dafreaking

+1 for the D750 if you are already invested in Nikon glass. It's superb for stills and a more than capable video camera. You should still be able to get a decent price for the D600 though you should have traded it in for a D610 when you could.

​"Boum chicka waa waa"  
But no.  Nothing sexy about it, really.  Just working with colleagues on our free time to realize a short script we wrote.

You know what. It totally depends. Strictly speaking, you would need permission. If it's a well known brand (medicine) and you are showing it in bad light then they could object. Also depends on which country you are in and where you intend to show the short.

For video, Canon rates the 1DC at 12 stops. Sony rates the A7S at 15 stops. In lab conditions with the Xyla 21 chart, the 1DC gets around 12 and the A7S around 14. For useable DR Samuel and MacGregor got 12 for the A7S and by their metric of useable DR would expect the 1DC to be 11 stops (dropping 1-2 stops measured for useable DR).
Asking us to look at your examples without modifying them to explore useable DR doesn't make sense, as we'd most certainly make changes for any real work. Even so, your examples generally show more useable DR with the A7S.
Comments that imply our eyes don't work are unprofessional, immature, and antagonistic. If you'd like to create drama for page views vs. an honest search for truth, wherever it may lead, how can we take anything you say seriously?

It's HFR 3D that's the problem not 4K.
It destroys the mystery of the image and makes it seem real.
Still depends on the subject matter though! Reality is good for showing reality not so much for showing a wizard with makeup on.

Yeah it's weird the amount you change your mind at the drop of a hat or suddenly irrelevant things become relevant or vice versa.
But, it's refreshing to see you embrace things with an open mind. Also, the general all-round positivity. Keep up the good work. Wishing you a stellar 2015!
 

​Wait a minute I thought opinions on this film here were closed to those who haven't seen it.

Saw this last night and while it wasn't as bad as how people were saying it would be it was definitely watchable with a a few decent laughs here and there. 

Some like the Olympus 12mm F2.0 have a mechanical mode, you pull back the focus ring to engage the gears.
A linear focus travel is something mirrorless manufacturers really need to start giving us, as a menu option.
And on future high end lenses they should also consider a switch which engages hard stops when in linear focus travel mode.
The current non-linear fly by wire system that's become so common is total nonsense really. Should never have been designed that way.

Err..the name was chosen when Canon were the flavour of the month. That's how most have come to this site. Maybe he should register anythingbuteoshd.com or something like that. These articles every month are getting quite lame. Some sound as if while remembering his ex (Canon) he has drunk a bottle of vodka and written a 'hate' letter (THE SENTIMENT) 

I think we should be happy that 'the masses' are still buying Canon because it is 'the brand to get'.
We, as enthusiasts and some even professionals, earn their living with shooting video's. I'm so happy that 80% of video shooters still shoot 720p on their Canon 7D / 5D. Why? Because my GH3 looks amazing compared to it. And my clients go 'ooeh' and 'aah' when they see my footage. Of course it is composition, grading, talent, etc. But the camera is also important.
 
So I say, stop spreading the word about Canon camera's being shitty. You gain nothing from it, but you take the edge, of us video makers who spent lots of time selecting the best gear carefully, away.
 
Buy Canon folks! Great reliable gear! Never had any problems with them!
 
Furthermore, even though your articule is spot on Andrew, it accomplishes nothing. It's like asking Sony why they don't release a Mac Pro competitor for less money. Clearly there is no interest from Canon in this market. But also, they will still sell the most camera's for years and years to come. And you should buy a Canon, because they are great!

I'm sure Channing Tatum is reconsidering his decision after reading this.

I'm sure Channing Tatum is reconsidering his decision after reading this.

if you want to shoot some thing that looks like it has Hollywood movie 'field of views' just remember these 3 focal lengths
 
27mm for your wides
75mm for the close ups
40mm for the rest of the coverage
 
all referanced to a 35mm motion picture camera or APSC or Micro 4/3 with a speedbooster
you can shoot most of your movie on these 3 lenses - or use a 28-70mm zoom that covers almost them all (NIKON!!!)
 
shoot at f2.8 - and off you go .......all else is irrelevant cross referancing to full frame and will just slow you down
 
I ignore full frame totally as I just dont like the look of it.

Yup. Art is created from limitations, not endless possibilities. Film is a medium used to speak a language, not a replicator of reality. Film and photography are the most confusing art form though, because unlike writing, painting, music, etc, cameras produce an 'indexical' image (like a footprint or fingerprint, a photo has a direct, physical connection to reality). But as soon as you frame something, edit it, grade it, choose a different lens, use a different camera, smile at your subject, ask a question of your subject, point a camera at someone who can see you are filming them, live in a society where cameras are omnipresent, live in a society where we act out our lives massively influenced by the videos we see on TV/online/in cinemas - subjectivity enters the equation. And where you have subjectivity, you have language, and where you have language, you have art. The lie that is photographic "truth" (e.g. Cinema Verite) has been exposed, denounced and thrown to the dogs. Video is not a footprint, it's a paintbrush. See Barthes (Camera Lucida), Mulvey (Death 24X a Second), Pierce, Tom Gunning, David Campany, etc, etc, for more ...

If you read my original post  - the one my comment you took against follows on from - I say "I can understand this sensor being used for scientific instruments, but what use is 36000fps for cinema".  Not to get petty about it, but I was in fact the first person on this thread to suggest such high frame rates would actually only be useful for scientific applications. You certainly didn't do so in your review. You just said 36000fps doesn't make sense for smartphones. As if it does for cinema!!!
 
You always take my posts as being antagonistic Andrew. If you have to do so and feel the need to comment on them, please at least make the effort to read them in the context in which they were written.

I am far from a Canon fan, but really how come some people just resume a camera by it spec. When they go and market their job to their client, do they bring the spec sheet of their camera, or do their client care about the spec sheet. I see perhaps 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 10 videos of the A7s that is good. The rest the colours, more so with Slog is just ok to horrible. Just look at the amount of thread about how to .... try to get good colours out of the Sony's. For sure some can because they are good colourist but most are mediocre. Being a colourist is an art of its own. When you are more or less a one man band indie or freelance shooter, you have to be a shooter, an editor and now with Sony a good colourist. While Canon (I am a Nikon user) will provide you with a good image out of the box, just add a little contrast and saturation and you are good to go. No need to be an expert to at least get a good image to start with. 
 
For me since I got my D7100 (hopefully D750 in not too long), I thought that its the cameramen the limiting factor and no more the camera. If I cannot do beautiful image out of it, I won't with more expensive camera. The reasoning is simple if lesser camera like the gh2 have seen theatrical release, how can people devalue camera like the C100/C300 which are already much better. As shown here the C300 has been used in award winning Festival. One won the fucking biggest film festival in the world. So show us your masterpiece shot on your Sony A7s.

If you can, try and save for the D750. It is definitely worth it.

Andy (Lee) if one had a choice between the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 and the Nikkor 28-70 which one would you choose? Keeping in mind the Nikkor is thrice the price. Is the Nikkor worth the premium  over the Tokina?

Sure. Hopefully by Wednesday I can put them.

Here's some comparative prices:
 
http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_eos_c100
 
http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sony_a7s_xlr_kit
 
So taking this as an example site, you're looking at about 800 quid difference with XLRs on the Sony. The answer of which you get depends on what you want to do with it.
 
I have no experience using an A7s, but I've played with footage and it's excellent and has a great unique look in S-log 2. It looks really good for low light and cinematic colour, so for indie film it's got a lot going for it, since lighting set ups are often minimal, and it's a good geurilla cam.
 
From a working perspective however, I use C100 a lot: We have two C100s and I was considering a Sony A7s too. As the Ebrahims say, since these C100s are used to make money etc. simplicity helps and the slightly higher initial cost pays off. We also already had glass from using Canon SLRs, which aided the decision.
 
The C100 means you never have to f*ck around, but it costs you some more up front. You pay for convenience in bucketloads. You get a ton of footage in a 32GB card and it looks better than it should at AVCHD... voodoo. Voodoo, but not magic. There are limits to what you can do with 24mbps. Wide DR profile grades brilliantly. C-log is indeed available and grades very well IF you're careful, but can go fudgy in AVCHD.
 
Add a Ninja 2 for ProRes HQ C-log happiness. a Ninja 2 gives you better footage than internal C300 plus an external monitor. Quite an upgrade...
 
XLR and internal stereo mics are included on the top handle, ergonomics start brilliant so rigging is minimised. You can now run without top handle and side handle for ultra small setup if needs be, since the newest firmware allows more control remapping. Three built-in NDs are a godsend for working at high speed, I love them.
 
Battery lasts hours and hours, I was in LA shooting recently at a show, and I think we got something like 2 and a half hours from one battery. It could have been more. Madness! You can forget about it, unlike with the SLRs. Also you can plug it in to the wall with the stuff you get in the box.
 
I'm not worried about it being obsolete to be honest, because good footage doesn't become obsolete, and I know I can make good footage with this. Good footage at very low res does, but no one is yet demanding work in 4K as a rule in my experience. They will start to soon, but it won't be the majority for a while, and when it is we can hire in the transition, then buy something new. By then it will be available. Almost all films are 2K (a little wider than HD) at the cinema. It's damn good.
 
I do not make decisions based on rumors, as Andrew rightly says, it's no basis for a financial decision. Yes, Canon could release a 4K C200 in NAB 2015, but if they do, my C100 won't suddenly be rubbish. My 600D isn't rubbish! I still like it. It's more likely Sony will obsolete/depreciate the A7S first though, they release a lot of cameras. Still, all of this paragraph is just conjecture really, and shouldn't influence you: you buy from what's available now. You do not need the latest camera to make a good film OR to make money from talent, knowledge and ability.
 
So why am I considering an A7s? It has a some good toys that aren't in the workhorse C100:
High speed footage - goof for music promo S-log/S-gamut look is very Kodak and I like it, I think it'll be nice for drama and music promo. It's a great stills camera, with extreme low-light sensitivity. Option of 135 frame (vistavision/still full frame) video recording What don't I like about A7s on paper:
The blue channel hard-clipping issue - problematic for blue LED light especially. No internal NDs (expected). 4K requires very expensive external recorder. I pretty much ignore it as a purchase-decision specification. Slow motion is pretty fuzzy compared to true 1080p. Recording time limit precludes use for events etc. That pro's list is pretty small for the price of investment so I've cooled off a bit on the idea. I figure I'll hire an FS700 for high speed shots as 200/240fps is sharp, plus you can hire with external recorder for 2K raw slowmo... I make decisions like this with mostly logic and not too much heart, since it's investment in a tool. Also, since it's a depreciating asset in a business context, return on investment is directly related to how well it works on deadline under pressure, also known as convenience.
 
So there's one experience with the Canon and my reasons for purchase decisions. As usual, your own situation may nullify one or all of my points as far as your own decision is concerned, but I hope this constitutes useful input. This typing isn't helping my jetlag though ;)

For starters, doing weddings well is not an easy task for sure. You're supposed to run and gun with cinematic end results, whilst not being in the way and distract the ceremony. Weddings are very effective yet somewhat 'ungrateful' chances to learn. So whatever criticism you get here, keep on doing weddings, if that's your thing. Your possible shortcomings is nothing that some more practise and further editing wouldn't fix. 
 
With that said, the Natalie & Jack wedding, as well as the Angelo christening suffered from same kind of little niggles. They looked a bit inconsistent, and both were a bit too long, at least for the kind of edits they were. I won't comment lens choices, grading, lighting or exposure here, I'll just concentrate on the videos themselves and how they work.
 
A considerable part of the footage looked like it was shot by "uncle Bob" with his camcorder, whilst some other bits looked much better. There seemed to be a bit too much camera movement for the sake of movement, especially when it was handheld movement. That was a bit distracting. Some of the cuts didn't work too well together or with the music. You could have used more medium and closeup shots, too, and some of the ones you had suffered from shaky movement.
 
I know it's sometimes hard to get the good looking bits without becoming a distraction yourself, but especially after the actual ceremony, you could have gone closer to the action, pre-plan some clips, even direct the talents and shoot with less camera movement. There were some pretty nice clips, too, for sure, and some of the existing footage could be improved by simply editing them a bit more. 
 
Which leads to the length of the video and the use of sound. Both videos were a bit too long for a "music video." You could have cut out some action and made some clips shorter, used only a part of the whole song, and been more careful in syncing the action with the chosen music. I think you could (should) have used the audio from the venues, mixed them together with the music, and edited the whole thing a bit tighter. Both in length and tempo. If the video was intended only to be a music video to begin with, it still could have been a bit shorter and tighter. 
 
Jody & Sarah's is perhaps a bit better than those two mentioned. It, too, could have had more sound from the actual event, and if this was the short version, I wonder how long the long version was, and did it have any audio from the venue. This being the short version, you could shorten it even more, leave some of the clips out completely, as well as a half, or even two thirds of the music used. Actual voices from the clips would have been nice.
 
It may be a matter of taste, but if you insist on using b/w clips in an otherwise colour film, use the b/w clips either in the beginning or in the end only, as fading in or out clips, underneath the credits, for example. Not in the middle of the video. It would make the flow of the story more coherent.
This YouTube video also had quite a long a black tail after your end credits. Again, by removing that little blooper will make the video look better and more professional.
 
Same goes for Amy & Rich's, which is probably the best among those videos. Or it could be, if only it didn't have that cheesy 8mm film preset, which ruins the whole thing, an otherwise decent wedding day story. Some of the clips could be a bit shorter, too, or some of them could be simply left out. You could also experiment with out of order editing while at it. Well, it could work in stories like this, more so than some fake film preset. Hearing more of the actual voices and ambient sounds would have been nice here, too. 
 
There are way too many wedding "music videos" in YouTube already, and often with soundtracks ripped off copyrighted CD's, too. Even if your music was proper royalty free stuff, you wouldn't want your wedding film to look like those YouTube clips, would you.
 
I know I'm hardly qualified to give criticism as a wedding shooter, I've only done a few myself, and have chosen not to pursue weddings as a career. But as a general member of the audience my four (gear-related) tips for you (with a disclaimer in the end) would be as follows;
 
1. Unless you haven't already, buy a proper monopod and a tripod asap, and use them. 
Even though the GH2/GH4 is deceivingly small and light, and the Lumix lenses come with OIS, don't let that fool you into thinking that you'll get away with hand holding the camera throughout the event. You won't. You simply need a proper tripod and a monopod. When doing venues like weddings, a proper monopod can also work as an improvised slider for certain detail shots.
 
In the future wedding videos, go closer to the action, anticipate the movements and use variable angles. Don't move so much, let alone handhold the camera unless absolutely necessary. Shoot plenty of short clips from varying distances, and move between them. Shoot to edit, and then add drama and action by cutting the short clips into a coherent story.
 
2. Unless you haven't already, buy an external recorder and a couple of microphones, and use them. 
Good audio is very important in making a quality product. Don't underestimate it by simply slapping on a music track. Your audience will love the sounds from the event. A simple music soundtrack without voices and ambient sounds tend to be more boring.
 
3. Use more time in editing, and be snappier when you edit.
It's not uncommon to use a day for the shooting, and three to five days or even a week for editing. As mentioned by many, the handheld movement in those videos was a bit distracting, and you can get rid of that not only by using a tripod, but also by editing. One of the trickiest part of the basics may be editing different clips of medium, close and wide shots together so that they work together as well as possible, and the end result flows well. 
 
You could even re-edit those videos already in YouTube by cutting off the bits with the most annoying handheld movement, and by cutting them shorter in general. Watch the videos with your friends. If they start chatting during the video, you'll know it's too long and you're losing the attention of your audience. (I learned that the hard way, too)
 
When doing your next videos, go closer, shoot long, relatively stable shots, and then in the editing stage cut out all the wiggly & wobbly bits, leaving only the rock solid bits intact. Oh and partially for the same reason, always record a separate audio track (primary audio) with an external recorder. Don't rely on the in-camera audio alone, even if you've got a decent mic attached to the camera. Using the audio tracks is another handy way to hide dodgy footage. Try doing carefully placed L and J edits with the soundtracks, and the audience may not even notice the shortcomings in your video clips. It's trickier if you use music only.
 
4. Carry on doing weddings, you don't suck, and you'll get better quickly with more experience. 
 
Disclaimer:
I have no idea if you knew all this basic stuff already, but I wrote it as if you didn't. Just in case you or someone else finds this useful. 
This turned out to be an awfully long post, but by watching your videos, thinking about these things and writing them down I'm also learning myself. I'd like to think I'm always learning. Hopefully this was helpful to someone out there.
 
In case someone finds this just a boring waste of bandwith, I'm sure they've skipped it, anyway.
Have a nice weekend.

It would be a nice addition for Panasonic to implement a Cinemascope aspect ratio right in camera using as much of the width of the sensor as possible. It is nice to have 2880 vertical resolution for anamorphic but the horizontal resolution suffers. (Not to deny the value of the special look of anamorphic lenses)
 
The sensor is 4608 pixels wide. 4608 / 2.35 is just over 1960. 4608 x 1960 is a few more pixels than 3840 x 2160 (9,031,680 versus 8,294,400) and just a bit larger than 4096x2160 (8,847,360 total pixels). 
 
One would assume that they could do 4608 x 1960 at 24 fps at least. I would love to have that frame width!
 
Or they could do 4512 x 1920 (8,663,040) or stick to their current pixel count at 4414 × 1878 (8,289,492) for 30 fps.
 
David

Canons own advertising puts photography first. The primary focus of the advertisement is photography. The camera is not being marketed at sole videographers. It is being marketed to photographers that also do videography.
 
You can use a DSLR as a video camera just like you can use a screwdriver as a hammer. That doesn't make the DSLR a video camera any more than the screwdriver is a hammer.