jax_rox

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.

No, that wouldn't make any sense - they would then be cannibalising C100mkII sales. Most people who shoot on C-series cameras are people who have come from SLR shooting. They may have certain features about C-cameras that they like, but if someone's looking to make a camera purchase, and they can buy a 5DmkIV with the same image quality as the C100mkII for $2k less, they're going to go for the 5D.
 
There's nowhere Canon can go in terms of major improvements for video in the sub $5k market that won't cannabalise their C-series lineup.
I would expect incremental video updates, and much more substantial updates on the photography side, at least for the <$5k market.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with all that you're saying. And my post was not to single out yourself in particular, it was meant as a general statement.

I've seen your recommendation for the Nikon 28-70 zoom on here in the past - and it is in fact a lens I've used on commercials! (So - good reccomendation ;))

I just see so many newbies these days rushing out to buy the latest and greatest camera body, and spend hours looking online to find the right profile, or the right settings that's going to make their picture look the most cinematic.
I think it's just really important to look at what Cinematography really is, and what actually makes you a Cinematographer - and it's really not got much to do with what camera you use, and definitely has very little to do with what the in-camera sharpness or saturation setting is at.

I've shot outdoors on sunny days at T11. The Australian sun is unforgiving. We had an incomplete ND set, so I had an ND1.5 in and still had to stop down to T11.
It wasn't (just ;)) the fact that we were shooting on Alexa that made those couple of shots still look good, and indeed cinematic - it was more where I put the camera and how I shaped the light in that spot.

My eye and my lighting is what gets me work, and is what people like about my work - It's not the cameras I shoot on, or the stop I shoot at. Perhaps evidenced by the fact that nearly every project I shoot is shot on a different camera.

All cameras are tools. And all lenses have a different look, different stops have different looks and depth of field characteristics. I think most people would agree and say 'duh obviously.' But if you want to be a DP, your choices should all be driven by the story, not what looks the 'coolest' or the most 'cinematic.'
I've shot things that don't look cool, don't look cinematic, and don't mimic what professionals are doing on their major features.
But it's what the story called for and it worked with the story. The Director and I both loved the look.

As I'm sure you're well aware, something looking cinematic has very little to do with shooting at f/16 outside.

Now, I don't make a habit of shooting at that extreme a stop, but I do shoot there, and if the story called for a look that suggested shooting stopped down that much, I would go for it.

All I'm trying to say is that a shooter will never understand the 'how' until they understand the 'why'. And blindly rushing out to buy or use gear simply because 'that's what x does and their stuff looks really good' is missing the point completely. I know that's not what you're going for, but it can be interpreted as such - and you will never succeed as a DP if all you do is copy those better than you. You're right - you can't buy experience you have to earn it. But how does a newbie even know they need more experience if they're told that all they need is x camera, y lens, and z settings and their image will be just as good as anything you see in a movie (again I know this isn't what you're saying, but as a more general comment).
You could give a newbie an Alexa with Master Primes and a full set of NDs or a RED Dragon with Leicas and they still wouldn't shoot stuff that looks as good anything shot by Roger Deakins or Jeff Cronenweth.
As evidenced by the fact that one of the most awful-looking films I've ever seen was shot by someone I know who was never really a DP, but thought they could be. Shot it on RED Epic in 5K, and it's the most awful thing I've ever seen - even worse than many home videos I've seen shot on DSLR.

I think if you want to be a professional shooter, you should build up some experience on kit lenses, or whatever you have. Just get out and shoot and find what you like. Your style might not be shooting on Angie zooms and Cooke Primes wide open. That's cool. Your style might be. Maybe I'm being too pretentious with this whole give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing...

I would love to share my knowledge about how I work and my lighting choices etc. This seems to be mostly a gear forum, so perhaps I'm posting in the wrong place.

No, that wouldn't make any sense - they would then be cannibalising C100mkII sales. Most people who shoot on C-series cameras are people who have come from SLR shooting. They may have certain features about C-cameras that they like, but if someone's looking to make a camera purchase, and they can buy a 5DmkIV with the same image quality as the C100mkII for $2k less, they're going to go for the 5D.
 
There's nowhere Canon can go in terms of major improvements for video in the sub $5k market that won't cannabalise their C-series lineup.
I would expect incremental video updates, and much more substantial updates on the photography side, at least for the <$5k market.

My feeling is you should either go to film school, or spend those 3-4 years crewing on films, gaining experience and working in the industry.

I have never been a fan of this 'don't go to film school, just shoot a feature!' mindset, as without some basis of training (whether that's learning from those better than you by being on a set, or in a film school environment), you're making a film blindly, and whilst you will learn some things from it, I see it as much more of a waste of money than film school itself.

My feeling is you should either go to film school, or spend those 3-4 years crewing on films, gaining experience and working in the industry.

I have never been a fan of this 'don't go to film school, just shoot a feature!' mindset, as without some basis of training (whether that's learning from those better than you by being on a set, or in a film school environment), you're making a film blindly, and whilst you will learn some things from it, I see it as much more of a waste of money than film school itself.

Reality is - even 16:9 is an extraction from 4-perf 35mm!

This sort of practice is far from new.

I did really like the look of Gone Girl, I think Cronenweth is a great DP.

If the only difference between you and the 15 year old kid whose parents jsut bought him his first camera is the camera itself, then I've got bad news for you.
 
The reality is - tutorials and web videos can only teach you so much. Unless you have professional experience, understanding, and in most cases mentoring from professionals who are better than you - you're generally not going to get too far.
 
I shoot on a number of different camera bodies. The look of my work comes down to the way I light things, not the camera bodies I use.
 
If Roger Deakins shot on a C300 it would still look like it was shot by Roger Deakins. A newbie can buy an Alexa if they want, but nothing they shoot will look like it was shot by Deakins.

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.

There is no extreme low light 4k camera on the market period! Unless you count the A7s recording to an external recorder, or maybe the C500.
 
It's actually more like test driving an Volkswagen and an Audi and saying 'hey you know what, the VW has its quirks, but it's just as fast, just as nice to drive and costs like 1/10th of the price of the Audi!'

Likening Canon to Ferrari is not helping your 'I'm not a fanboy' cause.
 
 
A7s has APS-C crop mode - what's your point?
 
The Otus' outperform CP2s and CN-Es, but they do not outperform Ultra or Master Primes, though the 55 and 85 are nice lenses. Fine, I'll put Cookes on it then if I have to :P
 
 
Are you kidding? Have you not the comments on a single article about Apple ever? Maybe read them sometime and watch everyone bash Apple for all sorts of things (not the least of which being 'behind the curve').
Those who own Apple products tend to defend them. That's exactly my point. Personally, I own a lot of Apple products, and I like them. I like the way they work and I like what I can do with them. Now, I know that you can do just as much, and in some cases more on other devices. And on other devices that are much cheaper. But I like the way Apple works. I wouldn't start talking about what a big deal I am and how Apple products are better than every other product on the market if someone said to me that their PC that costs 1/2 the price can do more than my Apple computer. I would agree with them, because I know it to be true. I just prefer the Apple.
 
You prefer Canon. That's totally fine - and if you are happy with your choice of camera, that's great. You don't need to defend it. But, there are cameras that are just as well specced, just as good (or better) for much less money. I'd be pretty pissed off too if I bought a camera for $12k and 2 years later a different company brought a camera just as specced for 1/10 the price. But that's another reason why it's silly to invest in an expensive camera unless you can totally pay it off on top of gaining an income for yourself in 12-18 months.
 
 
The Sony F5. Oh wait, you were trying to be rhetorical. F5 costs the same as a C500. It's light, small (compared to many others) and gives an awesome picture at 2k or 4k at super high frame rates in a super-gradable 10-bit XAVC codec, which would have to be one of the most efficient codecs out there.

You ever tried putting a C-series camera on your shoulder? No you haven't, because it's not possible to do unless you rig some ridiculous contraption.
 
What about battery life? I regularly shoot with Alexa. I was on a music video shoot recently where we didn't have access to any power. It was an 8-hour shoot day and I was panicking because we only had 8 V-Lock batteries. I spent the day trying to conserve power as much as I could, and nabbed two block batteries from the rental house in case of an emergency power situation.

Sometimes you can be lucky to get 30 minutes out of certain V-Locks. Power an on-board monitor from the RS port or D-Tap, and you'll struggle.

Even RED is generally a swap out every hour or so.

At least the A7 batteries are cheap.
 
You're right - the Canons have better battery life. But if the difference between a $2500 body and a $13,000 body comes down to battery life...
 
Oh, you mean the XLR input on the add-on 'box' that was specifically designed for the GH4? You mean the box specifically designed to add XLR inputs and SDI outputs?
 
How? The FS700 has internal ND, XLR inputs, adaptable lens mount, viewfinder, cheap batteries, cheap cards, Slog... Ability to shoot 2k or 4k raw, super high frame rates....

I personally don't like the FS700 (in fact I really dislike it), but I also dislike the C-series cameras. You gotta say though, the FS700 is better specced for the same price. There's no feature you're giving up on, it's just that you like Canon better. That's totally fine - just say that rather than trying to suggest that there's no other camera on the market that's as good as it.
 
There's so much hyperbole being thrown around everywhere. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion on a camera. A lot of people here are blinded by their investment, and that's human nature. But the fact that you own a different camera does not make it an objectively better camera than others out there. It may be better for you. That's great. You should pick cameras based on your needs and wants in a system. But it doesn't mean everyone else has identical needs or wants from a camera system, and it doesn't mean every other camera out there is worthless.
 
At the very least stop throwing around ill-informed comments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course - there are and always have been better and more practical options. But certainly not at a price:feature point that many will accept!
 
You can purchase a handycam, or even a prosumer cam but you get a tiny sensor (deep DOF) and limited dynamic range. You could buy a cinema camera, but then you're spending a lot of money!
 
DSLRs have become the de facto entry level video camera because they are cheap and give an image that's closer to what many might call cinematic out of the box. That and the fact that you can do video and photo on the one machine, which means you don't need to take two cameras.

You mean like DMX...?
 
 
I'd like to know what their light output is/some photometrics. I don't mind the idea of 'modular' lighting, but I can't see myself using these. Potentially not enough output, too small (so inherently hard) - I could see myself ganging a few together and putting diffusion over them, but then it defeats the purpose.
 
There'll be some obscure cases, but I don't think it's the second coming of lighting equipment.

Of course - I've shot at T1.3. I personally think that it's less about the focus pulling (I've worked with some awesome focus pullers, though it is not easy to pull focus WFO even with the latest monitoring options) and more about the look in general. As always, the look needs to support the story. If that means shooting WFO, then that's totally justified.
 
Shooting WFO because you think 'that's what Hollywood films looks like' is a different story - of course, I'm not saying you, in particular, do this, just as a general statement.
 
And yes, if I was unhappy with the performance of a certain dolly, I would not use it on my films. 
 
 

Let's be clear - there were fast lenses for a long time. I think the current trend for shallower DOF comes down to being able to shoot on faster stocks/higher ISOs. In the past, you may have had a fast lens, but as a general rule you were shooting with large lights that gave a huge amount of illumination. You can ND and dim as much as you want, but you're still going to end up shooting around a 4.

There's nothing inherently wrong with shooting wide open - many films have done it and have done so for many, many years. A lot of the night scenes in Social Network were shot without lights at T1.3 (Master Primes).

I think it would be a silly assertion to say that Hollywood films are shot at 5.6 and home movies are shot wide open. Neither of those statements are all that factual. However, I think it's also interesting to assert that shooting wide open, without lights is a way to 'set a new standard' and create images that look better than Hollywood (to paraphrase). Of course, this is not an attack on you at all, or anyone, simply a discussion of the points being made.

Everything we're talking about here - anamorphic, shooting wide open, shooting stopped down... all has a different look, and each one is totally viable and entirely acceptable as long as it supports the story.
It's when I hear that someone's shooting wide open because 'that's what Hollywood does' or 'that's what Hollywood movies look like' is when I start to take issue.

You make big claims - I would posit that most audiences have no f*n clue that full frame looks different. Indeed, the difference in final look is negligible, apart from slightly more Depth of Field for the same field of view. Most audiences don't notice until something is totally out of focus. I would also suggest that Hollywood has had access to larger formats (65mm film, for example). There's a lot of limitations, however, when it comes to a larger sensor or film frame (lack of good cinema lenses being a major one), and at least in the comparison of APS-C to Full Frame, the difference in look is negligible.

Well realistically, that's all that should matter - if the client likes it better, who are you/we to tell them they're wrong!
 
 
 

I agree with this point. Too often it seems this razor-thin DOF has been employed to hide the DP's shortcomings in not being able to light a whole set, or the shortcomings of the Production Designer not being able to design the set properly, or in general a lack of budget so that they could not afford a Production Designer to design the set, or lights for the DP.
It can be a bit of a cop-out. I've shot at T1.3 on S35 and not had as shallow DOF as a lot of the 5D stuff I've seen.
You lose so much depth shooting like that, and it can feel unnatural. However, it depends on the story - if I was given a script that I felt needed to be shot that way, I would certainly do it.

The Alexa will be available in 65mm format. I'll be interested to see how many productions shoot on it..
 
In terms of still photography, sure. But when it comes to cinema, you're using lenses that cost anywhere from $5k-$100k per lens (usually renting). Mostly, they're designed to cover S35mm as that's been the standard for a long time. Very few of the options are designed to cover larger sensors, many don't even cover the RED Dragon @ 6k! Slowly, newer lenses will start to be made with more coverage. Personally, if it's shoot on a 5D with Canon stills lenses and get a 'full frame' look or shoot RED or Alexa with Ultra Primes or Master Primes and 'end up with' a S35 look - I'm gonna go for the latter option (and have, many times).
 
This is a creative question, and sure - if that's how you like to shoot that's fine. Personally, I'd rather ND and I tend to shoot no bigger than 2.0-2.8 when outside, as I don't generally like the look when we go shallower than that.
At night, I try to stop down a little as I think it looks much better when you have a bit of depth at night. Adds a bit of production value. Of course you need the lights to be able to do this.
 
Yes. But then, what's the point of shooting full frame if you're going to close down to make it look like S35 anyway?
 
 

All manufacturers have slightly different sizes for their 'Super 35mm' sensors. It's interesting and kinda odd, however none are extremely different (in terms of full frame vs S35). They're all very close to S35, and the slight difference in measurements is barely noticeable. S35 is also close in size to APS-C.

I used to think of S16 lenses as what I would get from S35 if I doubled the lens size - for example, when I put on a 12.5mm I knew I was getting something around a 25mm. A 25mm would get me a similar FOV to a 50mm, though with less DOF.

I have no issue with someone using a system to compare to what they know.

But there's also absolutely nothing wrong with using a smaller sensor size. We've been using S35 for years, and before that Academy 35. And we've been shooting on S16 for years! There are some absolutely beautiful films shot on S16, and many great commercials were. But you post on some of the forums on the internet and suddenly shooting on a Blackmagic Pocket is insane because the sensor is so small! We also had even smaller sensor for years in video cameras and were able to, in many cases, get beautiful images out of them.

I guess I don't really care for the 'snobbery' of sensor size. Use whatever sensor size you want. But a 'crop' sensor (it's not a cropped sensor, the camera still uses the whole image) is not bad simply because it's smaller. Full frame is not inherently better just because it's bigger. If that's the way you like to shoot then that's totally fine, but I and others may not like to shoot that way! And that's also totally fine. I'll judge you based on your work, not the sensor you use to shoot it on.

Some of us think that many films shot on full frame cameras are way too shallow for our liking, and may cause some to not get a full frame camera for that reason. And that's totally fine as well! On person's too shallow is another person's 'super cool' - just as one person's 'great lighting' is another person's over-lit. I personally own a full frame camera. But I won't be changing my shooting style because I've now got a bigger sensor. I will have to get my head around the differences in lens FOVs though.

You're right - it's another trick in the arsenal. Shooting a CU on a 25mm gives a different look to shooting a wide on a 100mm. If you want to be a DP, you should learn what lenses look like and how they react to objects at different distances, and you should also learn how to light. 
Because of cheap camera systems, these days wannabe DPs focus all their time and energy into the camera body that they think looks the best, and pixel peep, where the real focus shuold be on lensing and lighting.
You have ACs and DITs to figure out the specifics of the camera system you choose (though you should know why you're choosing a particular camera system). Some DPs like to be involved in the technical side as well, but it's nowhere near as important as knowing how to lens something, and how to light something.
 
The audience don't know the difference between lenses - and to some extent don't care. However, it is something that does contribute to the way a movie looks, which in turn has an effect on how the audience feels.

If you're buying a camera in the $5k+ range, you're looking for a camerat that's going to help you book work.
 
Camera purchases are usually bad investments unless you can pay it off within about 18 months worth of work. What sort of work would you normally doing where you'd provide your own camera? Maybe docos and corporates? Is an F35 practical for those, and are you going to make enough from those to cover the cost of the camera (say $10k+), recorder, lenses and also still be able to cover your own living costs and bills?
That's the question you sohuld be asking yourself if you're thinking about investing in any camera.
 
If you're doing narrative type stuff, do your clients normally have a budget to hire cameras? If so, why would you not simply hire a camera? If not, do they have a budget to pay you? If they don't, then is it worth buying a $10k+ camera to shoot it on..?
 
The only other way to make money off a camera purchase is via rentals - if you have a RED or Alexa, then sure you're in a decent position to make money off rentals if you price your packages right. If not though, what's the rental demand for F35s? Is there any? It will usually depend on your market, but you should definitely look into it before you commit to buy.
 
It certainly has nice images, that's for sure. But in the grand scheme of things I would say it's a nice option that you can rent quite cheaply when you have a low budget. I don't think I'd be investing in purchasing one.
 
You can grade A7s images to get pretty close.
 
The F3 on the other hand - if you don't care about resolution higher than 1080p; I know of friends/colleagues who are selling their old ones with the Sony primes it came with for <the price of an FS7. Which is pretty decent value if you ask me. An external recorder and you'd be good to go with three PL mount primes @T2.

I've always felt that the Cooke look had that extra feel to it - I'd always described it as if the focus sort of blends out into blurriness and so it feels like the shot has a lot more depth, whereas on the Zeiss glass I was comparing to at the time it was just a really sharp fall away in focus.
 
Leicas are great glass, as are Zeiss and Cooke. They all do a great job. As with film stock (and these days camera choice), lensing is another creative choice DPs have in our arsenal to create a specific look for a film. The infamous 'Cooke look' isn't right for every film. If I wanted something a bit more clinical, I might shoot RED Epic with Ultra Primes. For a drama, I might go Alexa with Cooke S5's (or maybe older Cooke Speed Panchros!). I've shot Super Baltars on Epic before for a funkier look.
It's all a personal thing, though - there's no right or wrong look, and no right or wrong lens choice.
 
It's funny, when you've worked with a lens set enough you can start to almost pick the lens based on the bokeh... The one thing I dislike about Cookes is the stop-light bokeh... Though I've seen some Panavision lenses do similar things.

If you're buying a camera in the $5k+ range, you're looking for a camerat that's going to help you book work.
 
Camera purchases are usually bad investments unless you can pay it off within about 18 months worth of work. What sort of work would you normally doing where you'd provide your own camera? Maybe docos and corporates? Is an F35 practical for those, and are you going to make enough from those to cover the cost of the camera (say $10k+), recorder, lenses and also still be able to cover your own living costs and bills?
That's the question you sohuld be asking yourself if you're thinking about investing in any camera.
 
If you're doing narrative type stuff, do your clients normally have a budget to hire cameras? If so, why would you not simply hire a camera? If not, do they have a budget to pay you? If they don't, then is it worth buying a $10k+ camera to shoot it on..?
 
The only other way to make money off a camera purchase is via rentals - if you have a RED or Alexa, then sure you're in a decent position to make money off rentals if you price your packages right. If not though, what's the rental demand for F35s? Is there any? It will usually depend on your market, but you should definitely look into it before you commit to buy.
 
It certainly has nice images, that's for sure. But in the grand scheme of things I would say it's a nice option that you can rent quite cheaply when you have a low budget. I don't think I'd be investing in purchasing one.
 
You can grade A7s images to get pretty close.
 
The F3 on the other hand - if you don't care about resolution higher than 1080p; I know of friends/colleagues who are selling their old ones with the Sony primes it came with for <the price of an FS7. Which is pretty decent value if you ask me. An external recorder and you'd be good to go with three PL mount primes @T2.

The F5 shoots 2k internally. I shot on it yesterday at 100fps @ 2k. I regularly shoot Alexa @ 2k.
I shoot 4k/5k on RED because I don't want to window my sensor.
The commercial yesterday was for cinema release. I have no issue not shooting 4k. There are times when it is helpful, but it is rare that it is necessary, and also rare that you would shoot <4k simply because you couldn't afford a 4k camera - there's the 4K Blackmagic camera ready for you at 1/3rd the price, if that's the only thing you need. If 4k was the only thing people were worried about, no-one would have bought the F5 in favour of the Blackmagic Production Cam.
 
The F55 contains other hardware improvements, which would be the main deciding factor for anyone deciding between the two - the global shutter, sensor circuitry, improved colour gamut etc.
There's no way that F55 owners bought that camera over the F5 purely for 4k. 4k may have been one of the deciding factors in some cases, but Scarlets shoot 4k for the same price as an F5. So there are few circumstances where the price of an F55 is justified over a Scarlet purely for 4k capture. I think you'd find most F55 owners bought the camera based on more than just the ability to shoot 4k internally (especially considering you can shoot 4k raw with the addition of the external recorder - which is <1/2 the price difference between F5 and F55; if you really wanted 4k, just grab the recorder).

 
A good majority of feature films are still released in 2k. If the quality of your Cinematography is based purely on the resolution of the camera you're shooting on, I've got bad news for you.

 
That's exactly what Scarlets are. The difference being the release cycle. Sony's potential failing was releasing both cameras at the same time. With RED, the Epic was out and everyone saw the kinds of things it could do. Then, the Scarlet was released - an 'affordable epic' if you may.
With Sony, releasing both at the same time meant that the F55 became an 'expensive F5' rather than the other way around (a la RED).
Realistically, at least the F55 has improved colour, global shutter etc. to somewhat warrant the price difference.
The difference between the Epic and Scarlet is 4k @ up to 48fps vs 5k @ up to 120fps, respectively. That's really it. We're not even talking 2k vs 4k - it's 4k vs 5k for the ~$15,000+ price difference.
 
If you're happy shooting XAVC vs shooting ProRes and DNxHD, then be my guest. Personally, I'd take ProRes 2k over XAVC 4k any day (the Alexa only shoots 2k ProRes internally, btw), and I'd be surprised if there were many rental houses that would forego the ability to shoot ProRes/DNxHD to keep the 4k internal option (that you can't even playback). Also, it's rare for any rental house to send out 'hacked' cameras - and regardless of what this actually is, the fact that it may void a warranty will be enough for the majority of the rental houses to stay right away from it.
 
 
 This is exactly right. The only time you should invest in a camera is if you have enough work lined up in the following 18 months to be able to pay it off (and that you know you're going to be able to book your camera on). After that, it's not worth it.
 
This is a dangerous comment. It entirely depends on your market. In some markets, those who early-adopted the Alexa have a camera that will still rent strong. In other markets, those who early adopted the Alexa went from renting their cameras out at top-dollar, to marking them down 30-40% to compete with the Alexa XT, Alexa Studio, Alexa Plus etc. rentals.

 
 Everyone did know that. That being said, the F5 and F55 do have minor hardware differences, but Sony never even pretended that the hardware was wildly different. Anyone who wasn't aware that the ability to shoot 4k internally on the F5 was simply a matter of software limitation hasn't hung around high-end cameras enough. The Alexa's high-speed license is a 37kb encrypted zip file that you pay ~$4,000 for and put on an SD card. It's purely software. But that's how these companies work. There's not one that doesn't work in a similar way. Really the only difference here is that Sony hasn't put as much effort into encrypting that part of the software. Arri's Amira pricing structure is practically identical as well, the only difference being that they're all called an Amira. Even Blackmagic pulled the same card with the Cinema Cam and Production Cam.
 

And yet, Canon has sold so many C300s. You forget that SLRs have always been primarily about photography. Canon has always had a pro video line. It makes absolutely zero sense to cannabalize their pro video line in order to sell cheap, feature-rich SLRs. People are still buying 7Ds, they're still buying Rebels, they're still buying 5Ds. And they're buying C300s.

Digital video cameras have had wild markups based on minor hardware and software difference for as long as I can remember.