fuzzynormal

​ Western cultural tropes. It is exaggerated in our culture because of the legacy of, I think weirdly enough, the 19th century Victorian era. And since the 20th century saw the narrative rise of film, the industry really perpetuated that legacy. The popularity and industrialization of film kept those old tropes alive and nurtured. Actually, I think the 1920's almost broke free of it, (the most creative 20th century decade in the USA, for sure) but when film making became a massive business it needed to pander to the culture: rural conservative America...film as business vs. film as astute art, we all know which way the scales tip. But even more than all of that sort of theory, let's not deny that gender conflict is a part of humanity and does offer a lot of storytelling opportunities. Still, the prism of our culture will lead less insightful writers/directors down the path of the familiar. Those tropes CAN be exploited if a creative is savvy enough to manipulate them, but the less nuanced folks do tend to get easily caught up in 'em and when walking down that well worn path, can't see the forest for the trees.. (if I'm allowed to mix metaphors there.)

From a quarter of a million bucks to 6k... it's a, what, 8 year old camera? If it's now this cheap, might just rent it for some corporate clients that like to see the "big-stuff" on location. What's needed for audio? Thanks for the example.

Aw, c'mon, man. Did you ever see the movie Airplane? There's a difference between making a movie that's stupid and making a deliberately stupid movie. Its goofy satire. It's not supposed to be original if it's embracing the tropes it is mocking. Airplane was the identical plot and story of a 1960's film. They literally used the same script and wrote jokes on top of it. You know, being aggressively critical of something is easy. Ive noticed many people seem to believe it makes them look insightful. I disagree. That said, I don't disagree that King Fury misses the mark in a few places. Comedy is hard and for me the timing is a little bit off on a few gags -- I personally like more setup before punchlines, but that's just my personal taste against the impressive scope of the entire production. Its an indy film! A group of people outside "the system" made all that happen on their own and it rivals a studio product. That context is incredible. I liked it a lot for what it is and that it exists at all.

​In that case, here's the first project I shot with it. Didn't do the color grade, just the shoot/edit: https://vimeo.com/125415659 Also, I uploaded a home movie clip the 1st week I got the camera here: https://vimeo.com/122338262 For some reason vimeo failed to sync the audio correctly, but if you're analyzing video, no problem.. Anyway, there you go. For some stuff the EM52 is an ideal tool; not saying it's perfect, but it's allowing me to shoot some projects in a simple and easy fashion, so I'm liking it for what I demand of it.

I kind of feel it's a put up or shut up kind of thing. It's way too easy to be a critic of something deliberately stupid. I get it if you don't like it. It doesn't work for me on some levels, but if you claim to be an Indy filmmaker and rip this a part, then seeing the accomplishments of the one doing the ripping seems like a fair request. I mean, it's a labor of love sort of thing, so it deserves a bit of leeway, right?

The shots will warp short or long if you move the cam around too much aggressively. As I say, I mostly use it for static shots without a tripod. No complaints there. I guess I could upload a clip...the corporate stuff I do with it is pretty lame though; not exactly the product I like to share, y'know?

It is bad if you don't control the camera. You can't swing it around willy-nilly and expect it to behave. I'll testify, however, that if you respect its limitations it will reward you with very useful footage.

I tried to make a "so-bad-it's-good" movie once. Anyone that dismisses the skill to pull this off on a semi-productive level is just ignorant and disrespectful of the talent needed to accomplish such. You may not like Kung Fury director's choices, but it does well to capture an amusing tone. That's part of cinematic storytelling, so I ain't gonna knock it.

m43 lenses here from both Pan & Oly. They work fine between different bodies. For example, I have Gx7, GM1, Pany 20mm, Oly 12-40mm, Oly 45mm, and Oly 12mm. Used to own a GH1 and the EM51, Pany 14-140mm, and Pany 100-300mm ... Lots of legacy glass with dumb adapters too, just for fun. FWIW, I recently bought the EM52 for a video production with a specific client. The EM52 works great for me, btw. Ergos aren't the best, but I've learned to adjust. I'm using the EM52 to quickly shoot documentary style sequences. Mostly I just handhold static shots for 4 or 5 seconds and then jump to another angle. The flexibility of the EM52 in this regard is a huge value. Imagine getting shots that look like they're acquired from sticks, but not having to swing a tripod around. Very very practical. --Not to mention that a little tai-chi body drift can easily simulate a decent slider shot, it all adds up to a nice shooting rig. IQ is inferior to my Pany cams, but that 5-axis stabilizer is worth the tradeoff. Normally, I would shoot video manual focus only, but I've found the Oly auto focus in video mode is doing a reliable job, so I've learned to adapt it to this style of shooting. Bottom line, the Oly lenses work quite well. My Oly 45mm @f2 creates a very nice cinematic look, I think. The focal length, sharpness, and DOF at that f-stop has some nice mojo going on.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop me wasting my time by making me post responses here. I do have things to do for reals, you know.

That 's awesome. I hope it's truly just a short/trailer and not an entire feature, because the joke wouldn't stretch THAT long...but this clip was great. I got rid of my drone recently for an even scarier reason: wide angle aerial shots have now become a cliche' and as such just not worth doing (for me). Still useful every now and again, just not valuable enough to justify having it around all the time.

Branding! It's all about getting people familiar and comfortable with the name brand. Look how it's worked out for Nikon and Canon.

​I've shot a short film with the 110 25mm on a GM1. Even though I don't use that camera except for only certain tasks, I do love it. Great documentary stealth cam. Such an awesome set up with the a110 lenses, As you can tell from my avatar. I like the character of the glass and the f2.8 is, I think, ideal for cinema. Matched with the Panasonic IQ? It's pretty nice. It's truly amazing what you can/could make with that set-up --and you can acquire it via used gear for around $350.

​I believe in Herbie.

​I have a wide 10-20 zoom, but I've stopped using it. I also have a 12mm. As you say, there's always something that gets in the frame and it's very easy to quickly use a zoom lens to punch it a little to avoid putting something unwanted in the image. However, that's exactly why I'm trying to get away from zooms. Because it's easy to "fix" your framing by adjusting the focal length. It's more of a challenge to work to find the shot by positioning yourself around to the proper spot. And you never really get where you want to be, so you have to consider different visual options. It forces you to think of a new solution you wouldn't have otherwise. For instance, instead of a single shot that shows a building exterior, all of a sudden I'm finding that I need to shoot a sequence of medium shots and close ups to show the setting. That's different than what I'd do in the past and creates something new for me. BTW, most of this is for MY personal shooting. I will do this for clients if the job is right for it, but I do have clients where I just bang out coverage as fast as possible... Basically I'm saying I don't want a zoom to give myself quick solutions to framing. I want less solutions in order to force my creativity.

I have this same problem and have been trying to remedy it by walking out the door for shoots with only two primes. Maybe one prime, depending on the level of the job. After doing this for awhile and reviewing the results I'm realizing that I like the images I'm shooting on my 45mm M43 the best. All this came about when I decided not too long ago to shoot a documentary with a FF cam and a 50mm. The aesthetic had a cohesion that my typical undisciplined shooting did not. More visual creativity seems to come about when I'm forced into thinking about the self-imposed limitations of a shot and finding ways to compensate. Ironically, I'm getting more innovative by restricting my focal length freedom. Since I have a broadcasting background I've spent most of my career with variable zooms. Busting my old visual habits has been very rewarding. But, right now, I've kind of sworn off zoom lenses for motion picture shooting.

I like to think he's off actually making a film.

How can I be amused when the cold blue deepness projects into the void of the horizon and reflects back nothingness? Here on the edge of this urban wilderness, we ask ourselves, are we more or less than this visible spectrum? Spinning like a dancer. Like photons; never existing but always existing Yet, the dog continues running alongside his master. Day after day for hundreds of miles.

Because I find it funny. And you'd have to know me to appreciate the context of why I find it funny. If you don't, then you won't.

;-) ​I mean I'm amused at your response.

Kind of a amusing response that, be it serious or facetious. Anyway, I found it cute and funny because there's so many beginners and earnest enthusiasts accessing this newly affordable gear --and they seem so damn serious about their cameras. How do the British explain it? "Taking the piss out of..." or something like that? You (should) know as well as I do that we deserve to be mocked. If you don't get the silliness, you might want to consider why. The more this Ed guy riles things up the better, as far as I'm concerned. If any court needed a bit of jesting, it's us.

My first Canon fifty literally just fell apart one day and dropped to the ground. It broke into 4 pieces. I picked it up, walked over to a trash bin, and put it in. Last time I owned the 1.8 50.

​You tell me. Is that true? I've never used it. All I did was list my experiences. It does NOT have the ability to adjust focus without power? As I've said, I've used numerous Canon lenses that have electronic auto focus and were able to manually focus. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Happens a lot, but that would be a pretty lousy design from Canon...which, actually, wouldn't surprise me.

​As I said, I'm personally using the Sigma 10-20 on a dumb adapter. It focuses manually fine. I also have a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. I've had the 50 mm - F/1.8 - Canon EF. The 50 mm - F/1.4 - Canon EF. The 40 mm - F/2.8 - Canon EF. As well as a Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras. Never had an issue grabbing manual focus with any of that. It's not as elegant as mechanical, but it can be done. You can't rig some of 'em up with a focus rig, but ultimately you can focus. If you're shooting video should you really use auto focusing anyway? My opinion is that you should not. ...and with a wide 10mm focal length @f4.5, it really shouldn't be a trouble. And again, my posts on this thread have been qualified from the perspective of using glass for cinema/video, which is what the OP was asking about. He already has a piece of wide angle glass, why consider buying another one? This is not a snarky question. I really am interested in his opinion of why he wants to do so.

​I can speak for myself. The answer is procrastination.