TheRenaissanceMan

​Aww man. Is the H5 any better? 

I've got to start picking your brain on audio...

Many reviews have put the NX1 right up there with some FF cameras in terms of stills IQ. Go search the NX1 or NX500 on Flickr and you'll see tons of great work from that sensor. 

In terms of future-proofing, I've found the Blackmagic cameras to hold up the best. They're defined more by the support gear you attack then by the camera itself, and 12-bit RAW/10-bit Prores 422 isn't getting old anytime soon. You even have the option of 1080p, 2.5K, and 4K, and two different flexible form factors. 

Mattias recently posted a shootout between four cameras without telling anyone what they were. The most popular camera, the one everyone praised as being extremely detailed with great dynamic range, even going so far as to guess it as the BMPC, A7S, GH4, or NX1, was...the Blackmagic Pocket. So if even us camera dorks who spend our leisure time picking out nuances in footage can't tell what's 1080p and what's not, I doubt that extra resolution will make or break your work. Unless you want the ability to cut in to close-up and MCU from a medium shot or want the extra resolution to stabilize, 4K isn't a necessity for anything these days. 

Thanks to the Speedbooster system, you can even invest in larger format glass, use it effectively on your smaller sensor camera, and keep that investment if you ever decide to buy a larger-sensor camera. That's why I like to avoid buying the latest, greatest, most amazing cameras. I invest in great glass, then buy the sub-$500 clearance cameras like the G6 and jump on sales like the BMPCC $495. Instead of a nicer, higher-res camera, I bought lights, reflectors, diffusers, filters, a nice fluid head tripod, an external audio recorder, a lavalier mic, upgraded PC components, and a nicer editing monitor. Next up on my list is grading software, Speedlooks' LUT package, Neat Video V4, an external field monitor, and some online editing/color correction tutorials.

That stuff, along with experience and problem-solving skills, will always outshine whatever sensor is in your camera. Besides, renting bodies is cheap. 

​Just curious since I'm not as up on audio equipment, but what's wrong with the H4N? I've heard pretty good things about it from other people.

​Even if there was, it wouldn't cover the 2.4x cropped portion of the sensor.

Art Adams has a nice article with a couple very helpful graphs. http://www.provideocoalition.com/log-vs-raw-the-simple-version

And so far, despite being flatter than CineD, VLog doesn't seem to crush skintones as much, which is the only major concern with a flat profile in 8-bit. Besides, you can always take the 10-bit out if you're worried about muddy tones. 

I wouldn't mind so much if this were a paid update. I'd happily shell out $50-$100 to have this color science and DR on the GH4.

Noam Kroll has a pretty good review of these lenses on his site. http://noamkroll.com/extensive-rokinon-cinema-lens-kit-review-the-4-lenses-you-need-to-shoot-your-feature-film/

They're cheap, handle well, and offer good images. A nice option for those on a budget. Do they produce a more "cinematic" image than other stills lenses? Not really. They may be in cinema housings, but they're still very contrasty and breathe like crazy. 

​I'm with you there. Global shutter all the way, or at least fast enough rolling shutter as makes no difference.

Then you just need enough mass or a steady enough rig to smooth out micro-jitters. A little shake looks organic and nice, but too much can be distracting.

​Yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you. The best alternatives would be the A7R (much worse low-light, softer, worse codec) or the A6000 with a Speedbooster (decent low-light, just got the XAVC-S 50mbps codec via firmware, but no mic or headphone jacks), but neither is a perfect replacement. I've seen the A7S go for as low as $1500 on Ebay, but that's still above your budget. 

I would take a serious look at samples with the GH4 and SLR Magic lenses. Despite being on a smaller sensor, those lenses produce great shallow DoF because their bokeh is so smooth. Incredibly cinematic glass. If you like what you see, the G7 might still be a good option.

Good luck with whatever you decide. 

Great work, Greg! Nice shots and a pretty good grade for a self-taught colorist. You might look at increasing saturation in the blues--the skies are a little anemic and the foliage has kind of a neon look. 

Have you tried the Autumn Leaves creative style at all? It sounds stupid, but Brandon Li gets amazing results with it dialed down. Any chance you could do some comparison shots between SLOG2 and Autumn Leaves in the same conditions? 

Thanks so much for the post!

​In what regards? Low light, DR, color, ergonomics? Honestly curious.

​The Panasonic G7 with an SLR Magic 12/17mm f/1.6 and 35mm f/1.4 kit would cost you around 1500 and gives excellent image quality. What are you aiming for price-wise? And what are you looking to get out of your purchase? Shallower depth of field? More resolution? Better overall image quality? Nicer ergonomics? 

The A7 with a cheap 35mm or 50mm will indeed be cheaper, but the video quality's pretty lacking and you won't have much flexibility. 

​Any stabilizer benefits from good technique. I've managed some fairly smooth shots down stairs with a Mega OIS lens. 

I don't mind a little organic hand shake in my handheld shots. In fact, I prefer my handheld shots to look a little handheld. What I mind is that crazy sickening warping effect. I would axe the shot completely if I saw that at rushes. 

​Which is sort of a solution, but that doesn't help reduce micro-jitters. To me, the appeal of lens IS is that it makes handheld shots from tiny cameras look like handheld shots from proper cameras. It's still not a replacement for a steadicam or gimbal, although it can replace a tripod sometimes with a little Warp Stabilizer/Lock and Load.

​They probably will! I'll be gawking over those tests right next to you.  

​Interesting. Maybe that's why I haven't seen this problem with the E-M10 or E-PL7 (they only use 3-axis stabilization). Is it possible to turn off lateral stabilization on Sony cams as well?

​Totally agree. My 14-45 has given me consistently amazing results. I've heard people complain about the new Power OIS, but my Mega OIS lenses seem to have the magic.

That's disappointing about the Sony OSS. Can you elaborate on your experience with it? The new A7 cams can combine the internal stabilization with OSS lenses--I'm very curious how that'll look.

​I actually didn't realize. Thank you for clarifying! I'm guessing it will be less jerky than the A7 II, but we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully no plane shifting/parallax problems. 

​I'm a film student, so the Blackmagic has become my A-camera on projects. Shane Hurlbut highly recommended it as a camera to learn on and grow into, and I'm finding it's great for that. Beautiful image, excellent DR, sharp enough for anything, and it really makes you think about your shots. I have yet to shoot anything serious on it, but hopefully I'll have a chance to crank out a short before summer ends. 

I also film events now and then for side cash, and the RX10 has become my main camera on those. It's so versatile and easy to use that I'm actually in the process of selling my GH3. The Sony's IQ is pretty much identical, and it's much more flexible with more features. I also like it for casual stills and video--friends' birthday parties, walking around, family get-togethers, etc. I haven't tried intercutting it with Pocket footage yet, but it might make a good shot-grabber/faux steadicam B-cam. My only dilemma is the 4K update coming up...I may have to sell it and shell out the extra few hundred to upgrade. 

The RX10's just okay for stills, though, and I'm craving a bigger sensor for my FD and Minolta glass. The Pocket is great, but even with a speedbooster I'm looking at a 2x crop on my vintage stuff, and my widest lens is a 48mm equivalent--which means if I go with FD or Minolta for a project, I'll need to supplement it with a native lens that won't match the look. I was also considering the NX500, but you can't take a 2.4x crop out of the middle of a vintage 135 format lens and expect it to perform. Besides, then I can't use my amazing SLR Magic lenses. So right now I'm looking at the NX1, G7, GH4, or A7s. Leaning toward the GH4 because I still have a ton of batteries, want that 10-bit HDMI out, and would love to have another body that'll take my SLR Magic glass. 

Hopefully, all the bluster over the A7R II will flood the market with cheap used cameras for us to choose from.

If nothing else, the release of the A7R II will lower the cost of a used A7S.  

To answer your original question, it's absolutely still logical to buy an A7S. Your workflow will be faster if you use PP4 or the Autumn Leaves creative style instead of SLog 2, but you'll still have the option if you ever need that extra DR. 

It doesn't give up that much to the NX1 for stills, either. Unless you're printing larger than 24x36, it's comparable all the way up the ISO scale and a little better at the high end of it (obviously). The 11+7 bit compression Sony uses for their RAW files tends to bother me, but a lot of people don't seem to mind. That's something for you to weigh on your own. 
 

And remember: if it still makes good images, no camera is irrelevant. Cheers!

​Hopefully. I just bought mine a month ago for $700, but it came with $250 worth of accessories. 

​Then I definitely think the G7 or BMPCC are your cameras, depending whether you want higher overall image quality or improved ergonomics and hybrid shooting. If you need a secondary camera for run and gun, the RX100 Mark II has a pretty nice 1080p image and can be had for $200-300 on ebay. 

You could pop your lenses on the NX500, but you'll be cropping them so much it'll hardly be worth it. The camera seems to work best with native lenses or Canikon APS-C stuff. 

​Definitely. That's the artist's dilemma: hold back your work and miss out on appreciation, or put it out there and risk criticism. In the end, you just have to put yourself out there, roll with the punches, and keep your chin up. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

​Okay, now I'm getting the picture. 

Correct me if I'm off: you like small size, want more robust files for 1080p delivery, and don't want to spend a ton of money. 

It sounds like you're debating between some high end compact/bridge cameras and small mirrorless ILCs. Here's the question that'll cut your list in half. Do you want to change lenses? 

​This is one of the videos that showed me Olympus' stabilization in video isn't all it's cracked up to be. The longer shots look great, as do most where the shooter is standing in one place, but moving around at the wide angle gets nauseating--which sucks, considering I almost always use a wide angle when I'm shooting handheld. Check out the section from 1:50 to 2:00 where he's walking down the stairs. Barf city. 

https://vimeo.com/79312157

​I see your point. At the time, I didn't think responding to an experimental test video with "not a fan of that look" constituted a personal insult. 

But let's not let that detract from what a success this forum and its community has become.

​Oh, of course. It's Andrew's site; he can run it however he wants. I'm just responding to the sentiment that everyone's free to have an opinion here without retribution. 

​Fair enough! I haven't actually used Olympus' IS, so I appreciate the clarification. 

I still wouldn't use it for anything wider than 35mm equivalent. I've seen some gnarly parallax shifting artifacts in video samples with the 12mm. 

​What are type of work do you do, and what are you looking to get out of your new camera? More detail? More resolution for cropping and stabilizing? Better colors? A more robust codec? RAW/10-bit? What camera are you coming from? 

​I never took the NX500 seriously until I gave it a search on Vimeo. Holy crap is that a lot of image quality for the price. In a nice small package, too! Not to mention excellent stills for hybrid shooters. 

​Unpopular opinion: I think the sweet spot for video resolution is somewhere between 2K and 4K. My favorite cameras in terms of detail rendering are the Blackmagic 2.5K and the Alexa 2.7/3.2K. It's more detailed and immersive than 1080p, but not distractingly or harshly so like 4K. We're already downsampling our sensors from larger MP counts--why not just aim for a slightly higher number? Surely 2.5K can't be that much harder than 1080p.

​Well, as long as it's not Andrew's work. I still remember when he posted that 120fps 12,800 ISO video many of us disliked, and someone was warned and had their post deleted just for saying "Not a fan of that look." 

I haven't seen that happen since, though. 

Wholeheartedly agree. ​I object to people who slam this short for being gimmicky or all about the tech, but anyone who gives the film a close watch and thinks about it critically has the right to their opinion, regardless of whether or not they can "do better." The whole point of art is that everyone has a different experience with it.

​I sort of get that. It might just be that we're so used to watching "test videos" intended to be analyzed for image quality that we've started treating EVERY piece of video that way. I know I've fallen into that trap lately.

​That could be interesting, but I think it changes the meaning of the short from what the makers intended. Maybe that would be a good angle for you to use in a project! 

​The anachronistic costumes lent it some charm for me, but I can see how they'd turn you off. I agree the title could be better, but it works well enough. Completely agree on its strengths, though. No labored setup, just starting in medias res and getting on with the action. Good point about the characters having distinct voices. It's an often overlooked concept that ends believability and depth to your scenes. 

​The focus pulling in general was distracting, now that you mention it. Maybe they were having trouble seeing with the noise and dark conditions, but it seemed downright random in places. Like in the beginning, they racked focus between the tree and the stars back to the tree back to the stars, all in the same shot. I don't get it.

​Yeah, you bet. It helps that me and my friends are total sci-fi nerds. 


I appreciate the people in this topic wanting to argue the film's merits, but there's a fine line between defending the film and attacking its critics. Let's stay on the right side of it.