Shirozina: I use C1 but it only looks good with contrasty scenes. If you are shooting on an overcast day or in the shadows LR really does a better job of creating a realistic set of tones in the darker regions.C1 just creates flat muddy shadows. It has the best CA reduction and I suspect it gets a bit more fine detail but when i need to add some dynamism to a flat low contrast scene I'll go with ACR.
If you don't agree then please post your own examples to show the lack of difference....
I use C1 but it only looks good with contrasty scenes. If you are shooting on an overcast day or in the shadows LR really does a better job of creating a realistic set of tones in the darker regions.C1 just creates flat muddy shadows. It has the best CA reduction and I suspect it gets a bit more fine detail but when i need to add some dynamism to a flat low contrast scene I'll go with ACR.
The issue with compression artefacts is way overstated. Anyone doing a normal looking processing job on that test image would not boost the sky that much and the artefacts don't show. 99.9% of image are the same that are exposed correctly and not processed with extreme shadow lifting. It only happens with very, very high transitions from light to dark across a sharp line which is also quite difficult to achieve with many lenses in real world situations as they can't create this contrast change anyway. Noisey shadows from limited DR are a far greater real world issue with Canon RAW files that don't have lossy compression so for 99.9% of users the Sony RAW file has a major advantage and not a disadvantage. Most of the people who get agitated about this issue seem to be non A7 owners and the examples posted are few and far between. If it were a real problem the forums would be full of 'samples' and they are not............
It's good news. Hopefully the BMPCC will get much needed features like;HistogramTime / memory remaining on the cardIn camera card formating
The only reason I didn't buy the II was the lack of a built in EVF. The EVF on my A7R is fantastic and if this is anywhere near as good....
Francis Carver: "....in the US the camera body will cost $1699.99, and the video interface unit will be $1999.99."
No wonder then that nobody can take this company seriously any more.
Wow, USD $3,700 for the camera and interface monstrosity only -- just to shoot some mystery-grade 4K video using a smallish, square sensor?
Suddenly, our Down-Under friends with Blackmagic are the Honest Abes in the bottom-priced 4K video arena.
You don't need the interface to shoot 4k and even with it the price for 4k capture is stupidly low when compared to other cameras apart from the BM.THe only person not taking Panasonic seriously seems to be you but I'm sure they can deal with that
Archiver: So much talk about 4K but little mention of its effective dynamic range. I'm hoping for at least something close to the Canon C series cameras. Their ability to retain detail in highlights and shadows is excellent, something like 12 stops of dynamic range.
For RAW they say they have gained 1/3stop over the GH3 so as video is less than this and the GH3 is about 9 stops DR I wouldn't expect much.
jkoch2: Obviously the richest hybrid combination on the market. More all-in-one than any other model. A "killer" product, but perhaps not in the way its maker would like.
$1,700 is a very bold price. Add $300 for a lens, and the price simply equals what Sony wants for the FDR-AX1, which has fewer features. The pricing will daunt competitors from offering competiting 4k video features. It may result in more orders than Panasonic can supply for months, yet be too low for Panasonic to make money.
Meanwhile, the prices of 4k displays fall, and the buyers' set-up problems, product returns, and scarcity of 4k content make profits anything but certain. The notion of "future proofing" collides very roundly with the consumer urge to share instantly. The only 4k video that is quickly shareable online may turn out to be the stuff shot with $300 phones.
Hence, a many-pronged gamble. Why would Canon or Nikon be eager to join the perilous game?
4k capture is not all about 4k output but mostly because it enables superior 1080 output.
bobbarber: "Why would anyone buy this for stills?"
Answer: 4k VIDEO = 8 MP stills @ 30/fps.
I guess it remains to be seen how well that works out in practice, but on the surface it is a pretty amazing spec. 8 Mp pretty much covers whatever you would need for journalism.
They won't love shooting long lenses at 60th sec and most will already be shooting action in burst frame mode anyway. Long gone are the days of shooting sport at the 'decisive moment with a single frame'
Shirozina: Astonishingly low price for what it offers for video shooters even including the add on module.Don't care a jot what it's stills capabilities are. Most people interested in this camera probably wouldn't blink an eye if Panasonic had removed it's stills capability altogether. Why on earth did they include a pop up flash?????????Who on earth uses these things in this level of camera??????? - they could have used the space for a better EVF or a flip up VF. Great camera - my only problem is I've just ditched my GH3 for a BMPCC and after working with Prores 10bit 4.2.2 files I can never go back to 8 bit 4.2.0.................
Can you run to an external recorder without the DMW-YAGHE ?
kty: affordable indeed
Very affordable when you look at any other 4k video capture camera other than the BM. Obviously if your budget is $100 and you want 4k video capture you are going to be disappointed.
It depends on the subject matter as to what looks 'as good as'. Also stills pulled from 4k video will be shutter speed limited if they are shot for video which won't suit all subjects. Lastly there is the practicality of trawling through 1000's of frames to pick the right one. While theoretically it will be possible to pull good stills from 4k video but I doubt anyone will be shooting 4k video in order to get good stills.
Astonishingly low price for what it offers for video shooters even including the add on module.Don't care a jot what it's stills capabilities are. Most people interested in this camera probably wouldn't blink an eye if Panasonic had removed it's stills capability altogether. Why on earth did they include a pop up flash?????????Who on earth uses these things in this level of camera??????? - they could have used the space for a better EVF or a flip up VF. Great camera - my only problem is I've just ditched my GH3 for a BMPCC and after working with Prores 10bit 4.2.2 files I can never go back to 8 bit 4.2.0.................
When you add on the cost of the DMW-YAGH and an external recorder needed to get the equivalent quality file out of the GH4 then the Blackmagic looks something of a bargain. On top of that you get a global shutter and better DR it's no contest for anyone who 'needs' 4k
bizi clop: A quick PRIME vs ACR comparison
Original image: DPReview's FZ200 ISO6400 studio shot
Turn off all sharpness add ons and resolution and detail are the same in my experience between all RAW processing apps. Both DXO and C1 both add far too much default sharpening which all to easily creates nasty looking artefacts on fine detail. There are better ways of pulling out detail in photoshop actions than any of the RAW processing apps can do. YMMV
Finally they have enabled switching between fit the screen and 1:1 with a double click - this is worth the upgrade price alone.
Still no proper Panasonic GH3 support - how long has this camera been out now..........
KL Matt: A 2MP full-frame DSLR - now that would be a popular camera.
What part of 'exclusively for video' did you not understand?
BurkPhoto: For what it will do, the GH3 is worth full list if you are a serious videographer. If you also need great stills, it's worth more.
It is important to explain how this is a HYBRID camera. The term means "a blend of different media." Not even dxo understands that.
Those of us who use photography, video, audio, and computers to create content for training, advertising, and inspirational purposes will love this camera. It can handle all our image and video capture needs.
I can see having a complete m43 system based around a couple of these (for multi-camera video jobs), the 7-14mm, 12-35mm, and 35-100mm zooms, plus perhaps the 14-140 zoom for video, a 100-300 zoom for nature, sports, and wildlife, and a couple of fast primes for low light work.
I used Canon and Nikon gear from my teenage years thru adult life, and a pro career. I could use the GH3 for everything now. A kit weighs about 1/3 as much or less than the equivalent capability from Nikon or Canon, and costs about 40% less.
I'll be buying a BMCC when they are available in M43 but until they are available to buy the GH3 is arguably the best Video camera in the price range + it does very good stills
Maverick_: Just what I thought. The GH3 has not created sufficient buzz. There is very little mention of exciting consumer articles on Pana GH3 here or elsewhere. And overall the world has been very lukewarm to this camera, versus for example the huge publicity and buzz that was create for the OM-D.
Also MF3 is a gigantic failure as a pro camera, no Pro (ok just a couple of guys) uses it for photo, only for video.
Also I believe that the future of photography does not include MF3. In another 5 years this format will disappear.
As the price of FF sensors drop, we'll go back to the time of film when all SLR cameras cheap or expensive shot 35/mm film. Also as our phone cameras become better every year, there would be no need to have a small camera in the next 5 years. The phone camera will take care of it.
So the not so distance future will see only FF DSLRs and Phone cams. And for those who whine about size, FF can be made small and light, just look at what Sony did with the RX1.
The future is full frame sensors in phone cams with 4 K video and 10x F1.4 zooms - all standalone camera systems will be obsolete;-)