IronFilm

jax_rox, how shallow depth of field are we talking about? I often run and gun with F/4 and an APS-C sensor. 

For the most part, give a middle-range client shallow depth of field and they're happy. But there's a reason I stopped doing those sorts of gigs.

-Most viewers ADORE shallow depth of field and the fullframe aesthetic. Just a fact.

Ebrahim: Is the "full frame aesthetic" simply just a shallow depth of field??

RX100, is the only one which is truly pocketable. And that is a big point of difference in my eyes. 

Am curious too as to why zenpmd doesn't like the A7s over the 5Dmk3.... as that is very unusual, because the A7s looks so much better to film with!

I'd just sell both the 5Dmk2 *and* the 7D, while they still have some value to photographers and you can get a decent price for them!

Then pick up an A7s as your A cam, and two Sony A5100 as your two extra B & C cams to cover the extra angles. 

A5100 is the best APS-C hybrid camera on the market, in my eyes (with the possible exception of the NX1 of course). I just picked up one myself, but not only are they the best... they're dirt cheap too!

As for the A7s, I don't need to say anything about it..... everybody knows how good it is!

Do you have a camera right now?

If not, just get one! Any one!

As you need to get learning with it. By the time you're even beginning to scratch the full potential of your camera a much much better one will have come along. 

So get something good, yet cheap, and go with it! Put the extra saved money into say lenses/audio/lighting that you can carry with you over to your next camera (I recommend Nikon F mount, so gives you the most flexibility, no matter what your next camera system is), or simply leave it in the bank. 

I'd recommend the Sony A5100 (they're US$350 currently, crazy good deal!). The A5100 takes all that is good about the A6000 and makes it even cheaper and better (only bummer is the lack of EVF now). 

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/

I picked one up myself for only US$320 from the recent sales. 

I wouldn't get the D5300 when you can get the much cheaper D5200 instead. As you don't need WiFi or 1080p 60fps

How much room do you have? Nikon 50mm f/1.8G or 85mm f/1.8G would be the lenses to check out. But you might not always have enough space to back up to use an 85mm. Plus  you might still need some wide establishing shots?

I'd suggest however instead the Sony A5100, as you say sound is taken care of. 

It is a brilliant camera (like the A6000, but better and cheaper: http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/) that is going for an absolute steal these days! I just picked one up for myself last week. 

And you can pair it with an RJ Lens Turbo for even more shallow DoF and more light:

That website is gone now :-/

Check out the Panasonic DMC-GWC1 Wide Conversion Lens, I have one that I put on my Panasonic 14mm pancake for when I want an ultra small set up on my glidecam (because I too have a Tokina 11-16mm and a focal reducer, but that is one beefy combo!). 

Make a silent film and tell a story where two characters are always in sillohette.

That is a damn interesting idea! I should give it a go. 

This is a very nice looking half cage! Pity I already have a cage :-)

hmcindie, interesting... I shall keep an eye out for this next time I'm reviewing EX1 footage! ;-)

Yet another manufacturer using the micro four thirds mount!

I'm almost starting to lose track of how many camera manufacturers there are now with cameras in the pipeline with a micro four thirds mount! :-D

(Panasonic, Olympus, Kodak, JVC, Blackmagic Design, apertus°, and now.... fps1000 too! And that is just the camera manufacturers, many many more accessories/lenses/etc manufacturers too)

As I've often said m4/3 is the most robust and best camera system, it has so much more support behind it than any other mount.

Because at the time people were used to 35mm adapters on 1/3" sensor cameras to get dof. AND THOSE WERE REALLY SOFT!

 

Softness is good anyways if the comparison is for example the Sony EX1 class cameras. Which are artificially sharp. Softness isn't always bad, I prefer softness to sharpened halos. The only real problem with the APS-C cams was aliasing and moire, not softness.

How are the Sony EX1 cameras artificially sharp, how does that happen?

This is a bit of an old post... but I just felt like I had to reply, as this might be the best comment in reply that I've read on this forum! Well said Matt.

Everyone has a choice - one man wants ease of use, another man wants a particular quality of image (not a "better" one). There is no "better" technology in art! There is only the right tool for the job. Nobody tells me what camera is "best" for the film I want to make. That's up to me, and my film will succeed  or fail on my choices. If we all made exactly the same films, with strict aesthetic criteria, we'd be living in a pretty awful (and dull) society.

 

Try telling any professional painter or art historian that painting - the history of painting - is not hugely driven by technology! Paint is technology just like a camera is! It is a more basic technology, of course - but technology is almost by definition about advancement and increasing sophistication. Take two of the most famous periods in art history - the Renaissance and Impressionism. Both basically began due to advancements in oil paint "technology" - the realism of the Renaissance would not have been possible if it were not for the slow-drying qualities of oil paint (until then most painting was done with quick drying egg tempera). Impressionism quite literally only happened because of the invention of the paint tube!!! Before the invention and mass-production of the very affordable, very portable metal paint tube with a screw-on top in the late 1800's, it was a huge undertaking for anyone to take an easel out into the landscape, do a day's painting and then pack the paint you made yourself in a big tin away so the colour you want to use again tomorrow doesn't dry up! It might sound funny, but the invention of the paint tube was far, far more revolutionary than the day Canon put HD video on the 5D2. Without the paint tube Van Gogh would not have been able to afford paint or take his wide, rich palette of colours outdoors. Monet could not have painted so "fast and loose". Ditto Cezanne. As Renoir said - "Without tubes of paint, there would be no Impressionism"! 

 

ALL art is bound up with technology. All of it. You cannot separate the two things. Cameras and paint-boxes are not so different. We have very sophisticated technology now, but to say paint is not technology is simple ignorance.

 

Affordable video ILC's's have made cinematic images available to almost anyone. They are todays paint tubes. This is not the time to say - "yes I have a kind-of cinematic camera, but the image is not quite up to "real" cinema standards - it needs to be "better" before I can compete with the gallons of dross Hollywood vomits on us every year." Now is the time to say, "Finally! I can make a film the way I want to! I don't give two sh*ts about whether it stacks up against the f***ing Alexa! I'm going to go out and do my thing. If it does what I want it to do then that's all that matters to me."

 

"Better"!?! For F's F'ing sake! 

 

Seriously, I enjoy a bit of heated debate on this forum and genuinely get very valuable info here, but sometimes I wonder if half of you know what you have in your hands. Today NLE's can be put on any computer going; the internet is a readymade distribution network; video DSLR's give wonderful, creative images. It's genuinely revolutionary. Stories make the world go round. And all you can do is compare your tools to the Alexa and suck on Ridley Scott/Terrence Malick/[insert canonised director of your choice here]'s great big Cooke. 

 

The world is changing. Art is bound up in technology and revolution is bound up in art. Why can't we go out and tell our stories the way we want to tell them? If for you that's ultimately with an Alexa with a view to cinematic distribution, great - all power to you. But every representational system has its limitations. In 200 years time the Alexa will be as funny as a box of paints, for sure. I love the image from that camera, but don't bloody tell me that it's images are "better" than mine. "Better" at what? Resolution, dynamic range, colour? Yes, for sure. But if Upstream Colour had been shot on an Alexa, would it have been the same film? I really doubt it. That film is it's own thing in a way very, very few features are able to be. Did I do much pixel peeping while watching it? Personally, not much at all. 

 

If you need ergonomics and usability for what you want to do, great. If you want to sacrifice your creativity at the altar of ever-improving image quality, fine. But images are what they are made of as well as what they show us - as Marshall McLuhan famously said "the medium is the message". I'd like my message to be my own, and not translated into the fascistic hierarchy of aesthetics that rears its ugly head here pretty regularly.

 

Note to dstillo: this rant is, , as usual, mainly directed at Andrew (who wrote the original response to me). I'm not really this mad at you :)

I'm simply amazed that such a simple post generated such a long thread with so many posts discussion A or B! wow

Keep in mind one day (next year hopefully!) Nikon will I guess release a camera with 4k onboard, think if thats something that will make you regret your decision now..

Yup, the video world is changing so very fast that I would recommend a person just starting out spends a minimal amount. So get a D5200. Then later on down the track when you're more experienced you'll have a clearer idea of what *you* want, and by then technology will have moved on a lot further (so don't waste thousands right now). 

I've send them a suggestion for a medium format focal reducer, I have totally failed to do one on my own (it has terrible aberrations, and only 0.6x reduction), I want to use my glass digitally without spending millions on MFDB

I have a Pentax 645 to Nikon F adapter, so then I can put my medium format glass on a speed booster :-) 

Only get a 0.71x of course, but is something! And waaaay cheaper than buying a Pentax 645Z! (though I'd love to own one)

I'm just looking for things to have 'the (cinematic) edge' over everyone else. Actually I think that we 'seasoned, talented entrepreneurs' on this forum might already have that, but somehow it seems foolish to me to spread all our hard gained experience and knowledge around like free candies.

Every company has their 'secret ingredients' as you wish. Nobody knows still what all ingredients of Coca Cola are. And for a good reason. Other brands might come close, but nothing tastes like Coke. 

You make an interesting point... except the analogy is flawed as many many blind taste tests show people can not tell the difference between Coca Cola and its competitors. 

If you live somewhere with a decent film school which is free, or at least low cost, then sure.... go for it!

But if it is an option of spending several years at uni while you get deeper and deeper in debt vs....  working for even very low pay (but not getting in debt) while gaining several years of experience, then I'm skeptical if uni is the better choice here?

Absolutely keep your Nikon F lenses! Nikon F mount is a great mount, which is easily adaptable to whatever new camera you get. I have most of my lens collection in Nikon F mount. 

If I was in your shoes I'd simply get a Nikon D5200 and call it a day. Maybe get a wide angle lens too for it (Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is what I have), and/or an external monitor too (a tripod would be handy as well, as I doubt any of yours has fluid head). 

Getting the D750 is also a good option, but I really think it is a better idea to go with a much cheaper camera (D5200 is going new for just US$399 at the moment) as you're just starting out with video then in a year or two pick up a better one. (as technology improves so fast, and prices come down so quick) Plus the D5200 is a very fine camera (I am using it professionally at the moment for video work):

http://www.eoshd.com/2013/02/nikon-d5200-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/

http://www.eoshd.com/2013/02/nikon-d5200-review/

http://rungunshoot.com/nikon-d5200-studio-and-documentary-footage/

A couple of other options to consider, is the Sony A5100 or A6000 (I just picked up a near new A5100 for just US$330! Thank you Black Friday!).

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/

Or Sony A7s or Panasonic GH4 (which are the top two at the moment, well and maybe the NX1), but again as I said earlier because this is your first video camera I'd go with something cheaper.

As a *showreel* it absolutely needs to be shorter.