leeys

Given that
​Coupled with the rise of online streaming the differences in that area might not even mean that much. It's kinda a bit like MP3s in the audio world. It's good enough for most and the convenience won out.

Because the viewfinder has an lcd screen inside (or whatever screen type that is) which normally handles grid lines,etc... if you take out the battery it goes black darkening and blurring the path between your eyes and the ground glass.

​I don't think the gorillas will appreciate that! But a few big ones might scare the police for a while.

I guess everybody was spot on, except for that one guy that was foreseeing a 'messiah' of some sort. But I guess us mere mortals just 'got to have faith' a little longer.
Or not and just go with Panasonic, Sony, Nikon or perhaps even Samsung already.

​You know what's the real scary part? It's a camera that sits below the 5D3's price bracket.
I said it back then, the D750 would be a 5D3 killer if people would stop thinking that Canon and pro bodies are so great.

This is the place to gather ideas for shooting.
Gain inspiration here to go out and use all this great gear we have, and don't forget to post your results.
General discussion of the filmmaking world is also allowed here - favourite directors, writers, etc.

​DxO doesn't test 'feel' or 'general performance'.... Also, I don't think anyone can just look at color and say: camera A is better than camera B. That just comes down to personal preference and/or image processing, not something like actual bit depth.
You can disagree with the 'total' score of DxO, but just click trough to the tab 'measurements' and compare all the details.
An article on 'how to read DxO scores' would be helpful for a lot of people though It's important to look further than the total score and decide for yourself what is important for your photography (and photography only, DxO Mark is completely irrelevant for video).

I guess not everyone here is a professional or an enthusiast. More zoom = better is a fairly common consumer sentiment... until you show them the results from a high end lens.

Here's another pro tip: Never make gear purchases this close to a shoot. You never know what hiccups you can run into.

Now all we need to do is persuade video game makers that setting the frame rate of their game to sub 60 fps doesn't make it a "cinematic experience", it makes it jerky and nauseating to watch and we will have a full house!

Shoot a ruler and do the math.

That's why I'm in general not so ga-ga over the 35mm shallow DoF look. Plenty of work out there where the client wants to have enough of the image sharp that the FF advantage just goes away, leaving me with the disadvantage of a unnecessarily large kit.

No, that wouldn't make any sense - they would then be cannibalising C100mkII sales. Most people who shoot on C-series cameras are people who have come from SLR shooting. They may have certain features about C-cameras that they like, but if someone's looking to make a camera purchase, and they can buy a 5DmkIV with the same image quality as the C100mkII for $2k less, they're going to go for the 5D.
 
There's nowhere Canon can go in terms of major improvements for video in the sub $5k market that won't cannabalise their C-series lineup.
I would expect incremental video updates, and much more substantial updates on the photography side, at least for the <$5k market.

Here's another pro tip: Never make gear purchases this close to a shoot. You never know what hiccups you can run into.

Here's another pro tip: Never make gear purchases this close to a shoot. You never know what hiccups you can run into.

If you want to understand the criticism against Canon, imagine a Ferrari that can only do 80KM/h.

As the guy in that really big suit once said, "stop making sense."

Wait. When did the 70D become fullframe?

No wonder Canons sell so well if their users think the 70D is full frame :)

There is no extreme low light 4k camera on the market period! Unless you count the A7s recording to an external recorder, or maybe the C500.
 
It's actually more like test driving an Volkswagen and an Audi and saying 'hey you know what, the VW has its quirks, but it's just as fast, just as nice to drive and costs like 1/10th of the price of the Audi!'

Likening Canon to Ferrari is not helping your 'I'm not a fanboy' cause.
 
 
A7s has APS-C crop mode - what's your point?
 
The Otus' outperform CP2s and CN-Es, but they do not outperform Ultra or Master Primes, though the 55 and 85 are nice lenses. Fine, I'll put Cookes on it then if I have to :P
 
 
Are you kidding? Have you not the comments on a single article about Apple ever? Maybe read them sometime and watch everyone bash Apple for all sorts of things (not the least of which being 'behind the curve').
Those who own Apple products tend to defend them. That's exactly my point. Personally, I own a lot of Apple products, and I like them. I like the way they work and I like what I can do with them. Now, I know that you can do just as much, and in some cases more on other devices. And on other devices that are much cheaper. But I like the way Apple works. I wouldn't start talking about what a big deal I am and how Apple products are better than every other product on the market if someone said to me that their PC that costs 1/2 the price can do more than my Apple computer. I would agree with them, because I know it to be true. I just prefer the Apple.
 
You prefer Canon. That's totally fine - and if you are happy with your choice of camera, that's great. You don't need to defend it. But, there are cameras that are just as well specced, just as good (or better) for much less money. I'd be pretty pissed off too if I bought a camera for $12k and 2 years later a different company brought a camera just as specced for 1/10 the price. But that's another reason why it's silly to invest in an expensive camera unless you can totally pay it off on top of gaining an income for yourself in 12-18 months.
 
 
The Sony F5. Oh wait, you were trying to be rhetorical. F5 costs the same as a C500. It's light, small (compared to many others) and gives an awesome picture at 2k or 4k at super high frame rates in a super-gradable 10-bit XAVC codec, which would have to be one of the most efficient codecs out there.

You ever tried putting a C-series camera on your shoulder? No you haven't, because it's not possible to do unless you rig some ridiculous contraption.
 
What about battery life? I regularly shoot with Alexa. I was on a music video shoot recently where we didn't have access to any power. It was an 8-hour shoot day and I was panicking because we only had 8 V-Lock batteries. I spent the day trying to conserve power as much as I could, and nabbed two block batteries from the rental house in case of an emergency power situation.

Sometimes you can be lucky to get 30 minutes out of certain V-Locks. Power an on-board monitor from the RS port or D-Tap, and you'll struggle.

Even RED is generally a swap out every hour or so.

At least the A7 batteries are cheap.
 
You're right - the Canons have better battery life. But if the difference between a $2500 body and a $13,000 body comes down to battery life...
 
Oh, you mean the XLR input on the add-on 'box' that was specifically designed for the GH4? You mean the box specifically designed to add XLR inputs and SDI outputs?
 
How? The FS700 has internal ND, XLR inputs, adaptable lens mount, viewfinder, cheap batteries, cheap cards, Slog... Ability to shoot 2k or 4k raw, super high frame rates....

I personally don't like the FS700 (in fact I really dislike it), but I also dislike the C-series cameras. You gotta say though, the FS700 is better specced for the same price. There's no feature you're giving up on, it's just that you like Canon better. That's totally fine - just say that rather than trying to suggest that there's no other camera on the market that's as good as it.
 
There's so much hyperbole being thrown around everywhere. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion on a camera. A lot of people here are blinded by their investment, and that's human nature. But the fact that you own a different camera does not make it an objectively better camera than others out there. It may be better for you. That's great. You should pick cameras based on your needs and wants in a system. But it doesn't mean everyone else has identical needs or wants from a camera system, and it doesn't mean every other camera out there is worthless.
 
At the very least stop throwing around ill-informed comments.

That's it. I'm calling it the T-rex on USA boards from now onwards.
 
Ooo, are we playing this game? Can I play too?
 
I think they're slowly changing that now. All the new cameras have power aperture in them. Pretty sure the low-end (D5300 and below) won't have them though.
 
 
You're wrong on this one.
 
What company is allowed to get away with 6 year old tech in their cameras?
 
What company only allows "positive commentary" to be posted in blogs and frowns on those with "critical tone"?
 
What company gets to sell cameras with less features at a higher price and still move them by the boat load?
 
What company gets to do all the above and still look like a leader?
 
It's a company with one hell of a marketing department. Global marketing department, I might add.

That's it. I'm calling it the T-rex on USA boards from now onwards.
 
Ooo, are we playing this game? Can I play too?
 
I think they're slowly changing that now. All the new cameras have power aperture in them. Pretty sure the low-end (D5300 and below) won't have them though.
 
 
You're wrong on this one.
 
What company is allowed to get away with 6 year old tech in their cameras?
 
What company only allows "positive commentary" to be posted in blogs and frowns on those with "critical tone"?
 
What company gets to sell cameras with less features at a higher price and still move them by the boat load?
 
What company gets to do all the above and still look like a leader?
 
It's a company with one hell of a marketing department. Global marketing department, I might add.

Why the f*** are you here then? :)

If the T2i or T-rex from whatever era still floats your boat then fine. Nothing wrong with that. Some like the low-fi look! Sometimes so do I! But if the low-fi look was all we had... it would be very creatively limiting. No insane high ISO shoots like with the A7S which look so beautiful without requiring an Arri truck full of lights and a crew. No creative re-framing in post from 4K. No colour correction fun with raw (Canon still haven't officially ratified Magic Lantern's genius on that one). No stealth shooting bare bones with a built in EVF rather than a clunky loupe. No 120fps slow mo and no crisp details like we've enjoyed ever since the GH2 gave us proper 1080p and not line-skipped mush.
 
Creativity through technological innovation is a beautiful thing. DJI Inspire One - beautiful innovation. Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve - beautiful. Sony 12MP on a full frame sensor - incredible. Canon - just plain fucking boring. Good job there are some creative filmmakers around making so-so equipment look good purely through excellent story telling and lighting. But I want more than this. I want the technology to make new stuff possible that wasn't before. I want to tell a story with moon light or candle light. I want to tell a story with sequences at 120fps. I want to add drama and visual appeal. I just cannot do that with a Canon DSLR in the same way I can on other cameras for the same price.

Do you also have many leather-bound books and an apartment that smells of rich mahogany? C'mon, I've shot Alexa in Arriraw, RED Dragon, F65, and shot a lot of 35mm and 16mm. Commercials, TV and even films. I generally view 2k and 4k footage I've shot on calibrated monitors, and in some cases on cinema screens. But I'm not going to get into a pissing match about whether a $12,000 camera is better than a $1500 camera and try and prove to everybody that 'I'm kind of a big deal' because I'm not. Im a guy who shoots things and uses the best camera for the job.

I also don't invest in expensive cameras because I prefer to choose the camera that suits the project, rather than get overzealous about the camera I have purchased, and force it on every project because I need to justify my purchase.

I own an A7s because it's cheap and gives me a good picture. If I only shot corporate stuff, and shot it on a daily basis, maybe I'd invest in a camera - but I work regularly for many of the major production houses here, and very few own a camera. Many have invested in some lenses, but they rarely purchase their own camera, because even a production house that makes film or commercials every single day of the year knows that every production has different needs.
 
The A7s isn't really toy feeling. Compared to an Alexa or Epic, maybe - but IMO, even Blackmagics (as well as most/all video SLRs) feel like (and sometimes perform like) toys, especially when you compare them to an Alexa or a 435, for example. The A7s has some of the best low light performance on the market. Sure, maybe it's a tad noisier than other cameras, but I'm yet to see a single other camera that can see in the dark like this one can! You can't even rate a RED higher than about 320ISO without getting unacceptable noise. I push my A7s to ISO3200 in Slog and I'm relatively happy - not like the Epic which I'm cautious of rating at 800, let alone any higher!
Of course the Epic has other uses and features. I wouldn't use an A7s as my A cam on a high budget commercial. But man it gives a damn good image for such a cheap camera! 
 
Oh right, you mean unless you get the necessary adapter to put those lenses on the camera which contains electronic control...
Also, I know you have 150 lenses - did you know that you actually don't need to buy every single lens on the market available for a camera to actually be able to shoot with it? I have 8 primes for my A7s that all up cost me much less than $5000-$10000! Suits me fine - I've never had autofocus, electronic iris or lens stabilisation when shooting with lenses on any actual cinema camera (I know - shock, horror!).
Also, I've got a PL adapter for my A7s so I can put Master Primes on it if I wanted! I'd take an A7s with Master Primes over a 1Dc with Canon still glass any/every day of the week.
 
The fact that a comparison doesn't exist does not mean the 1Dc is inherently better. It just means no-one has looked to see if it is or not.
 
Man, you sure sound like a Canon fanboy.

Kodak went down the same path. They failed to innovate with their cameras, and coasted along thinking they would be fine, and they failed! Kodak invented the digital camera, and in 2005 were the number 1 selling camera manufacturer in the US! But they failed to anticipate, failed to innovate, and look where they are now.