fuzzynormal

The 700 is lots of fun for slow-mo and can elevate pretty standard productions somewhat. Here's examples of basic shooting/editing I've done awhile back that got a nice production-value bump from slow-mo: It really is a great tool...for the right project. But slow-mo is kinda niche. Great to have, but not critical, IMHO. If you love it though, the 700 is the cam for you.

I don't know. Their corporate culture might get in the way of that assumption. I think in the future they're going to be positioned pretty much the same place as they were in the past (late 90's early 00's) when it comes to video features: behind Sony and Panasonic; certainly in price. Keep in mind that the 5DII camera which was the first serious vanguard of the DSLR video wave, was sort of a random thing, not really an asserted strategy from them. They got lucky, I think. I don't have confidence they can sell video effectively in the new/next market.

I'm personally thrilled at what's happening in the consumer level marketplace with imaging. Many of us have been waiting for this to happen for about 20 years and it's more than arrived. I've paid more for handle grips on old video cam-corders than I would for an entire camera body these days.

You say you're a full frame sensor guy and don't want to consider anything else, but have been shooting with a sensor the size of s16 for almost a year?

I don't own the lens but it would be impossible for a lens that doesn't vignette with a 2x crop sensor to vignette on a 2.8x crop sensor. If you're having a bit of trouble understanding the math behind the "cropped" sensor concepts, try to study up a bit with on line tutorials. Knowing this information will help you make better used lens purchases. C-mount stuff can be all over the place regarding how much area a lens covers.

It's sort of amusing how one can buy a camera and nice lens these days for less than 1K, turn it on full automatic mode, haphazardly point it a certain direction, and still grab some pretty nice shots with such gear. Let's face it, it's not that hard anymore to get great levels of visual quality with a little effort. However... You can buy a 10K microphone and point it in the wrong place and still get absolute crap for audio. You can buy a $50 mic, know how to best use it, where to place it, and get great results. If you don't know what you're doing with audio, learn. Learn A LOT. You can't really buy your way past ignorance and into quality when it comes to recording sound. It's not difficult knowledge, you just have to know it.

Down converting the resolution from 4K to 1080 is a nice advantage. You don't necessarily need a great computer to handle that job. And once it's 1080 converted to an edit friendly codec, like ProRes422, then you can cut (and color) your stuff easily and effectively.

I find that 2 ND filters (rated @ 0.9 and 1.8) get me through just about any situation. A 1.8 (or x64) would be close to on target for daylight sunlight at 2.8, 200ISO, and 50fps. The .9 gets the exposure on point for overcast days.

After reading and watching the PR material I think the marketing director has "Dreamer Eyes." "This one's for you Nana!" Seriously, check out the D810promo. So many odd beats in the thing. It's a good illustration of how making cinematic narrative is REALLY hard --and it's not the gear or the budget that allow it to succeed.

This is a legitimate concern. They obviously decided to incorporate the rough movement of the camera as a feature of the aesthetic...but I can see how an ultra-smooth "float" of the image would have made the illusions more seamless. That sort of rigging would have been ridiculously troublesome and expensive. Look closely at what the camera does and see if you can even begin to contemplate how to fly the camera smoothly through that path. However, it's still a VERY good vid, bumps and all. I don't have the creativity to pull this off...do any of you?

It's no different than FF.

Ha ha. As if Americans have any monopoly on unethical business practices! Welcome to human nature, where people exploit other people. There are no boundaries in this regard. And, point of fact, Americans barely even rule themselves much less the world.

The artists themselves. Just like filmmaking, it's not expensive to do these days.

"how the f*** are musicians supposed to make a living?" ​Merchandising and live performance. Not saying I agree with that as a business model, but the actual music is the "loss-leader" in the new market. Sell those child labor t-shirts.

The OMD video is perfectly fine. It's not as good as a G6, but it's only lesser by a very very small amount. That amount matters to pixel peepers. To "normal" viewers of your videos, having steady shots will look much more impressive. As we can all testify, crappy handheld video is annoying to watch. Film making is not about the best resolution. It's actually a craft that's somewhat independent of the technology. You necessarily wouldn't know that by reading most subjects on this forum, (it's a boys and their best-est-IQ-camera-toys kinda place) but it's true. Knowing how to lens stuff properly, telling a good story, and understanding light is so much more important. You can't buy skill. You have to learn it and develop it. If you're lucky, you'll have a knack for it. Improve your skills (that's free) and don't worry so much about resolution. Almost any new camera these days delivers wonderful results. It's how you use the camera that matters. IMHO, the OMD line is the perfect solution for a dedicated enthusiast. The 5-axis stabilization, when applied to shots properly, will take you farther production-wise than any other camera on the market. That includes the GH4. For what it's worth, I'm buying one for an upcoming documentary shoot...rather than buying stabilizing rigging for the (really good) cameras I do have.

I'd like to believe this is real. But yeah, the ironic internet makes me doubt it.

I'm sure it's a nice camera. I used the fz200 for travel videography and even some sports productions, and it was useful...but a "super zoom-small-sensor" isn't a camera on which I'd rely. The IQ is too lacking. The long end of the lens got way too soft for my tastes, but it's all a trade off. Of course, IQ is subjective. As you allude, keep in mind with these particular consumer cams the spec sheet looks more impressive than the delivered product. I'd still consider buying one if these though. They work well enough for a lot of shots. There's good value in it.

If you're talking about the FZ1000, you might want to curb your enthusiasm. The DR is suspect. High resolution like 4K is nice, but that's not the most important thing regarding IQ.

I often do travel/tourism gigs (like the stuff seen in this video example). Those jobs are 80% outdoor shooting. Small sensor is irrelevant for that style of production. Dynamic range helps though when shooting into shadow. The FZ line isn't going to offer anything impressive there. Still, if the 5 axis hybrid stabilization thing actually works on this camera, I'd buy it. I've used the FZ200 as a b-cam for those shoots and it rendered acceptable results. The FZ1000 can only be better. Shooting 4K for 1080 is a nice luxury. Wish it were wider though...

Heck of a rant, but I'll agree with it. The tech to realize cinematic art is cheap and easy now. Almost anything you can buy can render a great image if you know the craft of it all. However, when one is overly involved with worrying about the tech, they're missing opportunities to be artistic. Being artistic is hard though. Buying cool camera stuff is easy.

If a camera has serious lowlight capabilities that's a huge value and not a gimmick...even with limitations. I can't tell you how many times I could have used a strong low-light camera in the field over the past few decades.

I do wonder how the camera would handle the kinds of high-motion footage I've seen you shoot. Previous reports express concerns regarding the jello. Still, carrying two or even three cameras around on a shoot these days is a heck of a lot easier than it was carrying just one around in the past, so I'm not put off totally by certain limitations when the payoff is of such high value. For my travel shooting gigs, a GH4, EM-D, and an A7s can live together in the same backpack with a few lenses. I could make that work.

Not familiar with the show either, but the ambition of the shots sounds intriguing.

Retail: One speedboster=$400. A cheap 13mm wide lens=$400. Or, the Panny 8mm lens=$600

Right, it's not an all-sum proposition, which is how most inter web discussions seem to go. Finding legitimate flaws in the production doesn't mean that an actual movie isn't worthwhile on other levels. If you're not a discriminating viewer of movies, fine. But if you want to be something of a film maker you should at least try to be so. Knowing why Kurosawa is superior to a contemporary studio guy like Bay matters. As an aspiring film maker of any legitimate level you gotta try to know why, understand why, and appreciate why. This particular BatMan movie production was a beast of logistics and it does look like some chaos and unwieldiness of the production ended up on screen. Or maybe it's just me... Establishing the "geography" of a scene and allowing for coherent action is out of favor these days with a-list films. Bombast trumps cohesion. I'll take a 3 minute single pan wide shot of 2,000 extras and horses ransacking Aqaba in real time rather than 300 .5 second edits with 2 dozen explosions.