Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New olympus body coming up question  (Read 11620 times)
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1093


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2013, 07:38:10 PM »
ReplyReply


As to looking better: I am wondering now if this shows that a well posed and lit marketing still can make the subject look more desirable than a few frame grabs from a journalist's video!?

Maybe.  But I think they messed up in marketing.  A lot of people warmed to the omd 5 because it was pretty and retro and the video that was linked was a bad mock up.  

Freaked people out.

I think these size cameras have a place.  Actually I don't understand why full frame 35mm cameras are so large considering how small the ovf is.

Olympus needs to sell cameras in a cell phone world and they have to make up there mind what they're selling.  If it's professional, it needs fast lenses, sound in and out, (whether you like video or not), clean iso to 1500 or so.

The GH3 is a mini 5d clone, but is capable.  Really capable and works right out of the bag.

But all makers gotta stop messing around with this 2 year and out upgrade stuff.

I'll buy the new omd right now and their new lenses some of they're older 43s, if they hit the mark, have sound in and out, a real adjustable video file, actually all the usability of the gh3, but if they only have part, then panasonic gets my money.

Oh yea, and Olympus needs someone from the planet earth to write their menu system.

I think there is a great place for these 4/3 cameras.  They may look small next to the cameras from Canon and Nikon, but put them next to a 35mm film camera and they're about the same size.



I'm sure even on the high end the hesitation to buy the newest is felt.

With RED.  I have two R1's, bought a Scarlet, ordered but cancelled the Epic because I used the R1's all the time, the Scarlet sets in the case for numerous reasons.

Same with these 4:3's.   They could offer a 3k or 4k video file to outdo black magic,  charge another grand or so, offers upgrade services (like RED which is very smart) and keep a lot of people in the fold for a long time.

But trying to sell anything because they held basic features back and will offer them later, just isn't a positive way to sell.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 03:25:39 AM by bcooter » Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 793



« Reply #61 on: August 26, 2013, 01:40:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Size-wise I think Marc hit on one aspect of it...the "bigger is better" impression cameras make on paying customers who don't know from cameras. The big bulk-up in the 35mm world is a fairly recent phenomenon aside from, say, an F3 with a motor drive attached. Even my Nikon D300 is bigger than any 35mil film SLR I've ever owned. No motor drive in any digicam I know of.  Cheesy  I suppose the increasing popularity of long & fast lenses, once AF came on the scene, had something to do with it too...the need for better gripping and more even lens/body balance. In the end I can't help but suspect the "look at my big..." factor has played more than a tiny part. After all, that factor surely explains whole swathes of human behavior across the spectrum.

It does seem a shame to waste a 16mp (or more) sensor on 1920x1080 video. Camera makers could at least take every four-photosite matrix and generate one true-color video pixel from it. Come to think of it, why the hell hasn't Adobe offered this as an alternate RAW conversion technique for stills for the past eight years or so?!

-Dave-
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1093


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 26, 2013, 02:18:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Size-wise I think Marc hit on one aspect of it...the "bigger is better" impression cameras make on paying customers who don't know from cameras. The big bulk-up in the 35mm world is a fairly recent phenomenon aside from, say, an F3 with a motor drive attached. Even my Nikon D300 is bigger than any 35mil film SLR I've ever owned. No motor drive in any digicam I know of.  Cheesy  I suppose the increasing popularity of long & fast lenses, once AF came on the scene, had something to do with it too...the need for better gripping and more even lens/body balance. In the end I can't help but suspect the "look at my big..." factor has played more than a tiny part. After all, that factor surely explains whole swathes of human behavior across the spectrum.

It does seem a shame to waste a 16mp (or more) sensor on 1920x1080 video. Camera makers could at least take every four-photosite matrix and generate one true-color video pixel from it. Come to think of it, why the hell hasn't Adobe offered this as an alternate RAW conversion technique for stills for the past eight years or so?!

-Dave-
Crazy thing is if you shoot a medium format back, 16 to 22 mpx still dslr, or even the 4/3 16mp and put them in a 10bit editorial suite, you will see a huge difference as you go down the line.

I don't know why, but I know you will, because I do it all the time.  Go figure.

__________________________________________________


For high production, bigger is better.  If someone says client's don't care about equipment, they're not talking to my clients.  I'd love to shoot everything I do from one case and a tripod, but can't.

It's funny, when we mount the R-1's with PL glass everyone goes ohhh.  Set up a scarlet with a Canon mount and nobody notices, so there is something to be said about big.

But if you work with crews and production, 10,000 lbs of equipment pretty much gives the impression of big, regardless of cameras.

But we use the smaller 4/3 cameras when we have to, inside a car, hand held for fast cutaways, but the gh3 is so good, you can shoot it as an a cam and it works very well in most instances.

______________________________


Why hasn't Adobe offered alternative processing?  Why hasn't adobe came out with a video software suite that colors and tones with the interface of lightroom?

I guess, nobody would buy into the larger more expensive creative suites.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 02:22:00 PM by bcooter » Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 793



« Reply #63 on: August 26, 2013, 04:35:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Why hasn't Adobe offered alternative processing? Why hasn't adobe came out with a video software suite that colors and tones with the interface of lightroom?

I guess, nobody would buy into the larger more expensive creative suites.

IMO

Yeah. I've got no problem really with upselling (though I may grumble at times about it), but in this case Adobe doesn't have anything to upsell to. You want to decode a four-photosite Bayer matrix into one RGB pixel? You can...but you have to use some other vendor's RAW processor. Maybe this is an artifact of our obsession with spatial detail. Maybe the people Adobe listens to aren't telling them the sort of things I'd tell them.   Smiley  Or maybe they're bullheaded enough to think they just know better. Maybe they even do know better... Nah.

Anyway, I do think Olympus would pull off a good one if the E-M1 did video with Panasonic GH-style control & capability plus Oly's lovely IBIS. For my strictly fun-oriented needs that would trump the Blackmagic PCC.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad