Panasonic GH4 not cinematic enough?

Hello there, I am looking for the lowest cost camera (under $1000) in the used or new market with the below specs. It will be used to study still photography and cinematography:

SPECS:
4K or Ultra 4K
DSLR mirror or no mirrorless
Capable of recording video in RAW or at something slightly similar e.g. V-log
Not interested in something that can only do 1080p video recording.

The only lowest cost camera (under $1000) with the above specs that I have narrowed it down to is the Panasonic Lumix GH4.

Question 1: Do you have any other alternative recommendations that fit with the above specs and pricing?

Also:

Shane Hurlbut, Cinematographer and member of the ASC, has done some really good work. I actually like his style in the movies he has worked on. However I read his assistant's article below which, to me, showed that Shane felt that the GH4 was not 'cinematic worthy' and felt more like a broadcast video camera.

Question 2: What are your thoughts on Shane's view below? I ask because it makes me hesitate in choosing the GH4 to learn cinematography or eventually work on cinematic projects in future with that camera.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/
 
Do you understand why he thinks it feels more like broadcast than cinematic?

I used the GH4 once: it is a M43 camera, but many people make nice things with it.
 
Do you understand why he thinks it feels more like broadcast than cinematic?

I used the GH4 once: it is a M43 camera, but many people make nice things with it.

I imagine the Micro Four Thirds system is not a bed of roses compared to full frame or quite near full frame I guess, especially where high budget feature films are being made.
 
I imagine the Micro Four Thirds system is not a bed of roses compared to full frame or quite near full frame I guess, especially where high budget feature films are being made.

Indeed, so the depth of fields is different and so is fotondensity on the sensor.
There are very few full frame cameras out there.
Most are S35.

Try to find someone with a GH4 to try and test it, before buying.
Never buy a camera you never had in your hands before.
 
Very good advice indeed.

I wonder why most camera companies do Super 35 and not Full Frame. Is it a reason because of cost? For e.g. why can't Panasonic not wake up one day and say "Hey, we are going to make a GH6 camera with a Full Frame". Why are companies not doing this on a large scale? Why is MFT on most low cost cameras? Is a Full Frame really that much expensive? Or is it the R+D teams are not skilled enough to design a camera around a full frame?

GH4 - MFT
Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K - MFT
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - MFT
 
Very good advice indeed.

I wonder why most camera companies do Super 35 and not Full Frame. Is it a reason because of cost? For e.g. why can't Panasonic not wake up one day and say "Hey, we are going to make a GH6 camera with a Full Frame". Why are companies not doing this on a large scale? Why is MFT on most low cost cameras? Is a Full Frame really that much expensive? Or is it the R+D teams are not skilled enough to design a camera around a full frame?

GH4 - MFT
Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K - MFT
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - MFT

The size of a full frame sensor is more akin to a Vista Vision film than a typical movie. The majority of movies shot on film were shot on Super 35mm. For this reason, an APS-C/Super 35 sensor is actually more standard than Full Frame. Granted, there's more to a cinematic look than sensor size (lighting, blocking, camera movement, etc...) but sensor size does play a part. Full frame is not better, it is a choice made based on the look you want. Most people want a filmic look, and a Super 35 sensor best gives that look. It is a standard. Because of this, a Canon T#i can actually pass under the radar better than a 5D or GH# simply because light and the lenses behave like they did on the majority of movies. I can remember during the heyday of DSLRs that I could tell if a movie was shot on a 5D because the DoF was so extreme. But a movie shot on an APS-C/Super 35 sensor I never gave a second thought to what camera was used.
 
Sony A7s(II) are full frame, they also have the worst rolling shutter.
There is always a compromise.

And what El Director says: 'cinematic' is not only about the camera.
Shane's remark was about 'how cinematic out of the box' it is to him.
 
Back
Top