leeys

Well, I'd still suggest a D5300 - the articulated LCD is useful! How much more would it be for you?

Interesting link showing some common grading / timing looks, or pitfalls depending on how you look at it. http://www.flicks.co.nz/blog/film-is-a-harsh-mistress/making-the-digital-grade/
 

How is the EVF poor? It's the same XGA unit found in the E-M1 and other high-end mirrorless cameras. I used it for a bit and liked what I saw.
The 5 axis stabilisation was amazing when I tried it. Maybe not the level of a 3 axis brushless gimbal but I definitely could use it handheld while moving slowly. Shame the video quality is not like its stills quality.

How is the EVF poor? It's the same XGA unit found in the E-M1 and other high-end mirrorless cameras. I used it for a bit and liked what I saw.
The 5 axis stabilisation was amazing when I tried it. Maybe not the level of a 3 axis brushless gimbal but I definitely could use it handheld while moving slowly. Shame the video quality is not like its stills quality.

​Zach, you're one of the rare few who see it. Just ask any Canon shooters and they think their 5DIIIs and 6Ds are great. Not that they're bad, but if they did what you did, they'll probably not hold the Canons up in so high esteem, and probably not go through the nerd-rage to do things like rate this thread with a 1-star rating. 

​Zach, you're one of the rare few who see it. Just ask any Canon shooters and they think their 5DIIIs and 6Ds are great. Not that they're bad, but if they did what you did, they'll probably not hold the Canons up in so high esteem, and probably not go through the nerd-rage to do things like rate this thread with a 1-star rating. 

Shooting weddings, events, or Broll for an organization with people in it, I must say, I get more and more tired of people's fear and dislike for cameras. You're an adult, get over it already.
Getting the stink eye gets old after a while. Just because cameras reveal and remind you of how stupid you look and how dumb you sound, please don't take it out on me.

I think photographers are starting to see the light as well. While I love video and this site is my favorite video resource, I am primarily a photographer. In the last 6 months i've sold my entire Canon Setup (5d3, several L lenses) and switched to Nikon. The difference in image quality and versatility to me is not even close. Nikon is ahead by a mile. I had a brief pitstop with the sony A7r and A7s and while I love the images theyre capable of, they just aren't usable in a high speed environment like a wedding. AF speed is the main drawback for me. 
My two cents 

​True - nothing new like EM-5 stabilisation or NX1-does-everything features.  
Although I would still rather buy a Canon if my stills glass was mainly EF lenses. They know that too. 

​
Exactly- it's not that FF is better because it has this otherworldly look that can't be replicated. It's that it is cheaper and more practical in many situations to achieve this look using a FF camera. It might seem like a moot point to some (same way that it's not a tele lens that causes compression, but rather your own distance from a subject), but I personally think it's an important discussion to be having. If you know what's really going on with your camera, then you have more opportunities to 'exploit' it to your advantage.

You know, I've been binge-watching a whole bunch of movies on Blu-ray this past week. From classics like Princess Bride to modern blockbusters like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
Not once have I gone, what nicely isolated background blur is in the scene.
In fact many of the movies I liked don't even use that much shallow depth of field, and it's clear that the lens has been stopped down some. I think on the whole we're looking at 5-10% of the scenes at most?
What's really more obvious to my perception I think, in the technical aspects of the camera itself, are things like dynamic range and colour response (as we all know, with this will affect the final grade and compressed footage makes this even more challenging), how camera movement is handled, and skill taken in focusing (1080p is not forgiving for errors in older films, 4K is going to be less so).
The example above illustrates my point: The one stop difference in DoF, if not placed side-by-side, wasn't going to be something I would have commmented about, and wouldn't have made me prefer one image over the other.

You know, I've been binge-watching a whole bunch of movies on Blu-ray this past week. From classics like Princess Bride to modern blockbusters like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
Not once have I gone, what nicely isolated background blur is in the scene.
In fact many of the movies I liked don't even use that much shallow depth of field, and it's clear that the lens has been stopped down some. I think on the whole we're looking at 5-10% of the scenes at most?
What's really more obvious to my perception I think, in the technical aspects of the camera itself, are things like dynamic range and colour response (as we all know, with this will affect the final grade and compressed footage makes this even more challenging), how camera movement is handled, and skill taken in focusing (1080p is not forgiving for errors in older films, 4K is going to be less so).
The example above illustrates my point: The one stop difference in DoF, if not placed side-by-side, wasn't going to be something I would have commmented about, and wouldn't have made me prefer one image over the other.

You know, I've been binge-watching a whole bunch of movies on Blu-ray this past week. From classics like Princess Bride to modern blockbusters like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
Not once have I gone, what nicely isolated background blur is in the scene.
In fact many of the movies I liked don't even use that much shallow depth of field, and it's clear that the lens has been stopped down some. I think on the whole we're looking at 5-10% of the scenes at most?
What's really more obvious to my perception I think, in the technical aspects of the camera itself, are things like dynamic range and colour response (as we all know, with this will affect the final grade and compressed footage makes this even more challenging), how camera movement is handled, and skill taken in focusing (1080p is not forgiving for errors in older films, 4K is going to be less so).
The example above illustrates my point: The one stop difference in DoF, if not placed side-by-side, wasn't going to be something I would have commmented about, and wouldn't have made me prefer one image over the other.

What? No RAW or 800 fps? Samsung sucks!

​
Firstly lenses don't "resolve" a certain number of megapixels, what happens is contrast starts to go down as details get closer together. This is characterised by the MTF of the lens. The sensor has it's own MTF. System resolution is determined by the product of the lens MTF and sensor MTF, thus an improvement in either can lead to an improvement in system resolution.
Secondly most EF lenses will provide excellent results with a 50MP sensor over the most important central region of the image, as demonstrated by years of FF lens use on APS-C. I'd bet many would perform adequately even at the borders. They certainly wont be any worse than on a 22MP sensor, whilst at the same time you will get less alisaing on demosaicing artifacts by virtue of oversampling.
It is sad to see the artificial segregation of the camera through downgrading video features and ISO settings. I'm very much hoping Sony can manage a line-skipped 1.1x crop 4K video from their next 50MP sensor, that should resize down to a very nice 1080p file.

I think Canon know exactly what they are doing, unfortunately for all of us who'd like them to be more innovative.
They have the most complete stills system, and the most complete video system, albeit over the last 3 years these systems have become separate bodies that share the same lens set. But how many times have you read a post where they say: "I would have changed system, but I'm heavily invested in L glass".
The poster could sell the glass and not lose much money, but lenses are an emotional thing for us video and stills makers, they work like our eyes and capture what we see. And with the turbulence of the DSLR/DSLM video market over the last 5 years how many people are going to brave a decision that will see them lose money and take a hit emotionally, when just around the corner the camera they've been waiting for might be delivered.
So yes, Canon are playing the game well, and have been spending their brand capital heavily to keep the competition at bay, and this is the year for them to make their move or lose a dangerous amount of ground in the £1-2K market.
We all know that Panasonic and Sony currently have the best all round cameras in our price/size bracket, and as much as we all love using vintage glass etc., what we really want is a mature complete system like Canon have. Sensitivity, DR, Colour, usability, and... lenses. Lenses designed for our favourite system.
With respect to the "Rebel" buyers, it only takes a critical mass of people to blow their friends away by showing them what their Olympus or Panasonic can do for Canon to start losing their critical "lead in" market. So for god's sake, show your friends, and keep the market competitive.
It's going to be a very interesting year. We should be excited not angry. I don't think they will, but if Canon rest on their laurels then so be it, because we don't really need them any more.

​Yeah not like your posts at all! No!
Messiah!!?

They're having retail demos all over the place here. Maybe I should try to get a hands-on. Anyone wants to know anything? No promises, but I'll see what I can get.

Crop factor is dependent on sensor size.
There's a long thread in DVX about it: www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330675-Micro-Gimbal-for-GH4-BMPCC-A7s-699-USD/
The manufacturer is a little defensive though, and it does seem the product could use a little more polish.

Why your AF fan boyism relevant to video, I will never know.
This is a filmmaking site, not a Canon arse licking site.
Be thankful you have people working hard to give you the facts about the 5Ds for video so you can say things in blocked capitals simply repeating what I said on the blog.

If they pack towers, they'll want the performance and power from a tower. This little box uses laptop components, with 15-25W TDP. Full-sized computers have CPUs that can go as high as 150W TDP. I think Haswell-E's TDP is about 140W on average. I haven't even started on the GPUs!

​Hey, given the response on various Canon forums, I think they'll sell just as well. After all, "no one can see DR differences".

With Sony you never know, they breed like rabbits but in the end you can't wait forever, if you are planning to get the a7s tomorrow and it does what you expect from it just start using it and don't visit the internet anymore so you won't be disappointed if the a7sII is announced in 2 days.

​That was a marketing gag directed to retards.

​No, they're not. The only people talking about focal length equivalents are DSLR/mirrorles stills camera users. In cinema 50mm is 50mm is 50mm, no matter 65-mm, 35-mm or 16-mm film/sensor is used. Also in cinema world "full frame" is called VistaVision.