, a super PITA.  The Nex 7, easy enough, but just never felt comfortable.
 
o. Low light.  That's the $20,000 question.  From the guitar shop scenes in Gordon's videos it looks like the A6000 uses some form of pixel binning like the RX10.  If so, would give the low light video edge to A6000  (Andrew, would be great if you had some moire producing patterns in your test scene).  Anyway, that would be my only misgiving with the g6, that I would get better low light with A6000.
 
When Andrew first wrote about the A6000, which I've been watching, I wanted one.  Now I'm back to getting a g6 when the price is good.  If I want IQ or film-like low light, nothing beats the BMPCC.  BTW, I predict the infatuation with 4K will die down when people realize the image lacks the good skin tones you can get with RAW.  Not saying 4K isn't beautiful, but only in sharpness.  It still looks like video-face color.  Will have to see.
 
The a6000 vs 53000?  A6000 if video greater than photo.  If photo greater than video, 5300.
 
The a6000 at $650 may sound cheap to some, but what you can get with $350 more (BMPCC).  Still worlds apart if you like the film-look.  But if you're not going to go that way, why spend $350 more for an a6000, over the g5/6 when they go discount?  I'd rather have more money in glass and a camera that loves to shoot video.  I try out tons of cameras.  Again, I liked the Nex 7, but I miss the g5.
 
I'm going to press the "Post" button now so I can change my mind ;)

I am surprised as anyone at the gradability of the 4K files. I'm a big fan of raw!!

I really wanted to know more about the AF in video, some other "NEX" would hunt a lot or focus on the background when you want it to focus on the subject that is in the eff CENTER of the frame. And more importantly if touch focus works well, with no hunting from one point to another, that would be great.
 
Maybe some tests paired up with some fast primes like the 35mm or 50mm or the zoom made for video like the 18-105mm G with power zoom.
 
As there is no IBIS it's harder to handheld it in longer focal length with legacy lenses so I think that native lens OSS will be important.
 
Unfortunately people should not expect Sony to give the consumers the extra customization of the button via firmware, so far it has not been Sony's mantra.

What kind of big jobs?  On the wide angle, there is the panny 7-14mm.   I read somewhere that ultra-wide lenses are physically wide angle optics attached to telephotos, that the lens gets a wide angle then has to enlarge it to make it through the distance to the sensor.  This makes sense to me.  I find the quality of ultra-wide angles made for aps-c or ff to be somewhat soft.  If you're not doing much photography then seems to be you should just get a MFT wide-angle.  I would think it would give the best quality on any MFT camera.  My guess is that is has to do little, if any, "telephoto" work onto the image to get it to the sensor.

If you already have good MFT glass then the BMPCC is perfect (compared to others) for that application.   The only thing that really bothers me about the BMPCC is the moire that appears in DNGs when the image is too bright and sharp.  I doubt that will be an issue with what you want to shoot.  On the plus side, in low-light RAW based cameras become grainy, H.264 cameras become blotchy.  When you shoot with any of the cameras above you'll get a nice, smooth image.  But your blacks will be crushed.  To see the difference in images lease look at these two shots I too with a H.264 and RAW based camera
 
http://maxotics.com/?p=146
 
The BMPCC also need the fastest SD cards, plan about $50 per 32GB at current rates.  Not a good camera to shoot long-form stuff; that is, leave camera on for an hour.  In general, any RAW based camera will require at least 4 times the money, time, effort, etc.  Out of the box, the video from a GH3 is, say, 10 times better than the image from the BMPCC.  And it will stay that way unless you put 10 times the effort into the RAW based video.  However, if you do that, then the BMPCC will end up 10x better than the GH3.  All depends on what trade-offs you want to with your time.

Sounds like a decent lens.... for stills. 
 
Like the GH3, I think this camera will shine most with manual glass if you are going for cinematic. That's what MFT is all about! ;) Electronic Panasonic lenses look overly clinical, knife sharp and very contrasty..... absolutely awesome if thats what you want! 

If you already have good MFT glass then the BMPCC is perfect (compared to others) for that application.   The only thing that really bothers me about the BMPCC is the moire that appears in DNGs when the image is too bright and sharp.  I doubt that will be an issue with what you want to shoot.  On the plus side, in low-light RAW based cameras become grainy, H.264 cameras become blotchy.  When you shoot with any of the cameras above you'll get a nice, smooth image.  But your blacks will be crushed.  To see the difference in images lease look at these two shots I too with a H.264 and RAW based camera
 
http://maxotics.com/?p=146
 
The BMPCC also need the fastest SD cards, plan about $50 per 32GB at current rates.  Not a good camera to shoot long-form stuff; that is, leave camera on for an hour.  In general, any RAW based camera will require at least 4 times the money, time, effort, etc.  Out of the box, the video from a GH3 is, say, 10 times better than the image from the BMPCC.  And it will stay that way unless you put 10 times the effort into the RAW based video.  However, if you do that, then the BMPCC will end up 10x better than the GH3.  All depends on what trade-offs you want to with your time.

I have to disagree with Andy here.  Try as I might, I can't "remove" the wifi from a g6 with my iPhone :)  Remote, that's another story ;)

Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory shows us that we need twice as many samples as our target frequency to prevent aliasing. This is true for audio and video and all sampled systems. For example, 48kHz audio can reproduce 24kHz without aliasing. All frequencies above 24kHz must be filtered during recording and playback (in practice higher sampling rates are used to allow for lower cost analog filters). For video we're sampling light instead of sound and the same theory applies. 1920 pixels can represent a max of 1920/2 = 960 'pixels pairs' (on/off) before aliasing. For example, a chart with black and white vertical lines can be used to measure 960 lines pairs from a 1920 image. Even if the camera sensor and chart aren't perfectly aligned, we can see 960 line pairs. When looking at even higher resolution lines, we can see more than 960 line pairs are visible, but with aliasing artifacts (e.g. on the right side of the vertical line chart): http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf
 
Top cameras have optical antialiasing filters which cut off frequencies effectively above the sensor aliasing frequency. These cameras exhibit very high quality images, especially important for moving images/video. While aliasing can provide a false appearance of higher detail, it's one of the give-aways the image/video is not film. If the aliasing is very high frequency, and the image is somewhat noisy, it's not as apparent (e.g. BM cameras with no AA filter). Again, top cameras have very good AA filters (changeable/removable) such as the ARRI Alexa and Sony F55. When looking at a chart we see excellent low-aliasing.
 
The TM700 was the top camcorder (by a quite a bit), IQ-wise in its price range when it was new. 3x 2.53Mpixel sensors (no debayering or related artifacts!), Leica DICOMAR lens (F1.5 - 2.8), 1080p60 support for slowmo, an excellent power OIS, decent audio quality with an external mic (indoors- only neg. issue with camera is fan noise picked up on internal mics). It wasn't very good in low light, however a simple LED light on top of camera, with a shotgun external mic makes a nice ENG/interview camera for any lighting condition. I still have mine but haven't used it much since getting the 5D3. The 17Mbps AVCHD codec while pretty good is a bit over-compressed for large motion scenes/handheld, etc. (60p is 28Mbps). An external recorder might help but I haven't tried it. The zoom range is very impressive: 35mm-420mm (35mm equivalent). With power OIS, even at max zoom, image is pretty stable. Walking while shooting also works very well- no rig needed! :). The autofocus also works pretty well (easier for small sensor cameras).
 
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/HDC-TM700K?t=specs&support#tabs
 
The TM900 is a newer version with slightly better IQ (looks like more contrast):
http://camcorder-test.slashcam.com/compare-what-i-cmp-u-cmd-i-view-u-mode-i-docompare-u-lang-i-en-u-id-i-167-y-185-u-name-i-Panasonic%20HDC-TM900-u-bname-i-Panasonic%20HDC-TM700-u-cmd-i-vergleich.html
Note comments: "Sharpness and color at the AVCHD limits". 
 
Thus the 4K GH4 with one of Panasonic's OIS autofocus lenses should be quite spectacular for doc/ENG/(narrative- some shots).

I'd like to argue with you, but I have a BMPCC and every time I press the record button I mentally calculate how fat I'll get eating M&Ms waiting for the files to copy over and process :)

I'd like to argue with you, but I have a BMPCC and every time I press the record button I mentally calculate how fat I'll get eating M&Ms waiting for the files to copy over and process :)

Get one! :)
 
The guy that shot the footage said it was ungraded so with some half decent grading or running it through FilmConvert, you can pull out a less video looking image. That is just for starters! You can also tweek the shadow and highlight curves in camera.
 
I do shoot ML RAW, but as I said in another post, the image is truly amazing but it is still only a hack and you can't rely on it when doing any paid jobs. Plus it eats up so much card space and the post-production process is still a pretty long effort. If I could afford to keep both the 5D MKIII and a GH4 I would, but its not an option. I'm quite happy to sacrifice that lovely RAW image for something that still looks pretty amazing and is 100% stable and easier to work with in post.

Depends on your end use.
 
BlackMagic is very focused on Cinema
Their cameras can deliver RAW 1080 P24 footage.
 
The GH4 seems much more appealing to the masses.
I want a camera that can record continuous 1080 P60 footage.
I can put the GH3 on a TriPod and record moving (slowly) subjects without any accesories.
The improved AutoFocus, ViewFinder, Monitor, and 4k of the GH4 are all bonuses.
 

Totally agree with Bioskop.inc on this.

Would it not make sense to try Magic Lantern Firmware on a camera you already own?

The full frame raw video from Mk2 or Mk3 is pretty darn stunning and is still yet to be matched by any other camera on the planet (pre NAB announcements). If I were you, I'd give it a try and if you like the results you could use some of the money you would save on buying a new camera to get a high speed CF card to start with - all you need to purchase to try ML the most cost effective way is to grab a Komputerbay 64Gb 1000x CF card. If you want to stick with 5D2 raw then maybe buy an SSD drive (or two) to add or replace your current ones if your current system is a few years old. Raw processing can be taxing on computer drives, in terms of storage and transfer speed, but all the short term pain in getting it up and running is well worth the effort in my opinion.


Cameras can loose value fairly quickly(always been the case for video), although your 5D2 is a great stills camera...and will remain a great stills camera for a few more years. Now (for video) there is a new lease of life to that camera via ML raw...effectively giving your canon DSLR a totally free 'sensor upgrade' for its video output.

I suspect that a lot of people are going to miss the full frame look when they jump on these crop sensor 4k bandwagons.

auto white balance is useless you are letting the camera control one of the most important parts of filming
 
.....the color temperature you are filmimg at -
 
this dictates so much of the look of the clip you are filmimg - is it cool blue cold or warm rich orange or any combination in between
all this can be set manually
 
I personlly set the Kelvin to fit the shot by dialing it in manually until I like the look of the scene , dont use presets as even these can look odd under certain lighting conditions
 
I shoot interiors with practicals at 4000k rather than 3200k (tungsten) as this gives a warmer look to skin tones.
 
I shoot outside in City streets at night 2500k as this gives a cool blue /green look that reminds me of Bourne films etc
 
If you have a Panasonic camera gh2 gh3 g6 gf3 gx7 etc you can dial in the Kelvin manually - between 2500k and 10,000k
this function is invaluable

I really hope you've scooped Canonrumors on this one.  They've been getting lazy .

I agree with Maxonics.  I will also add, that if you look at camera tests, every 1080 camera I have seen actually outputs a "measured" resolution somewhat below the 1080 supported by the file type, usually 750 to 850 lines.  If you shoot in 4K, you should easily be able to get the full 1080 after downsampling.
 
Michael

Thanks, I used Sony Movie Studio Platinum with no post processing except adding music and trimming.  As long as the camera is not moving and there is not too much movement, the image quality is excellent.

My experience with the 5D Mark II and ISO is that Canon kind of cheated a bit.
 
ISO 1600 is more like 800 or 1250 on other cameras.

Um, guys, does Andy need an intervention?  He didn't mention the g6?  :)

Yes, exposure is different, color, and aperture wasn't matched for same DOF.  However, tests seem similar to my mine.  The Panasonics are very sharp but colors a bit washed out.  The Canons colors are richer but the image softer.  Unless I was going to maximum shallow DOF and/or color saturation, the Panasonic gives the cleaner image.  What I concluded, at any rate.

I've been working on house photography lately.  You can might find some of this interesting  http://maxotics.com/?p=199  Here are my suggestions.
 
1. Almost no house looks good in direct sunlight.  Shoot either early morning, golden hour or when cloudy. If you must shoot in direct sunlight, as Pascal says,  don't let all your shadows go to black.
 
2. I used to shoot some house videos.  Used with an EOS-M or Nex7 (both worked great).  I bought some used Smith Vector quartz lights for about $100.  I just shone them mostly at the ceiling and let bounce light fill the room.  The windows will usually all blow out, but at least the interior will have less noise.  
 
3. Mind your lines! Picasso said if you want someone to look at your painting hang it crooked.  However, I think he meant just a pinch ;)  In any case, make sure everything you shoot, photo or video, has good lines.  (I've been working on this and feel it is something I'll be working on for the rest of my life.) in any case, you want the viewer to feel the house is "striaght". 
 
4. If you have the money, get a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera and an 8mm lens.  That will give you about 24mm.  With lights and a fluid head tripod you will get amazing quality.  Just shoot in prores and do the auto thingJ in Resolve.  Extra work, but NO ONE will touch your videos in quality.  Will the difference show in youtube?  Yes (because h.264 cameras are shadow/detail killers--unless you're lit perfectly within a few stops).  
 
JCS is my God lately, so I don't want to disagree, but I think any sort of speed-booster will have limited use because, except for those cool shallow depth of field shots of a flower pot on the window-sill, you want depth.  For that you need LIGHTS.  Maybe I didn't say that enough.  If you had to get anything I'd get a bunch of small and large flat-panel lights.  Batteries wouldn't be bad.  My biggest problem was running wire from outlets.  
 
I guess that's enough of my silly advice for now.
 
My favorite quote, "Amateurs talk bodies, professionals talk glass and photographers talk light."  LIGHT, LIGHT, LIGHT!  

Keep things simple : get a Panasonic G6 + Nikon mount Sigma 18-35 1.8 + Nikon to M43 adapter with built in aperture.
Use the sensor crop function on the G6 for a 3x zoom range.  
This will give you a 36-210 range, all at 1.8.

Here's a "low-res-for-web" video I did as a quick favor for a friend a few years back.  Shot on a Rebel Ti, no lights.   It's far from perfect, but shows how available light can be utilized with some shooting strategy and concessions:
 

The 5d3 with RAW isn't setup for serious production. It's a hack, it can be unreliable -- and yes, the video it produces is glorious.
 
The Gh3 and soon-to-be big sister, the Gh4, are production-grade cameras. You take them to a shoot, hit record, know they are getting the shot, take it the edit suite -- drop the video on the timeline, edit, render, upload and get paid by the client. All in a day's work. No muss, no fuss.
 
I own a production company. If I want to spend a weekend making music videos with my friends, I'll grab 5d3 and do RAW. Mmm... I love grading RAW.
 
But during the week, when I have a paying client that needs video crafted for their website or products -- and wants it done yesterday, I need tools that can move video through the production pipeline quickly and efficiently. The GH-series rocks for this.