fuzzynormal

I don't think any of that is surprising in retrospect analysis of the company. Olympus is/was a frustrating company. You could tell they had a team and the basic technology to do something cool and inventive, but it always felt a bit shackled from taking the bigger riskier step to really compete. There's probably scant chance the remains of Olympus imaging will spin off into anything amazing in the future...but the irony is that there's still a narrow path where they could thrive in a market niche, I think. If anything has shown us from the bast 10 years is that these companies don't necessarily need to have to have the latest and greatest sensor to build a really impressive, useful, and cool camera. What they do need to do is wring more out of what's been developed in the CMOS arena already. But it's out of the hands of people with an engineering/artistic passion for cameras, and it's into the hands of financiers. Best to to throw hope away for Olympus at this point.

Ability of a lens to gather light and the lens DOF aesthetic have always been intertwined --but are definitely different things. Hobbyist really crawl up their own butt with this stuff sometimes. Having masterful wisdom of the nuances of technical craft is important and nice to have. But, let's be honest, it's not the end-all-be-all. Many other decisions are much more impactful when solving movie making problems.

Minimal difference. I'd say the EM5 is actually not much better for video, but certainly a better all around camera if photos are a big deal to you. imho, the EM5 looks nicer, if that matters. You might like the size and ergonomics of a EM5 a bit more. The menu options are more refined. In addition, you can plug a mic directly into the EM5. I also believe the rolling shutter is not quite as pronounced. If I was still doing my globe trotting video work, I'd get the EM5 simply because I could put a battery grip on it, the EM5 is weather sealed, and the IBIS is slightly better...but those are not video IQ considerations. For the video IQ? No great variance...which is why the em10iii is such a value for video to begin with. Cheap camera, really good 4k video, and a decent IBIS system. I'll probably get another one so I can do same-camera tandem video shooting on an upcoming gig I have scheduled. They're so affordable it's kind of ridiculous. I've paid more for meals that I have for this little guy.

I put old vintage lenses on my m43 gear all the time. I prefer them. Right now I have a Pentax a110 lens on my EM10iii. (google it) Yes, as compared to the standard size of a 35mm still film exposure. That's pretty much the formula. If you buy a 12mm lens and put it on m43, it'll look like the focal length of a 24mm lens on a full frame camera. Nope. It exists on all cameras that literally move the sensor (or lens elements) to give you stabilization. Not all cameras do IBIS (in body image stabilization). For example, the lens stabilization used in FUJI lenses is actually decent...but they do stabilization in the lens, not the body.

That's the thing about this. And who's to say a nimble camera company more attuned to the market doesn't arise in the aftermath? I guess it's not the most likely of scenarios, but there's a chance.

IBIS setting "M-IS 2" That's the setting for mechanical IBIS. Mechanical means there's no digital processing on the stabilization. Because digital stabilization requires a little bit of zoom-in-crop on the image, when it's not on you don't have said crop. Yes. "On" and activate with the IBIS setting "M-IS 1" Yes. Also known as, by default, the "Fn2" button. It does produce a good image for footage that'll be 1080. It's not as clean and sharp as 4K, but it gives you a very quick way to punch in for close ups. I've used this when filming people working on a computer, for example. Want a nice close up of them typing on the keyboard? Hit that button, bop in tight. It's also useful for a quick focus check.

It's a dumb joke. The point I'm making is that it's not the format, it's the market. Somehow I don't see MFT going away too fast, actually. Just a hunch. It'll carry on as a legacy thing. Lots of good lenses out there. Same.

I wonder what we'd all be saying if it was Nikon that decided the market has shrunk too much to keep going. Is it just about MFT? Nah. Personally I don't think size matters as much. It's how you use it.

They don't call them halflings for no reason.

Well, I've often said I see no big reason, for me, to chase the latest and greatest when it comes to cameras, so maybe that's a bit why I was more forgiving of Olympus than other people. Their products have been behind the curve in all regards except IBIS, and they only strongly held that niche for a short while about 6 years ago. Shame they didn't have the resources to get their stuff into 10-bit and 60p4K, but that's how it goes.

I think I'll ride out the Olympus downfall and probably pick up another one or two of their cameras on the cheap as their brand devalues and their gear pops up on the used market. I just bought a EM10iii new for a pittance. Imagine I'll be able to do the same with a EM5III, E-M1 MII, or E-M1X in the not too distant future. For me, I can still see using their bodies for another handful of years. I've followed a lot of discontinued products over the cliff in this profession. In the meantime my wife is in the FUJI space, so migrating to them for video will be easy enough. The image/colors her XPRO2 spits out of the camera are impressive.

Ooof, hurts to think about such a missed opportunity. Never really likely, but would have increased prestige of the brands and made a formidable competitor on the scene.

Nuts. I was hoping they might've held on as a legacy division that propped up their medical stuff. Losing money selling cameras; Wasnt meant to be I suppose.

My opinion is that earnest melodrama in sci-fi has a solid place in populist film. Dumb movies have a better chance to thrive than cerebral as they can reach a broader audience. Exceptional intelligent stories will endure, but lowest common denominator stuff is a safer financial bet, especially on the low-budget indy side of things. Fan films are a good indicator of this. We're now seeing highly crafted indy film work on YouTube, but bland story telling. Folks seem to love it. The whole thing where there's 3D rendered super heroes doing nothing but fighting each other for half an hour is a case-in-point.

Sure. It’s all part of the whole career process. Still, would rather my work be able to pay bills instead of generating more of them.

As a doc filmmaker, I've sunk $30k into a financially failure of a film. Had a decent festival run and won at a majority of the fests it was accepted into. Will probably never make money from it. So there ya go. I can also attest from personal experience with the festival I'm working with, really interesting films tend to challenge regular-folk-viewers, and many times regular-folk-viewers make up selection committees. This is for better or worse. A well crafted, complicated, and nuanced film will often get past over at mid-tier fests. If it's not a coy, sentimental, obvious, and schmaltzy feel good piece of work it's an uphill battle. That sounds harsh, but consider what wins Best Picture at the Oscars.

I've heard this movie mentioned elsewhere too. I suspect the 700K is for base field production and loads of other cash are being spent in the numerous other areas of the production/distribution process. The other indy film story of the pandemic months is the nifty little horror film that was actually rated #1 at the box office 'kuz it was pretty much the only film in distribution to drive-in movie theaters. If a film is truly independent, this is very much par for the course.

I've never took a deep dive into Resolve. Is their media management is weak? There's real no reason why cutting a doc on FCP, PP, Avid, or Resolve should be any sort of hassle. Doc editing tends to be (and I think should be) very straight forward. Organizing media during an edit is kind of the main thing for me.

I believe you've answered your own question there.

I can confirm the 1990's and well into the 2000's. The type of cameraman making a decent living in my corner of the world never required any particularly creative skills. In many ways, it still doesn't, but if you were a shooter with even a semblance of knowledge and some kind of refinement, you'd be at an advantage because you knew how to run the beast camera systems. Film cameras, an Ikagami NTSC tube cam, "portable" 3/4" tape deck...that sort of thing. However, because you can point a camera obviously doesn't mean squat now that everyone's got 'em. Yeah, back in the day just getting access to the gear and learning the basics of the craft could get you through. I could push a GrassValley switcher to it's analog limits and edit quickly and cleanly on any linear tape deck system, so that skill set had value for a time. But that's the other side of the coin for being enamored with technology and putting your focus on that side of things. It's always going to change and advance. Tiger by the tail stuff. OTOH, the practice of composition, storytelling, lighting. etc. That's pretty solid. I don't think the "passive viewer" aspect of story telling is going away anytime soon. We all still want to gather around the fire and be told stories.

I've had way too many projects I've certainly wanted to "Alen Smithee," but they were just corporate videos, no production credits involved.

Not always true though, depending what you're doing. For instance, say you're filming a pottery instructor and you know you'll be cutting her 45 minute presentation down to a 3 minute video. you better stop filming her talking along the way and get plenty of close up shots of the throw wheel, hands, or her students looking on... Its all part of the craft. Knowing what to shoot and when. That said, I've hired plenty of people to shoot stuff for my projects and when I review the footage I'm like, "what the hell man!" That said, I've been the shooter for plenty of my projects and when I review the footage I'm like, "what the hell man!"

1/4000 would be typical in mid-day sun. I'll shoot some video tomorrow and apply the trial plug-in. See what happens. Usually have a bunch of ravens flying around....filming that should provide a decent stress test.

Using ReelSmart Motion Blur? If that plugin is effective, consistent, and fast I'd consider it over using ND filters. Costs about the same as an collection of cheap filters. Man, I'd love to ditch my variable ND's. Would like more real-world testimonials though. Anyone else?

I'm still somewhat amazed I could buy a 4k camera for under $300; em10iii refurbished. I guess 4K cheap won't be such a big deal in the near future, but right now it's kinda cool.