TheRenaissanceMan

To address something from the article
They pack in advanced stills options on these cameras because they are stills cameras. How often does that need to be repeated?

Canon's greatest parting legacy for filmmakers, - popularizing the EF mount on their competitors' raw cinema cameras.  

You're judging the L series lenses, not the camera.  The use of modern canon lenes is the reason it looks like video, not cinema.  Weak acting doesn't help things.
 
 

That design looks like it belongs on a cool robot!

I've always liked Kinefinity because the images from the camera have that much needed soul and tangibility. The BMCC has some of it, the Alexa has a lot of it, the D16 has a ton of it. Th emotional touch is worth so much!
I'll be keeping an eye on this thing and future products. 
With the news that the Blackmagic Water Tank Microwave 10" iPad URSA Bomb Disposal Camera has 150fps coming up, I hope this also means that the original BMCC will be replaced and that competition for products with soul gets very fierce!!

​
I agree completely. One of MFT's advantages is that it lives, by necessity, on the bleeding edge. They don't use 3-5 year old sensors because they can't afford to. As it is, Panasonic and Olympus' image quality is within a stone's throw of APS-C, but offers a better selection of lenses--almost all of which are excellent by f/2.8, and many of which are excellent by f/2.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-review-Closing-the-gap-between-APS-C-mirrorless-rivals/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-Versus-Olympus-PEN-E-P5-Versus-Sony-NEX-6-Results-are-close
Andrew, you say MFT has a hard time achieving "the full frame look." What if I don't want the full frame look? There's nothing inherent to photographic 35mm/VistaVision that makes it the best sensor size for video. My style focuses heavily on subjects' relationship to their background and composing with more than one plane of depth. Unless I'm going for something intimate or a detail shot, I like to stick with f2.8 (if not f/4) on MFT. This provides just enough separation to focus the eye without flattening my carefully scouted locations and (hopefully) interesting set dressing into blurry, 2-dimensional mush. I also like to light my interiors and shape the light in my exteriors, which makes low light much less of a priority. Plus, I hate bad focus pulling in movies. It screams "amateurish" as much as micro jitters. At f/2.8-f/4 on MFT, me or my focus puller (if I have one) have a much better chance to nail it.

With that in mind, full frame holds no advantage for me. If I'm shooting my GX7 at ISO 800 and f/4, I'd have to shoot an A7S or whatever at ISO 3200, rendering DR and noise virtually identical, but with the added advantage of Panasonic's color science (which is really good once you learn your way around it) and great tonality. Add to that the small, wonderful Olympus primes and the cinematic as hell Voigtlanders, and you have a recipe for great imagery.
If you enjoy the look, that's awesome! I look forward to seeing your work with it. But I get perturbed sometimes when full framers dismiss other aesthetics as somehow inferior to their chosen sensor size.
Cheers!

​I do big commercials.  I'm on one right now.  I also have an Emmy and just was in American Cinematographer.  And brand loyalty is a big thing.  We mostly use Arri HMI lights.  Joker sometimes but Arri because we know Arri makes a damn fine light with the M90 or M18 - Joker 1600s never took off.  I use the best camera for the job - but I have to have long talks with the producer sometimes about that.  For instance, I just did a Lincoln commercial in Dubai and we shot on the Sony F55 - not the Arri Alexa or Red Epic Dragon.  Why?  - Got that question so many times.  Alexa was too heavy - it was 16 hr steadicam days in the 110 degree weather - and Red Dragon - not good in heat - but I got slack - because Alexa and Red have better names.
I also shoot dog videos on smaller cameras.  I own the NX1 and the Sony A7S - and I work with film and own 2 f35s and red one mx and use alexas and red dragons and arri 416 and 435 on jobs - and there is so much goodness to come from using a small lightweight camera.  So much wonder and beauty from using these little guys - it reopens wonder and ease and has improved my color grading knowledge so much.  It's such a pleasure to have a lightweight camera where it is fun again, where it's not physically exhausting to reframe.  
So there is a differing opinion from me.  
Traditional DPs are now dealing with the new era, where young upstarts like me can rise up without being a loader, 2nd, 1st, , cam op, then DP.  Or electric, best, gaffer then DP.   I became a DP in just about five years.  I was an assistant editor for 5 years going down the editing path and I switched because I was already shooting docs.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  My sense of lighting took longer to develop but my sense of the emotional space was more developed.  Getting smaller moments.  
There is no right way to be a DP.  Because I am so unconventional, I bring a childlike wonder to filmmaking.  I bring a different perspective and wonderment to how I work - more innocence, more in the moment.
There is no one right path.
Older established DPs I have nothing but respect.  Maryse Alberti, Gordon Willis, Raul Coutard, Jordan Cronenweth, Storro, Michael Chapman, Conrad Hall, Lance Accord, Nestor, Wexler - nothing but respect.
Also the DP of IDA - the most beautiful film I saw in the past 4 years, was a cam operator - first time DP.  The director said he was so good because he had no ego.
So next time you watch an unlit video of a dog - think about how much fun the DP was having.  How casual it was, and how beautiful that can be.  

Could we maybe get back on track here?

I'm interested to see how the video quality of pixel-for-pixel sampling compares to full sensor downsampling in terms of moire, aliasing, color, DR, and rolling shutter. We've never seen the same sensor utilized both ways like this--it might provide some cool insights into the pros and cons of each method. 

However, like any camera, I'll be waiting until there's a used market and established tests before I put down money on it. Looking forward to Andrew's review!

I look at this and start to care alot less about a bit of moire and aliasing. They are giving you a gimbal at sensor level... It is incredible. This opens up far more cinematic qualities than 4K. Camera movement counts for so much.
 
 
 

Filmmakers may want to chime in here.
A lot of talk on-line about Sony A7s vs the Canon 'C' series of cameras.
Especially the C100 and C100 ll.
Not sure what most people prefer here, (we can go back and forth about resolution, dr, xlr, nd, etc...) However; if there is one thing that separates these cameras is the stealth factor. There is no doubt the C100 is a small camera....however..
This video below (I'm sure there's even better examples) was just shot in Paris, and if the shooter would have had a C100 or something similar, there's no way he would not have had a reaction - Some bad I believe. (especially the bit with the guy in a intimate moment with his girl)
No doubt every single person looked at him, and saw that tiny camera - and felt safe - and had absolutely no clue in hell he was actually shooting video.
Something to think about if you need/want this kind of footage, or...you're actually shooting a film and need to steal shots.
Phillip Bloom was blasted by several people when he posted his original video with this cam - as it seems almost a tool for private investigators/ police. 
I do agree with Bloom's comments defending himself.  Some people questioned his morality. I do not.
If you're a filmmaker you'll probably do anything to get the shot. What you can get away with the Sony A7s  seems almost criminal. (in a good way if you're a filmmaker).
https://vimeo.com/groups/243026/videos/120768001

​Whee is AJA confirming that this is the exact sensor they used? Where is Blackmagic also confirming it? Hell, has CMOSIS said they both use the sensor?
It was a well-known fact that Canon was using a Sony sensor in their new 5d, until Canon said they didn't. Where's the actual evidence it's the same sensor?

I don't get the obsession with 85mm lenses for cinema use. It's a little on the long side for a proper MCU, but not quite long enough for ECU/shallow focus/compressed perspective/detail shots like a 100mm. If you've never used a 75mm, borrow someone's APS-C camera and try a 50mm. My friend lent me his Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS and A6000 for a 48 hour film project once, and I almost never felt the need to switch to my Minoltas--in fact, we shot the entire feature with nothing but that lens.

When voting on these focal lengths, think outside the box that photographic lenses may have trained you into. You may be surprised.

You realize that was only regarding Media Encoder, not Premiere itself, right? Also, this was put out shortly after. http://noamkroll.com/adobe-premiere-pro-vs-final-cut-pro-x-round-2-h264-compression-update/

It's even better when they jack up the shutter speed to 1000 when they're outdoors on a bright day.

If your stills with Micro Four Thirds cameras are crap, it says a lot more about your photographic abilities than the gear's.

http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=58189

http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=62877

http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=61628

http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=61610