Jump to content

ade towell

Members
  • Posts

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ade towell

  1. This fella is filming and directing great stuff on his own with the GH4 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362822-Watching-my-GH4-shot-feature-film-on-the-big-screen!
  2. Yes I'm in no doubt the EOS-R is a much better camera than the m50, but for my uses (occasional b cam) I can't justify the £1900 price difference mainly for c-log. (Could buy a c100 mk2 for that) I know I would also then want the nd adaptor (a great innovation) which is another £400...
  3. No my issue is the price Canon want you to pay for a highly cropped image with terrible RS. I would hope that technology would have progressed enough in the last 2.5 years that they would have got it sorted by now rather than being compared to old much cheaper cameras. I have owned and then sold on the Sony a6300, and the RS was a problem for me handheld, if the camera didn't move the image in 4k was lovely. Same with the EOS-r it seems, but I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on a camera with what is for me such a big issue that severely limits its uses. I'm a Canon shooter so no need to get defensive - was looking for a hybrid b cam to the c100, and (somewhat ironically) have opted for the Canon m50 and learnt to embrace the even worse crop and RS in 4k. But it only cost me £400 and it's the hd where I use it most and it's good enough for that. I use 4k for occasional static shots. I'm not willing to pay £2300 for those limitations but £400 is ok (for me).
  4. yes well done Canon, I can now spend £2300 on a camera that has slightly better RS than the £500, 2.5 year old gold standard for crap RS. All be it with a bigger, closer to m43 crop At least the A7s2 is full frame in 4k... There's a few things Canon got right in this camera, but RS isn't one of them
  5. If you're happy to buy used I would get Canon m50 with kit lens and then get cheap 3rd party ef-m adapter and the ef-s 50mm 1.8 stm lens for low light, interviews etc. Makes matching cameras easy, has the great AF, is tiny, and is actually a bit sharper in hd than what you've already got.
  6. Sorry to harp on about this but the OP has 100-150 Euro budget and asks if he can improve the quality of the audio in his interviews. He already has a decent audio recorder and was asking if a good lav would help. My answer is yes buy a quality lav with that money and they will then have all the tools they need for recording great audio for their scenario - static interviews where a wired lav makes a lot of sense (to me). You tell them instead that wired lavs really suck (which is ridiculous misinformation), that they haven't got enough money for a decent wired lav so buy something cheap to tide them over (buy cheap buy twice...) and then save up for a couple of Sony wireless systems which will cost way over £1000. You've just upped the budget 1000% Wireless definitely has its uses but that's on a different budgetry level to what we're talking about here with the OP. A wired lav that they can afford will actually provide better quality audio than your suggestion which they haven't got the budget for anyway. I've worked with audio guys where there have been issues with Lectrosonics (gasp) as well as Sennheiser wireless. Haven't seen any using the Sony to be honest. Mainly the issues have been in large office spaces or events rooms and once in a class room - though I have no idea what the exact technical issues were (I was on camera). The sound person has always said that's the chance you take with wireless and all have extolled the virtues of using wired if they can. I am often a OMB and having had issues with Sennheiser G2 many years ago, lost trust in it and sold it on, and have used wired lavs ever since with no issues. For stationary interviews it is pretty simple to deal with a cable going from the lav to camera or audio recorder. No fluffing around, no making sure I've got wireless transmitters and receivers fully charged and turned on and at the right frequency with no drop outs or interference
  7. decent budget lavs in that price range include the standard Rode Lav (not the smartlav+), Oscar SoundTech or maybe even Countryman B3 or EMW at that price if you shop around
  8. the OP was after cheap solutions 100-150 euros, you can get a decent lav for that but not a wireless system that's worth using
  9. Doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons I listed, have been burnt more than once from drop outs and interference with 'quality' wireless systems.If it's a sit down talking heads then wired is better quality and less risk and cheaper. What's not to like
  10. Every single audio person I've ever worked with has used a wired lav over wireless if possible. Higher quality recording, less chance of interference and also a lot cheaper
  11. Thanks - yes tried the 750d and it looks like horrible mush compared to c100, m50 is still fairly soft in hd but better, in 4k it is close enough. Unfortunately Canon haven't offered decent hd video in any of their reasonably priced dslrs and probably never will - have been using Panasonic GH2 up til now with c100 and works better than 750d as the sharpness difference isn't so jarring. The m50 is a step closer - it is tiny though and feels a bit unbalanced in the hand with Canon 17-55mm 2.8 and adapter, the little kit lens it came with suits it better. AF works fine with Viltrox adapter, but the other issue with Canon is that for all their great AF abilities they don't have any decent fast lenses with STM and IS. Almost all my lenses are USM and so make a lot of noise when using AF and don't seem quite as responsive as the little 15-45mm kit lens
  12. Picked one of these up as a b cam to my C100 after deciding I couldn't justify the expensive EOS-R (considering it has too many shortcomings for me). The m50 is definitely a bit sharper in hd than what the typical Canon dslr can muster, but still looks soft compared to the c100. The 4k on this little thing though looks lovely, still not quite as sharp as c100 but reasonable detail without any sharpening artifacts produces a nice image - so long as you don't move the camera - RS is bad, the crop is extreme, and of course no DPAF. As a 2nd camera for interviews, other tripod based work I think it will work quite nicely. I don't use/like gimbals but imagine this would be a great camera for that, the AF is impressive in hd. Shame they can't squeeze the wdr profile on this camera - I realise clog is saved for their premium cameras - been playing around witrh neutral profile and sharpness and contrast down, and with a little tweaking can get it to match C100. A fun little camera with a few drawbacks, as is the Canon way
  13. That's just a matter of taste though, I'm a Canon shooter but happen to prefer the Eva and Varicam colour science. They all make beautiful images though so just depends whether you want to shoot predominantly RAW internal or you need more flexible edit ready codecs
  14. As a person heavily invested in Canon lenses, this is the crux of it and my main irritation with them. I'm a Canon user and feel it is Canon that is holding back - for my uses anyway which are predominantly video orientated
  15. Thanks for that, am presuming the DR in clog is a similar 12 stops as C100? Is the full frame hd quality pretty sharp as well then, and much better RS than crop mode?
  16. Good to hear that the hd cuts well with c100 - is this in full frame or crop mode? Do you have an example of it cut with c100, just a few seconds worth? My worry based on what I've seen so far was that the full frame hd is same old soft Canon mush they've been giving us for years in their dslr's and that you had to put it in crop mode to get better quality hd - but this mode has bad RS Also what flavour clog is in the EOS-R - is it original clog of c100 or does it have clog2, 3?
  17. I hear you, they've all got their quirks - I just feel I've been waiting far too long for Canon to give me a reasonably priced hybrid camera with decent hd to work alongside my C100. Not so fussed with 4k or 50p, just decent hd with clog - they should have been able to offer that years ago, tech has moved on
  18. I don't wave the camera around either but RS is a real irritant for me that I feel shouldn't be so easy to provoke on a camera costing well over £2k in this day and age.
  19. but the terrible rolling shutter makes handheld a real issue. From what I've seen the sharper looking hd on the EOS-R uses the crop mode which has bad RS
  20. I don't care about specs I'd be happy with a hd image that doesn't look soft next to my C100 and that I can use hand held without jello vision. Not much to ask in 2018 but not sure Canon is there yet...
  21. is a silly argument but no excuse to be releasing a camera with such appalling wobble for so much money in autumn 2018.
  22. Sony A6300 was released 2 1/2 years ago, you can buy 5 of them for one EOS-R, and it has less of a crop
  23. They certainly do and there's no Canon I.s. lens I've used that has the same level of stabilisation as dual IBIS coming from Panasonic and Olympus and now it seems Nikon (Sony's is not so great). Canon need to get their arse into gear
×
×
  • Create New...