MicahMahaffey

I was just talking to my buddy about how sad it was that Samsung never released an nx2. Could you image a 10 bit nx1? Amazingness

Literally the only feature I NEED panasonic to add to the s1 is frame guides for different aspect ratios. 

Filming in 2.35.0 shouldn't be this tricky on a $2500 that offers 10bit 422 vlog as a recording option. Because that tells me it's at least somewhat video focused. 

So yeah, frame guides would be amazing and probably pretty easy to add. 

Obviously I'll take anything if they want to add it. I just hope auto focus isn't all we'll be getting updated. 

9 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

This camera seems to be an image quality monster like the S1H, if the 150mbit 10bit codec is as stellar or the same as on the GH5. And, Varicam image quality. A few of us are still talking about autofocus a lot when we already could assume it would not be much better. That I find missing the point of this 10bit image machine.

This is a indie cinema filmmakers camera dream come true. A full frame GH5 with full VLog. A varicam for your backpack. I tested the high iso noise reduction of the S1 in its 709 modes and HLG 75mbit. It looks to my eye pretty much non existent on a big monitor. To users like Dennis alias deezid of course it is still there. And I am happy he has a keen eye on image quality like no other forum member. Btw, for 1999 EU you can get this cam with a Sigma 45 2.8 until September 30th in Europe. If no other caveheats showing up, perfect release, except micro hdmi.

Wait, what has Panasonic thought, no fun with external monitors! No fun with focus pulling. Wow, at the end of my rambling I must admit, due to the micro hdmi it is not the indie cinema filmmakers dream come true. GH5 still is. But it is an image quality lovers dream come true. Darn, no full HDMI. How, excuse me, silly does that look. Would have been a perfect release with one. Really dig that tasty image quality as shown in Potato Jets review:

 

The panasonis S1 has the exact same video image, the same full Vlog in the exact same 4k 10 bit 422 codec. 

The s1 has better Ibis, better battery life, better weather sealing, full size hdmi, better evf and unlimited recording in 4k 10bit 422.

You can buy it used (like new condition) for $1600 US pretty often. These usually include vlog. 

It's a little bit bigger than the s5, but for a solid filmmaking machine, a used s1 is probably the better option for an affordable cinema camera. 

There are firmware updates confirmed for the future too. So the s1's value as a filmmaking tool will increase. 

The s5 is an incredible camera though, it's insane we're at a point where cameras this good are releasing at these prices 

4 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

From the FB group seems like there is firmware coming for S1 with improved AF and other stuff..?  So oldie is not forgotten.

 

Man I hope those 1.8 are $499 or less, $1000 is definitely on the high side.

Who said the S1 is getting an update? That would be awesome! 

38 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Havent seen new S1 cameras with the Vlog update for that price, neither without the Vlog. Swivel screen on the S5 is super cool for me.

S5 does not have full HMDI?

I bought my s1 for $1600 with VLOG in "used like new condition" less than 100 shutter clicks on amazon. 

And the s5 has micro hdmi. 

2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Haven´t you posted these exact words before? You really mean it and you love your S1. Want to get a second body? I might sell mine. cheers 🙂

I'm just saying that the S5 really isn't that much better. Everyone is talking like its this huge upgrade that somehow makes the s1 obsolete. 

While the S1 with VLOG goes for around $1600 like new. 

The s5 might be $2000 and if so, technically what are you losing for $400 less? 4k 60 10bit? a couple different aspect ratios? maybe marginally better AF? 

But what does the S1 have over the S5? Better build, better EVF, Better battery life, full HDMI out. 

I guess it's a no brainer if you prefer smaller cameras, in that case the S5 is 100% a better choice. But what if you like big cameras? 

Honestly the S1 and s5 seem like comparable cameras made for different shooting styles. 

Most retailers include the VLOG upgrade for free now anyway. 

I'm not in the market to buy another S1 because I already have one, I might potentially replace my a6300 with the S5 as my gimbal cam if the price is good. 

I'm only saying this because I noticed a lot of people saying the S1 in kind of pointless now, but really I don't think it is. Now if the S5 is like $1600 then yeah I think the S1 will sorta be pointless. 

21 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

S5 and S1 with update (not free unfortunately unlike the cheaper S5, no 4k60 10bit whatsoever unlike that upcoming rascal camera S5 😞 ) provide astonishing cinema image quality in a small form factor.

Their image quality is pretty unique at that price point. It rivals, equals a C300ii but with much better low light and without any nasty noise reduction. Couple that with some cheaper vintage glass and you are in cinema heaven on the cheap. I still cannot believe the quality of the S1 even in its puny 75mbit hlg h265 mode.

Still, if Pana wants to show uncomparable grace in their product line up, they give us some tasty free update for the S1. If so, I will call them Panny again. Hope that could be a good reason to give us the quality codecs and VLOG of their lesser S5 camera. Untile then my name shall be PanaSVHS.

Love the size of the S1 though. One point for S1 owners.:) Z6 in the store does not quiete compare for me in that regard.

 

 

I honestly think the s1 is still great. I didnt want a smaller camera. 

If the s5 is $2000 a used s1 with vlog is still cheaper so the value works out if you buy used. 

Assuming the s5 will be $2000. 

I dont personally feel like I'm missing much without 4k 60 10bit or animorphic modes. 

I'm still hopeful Panasonic announces an update to the s1 though that at least gives it the animorphic options. Maybe 4k 60 10bit? But I wont hold my breath on that one. 

Love your footage! 😄

This is my dream sensor size, I just got an s1 earlier this month and through many tests have concluded that its absolutely stunning! 

I was debating grabbing the medium format focal reducer for the s1 and just shooting in 16:9 to achieve that look. But honestly, I think the s1's full frame image has enough of the characteristics I like in larger sensors to tickle my fancy for now. 

Maybe in a few years when medium format cameras are more accessible I'll take the plunge. But as a rental for a project, this camera is looking very tempting. 

I say the bigger the sensor the better, so seeing cameras like this come out is kind of a dream come true. 😄

its also really cool to know some full frame lenses work! 

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@MicahMahaffeyWhen you input "a6300" when you talking about "indie cinema", I just lost my mind..

Everything is cool, technology has bring us amazing quality for a fraction of the cost but oranges are oranges and apples are apples.

Panasonic does amazing things to close the gap but when you talk about "indie films" you talk about films you do with your friends, or "indie films" that shot with the usual cinema cameras? Because we shot indie films here, but with C300 series, FX, even up to Alexas and Reds. The cost of a camera rent for a short is miniscule, that would be my last issue.

Your "sensor issue" as well is like you haven't read another thread in this forum before..You are like waking up in the 5DmkII days, I thought we are past that. Being out of focus isn't artistic and I bet you are OOF most of times, or you shoot with 8-11f.

We shoot a feature with an FX9 right now, a pro shooting, and guess what f stops are using most of the times...hint:no, it is not wide open and we use Canon Cine primes, not a photo zoom..

The movie you are mentioning is with moded A7 cameras. Have you checked the lenses they used? Do you know how many films around the world made with an A7s since then? 0(zero), and with cine cameras? Literally thousands..

You are taking some personal choices and I am sure they are great for you, but I wouldn't advise anyone else to worry as much as you do for those matters.

My first ever m43 camera is the P4K, and now that they have solved most of the issues I had with the smaller sensors, I genuinely waiting for the GH6 more than any other full frame camera. I am using the lenses I need for the project.

Also to clarify, when I say shallower DOF, I'm not talking about shooting wide open. In fact, I'm saying you can stop your lens down on full frame and still maintain lots of dof due to the distance between your subject and camera. On smaller sensors this is much more difficult to achieve. 

Also the a6300 is a nice lil camera. I just wouldn't wanna shoot an entire feature on it. 

A Panasonic s1 or s1h? I definitely would. 

9 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

My issues with fullframe mirrorless is my frustration that there still isn't yet one to really set itself above the others.  Each model is close, yet each falls short in different areas.  Canon R5 and R6 suffer overheating, though have great AF, colour and IBIS.  Poorer DR for now.  The R5 promises Clog3 and internal Raw Light in future upgrades, which will be a huge advantage over the Panasonic and Sony.  Sony A7sIII has great lowlight, DR, AF, but colour needs more work and 12mbs for photos is a limitation if you do need HQ stills.  Still, its arguably the best fullframe mirrorless out there now for video.  I've never liked Sony; those I've owned have been very frustrating for me.  Not just for colour, but ergonmics too.  A few overheating problems on jobs have also not endeared me to them either.

Panasonic leads on video features, though the S1H is far better for video use than the stripped down S1.  It lacks a decent AF, and 60p is still cropped.  It could use an upgrade with 120fps 4K, uncropped 6K, and a decent AF to really dominate the market.  I'm intrigued to learn how the S5 sits with the S1 and S1H.

S5 could work well in my range of cameras for hybrid and run n gun work if it doesn't strip too much back from these cameras and it would be even better if it can improve in some areas.  Especially with competition from Sony and Canon.  

For video only, I'm more interested in the URSA 12k or the Canon C70.  But for hybrid, the S5 certainly has my attention.  It won't convert me into seeing the mythical fullframe look however. 🤣🤣

Saying theres no full frame look is like saying humans cant see the difference between 1080 and 4k. Or that 24p is as much motion as we can see. 

Just because you dont notice the subtle nuances doesn't mean they dont exist. 

Look up the medium format look, theres plenty of experts who can explain this better than I. The bigger the sensor the larger the spread of light and the distance between the light drawn across the frame. Shallower DOF, gaining the compression of a portrait lens while maintaining the FOV of a wide. These are all parts of the "look" of medium format, but the same logic is applied to every sensor depending on their size. 

Just like an animorphic 50mm has a wide horizontal FOV comparable to a 24mm - 35mm. This plays with the motion in the frame and everything about the feeling you get. 

Larger sensors do have a look. Maybe it's not as obvious on a full frame, but it's there. 

Anyway, that's the last I have to say on this subject. You either see it or you dont, its subjective. I'm not telling you that you're wrong, I'm not telling anyone their wrong. MFT cameras are amazing. If I wasnt in tight spaces for so many of my jobs I'd maybe grab some mft cameras for their value. 

Cinematography is subjective enough without every other person telling you you're wrong for liking something.. 

I'm only going to discuss full frame pansonic cameras in this thread from this point on. The s5 is an interesting looking camera. Let's get back to that. 

28 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I'm not arguing against the mirrorless cameras quality.  On the contrary, I've shot with them more than any other camera.  I also don't disagree for small indie movies they are ideal.  I would do the same.  I also saw and own a movie shot on the GH2 and the quality is very good.  I love the GH series cameras and own them all.  Brilliant cameras.  

Where I draw the line is feeling mirrorless hybrids are a replacement and even equal to cinema cameras.  Not just because a dedicated cinema camera have functions that mirrorless cameras lack, can be more reliable, but also as they have a better image that allows for stronger grading.  

This isn't to say mirrorless don't have a good image.  They do.  Throw the image out to an external recorder for RAW or use a 400mbit all-l codec and you are getting there.  But then you lose the portability and small size many buy mirrorless for.  

There are some who feel they can buy one camera that rules them all for all their video work.  I favour a variety of cameras to serve different needs.  In this setup, a mirrorless camera can be very useful and deliver a great image.  

In my experience, those who talk about the so called fullframe look, whilst overlooking the image quality difference a dedicated cinema camera has over mirrorless are probably locked into a certain point of view tied to the camera they currently own.

My sony a6300 is my gimbal cam, The S1 is my main cam. (My personal cameras) I've used and worked with many different cine cameras as well. Pretty much any camera with a half decent codec/bit depth can be made to match anything in post. 

Things like color science are less important than they used to be. Although most modern cameras have astounding color regardless.

Hybrid cams are not replacements for CINEMA cameras, because cinema cameras have lots of features and a specific form factor needed for large productions that the mirrorless cameras just lack. 

But when it comes to the final image you obtain from these cameras the gap is pretty much as close as it can get. 

Also external recorders are great on cameras like the s1, enabling prores and cine camera equivalent codecs to go along with its cine quality color and dynamic range. 

I honestly know "real" cinema cameras are better, I've used them and wished i could own them myself, but if we're being honest, the images in these mirrorless cameras are just as good, or at least as good as it needs to be. So for the prices cameras go for now, we are very spoiled IMO 

Also the hacked GH2 is such a cool camera! Ive been tempted to buy a few just because its image has this pleasing classic 16mm film like character when pushing for it. 

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. 

Meanwhile films will be shot on mirrorless cameras and cine cameras all over. 

A cell phone from 2010 can look cinematic if lit and composed well. 

But modern 10 bit mirrorless cameras have closed the gap imo. 

For big productions with a need for all the fancy stuff the big cameras are perfect. But for low budget indie films or films shot in tight places a mirrorless cam is capable. 

There was a horror feature film shot on the a7sii a few years back. I saw it in theaters and couldn't even tell. 

I remember when the hollywood movie act of valor was almost shot entirely on canon 5ds? That was because of their form factor. 

I could tell they were a bit less capable, but honestly nobody else with me could tell. 

But again, that's a canon 5d. Modern mirrorless cameras are MUCH better. 

8 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Only the S1H I feel and with the 400 mbit all-l codec.  Which is what Netflix asks to make the S1H eligible for use on their productions.  S1 less so.

And you're forgetting lenses which play a special part in the cinema look.  

There's no doubt that hybrids produce a great image for their price.  But its for more reasons than simply being a dedicated video form factor that pushes TV and Film productions to use Red and Alexa cameras.  

Even the S1H lacks a certain magic I see in cinema cameras.  They're tools to do a certain job, handling both Photography and video and work well within those parameters.

It'll be nice to read something positive, so I hope these improvements move from speculation to fact.

The s1's internal codec is 100% good enough for a theatrical feature. 

But if you plan to RIP into the footage with extreme grades then yes, the All I codec is better. 

Just like raw isnt nessesary but it's nice to have. 

For a low budget indie film with a small crew, the Panasonic mirrorless cameras are a great tool for achieving a cinematic image with their dynamic range, color and ergonomics. Especially now with the S line and the varicam look these cameras produce. Plus they're 10bit 422 which opens the doors for post. 

I dont think the s1h is lacking that magic. Looking up films shot on it, I feel its image is right up there with the cine cameras of today. 

Once you get a great sensor on your hands an equally as good lens is a must to truly experience the potential 

1 hour ago, SteveV4D said:

They often lack a decent internal codec, suffer from more RS, less DR and other limitations compared to cinema cameras. Regardless of their image quality, which is often very good and does get used for TV and movie productions, though frequently as cheap crash cams; they're really no substitute for dedicated cinema cameras and cine lenses.  Things like global shutter, superior motion cadence and full colour reproduction and range is something a dedicated video camera will always excel at over the hybrid.

IMO hybrid cameras like the s1 and s1h have reached cinema level image quality, even with the internal codec. 

Motion cadence is probably the biggest struggle for non cine cameras but panasonic has motion really well handled. 

1 hour ago, SteveV4D said:

And if fullframe becomes the norm, I'll invest in a fullframe video camera.  I won't invest in a fullframe hybrid and pretend I'm ready for a fullframe future.  

There are greater professionals than can be found here, out there shooting movies for cinema screens that are making better use of their S35 cinema cameras than those shooting fullframe hybrids right now because they love the look of fullframe. 

Let's not pretend that just because fullframe cinema is the future, someone can be ready for it by buying a fullframe Photo camera.

I guess I'm in the camp that believes mirrorless hybrid cameras can hold their own against their cinema counterparts when it comes to the image they produce. 

11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

No it doesn't.  I think your mind is allowing you to see things here.. You're probably confusing aesthetics with the type of shots that 70mm are often used for.  Christopher Nolan loves 70mm, but on a small screen, its only in aspect ratio that leads you to see the differnce when he cuts between the 2 formats.  

Its the same people who say they love the fullframe look.  I've worked with fullframe and most of the time, there is no difference when cut with smaller sensor shots.  Only in cases of extreme depth of field at some angles can you see the effects of using fullframe.

Now you're getting aesthetic confused with aspect ratio. 

On 70mm light is drawn across the frame differently. There's a larger than life feel to it. 

Something about having the compression of a 50mm focal length while maintaining a wider image closer to 35mm gives a feeling, a look. 

Same goes for animorphic, it has it's own "look". It produces a bigger image, even when viewed on a small screen.

I could tell Joker was shot on the Alexa 65 after seeing the trailer. 

It just had that feeling. It had that big image look. 

It's hard to describe, but I remember having conversations in another forum a few years back and someone was telling me about how human eyes can't see more than 24fps and 4k isnt something humans can resolve. Which we all know is 1000% false. 

I guess the point is, just because you cant see the "look" doesnt mean it's not there. 

Cinematography is subjective enough without telling people they're wrong for liking something. 

You could go grab two different films, one shot on 35mm and another on 16mm and theres a good chance I'd be able to immediately tell which is which. 

Yes, its hard to tell when different sensor sizes are cut together. MFT is good enough for any professional/narrative work. In a lot of cases full frame might even be overkill. I just like the look of full frame. It's as simple as that. 

You dont have to notice the look I'm speaking of, but I do. 

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

No wonder we have so many people confused about sensor sizes and so called "crop factor" when the students' teachers are like that! Sigh
 

Umm.. I feel like you've misunderstood what I said. 

2 hours ago, Lux Shots said:

It's not standard today. But who buys a camera today without looking for how it may fare in the future?

ZCam, Kinefinity, RED and Alexa all have full frame either released or in the queue.

Additionally, the S1 series being hybrid cameras truly needed full frame for better photography performance.

The nice thing is, you can still use your S35 glass with no problem, and get the look you've come accustomed to, with the option to graduate to full frame look in the future.

It's nice having options!🌞

Glad someone gets it. 

Full frame is something that's nice to have. 

I'd rather have full frame and not need it than need it and not have it. 

The future of Hollywood and the industry is clearly headed in the full frame direction. With more 35mm and larger sensors being used on more and more features. 

The Alexa 65 is pretty much the new standard for digital image quality and that specific camera has been used a lot since its release. 

Full frame cameras are getting more affordable, medium format cameras are getting more affordable. 

Theres just not a lot of a need for mft. But obviously itll always exist in more affordable cameras probably forever. 

In my mind, having a larger sensor helps your overall image more than 8k would. 

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

No disrespect to EOSHD, but 70mm sensor size? If you "need" this, I don't know why you're here. That's for high-end cinema. You're a video arts teacher... what level are your students? I'm sure you know this, but images don't get "bigger" with sensor size; that comes with the distance between the screen and your projector and usually this is fixed. I think it's important to distinguish between your needs and pure GAS.

I was being goofy. 

I also never said I need 70mm. 

Just that I like it 🙂

Also there's no reason anyone shouldn't admire a specific format. I like the look of 70mm, regardless of if I'll ever actually get to shoot in that format. 

Big image meaning how its captured, not displayed. 70mm footage looks different "bigger" than 35mm. Even on a smart phone screen. 

9 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

You're in your right : )

I for once traded my yet new 5DII used mainly for motion picture and still part of my collection for a GH1 somewhere between the streets of Ljubljana and Zagreb because of form factor. Used mostly for stills, yeah, go figure! : D

Never looked back.

Love small devices, glass and pocket size included, hence my MFT love as well < 3

It's really is amazing that we live in a time where cameras are as good as they are. There's something for everyone 🙂 

Even though I love big images and big cameras, I'm always carrying around my a6300 in my coat pocket because it's literally pocket sized and I love that. 

7 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I obviously follow your point but isn't MFT enough and much budget friendly to free you out for sharing our precious resources anywhere else? ; )

My Samyang 12mm f/2.0 or even a Laowa 7.5mm f/2 (to match a f/4 aperture as 35mm equivalent) will perfectly fulfill the bill, trust me... ;- )

 

 

 

Those are beautiful images and I know full frame isn't honestly needed. especially not for drones. But I will say my mavic 2 pro sensor is as small as id go on a drone. I think the reason I'm obsessed with full frame stems from my love for 70mm and IMAX.  I love full frame because it gets me that much closer to an IMAX "feel". As well as generally being more convenient. 

I will say this though, for any live events like concerts or weddings. I almost always go super 35 or MFT. 

For most (not all) narrative projects full frame is just aesthetically pleasing to me,  you can get a wide angle view without getting that wide lens look. This is even more true for 70mm. 

God.. I want a 70mm camera... 

Im a video arts teacher and my philosophy is any camera can tell nearly any story. So truthfully it doesn't matter. I just love big images 🙂 

1 minute ago, A_Urquhart said:

Get a Speedbooster?

I'm using the Pocket4k (also M43 sensor) on jobs as a B Camera next to FX9's, Alexa Mini's, C300's, UMP G2's etc and haven't heard any complaints either on set or from post.

DP's have often commented on how nice the P4K image looks.

I actually really like the M43 format for video capture, it's extremely versatile although if stills was my main game, i probably would go larger.

The pocket 4k produces an AMAZING image. Honestly stuff from that camera rivals actual cinema cameras IMO. I almost did buy one but decided to go for the S1 with vlog as my personal camera simply because of the full frame and overall ease of use. Plus I actually like the varicam look quite a bit, but my second choice was easily the pocket 4k. Which says a lot about how good I think it looks that I still considered it despite my dislike of MFT sensors. I was about to pull the trigger on a pocket 4k and a rig to help it be production ready which included a speedbooster. But after calculating the cost it just ended up making more sense to just get an s1. Which cost me $1600, came with V log and doesn't need a battery solution or speed booster. Not to mention Its Ibis and smaller file sizes.  Overall it ended up being much more affordable. But yeah, Its definitely a compromise as I'm losing RAW and the amazing BM image. But the S1 varicam colors in Vlog with 10bit 422 is sort of amazing too.   

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

I don't see why you have to struggle with a 10mm lens and not with a 20mm one on FF : D I sincerely don't. Pardon me but looks like mere prejudice and misconception going on here. There's nothing limited on MFT, on the opposite, it is a much more affordable format and you have many more glass options. 

Codecs?!! WTH this should be or actually is connected with the sensor format??

Only resolution can justify a larger sensor size, not else! Not even low light today.

E :- )

 

A 10mm has a very drastically different look than 20mm. Infact, a 10mm 2.8 lens on a m/43 body ends up being a 20mm 5.6 "look". Which is much different in visual style. Which affects EVERYTHING about how the story is perceived by the audience and their emotional response. So in order to capture the shot the way I imagined it, Its a struggle. If not impossible. More often than not, id just scrap my original vision and work with what I have. When using full frame, I find im MUCH less likely to end up in this type of situation. 

If all I had was a M/43 camera then id use it and I doubt most people would see a big difference. But If I had the choice, I wouldn't go smaller than 35mm full frame. 

I used to exclusively shoot super 35mm with M/43 as B cams and never even considered larger formats. I was happy with super 35 and mft cameras together.  So obviously I get what everyone is saying. Full frame is not "needed" but neither is 4k. Neither is good low light, neither is a fast PC. You can technically make a film with a phone and still have a great image. If all you have is a mft camera then don't hesitate to use it. 

I want to clarify that just because you use a m/43 camera doesn't mean you'll get low res or bad low light. Because let's be honest, that's kind of irrelevant now with how good camera have become. I'm just saying that if I had to choose between 1080 or 4k id choose 4k 99% of the time.  just like id pick full frame. 

But part of picking tools is picking the ones that help get your vision or your clients vision captured the quickest with the least amount of compromises made. For me, full frame does that. So do things like really good IBIS, really good low light, high resolutions for reframing and so on. Funny enough I don't use auto focus for anything except gimbal work, even though it can speed things up, Its just not my style. 

One day I plan to buy a medium format video capable camera and then who knows, I might think full frame is too small 😉 

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I have seen this argument "for" FF35 for many many years, and it is just ridiculous and wrong to say "I need a full frame FoV". 

All it proves is you made poor lens selections going into the project. 

Did you have a 12mm? How about a 10mm or 8mm?  All of these are easily accessible and even quite affordable. Don't blame the tools for user errors. 

Because you can get almost any FoV that you wish with MFT! From the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 (or even wider if not going rectilinear, there is a 2.3mm fisheye lens for MFT!) to the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 (or even longer!!). 

When did one of us last need greater than 800mm FF35 or wider rectilinear than 15mm FF35? (that's the same as 10mm S35!!)

You're not wrong, you can slap a wide angle lens on a m/43 sensor. 

I've shot with plenty of m/43 cameras and we were always able to make it work. 

But.. for narrative work I dont want to just "make it work".. I want an optimal image without spending a long time trying to frame while maintaining some kind of dof. 

We have tight schedules on set and every second really does count. No matter what we'll always be working within our limitations as indie filmmakers and even industry pros. It's just how it is. So imo it's really important to reduce the number of things on set that are unneededly taking up more time than they should. 

The reality for me is that m/43 just isnt worth the hassle for most situations. 

Cant tell you how many times we've filmed in small 3 foot spaces and were forced to smash our m/43s camera up against the wall with a 10mm lens to get the shot. But even then the shot we wanted is so distorted from that 10mm that the emotional response we wanted from that scene is completely off. 

Its passable and obviously usable. But with a full frame camera it just opens up more flexibility in lens choice and framing option on set, which does make a huge difference, even more so than resolution and codecs. 

My view point is that the tools you use shouldn't compromise the final result or cost you more time on set. You should have creative freedom to shoot scenes how you want rather than just getting by with a work around. 

With that said, sometimes I still shoot on 4/3s because the aesthetic is great for some projects. 

1 hour ago, Origami101 said:

Panasonic’s L mount push still seems quixotic to me. Canon, Nikon, and Sony users won’t move as the benefits aren’t sufficient to justify repurchasing their lens stable, and the AF’s second rate. And there’s no cross-comparability with m4/3, so what’s the incentive there?

Strategically, I’d say going all in on m4/3 makes more sense. The smaller sensor has significant advantages, so long as they can capitalize on them: better IBIS, faster readout, deeper DOF, more compact body & lens packages, and, hey, less heat. Leave 135 format to the other three. 

For me m/43 is just too small, More often than not when doing narrative work we usually end up in really tight spaces due to budget limitations and having a full frame FOV is necessary for capturing the whole frame. At least for the work I do. 

I switched from my A cam being a sony to now being a panasonic. Ive already been using manual focus on canon glass for years so the switch to pany was pretty easy.  especially with their IBIS.