Damphousse

I am an amateur so please forgive the ignorance.  Does anyone know the settings they used?  To me the BMCC samples seem like they are darker than the other cameras.  The third images on both the Canons is unacceptable.  But the third image on the BMCC is okay.  The highlights aren't totally f'ed up which is nice but the darker values are still below what we see in the Canons and Alexa in row one.  Anyone else notice this?  F55 seems to be doing the same thing.

Pulp Fiction!

 

The script is a poem, it's engrossing, funny, clever, doesn't take itself too seriously. Lovely retro anamorphic cinematography, some crazy distorted old glass in that.

 

It's the film that made me realise film could be perfect by wearing heart on sleeve. I think I was 13 at the time.

 

I can nearly recite the script of by heart ;)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYSt8K8VP6k

This.

That post sums it up.  Really large chunks of Pulp Fiction could be played over AM radio and it would be better than 95% of the dross Hollywood pumps out.  Avatar is totally different.  I liked both films for entirely different reasons.  And even though Pulp fiction was much better in my opinion Avatar was still enjoyable.  Judging by some of the responses in other threads I get the distinct impression a lot of people don't realize that Pulp Fiction and Avatar are different films.  You could intercut scenes between the two of them and I guess based on what some people post they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

If you shot Pulp Fiction with James Cameron's setup you would need your head examined.  And if you shot Avatar with 16mm film and no CGI you would have the recipe for the worst flop in film making history.  Granted those two movies are at the extremes but there is plenty of gray in the middle to explore.  And that gray is very subjective.

People need to learn that just because someone somewhere shot a movie once that would still be a hit if it was an AM radio program doesn't mean we should ignore what camera we use and just focus on making AM radio shows.

So, to go back on topic: Apple has lately become the Canon of the computer industry - once a leader, now on their way to a producer of mature yet uninnovative products.

Apple is nothing like Canon.  Canon took the lead in consumer DSLRs because it was the CHEAPEST.  Apple came onto the smartphone scene and tricked people into shelling out an obscene amount of money for a smartphone.  Smartphones existed long before apple.  It's just they didn't cost an arm and a leg and require you to have an expensive data plan.

Even last time I checked it was a joke.  When I got my Windows Phone for free they were selling some outdated iphone for $199.  I think it was the 4s.  The iphone hand a small screen and no LTE (so useless for internet).  I loved riding in the car with my GF watching streaming movies on Netfilx while she struggled to surf the web on her pricy capped iphone data plan.

Canon for years had a price leadership position and was ahead of the pack as far as sensors.  Things have evened out and an argument can be made that others now lead in the consumer sensor areana.  The thing about it is all the cameras are so good nowadays it really doesn't matter.  In the stills world we say you buy a system not a body.  And the canon system is second to none.  It is the most extensive and ubiquitious.

Canon and Nikon makes stills cameras the now happen to do video.  Their main market is a bunch of people who either never do video or do it rarely.  Given that what more can Canon really do with it's cameras as far as stills?  I can't think of a single stills feature request I've heard lately that I would rush out and pay for.  Not one.

They aren't Kodak insisting that their product is still 100% viable when clearly it isn't.

Just because an airline goes bankrupt doesn't mean flying isn't a viable form of transportation.  Ilford is profitable and I belive the FILM division of Kodak is also profitable.  Not everyone shoots special event photography with iphones and $100 million movies with BMPCCs.

The only part of Kodak to post a profit was its Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group, where profits fell by 63% to $34 million, on sales down 12% at $1.5 billion.

 

http://www.proprint.com.au/News/294707,kodak-more-details-emerge-behind-fall-into-chapter-11.aspx

Quick note.  You will see all kinds of deals on great vintage flashes on ebay.  That's how I got mine.  But be careful.  Older flashes often had higher trigger voltages that will fry a Canon DSLR.  Here is a table that will steer you in the right direction.  Good luck!

Maybe in future DSLRs will be back with new technology - after going obsolete? Maybe one day, something will make them relevant again.

Obsolete?  Irrelevant?

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of pro photo work is done with some type of SLR.  And when I went to New York City recently and walked around on a nice day DSLRs were everywhere.  Just because people aren't going out and buying a new one every year doesn't mean no one uses them.

Even in the film days SLRs were specialist tools.  I don't recall anyone on my street growing up that had one other than my dad.  No one called them irrelevant back then... well actually maybe they did.  I would have been too young to know if they did.

Really at a certain point people have to admit that a product is pretty much perfect and that's a good thing.  Why upgrade?  What more could really make a digital Rebel better?  36 megapixels?  Well if some iphone guy is happy with 8 megapixels from a tiny sensor they aren't going to rush out and buy a Rebel just because it has 36 megapixels.

so I guess the era where every mum and dogs have their own DSLR is over?

No.  I sold my old DSLR to a mom a few months ago.  All that was presented was new camera sales.  They didn't show all the sales from ebay and craigslist.  You can't keep pumping new cameras into the the unverse at the same pace.  You reach a saturation point.  And it's not like the old cameras just disappear into the ether.  They are still kicking around in the secondary market and finding new life.  The same as film cameras.  I've purchased no less than 4 film cameras in the last five years.  Those sales numbers don't show up in any industry reports.  If you tried to predict film sales based on new film camera sales you would be very confused.

"dead in 5 years" is needlessly hyperbolic.  Multiple times on this forum and in other places I've mentioned the plataeu in the DSLR world.  You package all the requests and gripes people have about DSLRs today and they don't amount to a hill of beans.  All the basic photo functions of DSLRs have been addressed in sub $400 models.  I purchased at refurbished 600D just a few months ago for $350 and if someone asked me what improvements I think it needs I would really have to think long and hard before answering the question.

Most people in the Western world with any discipline what so ever that want a DSLR have one already.  And it is a mature product.  There is literally no reason for just about any consumer to "upgrade" the camera they already have.  And that isn't a bad thing.  I've been shooting with the same medium format film camera for years.  My dad uses his stills camera from way back in the 70s.  That is not unusual for analog cameras.  This idea that something is "dead" because millions of lemmings aren't going out and running up their credit cards at Christmas each year to purchase a new one is and artifact of the digital world.  But the digital world is going to have to understand it matures just like the analog world.

Even iphones aren't anything special anymore.  The fever has broken and people are realizing they can get cheaper more functional devices with andriod or windows phone installed.  Apple's stock is going to crash.  Maybe not in a year or five years but we all know smartphones are heading to commodity land.  If you are planning on retiring 15 years from now with the Apple stock in your 401K you may be in for a rude awakening.  Will smartphones be "dead" at that time?  No.  We just won't have a ridiculous media frenzy with each lukewarm Apple phone/iOS update.

By the way the video world is in a very different place in the product cycle.  There is still tons of space to innovate and reduce cost.  When we are seeing 1080p, 60 fps, no moire/aliasing, 10 bit codec, global shutter, at least APS-C sensor size, and zebras/focus peaking/etc in something that costs less than $500 then I will declare that we are approaching the commoditization phase of the video world.  And that won't be a bad thing.

Raw, Built in ND's, Global shutter, (and whatever else people are bitching about on here that's missing. ) - I can't see them putting it in
 

Sony already has a ND filter in a $1,300 camera.  I don't see why it would be unreasonable to ask for it in a camera that is over twice the price... and comes with no lens.

I know Cine zooms are designed so that focus tracks during a focal length change, and still zooms don't...

Not true.  The term you are looking for is "parfocal" and multiple Canon zooms do this.  I believe the two popular L ultrawides do this.  They are perfect for the APS-C bodies as walk around lenses.  Get one from a place where you can return lenses and see if one of them fits your needs.  The 17-40mm is cheap and very well made.  Unfortunately it is only f/4 and has no IS.  The 16- is a 2.8 but it is a lot more expensive and is also non IS.

A lot of still lenses are "varifocal."  But not all of them.

Sorry I don't understand your question?

 

You are replying to a question I asked Axel.  It was regarding this...

Frankly though, unless you are planning on doing heavy grading or chroma-key work, and your camera outputs a real 4:2:2 colour signal, it's my experience and impression that using an external recorder to improve image quality from a 4:2:0 SIGNAL is an iffy proposition. I have yet to see one convincing real-world demo of such an advantage, yet alone from my own experiments. A true 10 bit signal also helps with refinement of tonal transitions during grading and keying.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/atmos_ninja_2_review.shtml

So we would have to know what is truly being outputted via HDMI.  I have shot RAW on the 50D and there is no question about the improvement even on sharpness alone vs a mushy 8 bit compressed codec.  I just want to know if the clean HDMI out of this camera is really going to be that much of an improvement in image quality over the compressed 8 bit codec that is spit out of my camera at the moment.

The Ninja 2 is obscenely expensive.

The reason it is a 24mm to 200mm lens is because we have to standarise it so we understand it. It is not down to us to change standards or Sony.

When I read it as being a 24mm wide I know in my mind that a 16mm film frame size has a 25mm lens that would be equivalent to a 50mm 35mm film frame size In other words a C/U lens. Trying to make all sensor sizes adapt to the format size would be extremely confusing.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at.  EVERY lens I've ever seen if it is labeled is labeled with it's focal length.  That is a physics labeling not a Sony labeling.  We talk about an 8.8mm lens as 24mm in this setting because of the crop factor.  And for the record 24mm is wide.  Anything beyond 24mm is ultra wide.  So to say the camera does not "have much of a wide angle" is factually incorrect.  It has as much of a wide angle as my 17-55mm 2.8 IS gives me on my 600D.

A fixed lens at f2.8 is not good compared to other fixed lens cameras

Do you have any examples?  I just dropped over $800 on a Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens.  That's a chunk of the cost of this camera.  Granted I haven't seen anyone put their lens through it's paces so I will reserve judgement but 2.8 on a zoom of any sort is pretty rare and usually quite pricey.  People are preordering at $1,300.  Hopefully with time the price will drift down and maybe approach the $1,000 level...  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

 HDMI outputs 10-bit indeed, but it's 8-bit color depth and 2-bit of control signals (or so).

So this isn't going to be an improvement?  I saw something on the web saying an 8 bit signal just isn't enough to make an appreciable difference on HDMI recorders.  It's not like the HDMI recorders are cheap.

An f2.8 fixed zoom  starting at 24mm on a 1" sensor will not give you much of a wide angle nor bokeh.

8.8mm on a one inch sensor.  8.8mm.  Look at the picture in the first post.

I don't know why people keep posting 24mm.  It's equivalent to 24mm on a Full Frame sensor... which is wide.  My only concern is distortion and image quality.  It is a lot easier to build a 24mm undistorted lens than build an 8.8mm undistorted lens.

Frankly I don't like anything less than full frame because you start having to go to the extremes of lens designs and fight physics all the way.  But if the lens delivers it is a wider zoom range than the $800+ 17-55mm 2.8 IS I bought for my canon.  Yes you take a hit on bokeh  but this is a finished product.  Buy a memory card and start shooting in the store parking lot.  You can't do that with a BMPCC.  I could sell my 17-55mm 2.8 get this and keep my 600D and fast lenses.  So if I want to do low light work I can use my 600D.  If I wait for this to come down in price I will only have to chip in a few hundred dollars more than my 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens.

Wow, it's like night and day. Most of the people over on dvxuser are mightily impressed by this camera and are singing it's praises and over here most of you seem to think it's crap. What gives?

I thought you found a corollary to my Bizarro World theorem.  But in reality I read several post over there of people complaining about the codec.  I for one think it is a very interesting camera.  Someone over there also noted the lack of 30 fps in HD.  There must be a reason for that because they have 24p and 60p.

I would just give it time.  If jgharding is right and the price drops significantly in a reasonable time frame I may pick this up and sell my Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS.  I just have to see the quality.  I can still keep my 50mm 1.4 to use with my 600D for shallow dof shots and low light work.

So why whiplash through the math (especially using wives tales and rules-of-thumb) when the lowest common denominator here is they don't shoot "full frame"?

Because anyone in their late twenties or older has seen and/or used 35 mm film.  And it's a good reference point when moving down and up.  Of all the formarts I shoot stills or video on medium format is the one I've spent the most on but everything with that is still converted mentally back to 35mm.  I've never heard a medium format shooter complain about it.  You take the ubiquitous reference point and go from there.  I am too young to know anyone who shot moving picture film but even my technophobic mom still uses a 35mm film camera.  I'm pretty sure if people look hard enough they have at least one close relative who has 35mm negatives or cameras even.  I have never seen a private citizen with a moving picture camera... In my entire life.

If Canon were smart they'd make two 7D Mark IIs. A video orientated one and a stills orientated one.

 

However I have a feeling they already did this and the 7D Mark II Video Version costs $15,000 and is called the Cinema EOS C300!

 

And stills guys think they have it bad on price sub $1000!?

Given the news you've broken about Sony on this site there are about to be some Canon video loyalist that are going to defect or at least pick up another camera.  RX10 looks very interesting.  Sony threw in feature after feature with that thing.  No one can say video was an afterthought with them.  Nice job mentioning the clickless aperture switch.  That is crazy.

Thats pretty hilarious. I use a t2i as a b-cam when I photograph weddings, and I take about 50% of the ceremony shots with it, assuming theres plenty of light. I'd feel comfortable photographing a wedding with nothing but canon or Nikon crops if thats all I had. 

 

Definitely an interesting parallel, thanks for sharing

Glad you guys enjoyed it!  Years ago I used to whine about my Canon DSLR and lust after more and more megapixels.  Then I got the 600D and shut up.  Apparently there are some people that will keep whining until their DSLR shoots life like holograms.  Sure there is always going to be a feature or two you wish you had but I think the photo side of things has really matured.

I agree that it's stupid for photographers to complain about the video features of a camera. But you're kinda behaving exactly the same right here. If you can't take decent movies with the current camera's, the issue isn't with the camera...

I have to say I don't think given what is technologically possible today the video side of things is anywhere as mature as the stills side.  Canon and Nikon went crazy for almost a decade solely focusing on improving the stills DSLRs.  Video on large sensor consumer camers is relatively new and it is sharing the focus with stills DSLR funtions.  I just don't see an equivalent on the stills side for moire, aliasing, rolling shutter, compressed codec, etc.  Sony looks like it is address several of those issues in cameras that are approaching my price range.

I was looking up some information on what Canon had in store for the future and I ran across this forum.  It's filled with photographers that are angry Canon is giving any love to the video world!  I couldn't believe how many people were upset.

Personally I think if you can't pick up any Canon or Nikon DSLR above their very basic entry models and take decent pictures the issue isn't with the camera.  Once 18 megapixels was hit I would have thought most people would be satisfied with the megapixel count in APS-C world.  Video is the part of the camera that needs a lot of work.  But I guess there a substantial number of people that disagree with me.

Anyway it was interesting hearing some of the other voices yelling at Canon.  Here is a taste...

I, for one, am a bit tired of my bodies being "video oriented". My 5DII, 7D and 60D have not shot a second of video. I guess I'll just have to hang on to them until the pendulum swings a bit in the other direction.

 

I likewise am fed totally up with video. I want a stills optomized camera. I don't care about video.

 

Add me to the list of people sick of paying all that extra cash for a function I don't want.

 

The more "video-oriented" Canon makes their cameras, the less likely i am going to buy them.

 

That was just a sample of page one.  So who should Canon listen to?  It's weird.  I have never seen such a divergent set of opinions about a product line.  And both worlds seem totally unaware the other exists.

Canikon made a living of just their names and how people think that having a Canikon DSLR means being a "PRO" and that's why they have the luxury of not worrying about entering the mirrorless market or they have been so lazy about it - and I also think that one day they may pay for it. We'll see.

I liked your post.  The only issue is every complaint you had about Sony was something Canon and Nikon did right so I was baffled when I read this statement.  I came over from the photography side.  In photography we have a saying.  You buy a system not a camera.  We tend to look and see which lens and accessory line we like and then buy a body in that line... and stick with it.  Unfortunately for me and a lot of people no one other than Canon was offering a sub $1,000 DSLR when we got hooked.  No one was offering a commercially viable full frame camera.  No one was offering a "prosumer" full frame camera.  There was no choice.  Canon was innovating and coming out with one first after another.  People didn't buy the first digital Rebel to be a "pro."  They bought it because there wasn't anything else!

Your statements about the autofocus in these Sony cameras and the lens situation will make it unacceptable for a lot of photographers.  The major market for DSLRs is photographers.  So I doubt Canon is going to notice a substantial dip in Canon 5D MK III sales when this thing hits.  If I had to shoot a wedding or corporate event there is no way I would use this camera.  You can rent all kinds of Canon lenses all over the place.  This thing might be nice and light a fire under some people's behinds but based on these preliminary rumors it is unacceptable for a lot of what the 5D MK III or the Nikon whatever do.

I'm excited about the video but a photo replacement it is not for me.  Glad they went full frame though.  Even someone with mild mental retardation can design a 50mm fast prime for close to $100.  With full frame they should be able to come up a few decent lenses without too much heroics... I think.  The engineering gymnastics people are going through to create 11mm lenses for tiny sensors is ridiculous.  Never made sense to me... from a photo point of view.

Anyway it is a very intriguing development.

 

Maybe no camera has been bricked if that is what you are saying but Magic Lantern are keen to distance themselves from such an eventuality. That at least should say something to even the most limited intellect.

I really don't care what legalese or platitudes Magic Lantern or BlackMagic have or do not have on their websites.  All I care about is will the product work as advertised.  In that regard based on numerous people loading up the software and not "bricking" their cameras Magic Lantern passes this test.  Flowery statements from companies thousands of miles away are of little solace when you are sitting there with an inoperable camera.

Anyway it's a free country.  You can pick your poison.  I'm not telling you what to use.  I'm just giving my opinion so when other amateurs read this thread they can know the truth... The latest Magic Lantern has NEVER bricked a Canon 5D MK III.  End of story.

Look Please try to add something to the discussion instead of trying to sex up small advantages vastly outweighed by what could go wrong and down playing that into -doesn't matter- and those who think it does are clearly missing the smaller advantages as the greatest thing since cameras were made.

Uhh... you realize that you used the word "bricked" more times in a single post than it has actually happened in real life.  Who's "sexy up" stuff?

You have picked the camera that is right for you.  That doesn't mean it is right for everyone and that the 5D MK III is inferior.  All I know is Canon produces solid cameras that come out on time and work almost perfectly right out of the box.  There is only rarely one firmware update.  For someone that loves reliability you really harp on and on about Blackmagic cameras a lot.  Those things are beta products... The entire line.

Even with no hacks the Canon 5D MKIII is ready to go and shoot hand held in all kinds of situations where a BMCC would be banned or impractical.  Heck I've shot my 650D all day with a pocket full of batteries.  The $2,000 BMCC can't do that.  It's a great camera but it has some serious flaws that make it very impractical for amateurs like me.

Yes but the cheaper BMCC does RAW and Prores to more secure and cheaper SSD drives. Why would you buy an inferior camera at a higher price? Unless you wanted full frame.

Because you get a free monstor stills camera, free weather sealing, complete compatibility with EF lenses including IS, and you can shoot clips that can be handed to a client/family member/friend right out of the camera.  Also once you buy a compact flash card the Canon 5D MK III is ready to shoot even in the rain.

The 5D MK III has such exclusive features as formatting the card in the camera, autofocus that actually works, and a removable battery.

Frankly if you are an amateur the 5D MK III kind of makes more sense for you.  Even without hacking and expensive CF cards you can shoot amazing stills and great video.  Dave Dugdale's review of the BMPCC was very insightful.  I like the part where he showed the Prores video of the sunset.  I would have no idea how to color correct or grade that shot if I didn't have the 5D MK III file there for reference.  Both cameras have pros and cons.  I just think calling the 5D MK III "inferior" is a bit much.

http://youtu.be/rAgPaiLgeE4

 

https://vimeo.com/55452414

If you read the notes on the test they did that test with 7 stops of filtration.  That's a lot.  On a Canon 600D at ISO 80 that's like shooting a 1.4 lens wide open on a bright sunny day.

Sorry just went back and saw you are shooting a BMPCC.  Your initial thoughts about the individual ND filters seems like a good idea.  Variable ND filters do not seem to work well at the extreme end of the scale.  Even if I got a variable ND I would use a single value ND filter for the extreme stuff.

Check this video out.  It's by Dave Dugdale from learningdslrvideo.com.

http://youtu.be/nECdBiu5Rrw

I would go for 17-55mm efs 2.8 (a bit more tried and tested and highly thought of than the Tamron, it stays on my camera about 90% of the time) + 10-22mm EFS, these 2 lenses would have you well covered and you have the 3x digital zoom on the 70ds when you need to go long, and the 50mm prime for beauty shots, although 50mm on a crop sensor is quite tight..

Another vote here for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS.  Image stabilization is great for hand held shots.  The 50mm 1.8 is about a $100 so no excuse not to get it.  The thing about the 17-55mm 2.8 IS is it isn't much slower than a lot of primes and it comes with IS.  I use mine all the time.  I only change lenses when I want to use my 50mm 1.4 for some really low light shooting.

If you look at your option 2 the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 is as fast as the 20mm prime you were looking at and almost as fast as the 35mm 2.0 prime.  Look at how much the 17-55mm 2.8 costs and then look at the combine price of those primes.

It unbelievable how good is 700 USD Panasonic G6 doing against 3500 USD Canon 5D MarkIII:

The 5D Mark III is doing all that full frame.  I can output a movie from my 50D that spanks all of those shots.  Unfortunately I would have to shoot raw and in the zoomed in mode.  The caveats are important.

The G6 is definitely impressive.  I took a hard look at it after the rave reviews I saw on this forum.  But since I already have Canon glass the $700 price of admission would have been the smallest part of my overall investment.  I wish Canon would get on the ball with pixel binning in the rebel line of cameras and an option for a higher quality codec.  Panasonic has really shown them the way forward.

You let things like camera specs get in the way, then your filmmaking career should I say, I'm afraid you might as well forget it. 

I don't think Andrew or anyone else is "letting camera specs" get in the way.  He is providing for FREE a very useful service and the rest of us are just having a discussion.  I think everyone who has posted in this thread has at least one camera and used it quite a bit and is just giving their feedback.

 

That's my point.  When you start playing in the sub $1,000 market it's not just about "cinema" or "indie cinema."  It's also about people like me.  Prosumers that aren't trying to make "our masterpiece."  If the quality of the equipment and the price point aren't there we aren't going to shoot.

 

 

I still don't get you... so these cameras are good enough for indie filmmakers that can use them to shoot serious narrative films, but they're not good enough for amateurs who only shoot "stuff" casually?

Yeah, man.  There are a lot of pieces of equipment I'm willing to use and things I'm willing to do if someone is paying me.  If someone cuts me a $1,000 check to shoot a corporate video with my T3i I would do it.  But I'm not going to take my free time as a hobby to shoot a bunch of aliasing/moiré movies for free.  I take trips to shoot photography from time to time.  I take a tripod and multiple film and digital cameras.  I just am not as inclined to do much video stuff because the quality is not quite there except on my 50D and then there is the whole raw workflow.  Time is on my side.  I have the luxury of waiting until I can get something better at an attractive price point.  I have no pressing commercial or career reasons to rush out and drop $1,000 on a kludgy camera.  If someone is trying to break into Hollywood they are in a different market.  That's all I'm saying.  People are happy with their iphone videos.  If you want to shift them over to Canon/Nikon dslrs you are going to have to knock their socks off.

I'm just speaking anecdotally and telling you my experience.  I know people shot award winning movies on camcorders.  Sorry but for the mass market a lot of us really didn't want to go through the time and trouble for the quality on offer.  I only seriously looked at video after seeing some of the work that came out of early DSLRs.  What I did not realize at the time was that stuff was selectively shot and graded to work around a myriad of shortcomings.  I got my camera and went out shooting it and on day one I experienced a lot of disappointment.  Indie film makers may be able and willing to plan their shoots but us casual shooters need something that we can use... even around brick walls.