Jaime Valles
Veteran
Agreed. This would do a lot to help forward the Micro 4/3 system, IMO.
Panasonic 4K GH4 possibly coming next Spring...
- Thread starter Nicholas Natteau
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
The gold would be in making a SpeedBooster with built-in traditional ND filters... that would solve every problem and be the single must-have item for this new GH4...
roxics
Veteran
Thanks for the link but all I see are three 16mm T2.2 lenses followed by some Zeiss glass way out of my budget. lol Nice to see them offer an m43 mount option, but something tells me this glass isn't natively built for an m43 sensor but instad just a remounted s35 lens.
filmguy123
Veteran
No, it definitely wouldn't solve every problem - Because a filter with built-in ND filters does nothing for native M43 glass. So no ND filter for my Nokton 25mm, Olympus 12mm & 17.5mm, the Olympus zooms, etc. That sucks.
It's an awesome camera! But no built-in ND filters is a deal-breaker for me for any camera, especially one that has such a versatile mount and small form factor making it perfect for run'n'gun speed shooting. These are exactly the situations where I don't have the time and space to carry around a bucket full of ND filters in varying densities and thread sizes, and the versatile mount means I have lenses from all sorts of manufactures so thread size isn't matched.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Why wouldn't you have all your lenses on step up rings to the same front (I use 77mm). Its pretty easy to do and isn't expensive. I find even on cameras with built in ND I use my Eclipse fader ND as built in NDs don't have the same precision to dial in exposure on the fly without having to run through ND, ISO, Fstop and come up with the right combo for proper exposure as opposed to being in the ball park and sliding the filter with my finger to nail exposure.
I agree in proper NDs but this isn't a video camera its a hybrid camera and even on the C300 I still use variable NDs so that is a non issue to me.
roxics
Veteran
I think your solution is a smaller sensor video camera. Not a GH4. Unless you want to have a matte box on rails where you can have the same size NDs for all lenses.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I have been thinking about this camera situation for a while now and I would really like to see an AF-200 style body with a fixed 24mm or 28mm to 200mm or 240mm f2.0 powered zoom. This lens could ramp as long at it stayed f2.0 up untill 100mm. (these are all FF mm equiv).
If you really want to go after low budget video-esque owner operators, I think this is the best way forward. The mythical large chip in a 1/3" style body. As long as the lens was high quality, that range could cover about most anything. I don't know if the lens is possible but it sure would win in the ease of use category. I shoot stills as well and never want to take the 70-200 off of the MKIII and wouldn't if it covered the wide end. Canon has an L lens that goes from 28-300. It was a bit slower but for full frame. I would guess that m4/3rds might give them the chance to make it faster.
Anyway, my two cents. Using still lenses for video is not optimal. This would offer a chance to get some better controls for video use. Thoughts?
If you really want to go after low budget video-esque owner operators, I think this is the best way forward. The mythical large chip in a 1/3" style body. As long as the lens was high quality, that range could cover about most anything. I don't know if the lens is possible but it sure would win in the ease of use category. I shoot stills as well and never want to take the 70-200 off of the MKIII and wouldn't if it covered the wide end. Canon has an L lens that goes from 28-300. It was a bit slower but for full frame. I would guess that m4/3rds might give them the chance to make it faster.
Anyway, my two cents. Using still lenses for video is not optimal. This would offer a chance to get some better controls for video use. Thoughts?
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I've always dreamed of a camera like the one you're talking about but if the lens is going to be fast the best they might be able to do is to have a much shorter range to make it possible. Something like 14-60mm 2 to 2.8. That would be somewhere around 19 to 84 in S35 terms.
Bassman2003
Veteran
The RX10 is a DSLR with a power zoom. Close, but is not what I described. Proper audio, NDs, large viewfinder, strong codecs, front mounted LCD...a real video style camera that you can hold and operate like a video camera.
...So with a starting price in the $6K - 8K range for body only. Would you still be keen on this ?
The GH4 is 4K for less than $2K, where the camera you describe would probably be priced 2x-3x higher, with lenses priced like the Zeiss CP range.
Until recently I have been considering a Canon C100 camera, but this new GH4 might bring enough to the table for what I need.
Bassman2003
Veteran
If it has to be f2.8 without ramping that would be fine. This is a case where the m4/3rds sized chip actually helps compared to FF or s35. Since the body would be larger than a DSLR they could go larger on the lens size to let more light in. The whole fixed lens idea with power would help them create a lens to work as the faults can be addressed via software if needed. A little out of the box thinking as this would not be a DSLR and is only an 8x to 10x range. Not like a 22x.
Bassman2003
Veteran
2x to 3x higher would be $4,000 to $6,000 and there would be no "body only", it is a fixed lens model.
The GH4 will not cost $2,000 once you add lenses, the audio brick on top of limited shooting controls. Yes, I think it would be worth that price range.
I think there will be many GH4 shooters who will downscale the internally recorded 4K 4:2:0 footage to output extremely sharp 1080 4:4:4 ( or 4:2:2 ), so $2K may be enough for some of us.
filmguy123
Veteran
Hmm this is a good idea, in conjunction with this http://www.xumeadapters.com/
No way! If anything I want a larger sensor. Or the GH4 + some more love in the AF100 body. Or a Panasonic edition of the FS700.
One of the prime selling points of the AF100 was that built-in ND filter. Much ado was made of that when the initial Sony FS100 vs AF100 battle began. AF100 had it, FS100 didn't. Part of what's so compelling about the Sony RX10 is that built-in ND filter and sweet 2.8 lens. But the zoom's not manual, the codec is so 2010, and it records internally to only 4:2:0. Not to mention the small sensor size and DSLR form factor...
But it is interesting in terms of what is state of the art (or at least most recent to market). Given the RX10, it's hard to image that the FS100 would be released today w/o a ND filter. And the price - $1,300 - is an indication I think of what the next price step up is.
Currently, the FS100 sells for $3,600 while the AF100 sells for $3,800. I think both started out at $5,000. BMC just lowered the price of their 4K camera to $3,000. The GH3 is $1,000.
What I'm hoping for from Panny is pretty simple - the same form factor of the AF100 (including built-in ND, SDI outputs, XLRs, etc) plus 4:2:2 50Mbps internal recording of a 1080 signal. A price tag no higher than $5,000. That's it.
Now if they want to add 4K into it, or have two models, one 4K capable and one not, that's great too, but not a deal breaker for me. I'd like to see a S35 sized sensor for a couple of reasons - it would guarantee that the sensor isn't just s re-purposed stills camera sensor and it'll have the DoF and light sensitivity I prefer.
BUT, it wouldn't be a deal breaker to have a MFT sensor. Don't love it, but I certainly don't hate it either. What is a deal breaker would be to bring no new video camera to market aimed at indie film makers - I can't wait another year. And if they do bring a camera to market, it must have 4:2:2 50Mbps 1080p internal recording. Simply put, at least one of their major competitors will have an affordable model that will do that at NAB, if not multiple models. Black Magic and Bolex already doing it.
An AF200 could potentially be a Canon C300 killer, or at the very least a serious competitor - esp if it any sort of slo-mo capacity. And the GH4 would seem to indicate it's technically completely possible at the $4-5 K price range. Hey, I can dream can't I?
But it is interesting in terms of what is state of the art (or at least most recent to market). Given the RX10, it's hard to image that the FS100 would be released today w/o a ND filter. And the price - $1,300 - is an indication I think of what the next price step up is.
Currently, the FS100 sells for $3,600 while the AF100 sells for $3,800. I think both started out at $5,000. BMC just lowered the price of their 4K camera to $3,000. The GH3 is $1,000.
What I'm hoping for from Panny is pretty simple - the same form factor of the AF100 (including built-in ND, SDI outputs, XLRs, etc) plus 4:2:2 50Mbps internal recording of a 1080 signal. A price tag no higher than $5,000. That's it.
Now if they want to add 4K into it, or have two models, one 4K capable and one not, that's great too, but not a deal breaker for me. I'd like to see a S35 sized sensor for a couple of reasons - it would guarantee that the sensor isn't just s re-purposed stills camera sensor and it'll have the DoF and light sensitivity I prefer.
BUT, it wouldn't be a deal breaker to have a MFT sensor. Don't love it, but I certainly don't hate it either. What is a deal breaker would be to bring no new video camera to market aimed at indie film makers - I can't wait another year. And if they do bring a camera to market, it must have 4:2:2 50Mbps 1080p internal recording. Simply put, at least one of their major competitors will have an affordable model that will do that at NAB, if not multiple models. Black Magic and Bolex already doing it.
An AF200 could potentially be a Canon C300 killer, or at the very least a serious competitor - esp if it any sort of slo-mo capacity. And the GH4 would seem to indicate it's technically completely possible at the $4-5 K price range. Hey, I can dream can't I?
filmguy123
Veteran
Ah, you're right on JDV. Shouldn't be a dream. A internal 4:2:2 4K MFT camera with ND filters, better slow mo than GH4, and a sensor (whether M43 or s35) specifically tuned for video around the $5k mark this year from panny should NOT be a pipe dream... the GH4 is great it just can't be the only thing Panny offers outside the new 4K Varicam. That's a huge gap. Unless they surprise us with a blow-away price on the Varicam.
maranfilms
Veteran
I'm not all that concerned about ND filters, I'm one of the few that actually use the filter trays in my mattebox
If I want to go compact, variable filters work decent, I agree their a pain at times, but there's always a tradeoff.
If I want to go compact, variable filters work decent, I agree their a pain at times, but there's always a tradeoff.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
I honestly don't understand all the fuss about a camera not having built-in ND filters. I have a pack of 4 screw-on ND filters in 77mm thread (0.6, 0.9, 1.2, and a graduated filter). I added step-up rings to every lens I own, so they all use the same 77mm filters and the same lens caps (massively convenient). When I'm out shooting, all I do is hold an ND filter in front of the lens. I don't screw it in, I just hold it in front of the lens for a moment. If it's still too bright, I go for the next one. Once I find the ND filter I need, THEN I screw it onto the lens. Takes all of 10 seconds.
Yes, having built-in ND filters would be somewhat more convenient. But I truly don't get the whole "dealbreaker" thing. Seriously, what exactly are you all shooting, and how fast are you shooting it, that taking 10 seconds to change the ND filter is somehow just too slow?
And, no, I DON'T want an AF100 type body. I WANT the GH3/GH4 type body. It's small, discreet, weighs next to nothing, and I can carry two of them plus a whole slew of lenses in my small backpack for hours. Not having ND filters built-in is part of what allows the camera to be that small and lightweight, and inexpensive. Add to this the 4K recording onto SD cards, all for apparently less than $2000, and I truly don't understand the criticism.
It's fine to ask for a 4K shooting AF200 or whatever, with the built-in ND filters, XLR inputs, P2 blah blah. That's great, and Panasonic should make it. But not at the expense of the GH4. The GH4 looks to be a killer camera for the price, at least for what I need. And if Panasonic doesn't make the camera you want, then there's lots of others making other cameras that will probably suit you better. Heck, go buy a RED Dragon! Oh, wait... that doesn't have built-in ND filters, either! Guess that camera's no good.
By the way, this comment isn't aimed at anyone in particular. Just me ranting, because it sometimes irks me that people complain about everything. If they gave us the GH4 for free, we'd complain that they weren't PAYING us to use it. I'm also not saying the GH4 is perfect. Do I wish it had 500Mbps 4:2:2 10 bit 4K recording onto SD cards? Sure! But we really have very little to complain about, and a little perspective is necessary when dealing with a sub-$2K hybrid camera.
Yes, having built-in ND filters would be somewhat more convenient. But I truly don't get the whole "dealbreaker" thing. Seriously, what exactly are you all shooting, and how fast are you shooting it, that taking 10 seconds to change the ND filter is somehow just too slow?
And, no, I DON'T want an AF100 type body. I WANT the GH3/GH4 type body. It's small, discreet, weighs next to nothing, and I can carry two of them plus a whole slew of lenses in my small backpack for hours. Not having ND filters built-in is part of what allows the camera to be that small and lightweight, and inexpensive. Add to this the 4K recording onto SD cards, all for apparently less than $2000, and I truly don't understand the criticism.
It's fine to ask for a 4K shooting AF200 or whatever, with the built-in ND filters, XLR inputs, P2 blah blah. That's great, and Panasonic should make it. But not at the expense of the GH4. The GH4 looks to be a killer camera for the price, at least for what I need. And if Panasonic doesn't make the camera you want, then there's lots of others making other cameras that will probably suit you better. Heck, go buy a RED Dragon! Oh, wait... that doesn't have built-in ND filters, either! Guess that camera's no good.
By the way, this comment isn't aimed at anyone in particular. Just me ranting, because it sometimes irks me that people complain about everything. If they gave us the GH4 for free, we'd complain that they weren't PAYING us to use it. I'm also not saying the GH4 is perfect. Do I wish it had 500Mbps 4:2:2 10 bit 4K recording onto SD cards? Sure! But we really have very little to complain about, and a little perspective is necessary when dealing with a sub-$2K hybrid camera.