fuzzynormal

So many reasons. The ones we might be unaware of though are the most powerful. ​I tend to believe that this "smartphone-as-proxy-for-witnessing-life-behavior" is a kind of a psychological issue, a subliminal problem. For example, so many of us have a difficult time accepting their temporal existence. Capturing moments controls time; proves to oneself that they can govern the journey somewhat. knowhatimean? Life's nothing without death. Ying-Yang. And whatcha' gonna do about it? Answer: Instagram. Myself, when I'm actually not working I tend to leave my camera at home. I prefer flawed recollection. That said, the GM1 is one of the best stealth cams I've ever used. Nobody seriously thinks anything worthwhile is happening with that bit of gear.

Im guessing that anyone that hypes JVC probably doesn't have experience actually using their cameras.

Depending on price, maybe just get two used 5DII's and cheap old 85mm or 50mm --f1.4 or f1.8 prime lenses. I shoot 5D interviews all the time; often without any lighting. (still have to know how to get a good shot though and exploit natural light) Personal testimony: I also shoot with the GM1 and it's very capable. You could get those cheap used as well. Cheaper than the 5D. Put a speed-booster adapter on it and you'd be shooting roughly the same "sensor" size as the 7D...if you really want it. You could also just put a inexpensive 50mm on a GM1 and have a great portrait lens, good for interviews. I'd bet you'd be able to acquire 2 cheap SMC Pentax f1.4 50's, two GM1's and two dumb adapters for less than $1K. 3rd party battery life for the GM1 is around an hour and the thing'll record non-stop as long as there is power. Anyway, that's some bargain suggestions for ya.

​I do. 33% interest compounded monthly. No pay, you get a visit from my Moldavian friends. Interested? We can meet in my office. It's in the back of Lenny's bar on 5th and Market.

I've used the Red1. I don't want to use it anymore.

​f5.6 on s35 is a common preference for people (narrative fiction cinematographers) that actually do this stuff for realsies. So I find that the "FF" aesthetic argument is pretty indulgent for the most part. On the other hand, technically, you can get some great low-light capability...and that's something practical to actually consider depending on what you want to do. That said, I still carry around my 5D and an old 50mm Nikon f1.4 lens for making easy and great looking corporate interview type shots. If anything, using FF for talking head documentary type work is my idea of FF's strongest aesthetic "feature."

Yeah, I don't know why people get their panties knotted about certain digital cameras not looking cinematic enough. These are judgements based on what exactly? Vimeo or YouTube videos from amateur goofballs like me slapping a kit lens on a camera body, lazily applying some ill-conceived color grade, and uploading it? Jeeze, if it looks too "digital" to you, change the lens, change how you shoot, change the color grade. Okay, maybe a certain camera gets you closer to a subjective cinema-look to start, but it's still up to you to finish the job. If you can't find a recipe to make your shots cinematic, you're doing it wrong, not the camera. I'll guarantee you someone with talent and skill could grab my modest Panasonic GM1 and make visually stunning shots while I could run around all day with an Alexa and create a pile of worthlessness if I didn't know what I was doing. Too much worrying about the wrong stuff when it comes to cameras, I think.

That's John Tesh on the ivories, right?

​In the paradoxically zen words of a contemporary sage much more admired than I am, "Words can't bring me down, so don't you bring me down today."

​Yes. Moreover, I'm going to wager that legacy digital accessories are going to be a heck of a lot easier to acquire in the 22nd century than a 35mm projector. I'm confident both will still exist, actually, just easier to get simple digital devices than a Westar. And, for what it's worth, I still have floppy discs from my C64 right now (anyone want to play Space Taxi?) I even have old data tapes from my 80's computers. At any rate, if someone makes a major motion picture and they're willing to archive an actual film print, by all means do it! But that's stuff I think only studios are going to consider. I guess Indy people can too, but they better have some deep pockets.

I like film as much as the next guy, but the argument that's it's awesome because it's the only viable archive format is a bit odd. The assumption in the argument tends to be "hard drives fail!" Well, okay. But why talk about hard drives? Solid state devices as storage is perfectly acceptable. Back up your project, stick it on the shelf, and in the year 2134 let your great great grandkids take a look at that awesome dynamic range test movie of SeaSide Heights shot on your A7s with a music soundtrack from Tulleycraft... Line the SSD with lead and seal it in a vacuum if you really want it to endure.

Ancient Greeks had a mind exercise that involved infinite numbers and division. They reckoned that since numbers are infinite that any time between two actual moments must therefore be infinite. Transfinite infinity. Zeno's Paradox. A trillion moments within a second? That's getting close. I like that notion. Time is not just how we perceive it. Excuse me while I go eat some pot brownies now, dude.

​True, but I'd argue this is achieved more in production design than cameras...I mean, I could make film look like video with a few tricks. Such an assertion seems to be a contrarian opinion. Many of us want to believe that the elusive film-look is solved with the purchase of something new and better. Perhaps to a certain extent, but I'm not convinced it's the beginning and end. ...and I'm a guy that LOVES actual film shooting. Go figure.

​Indeed, but what about the manual focus? I know it has some sort of manual "clutch" but am unsure what that means in actual practice.

BTW, that wide zoom (25mm-ish FF equivalent) to the long end of standard (70mm-ish) is sort of a necessity. She's used to working in that range, finds it comfortable, and utilizes the practicality of it.

​Leaning towards Olympus, so lenses with stabilization are not required if we do that...

I usually shoot with primes, but my wife does lots of corporate run and gun filming. We're transitioning this year to a full on m43 commitment and unloading our Canon DSLR stuff --and we'd like to get something similar in performance to her favorite piece of glass, the Canon - EF 24-70mm f/2.8. So, I'm figuring some sort of lens that I can mount with a "dumb" speedbooster on M43. As such, it'll need an iris ring. I guess a wide zoom in the range of 17-35mm would be comparable... Just wondering if anyone has experience or suggestions of a lens that's in the ballpark of those specs?

​Casablanca.

I think it's great. Interesting how younger people romance film as something so incredibly exotic. The step by step mundane nature of film development is treated as if it's some magical alchemy. Funny. I never thought I'd see a video wherein film processing is celebrated so much. Nothing wrong with any of that, it's just amusing as an older guy to see that fresh perspective.

​That's interesting and I'm not knocking your opinion, but for some reason I'm compelled to think the opposite. I like awesome considerate shots on limited technology for some reason. Something flawed feels more real to me, somehow. Must be my inflated infatuation of French New Wave.

​Perhaps, but when it comes to cameras and many of the hobbyist/enthusiasts that use them, gear acquisition is always going to be more important than creating. I don't think that sentiment is anything new; been around for more than a century. And those are the people most likely to fret about the latest and greatest and, in turn, help fulfill advertising. And advertising is important on these sorts of websites. After all, if you like really playing with tech stuff and you know you're not as good as other people making creative things (I'm figuratively looking in the mirror while typing this, btw) what else do you have to hang your hat on? Ownership is then what tends to matter more. For what it's worth, I've also run into pros that dismiss more than capable cameras as "toys" simply because they're not in the upper tier of equipment.

​​Based on what I see on Vimeo and in comment sections the answer is "random hand held street scenes with a music bed"

Here's a broader question that a really-good-but-not-absolutely-perfect-camera, especially like the NX1, brings to my mind often: Would these perceived limitations seriously affect one's ability to create compelling motion picture storytelling? At what point do we say, "man, that image is good. I can go make a movie with that." In other words, I understand the desire to reach for the elusive last % of IQ, but if you feel a camera satisfies 95% of your needs, but you'd REALLY like to get to 97%, do you NOT do something because you can't have it? After all, this is the low-budget ideal of film making here on this site. Since that's the model the cameras talked about here are always going to be behind the curve compared to upper echelon equipment. Is it a chicken/egg sort of thing? I feel if one has a great idea for a film, they'll go get a camera that makes it happen. Do some feel they need a great camera to realize their film ideas?

​Yeah, I'm hyperbolic. Sorry bout that. I mean I intellectually get why it makes sense for a lot of folks. It certainly depends on what they're trying to do. I just don't run in that arena of higher levels of production. And I've never met a camera I've been unable to effectively utilize because of bad colors. Well, that's not true. I've used some pretty wonky JVC cameras. As for the RED1, there's still a reason it appeals to dudes like Mr. Davis and why they use 'em to make cool stories... But man is it slow!

​I'm still a bit flummoxed why highly accurate skin tone is such a priority for some people. Personally I view color as a variable that can and should be exaggerated. To each their own I guess.