Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tusoli5

  1. Damn, you can shoot raw for 1000€... this is insane and the second time Blakc magic produces this opportunity.

    They clearly grow much more seriously at each product release... 
    This sensor shows beautiful colors and this footage in HD is obviously as beautiful as many 4k try to be. 
    The grain is very organic and colors have amazing depth.

    Adding a good raw recorder makes this camera the best bang for the bucks (and remember that a good external recorder will work with ALL your cameras pro or dslr in Prores, raw or watever codec, like the odyssey does, so counting the whole price of one external recoder only with one camera is a mistake, this is a good investment when well thought for all your camera range and even for renting camera bodies to come on your professionnal projects).


    If you add the tiny space it takes, the opportunity to stabilize it, even on a handheld one hand gyro stabilizer, for all you shootings, the powerful way it can quickly be put firmly and strongly on any surface like go pro allows you, all of it makes you feel a bit more free to shoot... 
    This looks a lot like next gen to me, even if the screen lacks on the back side, when you have an external recorder you just get blown by the opportunities it offers you.

    Most of the recent DSLRs are not even close in the way they handle their ingeneering when compared to this thing. Of course A7 xx are beautiful, but their 8bit can't even compare to this thing. 
    And most of the time I see people shooting on dslr with rigs and external whatever, so complaining about external modules on this thing is really missing the point here, as most people in the industry, even indie filmmakers, allready have what this beauty needs. Don't you think?

  2. I find these considerations interesting. 
    It is a bit like your list for santa this year andrew.:blush:
    Some things bother me a bit, I mean that 8bit is not really relevant anymore, do you mean by 6k that you hope to use it to have 10bit 422 4K, and maybe 12bit 422 HD ? This would produce another type of content we would have to develop before post production, more space for stocking it etc... A good camera would be more strength for less operations, don't you think?

    Because otherwise I don't see the need for 6k if nothing moves in the 8bit compression, even in H.265 8bit isn't really satisfying...  
    Anyway, I like your asking to Panasonic and your hopes that they'll use their S35 processores quality for an entry range body like gh5 could be, comparing to their great achievements on varicam.
    On a commercial point you're right, this camera could show specs that would beat everything. But deeply, it still wouldn't be as groundbreaking as the effort blackmagic made with it's raw hd in BMCC at the time it came out...

    In fact, if sony could show a raw capable A7III body type soon after any possible GH5 coming out, Panasonic would again be beaten by playing big specs in first place... 
    I don't feel your predictions show a really strong path for Panasonic, but I agree with you that they might indeed take this one for commercial purposes on a short term... sadly...:confused:

  3. This is the best body to come since a loooooong long time. 
    Price and versatily is at its maximum for another 8bits body.

    AF seems absolutely stunning for video when shooting fast action, it is also speed booster suitable.
    Not realy seeing moire on the videos, 1080p 120f/ps, all at this price, it looks like a good thing and falls back into the stepup the gh2 body made at its time.

    More expensive must have at least 10bits and with better codecs. H.265, mjpeg, raw, whatever but  it won't justify more  if it ain't got more.

    Thanks andrew for this article.

  4. It is very difficult to be fair on a still camera, talking only about video.

    As a reminder, the Dx (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5) series at Nikon as always aimed journalism photography for sports and outdoor photography. Its aim is, first, being the more unbreakable possible, secondly, with the most robust pixel/velocity ratio to achieve the more stills per second for, works on sports and "hurry" photography. 
    This type of build doesn't aim studio / fashion / movie set / portrait photography. It's price as always more been about the way the body is constructed to last as long as possible. On photography, I found my D2 less enjoyable than my D200 at the time, but I must admit that I had much more velocity in "run and shoot" with a D2. 
    It learned me that if you want the more possible quality in picture at the time it comes out, a Dx is not your right gun.

    For example, I shoot now with my D800 and am much more pleased than if I chose the D4, because I need the more quality possible in my picture, and if it is a bit more breakable" than a D4, I don't care, a Dx costs more than two Dxxx . But if I had to shoot in mudd, sand, tropical forest, I would go for a Dx in addition without hesitation, taking all my pictures on my Dx and making the best possible pictures in terms of resolution with my Dxxx when time would allow me to be a bit less in a hurry.

    Making a video is about having a lot of time even in the run and shoot game for videographers. It has nothing to be compared with hurry photo journalism. 

    Saying that D5 is crapp and that nikon doesn't understand what they are doing is misunderstanding why they construct a Dx line each time.

    After that, it is obvious that nikon isn't a video company, I mean it isn't yet, it could be, but it is not. 
    Canon , panasonic, Sony, Blackmagic, clearly are video companies. They need this market.
    For nikon, it is not their full point, they go to it slowly but it is not their market as the others. 
    If they produce good video  bodies, they will sell a bit more, but they are mainly on a still photography market and they really put wonderful products for that purpose.

    On that order, for the D500 it is a renewal of the D300 and it has to be firstly a renewal on the photographic side. 

    Now if you look to D5500, D810, D750, they pushed a bit more their effort on the video side and maybe the renewal of these models could be more video oriented.

    If Nikon bought or could use the samsung technology, time is still too short for them to have included it into these two new bodies D5 and D500.


    Another thing about feedback and new photo/video products that seems not to be taken in consideration, is that for a looooong time body technology was about accuracy responsiveness and not about color. Color was left to illford, kodak, fuji etc...

    Now a new body is two things: 

    -first the color and power of pixel technology

    -then the body responsivness to use this power with as much as velocity as possible.

    That's why Nikon kept this tradition of producing wonderful bodies, wonderful lenses, but whith partners for processors. They still don't see it as their main purpose and concentrate on what they do so great. It is very difficult for them to change this way of working. Mitsubishi is working a lot on processors and when they'll decide, they'll change this way of working inside nikon.

    I think that canon and nikon and all the others are starting to get used to that but they have a whole lot tradition of thinking about the way the body made their necessity. So, it must be very contradictory inside their own companies to handle research and production of a new body in a better way.
    Old habits are quite difficult to change. That's why we can feel that even if DSLRs are quite a wonderful idea, it is very difficult for them to dive fully into filmmaking products achieved properly.
    Kodak had the best chemists around the world to produce new products every day on celluloïd, Nikon, canon, panasonic, fuji, samsung, red, arri, blackmagic, etc... they need to get the best ingeneers possible for color in order to offer trully professionnal products satisfying us.

    Clearly, it is not yet the reality, they seem to look for the best commercial developpers, Nikon isn't still accepting to enter into the filmmaking bodies, canon doesn't really know how to produce DSLRs without ruining its video isolated market, panasonic tries the most it can and produces marvelous products for cinema and video but clearly lacks quality in the photo market, sony starts to reach for both photography and video for now but it really looks like a long run for everyone. And they all need to satisfy their initial market to keep the market away from a huge crush and renewal (which will happen sooner or later, it is a technological fact to come).


    So, for me, it looks very difficult for these companies to understand to be as responsible for all the color, compression, depth power and all the body velocity at the same time because they are not used yet to this full idea. Seeing how each companies have their implantation and menus so different to do exactly the same thing says a lot about that too. 
    The whole pakage is not yet considerated, not by developpers, but by marketers from these companies. 


    A good signal that came from Canon was the "C" line, but they clearly made it as a test so it hasn't changed much yet.

    The A7 line from sony grows stronger and the F5 kind of show the possibility of other types of products allowing raw bodies at a very "DSLR" price.

    But, above all, the BMPCC was trully the best try ever from this possible cinema technology and that another body like that, more modern, more achieved that we all are waiting for. 

    So, yes, D5 is still made for photographers, yes Nikon is not yet a video company and of course it is kind of a disapointment for us FOR FILMMAKING. 


  5. When purely talking about specs, the samsung nx500 seems so clooooose to the D5 and for ... around 600€ max...


    Like most cameras, I don't think we can make a call on this until FLAT files from the camera go out in the wild. On paper the D750 is pretty poor spec wise, but in practice it has a great image that is easily graded. Compare that to the 10-bit 4:2:2 issues on the FS5 codec, and you really can't compare these cams unless you see tests from professionals.

    I must admit that on HD 8bit 4:2:0 I loved much more the nikon D800 compression than any other brands, it was less heavy and seemed much more "gradable", this talking from experience that was contradicting all the specs I could find and the DR in nikon last DSLRs has always been amazing.  But, anyway, blocky will always be blocky and we can see it all around on their video presentation... 

  6. The D500 seems outdated, and something that should cost 1000$ less, idk why they thought it would be ok to have 2.1x crop. The D5, as incredible as it will certainly be for stills, doesnt look good in video, I dont care for the 3 min limit, since I usually record short clips, but the image is simply not there, and judging from some clips and even the thumbnail, the DR looks quite terrible. The image lacks detail, looks muddy, and if anyone told me "This clip is from the D800" Id still think its a bad clip, since i've seen the D800 do much better.

    I totally agree, I own and loooove the D800 for its capabilities and these images didn't really shined for me. 
    But remember that when the D4 was released it had been really quickly outdated by the D650/D800/ D5500 for video. 
    This release gives me the same feeling. D4 and D500 for stills with great capabilities, and video renewal and we'll have to wait a bit more for a more convicing use of 4k in a next nikon dslr with same amazing still capabilites, maybe in Full-frame, maybe also in dx much cheaper.

  7. Damn this video look sooooooo video and absolutely not cinematic... The nikon Dynamic range quality should allow more ease on the cinema look of the footage... Maybe these video presentations where made with not so good calibration of the camera... It looks like any movement goes on a blocky blurry road of pixel before stabilising.  Anyway , it feels not so good compared to the sony and panasonic last 4k bodies. As we cannot know more, I am waiting for the next test of these cameras. The colors seem so 8bit h.264 that I don't see the point spending in these cameras if you're not a still potographer. I still prefer a good hd raw bmpcc to a blocky 8bit h264 even in 4k... and if shooting 4k is in your interest to produce good hd in 10bits 422 it still is under the quality of the bmpcc in hd raw... (wich looks soooo cinematic by the way).

    Why not any manufacturer chose to make a good still camera with raw hd video up to 60 or 120f/s at least?

    Are we destined to always use compressed video?

    Does a still professionnal photographer deserves compressed 8bit h.264 when shooting for a sport event or national geographic, or anything else and choosing to shoot a short video testimonial next to his full still installation/quality?

    All these questions seem to interest far more sony than any other brands. 

    It shows that by not taking seriously the video capabilities, even still photographers are not taken seriously anymore.

    It also feels like this camera will be very quickly replaced by a new one. Why produce such an expensive body with such short commercial life ?


    All these considerations are not about the stills capabilities.

  8. Damn H. 264... I am soooo waiting for a good H. 265 codec use on a dslr...  H. 264 has soooooo many flaws by itself that it crushes the quality use of any dslr processors...  This cameea being able to shoot stills at 10f/s should have enough buffer for H. 265... Really am fed up with H.264. Don't see the point to spend anymore 2 to 3k€ for a H. 264 body.

  9. For me, motion stills, even as a frame burst, wont ever be a consideration until someone uses something like Cineform Raw or REDcode... I wonder what filesize 8K lossless cineform raw would be with a burst of, say, 5 seconds?

    I  totaly agree, until the storage reach a new consistency, like TB becoming as easy to produce as GB nowadays.  Storage is really the weak spot for us all since a few years, as well for filming and for stills.

    A few weeks ago I read that the new record for storage comes from a 16To ssd... If we go shooting 8k burst in 16bits raw 4444, we'll need much more than that very quickly !

  10. Well this asks many questions indeed...

    -When could we be sure 8k video will match 8k photography depth of color in stills ?

    -Will it start a new rush for resolution and depth in photography ?

    -Won't it destroy a certain market of very separate cameras for professionnal stills and videos ?

    -What would be the use of cine lenses on these types of cameras, wouldn't it need a unified standard ?

    A burst mode  in a "video-like" quality is indeed very interesting, but if it goes beyond "burst mode", this is quite groundbreaking for every companies market standards.

    For me, a leap forward in color depth quality is really what I am waiting for too long.
    Couldn't photography go up to 24/36bits for the same 8k raw stills while 8k/4k/hd unify around 16bits videos at first ?

    It is obvious that a quality merge between video and stills use is to come and this will change a lot the market industry for stills and film.

    For celluloïd it was its cost in frames and development that built this so obvious difference between shooting with a still camera and a panavision for sports events.
    But, now that this cost of storage doesn't come any closer to what it used to be, the technology will shift as much as the market... 
    Which brings another question

    Will its use follow for real or only for a while?

    It seems great to see but scarry to imagine for companies to stay alive with so much possibilities to make the wrong choice to produce profits on their investment when they launch this type of flagship technology.

  11. Lets assume that it will all crack up around the first trimester of 2016.

    I hope it will for late january.

    Anyway, we have to see it this way, Samsung stopping their NX line means several good things.

    - They might had the possibility to convince other brands to buy their processors technology by flagging the NX1 all around the world.

    -They were the first brand to implement H.265 (even if it was the poor man version in 8bits ), with success, and it forced companies like adobe to acelerate their transition to this codec.

    -They acquired this way an opportunity to sell their research and at the same time, if they sell it it can mean that they have more to come in the future. Maybe as an Aps-c or full frame processor manufacturer, maybe they also have a better product in developpement to come for a full new line of cameras.

    -They also proved that their hability to manufacture great quality lens is here and this level of technical achievement might also be for sale for rebranding or in process for other cameras to come.

    All of this only means a win win for all of us.

  12. Ok Andrew, my fault, I am so naïve...

    I think the return on their investment is that they have implemented the NX500 production on the international market, showed the NX1 and all this while they already knew they would sell their technology to Mitsubishi who contributed to help them reach this achievment.

    So cutting off NX1 comes at a time where it did cost nothing to them, even more, it made them earn quite enough to be satisfied, while every "know it all" was bullshitting about H.265 poor choice.

    If mitsubishi uses and enhance it they will even have the benefits of the NX1 true achievement for them.


    Finaly, if Samsung ever provide a NX2 anyday, they would even be taken much more seriously. It is a win win for them and for us too.

    But it is only an opinion made on absolutely nothing else than thin air... I am delusional ;-)

  13. Well, now that everyone bashed the NX1 for its codec, it is not for sale anymore...

    It was really easy to see that it was only a matter of time to see premiere handeling H.265, but no, everyone turned down samsung offer without understanding its value, or even trying the NX1 (I am not talking about you Andrew, but much more about no brainers playing "I know it all" like its ever been through history of technical evolution). I hope next H.264 DSLRs will be understood for their real value thanks to this codec.

    Anyway, lets hope that thanks to this native editing possibility blackmagic, nikon, canon, panasonic, red and more, much more companies, will handle this codec for what it was trully averagely made for, I mean 16 bits 422/444 and 120i/s in full 4k rec 2020 (at least 35% more color space than P3/dci).

    It is indeed the real game changing fact about filming. This codec was made for a united new generation color space from shooting to viewing, processed to handle preview, color correction, theater/tv/Blu-ray UHD/internet from hd to 8k and more diffusion at the same time with more powerfull color we have ever used until now in digital cinema. So, no more upscalling down scalling, changing codec through the editing process to the final render for a bit of time... untill better capapbilities come to use...

    At least, it could produce the cleanest 1080p high framerate 10bit 444 ever seen in rec2020 in low prices DSLRs !

    Raw is still in DCi at max to this day, so try to imagine the use of new rec2020 processors in big cinema cameras. It gives you an idea why the whole cinema industry prices for sony FS,red and others put down their prices in 2015. New generation is on its way. 4k was a good thing, Rec2020 in 16bit will be amazing. 

    Try not to destroy camera values by saying anymore that you prefer crappy H.264 possibilities over it.

  14. Well, it seems that for today's reality, it is possible to output 10bit 422 or 10bit 444 from som Hdmi Signals.

    So , if a nikon Live view outpasses this signal and, if it can be sent via HDMI, an external recorder like Odyssey 7q+ would be able to record 10 bits 422 or 444 HD at least (and not 8bit 422 as it is already possible on nikon d800, d810 for example), wich would be a crazy good deal for any nikon owners.

    But, as Raw 12 bits seems possible with an internal SD Card on these machines, we can really be much more amazed about this all discovery. 

    Everyone saying it is not  done yet is perfectly right, but it shouldn't hide the first steps towards it. 

    What we really should enjoy is that more and more people manage to "upgrade" nikon products via third parts programing and when you know how powerful their dslr allready are you can only be happy about such news.

  15. Maybe.  But that still doesn't explain the 5D MK III's allegedly robust sales at the higher price and the D800s depreciation.  I don't claim to know what exactly is going on but when I see a relationship like that it gives me pause.  Doesn't mean the D800 isn't a fine tool or better than the 5D MK III in certain respects.  I just thought the assessment was a bit over the top.  What was being posted didn't reconcile with something I've seen since launch.  The 5D MK III can't be junk compared to the D800.


    Dear Dampphousse, just have a look at nikon prices strategy over the last ten years and you'll learn that they always have bigger price drop than canon for their semi-pro DSLRs. 


    The 5D mkIII is definitely no junk, the problem you have is that considering D800 as a good oponent you think automaticaly that we say 5DmkIII is shitty. You understand whatever you want , I simply remind you that it is not what has been said. 

  16. Of course I am not saying it is the best camera ever, no it has flaws, for sure, but what it does good is really not matched in that price-range until today.

    I admit that a D810 is much more interesting for other forums than video forums like this one.


    For sure, video is not the best but it wasn't intended to be a 2800€ camrecorder, it is a wonderful still camera with a video mode that uses crappy H264 1080P 24mb/s compression (and did you see what you can do with this poor 24mb/s? It is really powerful for such light video files).

    What I hate about this is not the 36mp sensor, but much more the .H264 compression... 

  17. I agree with Dahlfors


    there are several things to compare to talk about good or less good cameras.


    First what is your style? Publicity, nature, macro, portraits, fashion, journalism, art and museum printing? All of that? This will help you know if you look more towards APSC or full frame, full frame with 12mp, 24mp, 36mp or more...


    Comparing high iso, for example, on a 5DmkIII I am at 3200 iso when I am at 800-1000 iso maximum on a nikon D800 for the same results. So, yes, for me the Nikon D800 is good enough comparing to a 5DmkIII, yes it behaves worst at 3200 iso than the 5D but if you know these two cameras and practiced them a lot you see that you have to compare a bit differently than just in the specs because in this precise example, the 3200 iso should be considered as having the same results than around 1000 iso on a D800.


    About quality for stills on the internet, I confirm what dahlfors says, it will always look shitty on a 1080p screen compared to paper, wich gives you full potential and depth about color, contrast, etc, simply because it has muuuuuuuch more resolution than any screen available today, even in 4k.

    Professional paper-print meets around 70mm  celluloïd résolution (around 12K resolution If I am not wrong, yes we will get it one day, no you can't really measure the depth of your colors on the internet with compressed picture from crappy jpeg, yes that is why all professional are obsessed with calibration to get the more they can of what they see on screen and it justifies great gammut screens to be sooo important).


    Then, about what reason drives the megapixel run? Really, have you ever achieved a 2meter by 3.5 meters on a museum wall with a 24mp camera? Yes you can but you make an upscale of your print and drain a lot of quality away from it. It will simply never looks exactly like what you thought you had on a smaller scale. So if you make publicity for biiig brands, you had the following solution before the D800E: Hasselblad, mamiya, 70mm and 24x36 celluloïd.  Nikon changed this with the D800, so yes there is a way to see this camera as a real need if it fits certain domains of your work or creativity. Size does matter with the size of your prints and also it need to be done very well, wich is the precise improvement with d800, a 36mp that helps to skip completely hasselblad, leica, mamiya, and use all the lenses that you work with everyday on your other projects. If I shoot sport models for an event and then get the opportunity to print it on the town hall of the biggest cities of the world I don't mind anymore, I stay confident with it I have the strongest 8K stills possible and may not need any upscale.


    Knowing your applications, knowing you creativity, knowing your market and fitting their needs is what makes you choose even some cameras that might look like not so good in everything, precisely because you need them for what they do so well.

    Furthermore, why does everyone suggest that when you buy one brand you don't buy the others? I need canon for certain things like softness, very special bokeh,  I need nikon for other things, like more crispy images, more mechanical works, and I need leica for others, like dramatic nature, etc... But from my D800, I stopped completely using Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya for my stills. 

    And I still like canon for the easy picture styles they put in their cameras, really it is a full color station in a tiny body.


    On the D800, the dynamic range is so big that even with 36mp you can recover low light very easily and shoot more instinctivly, is there a test or internet talks about going easily instinctive with a camera? Not really, they speak about buttons positions etc but never can make you picture it fully. For my experience, D800 sensor and its 36mp really made the trick for me, I simply don't mind anymore. Would I get a better view in low light with less resolution? Yes. Is it my style of concieving photography? No. As I realised that my choice was made.


    So there is a limit to testing without touching, there is a limit to knowing all without using.  You have to know what you want to do with it to get what you need. 


    There is a limit to see pictures without looking at them printed, celluloïd lost the battle for the source but today paper still wins the print and from good to very good, you'll see a lot of differences in the final result at an exhibition, for example. ;-) 

  18. And to answer your question, if panasonic would provide a color profile calibration tool for their cameras, they wouldn't earn my respect (as they allready earn it since a long time ago, I shoot with one gh2 hacked as B camera for my D800 and use GH2 on all my macros and close-up that need perfect details), but they would earn my absolut admiration. ;-)

  • Create New...