hmcindie

I think you got a bunch of kids that want to act like they know a lot --so the contrarian opinion mixed with criticism makes them feel like they're offering insight. It's a curse and blessing of being young...and, yes, stupid.

​I was a colourist for 4 years. If you think the Sony colour is as good as any other camera, great... But it is your opinion, not a fact. I know some of the best colourists in London and they all generally dislike Sony... Yes, you might be able to match, more or less, footage from an F55 with an Alexa... But you will spend more time doing it. Their colour science is not their strong point.

People talk some nonsense on here about stuff they clearly don't do.
I shoot drone footage... I shoot alot with the goPro in narrow mode to avoid the awful fisheye. It is roughly 30mm eqv, so the guy laughing about using a 35mm eqv is talking shite.... Especially when you realise the XC10 is actually 27mm eqv
Then the guy saying it would need a rig similar to that capable of holding an Epic. The XC10 is 2.3lb fully kitted, slightly heavier than a gh4 with lens. We have rigged up GH4s and BMPCC on a Droidworx 4 rotor many times.
Now whether the GH4 is better will be determined by V-log and rolling shutter tests... but impossible to say, at this point, that GH4 is better. 12 stops and 4:2:2 will take some beating... and I think the smaller sensor will help rolling shutter... time will tell.

now i know that this new camera with bigger sensor and 5000 bagllion dynamic range will make me better film maker  those 8 other camera that i  have are keeping my creativity down but i know this is the one

​Indeed, there's not much like it for the price.

I wasn't saying it was unusable, quite the opposite, but I was pointing out the drastic limitation of a shallow depth of field, thus the naievity of justifying larger sensor sizes by that alone. Unless you are a focusing savant, and they do exist, your subject will be rather stationary in the frame, especially if it is a human face and unless you like the effect of part of peoples faces/the thing that is the subject of your shot being out of focus, which personally gives me a headache, then you are going to be shooting small (depth wise) flat or very far away objects. Yes a human face side on at the end of a 200mm length filling less than a quarter of the screen is small.
That's not a criticism. Your scene was gorgeous.
But try watching something that makes you desperate to pick up your camera, the thing you turn to for inspiration. You will find a variety of shots, 95% of which are equally as easy to achieve on any sensor size, from iphone through to 70mm +, and you may find those other 5% of shots are in fact easier to achieve on a smaller sensor, depending on the style of the artist.
FYI, my vote is for full frame, but the reason is perhaps surprising.
It is the budget option.
I know, I know, full frame cameras are very expensive when compared to crop frame cameras, but this is a genius of marketing over the consumers willingness to understand the product. If I want to achieve a specific look, it is almost certainly cheaper to achieve that look on a full frame sensor than a crop frame, because lens manufacturers lie when it comes to f numbers. They give the rating for the light gathered by a full frame camera, even on lenses designed only for crop frames. And because the consumer is either unwilling to do the simple maths - full open light gathered = diameter of lens opening/focal length or is willing to believe that their favourite lens manufacturer can somehow bend light into the front of their lens with magic. Thus that $1000 beautiful quality lens is not and f2.0 wide open, it's more like f4.
Go look up the price for that lens that can cover a full frame, with the correct f number and see just how many hundreds of $ you can save to get a similar lens. Then work out how many lenses you need to buy before it would have been cheaper to go full frame from the beginning.  With products like the A7s, it's getting close to 1 lens.
The real kicker is that if you leave the crop frame system to go full frame, your lovely, overpriced lenses won't cover the sensor. So you have to hand over more $ to the scum who lied in the marketing material in the first place.
It's important to note, not every company does this all the time, but every company has done this at one time or another.
Of course, in the real world, you aspire to have a variety of cameras with a variety of sensor sizes and technologies. Then, no matter the look you are after, you can choose the tool that will achieve it the easiest. Because that's all sensor size is, a tool. I find internet discussions on the merits of claw hammers vs wooden mallets far more relevant and interesting, which is why my contribution to the debate is often tongue in cheek.

​A7s need a recorder for 4k right? And HMDI interface? Man, if you're on the clock for money, never trust HDMI. It'll burn you down. 

I watched a lot of things on planes this year. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was great, and also enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow more than I thought I would (in Japan they stuck to the original, and way better title, All You Need is Kill).
 
I missed A Most Wanted Man, I really wanted to see that.
 
I enjoyed just how imperfect and photographic Interstellar looked when most films of that ilk are super sharp CG. There was some serious blurriness at the edge of the image (in IMAX anyway), even in the ensemble, medium-long dialogue shots, so that Casey Affleck is delivering a line, and his head is a blurry blob. Take that, corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!

I just don't get this mentality. Get something. Use it. Make things.

The alternative is just... shopping. How's is that any fun?

That's a serious question. I truly don't understand. If anyone wants to try to explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

Enough already with the slagging off on Roger Deakins. It's an embarrassing level of arrogance and ignorance. It's like saying as a painter you can't learn anything from Michaelangelo because he had all the Pope's resources at hand. If you think what makes him great are resources unattainable to you I suggest truly study how he does things. Composition, direction/shape of light, blocking are all tools he understands at a high level that are also available to the amateur. And he has the good grace to share much of  his trade with you on his site for free. 
 
But regarding his choice for mirrored shutter, I completely understand as quite often, the level of detail he needs (he is shooting for 20-40 foot screens), just isn't present on an EVF. I shoot with Alexa's quite often and though it has the best EVF in the business, it's still doesn't render the detail you need to see for big screen shooting. Now consider Deakins operates as well, running back to monitor isn't always practical.
 
That said, when it comes to a small camera like the A7s, I'm quite happy it's mirror less. It keeps the size way down. I also shoot a lot of stills with it, and the silent shutter has allowed me to get shots that I can't with the noise of a mirrored shutter. However, when I'm shooting more involved video work, I always use an onboard monitor because I find both its LCD and EVF insufficient for pulling / maintaining focus.

Quite, it can't be "fine to shoot the grandkids" and copy a useless feature from high end. These are just excuses. It isn't finished, it's not a complete product.  You can't delete clips or format because the firmware isn't finished. It lacks some basic functions, and from what I've seen, the image is 'alright', not spectacular. Yes it's good for the money, but a camera is not just its image when you're under pressure.
 
Another couple of years yet I reckon til they're solid kit.
 
It's a tool, if it doesn't work right, then it doesn't work right. No one here owes it any abstract, philosophical leeway. Pure abstract 'image quality' is not everything, and it doesn't even kick arse at that. There's moire, it ain't so sharp, the highlights clip super hard, and some sensors are calibrated wrongly.
 
May sound harsh, but combined with all the glitches and shipping issues, there are a lot of negatives.
 
"it can be fixed in a firmware update"... yes so could many dream features. C100 could become a C500 and so on... but we've yet to even see decent functionality updates for the first bmd camera, let alone the 'pocket'. People wait for years with a tool they dislike, praying for updates only to be disappointed. It's just no way to live, guys  :blink:
 
Buying a tool because it might work properly later seems mad to me.
 
If you're dropping a lot of cash, you shouldn't have to 'work around' your gear. It should work for you. 
 
This is, in it's current state, far less convenient to shoot on than an RX100, a pure consumer camera!
 
Also, all this extra 'quality' and 'grading room' is only any use for those who are able to take advantage of it, quite frankly. 90% of films I've seen made with these cameras haven't benefited in any meaningful way from high bitrate. They could have been shot on camcorders. The extra creative leeway simply hasn't been used by the shooters. It's the great power/great responsibility thing.
 
When it comes to judgement, if this were 4K or very compressed RAW or S35 prores, actually had a real standout feature (though of course the usefulness of each in context is debatable) that was fully functional... it'd deserve the easy ride it's getting in some parts...
 
but it's a box of compromises, and a bunch of the early bodies even need to be sent back for adjustment.
 
Imagine the amount of media you'd get through in raw? It won't even be slightly useful til cards are much bigger and faster cheaper, by which time it'll be obsolete. Moore's law is a bitch, she hits both ways...
 
I give them their due: it is an attempt at innovation. That in itself is good and we need more of it. But most of what is happening in the hands of a few pros and a lot of eager hobbyists, should have happened in a lab. I don't want to pay that much to be a beta tester.
 
In most of the shoots I've done recently, all of the pocket's 'niggles' would have resulted in me getting far fewer shots which would have impacted the creativity of the piece negatively. That's my number one concern TBH.  And that's the thing the client (in the pro world) or audience care about most, not a few more lines of resolution or a bit more grading room.
 
Though extended dynamic range or resolution is nice to have, it means nothing if you can't even capture the content in a given environment due to a high number of workarounds.
 
The OP's example of the director's dis-satisfaction is illustrative. As a director I wouldn't mind the whole thing being shot well on GH3 (granted, this is greenscreen, but for most shoots), but to have to pick up a few shots on a remarkably different camera at short notice because A-cam didn't work, would be annoying and a bit of a negative mark... you expect people to know their gear. how many people want to expose themselves to the possibility of looking foolish when their livelihood depends on it?
 
It's too glitchy for pros and it's needless 'quality' and excessive extra equipment for amateurs... I just don't think it's ready for either market.

Folks have already been intercutting compressed DSLR footage with film and non-compressed digital for years so two raw cameras will, with care, be easier to intercut between.  
 
The crop factor issue can be made practically invisible with lens choice and exposure (ie. Nokton/Noktor lens + heavy ND).   Crop factor has "tells" the same as anamorphic has "tells".  Most people only look for the most easily recognizable effects with both types of photography and in both cases it's academic to fool these people.
 
Were someone shooting Terence Malick style, wide angle, deep focus, the difference between a scene shot on a 5DIII and a BMCC becomes one of relative focal length and given that focal length is variable anyway in any film the issue of shooting 135-size or Super-16 size is not a big deal.  A more relevant issue will be sticking to exposures that don't emphasize the 5D's lack of reach into highlights and the BMCC's lack of reach into shadows.  
 
Still, these issues aren't actually relevant beyond pixel fuckers in places like this.  It's a non-issue for audiences who already aren't aware of such subtleties.  Otherwise they might be wondering why Sony 4K projectors make footage shot on their highend cameras look like video.

I am a radical, but I think a camera should be introduced with chart tests (resolution, moire, DR, and color), and an ISO ladder of the inside of the lens cap to show the noise floor. Some form of motion and visual load testing would be useful too to stress the codec and reveal any ghosting. Ideally these tests are carried out in a fully open, documented, reproducible manner by an independent test lab that knows how to do them properly. We then have an objective baseline for the camera system, and can move on to subjective concerns.
 
I think it's fine for there to be whizbang marketing pieces made, though ideally they aren't made by the gear reviewers (e.g. Philip Bloom being paid to make the GH3 promo and then casually leaving such conflicts out of his "ethics statement"). People want to get excited about their new toy. Certainly the C100 promo was embarrassing other than for those memorable girls on the beach and their lovely skin. The C300 promo was way over the top but announced Canon was now in town. These things cost a fortune to make and for a small struggling manufacturer are a luxury best left to the volunteer enthusiasts like you guys.
 
Though I honestly doubt anyone in this thread has ever shot footage in their entire lives that is as good as Reverie. I certainly haven't. But it's fair for you to criticize as it was made in the interest of separating you and your money. The people that bought 5D2s in 2009 after watching it still aren't suffering for their purchases however.