maxotics

You need to chose your glass and stick with that. If you go Canon, you are going to start building a EF lens set. If you go G6, you're going to build a MFT set. It's almost like getting married!
 
My suggestion: Go with Canon 60d or T2i/3i/4i/5i or 7d. Get whatever you can find cheap, they are all the same visually. Still photos on all these Canon cameras are superb. In fact, to really save money, see if your uncle has a Canon camera you can borrow for a few months.
 
Instead, spend your $800 on getting some good glass. I'd suggest the Sigma 18-50 f1.8 EF. That's gives you a great range on any of the 1.6x crop Canon cameras. 
 
Eventually, when you save up some money, you can upgrade to something like the BMCC or BMPCC or GH3 and get a EF-MFT speedbooster and you'll continue to use the Sigma 18-50.
 
If I were doing it again, that's how I'd play it right now.

for me the ONE great thing of 2013 was ............the Pansonic G6 - suprise suprise !! 
I do like this camera it packs a huge punch in a very small light weight body with alot of features the gh2 never had....
.........roll on Pansonic 4k camera next year

For me Great things of 2013
 
-Finally sold the GH3 and left the mft for good (maybe ill change back in 2015 when GH4K is out)
-bought Canon 5D mk3 yay!!
-Explore with fantastic ML
-Learn a lot from EoSHD (Andrew +  other members)
-Komputerbay CF 1000x cards 
-Starting to post with RAW video
-Got a vintage L Series 17-35 f2.8 + 28-70 f2.8mm Lenses
-New beast computer
-ordered 2x LP-E6 canon battery pack from ebay for 24 eur http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-x-LP-E6-Batteries-fr-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-III-7D-6D-60D-60Da-BG-E6-Camera-Grip-/121213659140?ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:US:3160
 
Waiting for 
-  L Canon 85mm F1.2L Mark I   (if i get one ) :D
- to get warmer that i can start some projects 
- samyang VDSLR KIT
- MOVI (chinese version for bargain) :D
 
Cheers

Not sure you question, but in general bit-depth is a computer (bits) + photo (depbth) lingo way of saying how wide the range in shading of any given color/brightness sampled be the electronic equipment.  
 
You can store 256 shades (or depth values) in an 8-bit memory slot (or byte). 
 
When working with Canon RAW, the camera saves each sensel/pixel as a 14-bit value.  That would give you a range from 1 to 16,384.
 
Once you save those values in smaller bit values you have to reduce the precision.
 
I tried to explain the "precision" problem on the ML forum like so:
 
One can think of it this way.  You have a palette of 14 scales of gray.  You need to convert them into 8 scales for something else.  So 1-2 because 1, 3-4, become 2, 5-6 becomes 3, 7-8, becomes 4; 9-10, 5, 11-12, 6, 13-14, 7 (and we throw out the 8, for example)

Let's say you have two gray colors in what you shot, and they are 2 and 6.  You want to reduce the exposure by 1 (increase contrast).   

They were convered to 1 and 3, so now they become 0 and 2.   You went from a 300% difference (in 14bit) to 200% (in 8bit).  More importantly, you went from some gray 1, in 14bit, to no gray 0, in 8bit.
 
What people don't understand, especially about H.264, is you can't just take 8 bit values and put them in a 14-bit space, for example, and get that 14bit precision again.  
 
Does this make sense?  You seem to know your stuff, so maybe you're asking something else?

Not sure you question, but in general bit-depth is a computer (bits) + photo (depbth) lingo way of saying how wide the range in shading of any given color/brightness sampled be the electronic equipment.  
 
You can store 256 shades (or depth values) in an 8-bit memory slot (or byte). 
 
When working with Canon RAW, the camera saves each sensel/pixel as a 14-bit value.  That would give you a range from 1 to 16,384.
 
Once you save those values in smaller bit values you have to reduce the precision.
 
I tried to explain the "precision" problem on the ML forum like so:
 
One can think of it this way.  You have a palette of 14 scales of gray.  You need to convert them into 8 scales for something else.  So 1-2 because 1, 3-4, become 2, 5-6 becomes 3, 7-8, becomes 4; 9-10, 5, 11-12, 6, 13-14, 7 (and we throw out the 8, for example)

Let's say you have two gray colors in what you shot, and they are 2 and 6.  You want to reduce the exposure by 1 (increase contrast).   

They were convered to 1 and 3, so now they become 0 and 2.   You went from a 300% difference (in 14bit) to 200% (in 8bit).  More importantly, you went from some gray 1, in 14bit, to no gray 0, in 8bit.
 
What people don't understand, especially about H.264, is you can't just take 8 bit values and put them in a 14-bit space, for example, and get that 14bit precision again.  
 
Does this make sense?  You seem to know your stuff, so maybe you're asking something else?

I think it's kind of mute to set the GM1 against the BMPCC other than Andrew did - show that the video side of this little box is also unexpected great. One is a happy little work-pony, the other a high velocity bonsai-cheetah. RAW is better than AVCHD? Yes, it better should. But AVCHD is not all that bad.

GM1 is a 700 € sneak & carry lightly photocamera that has, nearly as a side-effect, great video. Have mine since yesterday and it is really interesting what it is able to achieve. And it comes with a slow but excellent zoom. I may later get an BMPCC too, if my wives budgetary plannings allow it :-) ...and yes, this one is probably in a different class .... but also price-wise. For good reasons.

For people who also want to take excellent photographies & video & want to get a pack of features coming with the camera, the GM1 is an excellent addition, especially to an already in place MFT system. And Andrew is right - my Voigtlaenders started a new love affair with this one.

I have this with my wife, and wouldn't trade it for the world... but, still trying to have both. If I was pushed to have either or, I'd take what I have now over anything else. That, and the MOST important thing of all... good physical & mental health. :)

The book focuses more on his career at what is thinly disguised as CBS (way back when).  There are many kinds of happiness you can buy, or enjoy through success.  You can't buy or succeed your way into a happy marriage--in my opinion.  You're either lucky or you're not.  I  was lucky, and I think the character in the book similarly so.  I didn't think I was lucky at the time. Anyway, it wasn't the Ace I wanted but someone I had the presence of mind not to throw out the one dealt to me (though again, I had not idea it was an Ace at the time!).
 
Even if it's possible to have a happy marriage where you might board a jet at a moment's notice for business, do you want it?  If you have someone you want to be with (and I mean this in the simplest way), why would you leave?  My wife and I share few interests yet I'm always happy if she's just doing her thing and I'm doing my thing and we're in the same house.  Can I, or anyone, have both? 
 
This is all extremely relevant to Zach's question.  No one works alone.  Whether married or not, we all have, and seek, relationships.  Deciding who you want to be with answers many of these questions.  
 
I agree, that movie is nothing great, here are some more, than I think worth watching.
 
"A New Leaf" 
"Pete N' Tillie"
"Razor's Edge"
"Brief Encounter"
"Dodsworth"
 
On divorce, this, to me is a masterpiece:
 
"Shoot The Moon"
 
Interestingly most of these movies don't have high reviews at IMDB.  

Raw would need HD-SDI and those would be expensive to do.
 
And why go to all that effort in putting the BMCC into a tiny pocket form factor... When have it require a chunky external box?
 
Compressed raw internally to SD cards is a miracle and worth celebrating. In my view it's easier to buy a couple of 64GB cards for $200 and recycle the card via a Macbook Air when it fills up than it is to use an external recorder. This is no problem on a production and even for a one man operator with a backpack taking a break in Starbucks from shooting, it's perfectly easy to do and takes a few minutes via USB 3.0.

"Apathy and protectionism" aside, let's not forget that a raw workflow does NOT appeal to vast swaths of the professional marketplace because of its demands on post-production and storage (during the edit, and archiving afterwards). Having a small file, edit-friendly codec come right out of the camera, ready to dump and edit, saves time and money. Not everyone can strive for the additional IQ gains, because they have to quickly turn the edit around into a sell-able product. That's the boat I'm in. I have to make money with my gear, production and post. And sometimes "good enough" simply has to be good enough.
 
So, I'm shooting three hours of talking heads tomorrow with my 5D mk III. How would I ever pull that off with raw (on my camera or one of BM's)? And who really cares, because it's talking heads. How good do they have to look? ENG, corporates, and industrial shooters are all in the same boat I'm in... a huge chunk of the professional marketplace. Good enough shooters.
 
I truly believe that if any of the majors saw dollar signs in any camera like BM is making or proposing, they would have a usable, working model for sale yesterday, would work better, and would have fewer growing pains and supply issues. That said, I'm very glad that there are some disruptive players like BM and the Digital Bolex in the game, I really am. But until the tech becomes something well-designed, bulletproof, easy-to-use, and quick to edit, I think the big players will stay out, protecting their turf by selling billions of $ worth of cameras and lenses while the sector matures. Why would they do anything else?
 
The temerity of telling any massive camera company that someone knows their business better than they know their business is mind-blowing. To be specific to one certain 800 pound gorilla: so, when has Canon ever been a get-there-first company? Nothing they've ever produced in the last 20 years has been bleeding or even cutting-edge. But something is clicking for them with this whole Cinema business. I'm certain they were surprised as any of their major-player peers that... "hmmm, people wanna shoot video with these still cameras?!" Translate that into Japanese, of course.  And they're scratching their heads all the way to the bank ever since. But my guess is they're not missing-out on much yet.

...yet everyone still bashes the free-market that makes things like Blackmagic possible. Sony and Canon are NOT part of the free-market, they are Corporate-Statist entities. Sorry to take it political territory, but it's important to understand the economic conditions that gives great products like Blackmagic a chance to come into reality. Many Filmmakers, Young-people, Westerners, ect... are voting for more and more socialist policies that are going to DESTROY companies like Blackmagic and kill our opportunities for future innovation in this field. Know the real enemy!
 
 
"BM like cameras do not have mass market appeal and never will."

Not yet, but they are going cult-status as we speak. They're a "word of mouth" product. They don't "need" mass-market appeal, because like Grant Perry said, they are not in debt... they don't need to move 10-million units to pay back loans. And, BTW, is that what you really look for in a camera? Mass market appeal? Who gives a crap about "how popular" something is... I only care about what products can deliver. Let the "fad-chasers" wallow in the misery of their overpriced, 8-bit, 2005-codec, technology forever if they like... 

Almost every film-person, here in LA, that sees my Blackmagic in use orders one. They're only going to get more popular as the other companies continue to under-deliver.

BM like cameras do not have mass market appeal and never will.

This is the problem with oligopolies where the products are relatively undifferentiated. Either you collude, and agree to keep certain features at certain price points, or you all compete, which means dropping price to marginal cost and then making no money. 
 
So thank god for BlackMagic.

The book focuses more on his career at what is thinly disguised as CBS (way back when).  There are many kinds of happiness you can buy, or enjoy through success.  You can't buy or succeed your way into a happy marriage--in my opinion.  You're either lucky or you're not.  I  was lucky, and I think the character in the book similarly so.  I didn't think I was lucky at the time. Anyway, it wasn't the Ace I wanted but someone I had the presence of mind not to throw out the one dealt to me (though again, I had not idea it was an Ace at the time!).
 
Even if it's possible to have a happy marriage where you might board a jet at a moment's notice for business, do you want it?  If you have someone you want to be with (and I mean this in the simplest way), why would you leave?  My wife and I share few interests yet I'm always happy if she's just doing her thing and I'm doing my thing and we're in the same house.  Can I, or anyone, have both? 
 
This is all extremely relevant to Zach's question.  No one works alone.  Whether married or not, we all have, and seek, relationships.  Deciding who you want to be with answers many of these questions.  
 
I agree, that movie is nothing great, here are some more, than I think worth watching.
 
"A New Leaf" 
"Pete N' Tillie"
"Razor's Edge"
"Brief Encounter"
"Dodsworth"
 
On divorce, this, to me is a masterpiece:
 
"Shoot The Moon"
 
Interestingly most of these movies don't have high reviews at IMDB.  

From where I stand, I believe that making a living in this industry comes down to being willing to share credit and to take criticism, having a willingness to learn regardless of your experience level, and going out of your way to make the life of the person that hired you a little easier.
 
Also, punctuality and responsiveness to emails.
 
These are the kinds of people that I want to hire (and be hired by).

QuickHitRecord comparing "freelance" to "corporate" work is "6 of one, half dozen of the other."  They have different pros and cons; net-net, they are equal.  It's really a question of what fits your personality, as dbp said.  
 
It seems to me, that everyone I know has pretty much gotten the career they've wanted.  Not 100% of course, but closer than i would have expected.
 
When I worked in Hollywood in my 20s I saw that though "successful" people seemed to really enjoy what they did, they weren't any happier than me.  The simple fact is, the more success you have the more time you have to spend with other people and the more political stuff you need to deal with.  And of course, the pressure.  It's easy to go up, most people can't deal with going down, which happens to everyone.  Every level of success, so to speak, has its relative scale of "good as it gets."  
 
My acid test is simple.  Whose job and life do I want?  That's what you have to ask yourself before making changing anything.  If you think the life of a hot-ticket commercial DP is better than yours, then you have to have evidence that it is so.  Do they have the same personal relationships.  Time to do what they want, etc, etc.  
 
All this is the same for all fields.  I suggest you read (or watch the movie, which has a slightly different slant) "The Man In The Gray Flannel Suit".  That movie is about exactly the questions you raise.  As true today!  I went through a similar process and made the same choice he did.  

I believe all independent "creative" project work suffers the same business/financial limitations.
 
1. The ratio of clients to advertising dollars will be too low to justify advertising/marketing your way to a profitable business.  This is why so many buy a lot of equipment and advertising and soon you see their stuff for sale on Ebay.
 
2. All businesses succeed in either two ways.  "Right place and right time" (like you got into music videos when MTV started, or slow-mo video when it became hot, etc).  Or two, you are persistent and focused for a enough years to establish yourself.  Word of mouth is what gets you clients and it takes time, always more than you expect/want....need ;)
 
3. You need enough skill to be competent, but after that, too much effort in the art, versus, marketing, it detrimental financially.
 
4. Ultimately, you're going to need a large client that pays your nut.  It might be a Church at a corporate level, or a local utility company, etc.  Or maybe a powerful wedding planner, etc.  As they say, you'll put in the same time for a $20,000 client as you will a $2,000.
 
To really answer your question, there is no one way corporations or any potential client does things.  I don't work in video, but in a similar way.  What it took me years to see is that I can't "structure" my services to what I think clients rationally want.  Often, if I can do 10 things, and I think item 10 is the hardest, most accomplished, and 1 is the easiest which anyone can do, often the client values 1 the most and 10 the least.  You have to let the client pay you for what they value.  If the client wants to pay you $10,000 to do 1 and you bill $1,000, hoping they'll do 10 one day, you'll learn the hard way as I did.  Charge what the client will pay for what the client wants.  Do NOT negotiate their end of the deal.  After you determine what you need to charge to stay in business charge that at minimum.  Naturally, you'll take jobs where you're paid 1/10th of what you're worth, because you love it.  That means you have to let clients pay you 10x what you're worth sometimes to do something that you know a simpleton could do--again, listen to what the clients wants, not what you think they need.
 
Ultimately, your job is to free up the client's time to focus on something else. Yes, you need to do a good job, but you have to keep in mind you're always a part of a larger goal.
 
Well, dog has to be walked so I'll write more later if this thread goes anywhere.  Set aside 5 years to build a video business, keep an open mind as to how that my evolve, who your clients may become, what you may end up specializing in, and you'll get there.  
 
Just keep in mind you'll make less money than in a corporation.  So you have to really value your independence.

I believe all independent "creative" project work suffers the same business/financial limitations.
 
1. The ratio of clients to advertising dollars will be too low to justify advertising/marketing your way to a profitable business.  This is why so many buy a lot of equipment and advertising and soon you see their stuff for sale on Ebay.
 
2. All businesses succeed in either two ways.  "Right place and right time" (like you got into music videos when MTV started, or slow-mo video when it became hot, etc).  Or two, you are persistent and focused for a enough years to establish yourself.  Word of mouth is what gets you clients and it takes time, always more than you expect/want....need ;)
 
3. You need enough skill to be competent, but after that, too much effort in the art, versus, marketing, it detrimental financially.
 
4. Ultimately, you're going to need a large client that pays your nut.  It might be a Church at a corporate level, or a local utility company, etc.  Or maybe a powerful wedding planner, etc.  As they say, you'll put in the same time for a $20,000 client as you will a $2,000.
 
To really answer your question, there is no one way corporations or any potential client does things.  I don't work in video, but in a similar way.  What it took me years to see is that I can't "structure" my services to what I think clients rationally want.  Often, if I can do 10 things, and I think item 10 is the hardest, most accomplished, and 1 is the easiest which anyone can do, often the client values 1 the most and 10 the least.  You have to let the client pay you for what they value.  If the client wants to pay you $10,000 to do 1 and you bill $1,000, hoping they'll do 10 one day, you'll learn the hard way as I did.  Charge what the client will pay for what the client wants.  Do NOT negotiate their end of the deal.  After you determine what you need to charge to stay in business charge that at minimum.  Naturally, you'll take jobs where you're paid 1/10th of what you're worth, because you love it.  That means you have to let clients pay you 10x what you're worth sometimes to do something that you know a simpleton could do--again, listen to what the clients wants, not what you think they need.
 
Ultimately, your job is to free up the client's time to focus on something else. Yes, you need to do a good job, but you have to keep in mind you're always a part of a larger goal.
 
Well, dog has to be walked so I'll write more later if this thread goes anywhere.  Set aside 5 years to build a video business, keep an open mind as to how that my evolve, who your clients may become, what you may end up specializing in, and you'll get there.  
 
Just keep in mind you'll make less money than in a corporation.  So you have to really value your independence.

You asked for opinions but sound like someone who already knows.  You say you are a photographer at heart.  Most photographers I know want RAW, as RAW as they can get.  Naturally, you can't shoot hours of documentary interviews in RAW, but you weren't clear about what you're looking for.  Everyone was polite about that.
 
But since you think I, at least, read your mind, then no, I can't read your mind.  Exactly what do you want to use the camera for?  What things would make a difference between the cameras you mentioned?  They're all basically the same thing.  Get the cheapest.  
 
And when you say, "I bought a BMCC and sold it, not useful for my work at all."  Why?  Other people have that camera here.  Maybe you know something that would be helpful to them.

You should also keep a lookout for a cheap 50D and run Magic Lantern RAW on it.  I've owned a Nex 5N and 7, both great cameras, but in the end, to me, H.264 is pretty much the same for all these cameras.  There's only so much you can do with 3-6MBS bandwidth.  Another camera to consider is the EOS-M, which I've worked a bit with.  Here's a RAW shooters guide  http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8825.msg82944#msg82944
 
If you have any Canon glass below 20mm, you can get, in my opinion, awesome high-dynamic range 720p out of the camera.  No internal audio.  ML is in alpha, and though buggy, if you stick to using one card for RAW, is very reliable.  
 
On the NEX's, the 7 had higher res, but I couldn't see any difference, which makes sense, because you're taking such a small part of the image.  Some things about Sony are irritating, but overall, I have to say they exhibit a greater love of consumer imaging equipment than the other manufacturers.  
 
On the full-frame question, I don't get that.  You can can get shallow DOF using say a c-mount TV lens ($30) and if you don't mind the edges softness, I think, create very stunning images.
 

Now if only we could get RAW on the G6 :)

Half the things I try with RAW end up no-where--just can't figure it out.  Then one day it clicks.  Last night I was finally able to create a video that shows the bayer pattern recorded in RAW, before debayering.  I hope to do more in the future. 
 
I wish I had seen a video like this early on, so I would have visually grasped the importance of what de-bayering algorithm is used.  Also, would see why one dead sensor pixel is insignificant.
 
https://vimeo.com/79857693

Half the things I try with RAW end up no-where--just can't figure it out.  Then one day it clicks.  Last night I was finally able to create a video that shows the bayer pattern recorded in RAW, before debayering.  I hope to do more in the future. 
 
I wish I had seen a video like this early on, so I would have visually grasped the importance of what de-bayering algorithm is used.  Also, would see why one dead sensor pixel is insignificant.
 
https://vimeo.com/79857693

So I've had the BMPCC and a cold for the past couple of days.  
 
https://vimeo.com/80026814
 
This camera may wake Canikon up to Andrew;s arguments. For more reasons than enthusiasts, young film-makers, or professional buying this camera for personal use.  BM may have shrewder plans.
 
Yes, for anyone who knows anything about video, or uses it professionally, the BMCC and BMPCC are good niche products.  Many executives at Cankon can argue, if the BMPCC makes it in the professional sphere, fine, no real biggie, small market.  If they gain any traction with the retail market, then it wouldn't take too much to add raw-type capabilities to our cameras (as I've found out, the latest two models and the EOS-M can shoot very good 720p raw).
 
History, however, always seems to repeat.  No matter how much money large corporations have, it's hard to beat really motivated and smart competitors who have got a lead on you.
 
The problem is Canikon is not actually moving forward, but one could argue, almost moving backwards.  I'm sure there must be executives at these companies who argue that their corporations have gone to hell in a hand basket.  How could some uppity Australians come out with such an innovative camera?  Because really, what video person wouldn't want or love this camera?  Forget what's coming out tomorrow.  Forget the 5D3.  This is more camera in your pocket than Lucas had to shoot "Attack of the Clones" only 11 years ago!  In your pocket.  Doesn't even have to be a big pocket!  
 
I'm not trying to pitch this camera.  Or say it's the best thing since sliced bread.  I am saying this camera has the potential to be truly disruptive in the retail marketplace.  It has certainly changed how I view consumer video.
 
I should go to bed, so let me shorten my points.
 
1. With additional software, consumer could get this video automatically adjusted to blow away the quality they get from their DSLRs--ALL OF THEM!  Forget DNGs.  If the public reaches that conclusion using this camera the name "Black Magic" will be synonymous with quality High Def video.  
 
2. There is NO CURRENT PUBLIC perception of what is the Bentley/Gucci/Mazarati/etc of true color video cameras.  If this camera claims that spot, just like the Palm Pilot, iPod, Blackberry, Nokia (all products from companies that were nobodies at the time), Canikon may catch up, but will not overtake.
 
3. No one in the current market wants to admit/recognize that their current video cameras doesn't measure up.  Same happened with American TVs, cars, etc.  The one day, the market has changed.  No one knew exactly when it happened.  You just woke up one day wanting a Toyota.
 
4. It would be smart for BM to let the early adopters work out the bugs with this camera and continue to build their distribution channels and name recognition.  
 
5. This camera could easily take photos.  I don't believe BM is preventing this for engineering or purist reasons.  If I was them, I wouldn't tip my hand.  
 
I would recommend this camera to any friend with money to spare.  This is not some difficult to use piece of equipment.  It's the post-processing that's difficult, and I can tell you, from my experience in software development, that is cheap to fix.  BM can create a plug-in for iMovie, or an app for Macs, with little expense (compared to camera making).  
 
Everyone looking at the shortcomings of this camera are way too jaded.  I look forward to using this camera during Thanksgiving.  The 50d made me want to give up H.264 and adopt RAW.  This camera makes it a reality.

So by the year 2020?