Hello
Im trying to buy a new camera for making short films with. I know the GH4 is awesome and would do everything i need it to… But I only do it for a hobby. Do i really need a Leica lens and a GH4 because of the 4K and the slow mo. WiFI Or do i Buy the GH3 and save £400.
Im used to using a Sony A580, but the quality I’m getting isn’t quite what i want, i also find it limiting in other situations, slow motion etc…

I need some Sage advice please…. HELP!!!

If you have any sony mount full frame lenses look at an a7s instead.

Every camera seems to have something better replacing it within 18 months at the moment. GH4 is probably overkill for what you do.

Even the GH2 gives really good footage, though the GH3 is the first they did that could shoot 1080P without being hacked.

Hacked GH2 is similar to GH3. I’ve got a GH3 and video is lovely and the pics are really good too.

Finding a card fast enough to record 1080P on a hacked GH2 can be a little more expensive though. UHC speed class SDHC cards run at half speed. SDXC ones won’t work at all with a GH2.

(To clarify, I have a hacked GH2. It’s good to lose the 30 minute EU recording limit, and be able to switch between PAL and NTSC frame rates, but I’d only recommend it to people who actually like occasionally tinkering with things).

Have you seen the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera?
Uses micro 4/3rds lenses and is very compact.
Shoots RAW footage and has a gigantic dynamic range, about 13 stops.

Co-incidently I’m selling mine – my computer can’t handle the file sizes and I don’t shoot enough video to make it worth upgrading for me – will stick with my EM5s videos.

Drop me a mail if you’re interested – email is in the profile. I have a lens to go with it plus an SD card and a spare battery

First question is do you really need 4k? Because if you really need it now, you’ll be needing 8k in a years time and 16k 18 months later.
1080p is plenty good enough for the vast majority of applications with the added advantage that more than 0.2% of your audience can actually view it in the actual res that it was shot in.
4k just adds time and cost to the whole production process and then it is shown in 1080p to the vast majority of viewers.
Shooting RAW 4k sounds great but it needs a fairly serious computer to colour correct and then edit.

Matt24k – Member

First question is do you really need 4k? Because if you really need it now, you’ll be needing 8k in a years time and 16k 18 months later.
1080p is plenty good enough for the vast majority of applications with the added advantage that more than 0.2% of your audience can actually view it in the actual res that it was shot in.
4k just adds time and cost to the whole production process and then it is shown in 1080p to the vast majority of viewers.
Shooting RAW 4k sounds great but it needs a fairly serious computer to colour correct and then edit.

This was my conclusion too. I was contemplating a second hand gh4, or Samsung NX500, and so on but concluded my Macbook Pro would struggle to edit the footage and I’d probably need to look at a new laptop, or at least more ram and external storage.

I’m getting an A6000 as the 1080p video seems of high enough quality for enthusiast use, and it still has manual control over most video settings. If I was going up in budget then I’d be going for the Sony A7S.

Have you seen the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera?

You have mail.