sam

Personally I'm against anything which encourages a decline in the standards of sound. 

Go to dvxuser and find jcs.  Banned here for too much new age alien drug speak.  Super rich coder dude from the hills of beverly. Not sure if he will have time, but he knows the ins and outs of the c300ii and is very amicable.

Go to dvxuser and find jcs.  Banned here for too much new age alien drug speak.  Super rich coder dude from the hills of beverly. Not sure if he will have time, but he knows the ins and outs of the c300ii and is very amicable.

Go to dvxuser and find jcs.  Banned here for too much new age alien drug speak.  Super rich coder dude from the hills of beverly. Not sure if he will have time, but he knows the ins and outs of the c300ii and is very amicable.

Go to dvxuser and find jcs.  Banned here for too much new age alien drug speak.  Super rich coder dude from the hills of beverly. Not sure if he will have time, but he knows the ins and outs of the c300ii and is very amicable.

Based on the songs rank, it appears the damned have quite a few fans.  Who are you/I/we to judge a multitude on their intellect or taste?  
What I find intriguing is why the continual discussion, excitement, arguement etc... about new cameras if Oliver is correct?  Or why those like Juan Melara, continue to lug around beastly monstrosities costing small fortunes? I like the gh series cams as much as the next, but what is it about the current crop of smaller/budget cam shooters constantly reminding everyone how amazing their cam du jour is?  
 

I first saw The Damned in 1977.
Most of us will be amazed its even in colour let alone anything else.

I wouldnt be very optimistic about the long term income prospects for stock video
Take this site...
https://www.shutterstock.com/
Look at the stock video rates - typically US$79 for a 1080p clip and US$199 for 4k - sounds like a good business right?
Then take a look at the stock photo rates on the same site. A US$29 monthly fee gets you 10 images or US$2.9 an image. And if you want a lot of images a month, you can get them for as little as 27cents an image.
Essentially stock  photo prices have fallen by over 95% in the past 15 years (with the democratisation of photography). I know of 3 photographers who 15 years ago were working full time on stock photography (for Getty) and say they were making a very good living. Now they make almost nothing.
My guess is that video is probably half way through that democratisation process (which basically ends with everyone having decent video, video af, stabilisation on their cameras.) And it is pretty likely stock video prices will fall pretty rapidly.

To any who may frown on these posts.  Let me ask you.  Do you want another Ebrahim?  
He went on for years giving all sorts of advice about image quality, gear, workflow, etc...When people would ask for recommendations, there he was, speaking the lingo, talking like an old pro.  As it turned out, he was a kid with  a 50d literally out in the middle of the Egyptian desert. 
 As for Kye, I asked his intent, as evidenced by the previous posts, and he equated that to a personal attack.
 Maybe I should of responded like Matthew Allard of newsshooter responded to a commenter in the Ebu post, when they told him he should call out Allen Roberts about the results of his recent test.  "Its like a sports car owner telling a racecar driver what their doing wrong"   and Matt owns an F35 and Amirra.  If Kye was part of this analogy, he'd be a well versed spectator in the stands.  Would you take any heed of his advice on what engine to use or when to change tires?
Which brings me to another topic I rail against that keeps getting hammered on, especially by the owners of the gh5.  All cameras are "good enough." That may be, depending on a number of factors, including but not limited to screen size and quality, your own preferences, and distribution medium......but do you see Mathew Allard, Matt Workman, Phillip bloom, Robert Allen, or the vast majority of production giving up industry standard cinema and eng cams? And I cant say they wouldn't like to, because no one wants to carry around heavy tools or spend tens of thousands and more on tools, when they could use it for living life instead.
Is it safe to say most participants of eoshd have not seen a single uhd bluray? How about the simple task of downloading the exr' s from Geoff Boyles evaluations as a point of reference?
how can they then even begin to make a statement of any sort in reference to "quality" of image when comparing one camera to another?  
 
 
 
 
 
 

^ Nothing wrong in getting volunteers but i suspect your location may help. Here in the west, nobody seems to work for free and students will want at very least an internship.
 
Anyways, this being mainly a small camera forum I'm not surprised at all by the general consensus/bias towards them but to claim "Anything bigger than a dslr is too complex for a solo shooter" is highly innacurate.. I'd like to argue cams like Cx00/FS5/EVA1 are actually less complex then their DSLR/MILC counterparts with proper ergonomics, dedicated buttons & dials, ND filters, bigger LCD, better battery life etc.. once you rig up a DSLR/MILC it can become a lot less intuitive & balanced to operate imo..
ENG cameramen have been operating heavy duty cams single handedly for decades.. a proper shoulder mount kit can go long ways..
Just so happens in most bigger projects requiring higher end cine cams (RED/ARRI), the budget usually allows for a crew. and is mandatory anyways in most narrative work.
That said i know several DPs that (occasionally) work fine solo with Ursa Minis, REDs etc.. it really isn't that monumental to set up tripod/slider/lights. and if it's just a product/beauty studio shot they don't necesarily need an AC or even assistant to operate.
 

Yeah I have heard thay Sony's cams not only do not correct for it but also force it in the footage on purpose. I guess just to spite all the people that found out how they can get great colors from their Sony cams. 

I read that sheet when I first ordered my XC10 and I was quite disappointed, but I then went on to read many of the other tests on much more expensive cameras, and I found that many high-end cameras didn't have a huge amount more resolution than the XC10.
And then I read the a6300 test and ended up laughing out loud with its many many issues 
I didn't realise they've since tested the Ursa Mini and GH5s, so I've got some light reading ahead of me
For those that haven't read any of these, I highly recommend doing so:
https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_tech3335 and for older cameras https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_legacy
Tests like these are a good way to cut through the internet BS and brand-loyal-myopia.

I'm not even using a camera, using a microphone, and I'd like this too please!
Exactly! ARRI ALEXA is designed with a crew in mind, while the AMIRA is configured differently in a number of smaller and bigger ways so that going solo (or with a very small crew) is at least an *option*.
 
 
 

FWIW I do frequently see Amiras being used in that same NFL role at larger football (the real type ) events here in Europe. 
Its always single operator with assistant very much in the role of general helper (though his exact beverage dispensing duties remains unclear) and shooting what you would probably describe as cinematic ENG for want of a better description.
CinENG as I'll now call it!

If you're doing newsshooter doco style shooting (I.e. Zero or minimal lights, and mostly just locked off tripod shots) then sure AMIRA / F55 / etc are just perfectly fine to use solo, and many many people do so. 

True, unless you measure the effects of NR only using a black and white chart. ?‍♂️

Did you read the article or just look at the first picture?? I mean I would want crew myself and certainly not disputing you. The article by arri just states that it was designed for solo operation.   If this gentlemans beard can handle the weight for an entire nfl game, I know yours can!

This. You'll generally find that those making the most noise about gear make very little themselves of any worth to anybody.

I’m surprised it took so long for someone to say this looks like trash. I could not disagree more.
This looks like the future to me.
Friedkin is more in tune with the future and how media will be produced than any prosumer on this site. Grab a camera and tell a story, that is the future. Unsane is a good example as is that Amazon Prime movie called The Break In. Those people made a small fortune on a found footage movie shot on an iPhone.
Sure Friedkin cashed in on his legacy and he probably could have used a better camera, but this is just a sign of things to come.
Did it look great, no not really, but I was more interested in the circus side show element than the artifacts or overly saturated image. That camera has horrible preamps, but it was good enough for me to hear and get freaked out by the Latin or Aramaic or whatever the Devil’s official language is.
In some ways, I think it’s better to have a shite image than a decent one. When you compare a good, prosumer image from the GH5 or a7sii... or whatever to an Alexa or Red, they pale in comparison... they look good but off. When you look at an image from a crap camera, there is no comparison whatsoever, so it doesn’t even matter.

I sort of agree with this.
However, the guy doesn't give a rip about IQ, he just went for it.  He's obviously a capable director based on his legacy, but obviously he's also a shit shooter.  So then, considering all that, what's more important?  That he did it or that he did it poorly?
Look, I shot and edited a PBS thing a year ago.  Didn't write/direct.  It looked pretty good ... but it was also as boring as a month old turd.  I'd rather watch whatever tacky melodramatic silliness William Friedkin decided to make than rewatch any of the episodes featuring my work.
These are the existential musings for many filmmakers.  Do you get in your own way by adhering to the demanding technical strictures of the craft, or do you just not care so much and get 'er done, focusing on more important things like storytelling?  (or in Bill's case here, an apparent trashy cash grab, coasting on his notoriety)
It's not easy for many of us, but just deciding to be creative however you can is honestly the best way forward.

I'm in the third week of a feature film being shot with an AMIRA,  I'd say it is a massive massive stretch to think of the AMIRA as a one man crew kind of camera (though it is closer to that than any other ARRI digital camera). We have a three person camera crew for this. (& three person lighting crew, continuity person, AD, wardrobe, MIA & assistant, etc etc)
 
The FS7 however is very much on the small side of "big cameras", and can easily be operated solo. However, I've also worked on shoots with a FS7 which had a five person camera department. 

Why stop at the gh series? Just use a phone.

Its true. Can't wait. It was even on Amazon for a preorder but they pulled it, so not sure when, but its coming. Making a new print from the negative even.  What I haven't heard is if it will be projected like the hateful eight, and/or if it will get an 8k scan and d-cinema like Dunkirk.   

Heh, yeah it really does. I know that a lot of members of this board will only shoot 4k 10 bit, and I get it, that's the same as Netflix wants, so there must have been some subjective research done to show that it's substantively a lot better. Maybe everyone else here has  better eyesight than me and I'm on the wrong board. (Likely.)
(Fwiw, I do think for HDR the 15 stop 4k 10 bit spec is spot on. But I'm not shooting HDR...)
But I go on Vimeo and watch amateur videos and there isn't this sudden night and day difference once the GH5 or C200 hit. Even on Netflix (I don't have the 4k option on my account), I can't always tell what was acquired and finished at 2k and what's an original and finished at 4k 10 bit. Everything looks about the same to my untrained eye past a certain point. When it was the GH2 vs the 7D I saw a huge difference. The Alexa made a huge difference over the Red MX. And I've always loved the look of film and can spot it every time, but technically it's softer than most 1080p video, so that's just taste there, nothing to do with image quality but rather aesthetics. 
So maybe it's not that I don't care that much about image quality, I'm just blind to it. Time to get glasses maybe, or maybe brush up on technical comparisons, I guess. When I zoom in or pixel peep of course I can see the differences, but those seem to pale in comparison to aesthetic differences or just a good story. Probably just me.

Exactly the point of my post.