Andrew Reid

Cannot tell from that video, it was all shot on AF! Plenty of re-focussing going on during a zoom.

This one is softer than the 36 and very bulky. I'd get the Iscorama 36 for that price.

I wish these guys would write it down!! He says it is awful but he doesn't say why. He doesn't reveal his techniques either. Could easily be user error. I just can't tell. He says the slightest shadow on an unevenly lit green screen broke the keying. So effectively if green is in shadow, it isn't green on the GH2 any more. Hmm. Don't believe that for a second. I'm trying to give him benefit of the doubt but he says things like this: [color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][left][background=rgb(235, 235, 235)]I've actually been reducing the red channel for noise reduction purposes the last two days (you can do that in the white balance adjustments on the GH2), and have discovered outrageous things like ISO 3200 that is indistinguishable from ISO 800.[/background][/left][/size][/font][/color]

Yes it will, get that hack saw ready :)

What is the optical trick Nikon used to give a 2/3" CCD a 1.0x crop factor in 1999? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_E3

Had a little try of the LX7 today. Nice screen, best I've yet seen on a Panasonic camera. Full manual control in movie mode, but not in the HS (high speed) movie mode. That was set at 720/100p and full auto. No 120p on the PAL model. The camera is not switchable to NTSC for the even higher frame rates. There's no lower resolution 240fps either like on the larger FZ200. Also the Samsung EX2F is worth a look. Though the 1080p mode is only 30p not 60p, and the image quality at the higher frame rates (up to 480fps) is poor. The RX100 of course wins on image quality for me. 1/1.7" cannot compare to that larger 1" 20MP sensor, even though the lens on the LX7 is lovely and much faster at the long end.

By the way this article only deals with the 2.3x crop, if you put the 8-16mm Sigma on an FS100 for example you will get plenty of distortion at the edges on the larger sensor. The centre is always the sweet spot of any lens in terms of distortion.

[quote name='itimjim' timestamp='1346352008' post='16992'] Andrew. Based on the LA7200's performance at both wide apertures and the edges, I'd possibly might be careful about recommending it until there are some results out there. [/quote] It depends on what size sensor and what lens you're using it on. The LA7200 was originally designed for the DVX100. I've long been using the LA7200 on a 2x crop sensor (well 1.86x on the GH2). I love the look of this anamorphic. Yes the performance drops off at the edges with a very wide focal length on this lens but it is one of a kind. A unique anamorphic because it covers the wider focal lengths.

Well for under $1000 you are looking at what has the best codec & cleanest detail, and that is the GH2 with the hack. The GH1 has 4-2-2 but only in MJPEG mode at 720/30p. I'd say rather than chase 4-2-2 (which you cannot get for your price range in 1080p on a large sensor) the GH2 will make your job the easiest in post because of the high bitrates and clean resolution.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/blackmagic-wide-lenses.jpg[/img] French rental house tries lenses on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera -Â [url="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398258513557700.106898.118532781530276&type=1"]La Blackmagic Camera passe chez PhotoCineRent[/url] Here I have rounded up all the lenses I have in mind for achiving a wide angle on the 2.3x crop sensor of the Blackmagic camera.

The 5D2 and VAF is a good budget choice unless you need to shoot wider than 28mm, then your corners go soft. The FS100 is a low light king and better value for money than the $3500 5D3. You are looking at $4000 for one used. You won't need the Shuttle unless you're doing a lot of fast camera work - action sequences and jerky handheld stuff. Internal codec is very good. D800 with the Mosaic filter will be nicer than a 5D3 image wise, but again you risk the blurry corners at wide angle. If you can wait for the GH3 it is sounding very nice on paper. Launch is mid-September at Photokina. But on shelves? I am not sure. Could be as late as November. GH2 for the price is unbelievably good. But you should think as carefully about your choice of lenses for a cinematic look as about the camera. Anamorphic lenses make more of a difference. All the cameras above have strikingly different lenses available for them which give a cinematic look. Research into it. I've done a lot of lens research for the GH2 as that has been my primary camera for the last 2 years, all that is in my book. The full frame cameras and FS100 - well that depends more on your budget since the camera eats into what you could be spending on very nice lenses for the GH2. If you have to build your lens collection from scratch go for the GH2 no question about it. The money you save, put towards good glass, makes more difference than those camera bodies towards overall cinema feel.

That is good news.

Interesting. So 10bit raw for example, is only 10 stops? That doesn't seem right to me, but there seems a lot of logic in what you're saying, do continue...

I am sure that oversampling scan of the sensor, picking up every red, green makes higher frame rates harder on the C300 / C100. It is still a big oversight though. The FS700 down samples from a 4K sensor at 240fps! Have Canon lost the CMOS race?

Sensor size is not the issue, the lenses cover but it is impossible 100% due to distance of the mount from the sensor and the Micro Four Thirds optics are designed to be 20mm away. EF mount is 44mm so too long.

2.5K 12bit raw for $3000 or 4K 8bit MJPEG for $12,999? Canon sure know how to do a bargain :)

Great post sir. I mean how can any sensible person not believe that a raw codec contains more image info than a compressed 8bit one until they see a 'chart test'. It is just a way to undermine my knowledge that's all. If people read these debates hopefully they get some info out of it. There was a troll today I had to ban because he was simply adding nothing to the conversation. It was all about how I am anti-5D3, biased-this and that. Christ, put it in a PM and save the other user's time. I have no time for any of these arrogant craftsmen churning out job after job not really caring about the art of it and lashing out at the younger guys who they feel threatened by.

Sure I am all for a balanced view but these cameras aren't balanced or close in terms of the specs sheet. I come down so heavily in favour of the Blackmagic Cinema Camera because I dislike the image from the 5D Mark III and the limited video mode which Canon have had ample chance (and 3 years) to improve. The codec is noisy in the lows, the resolution is not at the GH2 benchmark for a DSLR, even after sharpening in post, the roll-off to highlights is not smooth, sometimes even looks harsher than the camera it replaced. The 5D and 7D lack a lot of what the Blackmagic has - raw, 12bit, 2.5k, HD-SDI, ProRes, cinema optimised sensor and touch screen user interface (shutter angle instead of shutter speed for example), proper focus assist, wide dynamic range, it is a long list. That isn't misinformation I'm afraid! Don't mistake this post for a review, I never labeled it as one. The real proof of the pudding will come in the review and I will dissect the image and the camera extensively then. I agree with you that the DSLR is better for your needs and that the BMD is new and relatively untested but that goes without saying as it has not been around as long. No single opinion suits everyone, indeed there's no advice however objective and scientific suits everyone all of the time. I concentrated on image quality in this article. When I come to handling, I still believe the DSLR has no real advantage over the BMCC and both need rigging for handheld work similarly. In fact you can argue that the BMCC doesn't need an monitor as it has one built in, with a proper focus assist. That is the fact. When I say I like that aspect, it is my opinion. People who mistake my opinions for facts should realise what a blog is. It isn't Wikipedia. It is a blog of my experience in the world of filmmaking tools, I call it how I see it and will continue to do so.

Ruben, I'm excited about the Blackmagic but to mistake this as fanboy-ism is to miss the point. Filmmaking is broad, for sure. But as Mark said so eloquently above, I have to focus for the sake of brevity in the articles - I have to let people take up their own position on what is applicable for their needs and what isn't. If I spoke for any other person other than myself, it wouldn't be right. You won't agree with everything I write here. But you are flat out wrong to suggest it is Blackmagic fanboyism. To say I have no basis to be excited about a raw camera at $3000 which shoots the kind of image I have seen for my own eyes on my 2.5k screen, is wrong. This article started with me thinking long and hard about what matters to me in terms of image quality. The camera is incredibly filmic. For every argument I've heard against the small sensor there are 5 in favour of the raw codec, 12bit colour, workflow, resolution and dynamic range. You need to rig up a DSLR for handheld work, it is no different with this. Shoot handheld with a 7D & no rig and it will look as jittery as shooting two handed with the Blackmagic and no proper grip. There's no extra cost involved with this camera above a DSLR. ProRes doesn't even necessitate any extra upgrading on the post side, a laptop is good enough. Raw can be transcoded or edited by proxy. It isn't LOG. It is like a sequence of raw stills. You don't need to apply grading if you don't find it practical to do so within time constraints. Raw allows for mistakes to be made in the heat of the moment too. Under or overexpose a 7D shot, and you are... Shot. I read all your posts on the forum Ruben. You have some valid points. A shame about the conclusion.

An automatic 1.5x crop mode. The lenses would fit as normal.

Again, replace the word inaccurate with 'not for you' and the word biased with 'what works for the majority, including me', and we will be getting somewhere. By the way, would you also like Mr Administrator to set up a free consultancy for ESPN polo shooters? Any good business premises as close as possible to your front door, let me know.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1346263607' post='16859'] C300 $16,000 ....... Scarlet X (raw) $16,000 C500 $30,000 ....... Red One MX $25,000 5Dmk3 $3500 ....... Blackmagic Cinema Cam. $3000 C100 $6-8000? .... Kineraw S35 $6300 I guess it's just loyalty at this point. [/quote] Unfortunately the industry isn't price sensitive and there's a lot of inertia. By price sensitive I mean that competition can undercut Canon all they like but for a lot of pros it is a non-issue. By inertia I mean industry can be stubborn. Look at how long it takes a company (even a small one) to update the operating system on office workstations, whilst teenagers seem to have no problem upgrading to Windows 7 for instance, the day it comes out. The C300 is risk free, proven, solid, all the boring things that makes it so wonderful as a filmmaking industry tool. It is also very well marketed, has huge established base of Canon EF lens users and ergonomically it is very well designed. Be glad if you are considering a Blackmagic, because you are thinking differently and when your short feature is shot in glorious 2.5k 12bit, it will look a damn sight better than stuff shot on a 7D for similar money. Jon Connor says it well. Canon have a knack for cynically carving up the market. And it is working for their bottom line. http://twitter.com/jonconnorfilms/status/240874774132318208 Though their risk averse and rather unadventurous business strategy is working, it shouldn't matter to the artist and to those who think outside the box now we have the alternatives for similar money to a DSLR - vote with your feet and forget what the industry chooses to use.

'Administrator' what a nice way to address someone. Again you have forgotten that the article wasn't written as free personal one to one consultancy for Ruben Fernandez and the specific needs of Ruben Fernandez. If my article is biased towards the needs of narrative filmmakers or people who just want better resolution and dynamic range, and a raw codec for $3000 then I'm fine with that. Yes I'm biased to it in that case, because that is what the camera offers. Or are you implying something else? The objective is more valuable when mixed with the subjective. Zacuto Shootout was about that too. Subjective real world views are to me far more relevant than charts and graphs. A GoPro camera is superior to an Alexa as a sports action camera mounted on a surfboard, that doesn't mean to say that I should weight that aspect in my article entitled Alexa vs GoPro as highly as dynamic range or raw codec if aiming the article at narrative filmmakers. First person to rig an Alexa to a surfboard gets a prize.

To suggest a bias, to me implies that I have an ulterior motive beyond shooting for prasing it. I don't. The shoot is everything. Specifically my shoot and my requirements for it. I like it because of how closely it resembles the look of film, for $3000. Again if you do too, you will find EOSHD useful in the coming months. I'm afraid you won't be finding any 7D weather proofing articles here. If you can get the same image quality from a 7D, or raw and 2.5k from a 5D, the article would have been very different. You don't like the article because I glossed over the weather proofing of the 7D and full frame look of the 5D Mark III. Actually I love the full frame look, I may still use my 5D Mark III for the odd close-up of a face.

Here we go again. Because you have different needs from a camera than I do, you claim my points are invalid and misinformation. How is that fair? I write from my own viewpoint on my own blog under the heading of my own perspective on cameras. If you don't like it, I am not going to change my entire shooting requirements to suit one upset reader. You see my position here? I also like Chinese takeaways. Is that misinformation? I like dogs instead of cats. Misinformation? You get the picture. If you agree with the oracle, then great. If not, please save me the misinformer tag. Now... Onto your post which thankfully contains a counter argument. This is rare! You say that only real material can tell us the true performance of the camera. Well you can't get much more real than John Brawley shooting in challenging natural light, and the camera did well. I am very excited about this camera since I have seen the Cinema DNG files on my 2.5K monitor. Until you see that, you are right to be skeptical. Vimeo 1080p or streaming doesn't look very nice, at all. I didn't address weather proofing in the article, because I often overlook that for my own needs. You are right to point it out as a requirement of yours, but I have to focus the blog on my own honest opinion and that means focussing on my own needs. Again if it matches your circumstances, great! I am all for the full frame look. Portraiture especially. It is daft to do a close up at 20mm on a crop sensor. This is why I shoot telephoto at 50-85mm on the GH2 so much. For my kind of work it is very useful and these lenses have almost zero distortion in the centre crop. The crop sensor on the Blackmagic will be extremely useful for this. On full frame I often find the long end compromised for the sake of a better look at wider angles. It should have had a crop mode like the GH2, or even the D800 with the DX crop mode. So as you said, you came on here purely to bash the article not the camera - that isn't fair - at least have an understanding of where I am coming from with my opinion - my uses for the camera. It would take a writer a lot better than I am to write something that everybody agrees with no matter what their use for the camera is. I am not going to speak for you and your ESPN polo shoots or being out on a boat with your 7D and weather proofing. I am a narrative filmmaker and music video director. I will however speak for me and people like me, and I don't think you should look down on that. I will allow you to speak as a counter point, that is what comments are for. But please have some god damn respect.