Quirky

...I'll dismiss it as yet another piece of nerdytainment. "Better" is subjective. Depends on one's needs, goals and resources.
 
The typical A vs. B comparisons tend to turn into efficient fanboy traps. Some of them may deliver actual info beyond the usual deliverance of opinions, but quite a few, if not most, don't. One might as well watch a classic Monty Python sketch instead.
 
Camera A is better than Camera B is because the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft camera A from the bosom of the water, signifying by Divine Providence, that camera A was to be the One, would be as good a reason as any to choose between A and B, wouldn't it.  ;)
 
Seriously.  :P

Speak for yourself only. This is not likely to be the end of Vimeo. It's just a little bit of re-profiling. 
I for one have liked plenty of video with no copyrighted music tracks in them, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. 
 
The muting of the videos with copyrighted music used without permission is not the problem, but the way it is being done is. It can harm even those with their very own soundtracks.
 
 
Not much point in using the YouTube videos as an example of anything. There is no free lunch, not even in YouTube. The kids in YouTube can get away with the videos because Google take care of the tab. They put links and ads on the videos with copyrighted music. Also keep in mind that in YouTube/Google, the users uploading content are not their clients. The users are the product, the 'cattle' whose metadata and audiences are being sold to the paying clients, mostly advertisers. I don't think Vimeo has the the budget or the might of Google to match their policies. Which is not entirely a bad thing.
 
In a way Google is partially guilty for the kind of controversy visible also in this thread, where especially the younger generations have become clueless about copyright issues and common sense regarding copying and sharing in general.
 
But that's another story, and I don't wish to steer this thread even more off-topic. Suffice to say that YouTube is probably not an ideal example of (or excuse for) anything. Just take a look at the most successful aspiring and pro filmmakers in YouTube, as well as in Vimeo. I don't think you'll find any of them using copyrighted music in their clips without permission. It's a non-issue, really. But even they might, with permission, if it was made easier to do, with a new system of some kind, as described by many commenters ever since the beginning of this topic. 

My thoughts exactly.
Although the meme does appear to be a highly efficient nerd trap, even here. Which is somewhat surprising. But still, it's bollocks. Utter waste of everyone's time. Another nerdy meme not worth propagating.
 
Seriously people, no one is 'cheating' you. Forget the jargon and ignore the nerds, just grab your camera and go out to shoot something with it. If the footage or photos you get look good to you, great, that's all that matters. Regardless of the sensor size of your camera, or the F-stop carved on your lens barrel.

Yes yes, yes, I thought we've established that and moved on at least a day and a page ago. I already agreed with you about that on the previous page, so your bringing  it back again was a bit confusing. What we're talking about now is another matter, no longer related to your argument.
 
 
 
There has been no argument about why Vimeo are doing what they're doing since page 1. Since then we've also established that their rudimentary efforts involving the online bots are harming the aspiring and pro filmmakers who don't use any copyrighted soundtracks. They get pestered by the bots and bureaucracy for no good reason. Adding insult to injury, getting a sync licence has been made almost impossible for mere mortals.  No wonder people get frustrated.
 
The system doesn't seem to work too well, however well intended originally, and that's the problem. The fact that some people copy and use other people's stuff without permission, anyway, no matter what, is another story. 

This is so true.
Even if you work for a big company (BBC) like i did, the whole understanding & getting rights for stuff is a complete nightmare.
In fact, so much of a nightmare that they have a department just for it & they are the most grumpy people on planet earth - due to the fact that their job is/must be so frustrating because no one but them understands all the ins and outs.
I remember being asked to draw up an internal guide for film & music rights - worst week of my life!
The last time i tried to pay for some music, it took so long that i ended up writing a piece myself - the band did enventually say no, because they thought it might affect their sales & they no longer exist!
I don't blame people for just using something if its "Not for Profit" - its probably those that do make money that are probably to blame for all of this.
 
Here's an [easy - LOL] guide to getting rights to music:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/filmmaking/guide/before-you-start/music-rights

My thoughts exactly.
Although the meme does appear to be a highly efficient nerd trap, even here. Which is somewhat surprising. But still, it's bollocks. Utter waste of everyone's time. Another nerdy meme not worth propagating.
 
Seriously people, no one is 'cheating' you. Forget the jargon and ignore the nerds, just grab your camera and go out to shoot something with it. If the footage or photos you get look good to you, great, that's all that matters. Regardless of the sensor size of your camera, or the F-stop carved on your lens barrel.

Indeed, I find it curious that even on filmmaking sites like this one people seem to have this juvenile sense of entitlement. People should know better.
 
Neverhteless, the actual issue in this thread is twofold;
 
 
 
That's the key issue here, isn't it, it's way easier said than done. In fact, in some cases it appears to be literally impossible for an aspiring filmmaker to do just that, at least within a reasonable budget and effort. Many people would do just that, if they could, in any reasonable way.
 
Apparently what we need is a new "Steve Jobs" who's got the bollocks, the connections and commercial leverage to talk some sense into the heads of the music industry moguls. Someone who could come up with a new "iTunes for Syncronisation Fees" system for us. Someone who could make the music industry realise that they are peeing in their own bowl of cereals once again by not allowing filmmakers and other multimedia artists easy and reasonably priced means to buy a legal licence for their videos. 
 
If they saw that, they'd realise that allowing it would be a win-win scenario, and allowing such an easy and affordable access to copyrighted music would give them a massive but free marketing boost, too, along with an all new revenue stream via the licence fees. But alas, I'm afraid our rants here will be futile, until the whole music industry kicks off.
 
The other half of the issue is this;
 
 
 
Yes, they should. The (other) problem here is just that, the legal imperative is way too one-sided. The users should be considered "innocent until proven guilty." I believe the majority of people publishing videos on Vimeo are using royalty free music licences, anyway, as per the guidelines they've agreed to respect. They don't want to waste time and fight with some dumb bots and bureaucrats with their inevitable false positives. Nor should they have to.
 
Both issues could indeed be easily fixed by fixing the broken system, not by adding dumb bots into it. It's not like (most) people wouldn't be willing to pay for a licence, if only there was a reasonable system to do so. Perhaps the concept of fair use should be less open to interpretation, too.
This may be repeating the same talking (ranting) points once again, but so what. 

Yes, it is an interesting option, as long as 4K is not a must (as suggested). But please note that suggesting it just to join the acclamation choir was NOT the main point of my comment. I don't think that simply listing our favourite camera models is the 'right' answer to the "absolute" questions presented. 
 
I think he/people really should ignore the 'absolutes' and get his/their hands dirty -figuratively- with a few of his/their favourite candidates, and then just pick one that feels right in the hand. The end result, the footage from most of the candidates already mentioned, is likely to look good enough, anyway, at least after a little bit of practising.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the existing (Nikon?) footage doesn't look too shabby to begin with, and the Nikon, together with a suitable lens and a tripod/monopod might be quite sufficient, for now. We all could get better simply with some more practise. I know I would, and I will.
Just trying to save other people's money here....  ;)

Even if the Speed Booster had  big enough an image circle to cover a full frame sensor, what would be the point of having one? Using Mamiya or Pentax 67/645 lenses with a GH4 or A7s wouldn't serve any practical purpose, IMO. Using a focal reducer made for crop sensors sounds like an awkward way of getting a vignette, too.
 
One of the main benefits of getting a camera like the A7s instead of a one like the GH4 or the BMPCC is the fact that you won't need a focal reducer between the body and the lenses made for full frame. If the S35 cine lenses work in APS-C mode, that'll be an added bonus.
I wish someone came up wit a high quality anamorphic focal squeezer of some sort. That would be cool, especially with the mFT bodies, wouldn't it.

The lack of test shots looks like another indicator towards some production issues we don't know about, doesn't it. Maybe the price point is not about deliberate secrecy, either, maybe they haven't been able to decide/fix it yet. Or maybe the moguls at different departments are still bickering about it.
 
Nevertheless, I'm not too concerned about the lack of test footage online so far, as I'd rather see test results made with actual production models rather than with pre-production models. Whenever the product is 100% ready to be purchased. The typical online test videos alone aren't really that critical, either, as only a few of them are typically of any use, all of them are compressed and none of them tell the whole picture.
 
So perhaps Sony should have kept a lid on the A7s until they're actually ready to deliver, after all. A delay this long starts eating up the hype advantage gained by the NAB coverage. A product without a price tag is mere vapourware, not actual hardware. People will only buy products with a price tag, like the GH4. And even if they told the asking price, surely Sony wouldn't want to "Blackmagic" their latest high profile product launch for too long.
 
But let's hope they will indeed give us the price and the delivery date later this week. Or maybe even start delivering it on the 15th.
I'm not in a hurry to buy a new camera at the moment, though. I just wish Sony won't fsck things up, as they've got an interesting thing going with this new product. Different enough from the competition, including both Canikon and Panasonic.
 
PS.
With the sheer lack of actual A7s footage so far, surely this topic turning into a regular A7s discussion topic is not actually off-topic, let alone unexpected, right?  ;)

Why is it so bad? 
 
 
 
Umm... how old are you? 
 
 
 
So in real life it's a non-issue, huh.
 
Sounds like a poorly grounded or cheaply done audio out plug and/or amp on the motherboard. A bummer, but surely not a "serious bug," as someone screamed. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next batch of hardware. Meanwhile, just go out and shoot something. Go and listen to the buzz of a bumblebee or a ladybug to distract you from the headphone buzz.
 
 See? An alleged Panasonic hating Sony shooter defending Panasonic, how can that be?   :P
 
 
Yeap, that sounds more like it. Either that, or dodgy electronics/workmanship in general behind the line out plug. Hopefully the better headphones designed for audio monitoring are the ones supported by Panasonic.

To me the added bulkiness is good news, whatever the reason is. I think the 5N/5R was almost too small and poorly equipped. I'm also happy that they got rid of the annoying NEX menu/user interface. If only they also put some 'serious' guts inside a reasonably bulky consumer model, and got rid of the AVCHD codec, as well as the low pass filter. The jury is still out about whether a touchy-feely display would be essential or not. 
 
New a6000 reviews are popping up these days, done with the production model, but I'm still looking forward to some more video-centric reviews. I think we've all established by now that it's got a pretty fast AF system, so I wouldn't mind reading about something else for a change.

Arguing???
What makes you think I'm arguing about anything?
People don't read too good these days.

The Canucks sort of agree. 
 

The Canucks sort of agree. 
 

The Canucks sort of agree. 
 

It means just forget the hype, ignore the whiny enginerds and wait for the real thing with the final firmware to arrive. Then, and only then draw any far-reaching conclusions. All conclusions drawn before that are just meaningless nerdy-nam-nam. 
 
As for the literal meaning of that one sentence, surely you don't want to fall into the pedantic mode. He just made a slight typo, and he was simply referring to the 5D3 sensor being larger in megapixels than the A7r one, and thus it's slower to read and process all the pixels on the sensor. I believe the rest of Noob's comment was pretty clear.
 
In other words,  just hang on and wait for the final product. Meanwhile, get off the internet, grab your existing camera, and go out and shoot something. I think that one single "test" video has got way more attention that it actually deserves.

That's the internyet in a nutshell, or at least the gadget/tech-oriented online forums. All gadget geek subspecies tend to bicker and whine, and get into each others' nerves at times. The more popular the site gets, the harder it becomes to maintain a good signal to noise ratio.  
 
Anyway, how about "hiring" a trusted moderator or two to help you in keeping the loonies on the path? That's an old-fashioned, but still a working solution, isn't it. Might be a better solution than a strictly closed forum, which might dry out and die after a few months or so, despite good intentions. Well, just a thought. Carry on, one way or other, as a private club or an open bar.

That's the internyet in a nutshell, or at least the gadget/tech-oriented online forums. All gadget geek subspecies tend to bicker and whine, and get into each others' nerves at times. The more popular the site gets, the harder it becomes to maintain a good signal to noise ratio.  
 
Anyway, how about "hiring" a trusted moderator or two to help you in keeping the loonies on the path? That's an old-fashioned, but still a working solution, isn't it. Might be a better solution than a strictly closed forum, which might dry out and die after a few months or so, despite good intentions. Well, just a thought. Carry on, one way or other, as a private club or an open bar.

Nope. Because...
 
 
That's good enough a reason, isn't it.
 
Other than that, yes, it probably is a good idea to sell the 5Dm2. 
As long as the video side of things is concerned, it would make sense to sell the 5mk2 soon, as long as you still might get decent money off it. That won't last for too long now, though. 
 
To which system to jump into, if changing to another one in the first place, is another matter. I believe that right now, of all times, before NAB, before Photokina, before a number of anticipated new releases, one may not want to be in a hurry. Unless you really need a new camera.
 
If that's the case, none of this speculation really matter. You need a new camera and you want a new camera - two very different things.
 
 
 
 
It sort of depends, but in general yes. So called full frame glass will work with full frame, APS-C/S35, mFT, 1-inch and S16. It doesn't quite work the other way around. The full frame glass is less likely to go obsolete, for that reason. Even though you can get along without it, too.
Other than that, it's a matter of taste and your personal preferences. What you like, what you're willing to carry around and so on.
So whatever fancies you but please...
 
  Please, it's 2014, stop propagating the silly idea that mirrorless equals micro four thirds.  That is simply not the case, and the smaller size of the gear is just one part of the whole point in going for mirrorless systems. There are several other reasons as well. On the video side, more than on the stills side, the mirrorless system has obvious benefits over the traditional dSLR design, regardless of the sensor size. Even Canon have been moving towards mirrorless systems within the higher end video segment, hence the C-series.   There are already mirrorless systems from S16 to full frame, so the shallow depth of field vs. mirrorless is a moot point. The Sony A7r, whilst perhaps not the best candidate for video, is just the first full frame mirrorless body. More are on the way quite soon, and probably not only from Sony. Same goes for APS-C size, they're getting better, too. There are three trade shows coming within the next six months, and I bet that until March 2015, the palette available for us is even wider. With compelling options in several different sensor sizes. So not much point in digging oneself into outdated trenches.   FWIW, I for one have come to the conclusion that if you want to have the best of the both worlds, stills and video, buy two different cameras. A hybrid to do both will always be a compromise. At least within a reasonable budget.   So all in all, I'd say if you fancy the GH4 just go for it, but if you're not in a hurry, well, then don't be. Your desires, your wallet, your decision.

Nope. Because...
 
 
That's good enough a reason, isn't it.
 
Other than that, yes, it probably is a good idea to sell the 5Dm2. 
As long as the video side of things is concerned, it would make sense to sell the 5mk2 soon, as long as you still might get decent money off it. That won't last for too long now, though. 
 
To which system to jump into, if changing to another one in the first place, is another matter. I believe that right now, of all times, before NAB, before Photokina, before a number of anticipated new releases, one may not want to be in a hurry. Unless you really need a new camera.
 
If that's the case, none of this speculation really matter. You need a new camera and you want a new camera - two very different things.
 
 
 
 
It sort of depends, but in general yes. So called full frame glass will work with full frame, APS-C/S35, mFT, 1-inch and S16. It doesn't quite work the other way around. The full frame glass is less likely to go obsolete, for that reason. Even though you can get along without it, too.
Other than that, it's a matter of taste and your personal preferences. What you like, what you're willing to carry around and so on.
So whatever fancies you but please...
 
  Please, it's 2014, stop propagating the silly idea that mirrorless equals micro four thirds.  That is simply not the case, and the smaller size of the gear is just one part of the whole point in going for mirrorless systems. There are several other reasons as well. On the video side, more than on the stills side, the mirrorless system has obvious benefits over the traditional dSLR design, regardless of the sensor size. Even Canon have been moving towards mirrorless systems within the higher end video segment, hence the C-series.   There are already mirrorless systems from S16 to full frame, so the shallow depth of field vs. mirrorless is a moot point. The Sony A7r, whilst perhaps not the best candidate for video, is just the first full frame mirrorless body. More are on the way quite soon, and probably not only from Sony. Same goes for APS-C size, they're getting better, too. There are three trade shows coming within the next six months, and I bet that until March 2015, the palette available for us is even wider. With compelling options in several different sensor sizes. So not much point in digging oneself into outdated trenches.   FWIW, I for one have come to the conclusion that if you want to have the best of the both worlds, stills and video, buy two different cameras. A hybrid to do both will always be a compromise. At least within a reasonable budget.   So all in all, I'd say if you fancy the GH4 just go for it, but if you're not in a hurry, well, then don't be. Your desires, your wallet, your decision.

Ha.
 

PS.
IF you do decide to go for another brand camera system, anyway, and your goal is to shoot mostly real estate stills and video with just one camera, you might wish to consider a mirrorless camera with a decent EVF. It would make your life easier. Something like a Panasonic G6, GH3 (or even GH4), or a Sony RX10, for example, especially with an Atomos Ninja 2 recorder. 
 
All those cameras are capable of delivering decent looking results. Better video than your current Nikon, and the stills would be good enough, too. Besides, as long as your photos and video clips are being viewed mostly online in a web browser window, you wouldn't really get much benefit from the most expensive, top of the line camera gear, anyway. As long as we're talking about regular dSLR type cameras for both stills and video.
 
PPS.
I just jumped to post a reply without reading the already existing ones, and looks like some similar thoughts have been posted already, so sorry about the repetition. 

Well, partially yes, sort of, but for the most part, no. 
 
Let me be the first to point out the obvious but unpopular proverb; "it's not about the gear, but how you use it."
By which I am by no means questioning your skills. My point, however, is that your primary problem may not be the camera. Sure, from those cameras you mentioned, a Canon 5Dmk3 might be a noticeable, albeit incremental improvement, but it wouldn't remove the problem you're referring to.
 
Even in many (most) high production value advertisements, TV episodes and even in Hollywood productions the teams sometimes need to, and they will work around the shortcomings of the gear, whichever that may be, and control the variables on the set, like lighting. I'd say lighting is the key here, too, not the (brand of) gear you're using.  The rest is scripting and post-processing - the way you're delivering the story.
 
Picture a high production value commercial with actors in an interior set, for example. In many cases the light you see coming from the windows is a carefully metered and colour balanced light put outside the window, made to look like daylight, and/or the problematic shadow areas are being lit with additional lights, reflectors and so on. Often just barely outside the view. They do not let the sun (or the lack of it) dictate the look of the footage. They can't afford to. Unless they're after some dramatic mood to begin with. In commercial uses like yours that's usually not the case, though. The rest of the magic happens at the editing and grading stage with software.
 
In other words, yes, you might get a minuscule improvement by investing in certain more expensive camera models or in a whole new set of gear. But an easier and more cost-effective way to improve your current footage would be to invest in some lighting gear, post-production tools and, time.
Try to plan your shoots in advance as much as you can, giving the weather and time of day some consideration, too. In your case, investing more time on the location would probably increase the quality of the footage significantly. 
 
In most cases I've been frustrated with my own footage it has been more about the way I've done it, rather than what gear I've done it with. In many cases I'd been be better off with just some thinking outside the box kind of thing. Adapting, and making the most of the stuff I have.  
But I, too, tend to blame the gear, anyway.
 
Oh and one more thing, put the perfectionist on a vacation when doing those shoots. On a non-negotiable one.   ;)