nathanleebush

Hopefully Canon will react to A7S and GH4 with a 5DC / 4D with 1D C sensor (and image quality) - just not the pro photography features or as high build quality. Ideally it would be more up to date on the 4K side with more space efficient 4K codec than MJPEG. 10bit via HDMI would also be useful.

 

Price no more than $3k.

Dunno. It's Canon we're talking about: the same company that used essentially the same sensor from the t2i to t5i. They have been coasting on brand recognition since the 5D Mark II.

Gaaaagh! So close. If the A7s did 4K internally like the GH4 I'd be emptying my bank account instead of writing this comment.

This is a tough call for us stills and video hybrid shooters. The idea of a small, full frame, low light beast like the A7s is so compelling for stills, but for video, Panasonic is yet again one step ahead of the DSLR pack with the GH4, and we have to wait a generation while everyone catches up. I'm not willing to bring a bulky recorder around with me if I can get 4K in camera on the GH4. Sony was this close to the perfect camera for the moment. Oh well..

Also, still waiting for everyone to catch up to Olympus on IBIS, but that's a vent for another day..

Looks pretty digital to me, though love the dynamic range. But I'll reserve my judgement for the real files. 

It's really important you download the original clip on this one :) Vimeo's compression hides all the noise.

But this is where we run into the impasse. If our web services throttle any gains, what's the point? Just playing devil's advocate here, as obviously the streaming quality will improve shortly when next gen codecs h.265 and vp9 arrive on the scene, making this an exercise in future proofing. And I can see the difference, even in the web clips. I tried watching a mushy music video obviously shot with a 5D or something, and I couldn't even look at it :)

All this stuff about DSLRs being crap ergonomically for video is silly. The EPIC, Alexa, Blackmagic and pretty much everything in between are essentially boxes that are brains designed to be rigged up. The only thing ergonomically designed for video are run and gun small sensor doc cams with IS built in. Large sensor cinema cameras must be rigged up, as must DSLRs. 

Also, the ergonomic ease of changing settings on a DSLR is much more intuitive even when on the rig when compared to the side panel menu you'd find on an Alexa or certainly anything from Blackmagic.

The Canon Cinema EOS series, as much as it pains me to praise them, have to their credit the only cinema cameras designed for run and gun with well placed control dials.

DSLRs have powerful processors on board, and are great hybrid tools for filmmakers, if the companies would just unleash their capabilities. Magic Lantern has shown what DSLRs are actually capable of. 

The annoying part is Nikon, Fujifilm and Olympus don't have any video divisions to protect – a significant advantage over Sony and Canon –so they could clean up by investing in disruptive video specs like Blackmagic have.

I had a similar conversation with an Olympus rep as you had with a Fuji rep, Andrew, who just looked blankly back when I asked how they could continue to ignore 24p. Sony, from the reps I've talked to, seems a bit more receptive and at least understands the problem, but they are not about to step on the toes of the video division. At Photoplus this year the stand hawking the complete $24k 4K FS700 "solution" was 20 feet from the demo area with the $1700 A7. A fitting visual metaphor for the situation! 

Thanks for the (as always) excellent post! How did you apply the noise reduction for the high ISO shot?

Thanks for the test! Your blog is the most vital destination for budget filmmakers on the web, IMO!

I wonder if the people pissed off because of the price drop would also be pissed off if Canon dropped their C cameras to half the price.

Well, 2/3 price. And I imagine any sucker who had already bought the 1D C or C300 would be!

I'm sorry for the butthurt early adopters, and feel their pain, but this is great news for those of us on the fence!

I'm torn now. Don't know whether to cancel my Pocket Camera preorder and just go for this. That cam still has advantages, like portability (huge!), Cinema DNG compressed RAW, active mount and the same dynamic range, plus can take super 16mm glass! Either way, at this price point, you can't lose. Maybe I'll just get both, for the price of a BMCC yesterday :)

It certainly helps clarify the 5D III vs BMCC equation!

Does anyone know what the ideal codec to use with the Cinema Camera in Premiere Pro? Does it handle ProRes as well as Final Cut? I've used BMCC Prores in FCP 7 and it graded beautifully, but I'm wondering if Adobe would lavish it with such attention, given they are pushing Cinema DNG.

Impressive, to be sure, but it kind of looks like existing software solutions to my eye. I suppose it's nice to see it in camera so you can decide if you need to reshoot. Can't wait to see this filter into other cameras.

Just my two cents: roundup posts are not very useful for comment threads because people are all over the place, discussing everything. Why not break this up into four posts so we can talk about what matters (cheaper gyro stabilizers) and not what doesn't (another DOA Canon HDSLR).

That's an interesting one. Very nice bokeh from the samples online. Yet to use a medium format lens with my anamorphics. What film did PTA use it on?

Can you recommend some sites you use to find samples? And any other good forums related to lenses?

Any idea how closely related the more commonly available f/2.8 lens is? http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/35mm/lenses/28mm-f28-smc-a.htm

Hi all, I've been hesitating forever of even thinking about starting the long process of collecting lenses, due to the inertia that the neverending onslaught of new technology brings. There are so many promising directions this whole world could go, from the super-16 BMPC to the full-frame Canon 5D Mark III RAW, so my current thinking is that it's most sensible to go with the largest coverage format (full frame) and collect lenses from there, and then if the market settles anywhere (super 35, full frame, APS-C), you won't have obsolete glass lying around. I'm looking for as many people as possible to poke holes in the intuition or offer different plans as my current one:

I've been thinking lately about collecting Nikon AI-S lenses, since they are the final (and presumably, best?) generation of Nikon manual focus glass.

Some advantages as I see it are:

• adaptibility to the largest range of lens mounts
• long-focus throw
• age-related image character je ne sais quoi
• good build quality
• relatively cheap
• relatively compact
• Nikon quality (perceived? Is Canon just as good/better? Does Canon have an equivalent AI-S-era option that would work on current Canons?)
• Nikon-optimization, as I prefer Nikon for stills work
• Cheap adapters can control aperture, as opposed to Canon mount
• Fast

Some disadvantages that I would imagine:

• Breathing and every other problem inherent in stills-optimized/non-cine lenses
• Difficulty finding cheap super wide options that would translate to normal lenses on much smaller sensors (Super 16, M43, BMCC, 1")
• Futility of collecting for BMPC when you end up settling on a 5DIII and have all these useless super-wides

I'm sure a lot of people on here have thought a lot harder than I have about this quandry, or have skin in the game already, so if anyone has some personal experience or insight on how the filmmaking community is currently addressing this issue, please contribute any and all wisdom! What are general lens collection strategies to maximize utility and minimize cost? Is it presumed that lenses will hold value, so you can just sell them off with minimal long-term losses? Are there lenses that better meet ones needs? Would Canon make more sense, since a follow focus will allow for long focus throws anyway? Are there cheaper options (Contax (Zeiss), for example?)

One caveat:

I shoot stills as well. Is it ridiculous to think that shooting manual focus on all my various stills cameras (NEX-7, GH2, frequent Nikon rentals) is possible, and that I'd need to invest in a second set of AF stills camera (obviously this is a nuanced question, as different photography genres have different needs, but my work does include street photography).

The last JVC product I encountered were VHS tapes my parents used to record TV shows in the 90s.

Your final words sum it up best. It's a shame that a company so disdainful of its own customers gets a lucky break TWICE (first by slapping on video mode to 5D II and reaping enormous, unexpected rewards and now this incredible uncrippling by a open source third party which represents all the opposite values as the company itself).

I find them kind of despicable as a company for their well-documented feature-damping to protect their premium product lines, but I guess I have no choice but to shell out some money, as the early side by sides with BMCC show a higher dynamic range, better high ISO performance and less color noise.

Blackmagic deserves their success for giving the customer what they want and shaking up the entire industry, and I hope they can still reap benefits. I'll keep my pocket camera pre-order, but this pretty much nixes the BM Production Camera for me.

I don't really need 4K, and global shutter would be nice, but not essential, and the fact that this doubles as a highly capable stills camera (though I slightly prefer Nikon for stills, for their sensor tech and ergonomics), puts the icing on the cake.

Each moment I read this article I felt more optimistic about my own future and the future of humanity :)

So is the Leica sensor just substantially different? What explains for the utter lack of video quality from the new M if the same manufacturer created them both?

Is there any evidence that their edge is slipping in sales? Are innovators like Sony (EVF/form factor), Panasonic (featureset), Olympus (IS), being rewarded for their efforts with increased market share?

It appears that the one drawback is more barrel distortion from the wider lens is present on with the Speed Booster. I noticed comparing the two images, while the angle of view and depth of field equivalency was preserved, the image was more warpy/bulbous on the Speed Booster image. Can someone explain the optical/technical reason for this?

So close to the holy grail -- in my mind, a BMCC with M43 active mount and Speed Booster -- but if the images have more barrel distortion that's a major setback for the product, IMO.

Also, can you use the Speed Booster with another adaptor, so you could do Canon mount to Nikon?

To be fair, a lot of the reps at these shows sometimes know less technically than I do about their own cameras, in my experience. So though they are speaking for the company, sometimes they are wrong. It doesn't seem to be the case here, but could explain your 720p on 5DIII anecdote. Sometimes they just don't know. They are reps, not engineers.

Give 'em hell, Andrew! Everybody gets access by toeing the line, so glad to see you asking the tough questions.