All Activity

Meanwhile, not all reviews are the same.....

Still loved.

Ouch! I think there's also a difference in approach of what you shoot. One on end of the spectrum there's this idea that you have a camera with many limitations and you either create the shots you want or you look for the shots that work. This is the idea of shooting with only a prime lens. A lot of people who use cameras that are limited have this mentality. You either get what you get but you get enough good shots that it's worth it (like a photography walk) or you change what is there to make sure you get the shots you want (directing a scene). The other end of the spectrum is you shoot what is there. This means the camera has to capture what is there, like wedding shooters have to get certain shots, ENG crews have to capture whatever is happening, etc. For me, my priority is capturing what happens, so I want the camera to fit the scene, rather than the other way around. This aligns very much with the cinema vs video camera priorities, but it's a different way of looking at it. Either way is fine, but the differences are a big source of why people from the first camp give really dismissive and condescending advice to the people in the second camp, like "just use a phone" or "who cares if your image looks like crap".

Yeah in the context of what else existed back then, then Magic Lantern was amazing. Especially for the cost (if you couldn't afford a RED Epic). But in 2024??? You need to either be insane, or doing it purely for the fun of the process, or have zero clue whatsoever about the bigger picture needs. As we're spoiled with so many choices today that could be a better fit for your project. Yikes!!! He badly needs to upgrade from a Zoom H Series to a Zoom F8n. I think rather than dealing with a ML raw then if I wanted a hybrid camera that's weather sealed I'd go instead with a Canon 1D C or a Nikon Z8 or Panasonic S1H / GH6 or Sony FX3 / FX30 (or perhaps a7Smk3) or Fujifilm X-H2s or Canon R6 mk2 / R7 / R8 etc Because raw is over rated, and 10bit is good enough 99% of the time. Especially if you're working in an environment where weather sealing / low visibility / run & gun / etc matters! As you likely don't have a tonne of card space with you, along with a 1st AC, and DIT on set, to handle the data offloads and to be checking the footage. Rather you want something simple, reliable, and fast. Which isn't what describes ML raw, but does fit the use case of the Canon 1D C / Nikon Z8 / S1H / X-H2s / GH6 / FX30 / etc

I've been toying a little with buying another camera, a CCD one for the hell of it and the unique look. Seems like the Nikon D200 was the best ever CCD DSLR? And it's almost being given away at how low the prices are now. Either that or go nuts for "the best" with the Pentax 645D's massive medium format digital sensor that uses CCD, but that's still well over $1K secondhand Good point. A camera can come out that's 10% better than an ALEXA but if there is even a one day learning curve for the editor and grader to get up to speed with handling this new footage, then it's not a good deal for them to go with.

I'm in agreement! The irony is that I basically did exactly what you say "wouldn't have worked" 25 years ago. Betacam SX camcorder ops with torn rotator cuffs unite! My career back then was filming tourism video around the world using big 'ol NTSC camcorders, large ANTON batteries, and a massive tri-pod.

I would be really curious about that. The Z-Cam E2 (and E2-M4) do some sort of HDR mode from the Sony sensor which works by doing some trickery with different exposures on multiple pixels of the quad-bayer sensor. It works really well, but results in some funky artifacts sometimes. They're mitigated by using a higher shutter speed, but never fully go away. Sony's page on ClearHDR from Starvis 2 seems to indicate that it's more like a real DGO, though, so that could be pretty exciting. A 16-bit output would also put things more in Red territory. Most mirrorless systems only use 12-bit readout from the sensor in video modes.

From what I read, they handled it poorly.

Indeed. Gerald likes to complain in that video about all the unfair consequences for speaking his mind, yet when it comes to people like me speaking my mind about cameras, he and fellow influencer marketing colleagues like Chris Nichols just aren't at all interested (even in the case of the EOS R5), and this demonstrates that they don't respect real journalism, and don't value it enough to draw attention to it. This is because such marketeers are not the same as us - they're not filmmakers, nor are they journalists, nor are they end-users paying their own money and finding stuff out - it's quite simple - they are marketing and sales people in a fancy studio, who like to stick together with other marketing and sales people. They respect each other in terms of other marketing and sales colleagues and PR departments, rather than actual journalists, shooters or those outside the PR industry circle like artists and real filmmakers. They are opportunists. Undone and his marketeer chums like Chris, enjoy being in their little circle jerk with the camera company PR people and events. That's where they want to stay. It goes to show that the hypocrisy levels are off the chart - Gerald doesn't like free speech, and doesn't tolerate it at all when a filmmaker speaks their mind about them. And the moment a camera company has uninvited them, for whatever reason logical or not, all the toys come out the pram which shows how much this attention circle jerk means to them. Unchartered levels of window licking achieved!!

"Dialing in the color science and optimizing the dynamic range on the sensor is still very much a process we are dialing in. There are two modes for the sensor, one is 12-bit and the other is a 16-bit ClearHDR as Sony calls it, which is Dual Gain Output ( like Arri sensors / fairchild sensors used in Blackmagic ) it's this mode that has quite a bit of configurability and some further tuning. Most of the footage shown in this video is from the standard 12-bit mode." Wow. Sounds quite promising. Would love to see some footage from the 16-bit video. I am guessing it may have impressive exposure latitude. The video in this clip has crushed blacks and blown out highlights. So adding a stop or 2 more may be a welcome change.

Sigma FP is the successor in spirit to the Canon 5d III with ML. For one, the Cinema DNG files are unquestionably special; red raw is the only other codex that gives you such good color quality (subjectively, but I have worked with almost every camera in the past 15 years). But the 5d has some serious limitations, such as true full frame raw (despite the fact that I enjoy the bullshit pixel binned 5.7k anamorphic setting), and I had issues with sound recording last time I used it. There’s just some hardware limitations, period. Fun to tinker with of course, and if you’re carrying it anyway, why not use it? Because it’s now pretty heavy and also not low profile considering the options. Such as the Sigma FP, which fixes everything pretty much. Rock solid reliability, 4k cinema dng 12-bit raw, etc. That being said, the FP still can’t shoot internal 4k 12-bit raw, requires rigging, lens adapters, ton of media storage, has a completely shit screen, you need to buy an expensive EVF, and without AF and stabilization you have to find solutions for those. So at that point, why bother with the hassle? These are all just tools, and I’d say 5d iii and sigma FP would be suitable for art private projects or short films. I don’t think they’re even good for travel. IPhone 15 pro far more functional. It would have to be in very controlled situations, for any budget. But as the production gets bigger, the cost to rent or buy between these cameras and that for a more pro camera is really not that significant, which is why nobody uses them. Don’t waste your time and money, in other words. Buy the newest smartphones for private use. Rent the right cameras for work.

I have a feeling the next Lumix Live Thursday is going to be a shit show. People are already leaving rather agressive comments. I think it's going to be a must watch! Let's see how they handle it.

Had the two 14-42 kits from Panasonic - the first and bigger one, that was the kit zoom on the GH2, and the second smaller one. The older was not grat, but the smaller was very ok. Using in f/5.6 (where I used all my m43 lenses when travelling with sun), plenty good indeed. In the last trip with m43), used the "little gem", the pancake 12-32. Was one of the m43 lenses that I did not sold, very good, sharper than the 14-42. Is exactly what Panasonic should do in FF. I asked for a small f/4.5 zoom lens for FF because in terms of DOF, is like a "f/2.9ish" in APS-C - and I'm using the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and in most cases the DOF is ok for general use. The manufacturer that makes a FF small body with a small 24-60 or 24-70 f/4.5 (collapsible, if possible) with good (don't need to be very top) image quality, probably will get me in the future.

It happens to me all the time with wildlife photography/video... 🙂

Me too (so far). The problem is nicely illustrated by the FF Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 versus the m43 Oly/OMDS 12-100mm F4 Pro. The Oly is a great lens, both optically and to use, but it's pretty much the same size and weight as the cheaper the FF Tamron (which covers basically the same FOV as the Oly). Almost certainly the Tamron is far more optically compromised though.

Here's my manifesto for the humble zoom lens. In my tests the expensive lenses looked vibrant and clean and sharp, which is to be expected. The Helios looked high-resolution but not sharp, and had a softer rendering which people love, and the 14-42mm kit lens looked somewhere in the middle... From my post: "Then, the mighty 14-42 kit lens. It has some of that vintage look going on. It's kind of like somewhere between the Helios and the other two. It raises the shadows a bit, but isn't uncontrollable in direct sun, and the edges are a little softer. A happy medium perhaps? It's also a zoom, has OIS, and if you break it you can just go get another one from a friend or on eBay or for $5 at a market somewhere with a GF2 with a dead battery." ... and yet, the expensive lenses and the Helios are ultra desirable, but I'm probably the only person to ever live that thinks the kit zoom might offer the best of both worlds.

Yeah, size is a consideration for sure. You have to be careful about what constitutes a bad reputation and make sure that 1) the people saying such things aren't idiots, 2) that the weaknesses of whatever it is are things you actually care about, and 3) that you actually understand what you like. High-end cinema lenses are often in demand because they're far from optically perfect, and yet forum fools will gush over the latest movie shot on vintage primes and then in the same breath go back to talking about how 6K RAW is mandatory and that Sigma Art lenses aren't sharp enough. AF might not be the best, but how would it impact you and how you shoot? Maybe the AF isn't so quiet and can be heard with the on-board mics, but is this important to you? and should you be using the in-built mics anyway? Maybe they're not weather sealed, but how many times do you actually need that? and if you buy one that is weather sealed, are you going to pay more than simply being willing to break and re-buy the cheap lens in the very unlikely event it dies. etc..

Just saw the Gerald piece. Some good points. About his rant to Lumix, his 1st point is very strong (being put out just for use STRANGE in a title) but the 2nd one...not invinting he because it was not a camera for him could be or not a bad point. They could honestly thought that is like (in a exaggeration) invite a smartphone shooter to a Arri Alexa launch. The S9 is for smaller creators / travel camera, not long run videos. But...they invited some people that are even farther from this crowd like Hugh Browstone and he made very good points about the use cases for the camera. For me was an error, intentional or not. The Lumix message for the camera was all over the place, their marketing team is probably on drugs (even using stock photos - don't go to Shutterstock when high 🙂). First the rumors sites (that, of course, are feeded by internal "leaks" - irony alert) cemented the idea that it was a X100VI competitor, and is VERY far from that. It is a ZV-E10 / ZV-E1 competitor that is much better for stills than both - which, for me, is a interesting proposition. But their screwed it up all over the place. And grab a buckle of popcorn and read the comment section of the Gerald post. 🙂 There are a lot of people much more pissed than Panasonic there.

Yep, lens size is what prevents me to go FF - a collapsible zoom shoud be mandatory to all FF cameras. But with good quality. The compact Sony zooms have bad rep (as, for some degree, the Fuji 15-45 and the Olympus). Or (this is my dream that no manufacturer will ever do) a small good quality f/4.5 zoom.

Don't know, never had a Lumix FF on hands. About the S9 I've just mentioned because I saw it on one of the reviews, and because Fuji have for some time this option to make the stills go directly to the phone - but is not for me either, I've got the photo manually on the phone if I need it. (never tried the new Frame.io integration on Fujis because I'm out of the Adobe ecosystem)

The Panasonic S 28-200mm f4-7.1 Macro OIS lens probably gets closest, which at 93 mm long is about 6mm longer than the 20-60mm f3.5-5.6 and about 19mm longer than the m43 14-140mm f3.5-5.6. Another one is the E-mount Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 - about 25mm longer than the S 28-200mm and 40mm longer than the m43 14-140mm. But both of the FF 28-200mm are only x7 zooms, not the x10 the m43 lens gets you (but that is pretty small for its zoom range).

Yeah, it really does need that 18-40mm lens. That 28-60 Sony lens is so much smaller than practically any other zoom in their lineup. The gap I don't think they'll potentially ever close is a super-zoom. For MFT, you have the 12-35mm F2.8, 12-60mm F2.8-4 and the 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 which are all roughly the same size. This makes sense, as the 12-60mm gets extra reach without getting larger by having a slower aperture, and the 14-140mm does the same trick again. Unfortunately, the FF systems can only get this kind of size by starting with a short AND slow zoom, so there's nothing to trade-off, and so the existing super-zooms don't trade anything off and are just enormous by comparison. Unless they trade off the same amount of aperture on top of an already slow lens and make something like a 24-240mm F5.6-11, but I can't see anyone being willing to admit such a lens would even deserve to exist, let alone be desirable. This is the gap that I don't think will get closed between MFT and FF.

Well, apparently they used one stock photo for their marketing material, and one taken by a Nikon camera, by a Nikon ambassador: https://photorumors.com/2024/05/28/more-bad-news-for-panasonic-lumix-s9-product-page-controversy-and-the-use-of-stock-photos I mean its like Shark do a deep carpet cleaning test, and use a Dyson 😅

This is S9 versus some similar size MILC alternatives that you can buy new (from the left, ZV-E1, A7C ii, S9, OM-5, X-S20). Paired with what I think are the most compact mid-range zooms currently available from each camera manufacturer. The small size of the 28-60mm f4-5.6 lens on the ZV-E1 and A7C ii does rather make the point that the S9 really needs the upcoming 18-40mm lens (and maybe a compact 28-70mm or 35-100mm).

IMO the phone is exactly the right camera to use for those moments. The quality on modern phones is so good that I would barely even think of it as a compromise. IBIS is still really uncommon on cinema cameras. Komodo/K-X are global shutter which makes shake feel a little more organic, IMO, and if one can deal with higher shutter speeds, they also record gyro information so you could use gyroflow or similar. Lack of IBIS can also be a feature in some cases - like I'd be unlikely to mount a camera with IBIS on my car before driving down a rough road. I've heard stories of that sort of thing wrecking the IBIS mechanism. But yes, they are converging for sure. It'll be interesting to see the knots people tie themselves into to explain how it isn't "true REDcode raw" as soon as Nikon announces a camera (or firmware for an existing camera) which adds it. I'm coming from the perspective of hiking with the original GFX 100 for the last few years so my perspective on which cameras one can carry around all day might be a bit off. The GFX 100 body weighs more than the K-X body (though the K-X weighs more with battery+screen) It sounds like you might be frustrated by the startup time and weight of it too. It's faster than the K-X, but probably not "take a shot in 2 seconds" fast. I still would say "a bit weird," but not so much "surprising." 😄