fuzzynormal

On the Panasonic Lumix cameras there is no stabilization in video mode. Good luck with the camera though. Regardless of a few issues, I like it. However, I'd disagree with the assertion that less mass allows for steadier video shooting. That's contrary to my experience. That said, the 20mm on the camera makes for a great video image. I do like the 40mm full-frame equivalent focal length.

eBay. The gm1 kit zoom lens works fine with lots of cameras, so it sold easily. Anyway, I'm using the camera for video, and there isn't any stabilization in that mode, so that photo-stabilization feature wasn't valuable enough to make me want to keep the lens. Besides, I'm a prime lens type of guy --and bought the camera for a specific purpose which includes lots of night shooting. Having fast primes mattered more to me.

It's a truly crappy EVF, but I can still find focus with it with a little hunting. Shame I need to do so, but it does help. On the other hand, when shooting with the GM1, you'll never ever be mistaken for a "pro" ...for better or worse. You probably wouldn't with a GX7 either, but the GM1 is so small and consumer-ish, you pretty much get ignored when shooting with it.

I've used all my various lenses on it, including a Canon redband 24-70, just to be ridiculous. And my next short film will be shot with the only the GM1 and an Industar 28mm. It's a deliberately odd choice for aesthetic and technical reasons. However, for what I'm mainly using the cam for, a documentary that takes place in nightclubs and bars, the most common lens on there is a 12mm Olympus. Fujinon makes some cool/cheap industrial glass that apparently works quite well on M43. I like the flaws of vintage lenses too. Old primes and weird Russian glass always finds itself mounted on the cam. Anything goes, really.

Same here. Roberta Muldoon confused me.

I like the stealth factor of the GM1 myself. I bought it just for that purpose. You may not care. In that case, yes, GX7 all the way. Having an EVF is great for shooting video. That said, I bought my GM1 and then sold the kit lens for $300U.S., so ultimately I got the GM1 pretty cheap. Might want to consider that if you're trying to save some cash and you already have a collection of lenses. In my case, I have a bunch of old Nikons and a few m43 primes.

I'm not. The reason I bought one is to go "stealth" in public areas. I want to shoot video while not really looking like a guy shooting video.

Nope. I desperately wanted to buy one of their products, but they never made it. Too bad. ShotgunMic/SD-Recorder/PreAmp-Aux-Input/LineLevelOutput/HeadPhoneJack. Ideal for DSLR'ing. In the development pipe, but no follow through. Weird, seems like the perfect product. Maybe too perfect?

Remember back in the 1970's when guests on the American TV program "The Tonight Show" would sit at the panel with Johnny Carson while wearing those goofy stripped suits and ties and then end up looking like some kind of visual hypnotizing device? No? Just me? Hey!O!

Don't own any Rode product. Wanted to buy the shotgun mic/digital recorder --with headphone, line out, and aux preamp input. It was demo'd at NAB, what, three years ago? Still waiting. Apparently just vapor ware.

I do often. Because it fits the type of corporate gigs I'm doing these days. It's a short slide 24." For my jobs that works. I don't do a lot of it though for my personal work though. However, I recently tested emulating dolly shots hand held with an Oly E-M5 and was very satisfied with the results. It requires some tai chi body control, but it's very do-able. I was trying to figure out if I could use the camera on an upcoming documentary that'll put me in the field hiking 15 miles every day for two months. Obviously in that situation I want my kit extremely minimized. I'm just taking the camera and two lenses... I might have limited gear on that assignment, but with that 5-axis stabilization I don't feel like my shot abilities will be.

Better just walk around in public with your hands held high in the air, to be safe. Better yet, just don't go outside. Too dangerous.

www.google.com (I'm not being snarky, that's the better place to go to get your specific answers.)

Ha! Have you ever seen "Big Business"? It's about as unpretentious of a broad simple comedy as you can get, and it's awesome. That shit ain't highfalutin', it's just damn funny and one of the most popular films of its era. And, seriously, MWAMC is nutso-crazy innovative. They pulled off that stuff over 80 years ago. But I get the point. So it is: late 20th century to present day.

Not mainstream in the west, but in the USSR the film was a such a sensation that it ignited an entire social debate about the art form.

Yeah, but we can kinda tell when some folks are going down the rabbit hole, right? Extreme beginners worrying about a purchase because of sensor debayering? I'll disagree with Michael1 insomuch as the tech is now so good and so ubiquitous that such a debate really shouldn't go on forever. We all drive some form of sports car these days.

Influential. That's a really interesting qualifier. Who knows when certain works are going to hit us square on the mark? Makes for a curious personal context. Mainstream features? They all qualify for that based on their region and time of release. So, in a particular order that I'm not telling you about: Big Business (1929) Man With a Movie Camera Ikiru Seven Samurai TGTB&TU Tree of Life Straight Story Raiders of The Lost Ark Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring Per Qualche Dollaro In Più As for entry two on that list, watch some common DSLR "street" vids on Vimeo...then pop that sucker in your DVD player. Compare.

22fps continuous shooting? ...hmmmmmm.... At what resolution I wonder?

There's always the GM1 when trying to be innocuous. It's been working for me. Certainly no one assumes you're doing anything professional when carrying that camera around, which is great when need be.

Yup. Nothing revolutionary, but here we go again. Really, really incredible imaging products are so cheap and easy to acquire. I fully expect some 11 year old to imagine a particular piece of cinema that far exceed my talents and/or perspective. And why not? They'll easily have the gear that lifts them up to be able to do it. And to think I used to shoot on actual film and then have to go through all that post... Man, there's just hardly any barrier between an idea and implementation these days. Crazy.

As for the weapon aesthetic: that's the most non-looking gun device that kinda looks like a gun I've seen. I doubt the kids that might use this in Shimokitazawa, Görlitzer Park, Shoreditch, or Silver Lake have the capability of looking threatening --even when carrying a device with a trigger on it. Somehow wearing a blanket as a scarf, tight jeans, and big rimmed glasses takes the edge off. Keep in mind too, this is a Japanese product. Not too many people walking around with guns in that country. Anyway, I can see how this would work as a niche in Japan. They embrace retro.

Who among us really knows the Japanese business culture? I don't assume to know a heck of a lot, but from what I learned while living there, it didn't strike me as exactly sensible. Many other considerations come before sensibility.

That's how they roll.

Of course they do. The point I'm making is that the camera is not doing the heavy lifting to make this film what it is. The imaging tools are now within reach of all of us for not much cash. Handling all the other stuff? Especially the artistic capabilities? Well... That's why I'm here typing about stuff rather than doing it, I suppose.