Quirky

Of course it is, no argument there. The learning part works for me, too. But at least to me consumerism is not the same as GAS, and vice versa. To me consumerism is the kind of "shopping is a feeling" attitude and behaviour. Shopping for the sake of shopping, whereas GAS is something different, the urge to get a newer, better tool we want and sometimes even need to do what we do, even though not having one right now wouldn't kill us. 
I for one will openly admit that GAS did have a small part in my buying a BMPCC, along with those four or other somewhat similar reasons. That's why I added the fifth reason in that list. It's as much an edited list for myself, as it was a friendly pun towards you. I think it's quite healthy not to take ourselves too seriously all the time.
 
GAS aside, I don't regret getting the damn thing. The only thing I sort of regret is rushing to buy the cheaper LCDF loupe for it instead of waiting for the pricier Zacuto loupe. Only because the cheaper loupe was available immediately, and the Zacuto wasn't.  The price difference was significant, but not critical.
 
I actually like the simplicity of the camera, along with the 10-bit 422 ProRes HQ it delivers as default. The two major things I don't like too much is the quality of the lcd screen and the structure of the settings menu. There should be better shortcuts for some settings and functions. I wish it had better battery life and built in ND filters, too, but one can't have everything in such a small package, for such a price. Now I just wish I had more time and opportunities to play with it. This fall has been a bit of a disappointment, in many ways. 

Whilst I think that ignoring the loud and pedantic online critics is a feasible idea, can't help but wondering if you see any contradiction above? At least to an outside observer it would seem so.
 
Or maybe it's just me, but in case those incandescent lights were just ordinary household/office fluorescent lights or LED lights, using "incandescent lights," "AWB" and "biased colour science" in the same sentence wouldn't sound too logical to me. 
 
Suffice to say photos/frame grabs taken under such circumstances may look nice and could be used to highlight, compare or even judge a number of things, but surely not reliable 'colour science?' Or even accuracy of skin tones, for that matter. 
Just sayin.'
 
 
I'm sure you will, and the results will look nice, especially in better lights. Carry on posting your findings, despite the grumpy critics.
Don't let your inner 'Canon bias' slow you down, either.  :P

There is no point. It's a contradiction in terms. It's a result of an ironic, (un)lucky accident. The only reason we have video capable DSLR's in the first place is because Canikon only do DSLR's for the mainstream market, and Canikon (still) rule the mainstream market. A MILC is obviously a more natural form factor for a video capable camera, but that doesn't really matter. For now. 
Fortunately there are other options, too. There is not much point in a DSLR for video, but no one is forced to buy a DSLR for shooting video. That's about it. 

The new norm of media, online and off, is copying, pasting and propagating rumours and memes.
We are the Media of the 2010's.
You will be force-fed with rumours. Anywhere you look.
Resistance is futile.

I believe it's the same. Looks like the same Chinese product is being sold with a dozen different brand names. Surely there can't be that many different manufacturers for those. I bet there's only one or two. I take it even that Camdiox one delivered in that fancy yellow box is pretty much the same thing... right? 
So I believe it's a matter of taste, price and logistics. Pick any one that suits you best, or pay more for the Metabones one.
 
 
 
Or perhaps just a slight misintrepretation on your part. 
   
I said "out-resolving the sensor." Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing.   
  No doubt the Nikon lens mentioned is sharp, too, but that's not quite what I was referring to. I used 'too sharp' between apostrophes just as a reference to Andy's 'harsh.' I thought "out-resolving the sensor" and "video-y and dull albeit tack sharp" was clear enough not to be confused with sharpness of a lens. But fair enough, suppose that sentence was a bit confusing, after all. My bad.   What I meant was that the higher the resolving power of the lens, the more likely you'll start seeing aliasing and moire of the sensor at some point. That point being where the lens out-resolves the sensor. Perhaps aided by a good enough speed booster. A sharp lens is just a sharp lens, nothing wrong with that, as you pointed out. As long as that sharp lens won't out-resolve the sensor, you'll usually end up with a sharp but reasonably pleasant look.   I've thought that ideally a given lens and the sensor should sort of make a nice 'match,' too. This may be an over-simplified version of the notion, but nevermind, just to clarify my point. I don't wish to derail the topic with any further nit-picking.    Suppose the bottom line is that there are several different reasons why people like to use legacy film lenses for modern filmmaking. It may often come down to matters of taste, but there's more to it than that. All the nit-picking put aside, what Andy's been saying in this thread so far seems to make a lot of sense. 

I believe it's the same. Looks like the same Chinese product is being sold with a dozen different brand names. Surely there can't be that many different manufacturers for those. I bet there's only one or two. I take it even that Camdiox one delivered in that fancy yellow box is pretty much the same thing... right? 
So I believe it's a matter of taste, price and logistics. Pick any one that suits you best, or pay more for the Metabones one.
 
 
 
Or perhaps just a slight misintrepretation on your part. 
   
I said "out-resolving the sensor." Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing.   
  No doubt the Nikon lens mentioned is sharp, too, but that's not quite what I was referring to. I used 'too sharp' between apostrophes just as a reference to Andy's 'harsh.' I thought "out-resolving the sensor" and "video-y and dull albeit tack sharp" was clear enough not to be confused with sharpness of a lens. But fair enough, suppose that sentence was a bit confusing, after all. My bad.   What I meant was that the higher the resolving power of the lens, the more likely you'll start seeing aliasing and moire of the sensor at some point. That point being where the lens out-resolves the sensor. Perhaps aided by a good enough speed booster. A sharp lens is just a sharp lens, nothing wrong with that, as you pointed out. As long as that sharp lens won't out-resolve the sensor, you'll usually end up with a sharp but reasonably pleasant look.   I've thought that ideally a given lens and the sensor should sort of make a nice 'match,' too. This may be an over-simplified version of the notion, but nevermind, just to clarify my point. I don't wish to derail the topic with any further nit-picking.    Suppose the bottom line is that there are several different reasons why people like to use legacy film lenses for modern filmmaking. It may often come down to matters of taste, but there's more to it than that. All the nit-picking put aside, what Andy's been saying in this thread so far seems to make a lot of sense. 

I think you should consider reversing the highlight in that sentence. Starting the bold text from the word if, not before it. The way it is now looks a bit daft. 
 
 
Yeah, well, consider yourself lucky with your other solution. Yours may just not be enough for some others. 
 
Other than that, Mac vs. Windows (or Linux) is as productive as Canon vs. Nikon (or Canikon vs. Olysonicsontaxleicafilm), so let's not even start, please.

Interesting. I can't help but wondering if this new tech will become the one to replace the Bayer one eventually, though. I'm no expert, but my gut feeling tells me that the next 'industry standard' tech, should there ever be one in the future, should be something simpler, electronic or not. I bet there will soon be other rivalling technologies out later on, at least on paper.
I also wonder if this will just replace one set of digital artefacts (rolling shutter, interpolation artefacts) with all new ones. Oh well, s'pose we'll see, eventually. Anyway, getting a global shutter as a bonus sounds good to me.
 
Meanwhile, what a nice 'leak,' whether it was deliberate or not. It'll be an abundant source for nerdytainment, and it'll keep the hardcore geeks busy for weeks, way before any actual device with the actual tech hits the shelves. As soon as someone introduces the obligatory and inevitable N-word and C-word into the debate, this thread will no doubt have 17+ pages by the time CES and CP+ take place in early 2015.  
 
I'm not bashing no-nonsense comments like those by AndrewM here, they are interesting reading per se.
Just predicting the likely near future before we see the actual sensor in an actual camera, in a not too serious fashion.
Carry on.  ;)

Isn't that indeed one of the key elements that makes it such a usable lens for cinema-like digital video? 
In the sense that it's not 'too sharp,' and it doesn't out-resolve the sensor it's being used with.
What I mean is that if a lens is 'too sharp' and capable of out-resolving the sensor, it'll amplify the digital artefacts like jaggies and moire, and make the footage look 'video-y' and dull, albeit tack sharp. Which is one reason why many of the legacy lenses made for 35mm film work so nicely for video.
 
I don't have any Nikon lenses currently, but I just thought that this lens together with the Metabones first Speed Booster for BMPCC might be a nice, simple combo. The Nikon version of the Speed Booster for MBPCC is cheaper than the Canon one, albeit much more limiting in lens choice. Another niggle is that the wide end would be slightly less wide, too, because of the ~1.7x crop factor.
 
I wonder if someone is using such a combo, and if yes, what might be a matching lens (character-wise, as described by Andy above) (prime, perhaps) for the wider end?

sounds like a good idea!
 
we are all in the middle of a massive Digital Film making revoltion right now
- film is dying - it's almost gone for good (Christoper Nolan will have to start hording film stock soon!!)
- the Alexa has now made such in an inroad in mainstream Hollywood films this past 3 years that its accepted as the main camera now.
 
The thing that has not changed is glass! and getting the right focal lengths for the right shot in your film is still exactly the same for Digital or Film.
What has changed is that Indie film making on Canon and Panasonic cameras it is now possible to make a finished product that is almost 95% as good as the big boys in Hollywood - the difference is not that great if you know what you are doing and if you learn to exploit the 'pros' of what ever camera you are using and mask the 'cons '.
 
The right lenses help you get the 'movie look' and it is all very acheivable very cheaply if you look around for lenses that have a certain 'look' similar to expensive movie lenses.

Well, it may be as goofy as Barbarella back in the day, but you don't really worry about that too much, because your attention is arrested by pretty much the same "thing" as it was back in the day when Jane Fonda was living her prime years. ;)
 
As for your merry way of distributing "constructive criticism" and rooting for your fellow filmmakers, whether you like piece or not, at least he's walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk. With the resources he's got right now. Who knows what all that will become, eventually. Both in terms of storytelling and technical.
One thing is sure, though, just talking and criticising technical shortcomings won't take us anywhere. Let's give jcs some credit for actually doing something with the gear and putting it out there for everyone to see, instead of just bickering about the specs of the gear on online forums. Personal projects are the things that get us going, aren't they.

Well, it may be as goofy as Barbarella back in the day, but you don't really worry about that too much, because your attention is arrested by pretty much the same "thing" as it was back in the day when Jane Fonda was living her prime years. ;)
 
As for your merry way of distributing "constructive criticism" and rooting for your fellow filmmakers, whether you like piece or not, at least he's walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk. With the resources he's got right now. Who knows what all that will become, eventually. Both in terms of storytelling and technical.
One thing is sure, though, just talking and criticising technical shortcomings won't take us anywhere. Let's give jcs some credit for actually doing something with the gear and putting it out there for everyone to see, instead of just bickering about the specs of the gear on online forums. Personal projects are the things that get us going, aren't they.

Century Optics make a very nice x0.7 wide adapter that can fit on the front of your helios 58mm making it wider with no visable loss in IQ 
I am a big fan of glass with the same look and colour tinge

That was intended as a friendly pun for sure, but the comment does actually have a point, anyway. The EOSHD name may have felt cool back in the day, but it, along with any name linked to a single brand and model, becomes a branding ballast rather than a branding asset at some point. 
 
Here's a recent example from the photography blogging world. Surely you have heard of an Aussie bloke called Matt Granger? 
He was and still is a photographer and a YouTuber with a relatively large following. In YouTube and in social media he was known as That Nikon Guy.  Surely that felt cool at the time, but before long his appearances online had more and more to do with all but Nikon gear. A personal brand tied to an industry brand is always a big risk, and it's bound to become a burden at some point. Like it did in his case.   So even though Matt had branded himself as That Nikon Guy, he took the risk of changing his well known but increasingly obsolete online brand and changed it to something more generic yet unique, his own name.   The risk paid off, as he did it soon enough and quickly enough, and apparently his online success didn't take any significant hit. Looks like he's doing even better these days, with a new and snappier Get Your Gear Out slogan, and being his own brand rather than being tied to any camera brand.     The point of this (somewhat OT) story is not to promote Mr. Granger, I don't even subscribe to his YouTube channel, but just as a relevant example.  Perhaps a similar move might be a good idea for EOSHD, too. After all, a new domain will only cost around $30 and then $10 per year, and your online community wouldn't disappear because of a new, more appropriate name. It would work even better in the long run, bringing you more new readers who now may be put off or distracted by the Canon (dSLR)-related brand name, at least in the initial search results. Just saying.  -_-     The world is changing, life is a stage and the players in the play keep changing through time. Even big names exit the stage at some point, giving room for new names. To be or not to be? That is the question. Would we be better off trying to block the door to the stage, or would we be better off seeing daylight through that open door?  :P

One little detail seemed to be missing, or at least discussed quite briefly, namely the shooting with the Shogun part.
 
So will there be a part 3 at some point, or perhaps an epilogue for this one?

Umm.... Canonitis?  :P

Umm.... Canonitis?  :P

Not just technically very good, but everything about it:
 

It depends. Trading the 5d3 is probably a good idea in the long run but meanwhile, if the work you get done with those is good enough, why bother for the sake of swapping cameras? If you fancy the Sony A7s with a full frame sensor and just want to have one, that's another story. Go with whatever fancies you. That's not crazy, that's just normal. Our decisions are 90% emotional, anyway. 
 
 
You could put any brand instead of Sony in that sentence, and it would still be one of the not so good reasons to swap gear, aka on the crazy side of the scale. I for one wouldn't rely on any AF alone. For the time being. Especially in scenarios like live weddings where you can't have retakes. Although the native lenses of each system are always the best option for the most reliable AF in general.
 
 
Yes, Canon really is uncool, but that's another story altogether.  :P
 
Whether you're crazy or not depends on your reasons for buying new gear. People can make great looking footage with both Sony and Canon gear. I've met some with C100/300 and some others with Sony gear, and I can't really say the gear dictates the quality of their work.
So pick whatever you fancy the most, and stop deluding yourself with all the wrong excuses.  ;)

Do AJA, Blackmagic and Kinefinity make TV's? Nope.

Of course it is, no argument there. The learning part works for me, too. But at least to me consumerism is not the same as GAS, and vice versa. To me consumerism is the kind of "shopping is a feeling" attitude and behaviour. Shopping for the sake of shopping, whereas GAS is something different, the urge to get a newer, better tool we want and sometimes even need to do what we do, even though not having one right now wouldn't kill us. 
I for one will openly admit that GAS did have a small part in my buying a BMPCC, along with those four or other somewhat similar reasons. That's why I added the fifth reason in that list. It's as much an edited list for myself, as it was a friendly pun towards you. I think it's quite healthy not to take ourselves too seriously all the time.
 
GAS aside, I don't regret getting the damn thing. The only thing I sort of regret is rushing to buy the cheaper LCDF loupe for it instead of waiting for the pricier Zacuto loupe. Only because the cheaper loupe was available immediately, and the Zacuto wasn't.  The price difference was significant, but not critical.
 
I actually like the simplicity of the camera, along with the 10-bit 422 ProRes HQ it delivers as default. The two major things I don't like too much is the quality of the lcd screen and the structure of the settings menu. There should be better shortcuts for some settings and functions. I wish it had better battery life and built in ND filters, too, but one can't have everything in such a small package, for such a price. Now I just wish I had more time and opportunities to play with it. This fall has been a bit of a disappointment, in many ways. 

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.

Yes, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
 
FWIW, you clearly said "the brand which launched the Revolution" (a brand = a business entity, a company, not a single product). A "broad statement" doesn't quite fix that. Your thinly veiled personal insult will not turn a brand into a camera, either. It will only make yourself look pathetic. But choose yourself. 

How so?
That sounded like pretty typical and quite predictable stuff from the Canon reps on a business fair, I don't see anything to get all worked up about. Most of those answers were just fine, pretty standard stuff. More or less what one could realistically expect.

Given the sensor size and megapixel count are not exactly like the A7S, the ISO 3200 sample is ok and on par with a Red Epic.
 
The noise reduction setting in-camera is crazy high which makes it hard to judge sharpness from these hastily shot JPEGs before they glued the card door up to stop exactly the kind of post you just made slamming the camera based on a bad test!!
 
The guy who shot these didn't even get the model's head in focus and you are claiming her hair looks soft... no wonder.