luisrjm

 interesting topic of discussion, really respect the opinions of everyone, each head is different and it is obvious that we can not all think alike in terms of technology, but on this particular point, I can not agree for several reasons : if sales of DSLR cameras from Canon soared overnight was thanks to the HD video recording function, which is of such high quality (despite being compressed to 8 bits) that the world is talking about the "Digital Cinema EOS". Already several people have said something to my understanding is true, for all those people who were going to buy DSLR cameras to film (or still photography) most of them already bought at least one camera (I'm one of those millions case, I have a 60D and 7D for 2 years and the 7D body I have not shot the first photograph ...), so I have no need to buy a new body to make films because I'm very pleased with I have obtained quality with these cameras, and I think that I feel, so feel millions of DSLR users worldwide. Now I invite you to analyze this: how much profit has earned Canon lens sales worldwide? I invested 2.4k buying two bodies, but I have invested a lot more than that amount buying Canon lenses (and remember that BlacMagic like the GH2 can also use Canon lenses and many prefer them over Zeiss lenses) and if you add to that the rigs, you will have a large market motivated by the video function. But there is something you feel your Items reason, the amateur that have these cameras rarely use the video mode, but they are a minority in this market, an amateur can buy maybe a good 1k maximum body , but never going to invest in premium lenses, which professionals are required to do so before crucifying Canon, I'd like to know what has been the lens sales revenue internationally, perhaps there is the missing part of the "secret" that has Canon walking slowly with their cameras (for me lens sales added to Magic Lantern is the key that has quiet technology that can be invented revolution within five years maybe) but this just my opinion, I can be wrong ...

Anytime ... do you know what is to be in a set with dozens of people to make a shot that lasts less than 30 seconds in a movie? I speak based on what I've learned from the tests performed at the right time and what I experienced as a filmmaker as director as well as producer . I shared a vision for those who are new to the road or have traveled some of this road, and aspire to be directors or directors of photography, many great filmmakers made projects with simple cameras and a small group of collaborators, they didn´t need robotic arms or specialized projection systems... were only them, the script , some technicians, lights and actors ( Cloney and Bulock were not exactly one of these actors ... ) and are winners of Cannes, the Oscar, etc... but I apologize because this blog is clearly not for filmmakers who want to advance as filmmakers, is basically for analysis of camera equipment, for people who want to share the results of their tests and for people who have not yet been able to make their own tests or require information to invest in economic camera equipment they can use to their productions. I apologize again and remember, no disrespect to anyone, if anyone is offended is their business, I'm a filmmaker and I speak from what I have learned ...

...     I respect those who like to see and compare, but I have been reading about "Depth Test" for a long time here on EOSHD (Canon 7D vs GH2, this one vs that one..., etc) but rarely I have read this: I have done a film and I'm in official competition with my film in several international film festival. I am in that way... I wrote about a vision... Many people said GH2 is bettrer than Canon 7D and 5D, but how many films or TV shows have been done with a GH2 and how many with the Canon? tests are brong?, no, is just the people like more Canon... are they going to change? maybe I don´t know... There will always be comparisons between cameras but the repetitive speech which exceeds camera which is already very boring because it directs attention around the camera and not to the fact that the camera is just a tool ... Always speak with eagerness and requirement about " low quality lights" and I ask you: are you going to shoot a project and you have no lights? distortion in the colors , I ask: do you know white balance correctly ? know about how to make a color correction using professional programs ? , we can exploit the cameras, no matter what you use, these cameras provide a space for color correction, narrow or broad but you have the posibility to correct color, but you must do a good job with the photography, because mistakes in this area can be difficult to solve , and that applies to any of these cameras (we are not comparing a Genesis vs Arri). Repeat: I respect those who like to see and compare, but I'd like to see stories that achieve more success in festivals or theaters that were made with these cameras. Actually I read this article because I usually read most of the posts you can read , but I see so much eagerness to compare the cameras that I wonder if the artistic work they do is quality , I wonder if they are enjoying the democratization of cinema that can be due to the DSLR, that´s all... So if you think I´m lost, I'd rather to be like that...!

Hi, I have been reading this post, and I have two questions: 1.-  why not to use the sigma lense on the canon 5D III? (if you used on the 7D you could have been used it on the 5D III too, because the quality of the fixed 50 mm 1.4 Zeiss lens is better than zoom sigma...) 2.- I can understand about the resolution, etc, etc... but do you think all this is more important than a good story for a film or a good theme for a video or documentary? for example, any Canon (60D, 7D, 5D ,...) IS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE  A FUTURE FILM this is completely proved by filmakers around the world, even Hollywood used them as a secondary cameras in accion films like The Avengers, Iron Man, or drama films like The black Swan. I feel this point should be a problem for engineers and not for filmakers or video makers about how make the cameras to be betters or how to find the best way to get the best from them, I feel that we should be planning good stories... THE CAMERA IS JUST A PART OF A PRODUCTION, anyone can have an Arri Alexa or a Genesis but if your story is not good... you could have the best resolution image, but that my friends is nothing... but now, you could have a nice and cheap good camera (the one you like: GH2, Canon, BlackMagic, GH3, I Phone, etc, etc...) and even low resources, but if your story is good... even Hollywood could buy it (for example: LIKE CRAZY, budget 250.000 dollars and sold by 4 millons dollars to Paramount Pictures, I read some guys writing about moire, and alliasing, etc in this film, but I repeat: SOLD BY 4 MILLONS DOLLARS...) Technology is a never ending issue, falling in this "corporate game" is not good, we are the user of the technology and that´s it.! you can use the one you like more and is ok!! more resolution, less moire are just secundary points because all this cameras WORKS FINE!! if you know at least the strenghts and weaknesses of your camera you can do a good job!, a good director of photography can do a good job with all this cameras, no because of the camera, is because HE KNOWS WHAT MAKES... we need to learn about photography, directing, and writting and the camera will be the last problem in our carrer... be fine!