fuzzynormal

I know it's an impossible thing to really quantify to other people, especially pros, but it's been true in my experience as well.  I've just ended up preferring using Oly cams for some reason.  Ergonomics I think.
And it doesn't make sense because Oly's menu system is a bit of a jumble, but I guess once I learned it, it's been productive.
I don't do a lot of high end stuff, and what I do (still) do is almost always hand-held run-n-gun.  I get by easily with 8-bit.  My cheap EM10iii with a variable ND does the job.  Here's a recent thing I was hired for; half day shoot and half day editing with a script they recorded.  Basic basic basic, but got the product delivered to the client as they requested.  I'm not sure if I even used a high end camera for a gig like this it would've turned out much different.  So, you know, for me, the rather simple tool is appropriate.
 

Yeah, the client wrote it, recorded it.  I edited to her script. 
This video work is indicative, I think, of my  "90% rule."  Meaning, I score shots from 1 (shit) to 100 (perfection), and often try to hit a sweet spot of 90.  Yes, you could do a bunch of other crafting to squeak out the final 10% to make the shots technically perfect, but the last 10% requires an ridiculously exponential amount of expense and effort.
So, one tries to find a balance.  I'd give myself an 80-85 on this stuff.
It's all relative to what the client demands, what you demand of yourself, and what the budget allows.
That all being said, the era of dudes like me delivering "90" is going away.  Clients are okay with 30 these days.  On the high end clients will expect 100.  Seems like people in my range of stuff are not in demand so much anymore.
p.s. I add a lot of grain in post.  My ISO never went over 800 on this gig.

I know it's an impossible thing to really quantify to other people, especially pros, but it's been true in my experience as well.  I've just ended up preferring using Oly cams for some reason.  Ergonomics I think.
And it doesn't make sense because Oly's menu system is a bit of a jumble, but I guess once I learned it, it's been productive.
I don't do a lot of high end stuff, and what I do (still) do is almost always hand-held run-n-gun.  I get by easily with 8-bit.  My cheap EM10iii with a variable ND does the job.  Here's a recent thing I was hired for; half day shoot and half day editing with a script they recorded.  Basic basic basic, but got the product delivered to the client as they requested.  I'm not sure if I even used a high end camera for a gig like this it would've turned out much different.  So, you know, for me, the rather simple tool is appropriate.
 

I know it's an impossible thing to really quantify to other people, especially pros, but it's been true in my experience as well.  I've just ended up preferring using Oly cams for some reason.  Ergonomics I think.
And it doesn't make sense because Oly's menu system is a bit of a jumble, but I guess once I learned it, it's been productive.
I don't do a lot of high end stuff, and what I do (still) do is almost always hand-held run-n-gun.  I get by easily with 8-bit.  My cheap EM10iii with a variable ND does the job.  Here's a recent thing I was hired for; half day shoot and half day editing with a script they recorded.  Basic basic basic, but got the product delivered to the client as they requested.  I'm not sure if I even used a high end camera for a gig like this it would've turned out much different.  So, you know, for me, the rather simple tool is appropriate.
 

Yeah, the client wrote it, recorded it.  I edited to her script. 
This video work is indicative, I think, of my  "90% rule."  Meaning, I score shots from 1 (shit) to 100 (perfection), and often try to hit a sweet spot of 90.  Yes, you could do a bunch of other crafting to squeak out the final 10% to make the shots technically perfect, but the last 10% requires an ridiculously exponential amount of expense and effort.
So, one tries to find a balance.  I'd give myself an 80-85 on this stuff.
It's all relative to what the client demands, what you demand of yourself, and what the budget allows.
That all being said, the era of dudes like me delivering "90" is going away.  Clients are okay with 30 these days.  On the high end clients will expect 100.  Seems like people in my range of stuff are not in demand so much anymore.
p.s. I add a lot of grain in post.  My ISO never went over 800 on this gig.

I know it's an impossible thing to really quantify to other people, especially pros, but it's been true in my experience as well.  I've just ended up preferring using Oly cams for some reason.  Ergonomics I think.
And it doesn't make sense because Oly's menu system is a bit of a jumble, but I guess once I learned it, it's been productive.
I don't do a lot of high end stuff, and what I do (still) do is almost always hand-held run-n-gun.  I get by easily with 8-bit.  My cheap EM10iii with a variable ND does the job.  Here's a recent thing I was hired for; half day shoot and half day editing with a script they recorded.  Basic basic basic, but got the product delivered to the client as they requested.  I'm not sure if I even used a high end camera for a gig like this it would've turned out much different.  So, you know, for me, the rather simple tool is appropriate.
 

Yeah, the client wrote it, recorded it.  I edited to her script. 
This video work is indicative, I think, of my  "90% rule."  Meaning, I score shots from 1 (shit) to 100 (perfection), and often try to hit a sweet spot of 90.  Yes, you could do a bunch of other crafting to squeak out the final 10% to make the shots technically perfect, but the last 10% requires an ridiculously exponential amount of expense and effort.
So, one tries to find a balance.  I'd give myself an 80-85 on this stuff.
It's all relative to what the client demands, what you demand of yourself, and what the budget allows.
That all being said, the era of dudes like me delivering "90" is going away.  Clients are okay with 30 these days.  On the high end clients will expect 100.  Seems like people in my range of stuff are not in demand so much anymore.
p.s. I add a lot of grain in post.  My ISO never went over 800 on this gig.

I know it's an impossible thing to really quantify to other people, especially pros, but it's been true in my experience as well.  I've just ended up preferring using Oly cams for some reason.  Ergonomics I think.
And it doesn't make sense because Oly's menu system is a bit of a jumble, but I guess once I learned it, it's been productive.
I don't do a lot of high end stuff, and what I do (still) do is almost always hand-held run-n-gun.  I get by easily with 8-bit.  My cheap EM10iii with a variable ND does the job.  Here's a recent thing I was hired for; half day shoot and half day editing with a script they recorded.  Basic basic basic, but got the product delivered to the client as they requested.  I'm not sure if I even used a high end camera for a gig like this it would've turned out much different.  So, you know, for me, the rather simple tool is appropriate.
 

My take is that I'm basically at the onset of forced retirement.  
The gigs that were my level of production are basically gone, replaced by selfie vids.  And why not?  They work just as well as something a real estate agent would pay 2K for a decade ago.  If it looks "worse" than if I did it, big deal.  A former client's self-made vids do the job.
That segment of my career is over.  Obsolete.  Gotta get right with that whether I like it or not.  
So, move on to something else.  It's liberating in a way, but learning a craft to lose the craft kinda stinks.  Imagine being a blacksmith 100 years ago.
In the meantime, motion picture cameras are going to a niche market, so expect a lot of fewer choices in that market in the years to come.

I didn't go upscale like y'all, but I'll tell anyone that listens how the low-end EM10iii is an exceptionally great bang-for-the-buck camera.

I've put my dick into too many things, tbh. 
Also, an Olympus camera has been up my arse searching for polyps. 
But my nether regions have avoided SD slots thus far.  I suppose for some fan boys they could eventually be STD slots if they're not careful?

Well, the card itself cost 60K...

Well, the card itself cost 60K...

Weirdly enough, my mom as a college kid had a Morris 1000. And, like mentioned, I ended up with a 1960 Mini 850.  A bit remarkable considering both of us were from the USA Midwest, and these old English cars were very rare...but pretty cool to my eye.
As a kid only 15 years old without a job, I committed to working for my mom for 6 months on a house project...and she gave me the extra $200 I needed to buy the mini.
I guess somewhat similar to the Strangler’s song?

Yeah. And since this is a website about film and filmmaking, I’ll point out that this concept of vocabulary and perception is pretty much the entire plot of “Arrival,” fwiw. 

Gyna speedbooster with the brand name "Fotasy."  1980's era Nikkor  50mm, mostly at f2.  When that lens goes to f1.4 it halos and fringes like crazy.  The overall color changes a bunch too, so we don't really use f1.4 much.  On the camera we used the default "Natural" setting.  Shutter speed was mostly @40, except for the 1080 60p 60ss slow-mo stuff.  That's about it.  When I had my EM5II I didn't really like how color balance would shift rapidly on the WB setting.  Still not pleased with auto WB on the EM10III, but, really, why use auto WB to begin with?  (other than being lazy, which I am)
FWIW, the IQ is certainly different when I put my Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 on the camera.  But, I just like the look of the vintage glass better.  In fact, I used to shoot with a set of Canon chrome-nose FD primes on a speed-booster; like that look the best; low contrast, kinda warmer.
Honestly, I feel like with the gear we've been using it's been comparable IQ from these hybrid cameras for 7 or 8 years now.  4K is great for some post production assist like punch in, post stabilization, or horizontal leveling, but I've not seen a remarkable change in my 1080p deliverables for quite awhile.  I mean, our GH5 footage is more "gradeable" but it's not like the IQ blows me away...even on the good codec footage.  My old GX7 still looks awesome to my eye. 
I'm glad we bought a GH5 a few years back and a collection of Voightlander lenses.  It's a nice camera, but I'm not thrilled we dropped as much money for that cam and new glass when the old gear was performing just fine.  (aside from the 4k slow-mo of the GH5, which I leaned on way too heavily and I'm now glad that crutch is goone)
As you can see, I'm definitely not in the market for anything high-end, so take all my input with a grain of salt if you're aiming for equipment that does more.

My work flow is to edit with proxies and let the ultimate transcoding happen upon completion of the project.

Saw lots of Iceland volcano footage online lately, reminded me of this shoot. Straight from the source. No color grade. Play guess the camera with this one:
 

Yet my EM10iii I got new/refurbished last May for $299 is close to $400 used now in 2021.  The market is goofy.

I do think it's the way things are at the moment, across all brands.  Prices are going up for these used low-end cams.  The original Andrew challenge was to find a decent 4K camera for $200 --which doesn't seem possible right now.
I would have believed a year ago it would be doable; surprised the prices went north.  The best I could find is a really beat up GX7 'buy-it-now' listed at $190 ($80 shipping) ...and that's a camera with a sensor that's capable of doing 4K, but the camera itself only delivers 1080.  It's a mighty fine 1080, but not 4K.
These are just observations.  I got no real dog in the hunt or desire to be contrarian to other's opinions.

Yet my EM10iii I got new/refurbished last May for $299 is close to $400 used now in 2021.  The market is goofy.

You mean manufacturers abandoning the format?  I hope it'll find a niche for a long while, even if/when Panasonic leaves it.

This is what I do and it's been a very productive way for me to do my work.
As for that last bit you mentioned, I'm still amazed at the IQ I got from my modest GX7 all those years ago.  Something special about that one, even though it only did 1080.

This is what I do and it's been a very productive way for me to do my work.
As for that last bit you mentioned, I'm still amazed at the IQ I got from my modest GX7 all those years ago.  Something special about that one, even though it only did 1080.

I think regardless of this particular model, the sales of traditional DSLR type cameras are going to wane so much that the market will be niche in the immediate future.
Speaking for myself, a handful of what I'm already filming now is done with a phone.  And the other camera I do use and find perfectly acceptable for my doc work is a very modest cheap m43 camera.  And I'm a quote/unquote professional. 
As phone tech advances and offers computational imagery with video, I don't see how the consumer market could be anything but dominated by mobile devices leaving camera enthusiast with slim pickins'.