fuzzynormal

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.

I'd be interested, but it only shoots 60p and at a low bit rate...so, "meh."

Fujio Mitarai says: "We match products to the needs of the times, and we concentrate our resources on what we do best. Our forte is hardware, but not every kind of hardware. We focus on value-added input and output technologies."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of various Look-Up-Table applications, but (unless I'm wrong?) many people are basically turning a LUT into a glorified color correction filter, which is not what it’s intended to be...? I come from a broadcasting background rather than cinema, so I'm unfamiliar with the more intricate details (such as LUT's) that, as I know of it, relate to the processing of actual film.

Absolutely right. I'm not fond of some of your color choices to be honest, but that's fine. You're doing what you like and that's all that's important. BTW, were you shooting some footage at a higher shutter speed, maybe for exposure compensation?

Seems like an indy programmer with ambition to do a hack might be more likely...?

Nice. I got a low-budget American Western on the agenda and finding an interesting lens set for that film needs to happen. Considering the content of the film, I'm curious about vintage lenses and the IQ character they offer for such storytelling. I'll try them out and look forward to the results. I don't have any wide-angle shots planned, so 18mm and above would be perfectly fine. Anything I should know about the adapter or the infinity focus Pascal mentioned?

I'm not enamored with it to be honest, even though I employed it for a specific purpose in one of my recent doc-shorts. That insane DOF is just not a visual I'm used to as a guy growing up on American cinema. However, it's handy for talking head interview shots. That low-light ability and deep DOF makes those types of compositions a bit easier. Even so, the M43 does impressive DOF too if you want it.

I'm unfamiliar with these lenses and adapter. What testimony can you tell me about them? I'd like to hear from some experience.

If you want a cinematic look, f2.8 is a good place to be on the M43 cameras.

As a person that's also made 5DII-shot documentaries in film festivals (and that matters not) --I'm just saying so many people focus their concerns in directions that ultimately may not be as important as they think. If 2 stops of dynamic range prevents you from telling a good story, well, that's odd isn't it? Still, I do know why you'd want that capability. It's nice, but if you're strapped for cash don't worry about it. As it happens, I also just wrote that stuff above just for the sake of writing it. Maybe it's contrarian on a blog that's about gear, but that's my POV. I'm pretty sure point-of-view is what the entire global internet runs on. Hubris, opinion, and comatose humans radiating body heat for our alien overloads inside another dimension of reality. You've already said what you have is working and and right now you have no money. So it seems you're fishing for an affirmation to buy something new? Ultimately, do what you want, but do check out Andy Lee's advice. I'd say that's spot on.

This isn't true in my experience...or else I'm reading different blogs. You're not going to find much FF references in cinematography magazines for instance. And since this particular site is about filmmaking on photography equipment, having dual context-understanding between cinema and photography focal lengths is important.

I'll say this: If you think the camera is what's limiting your creativity and productivity in photography, videography, and/or cinematography, you're not doing it right to begin with. ...So much more important things to worry about than the camera.

They're all good as they typically succeed in the tasks I set out for them. I've taken to thinking of camera bodies like film stock. Each has IQ characteristics. The flaws are actually an aesthetic that can be exploited.

As someone that's done at least a dozen shoots in the past month that mix GX7 footage with a 5DII and a 7D, I strangely don't have this problem. Curious.

Looks like you figured it out on your own. I shoot handheld mostly myself since I've been working on documentaries, but I'll admit it takes more skill to create a compelling edit with static shots. It is more difficult; not technically, but most other ways. However, the older I get the more I'm attracted to an informed "quiet" lens. My next short is going to be an exercise in all static shots.

Yes. It's good and I like it's low-light capability. Then again...all cameras released in the last two years are quite good.

No. It's not the the quantity of light, it's how you use what's there. You can't purchase your way into professional accomplished photography/videography. You either learn the skill to do it well or you don't. If you're coveting a new camera that's fine, but don't assume that camera is going to accomplish something professional just because it's nice gear.

Apparently a lot of people prefer that method. I'm guilty of it. Wisdom helps, but not always.

Here's my simple rant: Everything's good now-a-days. This kind of stuff is truly getting to be an "angels-on-the-head-of-pins" debate. Sure there's always some new thing that might solve a particular problem, but how serious is that problem, really? Worry more about how to interpret light in a productive creative way and you'll be fine whatever you choose. A good cinematographer with an iPhone will always outshoot an amateur with an Alexa. What's more important? A long zoom lens or knowing how to capture a compelling image? I'd rather learn the latter and then utilize the former. Until you have some advanced skill at creating images you're not going to run into serious limitations with gear. You will be the limitation. In fact, by not compromising your desires you're the one limiting your own potential. Obstructions can create actual paths to creativity. Best documentary shoot of my life was when I said, "the hell with carrying all that crap" and I hit the road for a month with one 50mm lens. Had to make do, so I did. As for cameras, seriously, when it comes to imaging equipment, we're all driving Lamborghinis. Learn how to shift and steer the damn thing before you fret about the camber of the rear suspension and the downforce of the spoiler. I know all the stuff out there can be overwhelming...but believe me, there are no bad choices for imaging gear in the upper end of the consumer market. The bad choices happen when you start shooting with ignorance or complacency. Solve those problems and it'll all be good regardless.

The Rome video on the previous page is shot handheld and filmed by someone with skill. It's no joke to me as it illustrates what's possible with the OM-D's and a bit talent. The other videos in the thread seem to be pretty much neophytes trying to figure out how to use the gear. Nothing wrong with that, but the examples are obviously nothing too special. But the Rome vid is certainly a showcase for the Oly's. It helps sell me on the idea that the OM-D line would be the best camera(s) for my 2-month-hike-film. The less I have to carry on that particular shoot the better.

A 36" slider (pushing with my finger) and a simple jib. I forget the jib length. My colleague let me borrow it. I could get the arm up there around 12 feet or so. Anyway, showing that video illustrates how it's not just about the number of pixels captured. It's, IMHO, more about exploiting the light and getting decent framing.