PaperBag

Just writing to thank Andrew for the review. I've been an XC10 owner for some time, and mainly use it as a C camera in corporate interviews with two C100s, and it does complement them very well. Occasionally use the 4K when we have to shoot a panel of three people -- just so you can crop in for singles and two shots. The lightness and compactness of the camera are definitely plusses. Main cons for this sort of mundane usage: no waveform (no exposure guide except the basic exposure needle); the colour doesn't quite match C100, even when used with same picture profile; frankly, I think the

Some weirdly sexist and sexual metaphors! Or is that just me?

​I don't, but many do. Some call themselves "filmmakers" as well. It's mainly a marketing thing. The history of it is something like this: wedding shooters have for ages been trying to make their work more "cinematic" -- with 24p, 35mm lens adapters, grading, jibs, dollies, multiple angles, etc. (The last is an interesting technique. Rodriguez more or less did the same thing in El Mariachi -- large number of camera setups to give the illusion of multiple cameras and therefore "higher production value".) When DSLRs came in around 2008, 2009, that was huge. And other developments as well, like G

i'm a wedding photographer/videographer! Simon's "entry level" comment has a lot of truth in it. All you need to do to start weddings is borrow your friend's handicam. Or borrow a DSLR and call yourself a "cinematographer". But I think it's worth noting -- at the high end, ie guys who are charging $20k+ a wedding, they're often still using 5DMk3s, though they might own C100s, C300s and Red cameras. In terms of DSLR vs proper video camera, well, there's a number of advantages DSLRs give you -- low-light, discreet, full frame and shallow depth, requires easier gear (lower end steadicams, lighter

Doug, just buy the course, then come back here and thank us afterwards. $100 is not a lot of money for the amount of knowledge you'll get, and knowledge is a lot more valuable than kit. As for weddings as a get rich quick scheme, or a way to indulge your creativity whilst being overpaid for it, let us know how that works out. I'm pretty cynical, but don't let me or any other internet random dissuade you.

For anyone interested, it seems to be available for AU$8700 brand new (something like 4700 pounds), and I've seen it sold used for as low as $6000 (about 3200 pounds). Not many on ebay over the last year. Two went for around $7000. One sat at $8000 and didn't sell.

I think Andrew always lusted after a 1DC! The 25 reasons the a7s trumps a 1dc had an undertone of trying to persuade himself why he didn't need one. (By the way, if you count his bolded headings, does Andrew in fact list 26 reasons rather than 25? I guess the number is debatable anyway: "they both have a crop mode" probably doesn't count as an advantage of the a7s; maybe "high price" is essentially the same reason as "potential for depreciation"; and maybe "inefficient codec" is very close to "SSD is cheaper".) The question that fascinates me: everything else aside (cost, ergonomics, video fun

I've really enjoyed Andrew's article and these comments. There's pretty much no commentary I can find online comparing the a7s and the 1dc, and used 1dc cameras are showing up on eBay for $9000 now. I'm a long-time Canon user with a stack of Canon lenses, so the question has been on my mind. If it goes for $8000, I might well give in. Seems to me that colour science is subjective (though I tend to agree with jcs). Internal recording is certainly a 1dc advantage (but many DSLR shooters have been putting up with frankenrigs for years -- what's one more box on an a7s?). Rolling shutter for mo