Leaderboard

Now we all shoot at 800 asa. actually, I have heard some younger people get upset if they can't shoot at 1600 asa. Pretty amazing to me. Since most modern cameras can do this easily, and that gives you enough natural light in most locations, you just come in and shoot. The style these days is use what already exists, and augment the lighting, and use grip to subtract light. Subtracting light. Before ASA 800, when many of us were shooting at around 200 ASA, you would add light. Now we show up, use a window light - maybe put one light outside of it, and then 4-7 pieces of gripwear to cut it. Toppers, cutters, siders, eggcrates. But a recent job I did for a liquor commercial, we were shooting with the digital bolex as a b camera. The bolex is a beautiful organic image, with a ccd sensor for beautiful motion and the ability to use 16mm glass, which is beautiful and lightweight. We lit for this camera's low native iso, and the A camera, the alexa, we set at 200 ASA as well. At 200 ASA, I was back to where I started 10 years ago, and it was thrilling again. Light didn't spill all over the place - it faded into the darkness, had lots of falloff - and everything was deliberate. We Could liGHT up spaces deep in the bar with red color, and push light into areas we wanted, and hide the rest. It was easier to do, since there were less stands to place on the ground and less rigging to do. Grip takes up a lot of space and stands. Lights - not as much. And we ended up making the bar more interesting than what it was - we transformed it. (I'll post videos and stills once the spots are released. It was putting on a different brain from an earlier era - cause we had to move a different way. And we painted with 1k tungsten lights in a jem ball again and got that tungsten warmth again. That color of a tungsten fresnel - it has a golden warmth to it. Coming back to it, it reminded me of how unmatched by LEDs which have more green and yellow in them than that pure lovely orange glow are these chinese balls. To rediscover those old tungsten fresnel units, that was also important to me. These old lights you can now get as every grip house throws them out, as the world has moved onto led lighting like skypanels, these old lights are a thing of beauty.

I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.

Yes but in 3 years smaller sensor cameras like the GHx will be for 4k 120p, 12bit, maybe even raw, and 960fps in 1080. Spec-wise I think they'll always be a step ahead. I believe the smaller sensor/m43 will always win for adaptability, IBIS, slow motion, higher bit rates etc, not to mention the gap closing on low light performance - all it takes is an optical focal reducer like a speedbooster to get a kick arse full frame (ish) camera, or use natives and instantly get incredible telephoto reach without breaking your back. This is how I currently work and its a dream. I'm a huge advocate for the m43 system despite being a Canon 5D shooter all my life and now even with an a7iii.

I don't think Panasonic should jump on the FF bandwagon. I think their smaller sensor is their unique selling point. The GH5s sensor has proven you can squeeze high iso/low noise performance out of a smaller sensor and this is only the beginning really. I think the smaller sensor allows them to push video tech faster - like the GH5 have 4k60p, who knows what is capable in the GH6 but I think the FF cameras will always be playing catch up to the smaller sensors cameras in that regard simply because they can process that information faster. Chuck a speedbooster on and problem solved. I'm shooting with a GH5/speedbooster XL and a new A7iii with mc-11 - both using my canon L glass. Much prefer the GH5 for video. that 10bit is amazing. What Panasonic should be doing is keeping their m43 mount cause there is some amazing compact glass for it but do what JVC did and chuck a Super 35 sensor in there. Imagine that with a speedbooster. All the benefits of a faster, smaller sensor but full frame look.

As matter of fact, no idea how it is in your countries... But, here in Europe there's no sense to buy a new TV set unless UHD. It is the market to determinate that. Full HD display technology is just outdated. You can buy a 40-55" TV set (UHD) for 400 euros, so... People should stop to worry about resolution or even refrain to discuss such topic. 4K came to stay. There's nothing strange about that. As much natural as digital or when DVD replaced VHS. Wonder why or trying to praise the old technology doesn't make any sense, because lower resolution is merely old. Nothing against that. Horses for courses, though. We are not comparing apples to oranges. It is not 35mm film versus UHD. I much prefer to watch an old movie in a remastered copy on my 4K display from a new 4K source than a lower resolution copy. 4K is here to help you out, not to make lower acquisition look like bad. That's the whole point : ) This is not a competition. Technology is here to offer a better outcome. Only that : -)

Thank you everyone. You guys are so helpful. I've decided to go for the NX1 because it is very cheap. I can now invest the money on other gears. I still really like the Sony A7 iii though. The footage @jonpais had post is really terrific. Natural and detailed. Perfect for documentaries, IMO. If I need the Sony A7 iii, I can still rent it. I've been renting it repeatedly since it came out. So... I guess I can live with that. In the meantime I will just save up until I can easily buy it and its lenses without breaking the bank. ?

Thanks for posting. Looks real good. Very detailed with out being overly sharp.

@IronFilm 'can't shave, too busy livin' ? Also, Disney seem to be doing a clear out. I wonder if this is also due to people being too sensitive? https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/walt-disney-company-eliminate-plastic-straws-2019/story?id=56812530

Are you English? Got to love all the English sports! "What British sports look like to non-British people"

Still you can take an A7riii which is FF 42mp, stick on a 100-400 and then 2x crop it to 800mm and still have 11mp from an M43 sized portion of the sensor!!

Whilst shooting a test match a few years ago that even by cricket's own rather sedate standards was not exactly a thrill a minute, I put an Olympus OM-D on my 300-800mm. The camera looked like a slightly enlarged rear lens cap on it. 600-1600mm was a decent range though

Simply - first time it looks to me close to the quality level of your footage achieved with GH5 and Veydras (and some Olys) lenses. But IMO yet not the same. Actually, I'd really like to play with another camera, and patiently checked A7iii threads in decision to buy it, and I already have in reserve Zeiss Contax super trio - but all samples of A7iii till now look flat or so-popular-call "plasticky" in comparison with, say, your own noncomplex but great/honest for evaluation with GH5/Veydra combination... Of course, even more in comparison with some Blackmagic (which I had plenty) or Canon's (recently I made some shots with C200).

From earlier this year: https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/11/nikons-upcoming-mirrorless-camera-rumored-to-have-a-new-z-mount-with-16mm-flange-focal-distance.aspx/

Yes, v2.2 is an update for the central GHa conversions. I am thinking to redo the supporting PREs soon, but that would've delayed 2.2 for awhile. I wanted to get v2.2 out as soon as possible, as it is a "paradigm shift" (finally in that 'perfection' zone)

Yh, can't find it.

Do you mean for v2.2?

I reckon Fuji's strategy is the longest term of anyone, it's predicting a future where full frame is the new APS-C and medium format is the default large sensor choice. You could have the full frame crop for sports at faster shooting rates and the full medium format coverage when you need extra resolution and incredible resolving power of a high-end medium format lens at F4. I think it could get more cost effective... not as in £1000 but £3000 to compete with top-end full frame cameras. I've been very happy with the GFX, a lot of cheap full frame lenses actually cover the medium format sensor (Contax Zeiss, Minolta, etc.) so I've saved money not needing to buy a lot of new glass, just adapters. It's my best stills camera but obviously they will need to step up video over the next few years... And I am sure they will. Medium format sensors are already doing 4K and 100MP at the same time... quite an achievement! The TechArt adapter for Leica M to E-mount is fantastic - AF is very fast, and through Leica M adapters it still works with a range of other manual focus lenses, like the Contax lenses. I'll be doing a blog post about it soon. I should try and get hold of the Canon autofocus adapter for Fuji X mount and the GFX version too... Although autofocus isn't the biggest strength of the GFX. It's ok with the internal focus GFX zoom but with the primes it can be quite bad.

Fuji's current approach is to give you FF via a crop mode on the GFX. They are allegedly doing a (cheaper) rangefinder version of the GFX which if it has a similar crop mode would throw up some interesting possibilities for adapted lenses. TechArt already has smart EF to GFX adapters so that will give you a form of FF on Fuji with a huge array of lenses. If TechArt adapted their Leica to E mount to GFX then that also opens up the possibility of AF for a huge array of manual glass on it as well. This alleged rangefinder version could therefore be a Medium Format with Fujis own lenses (and adapted Hasselblad HC ones too), a Full Frame with Canon and Sigma Art et al lenses and a Leica M10 but with hybrid viewfinder and AF of manual M mount lenses. For a supposed price of under £4K That versatility could make it my desert island stills camera to be honest.

I have a good feeling about this system, with a very big mount they can make big lenses near the sensor that correct the light angle to be peroendicular to the sensor, resulting in tiny spectacular lenses. Please someone with actual optics knowledge correct me on this.

That is probably why the rumor is it will be a very shallow 16mm

I am sure Nikon is going to try and make a Mirrorless D850. Will they try first time around, not sure? If so that would be aiming at the A7r mk III I would think? But I doin't see how Canon or Nikon can make a "Better" Mirrorless than the Sony A7r mk III, A7 mk III on their first try. I think if they make a camera close to a A7 mk II or a A7r mk II they will be going crazy good..

If Canikon knock it out of the park I don't see why anyone would consider m4/3 anymore. The Gh5 and Em1 II are already large cameras and there isn't so much to be gained in terms of size unless you are talking about telephoto lenses. The new nikon mirrorless looks to be diminutive in size so I don't think it will be too much of a consideration for people. I think panisonic and olympus either go full frame or die a slow death. Especially with full frame cameras dropping in price. We are seeing the same problem with the fuji and the xh1, being in practical terms more expensive than the a7iii. The thing with fuji is that their lenses are quite expensive, especially considering they are apsc lenses. For example, their 100-400 is priced equivalently to canon's superior and pro level 100-400. Their range at the long end isn't good either.

The latest development with ML and the EOSM is that one can shoot raw with the full height of the sensor -- and it looks fairly clean (minimal moire/aliasing). The resolution is 1736x1120, and I think that the pixels are binned 3x3. Here's @Alpicat's test at 14-bit lossless raw: Here are the instructions on how to setup the EOSM in this new crop/resolution.

This! I opted for the MFT system with the GH2 back in the day because I would be able to keep lenses small (which is the real thing that keeps a camera set-up compact). Of course you can frankenrig things up when the situation asks for it. Of course we haven't exactly been wow-ed by the sensor performance throughout the years. The GH4 you'd still have a hard time pushing past ISO800, but as you said, since we've seen leaps in improvement, mostly in terms of high ISO noise performance and color. Dynamic range with V-Log L and HLG has gained a slight advantage, but that's really the area where it still needs a bit of a way to go. I'm confident however that the next generation will leave little to complain about on a sensor performance level. You could argue that they need to change tactics when it comes to C-AF, but that's just not much of a dealbreaker to me personally. But it's of course a missed oppertunity getting people on board who do think it is. And Panasonic/Olympus just know how to make epic camera bodies. Both GH5 series cameras and the E-M1mkII have a weathersealed grippy camera body, vari-angle touchscreen, nice menus, tons of customization, dual cardslots, full audio interface, awesome batterylife etc, to me it honestly doesn't get much better than that. And again, great lens ecosystem to go with it with a wild range of lenses in all sorts of sizes and quality for all sorts of budgets (same actually for the camera models; in comparison: Sony has seen 2 generations of mirrorless APS-C where there was just the 1 body (and not without issues)). Back to the topic title. The DSLR market is dying. All they need to do is take their APS-C/FF line-up, drop the mirror and OVF and stick on a new mount. Of course, mirrorless is also greatly related to innovation, so IBIS, 4K60p, LOG, elaborate focus & exposure aids and overlays are definitely the way to go here. But in essence, they aren't really changing their game too much, it's just about ditching traditional DSLR for mirrorless. When it comes down to Panasonic/Olympus, they're already doing mirrorless and I'd even go to say that they do it well. I agree that the smaller sensor is a USP of the system and do not think them jumping FF as well needs to be a thing. But of course, the more options the better...

Nah, Fuji has the GFX.... You know it's APC for compactness or medium format for everything else these days ?

I'm not sure how much of this is a full frame thing though. Does Fuji now also need to go Full Frame? They seem to be going quite well in the Mirrorless market. I see plenty of people using Mirrorless but the minority are using Full Frame cameras. Sure, in our circles of users that shoot video, the A7 series is hugely popular and a small number of pros photographers are making the switch but does this make up most of the sales? I genuinely don't know but the article you posted didn't list Sony Full frame as the reason did it? It actually stated that users wanted something better than their phone but without the bulk of a DSLR. Either way, In terms of Mirrorless, I think Fuji are the ones who have really nailed the whole system. Fantastic colour science, compact bodies that are actually a joy to use and small affordable lenses that give up nothing in image quality to the best from Canon or Nikon and are built like the best from Leica. In the age of people wanting to post high quality images instantly, Fujis SOOC Jpegs are among the finest.

Thanks for call for opinion - but, uh, it surely will not help for the case of my lovable Harlem shooter (actually, for the case of forum atmosphere) that is, as I see it, totally unguilty and fell as a victim of unhappy misunderstanding I'm glad that - in spite of my bad English, i. e. in spite of effort needed to understand my attitude/position - you, as it seems, recognize my sincere benevolence. My opinion: wholeheartedly honestly, I'm afraid that I'm totally indifferent about that and similar pseudo-fussiness in Hollywood industry. In general, I think that most of the Hollywood industry is so deeply sunken in hypocrisy and corruption, that most of the people there - especially those engaged in entertaining 'hits'' that are not matter of my knowledge and interest (I mean, not, say Inarritu-Beautifull or Quaron-Children of men, if they are Hollywood) - are so completely habituate to fakery, and so really-autistic-brainwashingly prepare to believe that nowaday problem of USA may be clown Trump or witch-dolly clown Klinton or salad-philosopher-Zizek or so-call left or right wings... that I simply cant take for serious their "problems"... Again, wholeheartedly honestly, I even don't see raison d'etre of existence of that part of movie "industry". Sorry - it may sound as idiotism, but I'm, say, closer (although far away of identical) to rude impulse of revolt presented in "Idioterne" by early von Trier, which, as I understand, you greatly respect. Or, better, I see problem of USA or some minor lastwave imperial society and consequences as nicely pictured with early diagnosis in Antonioni's Zabriskie Point, or Roeg's Walkabout or Ang Lee's The Ice Storm: Empty, hedonistic, deeply boring, out of ideas, unemphatic life that try to find miserable excitations, cheap thrills and "provocations". Being little bit curious or trying to be at least so-so objective, I tried to find some works of that mr Gunn. I simply can't call it "art". I don't think he is an "artist". (And sorry for some presentation that I really don't care about here, but just for some light of explaining - my point of view is of an novel writer with Collected works and pair of dedicated dr-degree works, who is mostly compared with (complicated and maybe boring :) works of Joyce, Hermann Broch, Robert Musil etc. So, I'm not strictly competent about "hit" industry, and, more seriously, I even don't care to be competent in entertainment hits while, say, milions of Syrian children had to survive life horor because American society has to be pumped with oil and entertainment hits for the task of keep refusing to recognize where nowaday resides truly problem of mankind: above all, infection of selfishness. But I'd say I'm enough competent to disagree with one of your sentence as apodictic statement "In the earliest dawn of civilisation the role of the artist was as a provocateur." That is deeper question: role of the artist. Between many, I chose some of the East suggestion about role or born of the art(ist) - 'When the balance of the world is disturbed, the song comes out of the throat.' Or not just from the East - it is also Hoppy Indian's idea/word that is intertwined in Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi. Personally, I think that it is not at all hard to recognize what is your point and your, at the base, completely normal reaction - yes, your impulse is right: society, especially at the hedonistic phase of its evolution (of course, we all read Oswald Spengler Decline of the West, or Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses) has to be spurred, butted, provocated... with a purpose to find a soul instead of comfort and calculation and... entertainment because of "oblivion to the Being" (Malick/Heidegger). But, I don't see anything of beauty and mastery of, say, provocateur Oscar Wilde, or poverty of old provocateur Diogenus, in that Mr. Gutt and his shallow works. Actually, I see in mr Gutt's case just marginal fake dust of fake fight between two identical currents - it is the same old great invention of some master minds of XX century: put two (in fact identical, and) equally wrong and equally malignant political sides in front of public, and let masses vote or kill for one or for another... with identical final result. Or, as say recently late Alexey German in Hard to be a God - Problem is that after Blacks always come some Grаys... To sum up - I think, mr Reid, that your impulse is noble and worried. I think that there are much better cases than that of Mr Gutt that your noble impulse could be invested. His "jokes" was not neither provocations, neither liberations to anyone - for me, they are just exhibitionism. I think that you don't need to be involved in the side of megaexhibitionistic liberators for which ultimate level of freedom is exhibitions (tomorow it will be something "conservative" - they always change roles) Your EOSHD is much much better place and achievement than any of similar hit makers that last one popcorn season. Actually, I think that Mr Gutt's case doesn't deserve such sort of your attention. But I think that mr Kidzrevill impulse also is noble and worried. And that's the reason why I'm guilty for this long boring love-affair-letter with both of you And both of you are member of similar society, and share its similar "advantages" that nowaday are, in fact, more and more burden of confusion and tumble for sensible people - burden inside of which is very hard to make road out...

Andrew, I think Samsung will make big mistakes when they don't come back in camera business. Now they only have mobile phones and camerachips. Imagine what happen with their phone marketshare when Canon/Nikon/Sony are going to cooperate with mobile phone producers. How does it sound to you if you buy a mobile phone with a 'Canon inside' camera as second next to your Canon mirrorless. Same colourprofiles and art of menu. I am still happy with my NX1, but I love to see the news about all improvements. If i decide to buy Nikon FF mirrorless or A7SIII this autumn, the chance that I'll buy a Samsung camara again would be very very small. Note..., for filming I am not a Canon fan ?

What about Pentax? Kidding. Canon bashing is a sport here, but I've said it all along, a good mirrorless offering from CaNikon will put a big dent in Sony's sales. Nikon is targeting enthusiasts and most rumors point to Canon doing the same - so they're both targeting the a7's. They don't have to win the spec wars, good ergos and great AF along with the best from their current sensors will slow the migration to Sony. We know Canon can do mirrorless AF, and Nikon had the first hybrid AF with the 1 series a full 7 years ago. The various Canon AF adapters only exist because so many are using Canon glass with Sony bodies. Give those people Canon colors/menus/ergos - plus a 35//2 that they miss on Sony bodies and you have a hit. Detail's that Sony ignores because there was no competition, but makes a camera much more useful - like fully articulating LCD, functional touchscreens (the 5d4's is so much better), time lapse/focus stacking functions and so on will be what separates them from Sony. Nikon has shown they can crank out lenses at a pretty fast pace, focus that output on the Z mount (or whatever its called) with a fully functioning adapter to make it easy for DSLR shooters to add a mirrorless body to their kit and the monopoly Sony's enjoyed will come crashing down pretty quick. I keep seeing comments like "why would anyone buy into a system with only 3 lenses over Sony," but what people seem to forget is that the number of DSLR shooters is still many times greater than mirrorless, and a lot of them simply don't want to leave the CaNikon ecosystem or give up CPS/NPS. Also, I know they hate to tip their hand, but a roadmap of the lenses planned for the first year or so would help for early adopters. Show off the next 10 lenses in the system after launch and people will buy in, all that's needed in the first year or so is the zoom trinity and reasonably fast primes in the 24/35/50/85/135 fl's - that covers a lot of ground. Switching systems is hard and costly, especially if you're invested in lots of high end glass. Once the Nikon 45mp body is announced, keep an eye on used Sony bodies - I'm betting the number of a7r3's will spike, meaning good deals for bargain hunters. I've seen barely used copies on Fred Miranda for under $2400, I bet they hit $2k when pre-order fever starts on the Nikon. These are good times, the bar will be raised across the board with competition from the big 2. Chris

Those are some serious images in the video above. If the Pocket is anything like the URSA Mini Pro it will be a treat.

It's not just about sensor size. Some of these companies are gonna need to bring something different to the market. Whether that be something to do with the ergonomics, sensor design or lens design. I would love one of these companies to bring out a very compact full frame camera along with very compact, but still fast glass. I'm talking l39/r39 sized lenses. Some of us aren't that interested in edge to edge sharpness or flare control etc.

personally i wouldn't invest a penny in a dead platform (i heard samsung won't even service it). certainly would'nt trade up an XH1 for one neither.

Wow... a couple of the most helpful and talented members (squig and kidzrevil) banned within a few days of one another for having an opinion... that’s a shame.

That would be really something! One of my all time favorite threads since I´ve been posting and regularily reading here! Thanks guys and Alpicat, keep it going! Though the DVX super8 global shutter raw monster would have been really awesome. Would love a ccd raw camera in that formfactor and stabilized zoom lens!

I'd be happy with your crappy old mirrorless... if your GH5 or A7III start cluttering up your place I'll let you store them at mine!! Charlies post got me thinking about this board and who is on here. I think it tends to be a place for a few situations: Contemplating upgrades Keeping up with technology Socialising I don't see a problem with any of these, as even for people who shoot all the time there are still these situations I don't think there should be less talk about gear, but I'd love if there was more talk about the artistic aspects of film-making as well. After all, once you buy a camera and learn the exposure triangle the rest is really working out what to point it at! ?

I quite like the image quality in both these videos but the pacing is killing me.. in the first one with all the slow focus pulls from static background to a static foreground object (rock or piece of paper, etc.) are just too much of a snooze for me.. sorry, I couldn't finish. I feel like for shots like that to hold interest they need to have at least some interesting motion going on (camera or subject), or just phenomenal composition / framing / color / etc., like gallery-quality landscape photography. My suggestion would be to hold all the shots for way less time and try and tell a bit more of a story from the sequencing at least in terms of a progression between spaces or time frames. In the kid video I quite liked the tree climbing section at the beginning because it's all shot so tight and there's a huge 3D feel because of all the parallaxing of the branches and the body, but then it got pretty boring with just walking through fields and stuff so I couldn't finish it. I'm sure it's an awesome video for a parent though, since watching your kid play is endlessly entertaining. Sorry, don't mean to sound negative, I'm a total amateur here so not trying to come across as some kind of expert. And just so this post is not all critique I'll put some of my own vacation stuff out here to be cut up :). This video is from a trip to Granada, Spain a couple years back: There's lots of static backgrounds in this video too, which can be pretty boring, so I tried to keep the visual interest with a lot of camera motion, probably too much in fact (most of it is walking with the camera on a gimbal, hence the title), and trying to find some interesting people scenes in the environments. Tech specs: Sony A7R2, Zeiss 24mm f/1.8, Sony FE 55mm f/1.8, Sony 10-18mm f/4, PilotFly H2. In terms of making static landscape shots visually interesting, I'm a big fan of Camille Marotte's stuff (example below). He captures a lot of beautiful details in a travel context and often does a great job composing with very simple elements - e.g. the opening shots of this video with an out-of-focus arm resting on a boat, framing an ocean sunset or the sun flaring into the lens as it moves across the ripped edge of a tarp. And of course there's the people.. in travel videos I find we all yearn to see the people since so much of what defines the flavor of a location is the people themselves.

Yup, but then again, is that what one wants for whatever production they're doing? Speaking for myself, I'm not a big fan of huge dynamic range in fictional narrative. I'm a product of gritty 70's American cinema and I'm not afraid to admit that I think there's maybe TOO much "unthoughtful" resolution and dynamic range in modern productions. Hollywood comedies are the worst with this. Boring lighting and cinematography with such a high resolution sheen one starts analyzing the uncanny valley flaws of the sound stage. The visual info is just distracting. There's something to be said for deliberately obscuring what the audience sees in an image. That opinion maybe puts me at odds with the majority of people out there, but so be it. However, I do think good dynamic range is perfectly fine for corporate video stuff, nature docs, --or even certain narrative fiction, I guess. Depends. It's a tool, you know? I mean, I can Ooo and Ahh with the best of them when watching pretty 60p 8K time lapse footage on huge monitors, but just visual stimulation ain't enough for me and pretty pictures gets old real fast without an appropriate story. Eh, it's all subjective. All of this is OT anyway, so I best shut-up. Balance your decision on what matters to you, and you'll be fine.