QuickHitRecord

I own two C70s, a Red One MX, and even a 5D iii that also runs ML with more stability and at higher resolutions. I keep asking myself why I even care about this cheap little camera that I have never shot an actual project with, and why I haven't sold it yet. On the surface, it's because I think that once the ML firmware gets straightened out, the EOS-M has the potential to be one of the few raw-capturing cameras that can work with 16mm lenses. But it's dawned on me that it's not so much the camera as it is the community collaboration around this camera.

The "movement" (mostly happening in the FB group) is reminiscent of the early days of DSLR and mirrorless video, when people were all trying to squeeze every inch of quality out of these cameras that were never intended for cinematography. Nowadays, every camera has great IQ and a pleothera of custom-fitted accessories and perfected workflows. But 10-15 years ago, there were no dedicated cages or practical battery solutions and the cameras were full of quirks. You had to lean on the community for workarounds if you wanted to have a chance of creating anything worthwhile with these difficult cameras. Despite all of the hurdles, some people were able to do it and it always felt like a team victory.

I think what's going on with the EOS-M reflects the evolving hacks for the GH1 and GH2 in lot of ways. There is no dedicated cage for this camera either. Plug it into a battery and you have to find a place to hide the unruly adapter cable. Moire and aliasing abound in the lower resolutions. Rolling shutter is horrendous in the higher ones. The ergonomics make the GH cameras look like a dream. And it just doesn't make sense to throw a lot of money at a defunct $150 camera, which really ups the ante for DIY solutions. People share their rigging experiments freely (with lots of 3D printed parts), as well as their footage since the software is constantly being tweaked and improved.

That group is experimenting, tinkering, and collaborating like it's 2011. It's the fun side of camera geekery all over again.

I dusted off my EOS-M today and loaded the new ML. It's feeling a lot more user-friendly than before. 2.8K with accurate monitor display? Heck yes. This is potentially an acceptable level of 'frustrating' and I might actually shoot something with it.

The funding goal was just reached. Thanks to everyone who donated!

That's big news. I don't use my EOS-M often, but this would go a long way toward making it a lot more workable. Thanks for sharing. Donated!

Two Canon C70s for work, a Lumix FZ47 for casual fun, and a Sony A350 for photos.

I have an extravagant cache of inexpensive older digital cameras that I am NOT using and should probably sell.

@PannySVHSSometimes, I just want to make something that looks... messy. This was my first 15fps edit ever. It's not a frame rate I've ever been drawn to (including when shooting with my Super 8mm camera) but I figured, why not? The sensor size makes it uniquely qualified for trying to achieve this aesthetic.

I've also been trying to see if I can get a somewhat S16-like image out of this camera using Topaz Video AI among other things. But I'm just not there yet.

What I really appreciate about this camera is the combination the CCD sensor combined with pretty decent optical image stabilization. I can handhold a shot at longer focal lengths, all in a tiny and inconspicuous package. It opens up some unique possibilities that I am don't think would be possible with a rolling shutter.

I find that this kind of experimentation is the antidote to yet another perfect, pristine product shoot or talking head. I am so tired of looking at that stuff all day, but it pays the bills.

I realized recently that the FZ47 has a sensor that is almost the exact same width as Super 8mm film. I put a pistol grip on mine and used the tiny EVF (I did cheat and use the LCD a few times) and long zoom lens for a very Super 8-esque shooting experience. Next time I'll shoot in 640x480 instead of 1080P so that I can capture the correct aspect ratio in-camera. As a bonus, the 29.97fps looks very natural on a 15fps timeline. And of course I always love working with that global shutter.

I think I get where you are coming from. I never made the switch to mirrorless for photos. I tried taking photos with my EOS-R, G85, and even my GH1 and I'm just not into it. I find that my trusty old 5Diii is still more satisfying to use. I even picked up an Olympus e500 and Sony A350 because they are so inexpensive right now. They are also a lot of fun and offer great character. I have particularly been enjoying the A350 at ISO 1600:

I for one would be more interested in learning more about your adventures in still photography. With the exception of one regular client, I've managed to keep photography as strictly a hobby. Compared to a medium like video, still photography levels the playing field for capturing something interesting.

Since there are already three versions of the BMPCC 6K, my guess is a BMPCC 4K Pro sporting a new m4/3 sensor, built-in NDs, and a tiltable screen.

17 minutes ago, Chrille said:

I would love to hear some additional oppinions on the Canon C200. Does anybody have any experience?

This was my main work camera for two years. I struggled with it. Coming from the C100, I thought that it would be a home run but I found myself missing the C100 a lot. The C100 was easier to handhold, had more reliable DPAF (even though it was center-weighted), and monitoring wasn't as confusing.

I was unimpressed with the H264 and only used CRL, recorded to a Solidpod that I mounted externally. Other C200 shooters have told me that they are okay with the noise levels, but to me the CRL footage was noisier than I was comfortable for client work at ISO 400 or above. After almost every shoot I would run NeatVideo on all of my footage, apply a LUT (unless they wanted CLOG2), and export ProRes files before handing it off to my clients. The resulting footage was really nice, but it took a lot to get there.

The day that I shipped the C200 out, I breathed a sigh of relief. I now have a C70, which addresses all of my problems with the C200.

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.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I wonder which might be the "best" of these CCD cameras that are video capable? 

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. ; )

On 10/27/2022 at 11:59 AM, hyalinejim said:

 

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.