EduPortas

Original Fuji X100 and Nikon D200 For video it's almost useless, but for photos it shines with all its quirks and "personality traits". Nikon D200 is an absolute beast that has a ton o personality thanks to the CCD sensor. A truly great photo camera. No video function there. My modern cameras have zero personality (7DM2, R8, Z50) but work at such a high level that I just can't get rid of them even I want to. 7DM2 for quick focus and one of the best OVFs ever (soft video though); R8 is very very good for video, Z50 is not as good for video but I really like its compactness.

I have no idea why Panny chose to go the expensive route for their cameras. Up until the GH5 their products offered the biggest bang for the buck (GH5s was catastrophic bc it started this whole upward pricing trend). Now? Not so much. GH6-7 were considerable costs upfront for anyone, let alone indie filmmakers. Their FF lineup has been all over the place regarding prices. Why would anyone buy this new camera when the S5II and its different variations was released just some months ago? It makes NO sense whatsoever and makes us long for the GH-1-2-3-4 pricing and innovativeness. Every single one of the original GH cameras had some sort of innovation that differentiated it from the rest of the Canon-Nikon-Sony parade. All of that was lost with the move to FF. A true fall from grace.

Thanks, I see now.

No, he's talking about the 18-110mm F4 Power Zoom which is a very expensive item. Much more so than the "normal" F4 zoom of similar focal length. About 5x more expensive.

That's a US$3,500 lens on top of a camera that requires a bunch of add-ons to use properly. So even if it's an older model that's a US$4,500 expenditure at the very least. That's way way over my budget.

I gather 4K 4:2:2 10bit is something rare at this price point in the videocamera world. Impressive for such a tiny machine with an extremely long lens.

And it should, a full-frame MILC sensor is 20x as large LOL For a 1/2.5-type (inch) sensor it seems really nice, specially the 4K 200mbps codec

I will. Yes, the low-light issue can't be denied. I already have a bunch of lighting, so I'm not too worried about that. These new 1 inchers do seem quite nice and just as in photography the ISO and noise algorithms have advanced in the videocamera world. There are workarounds for bokeh, as you say. When I used those old Mini DV cams we managed to produce some nice images by playing with length of the zoom and judicious placement of our subjects. I 100% agree with you that the video cam world has advanced at a snail's pace compared to the photo world. Advancements have been few and far between. Curiously enough, Panasonic really did innovate with the DVX200 but the competition from the DSLR world and the new MILC challengers proved too fierce. Heck, even their own internal competition was brutal with the GF7, GX80, G9, FZ-2000, GH5, GH5 and GH5s coming around near the launch of the DVX200. Those guys in Japan were on a roll back then. As Andrew has said, their photo demise in near. IMO their fatal flaw was launching their own L mount and trying to compete with much more well established players but with 1/100 of their marketing resources and distribution channels. They should have stuck with videocameras and, from time to time, integrate their innovations to the M43 line. Bleh. Right now they much interested selling batteries to Tesla and Toyota.

I've debated myself the aesthetic qualities of small sensor videocameras. At this juncture I'm willing ti sacrifice overall "bokeh potential" if the videocamera is more practical than a DSLR/MILC for video. Yep, coincidentally I'm finding that DVX200 one of the better options out there. It definitely ticks all the boxes. As for the Sony, I didn't even know to existed. I'll def have a look at it. Not really a Sony fan in the photo world, but they have produced very good vide cams for decades, so that seems like a really good option. All those cinema camera sound great, but I'm looking for extreme practicality with an integrated zoom lens. So I'm gonna pass on those big censored fiends.

Yes please (Canon does support LANC), I would much rather do with an integrated zoom lens. I'm tired of waffling around with DSLRs/MICSs and their photo-centric lenses. As you stated, all those big sensor cine cameras produce beautiful images, but non have integrated zooms. Buying one of their integrated zooms would far exceed my budget,

Hello again everyone, I've been a DSLR/MILC user for 20 years. I've worked in media/documentary jobs using these cameras with 1080p and 4K for video and of course taking photos. In general, I'm very satisfied with the image quality of the 4K video files I'm getting with my current Nikon and Canon gear (R8 and Z50). However, I'm hating more and more the ergonomics of these cameras for video. I simply cannot get accustomed to them. Newer MILCs have fewer buttons than older DLSRs and this has really started to aggravate me. Before going the DSLR/MILC route I shot with prosumer Mini DV videocameras 😨 The jump in quality to DSLR/MILCs was undeniable, but I really miss the ergos of tho se ancient machines. So, if I were to go back to a proper consumer/prosumer videocamera what would you recommend? I'd much prefer you guys give me some options instead of asking the gents over at DV Info and such fora. My requirements are quite basic: - Price between US$1500 and US$2500 new or used - Good to very good haptics and ergonomics for long form interviews that can last up to 2 hours - Decent AF - 4K resolution since I will be exporting to 1080p (I really enjoy the cropping and color correction possibilities of the larger files for lower resolution exports) - Two XLR inputs and two card slots - Integrated Power Zoom since I will using LANC device in my tripod - Unexotic files for easy NLE digestion in Final Cut X That's it. Other than the obvious Canon XA40, XA50/XA70 and XF400 I'm absolutely swamped by options offered by JVC, Panasonic and Sony, but I'm assuming they have some good stuff. Any recommendation would be much appreciated 😎

This is a great idea, in principle. Problem is the market will be severely reduced if you leave out USA consumers, the biggest and most important group of buyers out there. And even if you let them access your movie, someone in India will pay $6.99, for example, while a viewer in the USA $13.98, if the tariff comes through. That's a huge disincentive. Other than Japan, China, and India which have had strong internal media markets for decades, I don't see any country surviving this, not even the UK.

Cleopatra should be taken as an influence to every movie produced after it came out. If you're studying that era of photography it's obligatory, IMO.

For a 20 second ad filled with 1 second or less shots this could work. For a full-featured movie no. We are still a ways away from realism. The uncanny valley is brutal. And I'm talking purely about the visuals. The sound just comes through as very fake. So bad sound and mediocre visuals = AI fail. On the bright side, it's really clear they used the movie Cleopatra (1963) for their AI teaching-learning. I actually wanted to see the old Hollywood mega production during one or two of those shots.

100% agreed. The tendency is clear though: Chinese camera and videocamera manufacturers are growing more competent and we better get ready for a considerable change in the status quo.

Thank you for your extensive reply. I was basing my info on the official Ronin blurb, as well as both the Adorama and B&H sites. Nowhere does it say you need all these additional elements clearly to make the most out of the cheapest kit. That's exactly the reason these gear-head forums need to exist. It's very easy to get tangled up by a barrage of technical data without the prior knowledge.

I thought this was a gear forum, but maybe it morphed into something else post-Covid hehe

Unlike the other very good cameras you mentioned the Ronin has the entire FF set-up from the get go: stabilizer, gimbal, remote focusing mechanism for MF lenses, big focusing screen (and AF, of course). ProRes Raw and 4444 XQ. It's just a more compelling package for the brand agnostic.

For full frame, 6K and various flavors of ProRes that's a very very small number of cameras. Even more so if the camera AND lens totals around US$10k (the 32mm Cooke lens used for the entire show costs US$4,500 brand-new; the 6K version of the camera US5k)

I agree. Chapter 3 was the best. Bar none. But even if we don't like the story (I don't love it either), the reality is that millions of viewers swallowed the show with gusto. That does not happen if the technical image on the 80 inch TV falls apart.

Thus, the original reason for this thread.

This new gear is as bare-bones as it gets: cheap camera that shoot 6K and records RAW (for Hollywood) and a very good lens.

Ok, but the whole series was shot theRonin 4D and a Cooke lens. The decision was intentional and reveals they selected that gear not just for the ability to use in very dynamic scenes bc the technical quality of the images is practically Arri level. I seriously doubt they would have shot the entire series with that combo if the technical image quality lessened the final product shown on-screen.

Yeah, it's an industry, as you well noted. But I can't shake the feeling some share-holders will see the praised garnished by Adolescence and start to ask why they can't use "cheap" equipment like that in every project since it looks as "pro" as any Hollywood film out there. Blair Witch it is not. The last major breakthrough was the Sony FX3 camera for the big budget Creator movie. But that was one piece within a huge industry-like production process. Adolescence take a different route and seeing all the positive press it's garnered I expect 1,000 copy cat movie makers to try and imitate it.