Daniel Acuña

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.

Which makes you perfect placed to comment on the enthusiast subject at hand.


I've shot with the 1D C. Type EOSHD 1D C review into Google when you have a spare moment.


Really? A7S not better in low light? Hmm.


No I think you'll find the ergonomics suck as well. Perhaps the most unintuitive camera for video I've ever shot with.


Does your Epic have AF? Thought not. There's a reason for that.

You have your facts wrong. ALL the Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses have f-stop control and IS via the Metabones adapter to Sony E-mount.
 

I have seen the A7S's 4K projected at Pinewood Studios. I can tell you what it looks like. It looks superb and it is full frame 4K not 1.3x crop on a 2 year old sensor aka 1D C.

I think we should be happy that 'the masses' are still buying Canon because it is 'the brand to get'.
We, as enthusiasts and some even professionals, earn their living with shooting video's. I'm so happy that 80% of video shooters still shoot 720p on their Canon 7D / 5D. Why? Because my GH3 looks amazing compared to it. And my clients go 'ooeh' and 'aah' when they see my footage. Of course it is composition, grading, talent, etc. But the camera is also important.
 
So I say, stop spreading the word about Canon camera's being shitty. You gain nothing from it, but you take the edge, of us video makers who spent lots of time selecting the best gear carefully, away.
 
Buy Canon folks! Great reliable gear! Never had any problems with them!
 
Furthermore, even though your articule is spot on Andrew, it accomplishes nothing. It's like asking Sony why they don't release a Mac Pro competitor for less money. Clearly there is no interest from Canon in this market. But also, they will still sell the most camera's for years and years to come. And you should buy a Canon, because they are great!

Yes I get your point ;)
 
I am a film student so I watch all kinds of movies and "old" classics are some of my favorites! I love Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick is one of my favorite directors (the other one is Terrence Malick), Fellini, Bergman, Sergio Leone, David Lynch, Godard, Truffaut, De Sica, Orson Welles and so many others.
 
I guess one of the reasons I really liked Interstellar is the fact that I love space related stuff (space opera), I am also a big fan of 2001 : A Space Odyssey and I must say Interstellar is just something else compared to other blockbusters from Hollywood that we have today, you can feel the effort made by Nolan to make a Good original Blockbuster movie.
But that is just my point of view ;)
 
PS: Yes Gattaca is a great movie I love it! I just wish I could've watched all this classics movies on the big screen and not on Netflix or Blu-ray. That's one of my biggest regrets :)

In my 20s I would probably run people over in the street to make sure I got to a movie on time.  If I missed even 10 seconds it was totally ruined for me.  It would NEVER occur to me to leave a movie in the middle--I never did.  If people were talking I physically grabbed them and told them to shut up, no matter how many of them there were. Thirty years later and I can live with missing the beginning of the movie (though I try not to) and I now find it easy, not hard, to walk out of many movies.  As for people talking, ironically, I now often find their commentary a lot more entertaining :)
 
Daniel, the point of all my comments is that Interstellar could have been a lot better.  I didn't walk out of it.  It was watchable.  There were good ideas in it.  However, I believe that when YOU get a chance to watch more of the classics you will not only become inspired (again, don't have to go back far, GATTACA is already a classic, at least in my book), you will get more enjoyment from good films.  That is, when I saw GATTACA I was BLOWN AWAY.  It is a great feeling, when you've watched so many movies, to see something new and great.  I felt the same way watching "The Wire".   When I saw "Fifth Element" it got horrible reviews.  I thought it an instant classic.  I agreed with what the reviews said, but the cool way he brought fashion in Science Fiction was beautiful to behold.  Since that movie I have dreamed of a day stewardesses dress like that :)
 
That's why I ask about Interstellar.  Is there something in it that, in time, will be recognized as beautiful/interesting?  If I've missed something maybe I'll watch it again.

fixed Tiffen Nds are the best - thats all I ever use
 
buy an ND 2 4 8 AND 16 and stack them to get the exposure you need
 
Vari NDs produce horrid artifacts on your footage and colour shifts
as they are in all just 2 polorisers working against each other..avoid!

Yeah that's why I'm still filming on mini-dv. No point to upgrade if something better is just going to be released eventually.

Pretty much. The speed booster give you an extra stop of light, so an f2.8 become something similar to an f2, and an f1.8 would be something like f1.2 or f1. Depends on the speed booster (expensive booster tend to use better glass) you can achieve extra sharpness as well.

yes thats the way to think now speedboosters are so good and so cheap - you dont need to spend £800 on just one Zeiss lens anymore!

the whole Carl Zeiss Distagon 'Hollywood' look is all referanced to Super 35mm film field of view (in dslr terms thats APSC or micro 4/3 WITH a speedbooster to give a Super 35mm Field of view)
 
The Carl Zeiss Distagon f2 28mm lens has this reputation and the nick name 'Hollywood' in referance to it giving a similar look to a 27mm Carl Zeiss Master Prime Cinema Lens or a Zeiss Ultra prime 28mm
 
The Zeiss Master Primes is in fact a 27mm lens not a 28mm like the Distagon.
It's is David Fincher's favourite lens and used alot on all of his films plus DOPs like Roger Deakins use Zeiss Master Primes alot and large postions of the James Bond film Skyfall where shot on a Zeiss 27mm Master Prime.
 
 
To get the 'Hollywood' look with the Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2 you need to shoot with it WIDE OPEN at f2
Its a very good expensive lens because it is sharp wide open at f2 - it is very very usable there!
If you shoot with this lens at f5.6 it just looks like any other 28mm lens - BUT VERY SHARP!
 
The 'look' is wide open at f2.
 
The other month I was fliming with a 2 camera set up and I wanted the same lens on both cameras.
I only have one Zeiss 28mm lens I was using on camera 1 on a Lens Turbo speesbooster on a g6
so I came up with a very good alternative for camera 2 that looks practically the same as the Zeiss.
 
Here is how I did it- poor mans Distagon 28mm f2
 
you take a Canon new FD (nFD) 28mm f2.8 and put it on an RJ canon fd - micro 4/3 speed booster - this gives you the Super 35mm field of view like you need and makes the lens f2 which gives you that look - the speed booster also sharpens the lens so its now of similar sharpness to the Zeiss .
 
When I cut between camera 1 and camera 2 in the edit it worked great both looked the same!
 
The Canon fd lens has the same warm look and great blacks like the Zeiss and its now f2!!
 
So there you have it Hollywood 28mm f2 lens look on the cheap !!
 
If you are serious about getting a Hollywood look on all your footage the three focal lengths you need to be using
they are
28mm , 40mm and 70mm all shot at f2 all the time in a Suoer 35mm field of view (so APSC or Micro 4/3 on a speedbooster)
 
28mm for the wides
70mm for all the close up head shots
and 40mm for all the rest the coverage shots
(use a 50mm lens if you don't have a 40mm lens and take 3 steps backwards!! haha that ususally gives the same look)
 
 
and for all of you that read about me harping on about the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 'Bourne' zoom lens will see it covers all those focal lengths I have mentioned above in just one lens - instant Hollywood in one lens !!  stick it on a speed booster and  that makes it the all magic f2 you need to get the 'look'

I think you can get about a hundred different suggestions, and they will all be covered by our preferences/shooting habits :)
 
Anyway, for a thousand total budget, I would probably go for the lx100 + a couple of nd filters. I am partial to better low light performance, which you would get with this over the fz1000 (the chip is bigger plus the lens is faster), but it has limitations around profiles, lack of audio in etc. I know it was brought up that it has a limited focal range, but you can add a bit onto that if you shoot in 4K and output in 1080p, which allows you to crop in post (to in essence do a zoom).
 
 
The good news is that there are many good options, and if some of you feel the bmpc is the best choice, or the gx7, that is great too! :)

If you are in Europe, these guys are great. Their prices are reasonable and they are very helpful.
 
There are some nice low price Nikon lenses right here:
 
http://wycameras.com/product-category/lenses/nikon-lenses/nikon-manual-focus/

Personally I'd want a faster 35mm than f2.8. I have the 35mm f2 AF-D, which I like a lot (about $300 though). It's not built as well as the AI lenses, but the 35mm f2 AI-S gets mixed reviews so I went with this one, which Bjorn Rorslett preferred (his site is an excellent resource for Nikkor glass: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html).
 
Any of the 50mm 1.8 AI-S should be very good. I stay away from the Series E stuff, though the 50mm and 135mm are probably OK. I have the non-pancake 50mm AI-S, which is lovely.
 
THB if I was in your situation I'd probably consider just going for the GX7 with Panasonic 20mm f1.7.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sigma-EX-30-mm-F-1-4-HSM-DC-Lens-Canon-EOS-Fit-/261643463917?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3ceb2a6ced

If that's your budget I'd go with a 50mm f1.8 and just do without the wider FOV. I shoot a lot with just the 50mm because I like the character and it's not that long really on S35. Somewhere between normal and portrait, which I think is a good combo.

By recommendation from Andy I purchased the Mitakon Turbo / Canon>MFT ( I have a G6 camera).
I use the Mitakon with a C/Y>EF adapter for my Yashica ML lenses and it works just fine.
When using the Mitakon with my Yashica lenses wide open though, - especially the 28mm lens, - the picture gets rather soft in the corners. I´m not an expert on the subject, but in my experience the wider vintage lenses you use, the softer the corners are wide open and this will be intensified when using a speedbooster, that being a Mitakon, RJ, or Metabones.
Just got a used Metabones Speedbooster/C/Y>MFT, but have not got the time to compare it to the Mitakon.
 
I have also tested the Mitakon with my Sigma 18-35mm Art lens, - excellent results. 
The Mitakon is a very good option IMO.

28mm 2.8 AI-S serial nos: 635274 to 837751
 
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

Moot point? Apart from you mathematical DOF equivalence -which sounds accurate- the look and feel of a larger sensor is very different. Try to shoot outside on a sunny day and get shallow depth of field with a M43 sensor. On full frame you would need ND filters to be able to open up to f5.6. On APS-C you probably need a stronger ND filter to open to f3.5. Can you imagine the kind of filtration you need to shoot under a summer sun at f1.8? Unless you are using good expensive filters, you'd need to correct IR and color shifts. The "character" of the lens would probably be lost under layers of filters, and the rig would not be so convenient.
 
No matter how you look at it, a bigger sensor has a different -IMHO more cinematic- feel that cannot be so easily compensated. It helps both in bright and darker environments. Wether you consider it fundamental or not is a matter of taste or the specific look you aim for, but the difference between APS-C and M43 is an important factor, just like perceived resolution, dynamic range and color science.
 
And by the way, there are wider aperture zooms that you can use on E-mount. That's one of the particular strengths of the system, that you can easily adapt lenses from many other mounts, or even use native primes, which is the ideal way to go if circumstances allow it.

Can't say I am noticing any moire so far with mine.
 
Review soon.

I haven't had the A6000 for that long, so I still haven't made up my mind about it. I'm keeping both cameras for now.
 
On the one hand, my pixel peeper eyes tell me that the G6 (in fact, I'd say all M43 cameras, including Olympus) have a more detailed image. I like the native lenses for M43 too (the Panny 20 1.7 in particular).
 
But there's just something about APSC that I'm really drawn to. I'm not really sure I can pin it down to any one characteristic, such as dynamic range or depth of field (not a very helpful comment I know). The A6000 is certainly better in low light than the G6 (although as others have pointed out the GX7/ GM1 etc generation of Lumix cameras are much improved on this front). I've not had to use Neat Video noise reduction on my A6000 shots yet, whereas it was fairly routine on the G6. The A6000 image is not quite as detailed as a G6, but it's still very good. It isn't quite a mirrorless D5200/5300 but it's not too far off. I like how full frame lenses look on APSC, and I like being able to attach them without a speedbooster (and M-mount lenses of course can't be used with a focal reducer).
 
Regarding moire, so far with the A6000, I've discarded one shot out of 180 because of moire. The shot in question had proper strobing zebras on the roof of a temple, but I could see the moire in the EVF as I was shooting it, so it wasn't exactly an unexpected shock (the situation is much better than the NEX 6). The G6 has really tiny amounts of moire here and there (according to Andrew even 1-to-1 4K on the GH4 has moire "traces"). It is something that you need to be more aware of on the A6000 but generally I don't consider it a problem.
 
The Sonys are catching up with Panasonic in terms of handling and user interface too. It's nice to see the A6000 inheriting features from the A7 series (such as being able to do a focus punch-in whilst recording, something Andrew was praising in part 2 of his A7S review), and the zebras (although as Andrew said in the A7S review, the zebras can be unpredictable at times. I haven't worked out the relation between the zebras and the Sony's tendency to record into the superwhites).
 
I would call the G6 the best "rebel cam" at the moment (ie inexpensive but very fully featured, mic port etc), particularly if you get a deal on it. Mine was 24000 yen ($240) second hand body only. (I'm definitely an advocate of "spend less on the body than on the lens". Spend less than on the focal reducer if you can!)
 
The A6000 is, for my needs, a great compromise camera. I know that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement, but sometimes you need a compromise! (ie almost D5300 quality, but with mirrorless convenience, very good video, but excellent stills too etc). I'm very happy with it so far. Best APSC mirrorless at the moment. 
 
Not at all a side-by-side comparison, but on this G6 video there's one or two similar-ish shots to the A6000 video above:
 

The thing is that the reason the cameras you've listed get talked about a lot is because they're ALL good video cameras. Now that the GH4, A7S and Blackmagic cameras are here, the cameras you've named (not including the BMPCC) are looking increasingly similar in quality. They simply have different strengths and weaknesses. There isn't one that is THE best. You have to decide which one YOU like best and/or which one fits your needs best. 
 
I've had the G6 and D5300 for a year now, and recently got a BMPCC. I've used a GX7 a couple of times but only briefly, but I am familiar with the image. Same with the GH3. This is my opinion of the following as video cameras:
 
D5300
Pros: Beautiful image when using long and/or fast lenses, and in low/ambient light. Colours are VERY appealing. Contrary to EOSHD review I recommend shooting with a Neutral or Flaat profile to grade in post, as colours can be artificial in standard modes and dynamic range can be very good with Flaat_11. The codec is fairly strong so banding is rarely an issue.
Cons: Just a bit too soft for wide, detailed shots or deep DOF. Not the easiest camera to use for video.
 
G6
Pros: Beautifuly detailed image in both wide and long shots with deep or shallow DOF. Colours in good light conditions are very nice and can be graded to a very decent level. It's a PLEASURE to shoot video with (I only wish it and a headphone jack). EVF, Peaking, good tilt LCD, form factor, mic jack, etc all make it a viable camcorder. AVCHD 24p has the best image, MP4 50/60p (1080) is indistinguishable without close/critical inspection. With a speed booster it is a S35 camera with stuff the C100 doesn't have (decent EVF, 60p) and an image that isn't worlds away from it at for about 1/12th of the cost.
Cons: Not so great in low/poor light (it excels in good sunlight), though it's ok and noticeably better than the GH2. Colours are nice but can get muddy quickly in poor light. Dynamic range is mediocre. No headphone jack.
 
BMPCC
Pros: The image from the BMPCC really is in another league to the other cameras here. I love it. It frustrates me that there is so much low contrast 'film effect' stuff on Vimeo etc shot with the Pocket and graded to hipster death with film convert or OTT LUTs. It is capable of such a sharp, punchy, saturated and contrasty image that is so much more pleasing than any 8-bit camera.
Cons: It's not an easy camera to use (there are a lot of things I DO like about the form factor and usage though, and firmware updates have added a lot of good stuff). Why bury ISO, WB and shutter angle so deep in the menu? And it DOES need a rig, VF, and very wide, fast lenses or speed booster. Moire is a problem sometimes too - it can be unpleasant.
 
GX7
I haven't used this camera enough to give an informed opinion, but from what Seb and Andy are saying it is fine to shoot with (I didn't like the EVF when I tried it) and if you don't need an external mic then you don't have much advantages in usability with a G6. The image is definitely better - this is obvious from any videos you watch. I think of it as somewhere between the G6 and D5300 - colour science and low light are noticeably improved.
 
GH3
Barely used it so can't really comment. A lot of amazing stuff has been shot on the GH3, but I can't see a compelling reason to spend the extra money on it now. The G6 has peaking, which really is a huge feature if you want to use manual glass. The GX7 has a superior image. And the GH4 has made it look extremely dated. On the plus side it has a headphone jack and a more pro-level body.
 
A6000
Haven't used this at all but I have ruled this camera out based on image problems alone. It's perhaps easier to use than the D5300 but if it really does share the same sensor Sony have really messed up. It has quite severe moire issues and is not great in low light. It's not as sharp as the Panasonics, the codec seems quite weak and I personally am not keen on the colours it produces. Unless you desperately want a native APSC sensor with an EVF at a low price (Sony is your only option really) I can't see any reason to go with this. I may be biased though, as I never seem to like Sony's image quality - even the A7S.
 
My recommendations (i.e. my opinion):
 
GX7 scores the most overall points here I think. If you don't need an external mic go for it.
 
The G6 is still a superb camera and a joy to shoot video with, but the image has some (small) limitations in comparison to the GX7. Of my 3 cameras it's the one I would keep if I was doing commercial or documentary work and could only have one. Definitely. It's very reliable and has great video features.
 
The BMPCC is by far the best video camera here in terms of image. If I was just doing personal/art stuff it is the camera of mine I would keep if I could only have one. But it isn't really suitable as a shot-grabber/r&g workhorse.
 
The D5300 has a special image and if I'm shooting indoors or want a very 'filmic' shallow DOF look it is the camera I go for. I love it. But it is not made for shooting video with AT ALL.
 
For the A6000, although I've seen some really nice stuff shot with it, I think it's image quality is the least versatile (i.e. worst) here. My recommendation is to stay away from it.

There's not much less impressive than bragging about what editing system is used to cut a motion picture.

It's editing, for goodness sake. Where you splice the cuts matter, not the razor that does it.

Already have it in Canon mount. Damned annoying.
 
Situation would be a lot more simple if Canon would just give us a body that was actually better than the last one for video. After 3 years you'd kind of expect them to do that.

The answer is in the question. If dynamic range and colour space is your priority and you are shooting fiction, there is only one camera at the 1000 dollar mark that stands out. The bmpcc. If you want a larger than s16mm sensor then you have to compromise on the other stuff. The descision comes down to wide lens choices really.

You can get lovely colours and very good dynamic range from the d5300. Of the 8bit cameras around 1000 dollars that's the one I'd choose to shoot fiction with. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence the gx7 is superior in low light - not that that matters too much for fiction -

BTW I would not base your camera decision on whether or not it has a mic input. If you want good sound, you always want the mic to be as close to the actors or subjects as possible, and you cant do that if the mic is attached to your camera. A mic on camera is only good for if you're say at a comic convention and getting interviews of randomers.