fuzzynormal

On the contrary, it seems to me I'm hearing criticism of the video content. I'll elaborate. The camera is only a tool and the examples are more a preferential testament to the filmmaker production abilities rather than the actual cameras IQ. It's not the camera "outclassing" one video over another. They both look fine. The lighting and environment in the GH3 video is more interesting and dynamic though. The art design of the work is considered and successful. That's the MUCH bigger difference to me. Is that aspect of the vid influencing one's bias of the image? I think it might be. (It should, should't it?) No layperson that I know is going to pixel peep at their wedding video and complain that a 5DIII has less perceived IQ than a GH3. No way. There are more important things they worry about. Like, you know, the created content. Besides, the GH3 video in this wedding video, to my eye, is a tad over sharpened anyway and, for a romantic wedding, I actually prefer the gentler and deeper DOF image from the 5D. I believe the word that sums all this up is called "subjectivity." Must be me. I just don't get the brand "vs." brand stuff and asserting that one certain camera is so much superior to this other camera. All newer cameras produce incredible worthwhile results and to quibble about what are ultimately pretty inconsequential IQ differences seems like a waste of time. You buy the gear that does what you want it to do. You feel you need RAW, you choose RAW. You want ProRes422, go get it. 8 bit gets you by, no problem. Simple. Different needs, different cameras. Ultimately both of the filmmakers responsible for the videos above went out and created something with their gear and were successful at it. To me, that fact is so much more important than anything else.

You figured it out. Also, if you wait for the next "best" thing in cameras, you'll always be waiting. Assuming that you want to actually make stuff in the meantime just get something and use it. Almost all cameras create really good images these days if you know what you're doing. Make stuff and have fun.

Cinematic images, IMHO, are easier attained with the longer "portrait" focal lengths. For reference: the 80-130mm FF equivalent. They make getting shots a more considerate process. The constraints of this force me to be creative and technically disciplined. I like that. Short lens shots speak to me, (outside of narrative context) more often than not, as "video" rather than film. That's my broadcasting background, I suppose. Anyway, the small/light Oly45mm on the m43 sensor has been good to me. Any cheap/sharp 50mm lens (adapted) will work too. Right now I have 4 different 50's. Pentax, Nikon, Helios and Jupiter. Bigger glass but perfectly capable in different ways. I have no real love for zooms, but they are pragmatic depending on the gig.

This is true, but the innocuous size of the pocket cams do allow for acquiring certain shots that otherwise one might not get. I can control a big camera better, but for some of the gigs I've done, having a big camera just isn't a great idea. Not sure how many here have had to endure a shakedown from authorities in Cambodia or other developing countries, but avoiding that scenario by not looking "pro" does have value.

The gm1 works for me, but I'm not that demanding when it comes to grading....

As an owner of the GX7, I'd be surprised if it was as bad as what I'm used to. It would really be unacceptable on a 4K camera. Heck, it's unacceptable on a 1080 camera.

I don't have a mustache I can wax nor do I live in Echo Park and visit NAB on trust fund money. Am I still allowed to buy the camera?

So, who here would rather watch a GH1 video in the hands of someone with talent --than a hack neophyte running around with a GH4? What's it all about, after all? (...I ask on a blog forum specifically about the latest and greatest gear...) Films like this easily challenge the wishful conception that great equipment make a great filmmaker. Thanks for the inspiration mojo.

Not many seem to appreciate M43 photos. Steve Huff is about the only one making a mark evangelizing for M43 as a photo format. Personally, I like it. It doesn't feel limiting to me.

I'm typically a "smaller is better" sort of guy. As such, I've found the GX7 and GM1 to be a very capable motion picture cameras. Similar to what you're looking for, they're also a stop-gap video camera for me. I also bought 'em to use as my go-to stills cameras once the video needs are overtaken by the next camera buy. I think they're great stills cameras. Also, the GM1 works well as a "fly" video cam and I expect it'll specialize in that capacity for a long stretch.

Like it or not, they do have to make money selling their stuff. As a business decision, it makes sense. Lots of rinky-dink "TV studios" around the world would appreciate a decent low-cost camera(s). For example: if you're reading this from Europe, you might be surprised how many American religious organizations build small/big studios to proselytize their opinions. It's a good market to sell to. On the other hand, even if the indy film market does't offer great profit potential, they have product in that sector. They have to maintain, and even lead, in that arena if they want the "Black Magic" brand to mean anything. Since all lines are blurred between various production disciplines these days, they'll take a big hit with their reputation if they fail in any of them. I do wonder if they're too small to suffer that sort of collapse.

Yes. Although I do tend to use nice and small m43 prime lenses most of the time. Still, occasionally, having a zoom is productive. Depends on the shoot.

Well, ultimately, it's always been that. But getting through the production door and into the VIP room where the dude named "really-good-technical-imaging" hangs out is getting a lot easier.

If you want more DR this should tickle your jewels: As a documentarian that's actually done that sort of shot on numerous occasions, seeing a camera make it work so well is quite encouraging. I'm partial to keeping things small when on the road, so the self-contained ability of the GH4 appeals to me. It's ultimately about the image though... Looks like a really good/busy year for serious imaging development.

The big lens/smallcam set-up either looks incredibly silly or kind of goofy-cool. I can't make up my mind which. Either way, images look good from it.

Yeah, but the beats getting dropped were dope.

Hey Sony. You're sweet and all. I just think we're in different places right now. I know you'll meet someone that'll love you for who you are, (*cough* high maintenance *cough*) but I need a more down to earth camera to hang out with and accepts me for who am am and what I want. I just need simple and easy 4K, you know? Don't worry though, lots of fish in the sea. Call me again sometime.

ISO 50 is nice for video.

Club music! Let's dance!

Grey/Silver suit guy needs a tailor.

Well, I've shot with my Canon red band 24-70mm lens on the GX7 and GM1. It looks ridiculous using it this way, but it does work well. In fact the mass of the glass assists with hand held shooting. Anyway... the main thing: there's no aperture control, but since the lens is a f2.8 wide open (which translates into a perfect-for-cinema f5.6 on a m43 sensor) I just use a very basic "dummy" adapter on the Canon glass and call it good. It only makes sense to shoot motion pictures in manual focus, so no need for the camera body to deal with that either. Exposure control is then handled with ND filters and ISO, while shutter speed remains constant. Keep in mind, for whatever f-stop you wanna use, you need to mount the Canon glass on a Canon body, adjust/set the iris, then do the body swap switcheroo.

Sensor size means more maths.

Yes indeed. Full Frame is really nice for low light stuff, but has a unique quality to is that's unlike most motion picture footage...especially when you shoot full open iris. Anything below a f4 on FF is too exaggerated for me. Looks cool, but it's not always appropriate. So unless you're going for that dramatically shallow DOF for creative purposes, best to keep the DOF under tighter control. Which is good for you because: The sensor size(s) of various APS-C cameras are close to 35mm motion picture (not stills) film.

Yes, everything except I'd shoot around f4-f5.6. That's where most cinematographers do their shots. BTW, I'm in San Diego as well. What part of town are you doing stuff?

There's plenty of digital effect techniques to emulate film stock, such as the one Aaron mentions, but the processes used in camera are the bigger step, I think, for getting one's footage to appear to have been shot on stock. Make sure you don't over look that part of the equation. You have to emulate, as best you can, the kind of cameras those film stocks would have been run through. DOF, but not too much. The correct shutter speed. Proper lens selection. It's a big recipe with a lot of ingredients to make the meal you're considering. You can't just pop something into the microwave and heat it up if you want it to be satisfying.