dafreaking

LOL full frame GH4. Just to spite you I hope it kicks the GH4's ass. Even though I hope it doesn't.

Andy with the speed booster does it become a F2.5-3.2?

Sweet!

It's not a pretty new idea. Personally, the focus is the best because of the length of the legs. You can really then make an on the fly shoulder rig out of it.

LOL.. I'll Shoot and Edit a film for you for 2000 Eur + Travel, stay, food. :p

Likewise!

Bloody tease! Too bad you confirmed that the info disappears :(. It really is a major boo boo. Eagerly awaiting low light and dynamic range tests. Everything else I am already sold on.

Amazeballs! Will need to re-condition myself after the soft Canons

You hit the nail on the head etidona with the wedding bit. Also, low light performance. I doubt the GH4 will be ever to match it. Though would be very happy if it did.

Thanks for all the tips Andy. Seems it has other mounts as well.

But would it be a better option than the Contax?

I understand that most narrative work is shot at 5.6, etc.. I should have mentioned the fact that I was looking at it from a low light perspective and run and gun, where controlling lighting was really not an option. Would the Canon FDn 35-105mm f/3.5 with a speed booster be a better option than the Contax Zeiss 28-70?

But isn't it slow and does not have a constant aperture?

HAHA...Andrew, that was awesome. I think, at least in theory that the 4K->1080p of the GH4 will definitely be as good as the 1080p of the C100 (detail wise) I don't agree that the GH4 is better than the C100 in everything. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Pound for pound though the GH4 wins hands down as far as value of money is concerned.

Do it. The PC you build for 2K today will be much much faster than your 2009 MacPro. Are you shifting to Windows or will you hackintosh this?

Bah. By now we shouldn't need cameras. We should have implants in our brain that click and alter pictures to our liking.

Ok it might or might not have a crop mode. The crop mode multiplies the the reach by either 2x or 3x. A smaller portion of the sensor is used thereby narrowing the field of view. so a 12-35 becomes a 24-70 on MFT which is similar to 48-140 on a 35mm photo camera.

Do you want the depth of field to be just an inch? Seriously. Sometimes this talk of DOF is utter crap. People want sharp videos and they want smaller DOF. What do you keep in focus? An eyelash?

So 12-35 will be Wide to Medium to Tele and the 35-100 will be Tele to Super Tele. You'll just have to pick what you are going to use more. I would choose the 12-35 as then you can use the camera's built in crop mode to shoot tele. Also, having at least one native MFT lens gives you the option for Auto Focus, etc

This is an EF mount. No Speedbooster for it.

Thanks for that P337. I guess the only way to figure out what s better is to actually try this out,

Thanks tupp and P337. Which one of these do you guys think will give better results for output to 1080p. 4K converted to 1080p. Reframed by a bit and then resized to 1080p or 4K reframed and then converted to 1080p. TIA

Would this still work If I were to crop/reframe a 4k image and then convert it to 1080p?

I would just hope that they can give a better bitrate and more UI features like magic lantern does. SOLD!

I hope the GH4 is a rip roaring success and it gets Canon to up their game. Wishful thinking though.