I recall an interview with the Olympus president from about a year ago, the jist of what he said on the topic of video was something along the lines of....hey, we don't do video because we want to be seen as a serious stills camera maker.Good point, one that I entirely agree with. Olympus has not done either itself nor its customers any favors with their current strategy.
I recall an interview with the Olympus president from about a year ago, the jist of what he said on the topic of video was something along the lines of....hey, we don't do video because we want to be seen as a serious stills camera maker.
All I'm saying is that I don't find the video all that poor, and for one of the 58% with a casual interest in video, it's more than acceptable. Also, what's displayed on Vimeo isn't what the full quality video looks like either, nor are my shooting capabilities, editing etc up to a level that ensures everything is displayed optimally. If the 'average' guy finds Olympus video sub-par, then what are those people who find it OK, 'below average' photographers?Ray,
I don't agree with you at all. I did see your video and I am glad that you like it. However, Oly's video is not up to par for the casual folks who shoot video without 4K, gimbals, rigs, etc. For the average guy who wants to shoot family videos, etc., Oly is sub-par. We are not even close to talking about pro video work. This is why the rest of the posters are disappointed with Oly's video efforts.
I agree and really don't get it at all. Surely adding a better codec which down samples the sensor readout to 1080p would not be that difficult? I love the video output when I'm shooting mid to closeup shots, especially with shallow depth of focus. I cringe when I look at any footage of wider shots, especially when anything is moving or the camera is panning (even slowly). The blocky pixilation and the horrible compression and sharpening artefacts just ruin the image.I am very much in the Olympus camp, have been since OM-1 days. I don't understand why Olympus does not give us proper codec and bitrates. I have purchased a GH3 and GH4 for video but it pisses me off to have to do so. Worse, I think that it is bad business decision for Olympus not to up their video game - think of increase of camera sales there would be with IBIS and proper video!
I would argue that you can produce great video with a lesser/minimal setup. This would be excellent for documentary-type or news gathering video, B or crash cam, shooting without permits, etc. The GH4 has most of the advanced video features you would need - good codec, picture profiles, zebras, peaking, etc. Add a fairly modern laptop and a program like Final Cut X for $300 and assorted plugins or grading/coloring software (as needed), educational material (such as lynda.com), and lots of time to learn/experiment and you can deliver pretty good video.Olympus has said that video is a top priority: http://www.43rumors.com/video-will-be-top-priority-for-olympus-guest-post-by-vincent-verwei/, but that said, I believe that the video isn't that bad by a long shot. I showed my friend the video I recently shot for him as part of a stills job and he was very impressed. Shown on a 40 HD LED TV, the footage looked excellent, and that was pretty much out of camera.
But anyone that's into serious video is going to put a lot more money into their gear than just a body and lens or two, they are going to kit themselves out with additional audio, screens, storage, gimbals and a myriad of extra accessories, not to mention some serious computing gear and software. I've been doing a lot of research into the likes of 4K video and it really requires a lot more than one would anticipate. I watched a great video the other day comparing a 5DMkIII (AVCHD) and BMPCC (ProRES) and what each can output and the effort required for quality results and it's quite an eye opener.