EduPortas

Yes, they knew 100% what the heck they were doing, as well as the place and technique better suited for that place. As for the TikTok videos having huge impact? Yep. Are they art? No way. "Content" is not art. Never will be.

I agree. It would be unwise to try and gatekeep it. Personal tastes factor in and everyone has the right to produce or consume whatever artistic product feels right. Just to clarify, it's not what appeals to "me", it's just the concept of art in general. There are canons and 1000s of books written about this subject. I'm just saying art should be a category reserved for something truly special, epoch-making, just like the ancient murals discovered thousands of years after they were drawn you mentioned. I've seen the larger examples of these ancient cave paintings in Europe 4 to 6 meters wide drawn 10 or more meters above cavern floors and they are truly awe-inspiring. Anyone entering those places will never be the same thanks to that experience. It's soul-moving and deeply spiritual. I'm not sure a 30 second reel has the same profound impact on the soul though LOL

Sorry friend, but in 100 years neither G.U.'s videos nor your doodles will be interpreted as art pieces. The first aspect of any artistic endeavor is of course the personal emotion or intent, as Andrew said. But that's the bare minimum. It's all uphill from there (technique, movement behind it, people you know, trends followed by the masses, etc.). That's a less than 0.01% chance of actually making something the world will remember, generally by channeling a huge amount of personal pain into something concrete. And it's ok. That's why artists are so special and, generally, tortured souls.

There's a place for in-depth analysis like G.U.'s channel. It's useful. But it's kind of difficult to place it at the "art" level when he himself distanced his channel from more opinionated spaces by offering a "just the facts" approach and basically zero emotion or personal aspects of his life related to the object being reviewed. Not every piece of digital content is art. I'd say it's less than 0.1% right now.

That's the definition of artist. Clearly, G.U. is not one. It's not a sin, though. Not everyone has the sensibility to become one.

I'm sure the owner of this site would object to that statement LOL Camera reviews are not art. They are content. There's a huge gap that exemplifies why this sort of youtuber just fades away. At no time during the past 10 years did I see one of his reviews and said "wow, now that's art right there". There's no soul, just data. Clicked on a video, saw it, and 5 minutos later forgot all about it. It's NOT his fault, it's just he's made from a different material than artists. I repeat, it's NOT a deficiency, it's just his way of presenting his videos: cold, clinical, analytical, operational. Curiously enough, his pal from Camera Conspiracies has had some very artistic videos where he actually shows some soul. His technique is dreadful, but you can see HIM and his EMOTIONS through the video. Cheers.

That's bc the man is not an artist nor a journo. He's just some dude who speaks English (this is relevant) and got really passionate about cameras during The Great MILC Video Expansion of 2014-2024. Since this is a hobby for him and not a job, the passion just ran out.

That each camera owner of a particular brand buys, in this case, 1.7 lenses for his camera. From memory, almost all brands are below 2. So that means the aside from the kit lenses, buyers rarely ever consume another lens for the camera body.

Yes, but again it's all about intent. If the ppl making the movie elected a particular piece of gear bc that was their intention it's a good sign they know what they are doing. Most artists are really picky about their instruments and cinema is no different. Why? Bc the creative intent changes with the instrument selected to convey the idea. Great photographers know this and have to think clearly what will be sacrificed by changing their usual gear for any given task. The Arri trope is all about the industry. Ppl making bad movies just mark a bunch of high-end gear bc it will make it look like every other movie out there from the last 15 years.

I'd lime to know why the GH7 was used for this particular movie/documentary. Practical reasons regarding size? Cost? Absolute technical image quality? We just don't know. I also think camera choice is the most important reason any creator is going to make, aside from script. If the piece doesn't look right no one will watch it, even if it's Citizen Kane Part Deux. That's why some Hollywood creative trios are almost set in stone: director-writer-photographer. If I go to an IMAX I expect to see something spectacular. If I go to the cinema for an indie doc, my expectation changes. If I turn on my TV and watch channel 6 I pretty much expect soap opera visuals.

Owner of an R8 here. Those big phat sensels and sophisticated AF will help you big time in low light. 1080p is very good, if you need it. I've had zero problems with overheating in indoor situations, but the body will get warm if you push it all the way to 2 hours of recording. Same goes for SD card. Remember that you can use EF APS-C lenses with the official adapter and that opens up a huge panoply of options for the R8 which were never available for EF bodies. You'll get the APS-C crop in video, of course, but it's still a great option. Since my R8 lives on a tripod I use mine with a venerable EF-S 17-55 F2.8. That's it. For video I need nothing more, save for some lights and a good Rode wireless lavalier mic kit. Minimal set-up, every good results. P.S: if you'll be swapping SD cards in long recording sessions and the camera has to remain on a tripod, avoid the R8. The SD card is placed on the bottom, so you'll be hitting your battery constantly. The battery door is the worst I've ever seen in any Canon camera irregardless of price. Go for the R7 and its side-loading SD card slot, in that case.

Yes, just a one shot fixed-lens model in the X100 body or similar. Any other strategy would confuse their own customer base. Right now, they have some very clear buyer differentiation in the extremely expensive MF and the fragmented APS-C lines. So a FF body makes sense but only as a curiosity for the deep-pocketed aficionado.

How about ProRes? The ZR has ProRes HQ and ProRes RAW. That should be easy to edit on a Mac, right?

Any of Canon's recent MILCs are more than enough for your needs. - Cheapest for interviews: R8 or R7 (HD is also very good on both of these if you need to save on SD cards) - Best for Docs and everything else: R3 (for the money it's a lock for just about any application). You already know the best qualities of these cameras: rock solid AF, great color science, best in class reliability and dead simple usability. New Nikons are also very very good in this regard (Z5M2, Z6M3, Z8, Z9). Just try to stay with first-party lens options. For Canon you can add the official adapter and get the whole EF catalog. Maybe not the most exciting models, but if you're looking for real world usability it's hard to go wrong with the big two right now.

Damn, that's unfortunate. Maybe they blame the Angry Photographer for their divorce. They went at each other hard some years ago very publicly with non tech related personal stuff.