Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,276 visits to this link)
17,288 topics in this forum
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 460.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 700 replies
- 305.4k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 751.7k views
-
- 15 replies
- 591 views
-
- 2 replies
- 71 views
-
- 30 replies
- 33k views
-
- 67 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 50 replies
- 3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 132 views
-
- 4 replies
- 433 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13k views
-
- 45 replies
- 12.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 429 views
-
- 18 replies
- 1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 541 views
-
- 7 replies
- 345 views
-
- 7 replies
- 3k views
-
- 120 replies
- 63.1k views
-
- 560 replies
- 258.4k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 289 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 57 replies
- 18.6k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.3k views
-
- 3 replies
- 748 views
-
- 126 replies
- 57.7k views
-
- 88 replies
- 58.1k views
-
- 71 replies
- 34.2k views
-
- 14 replies
- 906 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 10 replies
- 817 views
-
- 79 replies
- 55.6k views
-
- 26 replies
- 19.8k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 105 replies
- 42.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 494 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.7k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By Aussie Ash · Posted
ARRI have been able to focus on colour science for cinema whereas Canon and Nikon moving from film to digital was primarily colour science for stills "the capture of a single frame".It is not the same .Nikon must have had many died in the wool stills photographer old farts on their board that only began to change about six years ago towards "cameras are multimedia capture devices." Fujifilm is different -making motion picture film was an important part of their business from 1934 to 2013. Red have been in the game since 2005 but without the history and back ground that ARRI had with cinema meant their colour science developed in a different way(with American influences !) . There is also feature films like Dune-2021 and The Batman -2022 that used digital to film to digital (DFD) to give the final result a more film like appearance. -
By fuzzynormal · Posted
Yes, you're exactly right. Musing about this is interesting to us, obviously! Here's my rambling take. The Japanese engineers have long been pursuing a different path of imaging evolution, as they've been in "electronics" mode for generations. Their culture kept them away from deep considerations of what film does vs. what digital does. The Japanese simply have a different sensibility about image IQ. This reality in of itself is a fascinating dive, going all the way back to traditional feudalism culture, WWII, national pride, and their "High Increasing Stage" era of the mid 20th century. Their imaging tendencies emerged out of their unique cultural context. In other words, once their engineering IQ evolution preferences were set, there was not much room for it go off on tangents. ARRI took a different road and put people on the development team that understood the physics and chemistry of film and wanted that look. ARRI engineering cuts and adds different spectrums for very good reasons. Thus, as you say when you mention plugins, emulation of film behavior is the thing, the whole additive vs. subtractive thing, for instance. ARRI does their adjustments in camera. So cinema follows ARRI to chase the IQ they know best, and ARRI becomes the cinema standard. The phrase "color science" is amusing to me. Because, yes, the engineering is science, but ARRI is in fact making their cameras behave with purposeful (and insightful) aberrations. They aren't going for accuracy, they're striving for colors that evoke a certain perception of emotion by being "pretty" which could be considered an artistic pursuit in their engineering craft. "ColorArt" doesn't have the same ring to it though. It's all pretty wild. I mean, I'm on forums where there are darkroom alchemists chasing esoteric processes to heighten certain color dyes in film, and minimize others by changing their development chemistry -- which is weird as heck and an extremely hard way to affect an image (save that when choosing the stock or when doing the enlargement print imo) but hobbyists aren't rational, they're just playing. There's a whole sub culture of analog photographers that deliberately buy decades old expired film just to see what happens with the dye degradation. All in all, there are an infinite number of ways to achieve color rendition. But, yeah, I'm with you. Give me a decent camera and I'll affect the image with a plugin and get it in the ball park. I'm not positioned financially or emotionally to be chasing the refined fringes of things. I enjoy mulling it over in places like this, but none of this sophisticated color science could be a part of my career. I'm not nearly talented enough to indulge it, nor smart enough for that. -
Samyangs at f1.4 are not cheap plus they are big and heavy. As far as I remember you don't like big and heavy. Maybe older sigma lenses from HSM generation as Anaconda_ suggested. Sigma 24mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 HSM. They are all under 200 E/$. Not small though. If you want smaller and cheaper lenses then you have to accept they start at f1.8, f2 and f2.8. Then you have lots of option and not only with Canon. You can also adapt vintage lenses to EF adding second adapter. With speed booster they become f1.4 to f2 both quite usable in low light on m43 in my personal experience. I was in this place more than 5 years ago with BMPCC 4K. Went trough speed boosters, calculating focal lengths, spending lots of time researching and trying to build decent lens sets both vintage and modern. My frustration grew with time as I realized this won't be cheap nor ideal to my goals. Went FF and never looked back. My decision was driven specifically by lenses. I realized the hard way a well-known truth: We buy systems not cameras and lenses are more important than cameras. If I want to use vintage lenses, cheap lenses, have access to the largest pool of lenses - FF is the right choice. I may change one FF camera system with another, my vintage lens sets stay, lenses have the same focal length and character. Same is true for Canon EF lenses. A FF system is no longer more expensive than m43, especially when we include the lenses. Example Panasonic S5 vs Panasonic GX85 + speed booster. Paradoxically a FF system (body + lenses) may even come cheaper due to large pool of lenses than m43 + speed booster. -
By Samantha_Hong · Posted
There are a lot of great camera options right now, but I think the lens ecosystem and overall usability matter just as much as the camera body itself. A camera that fits your workflow and encourages you to shoot more is usually the better choice than chasing specs alone. -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
I worded my response badly! I meant that the $700 US price tag was "already there" in terms of 'exorbitant, ridiculous, and "this is just an action camera - WTF"' which Kye had just said in anticipation of the AU pricing. I should have chosen phrasing that made it more clear that I wasn't simply repeating US pricing that is already known. 😅
-
