IronFilm

The a5100 has a better codec.
 
Btw, it's called product placement.

Checkt his out:
 
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/axiom-beta-the-first-open-digital-cinema-camera
 
https://www.apertus.org/2014-NAB-Axiom-Beta
 

In this video I show you how to grade your videos professionally using FREE software (Davinci Resolve Lite)!




Thanks for watching!
www.facebook.com/tunnelviziontv
www.twitter.com/ruanlotter

With a background from stills, and not any real education in filmmaking - I found this a quick analysis of the Silence of the Lambs scene very interesting from a storytelling point of view.
 
Maybe it is obvious for some of you, but I bet some others like me can learn a bit from this:
 

 
 

Watch out Andy - you're sounding suspiciously like someone who should be using a full-frame camera!!!  ;)

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

Seriously. Make THAT happen. Forget the technical. It doesn't matter. Work the craft. Force yourself to consider silhouette and learn to look at light.

Start with unusual, fun, circumstances and work backwards from there. Limitations are a weirdly ironic avenue for creativity.

Obstructionism is a common exercise for artists.

Have you considered making a Photography forum?
 
I just read your interesting and creative article on low light A7S photography and went looking for a photo forum...
 
 

You can put EVERY lens ever made on a Sony A6000.
I use M42, Canon FD and Canon EF lenses.
But you can use Pentax, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, ... on this camera with the right adapter.

True, they even get to say that is not fit for pro use and disappointing for enthusiasts, but when it comes to video using autofocus is an oddity. Sure, the new autofocus systems for video will improve and become common use, but as of today I still have to witness a professional shooting environment where autofocus is even taken into consideration.
 
Ondrej, if you plan to are going to be video-centered, the a6000 makes more sense in my opinion. It'll just take a little time getting used to the small form factor coming from a 7D, but functions such as zebras and focus peaking make up for it.

The Canon 6D is pretty bad for video (great for stills), so the Sony A6000 would be a much better bet (especially with the Metabones).  It's also smaller and will cost you less.

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.

The future will be crazy, just crazy.

Ha ha thanks man.  :lol:
 
I just re-read it. I maybe went a bit over the top but yes, it is quite good ;) I particularly like the bit about "Hollywood vomiting dross all over us."
 
I certainly stand by everything I said there. It's basically the DIY punk-rock aesthetic: talent, ability, equipment, distribution ... all of it ... comes second place to expression. If you've got something to say you find a way to say it that is within your means. And that comes across in the end product - the urgency of the content. Artists don't work within the constraints of their medium (whether they use an Alexa or an iPhone) - they work in spite of the constraints and push to find ways to say the unsayable. I'm not saying technology isn't important - the opposite in fact - but pushing the limits of a medium is where art happens.
 
All media has constraints. All modes of representation are inadequate, impotent and broken, no matter how sophisticated. That's why art is art and not science. I wrote my Fine Art PhD thesis on this subject by the way - perhaps why I got so vociferous about it!

I agree, this regional crap is pretty lame. 

FU SONY!
You cannot buy these Playmemories camera applications unless you are living in specific countries/regions.
This service is only available in the "big" countries like US, GBritain, Germany, etc.
 
And is really difficult to overcome this restriction (actually you have to commit fraud). And the ways I spotted in many forums, now are not available anymore (Sony is to blame for this).
 
I think this is outrageous.

Canon APS-C looked really soft to me even before I knew anything about HDSLR filming. I still don't understand why it was bigged up so much :/

Nothing wrong with being a bastard. We should embrace its bastard-ness!
 
Besides, there were all sorts of film gauges besides 16 and 35, 17.5, 18, 21 etc

Guys there's a very simple way to test which is sharpest: look on the box and find out which one is made by Panasonic.  :)

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 was using Nikon dslrs and some Canons until now, I prefered the overall image quality that the Nikons gave me, but now that I use the a6000 for a few weeks , I can say for sure that the chromatic and overall image quality is great, and it looks better to me than Nikon. It's very close though, but with all the extras that Nikon doesn't give in it's firmware , and the light body of a6000, for me the clear winner in video is Sony. And yes I'll keep using both. ;)

This sounds reasonable, but only if you don't have another canon that takes video because they are all the same (or almost).
 
Any canon aps-c camera gives image quality on the level of 2008, they are outdated, any actual sensor design is a lot better.

Ι would recommend it my friend over the 70D , it has a better sensor, that gives you better image quality, wider dynamic range, and better overall iso performance! It has a great autofocus system, very fast very precise, and a much lighter body to use for your everyday walks! For video it's better too, it gives you better image quality, more organic feel to it, and less to none moire issues (The Canons have problem on this, the XXXD -XXD line) . So I would prefer it overall.

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

^ agreed. I recently was researching this stuff and found myself discussing it with folks on Personal-View. Apparently, much of the housings are mass produced between manufacturers, but the glass that gets installed is not necessarily equal. Its a quality control issue, much like many things out of China that are mass produced on a budget. 2 products from different companies can look identical, but not necessarily perform the same. 

I saw tests from the "cheapo ebay" models on that forum, and they did not perform as well as the RJ. On a whim, I decided to use the contact form to shoot an email out to RJ, and it seems like I got a personal response from Rong Jin himself. He was actually extremely informative and helpful, we started discussing coatings and quality of the glass, and it was pretty clear to me that this is a guy who takes pride in his product. I do believe he puts in a better quality glass element than the others.

andy : there's a big chance they use cheaper glass, which is the only way to make it cheaper.  Which might introduce all kinds of artifacts.  
 
That's why the Metabones is so expensive : they use the best glass they can get.
 
I didn't buy the cheapest adapter, but paid $30 extra for something that had already been tested/reviewed with pictures to proove it. 
 
The only way to find out how this cheaper one does is to buy one and see how it does.  But all tests I've seen so far show there's a huge difference and image degradation with the very cheap focal reducers.