mat33

While this isn't exactly the topic of this thread, it has turned into a bit of a discussion about the D16.  I just received my m4/3 D16 and shot this quick piece to test it out.
 

While this isn't exactly the topic of this thread, it has turned into a bit of a discussion about the D16.  I just received my m4/3 D16 and shot this quick piece to test it out.
 

While this isn't exactly the topic of this thread, it has turned into a bit of a discussion about the D16.  I just received my m4/3 D16 and shot this quick piece to test it out.
 

While this isn't exactly the topic of this thread, it has turned into a bit of a discussion about the D16.  I just received my m4/3 D16 and shot this quick piece to test it out.
 

Haven't tested this myself but I have seen this floating around in regards to D16 dynamic range: 
Shooting 200 ISO lighting for 400: 12.3 EV DR +5/-7.3
Shooting 200 ISO lighting for 200: 11.7 EV DR +4.2/-7.5
This is some nice older firmware D16 footage with some low light at the end.
 

Yes, Contax Zeiss.  I have the standard CY-m4/3 speedbooster, and the 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 35-70 and 80-200.  Have an Optar Illumina 12mm/T1.3 on the way as a fast wide.

Is Panasonic really playing catchup? I know the sensor is smaller but this seems to be more of an issue if you don't have the right lenses.  I mean we don't write-off super16 or the digital bolex because of sensor size.  Isn't the GH4 the only 'consumer' camera that can offer a true log profile 10bit 4:2:2 output? If you add the $295 ninja star you get a pretty small 1080P downscaled from 4K 10bit 4:2:2 prores package for v-log.

Is Panasonic really playing catchup? I know the sensor is smaller but this seems to be more of an issue if you don't have the right lenses.  I mean we don't write-off super16 or the digital bolex because of sensor size.  Isn't the GH4 the only 'consumer' camera that can offer a true log profile 10bit 4:2:2 output? If you add the $295 ninja star you get a pretty small 1080P downscaled from 4K 10bit 4:2:2 prores package for v-log.

first quick attempt internal 8-bit v-log-l in available light, using Koji Arri log-c 2823 LUT
https://vimeo.com/145764449

Another E-M5ii example
 

Have been playing around but here is EosHD cinema profile 1080p > EosHD Log LUT > Captain Hook BMC LUT + some tweaks in FCPX.
 
  

While it's tempting to try to save on the nd filter, it's not worth it in the long run and you'll just end buying something better eventually. You have a very nice lens and it would be shame to contaminate the light going into it by passing it through some low quality glass first. I do run and gun, and ended up using Hoya ProNDs with Xume magnetic filter adapters. It takes only seconds to change your ND on the go, and you will really notice the difference compared to a cheap variND.

​I disagree with this as well.  I think many people new to shooting video buy these cameras because they are seeking a 'cinematic' look.  Obviously this is a nebulous term but DOF control is a big part of this which is small sensor camcorders are not an option.  They want a camera that could allow them to create a pro-quality film, even if that film is about their kids or a family vacation.  They watch vimeo staff picks and think, if only I had that camera I could make a film just like that.  They then look at professional review sites, and dream for a moment about owning a C100/300 or 1DC or a FS7 before reality sets in (mainly $$$ and size/weight)  and they accept a small, prosumer ILC is the way to go, and they are happy as after all some vimeo staff picks are filmed on a GH4 or A7s.  
They then get their GH4/A7s and while the image is great, their film isn't like the staff picks they were watching.  As they chase around their kids, or when on holiday try to shoot artistic shots while keeping up with their family, their handheld image is shaky with rolling shutter and just doesn't look as good as they hoped.  With time they then realise how much skill and time goes into shooting those staff picks, and how the camera is the smallest part of the equation -how lighting, composition, audio, editing, colour grading and stable camera movement are just if not more important.  
This is why I think the E-M5ii is a good choice for the average consumer.  I think for the run and gun, uncontrolled event style shooting that they do when out with their family, having a stable image and the ability to add cinematic style camera movement with no rigging or set-up time adds more to the quality of their film than higher resolution.  But hey its just my opinion, everyone can make their own decision.

​I disagree with this as well.  I think many people new to shooting video buy these cameras because they are seeking a 'cinematic' look.  Obviously this is a nebulous term but DOF control is a big part of this which is small sensor camcorders are not an option.  They want a camera that could allow them to create a pro-quality film, even if that film is about their kids or a family vacation.  They watch vimeo staff picks and think, if only I had that camera I could make a film just like that.  They then look at professional review sites, and dream for a moment about owning a C100/300 or 1DC or a FS7 before reality sets in (mainly $$$ and size/weight)  and they accept a small, prosumer ILC is the way to go, and they are happy as after all some vimeo staff picks are filmed on a GH4 or A7s.  
They then get their GH4/A7s and while the image is great, their film isn't like the staff picks they were watching.  As they chase around their kids, or when on holiday try to shoot artistic shots while keeping up with their family, their handheld image is shaky with rolling shutter and just doesn't look as good as they hoped.  With time they then realise how much skill and time goes into shooting those staff picks, and how the camera is the smallest part of the equation -how lighting, composition, audio, editing, colour grading and stable camera movement are just if not more important.  
This is why I think the E-M5ii is a good choice for the average consumer.  I think for the run and gun, uncontrolled event style shooting that they do when out with their family, having a stable image and the ability to add cinematic style camera movement with no rigging or set-up time adds more to the quality of their film than higher resolution.  But hey its just my opinion, everyone can make their own decision.

​I agree and I can't really fathom why some are saying the E-M5ii is a disaster (and some with such passion).  I mean 1 year ago when the E-M1 was released, it received comments like:
"Whether you’re a professional commercial shooter, single operator film artist or an enthusiastic amateur, the E-M1 is worth considering purely because of that stabiliser, small form factor and lovely EVF."
"As for more casual users, you can do point and shoot video with the E-M1 better than most of the competition as well – again due to the stabilisation system."
"The main reason this camera is so useful for video is that it’s the only interchangeable lens camera I’d consider for handheld shooting with zero rigging, completely bare-bones as if shooting stills."
"The big surprise is just how similar video quality is on the E-M1 and GH3. They both resolve very good levels of detail (as long as you don’t turn digital sharpening off in camera and forget to apply it in post)"
And this was on a camera that is 30p only, with 24MBit codec, no live audio-levels, and no ability to change settings when recording at all.  Now I understand that times have changed and we now have the GH4, A7s and NX1 to consider but none of these have anything close to the stabilisation of the E-M1/E-M5ii, which is the reason to choose Olympus.  Now I am disappointed that image quality isn't better, as it really should be for 2015, but Olympus has improved numerous other aspects and hopefully will roll out some further updates to improve the quirks now that video is actually a feature they are promoting.    Anyway, there is no right or wrong and no camera is perfect, so we must each decide what features are a priority to you and your shooting style.  I understand and respect those who choose maximal image quality but also understand and respect those who are prepared to accept 'good enough' IQ for the freedom of in-body stabilisation..
 

​I agree and I can't really fathom why some are saying the E-M5ii is a disaster (and some with such passion).  I mean 1 year ago when the E-M1 was released, it received comments like:
"Whether you’re a professional commercial shooter, single operator film artist or an enthusiastic amateur, the E-M1 is worth considering purely because of that stabiliser, small form factor and lovely EVF."
"As for more casual users, you can do point and shoot video with the E-M1 better than most of the competition as well – again due to the stabilisation system."
"The main reason this camera is so useful for video is that it’s the only interchangeable lens camera I’d consider for handheld shooting with zero rigging, completely bare-bones as if shooting stills."
"The big surprise is just how similar video quality is on the E-M1 and GH3. They both resolve very good levels of detail (as long as you don’t turn digital sharpening off in camera and forget to apply it in post)"
And this was on a camera that is 30p only, with 24MBit codec, no live audio-levels, and no ability to change settings when recording at all.  Now I understand that times have changed and we now have the GH4, A7s and NX1 to consider but none of these have anything close to the stabilisation of the E-M1/E-M5ii, which is the reason to choose Olympus.  Now I am disappointed that image quality isn't better, as it really should be for 2015, but Olympus has improved numerous other aspects and hopefully will roll out some further updates to improve the quirks now that video is actually a feature they are promoting.    Anyway, there is no right or wrong and no camera is perfect, so we must each decide what features are a priority to you and your shooting style.  I understand and respect those who choose maximal image quality but also understand and respect those who are prepared to accept 'good enough' IQ for the freedom of in-body stabilisation..
 

Another E-M5ii example
 

Another E-M5ii example
 

​Olympus is right there with Fuji on the stuff that they add with firmware updates. They just hadn't focused on video in the previous cameras. 

​Ok Inquisitive, it time to fess up.  We know that you are the head of the global Olympus video fan boy club -the Olympinati, who is engaged in a global conspiracy to secretly convince the film making world that Olympus is the king of video with the same if not better resolution than the GH2/3/4 but with much superior stabilisation that they just can't live without.  If you succeed, Panasonic and other companies will have no choice but to put IBIS into all their cameras and in the process they will throw away their highly detailed, moire-free images and will plunge the world into the next video dark age.......

​Ok Inquisitive, it time to fess up.  We know that you are the head of the global Olympus video fan boy club -the Olympinati, who is engaged in a global conspiracy to secretly convince the film making world that Olympus is the king of video with the same if not better resolution than the GH2/3/4 but with much superior stabilisation that they just can't live without.  If you succeed, Panasonic and other companies will have no choice but to put IBIS into all their cameras and in the process they will throw away their highly detailed, moire-free images and will plunge the world into the next video dark age.......

Here is a music video shot entirely on the E-M5ii ​handheld 
 
and the BTS
 
 

Camcorders do have great stabilisation and can be a great choice for many people, but many choose a larger sensor ILC so they have changeable lenses and DOF control because as you know, this helps create a more 'cinematic' image.  So if you don't want shallow depth of field then yes, I'd recommend a camcorder but many people usually want the option of having this, so a camcorder is off the table.  
I have both panasonic and olympus camera's and I'm sorry to say that IBIS is far far superior to panasonic lens stabilisation, but if you're happy with OIS and it suits your needs then thats great.  For me, I usually find myself grabbing my E-M1 despite the limitations as I find the IBIS to be worth it.  
Anyway everyone can make their own decision as to whats most important to them, and for many a GH4/NX1 might be a better choice  All I'm saying is that having good stabilisation in body on all my lenses (including my contax zeiss lenses)  without extra rigging/equipment has value to me and I imagine to others as well, and although I don't know for sure how many this is, I suspect its not only a small percentage.  And while, I'd prefer not to have to compromise on resolution, thats the world where in at the moment. 

Camcorders do have great stabilisation and can be a great choice for many people, but many choose a larger sensor ILC so they have changeable lenses and DOF control because as you know, this helps create a more 'cinematic' image.  So if you don't want shallow depth of field then yes, I'd recommend a camcorder but many people usually want the option of having this, so a camcorder is off the table.  
I have both panasonic and olympus camera's and I'm sorry to say that IBIS is far far superior to panasonic lens stabilisation, but if you're happy with OIS and it suits your needs then thats great.  For me, I usually find myself grabbing my E-M1 despite the limitations as I find the IBIS to be worth it.  
Anyway everyone can make their own decision as to whats most important to them, and for many a GH4/NX1 might be a better choice  All I'm saying is that having good stabilisation in body on all my lenses (including my contax zeiss lenses)  without extra rigging/equipment has value to me and I imagine to others as well, and although I don't know for sure how many this is, I suspect its not only a small percentage.  And while, I'd prefer not to have to compromise on resolution, thats the world where in at the moment. 

There are many components to what makes a good film, and I would argue that resolution is the least important of them all.  Sure, when looking at frame grabs or if you're wanting to have print quality stills from your video then resolution is a major consideration, but for the majority of people using these cameras I think resolution makes a smaller difference to the quality of their end product, their film, than other factors.  In the end, what we are all really trying to achieve with these large sensor cameras is to make a film that has more 'cinematic' qualities than a small sensor video camera.  
What I think makes a big difference for parents filming their kids, documenting their lives etc is how stable the image is and if they can add any stable camera motion to their shot.  Furthermore, these type of users don't have time to set-up gimbals etc (my wife would, shall we say, not be impressed if I brought a gimbal to my sons birthday party) as even pro's find the hassle of using these of stabilising devices can be limiting depending on the style/nature of your work.   This is where IBIS shines, while it isn't as stable as a gimbal for walking shots, you can add very nice dolly and even small-jib like movement by carefully shifting your body position without any rigging.  I think as far as the audience goes they notice the production value of this stability and camera motion far more than resolution.