Michael Thames

I told you kind sir, I had to shoot a music video today. Just got back, and read your wondrous post. However, forgive me, I I don't find your bombastic post useful, and would kindly ask you to refrain from further engagement, in my threads. I would like to seek the advice , and wisdom of others on this forum who are less likely to express basis, based on aggression, and name calling. I am researching all my options to purchase a new camera. Since I have just returned from an exhausting all day shoot, I will look over the links you provided and consider this in my next purchase. Yet no further posts by you would be welcome at this point. thank you for your understanding.

Yes, so far in my considerations the over sharpness of the GH4 in an issue for me, making the image look digitalized, as opposed to cinematographic. I'm also favoring the RAW format more than the 4K, so far, but I need to see more. I got slammed here recently for bring this up and was told I was nuts! As I investigate my options, reading through the comments of the comparison video I posted, many others feel the same way about the over sharpness. I guess I could get the GH4 and if I don't merge with it spiritually, I can always sell it.

I'm in the market for an additional camera I'm considering another 5D3 or perhaps the GH4. 99.999 percent of my videos are indoors, so the low light advantage is a must. Perhaps I'm wrong but the smaller señsor on the GH4 seems to give landscapes more detail due to the lack of shallow depth of field. As far as future proofing, looks like 4K won't hit the mainstream for another 4 years. If my experience with technology is correct, I really have no faith that 4K will even be around then. Four years is like 40 dog years in this day and age. I remain open minded. I keep hearing that GH4 is the cheapest camera for 4K, but it seems by the time you buy all the essential goodies it's a bit more than the "Venerable Master". Price isn't the issue for me I want what is best for my needs. KGv5, I shall study those videos later tonight, I must take leave to do a music video in an old western town today, it's going to be hard, if not impossible to integrate the old west and an all Bach concert!

A monopod.

Interesting.

BTW, I'm shooting a music video tomorrow in an old western town here in New Mexico, it should be a blast!

I'm a fan as well! I love the 24-105 for the very reason you stated, but once I got the 70-200 f4. IS..... it was hard to use my 24-105 again. Frankly, the only reason I don't sell it, is because walking around town or out in public it is less noticeable. If you have a foot long white lens on your camera people freak out when you point it at them. Besides the obvious versatility of the 24-105 for video, doesn't the improved image quality of the 70-200 translate to video as well.... better sharpness, contrast, DOF? If I need a wider angle I use my Canon 1.4 this combined with the 70-200 is a great combo. Used they both go for relatively the same price.

Here's a shoot out between the two. The Sigma is significantly better. The 24-105 perhaps the worse L lens Canon has produced! Barrel distortion wide open makes the Canon actually a 50-to-105.

BTW, you can pick up a 24-105 on ebay for around $600.00 almost brand new because people are get them as kit lens and don't need them. You can get a 70-200 f4 IS, for around $800.00 if you are lucky.

My condolences on the death of your lens....... please lets have a moment of silence! Get a 50 1.4 or nifty fiffty, and a 70-200 f4 IS USM. Just a few weeks ago I bought an f4 non-is and compared it with the 24-105 I have, the colors and contrast were significantly better on the 70-200, and it was noticeably sharper! That said, I love the 24-105 because of the versatility, and convenience. The 70-200 f4 is lighter than the 24-105. Within 2 weeks I sold the 70-200 f4 non-is and got the IS lens. This lens is just amazing for it's sharpness and rich color and contrast. The only down side to this magnificent lens you end up using it where you shouldn't, just so you can use it. I choose the f4 over the 2.8 because the f4 is sharper and has less color fringing, the 2.8 isn't as sharp wide open as the f4, so the advantage of the extra stop is pointless even more so if you have a 5D3 with it's low light advantage.

You are a LAZY reader...... you should focus on your reading comprehend skills a little better. I know a little more than I give myself credit for lets put it that way. I never said one was better than the other, that is a little straw man you created, after you introduced a different camera entirely! I would never say that in the company of such Panny-lovers! I don't know much, but I do know better than to hang myself in public. I choose my words carefully unlike you who are all over the map. I said the 5D3 has a more film like look, and GH4 a sharper image which looks more video like....... so shoot me! I have even read these very words by others here on this forum...... I also said, the 5D3 is better in low light, and please correct me if I'm wrong about that. This was said in context of the GH4 and the 5D3. The GH4 has the advantage of 4K. I never said one was better than the other, just responding to the number of post on this forum about the GH4, (almost every other post) in a joking manner, and you have a ballistic moment, and get all serious and Shit! Now to answer your stupid question as to why I bought a Canon 5D iii...... better resale, better image, and I mean figuratively as well as it improves my "image" with the ladies, and the fact I have a lot of money invested in some glass...... Canon glass! It would be pretty stupid of me to buy a D5300 which I don't want in the first place, and then have to invest in more glass. Something you never considered?

Did a Canon 5D3 abuse you when you were just a wee lad? First off the D5300 does not have a better dynamic range. It actually looks quite washed out if you ask me. I don't ever use 60p. I wanted a FF camera not a S35. The 5D3 is much better at ISO above 6400........I'm not Lazy, but you are right, I do HAVE brand vanity! A dragster and a Ferrari both will go 200 miles an hour, but yes I'm vain, I would rather be cursing around town in a Ferrari! I do enjoy telling people they used the 5D3 to film half the commercials you see on TV, the opening of Saturday night Live, and some parts of Star Wars! They think I'm really good, when I'm not! It does make a difference! If you don't know how much of a difference it makes then you are kidding yourself, or in denial. I can go buy some clip on lights at home depot, and show up to a video shoot, or I can have some professional lights. This makes a huge difference in what your clients think! Show them you dinky Nikkon D5300 .....or the 5D3, the 5D looks like a profession camera with one of those long white lens.

So far the most humane response to my lighthearted post. I agree about the 4K and if that's the direction your are heading in then it's a consideration for sure. But, most of the posts are about how sharp it is, and an awful lot of Canon bashing going on as we have witnessed.

OH MY GOD! Yea everyone is selling their 5D3's and running out to buy a Nikkon D5300...... ha ha! Lazy research indeed!

Well the point is, why buy a camera for sharpness if you are going un-sharpen? With the 5D3 I add about 10% sharpness. If I were you I'd look into some instruction videos on softening in post..... not sure what software you are using .........

Oh really? come on now, you have never heard the comparison of sharp = video look? I've be painfully aware of that comparison, ever since I bought my XH-A1 eight years ago, and is one of the main reasons I got the 5D3. Another videographer and I were talking just the other day about how the 5D3 looks so warm and smooth to his video cameras that show every detail on his face. I don't know how such a comparison has slipped on by you! BTW, I'm not saying GH4 looks like video, but that the sharpness makes it more video like, than the 5D3. Please refrain from calling me nonsensical/ill-informed, it makes you sound angry and defensive..... even if you claim otherwise.....ha ha!

If this post is so pointless (which it is not) why the response? I've seen quite a bit of footage from the GH4 so far and yes it's good, but like I said, it's a bit too sharp and looks like video to me rather than film....... and that's my point! And yes I don't need a lecture about creativity and content...... that's not the point! It's just something I noticed between these two cameras. There is an awful lot of Canon bashing going on around the GH4 mania, so I thought I'd say something positive in the 5D3's favor. It like every post here is now about the GH4 and yes, I understand there is a lot of money to be made.

People will pay $200,000 for a Ferrari that goes 200 miles an hour, and they will pay one million for one that goes 210 miles per hour, because that will win the race. I don't know about you but, the MAIN reason I purchased a 5D3 was it's low light ability, and you pay for what you get, you pay more for the low light monster! I suffered long enough with video cameras that were very bad in low light situations...... yes they were sharp but they were video cameras.

I agree sharpness is King....... I mean content is King!

I'm just kidding! I'm not a professional, nor do I know the significance of all the trends in the film world, because I upload basically to YoTube. I do know that when I look at the footage from the GH4, yes it looks sharp, but that sharpens makes it look more like video to my ignorant eyes. If I owned one the first thing I would invest in are some Tiffen softening filters..... seriously! It also looks compressed as opposed to 5D3. The 5D3 looks smooth and creamy, and spacious compared to the stark sharpness of the GH4. I always associate sharpness with video, and smoothness with film. Perhaps pixel peepers get excited, but your average Joe or Jane, is gonna prefer the 5D3 I think, or they won't have an opinion one way or the other. Also, when was the last time your employers asked for a GH4? I've heard from others that people ask if you have a Canon 5D, to get the job. Super sharp video that's not so good in low light? Hum..... Anyway, Just had to get that of my chest, now back to the topic of how superior the GH4 with the tiny little sensor is.

Never experienced that problem on my 5D iii.

OK, thanks, I understand, adjusting the shutter speed up in video only for slowmo, and an effect one wants to accomplish..... otherwise a bad idea!

Thanks for all the very informative replies!!! I forgot about how the increased shutter speed effects the jagged edges an makes things more jittery. I was recently in India and Thailand and had a huge problem with the electrical currents causing a pulsation with the lights. In Thailand I shot in 30f and turned down the shutter to 30 as well and it seemed to help a little. At one point, it got so bad, I just turned it on automatic and said screw it. I'm doing a music video this weekend and we are shooting outside, I have a variable ND filter for my 24 to 105 lens, but just got a new 70 to 200 IS USM that I much prefer, but don't want to have to buy another ND filter this week as I shelled out money for a new computer.... so I got to make use with what I have. I'll just use the 24 to 105 outside I guess even though I love the other lens, but really in the end nobody will notice the difference in the lens except for me.... ha ha!

I hear that one should set the shutter speed to double that of the frame rate. 24 frames to 50..... 30 frames to 60 etc. My question, is this just mathematical theory, or can one see definite problems with the actual video if this ratio is not used. I'm thinking if one were shooting outdoors and needed to lower the exposure and exhausted all other possibilities, would raising the shutter speed really be that bad? If this is so bad what might one look for in the footage, as far as a loss of image quality?