Oliver Daniel

I wonder how many people suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Canon Dissaproval Disorder (OCCDD)? 
Symptoms include: not getting over the fact Canon DSLR video is a bag of crap and being unable to get over it. 
Medication includes: Using a Sony mirrorless that isn't as good at color than Canon but has more fabulous features, or becoming bankrupt after purchasing a C line camera and wishing you got an FS7 with lenses instead. 

I wonder how many people suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Canon Dissaproval Disorder (OCCDD)? 
Symptoms include: not getting over the fact Canon DSLR video is a bag of crap and being unable to get over it. 
Medication includes: Using a Sony mirrorless that isn't as good at color than Canon but has more fabulous features, or becoming bankrupt after purchasing a C line camera and wishing you got an FS7 with lenses instead. 

Canon are doing just fine. They don't need to make big, innovative waves year on year as they sell more than anyone else and have a more recognised brand. They are able to wait for the market to move first. 
I still know a lot of people who film on their Canon DSLRs. They rent C300's, to go with the lenses. It's not as if Canon are going downhill, is it? 
Canon are differently innovative. Instead of relying on fabulous specs, they rely on reliability, ease of use and cameras that "just work" and work very well. No dodgy slow menus, poor battery life and unstable firmware. Canon make high quality stuff. 
I don't have any Canon gear. I'd love a C300 MK II but I couldn't justify it. I'd get by just fine with an RX10 II and Sony FS7 rentals. I'd only buy a Canon for stills or to mess with Magic Lantern. Such the quality at lower prices these days, I couldn't care less what Canon are doing, as long as there are options I can afford from other brands. I'm more concerned about my own creativity than curling up in bed having nightmares about Canons so-called lack of innovation. 
 

The pistol grip will likely boom into 2016 with lots of options, so I would actually wait (unless you can afford it). 
Just liek with 4k cameras.....wait a bit for your investment and you will get a superior product for your hard earned cash just months later. (although this can also be considered an eternal matter). I think in the early stages of development, this certainly rings true. 

I've been telling the guys in the studio about this camera. It's a no-brainer for us - quite frankly a steal when you think about the creative options and compact features. 
Thanks for covering the 120fps mode... sounds great.

Yeah I see nothing but great potential in that thing.

​
It's also laughable when people base the performance of a camera on someone else's work. Try them, and then judge! 
From what I have seen though, I think the XC10 is capable of producing lovely footage for the price. 

​
It's also laughable when people base the performance of a camera on someone else's work. Try them, and then judge! 
From what I have seen though, I think the XC10 is capable of producing lovely footage for the price. 

I'm sorry but all the negativity against this camera is starting to become laughable. 

​The issue with using 4k to simulate camera movement is that there is no effect of parallax. I do find it effective as a subtle dolly though. 
Just recently, I shot a video in 1080p with absolutely no consideration for resolution. I "destroyed" the image by cropping in to stupidly low resolutions, made the grade fuzzy and pixelated, blended images over images over images, used "crappy" old lenses to make sure the image wasn't sharp and had loads of flaws...the list goes on. I did this because the project required this style over the full duration of 4mins30secs. If i made it all "perfect" looking... it would of cheapened the video. Yes that's right...it would of cheapened it. This video would of looked like garbage in pristine 4k and 14 stops of dynamic range. 
Next weekend, I'm shooting a high end music video funded by a beer brand on the Sony FS7 at the highest quality the camera can record in. It's got to look classy, modern and sharp. A massive difference to the other project. It would also look like garbage if I did the same principle then above. 
It's awesome that we have these options these days. As with anything, you have got to have your reasons for using the technology - but never let the camera specs dictate your creative output or you have already lost.

Thanks for sharing. 
I think the bulk of that relies on reviewers with a lot of time on their hands/sponsor paid to share their thoughts. A camera company would never go into such detail, as this will highlight weaknesses to potential buyers. The best way with any new technology is to test it yourself and see what works for you. 
I see you mentioned the RX10 II vs the Canon XC10. Many people laughed at the Canon release....although the RX10 II has a far more spectacular looking spec sheet, the image quality looks inferior to that of the XC10 (from what I've seen so far), and that's where the Canon camera has it's value and higher price tag. Still, I'd probs buy the RX10 II because it has features that fit my clients better. 
To be honest, I don't get too worked up about these technical things. I just shoot. No amount of things like shadow noise will prevent that, althought it's useful to know 

Buy a 3-axis gimbal instead.
Getting cheaper and takes about 5 minutes to balance.
It's worth it  

​I shoot music videos every week and know what works for me. (www.videoink.co.uk)
I would highly consider Sony as a camera choice for music videos. Not only do you get S-Log recording, but they are very good at making use of high frame rates (which for music videos is by far the biggest request I get). 
The new Sony RX10 II seems to be a low budget music video makers dream. 4k, 24-200m lens and high frame rates, decent quality up to 240fps. Another camera would be the A7S, as low budget music video swings with low light locations quite often! 
Of course, don't be foolish and forget your lighting requirements. Lighting is far more important than your camera, you have my word!

​I shoot music videos every week and know what works for me. (www.videoink.co.uk)
I would highly consider Sony as a camera choice for music videos. Not only do you get S-Log recording, but they are very good at making use of high frame rates (which for music videos is by far the biggest request I get). 
The new Sony RX10 II seems to be a low budget music video makers dream. 4k, 24-200m lens and high frame rates, decent quality up to 240fps. Another camera would be the A7S, as low budget music video swings with low light locations quite often! 
Of course, don't be foolish and forget your lighting requirements. Lighting is far more important than your camera, you have my word!

I would not go with the NX1 because it's too early to tell how committed Samsung is to cameras and as Oliver says, the public isn't clamoring for 4K.  Face it, if a client wants 4K they probably won't hired a "man and his dog" production company.  My wife gets mad at me when I order the HD version of movies on Amazon demand for $1 extra.  She says she can't tell the difference. Further, RAW based 1080 cameras like the BMPCC crush all 4K 8-bit cameras in color nuance and dynamic range.  Here's a video (I took quick and dirty) with some mixed cameras and you can see what the difference is.  I overexposed the a7 footage a bit, which means I'm stuck with it.  The BMPCC not only has better colors against the a7 (even if perfectly exposed) but it has, to me, a film look.  
 
I would not get the 5D3 because, as hell of a camera it is, and it is, it is built as a through-the-lens camera which makes video more cumbersome than the A7, where you have an EVF and can see zebras, focus peaking, etc.  Indeed, if you're going to shoot with the glass you have I believe an EVF camera is a must.
A bad thing for me, good thing for you, is that Sony's model updates and driving the prices down on their earlier cameras.  You should consider an a7 too because you may get one for a song.  However, the large pixel count of the a7 means it is susceptible to moire so you want to accept that trade-off.  If you like a really crisp image, then the panasonic m43rds, like FuzzyNormal says, deliver the goods.  For me, the a7 is the perfect utility camera, great stills and video, takes any lens.
Also, I can't keep someone focused on a full-frame at wide apertures.  For video, I agree with Fuzzy that you're going to end up shooting not lower than 5.8 anyway.  The sony autofocus on the A6000, does work reasonably well at 1.8 (effective 2.8 say) however.
Again, as Oliver implied, business isn't about getting the camera/equipment you want, it's about getting the camera the client wants (indirectly).  As for an investment for 3 years... I live one shot at a time
Photos of event https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157654514582616  I used an A7 with 55/1.8, a6000 with 10-18, Canon 50D with Nikon 50mm

I'm seeing something different with XC10 footage (not this example). It has a superior mojo that other cameras don't have in this price range. 
Shame about the lens, but the camera is better than everyone thinks and is worth the money. 

Every camera is as relevant as you make it. 

I was passing through town today, went into the camera shop and played with the original RX10. Loved it, especially the lens. 
Then I spoke to a friend who does admin for Playstation Network. He said he could get me a 39% discount on the A7R II and Sony RX10 II, but not the FS7!
Worst distraction of daily thoughts ever. 

​I would actually test the camera before buying it. 
Also there is a certain Canon 5D Mk IV announcement expected this year. Not expecting much from it, but who knows eh?  

Thanks all for the comments - because of you guys I fixed up some of the grain issues!  And now it's a staff pick!
Composer is Avo Part.
He or she is very talented.

Agree totally Ed (or Banned User). 
We had a meeting based on gear today. Overall we strongly agreed that lighting was our key investment. The idea was to make most of our lights operational by battery power, using some Lupolux LED flood/spotlights, Scorpion Lights and good ol' reflectors. The purpose of this is so we can light anywhere we want, not lose precious time over spiderwebs of cables and boost creative possibilities. Technology is here and we can do it. If I didn't think it would boost creativity I wouldn't bother. 
The Blackmagic URSA Mini cropped up too. The Director mentioned he wants to reduce the "video look" to minimal amounts in all videos we produce, and was really enthusiastic about "organic film" looks. He said "Clients want that edgy, grounded vibe these days... I want to soak our style in pure cinema aesthetics going forward". Of course, the URSA Mini (on paper) would be an ideal tool to get closer to this creative decision. It would be a lot harder to make that possible on a GH3/4. Not impossible, but much more challenging. But we will still try and accomplish this even if the Blackmagic Ursa Mini didn't exist and we downgraded to 550ds. Sod moire, might as well give it a go!
I'm an ideas man really. I pickup whatever tool I have in the bag and do my absolute best with it. I'm also patient with technology. Certainly not a GAS patient. But if I see something that I really think will compliment the style and ideas of future projects (like the BM Ursa Mini and battery powered lights) I'll click pre-order and live on cheap instant noodles for a month or two. 
 

Right on Oliver.
I use the Red Dragon and Alexa a lot - and it's really no different than any other camera ever made.  Expose right, get good frames, use good lighting - and it will look good.  It's strengths are more minor- highlight handling, skintone rendition, post workflow, frames per second capability, audio, timecode, etc - but renting a 80k camera isn't immediately going to make your stuff that much better than figuring out how to work best with a camera system and try to overcome its flaws.
About to release a film shot on the Red One MX that through coloring no one will notice if it was shot on the red dragon or alexa or anything - it's just a matter of really figuring out how to color and light and compose - that's the biggest thing.  
 
With that said, it has nice motion, something you can't get with the rolling shutter of the nx1 unless you experiment with shooting in 1080p mode - and so its important to learn the ins and outs of any camera.  I wouldn't shoot a film on the nx1 unless I want to be quick and sneaky - but I would use it for crash cam shots and I have tons of times. 
That's the importance of knowing where a tool fits into your arsenal.
Like I just bought a DJI Phantom 3 which I'll use on jobs where we can't afford a real drone rig.  Because I know its strengths and weaknesses.  That's all it comes down to.
Now onto obsessing over the next new camera - it's not that useful - because until the camera comes out - who cares?  Unless you are saving up for the next camera - then I guess it matters.  But there are so many other things to buy that won't go bad after 5 years like a tripod or c stands or some lights or a lens.  And gear fetishing is a long, endless game - time that could be better spent on other things.
But as long as you know that forums like this are mostly for procrastination then you're good.

​This isn't the same or even a similar argument. Kubrick used super fast lenses to deliver on a creative idea on how he wanted to stage the scene. The question is more like:

Kubrick - 'If I shoot Fuji stock over Kodak, will anything change?'

Forum user - 'Do tests man, but remember that in the grand scheme of things, which stock you use isn't the biggest concern'

Kubrick - 'Alright, well at least I know if they don't have enough Fuji stock for my film, I can use some Kodak stock and it won't matter so much'
 

In fact the debate/chat these days is more like this:
 
Filmmaker: 'If I use Kodak Vision2 stock instead of Vision3, am I going to be missing anything..?'

Forum user 1: 'Man, Vision2 is so old now, you can't even get grain structure anywhere near that of Vision3. I made the switch to Vision3 not long ago and I would never go back to Vision2'
Forum user 2: 'I don't like the colors in Vision3, they're so different to Vision2. I know Vision3 supposedly gives you more dynamic range and better grain structure, but I like the colors so much better in Vision2. I know some people can work with Vision3, but I think for the majority of people, Vision3 is way too hard to get good colors out of'
Forum user 3: What happened to Fuji? I used to shoot Fuji stock all the time, but they haven't brought out a stock I've liked in so long. I'm using Vision3, but would happily jump back to Fuji stock if they ever came out with anything I was interested in using.
Forum user 4: 'I don't understand the fuss - all the stocks mentioned give you great images - just go out and shoot on what's easiest and cheapest for you to afford. No-one in the cinema is going to be nitpicking whether or not you used Vision2 or Vision3. Yes, there are differences between them, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal
Filmmaker: 'I'm so confused'

This isn't intended as a "Content Is King" debate. I'm more interested in how purchasing a camera affects a persons creative decisions. It affects mine certainly. 
If anything has to be said though, it's better to have an idea and no camera, than actually have a camera with no idea at all. 

This isn't intended as a "Content Is King" debate. I'm more interested in how purchasing a camera affects a persons creative decisions. It affects mine certainly. 
If anything has to be said though, it's better to have an idea and no camera, than actually have a camera with no idea at all.