Andrew Benton

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

5 days is nothing. Anyone can wait. Wait for what? An announcement or some prototype presentation for a release in 6 months? For a much different color science than Fuji? It will be hard to not resist to this 10-bit Fuji then, though : -) 

Ever since the Gh5 was announced I was ready to go for it, I got it about a month after release... then half a year later the GH5s shows up, wish I waited a bit more!
So even if the new Panny FF is announced to be released in the near future I would very much rather wait and see if the "S" variant will show up not long after.

But we don't know if the rumored specs are true or what external recording has to offer yet, and if it is indeed priced at or over 3k then there plenty of cameras competing now.

On 2018/2/13 at 2:41 PM, leeys said:

I'm just curious how you managed to miss so many shots; my experience for situations using AF-S is that the Panasonics are very good. I used a GH3 for a couple of events (not my type of photography even) and it acquitted itself very well.

Me too, I'm curious as to how it missed in situations where it shouldn't; subjects lit by spotlight, in broad daylight, not even moving for that matter. I too have used the GH3 and still use the GH4 extensively and I haven't experienced what I did with the GH5. GH4 just snaps on to where I want to focus in photo or video mode as it should, I have lots of nice and sharp action shots, some of my all time favorite photos were taken with that camera. So naturally I assumed I would get the same performance or better with the GH5 but I'm left being more cautious on shoots now. Using lenses such as the 12-35, 35-100 and 75mm 1.8, either the AF was completely worthless and won't even let me get to take the shot, or it would just be inaccurate and focus slightly forward or behind, so for a while I was thinking those lenses were actually not very sharp wide open, or I thought it was something to do with the GH5's sensor design, as when I go to see GH4 shots the lenses were definitely sharp enough.

15 hours ago, Kisaha said:

In the end, I thought we all here agree that anyone can use whatever for his own pleasure and work. I do not understand what is so bad about a GH5, while a T3i is so special.

I didn't say the GH5 was bad, it's just not as great for still photography, what is there not to understand in the listed issues I had with it?
My very first wedding I shot was with a T1i and although I got the job done with it there were drawbacks, I later got a 5DIII and it served all my photography needs perfectly. One can very well build a photography career from using a GH5, but it just didn't suite my personal needs in the event photography setting. I still got nearly 2000 usable photos, but I also had many missed shots, that's not acceptable to me.

But I still LOVE the GH5 for video, and that's what most other people talk about here, NOT about it's photography side, I was disappointed in the camera not living up to its potential as a true hybrid camera that can do both photography and video well (don't we all want the perfect hybrid). We're all free to use what we want, you can go ahead and use an iPhone for photo/video work and if you get the job done then great!

21 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

This happens a lot to me. Reviewing some old clip and thinking "wow, what camera was this?". Its so often something like a GH3 or T3i.
They have mojo.

This week I was shooting stills on a midrange DSLR which has been universally damed as a one of the "worst" video cameras out there.
My expectations was so low that I didn't even try it for days. Now I have uploaded a youtube video shot on it. It looks great and no one has said anything. 

I firmly believe that when we don't "look" for flaws or know what gear was used, we would very often be surprised at what they still can achieve.

Yes, stills have looked great for 100 years. Its about the tool at hand. And for me the GH5 doesn't cut it. 
I sometimes say, "I rather have a picture of Elvis than of the door he walked through (after fiddling with a camera not to my liking)". 

Regarding video I also believe its more than good enough. I could shoot on a t3i for life. It looks just as good as anything, if one works within the limitations.
But just like with stills there can always be development to eliminate such limitations.

I agree there, I often tell people who are interested in a "good camera" or who want a DSLR to just get a used one from several years ago, digital stills quality for me has been good enough since around 2009, and most improvements only matter to professionals or people really wanting to get the cutting edge. 
There are older videos I worked on that I sometimes look at after a while and be surprised at the kind of shots I got using older cameras that to today's standards "suck", while of course there are also just as many shots that I used to think looked great but now don't hold up at all....

But yes, beyond image quality and features it's usability and reliability, and turns out for me the GH5 isn't the right tool either, it is just not a capable stills camera. I shot a wedding a couple weeks ago with it because I needed to get video as well. I love the ergonomics, touch screen, joystick and custom buttons, the menus and viewfinder and options, but the number of missed shots, or how often under artificial lighting colors skin tones were ruined and unrecoverable, where as I could get more pleasing tones out of my 5DIII and my assistant's A7II. And the GH5's AF just couldn't keep up, the thing missed completely at the most inexplicable moments even with native lenses, in broad daylight on contrasty subjects it would hunt, eye focus "locks on" to the subject but turns out it went somewhere else completely when I review the shots. I ended up using my 5DIII more and so I ended up switching back and forth between the two cameras, something I wanted to avoid doing...

On 2018/2/11 at 2:15 AM, mkabi said:

Canon 5D mark 2 - had only 12 min recording limit.... remember that?

It only had 1080p at 8 bit 4:2:0 too

Recently I was reviewing some old footage to be used in a project, and there were these shots filmed with the 5DII that were absolutely gorgeous!
Compared to all the features, codecs and capabilities of modern cameras the 5DII is terribly limited, but there's just something about that camera's image that feels so great, reminds me how big of a deal DSLR video was when this camera came out.

8 hours ago, DPC said:

The benefit to Canon of leak like this is that makes anyone thinking of switching brands think twice. A rig like that suggests that cutting edge stabilisation may not be a key feature of the new camera (if that's what this is).

So true, just TODAY I was seriously wondering if Canon would ever announce a Mk IV as I am looking over at Panasonic and Sony, what a coincidence!!
I mean, if that actually is the Mk IV, and really, even if it is I still doubt they would provide anything that could beat the hot competition now... it will be expensive on release, and by that time the current cameras in the spotlight will be cheaper too, I can already get an A7s on the used market for cheaper than a Mk III used as well here. Only if you are stuck with fancy Canon glass is it worth to wait a little while longer.
 

My first go-pro bricked the first shot I took with it (lame) --so I sent it back and never followed up with replacing it.  However, I'll be getting this guy for the specific reason that having a 4K cam to fly in a cheap DJI will be invaluable for certain productions.

My Hero3 black bricked right away too, though apparently in my case just fiddling with the settings, pulling the card/battery in and out fixed it. But recently had some broken video clips, recoverable but frame rate halved and macro blocking everywhere.
And along with short battery life + battery leakage I wonder how this camera became such a hit with professionals that complain about every imperfection a real studio cam has... image quality is good, lightweight and the case protects the cam from anything but man, internal reliability a little?

why every time there's something wrong in a camera the wedding market should embrace it? We are all fools? We all do only tripod shots of embalmed people? In my experience weddings are much more animated than that and rolling shutter is a serious issue.

Ha, come to Japan, the wedding video monopoly hires videographers that setup a fancy cam on a tripod and just record, may go around stuffing the camera in people's faces and ask for a message to the couple over the shoulder, that's about it. Nothing fancy, nothing nice, simple edits and with no taste for color or getting a nice feel, just boring and uninspired... but oh boy does the addition of a videographer cost like crazy for what people get~

I've already seen three A7/Rs at used shops and makes me wonder if too many people have gone with their conclusion that "it's the answer" and being greatly disappointed upon receiving and using it a little. Or, more likely, just the usual sudden-urge purchase by someone who listened to the salesman and they're chant on how it's the highest quality mirrorless around, and the user realizing they can't figure out how to take the best advantage out of a camera (which tends to mean plenty of good deals on the used market for pro equipment in Japan, so many people just buy and try to sell right away).

Would have been quite funny if Upstream Color was nominated.

Yeah it would have been, because the Oscars after all is just a big Celeb-fest of everyone patting each other for a job well done of being ridiculously rich and famous. It's all just one big political and marketing jumble....

As for the REDs, the last film I remember was Pacific Rim... well, not really a great film, and Amazing Spider-man was RED as well right?
What stood out for both of those movies was how video-like and digital they looked, nothing cinematic to the picture and the colors were garbage. I'm guessing as with the discussion in some comments as well, that the Arris have that film feel, that creamy image everyone wants

So I can expect to read plenty of "XX company didn't include h.265 and it's been this long, still using h.264 the industry is going nowhere video shooters are in peril!!" from next year, because I have a feeling that it will take a while for any consumer cameras to include it... since the majority of users think h.264 footage looks great, it's the pros and anyone doing half-serious editing/grading that want the change.
I was hoping from the initial news that this might just be a simple yet effective firmware update that can do this... agh, if only it were that easy, at least the 5D mark3 shoots RAW?

Perhaps the Df just came up as an idea 4 years ago, but was quickly abandoned as "rubbish" and only recently, say beginning of this year, they got back to concept after finally recognizing a market for one... and well, kind of like the Leica strategy, charging you more for less. Now there's no video (no live view as well right?) and it costs more than the D800, an arguably superior camera.

So much for Nikon's supposed "we're here for the videographers" with the D800 video "Joyride" which nearly convinced me to go Nikon... now they don't even offer video on their latest camera! When of course, Canon hasn't done much more themselves, the 70D has the new on-sensor AF to help out, but the only real progress that has taken place over the last 4 years of HDSLR video is indeed with Hackers, the 5DII or any of the rebels wouldn't have gotten any more interest/use without Magic Lantern, and perhaps the GH3 wouldn't exist the way it does now with the array of video oriented controls and codecs if it weren't for the community of videographers that began idolizing the hacked GH2 and it's video splendor. Again, now with RAW enabled 5D3 and 7D things have shifted once more, and quite a lot, but I have to wonder how this article or even a lot of the other recent ones would have been written in a world without 5D3 RAW. Pretty much BM and Kine would be the only budget-friendly players in that field. I guess, aside from the possible increase in resolution for 4K support, seeing RAW in any DSLR natively isn't happening, what if the next 5DIV or 7DII would be built to work against ML and not allow RAW?? As more people get used to shooting in that, would anyone even consider abandoning it for a camera not capable?
If of course, the codecs and bit rate are great and the resulting image quality and low light performance and unmatched... but it's hard to see that happening from Canon

Oh BTW, I find that asking for an HDSLR and ditching the Still capability a joke. SO if we are to take Video , and no still, then why the hell do we need the SLR part. The cam need to operate in the mirror up and live view mode anyway. And that is another thing about all these. it can go so over the top that we forget some finer points. Video capability in a large sensor body simply demand the form factor of a mirrorless. DSLR of all sorts just happen to have that as bonus add on, but ultimately the SLR form factor is a still photography specific feature. Unless some one happen to re-introduce the old rotating shutter and prism viewer of the old film cine days ( kind of hard to do if needing that to run 60P though and probably will be too big and cumbersome for something like a FF sensor )

 

Instead , I was wondering, if Sony had something different to come off from the A7/A7r. well clearly not all of us need the F55, but a beefed up A7 that can deliver 4K RAW as a hybrid platform would certain made the market happy and likely able to get some business too. 

I agree that getting a DSLR and using it soley for video is ridiculous... which, when I first got my Rebel for video purposes I decided it'd be great to get into photography seriously as well. And well now I'm making good money with portraiture, event and wedding photography.
So for people like me, HDSLR is king, a 5D3 now does awesome video and is just as awesome with photos, best of both worlds in one package~

Yeah, right when Sony comes out with (finally) a mirrorless FF camera instead of just Leica... is this Nikon's "response"?
Though I would have been all into this camera maybe 2 years ago, it's still too fat, with too much grip and way too many
buttons for a retro camera design, and no video + insane price = haha you're joking right?

I thought as technology improved aren't costs supposed to drop? Affordable FF cameras such as the 6D and D600 showed up and well, they're not the greatest but manufacturers are trying hard to not allow that price to drop to the point where everyone can afford FF it seems...

Otherwise, those saying "who cares about video on a stills camera" get over yourself, ever since the D90 and 5DII that argument holds no ground what-so-evah! Today, it's natural to expect a camera to take video as well, why not, if I'm out and about for photos and there's something I really want to get some footage of, something that stills just won't do justice to, then do I whip out my phone to do it??
Majority of users prefer their smartphone because they can instantly share the footage to everyone, no one wants to bother with the ever so complicated post editing and encoding.... but of course, that's where the art is, in taking time and effort to making something, and if that's in practice then a smartphone won't do any justice. Today, a camera is a multi-functional tool, there is no such term as a "stills camera", maybe "stills oriented camera" for the overall purpose and design, and there will always be a differentiation between tools with purpose for video or photography, but it doesn't make sense anymore to be able to just take still photographs with a digital camera.

Let's put it this way, if there was some way, however it may have been, for film cameras such as an FM2 to shoot motion pictures as well, would engineers back then have foregone that opportunity? Considering, if it worked of course, but really, isn't it amazing to be able to both now? Getting rid of video will do nothing to improve photos, if you don't mind getting rid of live view by changing the sensor design to something that will improve IQ, well, that isn't happening either, it'd be a pain to not have the ability now that we are all so used to it being available when, and maybe if we need it. 
Heck, even the new Leica M has video!! Doesn't that go against Leica tradition? Well, even they have a sensible side that understands what is desired in today's cameras
 

1. Does GoPro fit into this?  Remember around NAB time, it seemed like everyone just assumed they'd usher in a new hobbyist cinema camera revolution, but nothing came of it.  Their GoPro Studio software gives them potential "easier to use" conversion workflow for CineForm.  Look at the trouble Dave Dugdale had getting up to speed with raw video on the BMPCC and you'll see why Canon can't "sell" raw video to its hobbyist userbase with the current shitty software landscape.

 

2. Has Canon even acknowledged Magic Lantern exists?  What do they, at a corporate level, think of it?  Getting one of their reps to talk about it might be a great scoop.

That is a good point about software limitations, also hardware with the lack of affordable and up to spec recorders/cards around (it'd be hard to get a good response for suggesting the super expensive Sandisk products, or even the cheap but potentially unreliable Komputerbay cards), and people in general just not having the fast guts in their computers to speak RAW without stuttering. Marketing RAW does seem like a difficult, if not bad decision to even the high end of consumers and enthusiasts. But of course, just make a ProRes shooting camera!! Blackmagic, thankfully, have pushed for that and have very good looking results. And GoPro is still cool and all but what I feel is if there isn't something real special to use it for then it's no more special then any other camera (with a fixed fisheye). All the uber-cool sports and action shots have been made that are hard to top, and looking at similar Contour, and how they just shut their doors and seemingly went out of business... though, it's hard to tell what's going on, maybe they're still alive I dunno.

As for the topic here, cheapo DSLRs have no future because they've been the same circa 2009, right at the HDDSLR video revolution, everyone bought D90s and soon after even more T2is, and what's this? The sensor in the rebels are still the same? Nothing has really improved over the T2i expect a heftier price tag each time? Well no wonder I keep coming across users that are still stuck with that camera, they still use the kit lens and most haven't quite improved in their photo/video taking but even they understand there's no upgrade in that camera class, with higher end cameras being "unjustifiably expensive". And a lot of people have gotten their DSLR they wanted, whether brand new with a deal, or a recent-enough used model. There's no need to upgrade because to most people all DSLRs are just as good, more expensive ones are naturally "better" but only for "professionals", and easy to use lower models serve the purpose of being of good enough quality and also cool enough to let all of your neighbors know you're some pro photog.

Though, lately all I see for lower end digital are Mirrorless ones from Oly or Panny, plenty of Oly DSLRs too, rarely a cheap Canikon DSLR now

Err, roughly 300 shots of battery life??
Even with an extra battery in the add-on grip, a 5DIII can double that.
Also a GH3 goes longer than the A7R too, though at least the batteries aren't expensive but you'd be carrying lots of them, and of course, it hurts recording time and the likelihood of having to dismount the body from a rig each time...
But dunno, I didn't see how long it holds while taking video

So Andrew, you watch much Ghost in the Shell  :)

I recall from the last post about the adapter that it worked on the 5D3 with Canon's 50mm correct? Will there be an EOSkit?

The best advantage I found with the x100s is the leaf shutter to be able to synch with strobes at higher speeds, my 5D maxes out at 200 so shooting in direct sunlight has been a nightmare for me on many occasions. This thing earned its keep over the last couple of jobs, I do a lot of prospectus shoots for schools and colleges having the options going from the 5D to the x100s really made a difference this season since using it as a second cam over my 7D. Sorry, tried attaching the images from flickr but didn't work here are three used by clients:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeacus/9518594348/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeacus/9670838745/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeacus/9921683836/

1/1000 sync AND a built in ND filter, doesn't make much sense to not have this on me...

I wish Fujifilm would name itself Fuji once and for all. I love the Speed dial on top and aperture on the lens, like a real Manual Camera should.

If they do so, it's not happening until they stop selling film, and as the news comes about how the new "Kodak" will continue to sell film to consumers, how much longer will this all last? (higher pricing for film will be the best bet to killing it off though, which is what Fuji's doing)

But, with the likes of the X100s especially, getting great colors straight out of the camera is around again, and so nice~
I'm jealous of my friend, whom I suggested he get an X100, and as we go out shooting, me with the 5DII, image quality, noise performance and "look" are on par or better than my 5D. And I stopped nagging him to shoot RAW because the jpegs shot in Velvia look awesome, often better than what I can achieve in PP with my 5DIIs RAW files...
well, time to upgrade to the 5DIII I guess (stuff about raw video too)

I do not understand your obsession with video on stills cameras. Video is an added feature on a stills camera so how can you compare them to a BMCC that is made purely for video? Stills cameras will always be stills cameras, the video will get better as the tech gets cheaper but it will never be the main focus. We are a small market and will be treated as such.

Not everyone wants to spend, or can even afford a true dedicated video system. This has been the major reason for people getting into the DSLR "revolution", as it became possible to get beautiful high res video (at the time, of course) for under $2grand and impress everyone with low light capability, DoF control and get ultra wide shots and etc. The argument of "still cameras are for photos and video for video" is the central problem here, get rid of that outdated mindset, and think that a camera is capable of doing either in great quality; that is a wonderful thing. In this day and age why does one have to carry a video AND stills camera? The 5DIII certainly can go either way, and more so the likes of the Panny GH3.

Now, there are other factors such as ergonomics, a DSLR is just better for stills because of it can held for it, while video camera have developed with totally different form factors. And getting into AF, heat dispersion, recordable media and all sorts of things. But, unless you need specific functions and features that only a dedicated video camera has for recording/editing then why not be able to fall back to a much more affordable sills camera capable of taking video, and why does the one basic thing to look for, image quality, need to suffer? From there; different FPS, recording codecs and manual controls are added and that seals it well, a few basic steps covered and a budget video shoot with light weight gear~
 

Here we go again! The labs are telling us we do and don't like!

 

I remember this before with stereoscopic 3D. Cos everyone's got a 3D TV now haven't they. :huh: :blink:  And everyone loved how high frame rates made the hobbit look cheap... 

 

*facepalm*

Ah, well that movie was already cheapy to begin with, no?
They could only do a third of the story  :rolleyes:

Full HD TVs are finally mainstream with the last couple of years and yet so little is indeed broadcasted at 1080, or typical upscaling from 720. Much of the television here in Japan is like that and NHK, who pride themselves with their "Hi-Vision" cameras and beautiful footage haven't been broadcasting beyond 720 for years. So really, current viewing resolution is high enough for the majority, there's just no demand for what no one sees the need for. But people do like the high frame rate stuff, the super refresh rate screens that do such amazing wonders as make sports events feel clinically sharp and even ruin cinema by making a blockbuster look as though it were a budget drama. 
Those high refresh rate screens are unbearable to watch, but it does look a lot more crisp, and that's what people are apparently wanting.
 

I wonder who did the coloring of Apple's new ads. All the segments with the Apple representants (Jonathan Ive, Dan Riccio etc.) has horrible skin color:

 

Oh man, too much Magenta maybe? The hair looks like there's tinting as well. And the lighting on them is a little flat... I thought Apple, with the history of Final Cut and Color would be more conscious about that.... oh right, this is for the iPhone 5c, c for cheap, and thus the commercial for it doesn't deserve as much work. Cinematography for the phones are good though

A small body with big lenses, now that's... less usable. Though, I'd love an RX1 for travel, as 35mm is my fav FL I can stick with, but I'm one of those guys that can't live without an ultra wide and a fast telephoto in my work bag, and then stick on a flash, now that compact FF MILC just turned it's ugly head. And of course, current price point, battery life (how many extras are needed?) and wrist pain from a 70-200, which unless Sony figures out how to make a compact one for FF... and the RX1 has disappointing video yeah? What incentive does Sony have in that department? If they really do something, like have ML like usability and recording, then yes Canon can be beat

Ahh, another example of something beautiful that thousands of users could have benefited from... 4 years ago...
ML deserves so much love