QuickHitRecord

Surely the GH6/5/5ii would be close to the top of that list, right?

For reference, here are both cameras. Same lens and same camera settings. The C70, shooting Canon Raw Lite, is first and the R1MX is second. They weren't hard to match. It's so close that I wonder why I am bothering with the cumbersome R1MX. But once I see the moving images, I'm reminded of why I go through the trouble.

I own a C70 for my full-time freelance business and a Red One MX for personal projects. The C70 creates a more technically perfect image and is the perfect camera for most of my clients, but I find the image from the R1MX to be more evocative. I haven't felt the same emotional response to any other Red camera, otherwise I probably would have picked up an Epic-X. I can't believe how inexpensively they can be had at this point. Also, the C70 finally has a really fine, random grain structure. But amazingly, the R1MX's is still tighter and better looking. A while back, I did a shoot with the R1MX, my C200 (pre-C70), and BMPCC 6K. Using Cinematch and a little tweaking, they all looked remarkably close, though the BlackMagic was sharper. One more thing that may be of interest. In the Digital Bolex D16 episode of the Abandoned Camera series on YouTube, Joel Rubinstein mentioned designing their camera with multiple circuit boards instead of a single board (like in the BMPCC and probably most other mirrorless offerings) so that the image data would not be compromised by crossing other board components more than necessary. I don't know much about camera engineering, but this was really interesting to me because the R1MX is built this way too.

I'm going to guess that it's a GH6s (or other GH6 variant) with an optional Lidar attachment that may not be compatible with earlier models.

I made a living shooting with two C100s and an Atomos Ninja Blade for my first five years as a freelancer. It's a nice image but I never used CLog because the limited codec, even coming from the Atomos, didn't hold up to grading very well and I often ended up with noisy footage. Also, I found that it was pretty difficult to monitor and expose properly; the newer Canon Cinema cameras let you apply a very accurate LUT on the LCD that is actually great to work with. I always shot in WideDR. Lastly, it's a bit of a noisy image compared to the newer cameras (or even my EOS-R from 2018), even at the base ISO of 850. All that being said, when exposed properly I thought that the images were really nice and good enough for professional use. They had a more neutral, less saturated look than what I am getting from my C70. Form factor was great and built-in NDs are so freeing. They will change the way you shoot. And the DPAF, even though it's only available in the center of the frame (I set a button so that I could toggle it on and off with ease), was surprisingly solid. I'd say it was even more reliable than what I have on the C70. One more thing to consider. These cameras have internal batteries that can only be changed at a Canon service center, which isn't cheap. I started hearing about other shooters having these batteries finally die on them, so they would have to re-enter all of their settings every time they turned on the camera. This hastened the departure of these two fine cameras from my collection!

*16MM film stocks. There is no such thing as an S16 film stock.

For the sake of discussion, here's a little comparison from a while back between all of the smaller cameras I own (the SD9 is a CCD camcorder): ^FZ47 ^EOS-R ^GH1 ^G85 ^SD9 The two CCD cameras have that kind of muted, undersaturated skintone that I associate with some of the older S16 film stocks (though I really don't like the SD9 as much -- which is just as well, because you can't turn the auto ISO off while shooting).

Great clip! It had a real look to it. It did not scream "digital" to me at all. Blue on blue was surreal and cool. The FZ-47 has pretty wierd and not necessarily realistic color rendering that sometimes reminds me of a chemical process. I love mine. We're probably the only two FZ-47 video shooters on the internet in 2022. I would argue that despite its limitations (29.97fps, 1/2.3" sensor, slow lens, no HDMI) it's the FZ-47. There aren't many other contenders that have full manual control: Lumix LX5 (faster lens, but 720P) Lumix FZ35 (same as FZ47, but 720P only) Canon Powershot S95/G12 (720P, manual control available if hacked with CDHK; 24fps available) If there are any others, I would love to know about them. But I don't think there are. I've been looking for years. ; )

I just want to say that this is the first footage I've seen in ages that makes me want to brush the dust off of my anamorphic lens for the first time in seven years and take it out for a spin. And I have never seen anything from a GH5 that I've liked so much -- I am usually put off by footage from that camera. Really lovely. Thanks for sharing.

I had such high hopes for the BM Production when I bought one in 2019. I even went the extra mile and paid for the integrated speed booster. I did one shoot with the camera and found it to be the single most frustrating camera I have ever worked with. Ugly fixed pattern noise everywhere. I did this test comparing it to the BMMCC and sold it shortly afterwards: ^BMPC ^BMMCC

It was devastating to read your post and I am so sorry that this has happened. Your sister sounds like a remarkable person. Wishing you and your family strength and resilience as you navigate this extremely difficult time.

@PannySVHS Yes, that was the single focus Iscomorphot 8 1.5x. I also had the fixed-focus Isco Anamorphot 8 1.5x at one point (I have some footage from that lens that starts at 00:43). It's amazing to me how much money I spent on anamorphic lenses and adapters during the early 2010s. I could not imagine doing that now!

I had one a long time ago. I did a test with it that was actually featured in a blog post here, though I can't find the link. I found this lens to be terribly soft until f5.6 or so. Mine had the crazy "cleaning marks" on the front element, and I actually spent way too much money sending it off to have the front element resurfaced (and recoated? I can't remember). Which did not help at all. I did some tests with it after I got it back and sold it shortly afterwards.

I've been thinking about this since my first test with RIFE. The problem is that none of the old CCD cameras I would want to do this with can capture more than about 5fps.

Oddly, I found myself drawn to the imperfections of the GH4 in the test, which has never stood out to me at all. Interesting.

The Meikes look very good. I even considered buying a set for my work camera before I sent with the Sigma Art primes. But I am definitely looking for something cheap and cheerful for my old GH1.

I've never owned any of these lenses but I am curious about building a cheap, 3-lens set for MFT (something like a 18/25/50). This would be for casual shooting on my GH1. What are people's experiences with these lenses? Are there any good ones (or lenses to avoid)? At this low price point, I can deal with some softness, CA, and weak corners, but some of these lenses seem to display terrible field curvature issues, so any lens suffering from that is a no-go for me.

@Matt Kieley The shot of the woman on the couch at 1:07 in the first video is really nice. And it looks like there may have been a couple of other shots from the same film as well. Do you recall what lens you were using? The GH1 is plenty for storytelling. Dynamic range is a challenge but I find that I prefer the look to most modern cameras. Here's a test (not by me) that did a good job of showing the why the GH2 (with the same sensor as the GH1) creates a much more emotionally resonant image than the GH5. At least to me:

This. It's more satisfying to get a lot out of a little than a little out of a lot. And this applies in a much more profound way when you're just shooting stuff solo, for fun. It becomes, "Look what I was able to capture -- wow!" versus "This is all I was able to do?" Of course, it all changes in the context of a time-sensitive/high pressure paid shoot, when you need all of the help you can get.

I was way off. A testament to modern phones, or possibly how much footage can be disguised if it's softened and grained out. I did notice the IBIS in some of your shots, which lead me towards the GX85 speculation.

Nice work! GX85?

Me, or the OP? I liked his grade too. For mine, it looked terrible OOC -- it always does with this camera. I just tweaked it until I got something I liked. I think I used FilmConvert on this (probably the second Vision3 option). Heavy grain does wonders to cover up an image that's been pushed beyond its comfort zone. And then I think maybe some flicker and film dust over top to help cover it up even more? I'm pretty sure that was it.

@PannySVHS Thanks. This one was one of my favorites too. She wrote the words and I shot the visuals, and then I did a same-day edit -- it never had a chance to overstay its welcome. The FZ-47 isn't equipped with wifi at all. I was able to get into the service menu once in the hopes of switching it over to a 50Hz/PAL camera (currently, it can only record 29.97, but I wasn't successful in doing that either. If there any avid camera hackers here, it would not be difficult to source an FZ47 to experiment with!

Great to see another FZ47 video! I like your treatment of the footage a lot. It looks different than just about everything else (obviously CMOS cameras, but it also stands apart from any of the HVX/ZIU/etc crowd too). Here's an earlier edit without Topaz: The image quality is riddled with problems, but I still find myself drawn to it. I agree with @PannySVHS; the video on this camera would have been a much more compelling feature with a higher bitrate. I wish this camera had been one of the Lumix bodies to be hacked back in the day.

I have control over AF speed with my Canon 24-105mm f4 ii on the C70. Don't know about the first version of the lens though.