Barry_Green
Moderator
I don't put a lick of credibility in any rumors about an AG-GH4 with XLRs etc. Ain't gonna happen. There might be a GH4, but it isn't gonna be some $4,000 C100/C300 killer. That's a different market.
Anyway -- it's all about tradeoffs and what you're comfortable with, I guess. I don't mind losing a stop of dynamic range or a few pixels of res if it means I don't have to throw away shots due to moire problems, or spend more time putting together some goofy tinkertoy contraption where reliability is compromised and now you have to worry about a bunch of different connections and balancing the runtime of a bunch of different batteries and all the other just plain silliness that the "DSLR Revolution" shoved onto producers and cameramen.
I think the BMC is appealing to people in the fact that it's a sensor-in-a-box, and some people like that. Probably the same people that like building their own PC's, buying parts piecemeal and piecing together memory from place A, processor from place B, graphics card from place C, etc. I can see that, but -- no thanks -- not when I'm making my living off it, I want one complete functional unit that works when you turn on the power switch and delivers images that I can work with and has the right knobs and buttons so you can actually do your job.
There ain't no free lunch, never has been. If someone has absolutely zero budget and the closest they can come is by assembling the Legos and Lincoln Logs and tinkertoys out of a sensor-in-a-box, well, hey, you do what you gotta do, and I'm glad that option exists for those who need it. But it would probably be wise on the part of the manufacturers to realize that there's still a whole hell of a lot of us who DON'T gotta do that, who don't want to do that, who are actively turned off by the whole concept, and who would like some of this increased sensor performance but aren't willing to sacrifice all that goes along with the sensor-in-a-box approach.
I think, largely, you'd agree -- hence your 9.5-out-of-10 times choosing of the Alexa over the Epic...
Oh well, this is totally off-topic, never mind...
Anyway -- it's all about tradeoffs and what you're comfortable with, I guess. I don't mind losing a stop of dynamic range or a few pixels of res if it means I don't have to throw away shots due to moire problems, or spend more time putting together some goofy tinkertoy contraption where reliability is compromised and now you have to worry about a bunch of different connections and balancing the runtime of a bunch of different batteries and all the other just plain silliness that the "DSLR Revolution" shoved onto producers and cameramen.
I think the BMC is appealing to people in the fact that it's a sensor-in-a-box, and some people like that. Probably the same people that like building their own PC's, buying parts piecemeal and piecing together memory from place A, processor from place B, graphics card from place C, etc. I can see that, but -- no thanks -- not when I'm making my living off it, I want one complete functional unit that works when you turn on the power switch and delivers images that I can work with and has the right knobs and buttons so you can actually do your job.
There ain't no free lunch, never has been. If someone has absolutely zero budget and the closest they can come is by assembling the Legos and Lincoln Logs and tinkertoys out of a sensor-in-a-box, well, hey, you do what you gotta do, and I'm glad that option exists for those who need it. But it would probably be wise on the part of the manufacturers to realize that there's still a whole hell of a lot of us who DON'T gotta do that, who don't want to do that, who are actively turned off by the whole concept, and who would like some of this increased sensor performance but aren't willing to sacrifice all that goes along with the sensor-in-a-box approach.
I think, largely, you'd agree -- hence your 9.5-out-of-10 times choosing of the Alexa over the Epic...
Oh well, this is totally off-topic, never mind...