jessekorgemaa

What is happening here? Recent articles include how much you love the 1dxii and how the Leica SL is your logical upgrade path, and now you write some sort of attempt at satire against high end cinema? This was very uncomfortable to read. 

7 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Not for many more years. 

Canon made great camera until the 5D2-3 

their APSC line is garbage.

the success of canon today is because of their lenses. But this will change. Sony is better and better. If canon does not wake up they will eventually die

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, and I do largely agree with you....

But people have been saying this since the 5d3 came out and not much has changed. Reception to the 5d3 was no better than what the internet says of the 5div, in fact probably worse. Yet that camera now is viewed as coming from Canon's "glory days" same thing with the C300, it was mocked upon launch next to the red scarlet, but we all know how that turned out.

I really had high hopes for the M5, and i'm actually still going to pick one up. (no eta on shipments to canada yet)
It will likely just be a little family/ walk around camera. 

Andrew what were your thoughts on the touchscreen/ touch and drag focus. I know other companies have implemented it but it seems canon may have finally gotten it right. The touch screen on the a6500 has had the opposite reviews so far.

2 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 -

 

Hey Andrew,

I agree with almost everything written in this article, however the examples I find a little strange. I believe this is a custom profile that you created for that canon but its so hard to compare when the black levels are sitting so high and the skin seems blown out (at least the red channel is incredibly close) I understand what you mean though that she was in the light of the setting sun so it should have that warmth, but I would guess 9/10 people would choose that sony image as the Canon looks a little early days instagram filter like.

Also quick note, I don't think it's fair to say the majority of American's voted for trump because of how rich he was. I'm sure he got some votes that way but  that is a painful oversimplification of what happened. 

​It will depend what time of shooting you do. If ML RAW for doing a lot of colour correction appeals to you than the 5d2 with AA filter and ML like Andrew suggested. If extreme low light and fiddle free camera opperating is whats important to you than the 6d would likely be a better choice.

I know some people have stated this already, but you should probably update that the C100 mkII does in fact shoot 1080 60p in both AVCHD and the new MP4 codec.

I love my C100 but I was actually surprised you put it on the list! Not because it doesn't deserve to be there I just didn't think it was your kind of camera.  You are right though, its main "feature" so to speak is that its a workhorse of a camera that just works and looks great.

More lies...

I don't understand why you hate this so much?

Except that a better lens pretty much strictly dominates an inferior lens.

 

You can get very cheap, very good lenses. In fact some that will dominate the 12-35 with their character.

What the 12-35 does do however, is a variety of good shots, quickly. Without having to swap tracks... I mean lenses.

Except that a better lens pretty much strictly dominates an inferior lens. Whereas for 95% of shots, a $300 tripod will look as good or better than the results i get from using this.  And in 80% the 5% of cases where it doesn't, my $500 glidecam will look just as good.

 

It's a gadget. It isn't even new tech.  Furthermore, this whole thing has been a publicity stunt, so I'm inclined to shit-talk it until further notice.

You clearly do not work in the industry at all eh? Have you seen movies before? Been on a film set?

I hate to break it to you but it isn't as simple as a guy a gh2 and a tripod.

I also happen to not like the price of the MoVI but they are first to market. At least in a way that proper film sets can use and put real cameras on. That is exciting. Did you see that shot going down the spiral stearcase? You CANT do that with a steadicam/glidecam, it just wouldn't fit. 

What's exciting about this is that it is so incredibly versatile. Have another motion shot on your shot list? You can probably do it with this, you don't need to lay out a track. Every hour on a film set is lots and lots of money. This unit, albeit expensive up front, will save lots of time on film sets. Notice how 99% of the people in the industry who make their living are really excited about this? That's because it is a big deal and not just hype.

$8K on a stabilizer, and $1K on a camera? :blink:

That really doesn't sound that ridiculous. How often do you swap out cameras? Every year or two? How often do you swap out support gear? If your smart very rarely. 

You didn't care that the lens cost more than the camera, same idea just exaggerated. 

Discontinue  C300 and C500.

C500 and C300 was Nuked by F5/55.

REBATCH c500 for c301(haha) and sell it for $10,000....

Make out of the New Canon 7D new Cinema Canon EOS c7DC and sell it for $4,000. make it 4:2:2 and 2k only.

 

p.s. Please Canon send me $10,000 for my advice ;-)

A few things.

Firstly, theres no way canon will discontinue the c300 and c500.

Though you may not realize by reading blogs and forums, the c300 has been an incredible success. Second only to the alexa it is the most rented camera around. You could buy one strictly for renting, and pay it off in a few months. 

Though the c500 confuses me slightly simply because it lost all of the ergonomics of the c300, its barely just out and we have yet to see if it will succeed or not.

I would love a $4000 C DSLR. After getting a c100 my 5d3 footage is just disappointing in comparison. 

For the record, a 24-70 2.8 does not suddenly become a 24-70 1.8. It gives you the same look as a 24-70 2.8 on FF.

So more like 18-50 1.8 or whatever the math would be.

a 50mm does not become a 35mm, it just acts as a 50mm is menat to act.

This is a pretty interesting product though, hopefully they can make more mounts.

We can pretty much leave math out of it and pretend you have FF sensor, much easier. 

I understand wanting the most from what you buy. I want the most from what I buy.

However, as an event photographer/filmmaker the 5dIII are almost everything I could ask for.

I don't want RAW file sizes. I'm not saying that this is everyones needs, but they fit my needs fantastically.

I don't think that Canon forgot about the indie filmmakers (i'm not one) I think they are just marketing elsewhere.

They are a company first and foremost, if there is more money to be made for them by doing it the way they are than thats how they'll do it. Maybe the online community is right and they well be out of business or everyone will boycott them or they will simply have to release something incredible for 300 dollars, and maybe not. Who knows!

But please, you are not suffering. You have a BMCC, you are not suffering.

Andrew, I agree with the idea of the article and I'm sure everyone can agree that having more features for less money would be nice. But to say that the indie filmmakers have to "suffer" is just plain wrong. 

If not having 4k is suffering than your life is far to easy.

As others have mentioned, if you have a story and can't tell it on a 5d/gh2 than you can't tell it with an Alexa, it really is that simple. I've loved my C100 and actually do see it as a resolution increase, but I bought this because its the best event camera on the market. It has NO competition for event filmmaking. Canon can price it whereever they want because it really is that good. 

Same story for the 1DC. Canon is a business and their goal is to make money. Why would they release a product with no competition for what it does and make less money off of it? 

I'd love an honest answer.

I mean no offense, but all of the spots you put under "eoshd remark", those are the tough questions that you should have asked. Rather than slap on some back handed remarks with no option for them to actually answer you.
You asked questions in this article, not tough questions.
Mind you I am not great on my feet either.

[quote author=bellsbells link=topic=596.msg4136#msg4136 date=1334665623]
[quote author=RickToxik link=topic=596.msg4134#msg4134 date=1334665244]
The BM camera outputs in 3 formats RAW DNG (hmmmmore Adobe), DNxHD (Avid) and Prores (FCP).

The automatic modes to correct your footage depends on your software, but I guess someone (maybe Blackmagic) will make a LUT for this camera.  LUTs are files containing a curve that softwares read to balance footage automatically.  I am sure though you will want to try those adjustments yourself, you still have several months to train!
[/quote]

Thanks, that sounds like it would work for me—so you think I might not be crazy to be considering the BM over the 5DIII for a documentary project, knowing very little about pro video and a lot more about old-fashioned photography? Should I be concerned about the smaller sensor in the BM?
[/quote]

I'm sorry but I don't think this looks to be a very good documentary camera. On battery life alone (non exchangeable batteries) this camera will be a pain to use for docs. And then you have the form factor which is far more suited to being rigged out rather than ready to go.
For a doc you really need something versatile and reliable. I actually think that the 5dIII makes a great doc camera. Extremely reliable, easy to use, long record times. And despite sharpness issues the images aesthetic is still rather beautiful.