« on: March 25, 2013, 06:53:12 PM »
The camera handles like crap, it's really heavy and even with the handles didn't feel great. Rent one and check it out, but make sure you try to edit some of the footage, even 60 seconds of footage and you'll see really quick what a pain it is. Believe me I was as pumped about this camera as anyone and mine actually came in last week but I passed on it. Might get the MFT in the future but there are just too many issues with the EF.
And some of the posters are giving excellent feedback on the camera itself, but I'm looking at the camera AND what you'll be using it for (which is arguably more important). You're not doing occasional studio shoots, you're doing real estate videos, which means you'll be shooting a lot and very frequently. Battery life would also be a big issue in your case, since the internal battery lasts maybe an hour. Also consider that you won't be shooting real estate videos in 2.5K RAW, it's just going to slow you down way too much, so try and take that spec out of the equation and look at it as just 1080p ProRes.
Fair points, all. I don't find raw as cumbersome as you seemed to. Perhaps my two-year-old machine is faster than the one you had available. The dynamic range of this camera still shows in the 10-bit 4:2:2 encoded files. Again, ProRes or DNxHD puts little extra burden on the workflow than the C100. Perhaps a bit more storage space, but with a benefit.
You point about the camera handling different than a proper video cam or a DSLR is also fair. It is clunky. A shoulder rig, slider, or tripod are a must. Whether Cgdillan uses these anyway is something he must consider.
Curious as to what issues the MFT version overcomes for you, given the issues you claim of the camera? None of those issues are changed in the MFT version. Is it just that the extra benefits of the MFT lenses (e.g., wider and/or faster) helps to further justify putting up with the costs you cite? I can understand that. Otherwise, you seemed very negative on the camera for certain reasons, only then to say that you might get one again in the future when none of those issues will be addressed.
In the end, I agree with you Axilrod. For a day-in, day-out workhorse (perhaps closer to run'n'gun), these issues might outweigh the image. A camera must be practical for its purpose. That's why my initial reaction to the OP was quite negative on the issue. Until I saw what I saw on my monitor. I'm just in love with the image this camera produces.