Aussie Ash

Best movies ever made :):
 
director: Krzysztof Kieślowski
 
1. The Double Life of Véronique (1991)
2-4. The Three Colors Trilogy (1993–1994)
4-*. The Decalogue (1989)
 
And something extra for future directors:
Amateur [eng: Camera Buff] (1979)

Red Epic (M642) w/ Ti Canon Mount
16-35mm & 50mm L-Series Lens
 
 

Red Epic (M642) w/ Ti Canon Mount
16-35mm & 50mm L-Series Lens
 
 

It's never worked with video on any Nikon. Pretty sure that's still the case with the D5300.
 
 
 
You can still view a histogram even when using a lens that doesn't give you metering. Just take a test still or video, then in playback mode, press the up arrow to cycle through the information views you have enabled. By default the histogram view isn't enabled, so you have to change the settings under MENU->PLAYBACK MENU->Playback display options. I have it set up like this:
 
☠None (image only) ☑ Highlights ☑ RGB histogram ☠Shooting data ☑ Overview   This will give you histogram, RGB histogram and blinkies views in playback.   The histogram is calculated after the picture style and white balance settings are applied even when shooting a raw still, so keep that in mind.

Someone on Vimeo just asked me about what D5300 video settings I use. For my own benefit I decided to answer quite comprehensively (it helped me get everything clear in my head and made me realise there are still a few things I'm not sure about). I thought I'd post it here for other's benefit, and to see if anyone had anything else to offer (or suggest might be done differently).
I also started a forum thread on this topic in the D5300 Vimeo group so that it can be a more permanent resource for people to see/add to: https://vimeo.com/groups/d5300/forum/topic:261998
 
 
I can't claim that these are THE best settings, but this is what has been working best for me so far:
 
In the menu:
Picture Control (profile): I'm currently of the opinion that a Neutral profile is best most of the time. I don't think Flaat is necessary, but I do think you loose out on a lot of perfectly useable detail in the shadows/highlights by shooting with the Standard profile - and for no good reason unless you don't want to grade. You can always put contrast back in post.
 
I set all of the following to OFF in the menu: Active D-Lighting, High ISO NR and Auto ISO sensitivity.
 
WiFi and GPS: OFF!!!!
 
In 'Movie Settings':
Frame rate: You can use whichever frame rate you want (and even switch between PAL/NTSC in the SETUP menu). I really haven't noticed a difference in quality between any of them, though I haven't done or seen any critical tests.
 
'Movie quality': set to HIGH.
 
Microphone: Manual sensitivity
 
'Manual movie settings': ON
 
 
Because I have mainly Nikkor manual-aperture primes that don't communicate with the D5300 at all, I'm always in Manual mode on the top dial. I have tried using my Tokina 11-16 with a complicated setup that involved Auto ISO, a minimum shutter speed setting and either aperture or shutter priority (can't remember which). Auto-exposure worked well in the brief house-walkthrough test I did.
 
I'm using Auto WB quite a lot.
 
Make sure your display is set to movie mode in live view: using the "info" button on the top of the camera, cycle through until the translucent 16:9 letterbox bars appear.
 
Several of the important settings above can be accessed quickly using the "i" button next to the VF.
 
You can snap out of focus assist (magnify) using the OK button.
 
 
I'll leave discussion of using non-manual glass to others.

I am not the biggest fan of full frame video. Perhaps because it has been overused since the Canon 5d2 when we came from one extreme (small sensor camera) to another extreme with full frame. The habit of completely blurring the background until the subject was like floating in a mist and more than often being out of focus if he moved 5 cm in front or back was really annoying. I think that the Apsc Cine 35mm look is a good balance between subject isolation and focus. If an actor is in an environment he should at least be part of it.

Thanks Andrew. I didn't have any audio to drop on it, and since I'm using YouTube... couldn't just add some good music. I recorded some ambient plaza music, but that didn't work out so well. So, that narrative is all I had handy and wanted to put something up to show what the nearly untouched stuff looked like. 
 
I really didn't like using one camera for video and stills. It might just be that I've been a still photographer too long and it's too difficult to switch back and forth. I have shot plenty of motion in the past, but for some reason... it's difficult to jump back and forth. 
 
At the same time, I didn't want to carry two different kits while backpacking. But, at home... I'll likely migrate to having two camera kits, one for stills and one for motion. Or, just practice more. ;) I'm only just now getting back into this stuff, so it's likely just learning curve pains. 
 
I do think that based on my tests in some very low light shooting situations, some very difficult spaces (i.e. underground cenotes with almost no light or having to pass through a vertical wet/muddy tunnel to get down into one, with high humidity, etc. that the camera performed well. Mostly just grabbed a bunch of shots at random and put them in some ordered grouping, but if you knew the very low amount of light there was in many of those clips... it'd be more impressive. 
 
Once I get my head around grading stuff, will edit something down with a proper soundtrack, etc. 

*edit removed condescending phrasing that was uncalled for
 
it's actually very different
 
00:31 blown out mushy highlights on bmcc not on canon
00:58 high crop factor on bmcc
01:10 terrible shadow performance on the bmcc (if you want to see how bad it truly is watch in full screen)
1:27 global shutter on bmcc better than rolling on canon
 
they differ in highlight performance, crop factor, shadow performance, and global shutter vs rolling shutter.
Completely different.

"In addition Nikon have all the technology to build a high end cinema line for pros like Cinema EOS, something which is turning out to be massively profitable for Canon. The sensor, the image processor, the codec, the lenses, everything."
 
The last few years Nikon has been on recovery after their most important factories got destroyed (Thailand and Japan). That makes a huge impact on a company which have cameras as their main business and no photocopiers to fall back on. I believe Nikon's reaction to this is to be cautious about investing too much into new product lines and try to recover with what they know they're good at.
 
Considering that situation, I think they're on a good track in improving the video modes on their cameras although they can't keep up with Panasonic in terms of features or handling. They've at least made incremental improvements with sensors, moire, aliasing and added 1080p60 modes in their low-end range - none of which Canon has done.
 
What I just can't understand with Nikon, is why that bloody Live view aperture situation exists with their lower-end cameras since that issue is not there on cameras like D800. If that is planned segmentation of products - it is very retarded. If it's something that requires some reengineering to fix it, it's really about time that they fix it.
 
I hope that Nikon is seriously watching what Panasonic is doing, and I hope they'll figure out how to do 4k and how to implement 10-bit 4:2:2 in at least 1080p. This is what Nikon EU product manager has to say about Nikon and 4k:
 
- “We are aware of the need for, and request for, 4K video recording. It is a bit tricky, it’s not something that we are purposefully excluding from our cameras; however we need to approach it carefully. There are high-end cameras that produce this but it just puts such a load on the equipment. For us, because consumers are demanding it we are aware of this and will be looking into it for the future."

--- Source: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/25/nikon-sees-future-in-4k-video-and-advanced-compact-cameras.aspx/
 
Sony, Canon and Panasonic all had a headstart thanks to producing video cameras for a long time. In my opinion Nikon hasn't been doing all that bad coming from a still photography camera background only. I certainly hope they will realize what handling issues and features that still are missing and provide that - either in mirrorless, DSLR, hybrid or specifically video-tailored cameras.
 
And my own review of the D5300 and D3300 would be:
- Great cameras for the newbies who want to start learning about video while also shooting stills. Far better choice than any other DSLR considering sensor, stills & video performance together. Panasonic G6 and Nikon D5300/D5200/D3300 are my first choice of recommendations for video+photo first-timers on tight budgets. There's handling issues and features missing that are available in more expensive cameras - but that's to be expected in entry-level/budget range.

Pretty much knew the D5300 wasn't Andrew's cup of tea before buying my own. So, none of his review is surprising. Some of it I agree with. 
 
Just got back from using the D5300 for a month in Mexico. Awesome stills camera for the money. Excellent video results as well. Handling was very awkward, especially going from stills shooting, to video, then back to stills. Had to just settle for a middle of the road Standard setting, but managed to find a few work arounds for shooting on the go. 
 
For the money, being able to use my Nikon lenses, the articulating screen, the great low light performance, excellent stills, and a very light weight... together made for the camera I was looking for. 
 
I also chose this camera because I didn't want a cumbersome work flow and have to accommodate huge file storage, especially on the road. And, I know the tech is improving leaps and bounds each quarter it seems, so I didn't want to invest in anything that would likely be eclipsed quickly by the next so-called "all the rage" 4k, raw, over-hyped-bla-bla-bla gear that also needs several thousands worth of accessories to make them usable. 
 
If that GH4 works out to be all the rage and might have at least a good 2 years of valuable shelf life, then  I'll grab one and my Nikon D5300 will still be useful as an excellent backup stills camera with an excellent low-light sensor for video in a pinch. 
 
Despite the awkward handling of the D5300, all things considered, especially if a no-fuss workflow, clean low light images, low file storage needs, light weight, and greats stills performance is important to you (as it is me) then the D5300 is a great alternative for an affordable $799. 
 
I'll just add that I bashed this camera around pretty good (unintentionally) and even got it very wet on accident on a few occasions, but it never failed in any way. It's a solid performer for the money from my personal experience. And, I'm quite happy with the quality of the images. Once I get caught up from being gone a month, will splice a few clips together and share.

This is  decent side-by-side of Flaat_11 vs Standard, though it's low-light with a lot of crushed black, so not the best example perhaps:
 

 
 
I made my own (amateurish) test of Flaat_11, though it's not a side-by-side. Details below the video. I think the colours hold up pretty well:
 

 
All shot with Flaat 11 profile, graded in FCPX, Neat Video applied, sharpening applied (+3 to +5 in FCPX, 0 in camera), Gorilla Grain (fine clean) added. All shots 50p conformed to 25p.
There are quite a lot of FCP stabilization artefacts throughout.
Lenses: Nikkor 85mm f2 AI-s and 35mm f2 AF-D
For some reason I had my screen gamma calibrated to 1.8 for this edit, so the blacks are probably looking more crushed than they need to be. You can download the .mov file and lift them if you feel the need (though the .mov is still a compression of the original). I now shoot with +2 sharpness in camera and add a little in post too.
 
Even without using flat profiles, the D5300's dynamic range is superior to any current Panasonic or Canon footage I have seen, and lends itself to lifting the shadows in post because of the low amount and nice quality of noise. I have also been able to pull back a surprising ammount of detail from the highlights compared to my G6 and my old 600D.
 
D5300 group on Vimeo here: vimeo.com/groups/d5300

Absolutely. In fact, most of this article just re-covered the ground of Andrew's fairly recent "Dear Nikon" article. I was hoping for a more in-depth review of the actual camera. Not another generalised rant about why MFT cameras are great. I have a G6 and love it, and agree that mirrorless is the future, but my D5300 is getting more use ATM because I like the image so much. Often I don't find the Nikon quite sharp enough, but resolution is OK and the other qualities trump the G6 for me. The 5300 really is a pain in the neck to shoot with though.
 
There is a lot about this article that is right, but there is also a lot that is unsaid or unacknowledged. There are some things I'm very disappointed EOSHD didn't address and that I actually feel make this quite a misleading/lazy review.
 
My responses to the article are below, mainly adding up to my opinion that for everything the D5300 lacks compared to other similarly priced cameras, it makes up for in other areas - making it one of the best all round choices at the moment. Having said that, I do completely agree that in a year's time the level of detail on the 5300 will look slightly archaic, and the extremely frustrating interface design and feature set makes it extremely frustrating and probably a no-go for a lot of work.
 
So, addressed in article-order:
 
 
Quote
The D5300 comes into a world where video enthusiasts are shooting 4K on Panasonic consumer cameras
 
Er, not yet they're not. And the D5300 actually came out in 2013.
 
 
Quote
I just wanted to shoot nice 1080p, conveniently, for a low price with interchangeable lenses. The D5300 to some is $799 for a Super 35mm camera that shoots quite nice 1080p with no moire & aliasing problems, good in low light, great articulated screen – and free Nikon stills camera into the bargain.
 
Agreed. This is where I'm coming from.
 
 
Quote
I just cannot get over the…
Baby Photo Mode
 
This is all an important point, but not really a problem specific to the 5300. But agreed. Nikon are being stupid about their video mode, and so are Canon.
 
 
Quote
The LCD has almost invisibly faint transparent masking marks for 16:9
 
I don't find this a problem at all, once you're used to it. A small, small, tiny inconvenience.
 
 
Quote
Simply by repackaging the D5300 and redesigning the firmware, Nikon could make it 10x more useful for everyone in the world with an interest in shooting artistic video.
 
Again, agreed. Hugely frustrating.
 
 
Quote
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is $999 with a 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes codec, crisp detail and 13 stops of dynamic range. The D5300 does have a better screen than the Pocket Camera, which is articulated and it does have an APS-C sensor, 1080/60p in addition to the film frame rate of 24p and 25p, so it’s not all bad…
 
The Pocket has a very different workflow that a lot of shooters just aren't going to want, and is even more frustrating to use than the 5300 in many ways.
 
Quote
Neither can quite match the GH3 for detail in 1080p (let alone the GH4). I believe the trick Panasonic are using to give us such crisp 1080p on their cameras is to down-sample the sensor to roughly 2.5K and then oversample 1080p from that higher resolution raw image. The D5300 looks like the 5D Mark III’s stock video mode for resolution – it’s a bit mushy. You notice this the most when shooting in daylight at focus points between infinity and roughly 5 meters. Sometimes you don’t notice the softness much at all, so it’s not the camera’s main problem.
 
Agreed. Interesting theory about Panasonic too.
 
Quote
Standard or Vivid picture profile ... Whatever method you use the results after grading look similar.
 
FFS ANDREW WHY HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT FLAAT?!
 
 
Quote
Low light performance is very good, even with the focus assist zoomed in 2 levels you will find it difficult to see any noise on the LCD while out shooting in low light at ISO 800. The image maintains rich colour at high ISOs and on brighter areas of the image at high ISOs noise almost vanishes altogether. ISO 1600 and 3200 are perfectly usable in video mode and even 6400 and 12,800 are better than on many cameras at the same price, closer in fact to the Super 35mm sensor in the Sony FS100.
 
IMO this is the major strength of the camera. It is superior to the Pocket, even with Speed Booster, here - because the Pocket has very washed-out colours in low light that completely negate it's low-noise levels. I haven't had a chance to look at how the GM1/GX7 do in low light (and forthcoming GH4). I really hope the GH4 matches the 5300 here. That will make me really happy.
 
 
Quote
The punch-in focus assist is generally a bit slow to use and you can’t simply half-press the shutter button to come back out of it, instead you have to tediously reverse back out out with the ‘minus’ key.
 
Minor niggle and entirely wrong. Pressing 'OK' (centre button) brings you straight out.
 
 
Quote
The lens mount is way too restrictive.
 
Seriously, WTF? You go on about the graetness of the Speed Booster all the time. Pocket + SB = awesome. Nikon mount = grim.
But I agree that it's ridiculous the way Nikon cripple their low-end cameras for using their own glass.
 
 
Quote
with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 any lens you put on it automatically has class-leading stabilisation better than any VR lens in the entire Nikon range including their pro lenses.
 
This is the case with any camera other than Olympus - not just Nikon!!!
 
 
Quote
Last year’s D5200 has an identical image in video mode and costs just $400 used, which makes it hard to justify the D5300 if you don’t need 1080/60p.
 
On the surface this is true, but in actuality it is entirely, categorically false. The D5300 has none of the banding/fixed pattern noise of the 5200. This means far better low light performance and crucially, AMAZING DYNAMIC RANGE POTENTIAL USING FLAT PROFILES. I know that you know about this Andrew. WHY HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS?!?! A quote you made on our older D5300 thread:
 
 
Quote
EOSHD, on 16 Jan 2014 - 8:11 PM, said:
Today I bought a Nikon D5300 for review, and a bit of shooting, but mainly for the blog with intention of sending it back after.
Well, so far it is surprising me.
The dynamic range with the flat picture profile is really quite something. Head to toe with ProRes on the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. I'd put it at 12 stops. Very good colour and good shadows, and again good low light performance. The codec in 1080/60p seems ok so far too. The main drawback seems to be the cheap-mid-range Nikon ergonomics (not enough buttons and dials). Wish they had put this video mode (and articulated screen) in the D7100 instead.
But so far so good peeps!
 
Why didn't you address this in the article? You do know about this. DYNAMIC RANGE IS A MAJOR, MAJOR PRO OF THIS CAMERA. Far superior to any other low-bitrate camera in the price-bracket.
 
 
Quote
As of today, DSLR video is over. Dead. Kaput!
 
Er, I'd probably pick a GH4 over a 5D+RAW for convenience's sake and features, but I'm pretty sure I'll prefer the 5D image (?) and I think we'll be seeing just as much 5D RAW as ever, even after the GH4 is out. But yes, I hope in the long-run mirrorless is the direction we are headed in (and I believe it is too).
 

Quote
The lack of video features and 4K will put DSLRs at a very significant disadvantage on performance relative to the best mirrorless cameras this year.
 
Agreed.
 
 
Quote
To give you an idea of how antiquated the D5300 form factor is you still can’t change the aperture from the camera whilst live-view mode is engaged. Why on Earth not?
 
Agreed. Ridiculous.
 
 
Quote
But in the cold light of day for $1999 (maybe less by the time final pricing is announced), Panasonic offer us 4K video. At $799 Nikon offer us a Baby Photo Mode. Why bother with this crap any more? Really?
 
Ridiculous comment. $2000 is is over twice as much as $800. For some people that's a big difference.
 
 
Quote
Pros
OK video quality and very good low light performance
Better than Canon Rebels and 70D on image quality, for both video and stills
Pleasing colour straight out of the MOV files, richness of tone maintained in low light
1080/60p useful for slow-motion video when converted to more cinematic 24p frame rate
38Mbit codec avoids break-up in 1080/60p mode (only 24Mbit VBR in 24p and 25p mode though)
No significant moire or aliasing issues (though resolution falls short of being truly full HD)
PAL / NTSC switchable for wide variety of frame rates
Manual focus magnification has an ultra-detailed display mode (though painfully slow frame rate)
Quicktime MOV file format benefits (easy editing and access, thumbnail preview in Explorer and Finder)
Very nice smartphone standard 3.2″ articulated screen
The sensor produces immaculate stills quality for the price
$799
 
Agree with all of these, though it seems almost misleading for someone with the respect you have from your readers to neglect talking about dynamic range with the D5300. IMO DR is on-par with low-light as the greatest strength of this camera.
 
 
Quote
Cons
Charmless – looks cheap, bland shooting experience
Very poor ergonomics by Nikon standards
Extremely dated form factor
 
I really like the size, weight and shape of the camera. It is a pain in the backside to use though.
 
 
Quote
No real improvement in image quality over the D5200 in terms of video or raw stills
 
FFingF's sake!!! The banding is gone!!! That was THE major drawback of the D5200. You said so yourself when you reviewed that camera! At least bloody mention it!!!
 
 
Quote
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera offers much better image for filmmakers (13 stop dynamic range, 10bit ProRes 422) for just $200 more
 
The Pocket workflow is a very, very different proposition for some people, and it requires a much greater outlay in terms of gear and time spent in post. The 5300 is also a much better all-rounder.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with all of your other cons.
 
 
As is becoming standard Andrew, I have been very critical of you. As always I still have the greatest respect for you and your site (in fact I may actually just change my signature to say this ;) ).

I've tested them side by side and found that for video, the noise handling on the D5300 is definitely much better than on the D5200, especially at higher ISOs. The improvement appears to be specific to video though because the stills are about the same in that regard. I suspect the faster processor in the D5300 has allowed more sophisticated down-sampling algorithms to be applied to the signal coming off the sensor at the speed needed for video.

Thanks for the review, I am in some ways as anoyed as you about Nikon having all the tech but not using it to the fullest. I have been saying it for ages, if they want to make a splash in video world, they should do some revolutionary steps like at least internal 10 bit high bitrate or even raw nowadays. But credit should be given to them where it is due. I think that Nikon thought that giving uncompressed hdmi out 2 years ago would have done the trick, but unfortunately they could not guest that, most other manufacturer would follow rapidly and that Blackmagic and ML would follow. Taking them outside of the highlight. But in the mean time they have been constantly updating there camera to sampling more pixel and downscaling to get rid of moire/aliasing and giving very good low light and now adding 60fps at 1080p. More so that they are implementing those tech in there entry level camera first, not afraid to cannibalize there higher end camera at least in the video side. That is why you find yourself in the situation as you mentioned in your article that the low end camera is better than the higher end one. Would you have preferred that they keep that tech until they update the D4, D800, D600 and D7100. They are actually updating their camera line with the expeed 4 and a new D4s has been announced and we can expect a D7200 in the near future. The only problem is the Sony based Sensor D800 and D610 which might only do line skipping and that is perhaps why Nikon has been abandoning Sony sensors.
 
You have also been comparing the D5300 against a plethora of other cameras and each of them with their fort. The D5300 does not beat any of them at one thing but it might be todays most balance camera in the DSLR world. It might not match the 13 stop of DR of the pocket, But it matches by your say in Proress mode and so should be 1 to 1.5 stop better than the Canons. But it has a  Cine 35 mm sensor, no ugly moire/aliasing and will surely beat it in low light and you can do good slow motion. You could even add an external recorder to get high bitrate. Talking about external recorder, I have a Ninja with my D7100 and it really completes the Nikons, apart from the obvious high bitrate, you get peaking, false colour, zebras, sound monitoring in a very compact package.
 
I think the d7200 will be the Nikon camera to get shortly for photo/video hybrid Nikon users. The body will be much better in terms of button and construction. I don't know why the D5200/D5300 (perhaps Nikon doin it deliberately to differentiate camera), But the D7100 is nearly as sharp as a gh2. With a Ninja it is even sharper. My guess is that a D7200 would be very very close to a Canon C100 and have equal functionality with a Ninja with the added bonus of 60p for 1/3 the price.
 
Again I would have liked Nikon to be bolder, but this camera might not be better than any other camera in any specific domain, but it is good to very good in nearly every aspect of a camera. It would have been very nice to see it on one of your chart/scene to be able to compare it with the other cameras.

A product's price is SOLELY determined by what consumers are willing to pay. Manufacturing costs condition wether that product is actually viable or not in the market. Pricing is really subjective, it is a "notion" consumers have based on personal beliefs and preferences... that's why Blackmagic may be seen by other manufacturers as destructive, not disruptive.
 
Not long ago, a 35mm film camera with extras could go up to 300.000$. A Betacam could be bought for 30.000$ to 60.000$. Now cinema & broadcast gear seem to have dropped a zero... Our "notion" and subjective idea of what their price should be changed the minute we could have a 5D MKII or 7D -which we though was really cheap-.
 
BM is no real rival for Canon or Sony because they will sell thousands of units, not millions, and their lineup is pretty limted and "niche", but it has had an effect on how we see Canon prices now... Probably the manufacturing cost of a DSLR is lower than we think -like 100$- but if Canon, Sony or Nikon decide to gon the BM way with prices, they may actually change the whole concept of "how much it should cost" and hurt their future business...

Andrew has aimed a lot of negative comments directly at nikon which apply to nearly every camera maker out there. I agree that 4K is the future, and panny seems to be leading the way, but to hammer nikon seems a bit inappropriate.

I own a D5300 and chose it specifiCally for its balance of ability to shoot both high quality stills and 1080p video without moire and aliasing. I looked at many cameras from the nikon D800 and D610, canon 6D, and panny GM1 and GH3 to sony nex7 and was unable to find a better all-around solution.

Perhaps if Andrew approached his review a bit less video-centric and recognized that many pros require a camera that can do both stills and video to acceptable stock photo standards, he might realize the humble little D5300 is, right now, about the best balance available on the market.

That said, I appreciate Andrew's website, insights, and all the work he does helping the video community.

This is a reply to forum member who made a comment about broadcast news and colour subsampling. I know this is probably the wrong website to make this comment - please excuse me.
 
Generally broadcast News acquisition uses 4.2.0 chroma subsampling. Simply because News material is not graded or used for green screen before it goes to air. 
 
Some broadcasters request but don't necessarily require acquisition for longer format programs such as documentary material to be shot at a certain standard. This ensures that the material can be graded easily. The standard for SD or HD material is generally 50/100 Mb/s 4.2.2.
DVCPRO 50 is one such codec which is accepted.
Some programs have a lower ceiling on this standard and accept 4.2.0 material for documentary work. Think GoPro etc.
 
It is very hard to see the difference between 4.2.2 and 4.2.0 and that is exactly why it is used - colour information is harder for the human eye to judge as luminance information. Therefore to compress the image further, codecs throw out half the colour information knowing we probably won't notice.
 
Since the 5DMKII came about we've been asking for better image quality. This website is one of them. Andrew Reid particularly has called for higher bit rates and better codecs to improve image quality. This is now happening - however for those of us who grade material or simply don't care for banding on a blue sky for instance - a higher standard colour sampling codec is needed. Andrew knows this and so does Panasonic.
 
I think the GH4 looks like a great camera however it is not a great camera if I have to bolt on two additional boxes which is clumsy and does away with portability just to get it to a standard that we have been pushing for for 6 years. I personally would not turn up to a paid job with a GH4 and XLR/SDI box and an external recorder. I would however turn up to a paid job with a GH4 if it had internal 4.2.2 recording and a simpler / smaller XLR adapter. For of us who make a living as videographers/ cinematographers/ cameramen/women - this is actually a big deal and not just an idle gripe for the sake of it. 
 
It's ok that the new GH4 doesn't record a minimum standard for broadcast HD requisition. Andrew and Panasonic clearly thinks it's ok as well.
But it is one big reason why I and others won't be using a GH4 for work where reputations and day-rates are held accountable.

Samsung: Blu-Ray 4K UHD Standard Could Be Commercialized by End of the Year
 
In a bid to distribute UHD content, Samsung Electronics proposes to use more advanced Blu-ray media that complies with the BDXL standard that supports triple-layer 100GB RE (rewritable) and R (write-once) discs as well as quad-layer 128GB R discs for commercial applications
Another technology that is needed for distribution of 4K movies is high efficiency video coding (HEVC, also known as H.265 and MPEG-H part 2) technology that is used for UHD video compression. Being 51% -74% more efficient than currently used MPEG4-AVC/H.264, the HEVC technology allows to compress 4K movies to around 80GB – 90GB, which means that 100GB – 128GB BD media should be enough to store it. The H.265 is currently supported by numerous decoder/encode chips that can be used inside players.
extract from Xbit
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20140113232834_Samsung_Proposes_to_Use_Multi_Layer_Blu_Ray_Discs_for_4K_UHD_Video_Distribution.html

The external add-on isn't a "4K add-on" it is a HD-SDI and XLR add-on, you don't need the external add-on or a external recorder for 4K on the GH4 it does it internally. You know that right?! Surely you do. So are you just trying to make things look worse than they actually are with your list? If so I think that's a bit unfair.
 
Hopefully available by the end of the year? Try April at the latest (TBC)!
 
As for form factor, clunky is not a word I'd use to describe the GH4. Incidentally the Blackmagic is a lot heavier, the wrong shape, has no articulated screen, and a very cut down feature set in comparison. Still love Blackmagic but you've gotta state the facts!
 
My view of it is as follows...
 
BMPC 4K
1.5x crop Super 35mm sensor (1.0x crop in cinematography terms)
EF mount (good if you have lots of nice Canon EF lenses, not so good if you have Micro Four Thirds or lenses requiring a mirrorless mount)
Global shutter - nice - but comes at expense of dynamic range and low light
10bit ProRes - very nice
Raw - great for heavy grading and VFX work
 
GH4
2.17x crop in 4096x2160 mode, 1.7x crop with Speed Booster in 4K mode (1.2x crop in cinematography terms)
Mirrorless mount
Better low light performance (goes up to ISO 6400 in 4K mode)
8bit 4:2:0 internal recording may lead to some artefacts and won't grade as well as ProRes, but it will still look stunning
Better audio support and quality, with optional XLR box
Articulated screen
16MP stills
Built in EVF
10bit 4:2:2 available to external recorder
Larger feature set
 
The Blackmagic Production Camera has enough unique features to be considered for certain jobs. The GH4 is the better all rounder.
 
If you need global shutter, EF mount, 10bit ProRes internal and raw, but don't mind the very basic feature set overall, basic ergonomics, heavier weight overall, need for external battery and poor low light performance go Blackmagic.
 
If you need mirrorless mount, better ergonomics, likely better 1080p especially via HDMI, better audio, more features, smaller form factor and internal battery go GH4.
 
Dynamic range probably quite similar on the pair.
 
And on price, the GH4 is a lot cheaper. You don't NEED the external box. You can shoot with it like you can the GH3. The Blackmagic puts more demands on storage space and processing power, and needs an external battery plus SSDs.

External recorder price is far too high... not sure what the 4K 'add on' is, or why you would need it... but in my opinion you're missing out on:
 
- The added cost of workflow for using Blackmagic Production Camera (HDD, Capable Editing System, etc.)
- Quality Control of Blackmagic Products
- Will ship by the time we're all in the grave. (I kid... hopefully.)
- Additionally, I actually find it far more 'clunky' than the GH4, if the BMCC is any indication. The lack of buttons is actually MORE frustrating for me because I found myself having to constantly use that bloody awful touchscreen that I could barely see outdoors. Plus, no articulated screen. Plus, required a rig because handheld was too jittery. Plus, no ability to play back clips, delete clips, see how much time left on memory card, etc. So, yeah, this is a big big factor for me, and I believe should be for anyone who wants to avoid serious headaches on set.
 
Then again, the BMPC or other Blackmagic products may work swimmingly for you. More power to you! I have just experienced nothing but headaches on set with them, and ultimately got rid of them. I could not justify the lack of basic quality assurance. Having to stop every 30 minutes on set because of technical issues was frustrating for everyone involved, and I began valuing getting jobs done on time and headache free over the awesomeness of RAW.
 
The GH4 looks like the best thing an indie filmmaker could ask for at the moment, and the fact that I see people on twitter/forums complaining that it 'only does 96fps' is moronic. Some folks are never satisfied... even with the latest and greatest. 

Key word there being 'Recommendations.' This is not a requirement. This 'list' is meant to be a guide for the local stations when selecting cameras to purchase for their photogs who go out into the field. They select these cameras because they use a codec that plays smoothly with Grass Valley (the editing and ingesting software commonly used in TV news). The idea is, we need a camera that imports quickly into our servers so Jimmy the photog can shoot/import/cut/send to control room within minutes in case there is breaking news. Additionally, many journalists shoot and edit by themselves, having only hours to cut together their package for airtime. These folks aren't doing complicated edits, because they don't have any idea how, beyond basic cuts and voice overs. They're too worried about being dressed and prepped in time for their live shot to worry about color correction or anything like that. So these 'recommended cameras' are ENG cameras designed to do as much in-cam as possible, with editing an afterthought.
 
I'm guessing anyone mulling over the 'GH4 vs BMPC' decision aren't news photogs or multimedia journalists with the BBC. You're likely thinking about using it for documentaries. In that case, you'll have plenty of time to edit, color correct, etc. to get it perfectly cut together for broadcast. The '4.2.2 standard' thing isn't meant for you. It's meant for the company when choosing which cameras to purchase for their news team, so that they get the ones that play nicest with the control room, AND so they can have unified equipment in case a journalist's camera breaks, they wont have to waste time trying to figure out how to use a different model. 

There's a lot more to a camera than specs alone, the GH4 sounds great on paper but what I'm more curious about is the intangible, something the Blackmagic Cameras excel at. I'm quite fond of the aesthetic produced by the Blackmagic sensors, its often described as "filmic" but I prefer the term organic. Many digital cameras suffer from looking 'too' digital and while you can certainly grade that out to a large degree it's impossible to recover from it entirely. Noise pattern is a big factor in this, appealing noise can make it's existence entirely more tolerable often even desired, something the Alexa is often lauded for. When it comes to narrative work atleast I would personally rather have a 1080p image with excellent tonality, noise pattern and highlight roll-off than a 4K image with with little or none of the above. 
 
Another point that bothers me a bit about this camera and I suppose the market in general is the lack of innovation on the lower end in regard to ergonomics. As we all know DSLR's weren't designed for video, video was just an afterthought, yet manufacturers (Canon, Sony, Panasonic) seem to have no interest in providing the product the market is obviously yearning for. Panasonic surprises me especially in this regard, they have been known for their ergonomics in the past and still are (hvx100, af100, etc...) so why couldn't they create a sub $3K camera in a proper video oriented form factor with these specs? I can't believe that a camera with ergonomics even half as good as the C series from Canon couldn't exist for under $3K with these specs or better. I don't know, I guess I just miss the days when you could just pick up your camera and go shoot, no fancy rigs and add-ons just plain old comfortable ergonomics with a decent evf at your eye. 

yes Andrew this is the dawn of a consumer 4k revolution with Panasonic first out the blocks , I like this new camera as Im a Panasonic shooter and all my glass collection is usable on it.
 
Im sure this is their first version of a 4k camera and over the next few years the spec will just get better and better
lets see what the others can come up with ! Canon, Olympus, Nikon etc

For what it's worth, this is one punk that's more than willing to stay away from a toxic work environment.