Tim Naylor

Enough already with the slagging off on Roger Deakins. It's an embarrassing level of arrogance and ignorance. It's like saying as a painter you can't learn anything from Michaelangelo because he had all the Pope's resources at hand. If you think what makes him great are resources unattainable to you I suggest truly study how he does things. Composition, direction/shape of light, blocking are all tools he understands at a high level that are also available to the amateur. And he has the good grace to share much of  his trade with you on his site for free. 

But regarding his choice for mirrored shutter, I completely understand as quite often, the level of detail he needs (he is shooting for 20-40 foot screens), just isn't present on an EVF. I shoot with Alexa's quite often and though it has the best EVF in the business, it's still doesn't render the detail you need to see for big screen shooting. Now consider Deakins operates as well, running back to monitor isn't always practical.

That said, when it comes to a small camera like the A7s, I'm quite happy it's mirror less. It keeps the size way down. I also shoot a lot of stills with it, and the silent shutter has allowed me to get shots that I can't with the noise of a mirrored shutter. However, when I'm shooting more involved video work, I always use an onboard monitor because I find both its LCD and EVF insufficient for pulling / maintaining focus.

I sold my 5D3 to help finance my A7s. But I use the A7s primarily for video. So autofocus means nothing to me. The low light is indispensable. If you do doc or wedding, it's nice to be able to discreetly get candid footage without lights. That said, I think the color profile on the C100 is better and also the A7s rolling shutter is dreadful - perhaps the worst of the worst. Be prepared to do some post fixing. I use the A7s with clients but for specialty use (low light) only. They all love it. A C100 IMO is overall a better doc camera with the built in ND's, audio, no rolling shutter and deeper color profile. Throw an Atomos blade on it and you're outshooting a C300 in terms of codec. It's no slouch in low light as well.

If you're already invested in EF glass, for your biz model, I'd upgrade the C100 with Atomos and keep the 5d3 around for stills. Then wait for the F7s to land.....

Well I cant give any thoughts on the ultra but I can tell you you dont need to buy the regular one for $399 as you can get them for much less. I have http://www.ebay.com/itm/400573058404?_trksid=p2059210.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT this one and it works fine.

Wish I saw this a few hundred dollars ago. I ordered a Viltrox and it had way too much play and returned it. Kept the metabones. How is the amount of play on this one?

I know it's more money but I'm compelled to get both. There are times you need a tighter shot and regular metabones at APSC will get you that. Yeah it sucks to shell out more cash but I see no other way around. The other solution maybe to use rolling shutter fixes in premier. They actually work. 

I understand what you're saying but using Magic Lantern as an example of what could go wrong with an open source project is probably misplaced. The first thing is that ML does have many problems, but ML is not the problem, the problem is the nature of the project - basically ML is a Hack, not really a development project. But why is that? Because the software/Hardware that they are deloping for is closed and Canon just will not/have not given them an ounce of help, therefore they have to reverse engineer everything. Most of what the ML team does is guess work and trial and error to figure out how the software/hardware works. Even so, ML has been wildly successful. So much so that AXIOM had to resort to their thriving community to reach their funding goals. That's what I call success. Rental houses, pro shooters, enthusiasts - if you own a canon body you probably have ML running on it (Who shoots h.264 anymore?).

 

If you want to use an open source project as an example then try referencing projects such as Mysql, Mozilla and there are many more!

 

It seems to me that you missed the point completely - the reason for an open source cinema camera is so that you take the guess work out of programming! . . . No guess work, no faulty software. If the hardware fails every now and then, well, Black Magic will probably understand (if you know what I mean) - that's why we have AXIOM!

 

You are right about not many amateurs being able to afford it, but then again if ML was not around you couldn't afford a real cinema camera that shoots 14-bit RAW anyways. BTW, who's to say they will not make a sub-$1,000 camera - in fact I'd be willing to bet that's in the works.

Software aside, I 'm surprised how little is mentioned about Axiom's hardware. That to me is the weakest link. A slow chip, no EVF, HDMI outs, no internal ND, no smart Canon adaptor, no record module, etc. All the software in the world won't fix this.

Let's not turn this into a which 'camera is better' argument.  My comment related to low light performance and in which case if your image is dark and grainy it doesnt matter how much detail or colour information you got.  As you know, the bm4k may have the res you needed, but lets not for one moment even suggest it could have taken the place of the f55.  if it had, you'd have needed a lot more lighting.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see anyone using this camera on anything important enough to require the increased colour depth or resolution.  And by the time backers get their chance to pay the balance $1500 and get their camera there will be something available which just 'works' that outperforms everything this camera can do.  lets assume sony release 2 more a7s successors before this thing is ready to ship...  it's logical.  

Actually, you implied the pocket has a better image. As someone who has used both, it doesn't. But it has its uses nonetheless. I think you may have misread my post (or I expressed my self wrongly). Also, I don't think I suggested "for a moment" the BMC 4k compares to the F55.  I was pointing out how the A7s performed wonderfully alongside the F55 on a recent job.

Misunderstandings aside, I totally agree with you that by the time Axiom is rolling it'll be dated. What I'd really like to see from any camera maker is a Full Frame, well priced, proper video camera, let's say a full frame Sony F7 with a crop option.

 So let's say Tim Naylor was on a shoot and that happened when he was converting to preview.  How much would the client love him then?  NOT.  Of course, the RAW footage would have been fine, but he still would have looked incompetent.

 

I can almost guarantee that these kinds of problems will occur to AXIOM users if they use anything before it has been battle tested for months.

 

....or would I rather buy a BM or GH4 or A7S with my $150+/hr and actually go out and SHOOT a few things?  Similarly, if I'm a DP, it's not like I don't have a zillion-hours worth of projects I'd like to get done with the equipment I have!

 

 The market of high-end DIYers is minuscule.

For all these reasons and more, I'll pass on the Axiom. But because someone vetted, guaranteed and extensively tested the software for Sony, I took an A7s on commercial campaign and it was an absolute hero. Less than a week after I took delivery. It may have embarrassed the F55 we had in some respects. A hobbyist with loads of free time and money will toy with the Axiom. Unfortunately for many of us in the camerawork trade, framing, lighting and a dramatic eye doesn't always translate to computer skills. Also, I just don't see proper R&D happening at their current funding level. At 150/hr....... Unless of course you speak Mandarin.

And i imagine black magic will have yielded the best they can from this now ageing s35 sensor - of which I haven;t yet seen many rave reviews or exciting stuff captured with it.  The pocket delivers a nicer image than the 4k bm camera doesnt it?  Low light capability is pretty much the number 1 criterion in todays list of low budget film maker requirements since lighting is the last thing most people in this price range think about.  

Stop reading specs and shoot. Sure the pocket cam has more DR but it doesn't compare  in overall IQ as the BMC4k. The detail and color space of the 4k is in a different league. Different tools for different uses. Just finished an NJOY campaign in which we used F55's and A7s. The A7s got us shots that would've been impossible (interviews at night in dark tinted cars with no lights for example). But in no way would I say it comes close to "slower" cameras such as the BMC 4k in terms of overall IQ.

This IS probably one of the areas where this camera could hit a home run.  Nikon has the best DR of any camera (stills) and it uses Sony sensors. Since Sony cameras don't have the same DR, it leads one to believe Nikon has some really good firmware/software that writes sensor data to memory (RAW).   Sigma Foveon cameras have 8 stops DR, but at 100 ISO deliver medium format quality because of the sensor design...  DR does not equate to color quality.

 

Anyway, last I was at ML they were working on ways of writing two different exposed images at the same time, then using HDR techniques, to give a higher DR image.  With the Axiom you should be able to program this.  For example, you could program it to take 72 frames, each set of 3 frame -1, 0 and -1 EV.  Then software could use them to fix blow-outs, dig out the shadows, etc.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like AXIOM is spreading itself very thin.  The camera, without easy to use development tools and libraries, will experience a bottleneck of having too few devs.  Again, if there isn't an easy path (tutorials, libraries, etc.) to learn ML, why will AXIOM be different?

 

But again, if money is no object, this is the camera that may push DR technology ahead in powerful and creative ways.

72 frames becomes a data pig. After more thought, I feel the Axiom is a non-starter. DP's who shoot for a living need software with a support system in place as well as pro standards such as SDI, Proper EVF, etc. Semi pros / Amatuers won't foot the bill for the all the trimmings you need to make it work. At less than 200k in development funds raised , I' m more than skeptical. Sorry to piss on one's parade, but this article in general overlooks what really goes into t a functioning camera system. 

They lost me at their excitement over "triple HDMI". Triple headaches over SDI if you ask me. The other glaring omission is the lack of a 4k recording system. Add the price of a 3rd party 4k and SDI module plus the other attendant rigging, we're now encroaching on CION prices.

This sort of modular build is reminiscent of Red where I can say as a former Epic  / R1 owner, the body is the cheap part. To be functional on a pro level costs a fortune (my package was about 150k USD, the "brain" was a fraction of that) .

But let's start with the basics a semi-pro needs to be functional.

Axiom Body (2or 4 grand at retail).

4k recorder

EVF

On board Monitor

Media (whatever it uses)

AB or Vmount Battery system (four batts, charger, batt plate)

Baseplate and rods

Mattebox

Canon Adaptor (the semi pro won't be buying PL glass)

ND IR Set (Axiom has no built in ND)

SDI Module (Price?)

Hand Held Rig

Put in your estimates, add it all up and tell me does it cost less than Sony's proposed price of an F7s? Will it be as functional without built in ND's? Will you be using or buying more lights with its less than stellar ISO? Will you lose set up time lugging a battery system instead of small internal mount batts that'll get you till lunch until you have to change? How well will it talk with Canon EF Lenses? Is your Alphatron or Zacuto EVF driving you nuts already? Are you better off buying a used Red 1 MX with better ISO, IQ and established workflow?

How much do you really save?
 

Things to think about before pulling the trigger on any system.

They will only rent the camera by themselfs, not even sell it to other rentals. It's very unlikely that medium format glass prices are going to rise because of this.

Guaranteed, every major rental house will have one. Hopefully, it'll supplant 3D as the new tech trend.

Regarding availability of the alexa65 I really hope its cost renders inaccessible to guys shooting commercials and other lower end stuff.  I see too many low profile things shot on Alexa and it devalues the look when you go to the movies.  I don;t want a Asda / Walmart advert to look like a movie.

 

It would be really good if arri keep this away from low profile stuff in the same way the alexa studio is positioned out of reach of small time stuff.  And the same as Panavision's prestige

 

I miss going to the cinema and being wowed every time.  It seems only the case with movies by P T Anderson and Nolan that movies feel like movies nowadays.  

I don't think upgrading formats for the masses degraded anything, it just polished turds. Personally, I don't care who gets their hands on the tech because everyone has the ability to make shine or stink regardless of budget. If you don't believe me, watch  Far and Away, shot on 65mm with Tom Cruise. Perhaps one of the most expensive turds of all time. I would've loved to see Aronofsky's 16mm no budget gem, PI shot on 65mm over that anyway.

Unfortunately if you want a smart one (IS support, Aperture control and for some lenses (85L) even manual focus needs power) I believe the Metabones one is your only option.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/983747-REG/metabones_mb_ef_e_bm3_canon_ef_to_e_mount_nex.html

I didn't use that specific one so I can't comment on how well made it is, but I expect it will be excellent like there other products. Hope others who use it chime in on how well it fits on the E mount and whether it has any issues as I am getting one soon too it appears.

In a word it blows. The amount of play between lens and mount is unacceptable for precise work and quite noticeable on long lens pulls. I tried more than one to make sure I didn't have a defective. Returned it to B&H already. Way too expensive for that kind of jiggle. Waiting on a Viltrox any day now.

Jacek at Optitek just got back to me and has chatted with Sony about developing a mount. Fingers crossed. If you've ever seen his work, it's uncompromising. His Nikon / EF mounts to other cameras are genius. Instead of clicking, a pressure lock disc presses the lens into place. In short a PL system for still lenses.

Ebrahim (or anyone else for that matter), can you recommend a good "smart" EF to Emount that isn't Metabones? Something with no play whatsoever.

Thanks.

Ebrahim, you nailed it. For commercial use I think this camera is probably just right, but for cinema... no way. I am definitely more interested in cinema capabilities and the ursa, as odd as it is (and btw this FS7 will be even more odd and heavy once equipped for cinema), is much more attractive to me. 

Why's that? The only weakness I see is the lack of a good PL to E mount adaptor. But someone will jump on that soon enough. But the size of the camera without external battery pack will be welcome for cinema, especially for gimbal and handheld work. If C300/500's are being used in movies and episodic, I see this making big inroads to cinema. 

Guarantee this camera will be all over the place. Indies will now be able to afford a B camera, broadcast will get a 10 bit 422 small file size codec, and doc guys will be in heaven.

Your rental house guy needs his head feeling - no offence.

 

E mount is the most versatile mount on the market, you are not stuck to one brand of lens - loads of modern and vintage lens options. Don't take his word for it - E mount is awesome and there is nothing wrong with using adapters. 

That's exactly the opinion  of the rental houses here in NYC. I can't blame them. Emount adaptors are made like toys. The last thing they want is a client bitching about the amount of play. The only adaptor situation they seem to accept is Sony F (F55/5) to PL or whatever. They're made to pro tolerances. 

The biggest problem I see with E mount is the lack of well built adaptors. Yesterday,  I returned a full set of Rokinons EF mounts and Metabones EF to E mount because the Metabones has the slightest bit of play between the lens and adaptor. I tested some others and they all seem to suffer from that. It may not be a big a big deal for hand held or run and gun but for precise focus work on a stable platform, the slightest jiggle becomes noticeable even more so on longer lenses. I'll actually be using my A7s for an ambitious commercial campaign mixed with the F55. It's really the best Full Frame option. But I can't have a client watching us blow macro takes or slider moves because of focus jiggle. 

It's the same problem I had with the Nikon to Red 1 mount that Red used to sell. So I worked with Jacek at Optitek and he designed a PL style Nikon mount (based off the old vista vision mounts) that is rock solid. I was his beta tester. It soon became the standard for Nikon to PL. He makes an EF to Sony F mount (for F55/5) based on the same PL lock principle and it too is a rental house standard. Nothing moves. I'm sure if enough people write in to him, it may get him interested enough to design an EF to Emount that's bullet  proof. He did that with Nikon to Red and there will be a lot more Emount out there than Reds. Here's the link: http://optitek.org

So my solution for  now, I bought all Emount Rokinons. Solid mount. For my Nikon AIS, I use a Velo adaptor. This one is pretty solid and cheap. Metabones for the price is a big disappointment in terms of their tolerances, pro price, toy like precision.

Latest shipping Metabones Mk IV adapter works fine with my A7S. Just received it. They have squashed the bugs.

I just got this too and it has a bad case of the jiggles on all my EF lenses. Ok for handheld but with an FF - quite bad.

i purchased a Viltrox EF-NEX II adapter based on Matthew Allards recommendation - this is a fraction of the cost and performs consistently BETTER THAN (at least in terms of autofocus) the Metabones equivalent. i tested both side by side.. returning the Metabones.

This is good news indeed. I used my Metabones over the weekend and the amount of play is completely unacceptable for something that costs that much. Ordered a Viltrox. Is there any jiggle / play with the Viltrox?

Does this gamma cripple happen if you go through a 4k - 1080p convertor - to Atomos?

Perhaps it's because I never used it on my shoulder, maybe it is a bad shoulder camera, but as far as non-shoulder cameras go, this is the perfect design. It's being adverstised and mostly used as a handheld camcorder not as an ENG-shoulder camera. If it were designed for that it would have to be much longer, have the viewfinder on the left side of the camera closer to the mount, have a shoulder pad and more controls on the right side, like say an Amira.

 

The magic of the C300 is that you pick it up, turn on, shoot. No rigs, no external evfs, recorders, battery solutions, monitors, matteboxes, nothing, just the camera and lens and you can go all day. That's why the broadcast people love it.

I hope the new Sony inherets any of the C300 ergonomics.

Ebrahiim, yes it would be nice to use a C300 like you say, but the reality is when shooting doc or reality (things that pay bills), you have to do takes any where from 15 minutes to sometimes an hour or more. Cradling it like Canon intended won't do. Now add in the sound hops that every production makes you attach to your camera, you have a complete mess. So you end up having to rig the camera on a baseplate with 15mm rods, handgrips, monitor or EVF, AB battery or counterweight. Some people flip the Canon monitor upside and pretend it's a monitor, but it blows for outdoor work and eventually your neck cramps up from having to look up. BTW, at least in NYC, it is indeed much to the bitching of many a cameraman being used constantly as an ENG camera. It's a great look and the sensitivity is amazing. After that, I want to kick it across the room. And why does the iris notch?  Can't tell you how many times I've blown an indoor to out shot because you can't smoothly adjust the iris on EF.

I just bought the Metabones EF to E mount for my A7s. What a disappointment. While it's solid to from mount to camera, the EF lens to mount connection is far too loose and jiggly for prime time. While it may not seem a big deal to most, if you plan to use a follow focus or wireless FF, you will notice the play. For a mount that costs 299.00, this amount of play is unacceptable. Fine for Fotodiox. Why can't Metabones get this right?

Big news indeed. Cion and Ursa, please sit down. Sony gets the EVF/monitor thing right. Finally someone has. Red with the touchscreen / Bomb EVF combo is awkward and top heavy; Cion kills me with their 3rd party EVF (all the 3rd party EVF's universally suck); Ursa with a living room monitor also forgets we need light tight EVF's first and foremost; and of course Canon completely went brain dead in the monitoring department and seems to act as if they did nothing wrong. 

I'm so glad, Sony answered the ergonomic issues and has taken a broadside at the 3rd party Frankenrig market. Stripped down, it'll be floating on more than a few gimbals and octocoptors. My only complaint and this is minor is the omission of a two pin lemo or D tap out in it's non AB/Vmount form. It would have been nice for powering all the wireless doo dads that are popping up these days now within in reach of non rental house market. One day we'll laugh at how trussed up Movi's have become with Lipo batts hanging all over the place like Christmas decorations. All it takes is a forward camera maker to realize powering wireless is going to be a standard feature down the road.

The first one to develop a full frame camcorder with built in ND's, 422, XLR, etc wins. Ask them if they're developing that. No one seems to have that in the works.