morgan_moore
Major Contributor
A "not 4K" pro camera is a no-go at this day and age.
My take is that a "mini LT" is not doable but a "maxi GH5" may be. But that almost brings one back to AF200. LT.
Well the 4k debate is open. Personally I rate a camera by Data Rate and bit depth.
For example Sony F35 has a higher data rate and bit depth than an '4k' A7s, and is IMO more 'pro'
The Arri Alexa is another non 4k camera that I consider to be fairly more pro than the '4k' Gh4.
Producers may not see it the same way of course.
Of course a 3k chip and in camera 4k upscale coud kid the producers (Amera)
The MP race in stills camera seems to have stalled at around 20mp for the 'pro' cameras - personally I don't think MFT has enough chip area to make nice 4k (a pure guess)
Film was always done in 'cinema' S35 and 'doc' S16 using the same stock. Of course low quality S16 films like Hurtlocker were not pro, or watchable on the big screen, and made no money.
Sure the GH5_SDI_XLR could be a title with the Varicam name protected.
I dont really follow the AF200 but here is what I think I know..
-the zoom lens feels plastic
-the highlights feel plastic
-bit depth is 8, the compression ratio high
-one cannot attach a 0.95 voigltander lens.
I may be wrong here and if so should consider its purchase