IronFilm

I have FedEx confirmation that my shipment is on it's way. 

alpha4k ;-) 

Where is your area of expertise, then? Not an attack--honestly curious. 

Totally agree with the post, though. Why everyone isn't using the GH4's 10-bit out is beyond me. 
Also, how many times have you read this exact conversation:

"I can't get great colors with X-LOG!"
"Yeah, you'll have to learn more about color grading to get the most out of a LOG profile."
"But that's so much work! I'm a filmmaker, not a colorist. Isn't there an easier way?"
"Well, you could always buy some LUTs and let professional colorists do the work for you."
"LUTs are too expensive! I want something I can grade myself!"
"Um...how about just not using LOG? Your camera has lots of other color profiles that are easy to handle."
"Then I won't get the best DR the sensor can give me! What kind of noob doesn't use LOG!?"
-_-

Ah well as with all lucrative markets my opinion is that the corporate world is both difficult to crack and yet if you get your foot in the door it can be surprisingly easy to become a company's agency of choice just because in big business people often like to have a safe option. Once they know you can do a decent job it'll take a lot to dislodge you.
Which brings us back to the discussion about gear. I don't think for one second that most of the people with the power to hire you know much about camera specs or the latest and greatest technology. However they do care about results. There's actually a lot of pressure on people in the corporate world to 'do things'. Whether those 'things' actually make an impact or not is often not the point. The point is to be seen in the company to be a do-er, and to have something you can put on your list of 'achievements' when bonus time comes around. Which in marketing can translate to making/commissioning a cool looking and expensive video. And yes, it often is important that it's expensive.
When a marketing team commission a video they want it to be impressive, and to look better and sexier and bigger than the previous ones. Hiring a crew with a big and sexy looking camera is part of that, but another aspect (that's debated on this forum at times) is that there is such a thing in my opinion as an expensive look, which expensive cameras tend to give you. Sure you can make the greatest and most creative work of genius ever on a GH2, but something shot on a Red Epic carries a kind of weight in it's imaging that affects people even if they don't know what it is or why it has that effect.
If you're a marketing person you're more likely than not a little obsessed with image and look and feel. So it makes sense that an expensive crew with an expensive camera producing an expensive looking 'hollywood' type image is going to seem very attractive. Just my opinion.

Cool.
We were debating in the office today how a small boutique like ourselves, who have a history of music video production but can also do corporate/commercial work just as good (we have examples), would approach this market? This is where we are at. We've obviously done our research and have a development plan in place, thought it would be interesting to ask your view? Everyone's answer is different.  

There's a whole world of clients out there that don't know the first thing about cameras. On rare occasions, there will be someone involved who's played with DSLRs for video and asks tons of questions. Maybe people shooting national TV spots get into these issues, but for small corporations, startups, entrepreneurs doing web marketing, email blasts, Facebook video campaigns and internal communications/training - they pretty much want to see your reel or examples of stuff that is in line with what I'm proposing or what they envision. If an agency I work with gets the gig, I don't even show a thing - the end client trusts the agency.
That said - if I shoot with a kitted-out DSLR - matte box, follow focus, rails, monitor, loupe, a big geared prime or zoom and an audio recorder - it does look pretty cool on the tripod. Now the total costs of all that may be well under $2k, but I've had clients squeeze through a tight set in terror of bumping the camera and, literally, they've said "I bet that cost more than my house!" It doesn't hurt for a client to perceive that you're using very high-end gear. 
But you could be shooting a national TV spot for Revlon and tests showed the BMC pocket with a super-16 lens from the 70's gives the exact look, and the director wouldn't blink an eye - whereas one of my clients would be "hey, you just stuck a lens on a iPhone, right??" For the size of clients I mention above (and in a big city, you can make a good living at that level) setting up an $800 Kessler crane makes them feel like they're getting a lot of bang for their buck. Don't disregard this sort of perception from people without knowledge of the tech side, who are writing the checks.

"Do you shoot with a RED?"
"RED...? Sir/Mam I think we can do a little better than RED,  I mean if you ask me your company deserve more, something with a bit of panache.... bla bla. .. BS BS. .."
Sell Sell Sell

 

Got a call yesterday...this is the first thing he said: "Hi, I want to shoot my video on the RED Epic. Can you do that?" My reply was: "You need to tell me everything else first, like, what's your name?" This client turned out to be a bit of a moron really and I chose not to work with him. 
I have a feeling the URSA Mini 4.6k is going to be incredible. If I end up buying one, if anyone asks for RED, I'll reply with: "We shoot with the new kid on the block - the brand new, just released Blackmagic camera. It's incredibly cinematic. We don't need RED when we have this!" It's likely that 99% will soak that one up very nicely - it's just the way you say it!
 

You're talking about wedding videos here. That's meant for a very select audience and hardly a grand production you would whip out a RED for or something. I have no idea why you bring that up in this topic. How about we don't stray from the matter at hand here? Just to set straight what it is we're discussing here:
He's talking about music video production and corporate stuff (advertising). Now, someone wants a music video or ad shot... guess what? Chances are it's not their first. What ever happened to the last guys? Maybe those are too busy or something. Could be. But might well be that the client wants to up their game by selecting a production company to up it for them. And having some previous experience, they will tell the difference between a camcorder and a rigged up cinema camera, especially when the name 'RED' is involved. They probably have their own ideas in mind, with a creative marketing team. They just need someone to get their thoughts and run with it and turn it into an actual quality production. Knowing that you're good is one thing. Knowing you shoot on a RED is a dealsealer.

Yes, in a fair world, you'd never have to part with your T3i to get better business, as long as you know how to tell a story and create something visually interesting. But guess what? The world's a messed up place. If you can manage to get about without ever having to drop brands and people knowing or hearing of you, thats the best. But in a crowded and talented market, looking for new higher profile clients, you have to appeal somehow. And be it fair or not, having a RED lying around people won't assume you suck, because if they would, that would only make him or her suck in the most EPIC of ways. But the image that people will have is that someone with a RED probably has worked his or her way up from something smaller. Again, status... and 'status' is not just social standing, it's 'the situation at a particular time'. So if you have a RED you also give off that you have quite a bit of experience/are quite far along. And too be honest, they probably do have the talent and experience. Because I'm pretty sure you're going bankrupt in notime if you make those kind of investments, but can't see any return on that, because you are crap, lose clientele, never getting recommended and having a bad rep...
Anyways. Like I said. It can't hurt to have something saying you shoot on a RED. That doesn't mean that I would actually go and get one. Like Oliver says, for him it's hardly a topic when talking to clients, because he can sell his ideas. That's a great position to be in. And as long as that is the case and business is blooming, why not go with that URSA Mini 4.6K/Sony FS7? You need to smack a RED label somewhere? Ok. Sure. Who says you can't still do that? You can still mention clients can have their productions shot on a RED. Just rent one, if the demand is there, which in Olli's case is hardly so. You don't have to use it exclusively. Although I get owning one would make you super familliar with the RED system and workflow, allowing for smoother turnarounds.

It depends on the 'client' you're talking. Producers hire Cinematographers based on talent, knowing full well they're going to have to hire a camera system. This is usually budgeted for. If the Cinematographer in question happens to own their own camera that the production can use, in this case it's generally used as a win-win for the production and the DP - the production pays a discounted rate for camera hire, and the DP gets more money as a camera hire rate. At this level, the DP is rarely chosen simply because of the gear he owns (and I have many friends who were making good money before buying cameras - they realised that 9 times out of 10 they were hiring Alexas for jobs, so they decided to buy one and take the camera hire rate themselves).
On lower budget productions, having a decent camera can sometimes help to secure work. However, in this case, clients are generally looking for someone with a full package - usually camera, lights, lenses.
A friend of mine is a Gaffer who works on high budget films, but also owns a RED, and tries to shoot low budget stuff (decently paid), and his gear always gets a hammering on the low budget stuff as you just can't afford the crew you regularly work with, and the general wear and tear that happens on every shoot is less likely to be compensated for than on something that has a bigger budget. He shoots quite nice looking stuff, but a DP he works (who also worked their way through as a Gaffer) said to him 'if you really want to work as a DP - sell all your gear' 

I thought this could be an interesting topic inspired by another thread about buying gear for business. 
Personally, I believe in ideas and how they are executed - that's how I sell myself really. Most clients never really question the camera, and if they do, they are usually clients who can't see that a production is much more than a pretty camera. 
Let's just assume you know what you're doing, you have talent and have the money to spend on a RED package. You not only sell yourself on your ideas and current portfolio, but also the fact you shoot on RED. Because you are skilled, have talent and resources, the images you provide will quite likely look stellar. 
In your view, do you think this knowledge by the client that you shoot RED would create more business?
Certainly in my local arena of competition, you would have an additional, very distinct USP. But generally I do feel with current technology, that the camera is much less important than the people behind it. But having better image capabilities really does help. 
There's a lot of different people doing different things in different areas. What's your perspective? 

​
Hallo Ed?!:)
 
would you allow to watch your piece and provide the password? By the way, really digged your modelshoots and your differnt grading approaches to it.
 
cheers, Martin

Good guys Panasonic NZ! :-D
Moments like this make me proud to be a kiwi ;-) 

Canon marketing at its best. How to re-brand and empty the inventory of previous generation camera. The 700D was probably the biggest joke of Canon these past few years. A 650D with 2 buttons changes.

Dear Canon, April Fools is in April.

It is tongue in cheek satire making a point that Canon have released merely a new box as a whole new filmmaker package and charged top whack for it at that.
It is making fun of the kind of idiot who would fall for this kind of cynical marketing ploy... and yes there are plenty of them.
Hopefully not too many on here but sometimes I have my doubts

​The real irony seems to be a bit lost on you. But let's address your made up irony first...
I have not "sacrificed" raw, 10bit, 422, colour science and other aspects merely for resolution.
I still treat the image as a visual whole and not a mere number.
I have shot with the Digital Bolex - lovely raw and tip top colour... I have shot with Blackmagic for 10bit ProRes and of course 5D Mark III raw, and could go back to any one of them any time I please... in fact it would make my life a lot easier not having to cover all these cutting edge new cameras that just so happen to be 4K, for ungrateful bastards like you....
But I don't and that is because the current 4K cameras look lovely.
14bit Raw or 10bit 422 and the best colour science is a spec like any other... and it is rather overrated itself.
For example the highlight roll off is smoother in 8bit SLOG on the A7S compared to 14bit raw on the 5D3 - go and figure.
Indeed I prefer the 8bit 422 LOG image from the 1D C to Blackmagic's 12bit raw for colour. Again, go figure...
Hands down my favourite image at the moment is the Canon 1D C so I am not a brainless 'Canon basher'.
Those you will have followed EOSHD for a while or those in the know will get the satire... others won't... If you don't get it, then hopefully it will tweak your interest in the current state of play enough to research into the subject a bit more.

"If you buy this bundle you are not an artist and never will be, because you do not care."
​Ha!  Pushing the boundaries of rhetoric, but you gotta do what you gotta do.  
Suffice to say, there's a perfectly legitimate possibility that an arrogant affluent rich kid with a hell of a lot of superior story ideas than industry professionals might end up with one of these cameras, simply because they just want something to shoot with, don't really know better because they're concentrating on story, and they'll then proceed to create something incredible...since, you know, filmmaking is kind of about effective storytelling, not sensor resolution.
I seriously don't know if this is your true sentiment, tongue-in-cheek satire, click-bait, or just slamming Canon because of some internal-debate-feud you have going in your mind.  
Doesn't matter because, regardless, it's a fun read, if for no other reason than all the "huh?"'s I got to do.  And yeah, it's silly marketing from Canon.  But entire brands are built upon silly marketing.
Honestly though, thanks for the funny words. 

This is a poorly done satire tbh. I think you will alienate some of your readership with this as it seems too serious. But I am loving the canon bashing. Working in a big media hub in Manchester I'm continually amazed by how many people are carrying around Canon cameras (and not even a 5d3 most of the time)

I never thought I'd see FULL HD printed anywhere in 2015.

​All of a sudden that Nikon Filmmaker's Kit looks quite appealing 

dare to dream i bought something else.... high dynamic range, iso, 4k video maybe? 

I guess most enthusiasts finally figured out the EOS 700D is crap, so Canon is looking for a new target audience. You can see them pictured on the right of the box. Their dad will pay anyway.
It's offensive to ask $899,99 for this kit of crap.

That GX7 EVF hump and rectangular corner just looks so ugly in my opinion... I prefer the symmetry and sleek aethetic to the GX7.
All I wanted was just a 4K update on the GX7, and maybe a 3.5mm jack and a tiltable uppy screen and maybe weatherproofing. This total re-design and 2.5 times price tag is bizarre!