Wulf

I've done another test and have come to a conclusion I think.  I think the EM5 mk ii settings in the camera are just a beginning and it shows it stuff when tweaked in grading.  The odd thing was I did my test and on looking what came out of the camera I considered the GH2 the winner.  When I was editing I could see the side by side the EM5 looked better than it was showing.  So I tried to simply grade them to make them more similar. After my grade I liked the EM5 better go figure.  I think it comes down to a flatter file on the EM5 where the GH2 has more contrast.  This all kinds of makes sense because sometimes what came out of the EM5 looked great to me and sometimes not!  Same with other peoples videos.
As far as the settings on the EM5 mk ii I was using natural -2 contrast +1 sharpness and -1 saturation.  As for the GH2 smooth -2 all except saturation -1.  Side note the EM5 files was 2,382,642 KB to the GH2 878,028 KB.  Both were auto WB and constant focus.  Both were set to 1/50th and auto exposure Iso was set to 200 on GH2 and the Em5 did what it thought best so no clue probably 200.  I ran them side by side the GH2 using the 14-140 and the Olympus the 12-40 which does give the EM5 a little help. I should also add I zoomed out to about 50 vs the EM5 40 to make up for the crop factor.
The very basic grade was for the EM5 -10 satuation -20 brightness 4 contrast WB and a slight hue adj.  The GH2 was saturation 5 brightness 19 contrast 7 WB and a slight hue adj.  I'm sure someone better versed in grading could get better on both cameras.  For me it was to see if they were in the neighborhood and after some tweaking I now do not share Mr Goldbergs opinion at least as far as the GH2 goes.  It's by no means perfect and I have big gripes manual control, moire, and crop that being said it is a great stills camera and not to embarrassing as a video camera I now discovered so it works for me I think??   A firmware update with a few tweaks could put it over the top.
 
 

I have to say, after picking up the Nikon D810 and D750 (I'm primarily a stills guy) I couldn't be happier with the video I'm getting out of them. Especially the D810. Sharp 1080p 60 FPS footage that grades surprisingly well. Haven't spent too much time with the D750 in comparison, but it seems to have a comparable image. 

When ARRI makes a still camera, then I might switch from Canon for stills .

Damn it. This means my mom has 4k before I do

They should have named it St. George because the Dragon has been slain... Jokes aside, looks like a brilliant tool for DoP's hopefully it has nice rental price

​Possibly because they don't want youtube being filled with footage that doesn't show off their camera in talented hands.

Bigger formtas are totally useless, specially medium format. Don't buy any lenses for it, its totally crap, expensive and complicated. Largeformat cameras are only sold to rich people and fashion photographers who need to appear professional with big cameras. The obvious differences you can see in comparisons between different formats are only in our minds.

I think you are right on this, Ed: This is not a beauty clip for cosmetic stuff but for, hm, controversial energy.
Any retouch could impeach the credilibity.
I think it works as it is.
 

​Interesting, because his name is often involved as an example what you achieve with this or that cam, no matter which brand or forum. :-)
Just saying (and keep the good stuff comin', Brandon)

My biggest peeve with this sort of question (and it's a legitimate question, I'm not bashing the OP) is the phrase "filmic."  You can make just about any camera look "videoish" or look "filmic."  It's not really the camera that does it.
You see my little user icon there?  It's a GM1 with a old Pentax a110 25mm lens on it.  I shot a short film on it.  In a film festival in which it was screened a lot of the positive comments were how the short looked very "filmic" compared to other entires.  I did a pretty aggressive color grade too.  (considering how flimsy the narrative was, the aesthetics were the only positive reviews I got!)
The other cameras used in the same screening block were the Canon 1Dc, a RED, and a  FS100.  All great cameras.
Point is, it's what you do with your camera and how you apply your knowledge, skills, and craft (aka: how it's lit) that ultimately makes the difference.  You can't just buy a piece of gear and think "okay, that tick box is checked, my stuff will look like a movie now."
That said, BM.  Best dynamic range.  DOF is over rated and over used nowadays.

these were the very first guys I would hire, first because you could not find any better, second to stop working them for your competitor and that even for free
I hope it's true, they should have earned much more respect, imagine what they could have achieved if not old conservative managers in Tokyo holed up in their kamikaze approach to whom belongs the raw codec, the firmware and the mostly horrible UI
Take Nikon as an example - holly moly, what a mess alone with their own proprietary raw-encoder. Enjoy the D810, the world's most advantaged 36 mio jpg-only body, instead of worldclass working shareware, LOL
any risk? No, let people built their own firmware on their own risk and if they brick their bodies, it increases only your salaries by repairing it. :-)

Wow, too.
 
And nothing ironical this time, keep up the great work.

"Unfortunately Nikon have chosen to store exposure settings separately for movie mode and stills mode, which is a bit bonkers to be honest."

This. I've shot with my D800 for over 2 years. It still happens that I forget this behaviour when switching between the two modes: "ah yes, that's right, the settings I just punched in were for the other mode only..."

OK, I can see there are scenarios that makes it a feature for certain users - but for my kind of use, I'd like to have only one set of stored manual settings.

Of course nice cameras make superior pictures. The thing I'm considering is this: everyone has access to decent camera tech and it's only getting better and cheaper.

The more I worry about gear the less time I'm trying to make my skills as an actual filmmaker improve. More and more talented people have access to filmmaking that would have been limited in the past.. Out spending or out buying them when it comes to the gear isn't much of an advantage.

Being able to realize creative filmmaking ideas and solutions seems like a better focus of effort... and I used to love being the techy guy, but I really feel like it's time to let all that go.

stunning landscape shots in the dunes!
looks really like a BIG production :-)

That might be true for still photography with an 36 mp sensor..  Others considered any ol' AIS 50 as good enough, in their vision content is king...

Reasonable arguments.
In practice, however, there is a simple reason why I would like to stay fullframe for ever  - I'm socialized with 24x36 since decades and as a wideangle prime lover, a 20 mm is not only a focal length nor an angle of view, but a special look of exactly that old glas. Allthough I like to keep my gear simple and small, I regulary found use for three totally different 20 mm lenses, for example a modern rectalinear zoom for straight lines (architecture, some landscapes), an old prime with a lot of moustache distorsion that IS GREAT for shooting people and sometimes a 16 mm fish with an 1.4 extender and an extension ring for some special closeups...
Of course the same could achieved with a speedbooster and Super35 might be the future as bigger sensors are disproportionally expensive. But 4/3 is obviously a nogo.
 
 
Regarding shallow DOF, I would agree on using it sparingly - more like an effect. It could be a great tool for portraits in special moments; IIRC both in 'Private Ryan' and in 'Gladiator' for example the DOP chooses to isolate the protagonist for a single short shot in the opening sequence(s). But all this shots are mostly done by at least f=4 and by having a greater distance to the now blurry background, so in short it's for me mostly a question of composition - remove all non-essential stuff out of the frame with an ultra shallow DOF as last resort...  :-)

thx for sharing your work!
 
some of the very best out of a nikon yet! so it is possible


 

They will listen and will react, but only if you are moving away.
 
Historically, C and N had made most of their money with cheap plastic bodies. No real innovation? Even better, as long as the people during the DSLR boom were running for overaged technology, there was no need for expensive - and maybe risky -  innovation. It was a winning team. Sensor and chip producing is about quantity, mass production, 'quantity even having its own quality', to paraphrase Stalin. Run as long the casting moulds will allow to form the plastic and if worn out, make a relaunch of the same stuff with a slightly different design. A lot of, maybe even most of the customers would even never ever chance their kit lense...
For a good reason, because a lot of them would not distinguish the difference between bad and good glass, at least not in their own pictures with the artificial boosted oversaturation. 
How many really good photogs did you know? :-)
 
As said, most people never ever even touch the movie recording button.
 
How many Cine Cams did C sell in comparsion? Did you know one personally who own one? Why not?
An expensive tool, and if not needed everyday it's better to rent one. What profs would do.
 
Art is expression.
Don't tell me you can't communicate with your D5H4  or whatever.
It's not the gear nowadays.Look at the sh1t quality of tv. Not even full HD. And thanks God that is the standard. 
YOU see the difference, but not your customer if you could make him proud with your footage.
It's all about emotion, the story you want to tell.
 
Yes, a certain camera brand is like a love affair... Yeah, I know: the endless hours, the experience,  the hard work, to get exactly this look. The search for a lense which could transport exactly that feeling. And oh, why they did not hear me?
Get rich of it, if she/he don't listen. The only lingo they understand is money. They are stupid, ugly ****  - they did not deserve you.
 
If you really need a cine cam today, rent one. Or steal one. To expensive, to dangerous? Then you did not need one probably.
In history, film has always been one of the very most innovative trades. Like war.
 
The innovation must come from you, not out of the box.
 
If you don't make it now, it would not happen. You want this fcking cinecam? Earn it.

They will listen and will react, but only if you are moving away.
 
Historically, C and N had made most of their money with cheap plastic bodies. No real innovation? Even better, as long as the people during the DSLR boom were running for overaged technology, there was no need for expensive - and maybe risky -  innovation. It was a winning team. Sensor and chip producing is about quantity, mass production, 'quantity even having its own quality', to paraphrase Stalin. Run as long the casting moulds will allow to form the plastic and if worn out, make a relaunch of the same stuff with a slightly different design. A lot of, maybe even most of the customers would even never ever chance their kit lense...
For a good reason, because a lot of them would not distinguish the difference between bad and good glass, at least not in their own pictures with the artificial boosted oversaturation. 
How many really good photogs did you know? :-)
 
As said, most people never ever even touch the movie recording button.
 
How many Cine Cams did C sell in comparsion? Did you know one personally who own one? Why not?
An expensive tool, and if not needed everyday it's better to rent one. What profs would do.
 
Art is expression.
Don't tell me you can't communicate with your D5H4  or whatever.
It's not the gear nowadays.Look at the sh1t quality of tv. Not even full HD. And thanks God that is the standard. 
YOU see the difference, but not your customer if you could make him proud with your footage.
It's all about emotion, the story you want to tell.
 
Yes, a certain camera brand is like a love affair... Yeah, I know: the endless hours, the experience,  the hard work, to get exactly this look. The search for a lense which could transport exactly that feeling. And oh, why they did not hear me?
Get rich of it, if she/he don't listen. The only lingo they understand is money. They are stupid, ugly ****  - they did not deserve you.
 
If you really need a cine cam today, rent one. Or steal one. To expensive, to dangerous? Then you did not need one probably.
In history, film has always been one of the very most innovative trades. Like war.
 
The innovation must come from you, not out of the box.
 
If you don't make it now, it would not happen. You want this fcking cinecam? Earn it.

ISO 12,800 has a very other-wordly feel at night
 

 
Here it is on the humble GH2.
 
Low light is about 'low' not 'no light'... Imagine lighting up a large forest floor with a single match... amazing.
 
The movement of light changes when you have less of it... becomes more magical...