themartist

I like this article. I think you certainly have enough Canon gear to have them consider your input a little more attentively, despite any constructive criticism you may have levelled against them.

Honest question, how do you afford to spend over $100 000 of camera gear. It's obviously a luxury not many Pro's let alone enthusiasts could afford. I'd assume either its been a profitable hobby buying and selling... or your blog has been particularly profitable. Either way, I'm jealous.

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

To those critics in this thread - that you see my opinions as unworthy because I'm not inside the film industry doesn't surprise me, because most of the same people just voted for a US president based on how rich he was. It's a bit of a sad situation in 2016 where such a consumerist mindset exists that only pros shooting paid gigs are considered experts. Time and time again in Berlin I have turned down paid work to focus on my own creative projects and self-employment. It's my choice. EOSHD has been a success. I could have been slaving away, climbing the ladder professionally shooting one advert after another and being bossed around by clueless clients. Again, I have chosen a different path. I'd much rather be doing my own thing day in day out. It doesn't take much to click through to Vimeo and see my last 5 years of cinematography and personal work. And even if that isn't to your taste, your taste is not the universal blueprint by which everything film-related is judged.

This article comes from the heart. Maybe I didn't get across the capabilities of the 1D X Mark II in one go, maybe I'm rusty. The footage isn't my best. It is 120fps with a heavily stylised grade shot handheld on holiday. It isn't meant to be Citizen Kane. It was just to show the 120fps. The way some people are going on about the image quality of that video as some way indicative of the overall quality from the 1D X Mark II is really stupid. The 4K looks very different. That is coming next in part 2. I also have shot with the X-T2 and G80. Great alternatives for less money. The 1D X Mark II was meant as a replacement for my 1D C and it succeeds in doing that. I paid £5k for the 1D C used back at the start of 2015 and even though it came out in 2012 the image is still better than the A7S II, Sony FS5, etc. No it is not a £500 camera. I never said it was good value for money in that respect. Pretty obvious really.

The skintones -

I think side by side with the Sony picture, the Canon one looks too extreme and you cannot really judge either image from the web or blog post page.

In isolation at full 20MP resolution on a large print or a large 4K monitor, the Canon looks more natural and true to nature, whereas the Sony looks dead. Also the Canon flatters skin, whereas the Sony exaggerates any imperfections even on a very good looking subject. See the following 2.8K JPEGs instead, full screen -

 

 

 

 

6

I think you've got it half right.

When it comes to judging different cameras usability, functions and image quality... I'd definitely go by your word above many professionals as at the end of the day you've tested and experimented with more cameras than the majority of Pros could ever wish to. You've put your thousand hours in to be called an expert ...no doubt.

Regarding Canon having better color science - pretty much everyone would agree with this. The 1D seems to have been a major leap in the right direction, and if you say its a better camera I'm happy having you do the research for us... as you've done with so many cameras. At the end of the day, I'd always look at your opinion first before making a new purchase.

Yes, criticism of the attached video may be premature. If its not representative of the 1D in all its glory, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, you've made a great career for yourself on EOSHD and as a cinematographer. You're a Pro. You don't need "paid clients" to be a Pro... being a Pro is about making the field of expertise your profession. So I wouldn't dispute your credibility on that front.

Now heres where I disagree. The "consumerist mindset" you ironically criticize, is really defined by this site. Best you claim it and own it. You have owned, bought and sold cameras and lenses to the value of thousands and thousands of pounds. More than 90% of posters here would ever dream to. That's a huge luxury. The majority of people whether amateur or Pro cannot afford to swap systems so flippantly. As soon as a new flavor of the month camera arrives on the market, to pack up and sell all your Sony gear to go for the latest Canon models is out of question for many of us who are in fact satisified with our set ups. The post comes as a bit temperamental... especially after having criticized Canon and having sung praises to Sony for so long.  Maybe there's a little childlike envy that our neighbour received the latest, better remote control car for Christmas... while we're still playing with last years model. 

At the end of the day, it's your opinion. People can take it or leave it. But its the fact that your opinion IS in fact respected, that makes the flippant consumerist "selling all my brand X gear to buy brand Y gear" attitude so controversial. You're probably correct with your conclusions... but in the way you wrote the article, I don't see how you can be surprised in how a polarizing post as this one has had, well a polarizing effect.

12 hours ago, Richard Bugg said:

I'm not sure that wether or not someone commercialises their work is particularly relevant, if that's what you meant. I have seen low quality output from people who charge for what they do, high quality output from people who do not, and a lot of stuff in between. So I'm not sure that commercialising your work is a necessary pre-condition for being able to express an opinion. Nor is it necessarily a good indicator of quality. Hence, not particularly relevant.

 

 

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft.

For me the biggest issue I have with the kind of cameras I can afford is rolling shutter. Out of camera color, dynamic range, 4K is generally not an issue for me ... GH4, A7s or Canon Mark iii... I'm happy with all of the results I get. I've said it many times before... and I'll say it again. My talent has not caught up with available and affordable technology yet... so you won't hear complaints from me. 

For hobbyists to be able to easily afford a $6000 camera is a bit of a slap in the face to pros who are producing work on lesser cameras without complaining. Not calling Andrew a hobbyist by any mean, because he has done paid gigs and EOSHD has become his profession... so there is tremendous talent and time spent on his part. But the article is either a bit click bait or bipolar for my liking...

Am I correct to assume that those with A7s's are not selling them and holding off on the a6300?

Its that time of the year (every few years actually) that I upgrade my camera. Considering either used a7s, a6300 or a7sii - a7sii ticks all the boxes but the price is just a bit too much. So I suppose a useful time to have a few options...

http://***URL not allowed***/rolling-shutter-sony-a7s-vs-arri-amira-canon-c300-5d-mark-iii-1dc-panasonic-gh4/

Really? 

 

His piece, especially the first half of it makes no logic sense. It makes him sound like yet another narrow-sighted gadget nerd. I agree with him about two pretty obvious things, though, that the piece is only his opinion, and that the A7s and himself aren't a good match. 

I don't think this is fair in the slightest. He gave very fair reasons as to what he didn't like about the A7s. Imagine if we have to start every post with a disclaimer like:

"Please note: This is just my opinion, I prefer not to generalize, everything is relative"

Obviously its just his opinion. But it's the opinion of a video professional that may or may not balance the enthusiasm shown by other video professionals. I see no lack of logic or "narrow sighted gadget nerd" tone in the post Eric did. I don't think thats called for. It was just some valid points for those who may be in his boat.

I'm a huge fan of the new A7s. will most likely buy it, and although not all of the "problems" mentioned are as important to me, Eric's review still made a load of sense to me.

If people are buying a product based on a single person's perspective and then pissed after the original reviewer changed their mind thus infuriating the buyer of the said product, the buyer should see mental help ASAP. 

 

 

I enjoying asking questions, getting responses, and taking a long time to decide.  But if I went out and bought an a7s based on Andrew's video and commentary alongside whatever Philip Bloom says, and realize my 5d3 was a better choice for me due to aesthetics in the video I would not be pissed at them and use it as a learning experience.

 

Some of you give too much credit to individuals, it is scary.  Then again this is how masses follow religion :)

I like these comments very much Jason. I've been eagerly awaiting this review - and as soon as the price drops a bit, I'll probably get the A7s.

The suggestion of Andrew toning down enthusiasm and being more tactful to camera owners of other brands, is a bit overly emotional to say the least. The truth is that I certainly don't have the best camera available and value the enthusiasm shown for the A7s as I do the honest criticism Eric showed.

Andrews post is a personal account of his attitude to the camera, that is coupled with some advice to those who may need to deal with the required grading and it's woes. Andrew prefers full frame - others are perfectly satisfied with four thirds. Toning down his writing style to cater for Buyers remorse is definitely not what I'd want to see on here. It is probably only felt by those who keep their cameras in glass cabinets, as we very well know the next version of the A7s will be a greater improvement yet.

And as far as "trashing" other cameras. I think if you actually use your camera and are happy with it's performance, it shouldn't make a difference to you at all. I don't think 5D Mark 3 owners need to panic at all - whether the A7s is better or not.

Keep it up Andrew. I love the energy you put into your reviews.

overrated camera without internal 4k recording

thats a little premature...

I really dont see these images as cinematic.

I think we're back in the "how to grade h264 to look like cinema" discussion again.

This blog convinced me that shooting 2x anamorphic raw in 4:3 ratio with my 5d3 was "the shit" and i still believe it,

Honest question: Why should I consider all this new buzz?

Detail? i can see its there, but is only noticeable when you do a 300% crop,

Dont get me wrong, i embrace 4k, but at the cost of going back to a lousy codec and poor bit depth... nope, ill pass.

I think some peoples eyes must be far more critical to image quality than mine, because the image honestly looks fantastic to me. I wouldn't accept any image straight out of the camera without applying grading and a bit of cinema convert film emulation. Add some older lenses to reduce a bit of sharpness where there is too much clinical detail. But saying that, what you get straight out of the camera with just a little grading looks spectacular.

But hey, it seems as if I might just be a bit easier to please. 

 

Hi Andrew and folks,

 

Be great if you could check out my music, did this a few years back but the genre to label it with still eludes me. My apologies in advance if self-recommendation is not allowed. Thanks for listening  :)

 

http://poplin.bandcamp.com/

 

Absolutely love your music!!! Gives the feel of a very Basia/bossa nova sound... would definitely like to work with you on future projects. You've got a huge new fan here, would love it if you got in touch with me.

Beautiful music... I absolutely loved that track. This new vimeo music legislation could be great opportunity for some up and coming artist who are very worthy of exposure. Kudos to EOSHD for creating the EOSHD Music Challenge. A brilliant, engaging and empowering idea. Well done Andrew - bringing the community of creatives together on this forum is very much to be admired.

The resolution is fantastic. I'm still waiting to see what the A7s shows us, but the GH4 shows that it is absolutely "cinematic" enough for any pro to shoot a top notch commercial, music video or even feature. The technology is absolutely there at an affordable price. Whether it be the A7s, Gh4 or something else... very much looking forward to a new camera purchase in a few months... 

Way too much aggression in this thread.

Another saying hits the nail on the head: Action speaks louder than words. There are hundreds of fantastic, affordable cameras, cinematic lenses asf., but no one generates content? Why?

A lot of people are creating amazing content. There are more indie movies and documentaries made by people currently, who surely would not have entered the industry 20 years ago. Not fair to say that nobody generates content. A mere search on vimeo will provide many examples of shorts and even features in production.

Normally hobbyists are more interested in family clips, holidays etc while the more ambitious do focus on narrative. Storytelling is definitely happening, just maybe not promoted enough in threads. I second the idea to push a concept/ storytelling critique or collaborations section. Merely by critiquing videos or short movies, there can be a lot more insight into tecniques of editing etc.

A thread idea could perhaps be for filmmakers to upload unedited footage with the option of users to have a go at editing and adding sound/score for a multitude of approaches. Family video footage could very easily be a horror or a tearjerker depending on execution.

Not into the body shape being bigger or a Â£3500 price tag. That would 100% convince me to go with the GH4.

New ISO tests:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-real-sony-a7s-high-iso-test/

Portugal? Acho que não.

I meant focus on shooting, rather than focus on which camera is best. I certainly wouldn't try persuade him to give up film, more the opposite.

I'm pleased you took my message as I intended it. I didn't want to come across combative at all, thats not my intention.

Ive mentioned before that really most Micro 43rd, APSC mirrorless/DSLRs can do the job. Some might be better than others according to the user. Its relative. But I tell you this, I would be delighted to have a 5D. My only problem with it is the size (both for traveling and as it may draw more attention to me in more dangerous countries). But for you, I say get to know your camera like the back of your hand. By the time you've improved, maybe they bring out the Canon 5D mark iiii - in which case you still have your lenses and have learned the system.

I disagree on your understanding of and obsession with the filmic look and I think its crazy to chase after a "perfect camera" that you feel will get you closer to that vision rather than focus on your skills. Camera bodies are almost disposable. Invest in lenses, but most of all invest in your own skill set.

Jason, I'm not trying to pick on you here... but for a few years now you've posted here on EOSHD, dvxuser, cinema 5d and I don't know where else purely on one subject matter... and that has been an absolutely obsessive compulsive whirlwind of posts on which camera to get and which is most "filmic". This has gone on for years now.

You bought the 60D, was too soft.. wanted the GH3, it was too much like "video", bought the 5D, and have made endless posts commenting on how the 5D with raw blows the socks off everything out there. Am I right in saying that you never actually even tried 5d raw? Then you say the GH4 is too much like video and much prefer the 5D image... but you're now wanting to sell the 5D to buy something else? This is absolutely crazy. You're a novice with an ultra expensive toy, who just isn't satisfied with image quality.

If you were spending endless hours filming and doing tests and actually using your camera, then at least there would be some reason to the madness. But the only video you've uploaded is a handheld point and shoot clip of the 5D that shows no understanding of filming or photography. You've been too busy obsessing with which is the best camera to get. The truth is that no matter the camera you buy, your videos will look horrible. Why? Because all of your energy is focussed purely on comparison without actually shooting or trying things for yourself. You're just judging the uploads of others.

Myself and many others have been very tactful in telling you how to get your "film look", but you insist on believing otherwise. Are your friends not tired of seeing the endless camera comparisons you're showing them. Don't they ever ask to see some work you've done? Stop stating with such confidence how things are, and which camera produces the better image. Start being less opinionated on both cameras and the "hollywood look" as you've referred to it as - and start actually learning some real technique from this forum. You have a great camera. Stop wasting your time, read the manual and start using it already. This forum has a wealth of knowledge that no film school could offer. Use it. And please stop wasting your money on endless camera body upgrades. The A7s won't be perfect either, no camera ever will.

I'm sorry if this has come across aggressively, but just look over the last couple of years of posts you've made reiterating the same obsession, without having actually gotten your hands dirty. Please, for your own sake start focussing on something else. ( i.e: focus on shooting rather than which camera is best )

The shot of the dinner/buffet @12600 iso looks nothing special, looks like typical Fullframe performance. They removed the raws so I can't really check.

Except it was a pitch dark room to begin with.

Edit: After downloading the images I think its a weird testing setup and definitely nothing clean at 12800 ISO's. Left scratching my head a bit at why be secretive and then put these kind of shots out in the first place. I'm left agreeing with you Auracaria.

Shot with the Canon 50mm 0.95 at crazy ISO's... don't see how you would consider the photos to be bad.

Saying that, very weird choice of video samples so far. I'd prefer see less "see in the dark" and more clean at high ISO shots. Alos note, original vimeo video is actually at 720p.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/exclusive-first-full-size-sony-a7s-images-inlcuding-40-000-iso/

I wish those kids in the beginning caught up with those hipsters and shaved their beards.  :D

Hey Jonatan. Firstly, love the piece you shot. Was really beautifully executed. What you say about a focus on the technical area of filmmaking in this site, rather than the emotional aspect - you're correct. But I think you'll notice a common trend on many of the short vids we see as being very void of storyline, which doesn't push us as much as possible. I also agree with you Christina about the overuse of shooting wide open. 

I think there should be maybe an area of the site devoted to short screenplay writers partnering up with eager filmmakers to create some more compelling collaborations. Jonatan, was the video your concept or where you just the DOP.

yes matt i do. no its not something that just came up in my mind, check the work of lazlo covacs and zsigmond vilmos two of the best DPs still around ,check the work of gregg toland, probably the best cinematographer ever, he is the contrary of shallow depth of field,  noted for his amazing ability to create extreme depth.(citizen cane)

it takes some extra talent to keep everything in focus,and keep it interesting, and no anamorphic is not just to preserve resolution, its an artistic choice, that needs alot of creative talent and expertise to pull through..you have a huge canvas and it needs to be perfect.

shallow dof, is a gimmick that we use to cover up our mistakes (me included) and make it look "cinematic", but wasnt covacs "easy rider" cinematic enough?

Though I get what you're saying, As per your example, I don't think anyone in there right mind would shoot a sprawling desert landscape with razor thin DOF wide open. You want to see that beautiful location. Those shots required all to be in focus, but many shots don't. Its a matter of both style choice, mood, directing and subject. All these tools need to be used within a narrative... most of the tests we see aren't a part of any storyline, and are more just stylistic tests.

One topic that would be great given the recent resurge of "videoish vs filmish" would be taking stills from actual movies and finding out or guessing the lens, aperture, asa, pushing, film,lighting,etc...

 

The next step would be trying to copy the shot (not exactly, just the general set up) with the cameras and lenses you own, and trying to color correct to give it the same density.

 

this blog is a great way to start (the site is a little bit slow)

http://evanerichards.com/

I absolutely love that idea. The amount of interaction and group learning would be incredible.