webrunner5

I think you are giving the audience way to much credit to be able to distinguish motion cadence. I can surely see why you don't like lesser quality, but the cost equipment wise is pretty steep to benefit you and a handful that might notice it.. I don't consider the Bolex s16 as much of a offering. Now that they don't even make it anymore even more of a negative to me. Glorified BMPCC with less options. Form factor just sucks ass. Sure output nice, but at what price. Red is your to go only real way for you it seems, but man the add ones for one is just crazy expensive, and low light is bad, as well as storage options. A Red kit is not for mere mortals LoL.Not counting a computer worthy of editing it. Way out of my price range. Maybe you will get a big pay raise this year!!

Well I think if you want to do Anamorphic you would be crazy not to do it with say a GH4 as cheap as you can buy one now. 4.3 is so cheap to do compared to other sensor sizes. As to the Red footage I am surprised Vimeo would not have what you want.

8 bit is enough if you expose correctly unless you are into heavy grading. 10 bit is plenty enough data than 95% of anyone but a feature film is going to need. Don't get me wrong who doesn't want more, but 12 bit say 4.4.4 takes a lot of space to use, and Raw 14 bit is crazy a amount of space..The GH5 will pretty much have all you need which is nice. Now the 60fps 4k will be only 8 bit. So that Might need a external recorder for that.

Pretty good description here. Pretty darn good specs, especially with the Apriil firmware update! https://www.wired.com/2017/01/panasonics-new-gh5-compact-camera-4k-hdr-video-beast/ This one also interesting. http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/4/14145730/panasonic-gh5-fz80-gx850-compact-cameras-ces-2017 Maybe one of the better eye opening ones. https://***URL not allowed***/panasonic-gh5-hands-on-6k-anamorphic-video-4k-60p-180fps-fhd/

Well I would imagine in a few more generations someone, probably will be Sony, will make a consumer camera that IS almost what everyone here pleads to have. The A7sII is really not that far off in reality. Build one with a S35 sensor, 6k, internal ND filter, better codec, little bigger body for a larger battery, and sensor cooling ability. They could have done some of that with the A6500, but I think they wanted to save that for the A7 series. We really are getting close to the real deal if only they would stop worrying about loosing sales on their top end stuff. Seems to me they would sell more of them at 3k dollars than the few they sell at 10k dollars. No one is ever going to give up on buying a real full size camcorder for serious work. so they will still have a base for that category of bodies.

I just wish the GH5 has a bit more DR, because the night scenes on the Sony really stand out because of the DR.

I think between the GH5 and the Olympus EM1 mkII both with some damn good specs, I don't think Sony has much choice but to up their specs also pretty big time. Look how fast they came out with the A6500! Yeah but with a speedbooster and some fast glass you gain a stop or 2 which equates to a step or 2 of ISO. So they are not as bad as it sounds like on paper LoL. But yeah they are no C300 or A7sII where that is not a problem at all. 18-35mm 1.8 Sigma gets to be sort of necessary with MFT cameras.

It looks like it is going to be hard to pass it up for 2 grand like it or not. Other than form factor what's not to like for the money. Sony is going to have to pick up the pace on the A7 series because of this camera. You don't get killer Low light, great DR, Form Factor, even great colors for basically entry level prices on a video camera yet in this day and age. But in reality you can a make a feature film with this thing. Some fast lenses ,Speed Booster, good lighting, and the audio add on option, and away you go.

Well what ever happens, Happy New Year! May we all get a faster computer.

He is one of the best, highest paid photographers in the world now, doesn't Photoshop stuff, doesn't do HDR, and you say his stuff is meh. I guess I am finished on this thread. Not counting he is telling you, for free, by watching both parts, how he pretty much does it. hmm...

Because I did it, thousands of others have done it with flash. It is not new. Been there done that. It will look just like everyone else that Does it. It is the EASY way out. And because it is the easy way 97% of the people do it that way, that is why! Do you think flash was invented 5 years ago? Do you think there has not been masters at using them. Books by the thousands out on it! It is Old Hat! There is only so many ways you can use flash without it looking like flash. And you can't really make it Not look like flash, that is the point. Your daughters wedding looks just like her best friends wedding etc. etc.. Flash freezes the moment in an artificial way, not like in reality. It looks unnatural and guess what, it is even on film. It looks staged, and it is. You are limited to certain top shutter speeds, limited f stops, etc.. I don't need to look at anyone's shots that use flash because I know just what it will look like. Seen plenty, that is how I leaned, and what I did too.. And I see plenty of the "lets get a paycheck and get the hell out of here" wedding stuff. Yeah you do a damn good job, but not a Great job. Hard to keep a Great pace up for decades like you have to do. So you take the easy way out, Flash, the old standby. Sad to see it is still prevalent in this day and age. But it puts food on the table.

And it will look just like what I did and others 30 years ago like I said. That WAS wedding Photography 101 40 years ago. On camera flash, 2 umbrella slaves. Accept we used Metz flashes, now they use Canon, Nikon ones. Progress... And guess what I was like 97% of wedding portrait photographers that did the same thing and made a ok living doing it. I didn't stand out from the pack just like 97% of photographers do not now. It is the safe way to go, but you Never stand out that way. And you can in this day and age. There is a TON of neat stuff to use now, and you can have a 3, 4 man crew doing it and make handfulls of money doing it not just a living like I did and the 97% like me did. We all had a Hassy, 3 lenses, a Rolleiflex TLR and 3 lenses, and 3 Metz flash units, and maybe our wife helping, and that was that. Food on the table..Maybe.

I was a Professional Photographer for 17 years, my sole income in that time frame. I Know all about that shit, and I know that is old school stuff compared to what you have at your disposal now. Times change and that is why most photographers look just like most photographers. Only a few stand out, and a few make Big money. They don't do what they did 30 years ago is all I am saying. You want to do the same old shit of a flash firing when the cake is cut, the bouquet is thrown, same crap walking down the isle well you will look like everyone else, even noobs can do that in this day and age. You have to use the newest, latest stuff to be ahead of the pack. Some of the crap I see shot the Bride might as well go around and gather pictures of the event from their Guests Cellphones and get a better modern rendition of the Wedding.

I never said not to use lights, I said Flash is not the thing now that cheap LCD lighting and umbrellas, bounce natural light panels etc are available now. Flash is harsh light compared to variable LCDs now. Yes you do need to light for portraits from lots of different angles to get the effect you want, but flash is a thing of the past. LCD's you can see the effect in real time. not looking at a shot on a monitor and hoping it works with flash.. Now if you are doing stop motion stuff, well yeah you need strobe flash units to freeze the action. But that is a specialty, not the norm. And yes if you are a pro you are going to have a few flash units in your bag as a last hope run and gun thing, but it still looks 60ish when you do it that way. Hell for video lighting and audio is more important than the camera taking part of. And naturally the script is top dog in the whole thing. It all has to come together to make it happen. And that is not easy. That is why pros make the big money, they have pros in each aspect of it making their part happen almost perfect. Just think how nice it would be to go down to the local park you shoot at and have a 8 man crew handling all the lighting for you and a 5 man crew doing all the audio, and they are the best there is in Hollywood. Your life and movies would be one hell of a lot better LoL.

And their work probably looks pretty muck alike then. Then, in the 60's, and now. Way too many better options now.

Ah I see. Yeah I think the Nikon Speedbooster is the way to go on a Pocket. Just too many good Nikon manual focus lenses around for peanuts to pass up. And they have out G lens Apture control adapters. I have one myself.

I thought you were going to buy a BMCC MFT?? Not the BMPCC. I too am looking at a BMPCC to buy again. BMCC is better output, just not much fun to rig and can't strip down to throw in a backpack, coatpocket.

Man flash photos suck. That is pretty 60's looking.

Low light and DR are where it might still fall down, and that is sort of the 2 things we want the most in a Cine camera. Well Codec is up there also, so still not having too much hope on that being killer either. But yes for the money it is going to offer probably more than ever before in a small package. I must admit probably not going to buy one, just too many of the things I want, including form factor, going to be missing. I really don't need 4k or 6k photos. if I wanted that I think I might go for the Oly EM1 mkII over the GH5. No way the focus speed or stabilazation on the GH5 is going to be better than the EM1 mkII. It will be better than the GH4. But the GH5 will be a super camera even for the 2k cost. Nothing new is even close to it if specs come true. But there is some damn nice cameras used for that money, or a bit more I think I am more interested in, with a proven track record.

Yean truth be known Everyone ought to have a BMPCC, they really are that good. I guess we can't believe something that cheap can be what we really Need. Sad to say it probably is one of the top cine cameras we could ever afford. I had one, sold it, and still regret it. Probably never going to beat its output on my budget.

Well the OP has the same problem all us "Poor People" have. Well I guess even rich people have the same problem. No one camera does it all. I am now in the same boat. Sold a few cameras I had. Down to pretty much my G7 to scounge up money. Thinking hard on a C100. And yes the Photos suck on it. 8mp. Yes no 4k, but I really don't need that, have a Panny G7 that does that. Crazy to sell it for what you can get for one. Every ones here has great ideas. Just not the perfect idea, and sad to say there isn't one. Best advice I can add. And it takes damn good stills, really good ones.

He earns at least 2 to 3 million a year, well at least he did! I have heard as much a 50k a week. Depends on how good blogs were. Not a set fee. Well it is, how many hits. The more the Merrier, and how long they are on it watching, ergo get to see even more adds.. It is someting like YouTube's CPM is reported to be on average $7.60, that means you get paid $7.60 for each 1,000 views. Depends who you are. Casey got more than that trust me per 1,000.

I liked it. Keep it up!

I have no clue why the original Ursa is still expensive as heck. Surely they are not selling a lot of them over the Mini?? I don't think the 4.6k one has been out 2 years? The Ursa Mini 4k maybe.