Leaderboard

The only thing that matters is the final result. I found the test to look horrid even with the alexa and f65. It looked mid 90's American and tacky. like a cheap series from the 1990's. 6 feet under in 16:9 with 1/10th the budget and not one of the cinematogrphers able to impart any form of creativity due to the torture test situations making it impossible. since the test I care less than i did before about dynamic range and detail. so I am thankful to Zacuto for removing my previous unrealistic demand for anything better than a dslr. If I end up making something to be screens anywhere other than vimeo I'll hire the best camera available. until then the technical difference is +/-10% between the 20k f3 and the 100k top models.

[quote name='mopixels' timestamp='1345220447' post='15914'] Why not cheap FS100? It seems to have the sensor and all the features of a FS100. What is missing? [/quote] The sensor and all the features.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345202214' post='15880'] Then as far as i can see part 1 and 2 are the useful parts, because the only thing I'll ever actually be doing with each camera is creating subjective interpretation of a scene with a DP (either someone else or myself). If I have a 5D MKii or a bridge camera I'm not going to shoot with it and light for it like it's an Alexa, so all part 3 does is prove that, yes, a $60,000 camera is much more forgiving and a better piece of kit, which we all already know! I know if I had unlimited budget I'd hire an Alexa for every shoot. I learn nothing from that being confirmed. The only lesson to come from this shootout [i]is [/i]that some very experienced people picked a cheap camera out of the lineup on aesthetic alone. The reason that's a good lesson is because that's your actual audience reaction, and what happens in the real world. Lighting everything the same -- in effect purposefully mis-using a less-forgiving piece of equipment -- then saying "look, cheap cameras aren't as good" is a bit of pointless academia IMHO. The spec sheet already tells me that information. [/quote] That's all true, but if we're talking about real world results....any shoot with the GH2 probably isn't getting that calibre of lens and lighting set up, nor the amount of time to tweak it to mask the camera's short comings. If they did have that, they'd almost certainly be using a higher end camera. It's kind of a double edged sword. The lower end cameras need more time and equipment to truly compete, yet in scenarios where that budget and equipment is available, those cameras would be passed over for something further up the chain. So the GH2 scenario is hardly real world either. The positive message here is that cameras are becoming like pizza... even the worst are still really, really damn good, and enough to satisfy most average viewer. I still love my GH2 for what at can do, at the price that my broke self brought it for.

what do think of the variety of Super-Takumar lenses? many of them can be bought through ebay for a very low price, like the 50mm/f1.4 for under $100. i already read a few great reviews on them from photographers, so i wanted to know if any cinematographers had any experience with them. thanks

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345192767' post='15871'] Holy radioactive lenses, Batman! :0 [/quote] The best kind of lenses! I like a bit of danger to go along with my work. And by "work", I mean expensive hobby.

Super Takumars are excellent & affordable. I've got the 20,24,28,35 (both f2 & f3.5), 50, 55, 135 & 300 mm versions, all relatively inexpensive, except for the 20 & 24 which are somewhat collector's items. Careful with the 35 f2 & 50mm, as they have thoriated lens elements (very low level, they're safe to use) which yellow over time. A few days in bright sunlight can clear this out, however. For more info, check out: [url="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses.html"]http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses.html[/url]

It all looks more blurred vertically than horizontally, I agree for $6500 the 1D X is not on my list to buy for video.

This is what I'm trying to say. NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL. [url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/502da48f81691_1DXvsC300_Grid.png[/img] NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL. [url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url] I can't believe that nobody wonders about the blockiness of the 1DX video (as more detailed as it may be compared to the 5D3). Nobody brings it up, I've even read people praising how good the 1DX and the C300 cut together. I don't mean to bash Philip Bloom's work. I've been following him for years and I like the images he captured for this video. I'm just talking about the 1DX acquisition: it's terrible for a 6,500 dollar camera! Colors and dynamic range aside, it looks like old HDV! This goes beyond it being equal to a lowered priced camera, I think this kind of quality is unacceptable in those terms. And I know I'm analyzing compressed footage, but if that blockiness of the 1DX shots was added by the compression, why isn't it present in the C300 footage from the very same video? And I see that pixelated image in all of the other test footage shown here (it's less evident in the ships footage, though). Just to add to my point I added snapshots from a compressed video I have uploaded in YouTube (conditions for every shot shown here are completely different, but just look at how each camera captures the images). It's not relevant by itself, just a personal test, but here's the link if you want to check it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GPd3cXxCcI[/media] Please, am I all alone in this?