Jump to content

Olympus sells Imaging Business


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Super8 said:

Take a look at this video.  It's technology from 2015. 

- Can the GH5 shoot this and if so what lens adjustments need to be made? 

- On paper spec wise the GH5 holds up to the C300 II

GH5 was a $2000 hybrid camera vs a $10,000 cinema camera 4 or fives times it’s size....okay.

You can achieve roughly the same DoF but the background won’t be the same. This gets harder and harder as you go wider and wider for MFT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think your argument is based around the idea that lenses are an investment, but they're not, they're a consumable. I understand why you might think that, because it's a myth that seems to be on

Your arguments all appear to be circular, or simply saying that things that are MFT or are old are somehow inferior by default.  I guess the Alexa is screwed then, it's really old, the image is soft a

Logged on and what do I see Yes another topic waylaid by Super8 causing arguments If you keep it up, I will have to do what's best for the forum as an informative tool for filmmakers. And yo

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

 

Take a look at this video.  It's technology from 2015. 

- Can the GH5 shoot this and if so what lens adjustments need to be made? 

- On paper spec wise the GH5 holds up to the C300 II

- Can you get the same look? The same DOF subject to background parallax?

- Can you get the same motion cadence?

- Can you get the same color balance?

We can talk offline if this is moving this thread off the original topic.

 

Simple answer no.  Why, because its a GH5 and not a C300.  If people buy a GH5 and hope to shoot as a good an image as a C300, they will be disappointed.  I wouldn't expect to pick up a Pocket 6K and expect to shoot as good as an image as a C300.  If I want a C300 image, I'd buy a C300.  

You go cheap, you compromise.  That's not to belittle the GH5.  For its price point, size and features, its a great camera.  I prefer the image from my Pocket 4K, but on the other side, the GH5, with evf, IBIS, flip screen and superior battery life has advantages over the Pocket 4K.  

There's no perfect camera that fits all I needs.  If my work demanded it and I was a lot richer, I'd be shooting with something like a C300.  I choose GH5, Pocket 4Ks for cost and size.  Not because they are the best cameras ever.  And if you can work around the negatives and each of them has more than a few, you can get good results.  

But of course, they're no C300 for sure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

GH5 was a $2000 hybrid camera vs a $10,000 cinema camera 4 or fives times it’s size....okay.

I'm not talking about price vs price. 

Quote

 @kye  how many current model cameras can match the 4K60, or the 400Mbps All-I 4K 10-bit internal, or the 5K 10-bit open gate h.265.

These are the GH5 specs everyone talks about.  Why can't these specs come close to the C300 II ?

We have quotes about the GH5 winning awards, being used by big time film makers, etc.

 

Quote

You can achieve roughly the same DoF but the background won’t be the same. This gets harder and harder as you go wider and wider for MFT

Bingo.  This is what I'm talking about.  No one wants to address this because they don't understand it or they think DoF is the only thing they have to adjust for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Simple answer no.  Why, because its a GH5 and not a C300.  If people buy a GH5 and hope to shoot as a good an image as a C300, they will be disappointed.  I wouldn't expect to pick up a Pocket 6K and expect to shoot as good as an image as a C300.  If I want a C300 image, I'd buy a C300.  

You go cheap, you compromise.  That's not to belittle the GH5.  For its price point, size and features, its a great camera.  I prefer the image from my Pocket 4K, but on the other side, the GH5, with evf, IBIS, flip screen and superior battery life has advantages over the Pocket 4K.  

There's no perfect camera that fits all I needs.  If my work demanded it and I was a lot richer, I'd be shooting with something like a C300.  I choose GH5, Pocket 4Ks for cost and size.  Not because they are the best cameras ever.  And if you can work around the negatives and each of them has more than a few, you can get good results.  

But of course, they're no C300 for sure.  

The price isn't the issue.  Color isn't part of the same look I'm talking about ( I should have been clear about this) The issue would be could you match it shot for shot.  I don't think you can. 

Lots of great work in that video.  My opinion you would lose a lot of what's working in those shots if you used a GH5. 

By the way the C300 II can be bought for $7,499.00

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The price isn't the issue.  Color isn't part of the same look I'm talking about ( I should have been clear about this) The issue would be could you match it shot for shot.  I don't think you can. 

Lots of great work in that video.  My opinion you would lose a lot of what's working in those shots if you used a GH5. 

By the way the C300 II can be bought for $7,499.00

 

Again, its a S35 sensor vs a MFT one.  You're not gonna match the look without a speedbooster and even then it might not match perfectly.  Why do you think I want to move away from MFT.  But, MFT has its advantages too and if you work with them rather than try to make MFT match S35 or fullframe it delivers. 

 Oh yes, I see the C300 Mark ii has dropped in price, but it was no doubt 10k when first released.  Still it doesn't offer 60p 4K, which the GH5 offers.  AndI doubt you'd use the C300 for photos.  Different beast for different needs.  GH5 is a hybrid for hybrid shooters. C300 is for video pros. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SteveV4D said:

Again, its a S35 sensor vs a MFT one.  You're not gonna match the look without a speedbooster and even then it might not match perfectly. 

 

Quote

 Oh yes, I see the C300 Mark ii has dropped in price, but it was no doubt 10k when first released.  Still it doesn't offer 60p 4K, which the GH5 offers. 

This is the contradiction about your post and defenders of the GH5.   You can't make the statement about about not matching MFT with Super35 sensor and then turn around and say "see the C300 Mark ii still it doesn't offer 60p 4K which the GH5 offers. " This is fan boy talk that doesn't address the issue. 

And based on 90% of EOS community how many people are delivering 4K 60p?

 

Quote

AndI doubt you'd use the C300 for photos.  Different beast for different needs.  GH5 is a hybrid for hybrid shooters. C300 is for video pros. ;)

so now the argument is about photography on the GH5?  Wha? That's a little bit of a reach.  Photography is not looked at well on the EOS.   I personally love photography and it drives my cameras buying decision but the BM6K is ALSO NOT A PHOTOGRAPHY CAMERA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, noone said:

M43 is DIFFERENT it is not the same and nor should it be.

 

Just like with film, different sizes existed, they existed for reasons.

A mini is an excellent vehicle but it is not a truck.   

 

Of course different film size exist.   What's the reason for MFT existence?  Do you think film makers ever choose MFT because of "it's sensor size look" ? 

The difference and look have been talked about for pages and pages in this thread and just now people are admitting it.  That's weird because that's why I mentioned anything to begin with.  I'm glad you final spoke up and contributed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"When the market shrinks to one tenth its current size, yes, more expensive because the cost per unit to make anything will be dearer and in order to make a profit it will just have to be.      While there is lower stuff to sell in volume they can make higher end stuff a bit cheaper than it otherwise would be but once that lower stuff is swallowed up by phones ...well look at Leica....otherwise it will be cheap rubbish."

Absolutely this. The reason Zacuto can charge hundreds of dollars for pieces of shaped metal with threaded holes in them is precisely because - in manufacturing terms - the market for those bits of metal is almost undetectably small.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Super8 said:

Of course different film size exist.   What's the reason for MFT existence?  Do you think film makers ever choose MFT because of "it's sensor size look" ? 

The difference and look have been talked about for pages and pages in this thread and just now people are admitting it.  That's weird because that's why I mentioned anything to begin with.  I'm glad you final spoke up and contributed.

Plenty of people use the GH5 for ITS look and NOT to compare it with the look of something else.

I am glad you have started contributing opinions not as facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

"When the market shrinks to one tenth its current size, yes, more expensive because the cost per unit to make anything will be dearer and in order to make a profit it will just have to be.      While there is lower stuff to sell in volume they can make higher end stuff a bit cheaper than it otherwise would be but once that lower stuff is swallowed up by phones ...well look at Leica....otherwise it will be cheap rubbish."

Absolutely this. The reason Zacuto can charge hundreds of dollars for pieces of shaped metal with threaded holes in them is precisely because - in manufacturing terms - the market for those bits of metal is almost undetectably small.

Not how it works.

Profit margins might shrink but production cost don't go up because Olympus goes under.  Smartphones, cameras, even games systems keep SRP at a certain spot decade after decade.  The PS4 might not make much per system sold but they count on additional purchases.

If you want proof look at BMP4k and P6K.  How do they do it? How do they sale these for such a low price?  COG and ROI is what drives the market and product price.   The C300 II might have cost more to produce than the C300 III but that doesn't mean Canon will pass those saving to the customer.   The same-thing happens if cost of good goes up. 

Nikon, Panasonic and Canon tried to over charge for their ff mirror less cameras and it back fired. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

 

Absolutely this. The reason Zacuto can charge hundreds of dollars for pieces of shaped metal with threaded holes in them is precisely because - in manufacturing terms - the market for those bits of metal is almost undetectably small.

Yes!

On a lower level, just paid $60 Australian for an adapter from China that if it was for for something more common would have cost me less than $10 including postage (and has done in the past).    They charge the extra in part because they can but in part because it is produced in smaller runs and more expensive to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, noone said:

 

I am glad you have started contributing opinions not as facts.

The fact that the cinema world did not move down to the NFT sensor is telling isn't it. 

Quote

Plenty of people use the GH5 for ITS look and NOT to compare it with the look of something else.

How does that work exactly? @kye and other (including you it seems) never knew the GH5 "had a look".    Lots of GH5 speed booster threads back my comments up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The fact that the cinema world did not move down to the NFT sensor is telling isn't it. 

How does that work exactly? @kye and other (including you it seems) never knew the GH5 "had a look".    Lots of GH5 speed booster threads back my comments up.

 

Plenty of people use multiple formats and like to use the same lenses on both and a focal reducer just gives more choice.

You can have adapters with AF that are focal reducers and others that are not..That was one of the things I love about my Canon lenses.   When I had my GX7 and Kipon AF adapter I could use lenses like the Canon 135 f2 on my FF Sony and my GX7 (I even managed to use it on a Canon  APSC DSLR from time to time)...All for DIFFERENT looks.    I wanted a focal reducer for m43 too but just never got around to it (other than a really really cheap and horrid "light cannon" originally a focal reducer but sold as a  "soft focus adapter" by the time I got it...the one bit of M43 kit I still have). 

Sure SOME are trying for a "look" with M43 and focal reducers but not all are and probably not that many as a percentage of GH5 owners (would love to see some evidence either way).     

My nephew uses a GH5 for his business with native lenses only I am sure he is not alone.    He is not using it to produce movies for the big screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I used a GH5 for the most recent doc I made.  Toured with the film and put it on the "big screen" often.  I like to think I know what I was doing visually and in regards to focal lengths.  I also just sold my GH5 and bought an Olympus camera.  Olympus plans to sell their camera division later this year, if you haven't heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire argument is silly. Countless low budget features, music videos, docs, short films, commercials, events, etc. have all been shot with a GH5 and other M43 cameras. The fact that major features aren't shot on M43 doesn't mean it's because the cameras aren't capable or that M43 isn't good enough, it merely means that films that have the budget are going to use the same cameras that always get used. They're not using Blackmagic or Z-Cam much either, despite their larger sensor offerings, which shows it goes beyond just sensor size. Heck, Canon has largely failed at getting their cinema line adopted by Hollywood, too. 

The power of the GH5/S, the Pocket 4K, etc. is that you CAN use it for a feature and get great results. You can use it for a run and gun documentary, or event too. That's the strength of the system. It's incredibly versatile. You're not limited by the camera, just your abilities. 

If you can't understand or see the benefit of all that, then there's really no point in arguing. Just write the system off and let the rest of us appreciate our tiny but powerful cameras in peace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10244754/

Camera: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
Lens: Voigtländer Nokton Series

Horvath: The principle idea of the film was that it was to be shot almost like a documentary. We were shooting over a period of nine months. During these nine months we had seven shooting phases of two-weeks each that involved a very small team of five people. The team was flown in while I was in North America for the whole time. I was driving from New York to Alaska, mostly accompanied by Patrycja Planik, the actress. We were not only scouting for new locations but also shooting a lot. So there is actually quite a bit in the film that just the two of us shot. The image quality of the BMPCC is absolutely comparable to a wide range of more high-end camera options, while its compact design allows for a great freedom of flexibility and spontaneity.

My choice about usable thread orientation - except to be informed that somebody has ingenious idea to use Arri for important shots or that nobody (here or everywhere) except rare connoisseurs never heard about parallax effect -  gravitates towards question about further usage of nice pats of Olympus technology. Being recently in position - regarding task of undertaken project - to choose and act similarly to Andreas Horvath director of "Lillian", I'm deeply interested for further advancement of (at the moment) still unique combination of qualities that for some situations and circumstances (traveling abroad, or shooting into wild area with minimal or secrete exposure conditions, etc.) almost exclusively provide just offer of m43 format camera products. Namely achievement of stabilization/quality both in camera and in 12-100mm lens, marvelous weatherproof solidity of camera. Say, it will be so nice if Dzofilm (or Laowa etc.) could integrate know how of Olympus lenses into next itеration of some great (and cheap because of m43) cine zoom attempts. Or - sorry for repeated idea - if Blackmagic, with its generally so brave choice/concept about not protecting any of bigger format produce, really offer some completely rounded m43 camera, or (to quote A. Reid) true "giant killer".

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, anonim said:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10244754/

Camera: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
Lens: Voigtländer Nokton Series

Horvath: The principle idea of the film was that it was to be shot almost like a documentary. We were shooting over a period of nine months. During these nine months we had seven shooting phases of two-weeks each that involved a very small team of five people. The team was flown in while I was in North America for the whole time. I was driving from New York to Alaska, mostly accompanied by Patrycja Planik, the actress. We were not only scouting for new locations but also shooting a lot. So there is actually quite a bit in the film that just the two of us shot. The image quality of the BMPCC is absolutely comparable to a wide range of more high-end camera options, while its compact design allows for a great freedom of flexibility and spontaneity.

My choice about usable thread orientation - except to be informed that somebody has ingenious idea to use Arri for important shots or that nobody (here or everywhere) except rare connoisseurs never heard about parallax effect -  gravitates towards question about further usage of nice pats of Olympus technology. Being recently in position - regarding task of undertaken project - to choose and act similarly to Andreas Horvath director of "Lillian", I'm deeply interested for further advancement of (at the moment) still unique combination of qualities that for some situations and circumstances (traveling abroad, or shooting into wild area with minimal or secrete exposure conditions, etc.) almost exclusively provide just offer of m43 format camera products. Namely achievement of stabilization/quality both in camera and in 12-100mm lens, marvelous weatherproof solidity of camera. Say, it will be so nice if Dzofilm (or Laowa etc.) could integrate know how of Olympus lenses into next itеration of some great (and cheap because of m43) cine zoom attempts. Or - sorry for repeated idea - if Blackmagic, with its generally so brave choice/concept about not protecting any of bigger format produce, really offer some completely rounded m43 camera, or (to quote A. Reid) true "giant killer".

Nice work.

Although MFT has issues I don't want to deal with, if Black Magic dedicated themselves into MFT and provided cine feature in a smaller form factor with IBIS, AF and faster frame rates then I would be all in. 

Yes it's worth it to work around sensor size and crop factor based on the rewards given.  I just don't see the image quality with the GH5 to get behind it like other do.

You wouldn't believe how many time I've wanted to buy the BMPCC because of the look. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

The entire argument is silly. Countless low budget features, music videos, docs, short films, commercials, events, etc. have all been shot with a GH5 and other M43 cameras. The fact that major features aren't shot on M43 doesn't mean it's because the cameras aren't capable or that M43 isn't good enough, it merely means that films that have the budget are going to use the same cameras that always get used. They're not using Blackmagic or Z-Cam much either, despite their larger sensor offerings, which shows it goes beyond just sensor size. Heck, Canon has largely failed at getting their cinema line adopted by Hollywood, too. 

The power of the GH5/S, the Pocket 4K, etc. is that you CAN use it for a feature and get great results. You can use it for a run and gun documentary, or event too. That's the strength of the system. It's incredibly versatile. You're not limited by the camera, just your abilities. 

If you can't understand or see the benefit of all that, then there's really no point in arguing. Just write the system off and let the rest of us appreciate our tiny but powerful cameras in peace. 

Low end Blackmagic and Z-Cam haven't produced quality products break into the cinema field. 

Canon has a foot hold in the cinema world.  Out of ARRI, RED, SONY, and Canon which one of these continue to innovate in cinema?   All of these do. Notice how I only listed 4 companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...