Jump to content

jasonmillard81

Members
  • Posts

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jasonmillard81

  1. I purchased a GH4 a few years back under the guidance and direction of some helpful members here. I have like the camera in many aspects and learned that I am probably more implicitly biased to video and photo look of FF cameras. I am a complete amateur/hobbyist but appreciate the technical side of the artwork and the discussions that go on here. I am going to sell my GH4 soon and want to replace it. What I do: 1. Personal photography/video for myself/family/friends 2. Mini video documentaries for my history and special education students where I may interview people etc. What I liked about the GH4: *Superior sharpness/clarity compared to my 5d MK iii I sold to purchase the GH4 What I dislike about the GH4: *#1 is definitely ISO performance, I understand that I can purchase neat video or get LED lights but again this is not my profession although I'd like the ability to deliver as high quality content I can doing this by myself *I miss the FF look and bokeh Options: A7R II (seems to be a better camera than a7S II for 50/50 video and stills) - I like the MP count since I'd like to print and frame photos but dislike Sony colors with a passion 5D MK IV - I think the video is fairly comparable to the 1DX II but not as clear/sharp as I'd like even at 4K C100 MK II + 5D MK II (use ML raw at times for video) - I think I like this combo the best since it would provide great video/audio on the c100 II and good photos with the 5d I really love Canon colors and have yet to see too many images that do a good enough job. I like that the C100 II has built in ND filters and I can mount my Rode NTG 2 on it for good audio. I wish there was a hybrid DSLR that could be both photo/video but it seems like I am leaning toward separate tools for separate functions. I love the video look on this Netflix documentary: I believe this was mostly shot on a Canon C300 Mark II Questions: Which of the above choices do you think would fit my needs the best? Are there any other options/combos that may be better suited and I should look into?
  2. Cool, which scenes/shots were which cameras?
  3. So let me know redirect my original question to this scenario: If you're assessing an investment into equipment and have a choice between the trade off of 4k or 1080p but the 4K is a DSLR and the 1080p is a Cinema camera what would be your metrics in deciding where to go? I.E. a Canon 1DX Mark II or a Canon C100 Mark II? Is the 4K worth giving up the benefits of the c100 or is the image from the c100 good enough to forego the DSLR 4K image?
  4. The idea that 4K "can" be great dependent upon how the rest of image quality performs (i.e. DR, highlight roll-off, colors etc.) is an important one. I probably won't have a 4K TV for years, nor will the people that are my audience (my students). However 4K with great colors and DR down-res to 1080P would be more desirable to 1080P with similar qualities and characteristics. I strongly disagree that 4K is always better than 1080, again I'd prefer to see/use a c100 than a gh4/nx1/a7s. But when you ask about an fs7, 1dx II vs. a c100/c300 then you may have a more appropriate discussion about 4K vs. 1080. Context is key. When the latter discussion is had, I'm particular to canon colors over sony and within canon's lineup it's a toss up between 1080 and 4K. I guess this discussion has demonstrated to me that 4K isn't necessary but is desirable with the right context (DR, etc.) and that investing in quality 1080 isn't a bad move if you're not being mandated by work to have a 4K workflow. Thanks!
  5. Good points for 4K I like the analysis. Do do you think on a tv the average person would prefer the nx1 or a7s image versus the image from a c100 ? my own inquiry into this was the c100 was chosen 100% of the time. A few said of the 4K cameras I mentioned "wow that's sharp, pretty cool" but the color rendition of c100 was desired above even the fs5/fs7 image. So if 4K seems to be desirable for more than image does than then mean a 1dxii is more desirable than a c100 in the same price point? just curious, I'm learning here
  6. I'm not sure if the conversation has gotten far from the original post but interesting points here. As an amateur, I jumped off the 5d3 bandwagon just to ride the GH4 one. After spending too many hours reading and watching for "sharpness" I have come to realize I, and all of my layman friends, prefer color, cadence, and highlight roll-off to sharpness. In an unscientific test a group of documentary and movie fan friends of mine chose canon over Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony when comparing sub $10K cameras. I did this independent of each other as to avoid group-think or "mob mentality" and without question: color, is what was the number one factor for them. I think paralysis by analysis and spec-sheet intellectual meandering gets away from what matters to the unbiased brain processing images. Again, in the video I posted the fact of the matter is world renowned DP's try to soften the image and focus on lighting, motion, and color to get an image that appeals to the audience. So the original question: is 4K necessary if most DP's and audiences are choosing HD images that demonstrate superior color to 4K sharpness? I'll weigh-in and say that unless 4K is demanded it is NOT needed at all and color space is where its at when looking at an image. While many Sony Fx cameras may boast specs superior to canons, the color depth of canon at 8-bit looks better to me and others. I may bypass 4K until a 4K camera combines color with sharpness at an image and price that is reasonable. The NX/A7S/GH series need too much to become appealing. I'll pass for now.
  7. The following conversation gave me pause and I am hoping to get a few questions answered by more knowledgeable individuals: One of the topics discussed was how these DPs feel that are sort of forced to use digital and many long for the days of film. In addition they seem to acknowledge the necessity to keep up with the 4K, 6K, and 8K race but that sometimes the preferable image is of a much lower resolution and they spend time trying to achieve that by softening the image up etc. as they (maybe Deakins) feel that the audience finds the optimal image to not be so "realistic". I'm curious on what everyone's opinions are. If one isn't doing paid work and 4K+ aren't demanded then you still get away with investing in a new product that is 1080P if the image is currently seen as not only acceptable but desirable?
  8. Thanks for the feedback and lively discussion. There are many posts that contradict each other but I personally see the perspective and intellect behind their contradictions. As someone not doing this for a living but more of an interest and amazement at what can be done with such tools I think a few qualifiers are in order. I certainly concede that based on what I'm reading and the responses here, buying a cinema camera to cover both photo and video probably hasn't reached a point of feasibility for me Ina price range that I can live with. Yet, in the next 1-5 years the possibility of getting 12+mp stills with enough data for minor color corrections etc. may allow the average consumer to purchase a cinema camera that can cover 90% of video and stills. In fact some of you may be able to argue that's possible now. If I absolutely want stills to be the focus il sure I can use my GH4 as that tool if I decided to save up for a cinema camera. One me thing that I can't get out of my head is the potential for picking up a used Canon 1DC. It seems to be the most balanced of all options for my needs. But so many options exist it makes it difficult. Ive gone from a 60D to a 5d3 to a GH4 and feel that I've learned a few things: 1. While enough detail needs to be present in an image, the most detailed image isn't always the best. 2. Color reproduction is more important to my eye and those of most of the people I know than detailed images. 3. How a camera handles roll-off contributes more to a pleasing look than how sharp it is. 4. FF/S35 seem to be a sweeter spot for appealing images than mFt. Many mFt users spend time buying add-one to achieve that look done naturally by larger sensors. 5. Being a run and gun person who isn't looking to/able to control light situations should really consider how a camera performs at higher ISO ranges. If I had taken the time to learn my 5d3, I may have kept it and not gotten my gh4 which introduces noise patterns even in sunny situations at times. Being able to shoot at 3200 and above cleanly is very important. So, it appears that alongside a well detailed image that can shoot at higher ISOs, handle roll off, produce high quality color, and perform well in video and allow for usable stills is the next upgrade I seek. Where does this leave me? 1DC 1DXII a7sii fs5 ??? or wait until see what comes this September?
  9. I liked the 1dc move the best when I read about it and saw a ton of footage. Andrew mentioned it could be be had for around $4K on eBay but the latest I saw was $8K, not sure why the 100% discrepancy. With it being that high the FS5/FS7 option seemed like a viable option. I think that I am ready to upgrade in the next year or so and thinking both aesthetically, practically, and financially I wonder if an all-in-one solution is the way to go... the appeal of the a7sII > gh4 is less aesthetic and more ISO practicality since I don't and most likely won't have a lighting system ever for photo/video in the foreseeable future...the appeal of the 1dc/fs5/c300 is the visual appeal of the video image > gh4/a7sII/5d3. I can rationalize the purchase of the 1dc/fs5/c300 class of camera if I save up knowing it will replace both stills/video. I don't print anything and if I did it wouldn't be that large. I could also still go for the higher class camera and maybe pick-up an inexpensive/used full-frame DSLR for stills. Hmm..
  10. Sorry for a potentially naive question. I have been filming/taking photos with my GH4 for about 2 years. I have 2 native lenses and an adapter for another. While I was considering looking for longer lenses to increase compression and achieve a different look I began reading about grabbing 4K stills from video and printing flawless photos in A3 size and even larger with slow degradation of quality. I film for my students (I teach special educaiton, ESL, and history) and take video/photos for personal fun and creative means and not for professional use/production. My questions is this: If the FS5 and FS7 and other cameras shoot 4k with images that subjectively are better than the GH/A7/NX series does it make sense to stop investing in the MFT system I currently have and save up for a bit more expensive video body that records 4K? My thoughts were as follows: Why spend money on a DSLR that is primarily for photo with video add-ons and shortcomings, when you can spend a bit more and get a cinema quality video camera that allows for 4K frame grabs. I then thought about, well what if I want to not take video primarily but photo at a family party etc. I could have people pose, record video, focus on my subjects, and have them pose from 1-3 seconds. The upside of this seems to be if someone does something funny/noteworthy outside of the standard photo pose I could go back into the 4K video and get a frame grab that typically would have been missed with a DSLR? This sounds too obvious to be this good of an idea. Please feel feel to knock me down a bit and provide me with some clarity. The amount of noise and difficulty of achieving the highest quality video out of the GH4 internally recording has been a bit frustrating (again i'm not a pro but I do care about image quality pretty highly). Thanks all!
  11. deezid that looks on point! Nice work! any background to the gear?
  12. Thanks for the reply! I understand where you're coming from and they are good suggestions. While I am highly appreciative, from an artistic standpoint, the work that many here do for a living, I am not in the industry. I am a public school teacher who enjoys the creative side of filming and may want to use it to enhance education (documentary for current events related to history). Therefore, time is not as open and hands-on would be preferable. Thanks!
  13. If this isn't a good venue for a question like this. Is anyone familiar with any good forums or websites, etc. that would be helpful. While I could purchase a course online or a book, it is much easier to learn hands on. I have to believe there are highly skilled and helpful people in the NYC/NY region willing to help. Thanks in advance
  14. Hey all, I am hoping to find somebody in the New York City Long Island region that is familiar with documentary filmmaking, using audio, and in particular for the GH4. I would like to maybe possibly pay someone to help me take what I have learned so far and improve upon basic areas such as composition settings based on lighting and other conditions. The quality and videos that you can see on Vimeo or YouTube vary greatly even when everything is held constant such as camera, lenses, etc. I'd love to learn a bit more about using an editing software (FCPX vs Premiere vs Davinci, as well as Neat Video, LUTS and about workflow), and also purchasing maybe lenses as well as editing grading and using certain features please feel free to message me here or DM. thanks!
  15. What vintage lens do you suggest? I just sold the 5d3 and may have cash for 1 more lense. I have the GH4 and a Tamron 17-50. I am going to pick up the speedbooster Sunday in NYC and a fast SDXC 64gb card. I read so much on the Sigma 18-35...I'm wondering if I sell the Tamron and purchase or just keep the Tamron and get another prime for the GH4? What vintage lenses would you guys suggest or current for the speedbooster? I was also thinking about maybe the 20m 1.7 from Lumix for the gh4 for video and photo(autofocus).... Thanks all!
  16. Surprised to see the GH4 being referred to as video again...I thought there was a great discussion noting that it is simply not true?
  17. To be honest much of what I think is cinematic comes down to the following: 1. How the movements of the camera align with the subject(s) of the frame 2. The competence of the creator in terms of their color grading and editing 3. Lens choices (anamorphic is king/queen) 4. Camera body ( some do better jobs in terms of color and detail/ISO etc.)
  18. Thanks for the information! But I am confused if you know enough to give advice on how to make filmic images then it would stand that you, too, can make such images. It is a bit contradictory and I am not sure where to follow. those videos are amazing so what is so hard to do to recreate in your own environments? Lastly, Which camera system did you go with that you felt made it easier to achieve such cinematic looks and do you have footage we could see of the other system to compare? Thanks!
  19. Matt yes... and even 1080p looks like garbage on YouTube...is the resolution of the iMac 27" higher than 1080p maybe? It makes it hard to decipher which 'image' is nice when assessing camera bodies, lenses, speedbooster, etc.
  20. Nice! Some great points. I'd like to add I am acomplete amateur/enthusiast and never do paid work. If I ever find myself being asked to do so I would reconsider certain things but then again the work would pay for new equipment. I do video for myself and my students (mini-docs, narrative, instructional, travel, family events) I love the detail of the GH4 and the colors of Canon...there is nothing inherent in FF video that appeals to me more than MFT...infact with a speedbooster you get closer to film with a MFT than FF. Photography I have seen excellent prints on a MFT...I am shooting for myself and friends, and family. I think 16MP printout is enough to do some decently sized wall photos for decoration etc.
  21. Not as impressed as I would have liked consider the price tag, thought it is aimed at stills photographers. Sidebar: anyone know why almost all HD videos on youtube and especially vimeo look like 480p on my 27" iMac that i just bought even when at 1440p?
  22. Very interesting almost contradictory hahaha :) thanks thought! So then having read all that I may be leaning toward the following line of thought: 1. purchase a speedbooster for $600 and try out my lenses 2. purchase a tamron 24-70 for my "workhorse" equivalent to a 12-35 used for $900 3. Eventually get a native lense or two for AF photography immediate cost = $1,500 Or 1. sell glass and recoup about $650 and buy a Lumix 12-35 used total cost = $400 Or 1a. sell glass and rcoup about $650 and buy a speedbooster + tamron 24-70 used total cost = $1,000 2. Wait until I figure out what I would need next in terms of photography/video for stills and lowlight Thoughts?
  23. Greetings, I am looking for some banter on the topic of using native m43 lenses vs. a SpeedBooster + lenses Maybe you could provide both technical and anecdotal feedback on the following situations: 1. Video work - Narrative 2. Video work - Documentary 3. Photography In each domain you would discuss the Pros and Cons of native m43 lenses vs. SpeedBooster + lenses I just got my GH4 and thinking about either getting a speed booster and working with my current line of lenses: -Tamron 17-50 2.8 -Canon 50 1.8 -Samyang 85 1.4 OR Sell them all and use the cash to buy native m43 lenses. A third option would be to keep them and slowly add native lenses. I personally do both photography and video and selling my 5d3 to pay for new lenses or speed booster. Thanks in advance!
  24. Gentleman...got the GH4 today...now need lens advice. 1. I own Samyang 85mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron ASPC 17-50 2.8 2. Should I get a SpeedBooster for these (will the speed booster work for both FF and ASPC Canon lenses?) 3. Should I get 12-35 Lumix 4. Other options?
  25. Any thoughts on getting this look out of a GH4?
×
×
  • Create New...