Jimbo

I am always researching long and hard to see what equipment might improve my enjoyment of filming and the quality of my product (wedding films). I take my time over decisions as there is new gear coming out every month =)
As I am running a business, whenever I get excited by new gear I ask myself the following questions:
– Will it make my work flow more efficient and therefore save me time/money?
– When will I see a return on my investment?
– Will my clients notice the difference in quality, and therefore is it likely to secure me more/better jobs?
Last year I filmed nearly 20 weddings with a GH3, GX7 and GH2. Unfortunately after 3 years my GH2 has died so I am in the market for a replacement as I find 3 cameras essential for certain parts of the day. I could get a GH4 as my new main camera, another GX7, the rumoured EM5 MkII for IBIS if Olympus can finally deliver a great 1080p codec, or I've even thought I could go for the Canon C100 MkII (partly so I could finally see for myself why so many people fuss over Canon!).
From a technical perspective I'm not sure the speedbooster + sigma will improve your image quality much, unless of course you find yourself needing to use high ISOs in the studio and therefore the speedbooster + sigma at f/1.2 would help.
Ultimately I would try and make the decision based on your business goals. You might decide your clients are happy with what you produce now and you can invest the money differently!
Hope that helps =)

I still think for us jack-of-all-trades (masters of none) shooting with >$1k cams, it's okay to put accurate skin tone a bit down on the list of priorities.  If we're close, that's fine.
Should we put skin tone above production design, writing, directing, or editing for example?  
I'd rather take an opportunity to implement an incredible story in a slightly technical flawed way than to implement a flawed idea in a technically incredible way.  That's just my approach at the level I'm at.  As mentioned, some folks have the luxury or inclination to focus on the intricacies. 
You know that ridiculous saying, "It's above my pay grade?"  Well...

Fuzzy, sorry if my posts are coming off pedantic. You're making a case that skin tones aren't that important. I'm providing many facts (which you can verify for yourself) to make the case that skin tone color is indeed the most import element in your thread "the skin tone holy grail". Back when the 5D3 was released the big issue was it was too soft. I showed that with post sharpening it was pretty good (lots of folks disagreed; many felt post-sharpening was invalid and the camera should be sharp straight from the camera). I spent a lot of time looking for a camera that provided better native resolution and went with the FS700 when the SpeedBooster came out. After many projects with feedback from many people, it was clear that people preferred the look of the Canon over the Sony. There were indeed comments on the 5D3 being too soft for some shots, but overall people love the look of the 5D3 over the FS700+SB. The FS700 still provides value with up to 240fps 1080p (ish) slomo.
As I read about lots of different cameras, the recurring pattern for what people love the most is skin tones. We are emotional beings and we evolved color vision, at least in part, to read emotion through skin tone color. Researching the best cameras, I found the same pattern: they produce skin tones which evoke a positive emotional response: "I like it." "I love it!". In narrative and commercials too, color sets the mood, helps tell the story, and conveys emotion at a deep level.
Hi Jonesy- Blackmagic cameras have indeed gotten good reports for skin tones, though I haven't used them. A big part of the filmic look is highlight behavior of the camera/sensor and even more important: lighting for narrative (emotion). I have started paying very careful attention to scenes that look really 'filmic'. Even that ARRI Alexa and Red Dragon can look 'videoish' with bright lighting and resulting harsh highlights. Combine such lighting with an oversharp image and you've got the video look. Notice how often narrative scenes have very little lighting, with the most lighting on the face and eyes. 
The challenge I've had with Sony cameras, especially the FS700, is that after setting proper WB and exposure, even tweaking WB in post (including 3-way), parts of the face can look good/correct, but other parts are too yellow/orange/green/blue and don't look right. So now you have to do secondary color correction for those areas. Time consuming. The final results tend not to look as good as Canon or Panasonic. The A7S is better, but still requires more work vs. the 5D3 or GH4. For video, in my experience Panasonic cameras work pretty well for skin tones, to the point that I didn't worry about them. They just worked. For stills, in my experience Canon looks much better than Panasonic. It wasn't until using Sony cameras and getting feedback from others regarding skin tones that I started looking at skin tones in more detail.
I was curious why so many top productions used ARRI cameras when it was only 2.8K/3.4K max resolution. The result of much reading was that ARRI provides the best color and skin tones. How do we know it's the best?  We look at what people use when cost is not an issue, which cameras were used in the top grossing/award-winning films, etc. This lead to learning more about color and skin tones.
So while many cameras can look great, cameras which look great with the least effort are the most useful and cost effective. It's also why Canon drives Andrew crazy releasing cameras with very limited features which outsell all the other brands with more features. Canon hasn't had to compete on features so much as they compete mostly on (skin tone) color.
 

Yes, FuzzyNormal, I wouldn't say ever had a "problem" with skin tones until I shot some RAW with a Canon 50D.  That is, most video had a "video" look which I felt I was stuck with.  But RAW changed everything for me.  Then I went to an EOS-M, then a BMPCC and feel that both camera deliver great looks.  I never get tired of RAW (just the workflow). Anyway, I've always wanted the nice crisp image, small file sizes, and video ergonomics of Panasonic cameras.  What happened is that I wanted the high dynamic range, flat look, of my BMPCC with the GH4.  So I used Cine-D and dialed down the contrast and changed the hue TOO MUCH.  What I didn't realize is that the low-contrast look I was getting was AT THE EXPENSE of color, which meant the skin tones went to crap.  So I can understand how this problem seems silly to you Fuzzy because you don't shoot RAW, far as I know, and you haven't pushed the GH4 too far as I did (and should have known better).  The good thing for me, is that it has awaken me to much of the stuff JCS has been writing about for a long time here.  I agree with him, people are biologically sensitive to good skin tone.  If you're doing a very busy video, with many cuts, and high contrast, etc., you don't notice.  But if you're going for a natural look it ain't easy.  If you take a family member, and sit them down for an "interview" where the person has to look at their face for minutes on end I think you'll go through the same thing as other people--the image may not do justice to the person in front of you.

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.
What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 
In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.
How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

If I had to guess, I think Andrew is always slating Canon because he loves his gear and the technology - and Canon have held back when everyone else hasn't. Because his site is named EOSHD and he owns lots of Canon lenses, he is frustrated with the company who were a great influence in starting this blog (I might be so wrong).
 
The C100 MkII seems awesome for it's purpose. Anything more and you are looking at an FS7 (much more suited to my type of work). 
 
Cameras like the A7S and the GH4 are not 'alternatives' or 'better' than the C100 MkII because they have more impressive specs. The C100 MkII is a totally different tool for a people who need it's features and nothing more. 
 
I still make a living from my GH3. Nobody ever asks what camera I'm shooting on. They comment on the ideas. Just make stuff and use the most appropriate and helpful tools you can get your hands on.  :D

24,50,105
most flexible setup for me.

I've been playing with the GH4 today in RAW stills burst mode. My workflow needs some refinement to get the motion blur looking more regular, but I actually quite like the filmic staccato of 12fps. The image quality is insanely nice though:
 

 
Note: Plus members can download the original Prores LT file on Vimeo. I REALLY RECOMMEND DOING THIS - motion looks much worse when streamed.
 
Vimeo blurb below:
 
First test of using GH4 in RAW stills burst mode to make video. 
RAW stills converted to ProRes 444HQ and slowed to 50% in 24p FCPX timeline. Graded in FCPX and some grain applied. Also used REVisionEffects' RSMB to add motion blur as most of this was shot with a very high shutter speed. This has caused some unpleasant motion artefacts here and there. The final shot in the video (of blowing leaves and cars) used a 180 degree shutter in-camera (1/25s) and looks better I think. I will try using that setting for my next attempt. Rolling shutter looks quite severe. The GH4 buffer can only do about 40 frames in raw burst mode, so you can't really get longer than a 3 second clip. My card is a Sandisk 95MB/s U1 - I don't know if a faster card would do better.
I actually really like the 12fps look, particularly when used with film grain and the really bold colours you can get from raw. I like the excessive motion blur. I think if you avoid severe camera movement so as not to draw attention to the rolling shutter and low frame rate, it can look very filmic. Obviously this can't be used for everything but with some refinement I think I will be using it a fair bit. If you like the 12fps look (12fps is right on the border of human perception of individual frames - I think this makes it rather interesting) and can live with the short burst times, there are a lot of good reasons to try this out. Yet another great thing about the awesome GH4. 
Check our blog for further testing of this mode: lintelfilms.co.uk/blog/
Note: I tried using 'optical flow' (FCPX's version of Twixtor) to create 'real' 24fps, but it was a mess, with lots of the usual warping around movement (even though I used a very fast shutter speed). 
Music by Chris Zabriskie.

The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing the C100 against 4 other camera. Compared to all these cameras that have one or more down side the C100 mark 2 is good to very good in every domain. factor in that it has features like internal ND and MIC/xlr imput that would need addons like external sound recorders and ND screw on or Variable (less quality) or even matte box.
 
I am a Nikon shooter so I have no bias toward Canon cameras. But this is a solid product with the added 60p which was the main problem in the mark1. There are non in the cameras you listed that have as good Low light, resolution, DR, rolling shutter, colour science in one body. As for full frames lens being a waste on Apsc camera it is the exact contrary as it uses the center which is the best part of the lens.
 
This camera will be huge success and I am sure that it will be a mainstay for many years and will have a huge following in the used market. I can see it selling tons to people in the documentary, Tv, wedding, corporate market. As is already seen the C line has become one of the most used camera for the indie filmmakers in festivals and has been used in many awarded feature films.
 
As for the C7 I sincerely hope that Sony has made some progress into their colour science, because all spec in the world won't matter if skin tones look more like corps dead low CRI fluorescent colours (If I can describe it in words I see it used in horror movie). Working with Nikon, I just can't understand how a company like Sony cannot at least produce some good even if not great skin tone. I mean its a given for me, when I see all those threat where people discussing continually to get just decent result, I just can't understand. For me it is just saturation/contrast adjustment and voila great skin tone.

Still waiting for Panasonic to surprise us with AF100 successor.

Inazuma- if it were that easy productions would use the cheapest cameras that get the job done- such as Red Epics, then fix the color in post. When the budget allows, they use ARRI cameras (there are exceptions, though interestingly most Oscar winners from last year were shot on ARRI. Looks like this year too.) as fixing Red (et al) color in post is expensive and time consuming. It turns out that getting great looking color from a camera is hard, perhaps there are patents impeding competition too. If it were as easy as color correcting in post, they could build the tech into cameras. With so many folks studying ARRI's color science, apparently reverse-engineering their technology is hard, as no one has matched ARRI yet. It's clear that both ARRI and Canon do quite a bit of special processing to make skintones look great over clinical accuracy. As an artistic tool, the immediate emotional reaction after reviewing footage can effect the edit moving forward.
 
For those shooting mostly landscapes, plants, animals, and tests, resolution and dynamic range can be more important. When shooting people, color is by far the most important. Human beings naturally detect when skintones are off: we evolved color vision in part to detect health and emotion in skin tones.

Ebrahim- there are lots of 5D3 RAW (5D3R) vs. <insert camera here> tests out there. Here's a pretty good one comparing 5D3R to Kodak film and Red Dragon:

 
5D3R has fantastic skintones and a very filmic look. Skintones look better than Red Dragon (at the time of the test- Red is constantly improving their color science: skintones look better now).
 
Keep in mind ARRI and Canon colors aren't necessarily chart accurate (though ARRI is both more accurate and produces nicer skintones). Part of the secret to good looking people/skintones results in making other scene colors off a bit. Here Shane Hurlbut prefer's Canon's C500 'golden color bias' over Alexa's color (to my eye Alexa is more accurate and could easily be made to have the 'golden' look of the C500 if desired):

I do think people get used to the Canon "look" - like someones taste in ketchup - everything else seems bad, but in reality it isnt, just different.

I have to agree with this.

For the most part, give a middle-range client shallow depth of field and they're happy. But there's a reason I stopped doing those sorts of gigs.

For the most part, people do appreciate the quality difference even if they can't tell why they like it more.

It's important in as much as you should know that you can shoot on a GH3, GH4, A7s, 5D3 et al and shoot stuff that clients are going to be happy with.

But that does not mean you should not strive for better quality work in everything you do! I'd personally rather move my way up through clients than stall at a certain level because I'm happy just giving them 'good enough' images.

I didn't get to shoot commercials and films from delivering images that were simply 'good enough.'

Never. There are so many different ways you can light a scene, compose a shot, tell a story through the camera, - I'd go as far to say that there is no right way. Just 'ways' that are more visually pleasing to many than others.

The right way is the way the Director wants/is happy with. That way may be completely at odds with what you're thinking or what you want (hopefully it isn't, but sometimes it is), but at the end of the day you're working for the Director.

My tip is that there's always more to learn - it's impossible to learn it all, so embrace everything (even the terrible shoots) as a good learning experience.

I only shoot "manual."

Being a good editor is what sets you apart.

Knowing how to work with clients, solve their problems, and answer their questions gets you hired again and again.

In my (admittedly low-end) world gear doesn't matter so much anymore. All IQ from modern cameras is good enough now.
 
EDIT:  It's just as important to know which clients you should stay away from.  Hard to explain that one.  You just kinda figure that out through wisdom.

I believe that now may be the time to reveal that I am in fact Joseph Gordon-Levitt! Andrew, I am a huge fan of your blog!!!
 
As I apply 'the method' to everything I do I have in fact been living in North East England for some time, shooting a lot of stuff with a Nikon DSLR and adopting a grouchy and abrasive persona to disguise my easy-going and gregarious nature. 

What's the point of anything, really?

Like most I would guess:
- A is raw
- B is video
 
Mainly because of perceived detail and what appears to be CA in B. Unless video mode is sharpening and correcting the CA... hmm tricksy!

That's it. I'm calling it the T-rex on USA boards from now onwards.
 
Ooo, are we playing this game? Can I play too?
 
I think they're slowly changing that now. All the new cameras have power aperture in them. Pretty sure the low-end (D5300 and below) won't have them though.
 
 
You're wrong on this one.
 
What company is allowed to get away with 6 year old tech in their cameras?
 
What company only allows "positive commentary" to be posted in blogs and frowns on those with "critical tone"?
 
What company gets to sell cameras with less features at a higher price and still move them by the boat load?
 
What company gets to do all the above and still look like a leader?
 
It's a company with one hell of a marketing department. Global marketing department, I might add.

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!

Canon are just good enough for the 'masses' - we are specialist camera nerds on this forum and have found all the better alternatives to Canon and how to squeeze every last drop out of them quality wise.
 
People still walk into camera stores and online retailers and just buy a Canon because it has the brand reputation and changing ' the masses' to even think Panasonic or Sony let alone Samsung will still take time.
 
We are all believers - the masses have to still follow us!
 
There are still alot of Canon users on here who will not touch a mirrorless camera with an evf.

Each to their own.
Personally I like the Gh4's colors, but it took me a while to get the settings I like.
Basically it reproduces pretty much exactly what my eyes see, in terms of detail and colors...and I like that, my eyes are the ultimate judge and I cant trade them in on next years model, I have relied on them for years in graphic art and 3d design.
Using iDynamic in reasonable light gives good detail in shadows with practically no noise or blotching that I can see.
I had a Canon 60D, my son uses it these days for surf videos...I cant say the same about that, its a nice enough image, but to my eyes (and many others, its nowhere near the class of the GH4 in practically any area).
 
Many users have sold their 5DMk3's and many others are able to match the color nicely to the Canon C100, there are tons of threads on dvxuser.com about this.
 
But at the end of the day, the whole GH4 Vs Canon Vs Nikon Micro 4/3rd vs Full Frame...is a lot like the argument that has been around for decades in relation to guitars...
is a single coil better than a humbucker? (they are certainly different) or is a Fender (largely single coils) better than a Gibson (largely Humbuckers)? or does and Ibanez lack soul (now theres a word that puts the argument out of reach LOL!!...the camera equivalent is the much maligned term "filmic")
 
At the end of the day, its horses for courses, I personally dont base my decisions on anyones Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic preferences or bias...I use what pleases me...and I'll bet most others do the same.

Beautiful image but the price not so beautiful.
 

Hi Ebrahim, I've been using the E-M5 alongside the Panasonic G6 for a while now. This was all shot on an E-M5 with an Ai-S 85mm lens on a lens turbo:

http://marginaliafilm.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/floating-lanterns/

Nb there is also some stabilisation in post added here. Only a very tiny bit added though, a few pixels in some cases, just to ease the vibration, as a heavy 85mm lens, even with a focal reducer, is sometimes just a bit too long for the stabilisation. (EDIT see post below this one) Some of the shots are with the 2x electronic telephoto, ie 244mm, these needed more stabilisation in post.

Overall, I find a well stabilised lens, such as the Panasonic Mega OIS lenses, to be more pleasing for video. In my experience these are just as steady, and with less "drift" when a camera move ends. (edit, hmmm, on 2nd thoughts maybe OMD 5-axis edges this one......) Plus the G6 is incredible for video, and I really like the Panny lenses too. Of course, the E-M5 works with absolutely any lens, so it's definitely a great camera to break out if you want to grab some handheld shots with manual glass.

Well, it's not really impossible.  Honest.  You MUST control the lens, however.  It doesn't erase bad camera work.
 
I can testify that it is possible to shoot the "Roma" sort of video handheld with the OLY 5-axis feature.  The main reason the Rome video works:  You'll notice that the editing never shows a shot come to rest after a floating move.  
 
Those are the moments when the stabilizer will create the visual artifacts of it's use that you've asked about.  If those instances were left in the edit, it wouldn't look as impressive.
 
For instance, if you handheld pan to the left and then stop on a subject, the stabilizer system doesn't resolve this motion in a natural way.  It looks mechanical as the movement ends and the frame image comes to rest.
 
But, in the Rome video, the editor just cuts away during continuous moves, so no worries.  If you plan to shoot and edit in a similar way, you can create such a video quite easily and completely hand held.
 
I mean, I've been doing cool mini slider shots myself by leaning around corners/foreground elements and shifting my body around.  I swear camera operation with the OM-D is practically like doing Tai Chi while pointing a camera at something.  That's really the best way to explain it and it does work.
 
Also note that in the Rome video the footage was conformed from 30fps to 24fps, creating a gentle slow-mo effect that also smooths things out a bit.
 
Anyway, I spent about 20 minutes on a small boat floating around Sunda Kelapa harbor yesterday with my OM-D and the stuff looks like it could have been shot on the world's longest dolly track.  For the right kind of shots, it really is that good.
 
You have to be smooth though to begin with!  Accomplished camera work is still needed.  You can't just fling the lens around and expect good results.  The Dixieland video above is not that impressive to me because of this undisciplined shooting.  Smart considered control is a must.
 
Caveat:  Pushing the focal length above 60-ish-mm (Full Frame Equivalent) and emulating dolly moves gets a lot tricker than stuff shot with shorter focal lengths.
 
I will say that I can see myself using this camera WITH a glide-cam type of rig to accomplish incredibly controlled, elegant, and longer moving shots.  It would closely rival the best Steady-Cam shots from the most skilled practitioners.  The combo would be very complimentary.  While I can do glide-cam stuff decent enough, I'm not a pro at it.  The 5-axis would hide those slight flaws I'd otherwise create.
 
Now, if OLY is able to up it's specs with firmware or a new model with new/better tech, then it's really going to tempt traditional users away from their usual brands, I think.  Not sure how long they'll have the 5-axis advantage, and if other manufacturers can eventually match it, but for me right now, today, it's serving a very pragmatic purpose.  It fits the way I need to shoot for my stuff.