Jump to content

jurgen

Members
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jurgen

  1. Sony Alpha Rumors: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/live-coverage-sony-a6000-officially-announced/comment-page-1/#comment-2074773 Steve Huff: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/02/11/the-new-sony-a-6000-worlds-fastest-auto-focus-aps-c/ More claims of the "world's fastest autofocus" ... would be delighted if that were true, but with the OM-D line having the world's fastest autofocus and the Fuji X-T1 also having the world's fastest autofocus (and neither of them being as fast as high end DSLR's, which, if you hadn't heard, have the world's fastest autofocus), surely someone has to be bluffi
  2. To me, these handheld gimbal stabilizers are bigger game-changers than the 4K/upped color space push. I'm just an enthusiast, so maybe the "gadgetry" aspect is what's appealing to me, but the effect that smooth motion has on footage is pretty profound. Exciting to see and know that you can have both (4K + a gimbal) for around $4,000!
  3. Wow. Pretty crazy! I think it's awesome how quickly this technology is becoming actually viable as a purchasing decision for a small outfit. Now if we could just get a full frame stills camera down in the $1000 - $1200 price range ...
  4. Because you have a great camera, one perfectly capable of capturing beautiful images? One that actually exists right now? Don't be too torn up about this - you're looking at probably a $4000 package with the base brick, plus more on top for all your cords and cabling. And if, down the road, you want to make the switch, you're in luck - these MFT bodies actually hold their value reasonably well (especially the Olympus ones). In the meantime, don't stress! You still have a highly capable shooter. There will always be new gear!
  5. Andrew, I really appreciate your having kept an open mind about this camera. Yours was the first site I saw mention that the E-M1 might be even remotely suitable for making movies - everywhere else had it that a lack of 24p made it borderline unusable for anyone "serious" about filmmaking. I was already most of the way sold on it purely for stills purposes, but your early assurances sealed the deal. I've been shooting on my E-M1 for a little over a week now, and it really is a pleasure to use. I think that's actually - for me, a casual video shooter - the most important thing: it's just pl
  6. I am a Premiere guy but FCPX should be able to work with the E-M1 .mov files natively.
  7. Hmm - I am not sure! I guess I'm not entirely sure that this was ISO 6400 then! I was operating under that assumption because I had set my shutter speed and ISO in M mode and then hit record and my exposure did not change. Curious! I'll investigate further.
  8. As promised, here is an extremely low light ISO 6400 test (shot with the same Canon FD 28 2.8 lens I've used to ... relatively poor effect in the previous two videos :) ): Now, before anyone asks, yes, that is a public school, and yes, I am driving around after dark with a camera - promise I'm not a weirdo, though. It's the only place in this small town where I could safely drive with one hand while shooting video (that has streetlights). It's -25* out in NY right now and no one is out walking. I kept my eyes on the road the whole time to make sure! In terms of video quality, this is th
  9. This is incredible - outrageously cinematic: Dean - so long as you shoot in manual mode, you can shoot at ISO 6400. Not sure on how it works on shutter priority (I have my 2x2 lever set up to control ISO on the front dial in position 2, and I use that to control ISO in shutter priority all the time. I assume it works the same in video? Don't know for sure, though.)
  10. Googled him. Why does he keep insisting that M4/3 is 60% smaller than APS-C? M4/3 is 60% of the total area of APS-C (at least according to his charts). Am I missing something?
  11. I know I'm no Dean, but I drove around tonight and shot some video at 6400. I'll put it up tomorrow for you.
  12. Great review, interesting discussion! The Micro Four Thirds system makes the most sense to me as a stills + video shooter. Small, well built bodies, good first-party primes, the ability to adapt nearly any** lens, cool features like IBIS, and a much better implementation of video all the way through the range. I have the option of Panasonic, Olympus, and Blackmagic bodies, and can buy at the top of the price bracket for significantly cheaper than I can Canon or Sony or Nikon. In terms of stills image quality, I think sites like guesstheformat.com are pretty telling - people do little bett
  13. Here is a video of my sister's cat (look, it was - 38* farenheit outside and we had low battery!) shot on a Canon FD 28mm @ f/2.8 and ISO 800. The cat is sort of an interesting subject from a video quality point of view because there's a lot of subtle color detail in her fur. I think the E-M1 picks it up rather nicely. Everything shot totally handheld, much of it one handed (I was distracting the cat with the other).
  14. Looks great, Dean! Great colors, impressive DR!
  15. jurgen

    GH4 wishlist

    All I care about is broadcast standard for 24/25/30p and 120fps full HD. Give me that and I don't even care if the thing shoots stills!
  16. So here's a video I shot at my sister's place with her E-M1. Obviously I forgot to turn off all the auto-exposure and auto WB functions (sorry!) but now that I have one of my own I will be able to shoot some better tests. Lens was a Canon FD 28mm 2.8 @ 2.8. Crappy focus pulling done by me. The attempted dolly at the end was done one handed with me shuffle stepping side to side. Everything you see is straight out of camera, just me shooting handheld. My lack of skill aside, I'm hugely impressed by this thing. I tried to do roughly the same thing with my GH3 while I was there and the video
  17. Man, if you shoot stills and video, M4/3 is THE system.
  18. Dean, this is kind of an off-the-rails question as it pertains to the topic, but: Shooting stills with your E-M1, if you take a jpg (super fine) at ISO 6400, is some of your noise "black," like dark pixels? http://imgur.com/oll7sU3 (this is what I mean). It does not show up in RAW, which is great, and of course that's a 300% crop of my dog, so it's heavy pixel peeping on a Micro Four Thirds camera at 6400 ISO in a poorly lit room. I am curious if it's "normal" behavior, though. Show up that way for you?
  19. Okay, so I took some test shots over the weekend with my sister's E-M1 using an outrageously soft Canon FD lens in bad light around her house (it's 41 degress below freezing in upstate NY right now), trying to recreate the "sensor wobble" seen in the forest video. Couldn't do it. Panning, tilting, walking, trying to be a human jib with her dogs, couldn't make it happen. Now, I got a lot of "bad" footage, but I couldn't recreate that particular problem. The one thing I didn't have the room to do was run, which I'll try at some point now that I'm back in Texas. I will get some footage up this
  20. Absolutely, hence why I agreed with mike_tee_vee and qualified by saying, "From a creative standpoint" :) 24/25p is a must have for loads of reasons, the limitations on where you can send your footage certainly being one.
  21. Agreed, but from a creative standpoint I really don't think it's that big a deal. Frame rate deviations between 24/25/30p play far less of a role in making something look "cinematic" than do things like lighting, camera movement, lens quality, and, shit, editing. I'd rather not have to make the concession, but if given the option between one or the other, I'd take built in stabilization over 24p any day.
  22. Man, I emphatically disagree on the point of M4/3. I think it's every bit as much a "photographer's camera" system as full frame or APS-C. Like all things, it's about what you need and how you want to shoot. Of course, full frame sensors will always have an advantage in terms of low light capability, etc. as compared to an M43 sensor under optimal studio conditions, but that doesn't mean M43 as a platform isn't good or even good enough. Full frame isn't "as good" as medium format. Medium format isn't "as good" as large. Granted, at some point there's a line - iPhones probably aren't good eno
  23. Hard for me to tell for sure in the Blunty video. I'll do a test with my 14 (28), 28 (56) and 135 (270) mm lenses (as that's all I packed with me on this trip to NY). I'll do locked down, panning, tilting, handheld (but static), handheld with vertical movement, handheld with horizontal movement, and then some walk around hand held. Figure that also might be a decent test of the codec. If there's anything else you want to see let me know!
×
×
  • Create New...