EduPortas

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 😎

On 5/6/2025 at 4:37 AM, Ilkka Nissila said:

I think the solution is to have distribution channels independent of the USA. Create your own streaming platforms for content made regionally and also internationally (among movie-producing countries that don't go into trade wars with each other). 

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.

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Can that Cleopatra (1963) be taken as influence too instead?

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.

On 5/4/2025 at 1:58 AM, Emanuel said:

Here is an impressive series of snacks:

https://www.youtube.com/@CommonHub/videos

In this case, MidJourney, Runway ML e ElevenLabs have been used according to the sources found:

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.

12 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I am actually in the camp of ‘gear is great’ and love a chat about kit, but just saying that too many focus on the camera and only the camera above all else as in, “if only I had Camera X, I would make it in this industry”.

I’m all for filmmakers large and small to break away from the norms and don’t think kit should be restricted to just the most expensive stuff when some very very ‘low’ end gear has been proven to work just as well and in some cases, has made certain shots possible on the first place.

As already referenced, The Creator being shot on FX3’s and The Batman (for certain scenes) using a lens that can be purchased of eBay for under 100. 

I think the Ronin is such an example but could this show have been made without it?

Yes.

Will the way this show was shot influence others to emulate?

Probably.

Will some of them buy or rent a Ronin as a result?

Probably, but the result was not solely down to a single piece of kit.

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.

17 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

That's simply not true.

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.

16 hours ago, MrSMW said:

It's so easy to focus on the camera as the single most important element and if some folks wish to believe that's what it's all about, best of luck to them `and their lives within the comments section on YouTube.

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

22 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

So...  I'm not really sure anymore what point you're trying to make about the Ronin here. 

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.

19 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Does it exist a camera whose image technically falls apart nowadays? 😉

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)

6 hours ago, j_one said:

I've been hearing/reading opinions that the way the story would have been perceived by the audience wouldn't have changed all that much if it featured more traditional cuts, and that the gimmick of the oner was just that, a gimmick, to show off the marvel of technology and the immense talent/coordination of the film crew. 

(The exception to this being episode 3 with the session between the psychologist and the teen. The continuous take suited that scene the best.)

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.

11 hours ago, PPNS said:

if you do a bit of math it seems to me like that camera package is fairly insignificant on the budget of an 'industry' production. 

Thus, the original reason for this thread.

On 4/27/2025 at 3:28 PM, fuzzynormal said:

Weren't a lot of the most influencing and creative films ever made done with equipment significantly less sophisticated than all of this modern stuff? 

So... I don't get too wrapped up in the new fangled gear. It's all rather incredible, realitvely, tbh. 

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.

On 4/27/2025 at 1:44 PM, Tim Sewell said:

So it's great that big budget movies are doing inventive stuff with non-traditional camera systems, but they're doing it when it's required, not for any financial savings or because they think those systems are overall better.

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. 

On 4/24/2025 at 11:26 PM, newfoundmass said:

But that's not the reason most of the industry refuses to switch over to these more affordable, but very capable cameras. 

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.

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

I feel like every couple of years there's a film or television show that causes this same discussion to happen. I remember when 28 Days Later used the Canon XL-1, and when House used the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Or more recently when The Creator used the FX3. Or even when Steven Soderbergh used the iPhone.

I think we'll see people continue to buck the system and use "cheap" cameras to create high profile art, but I don't think that the rest of industry will change anytime soon for a variety of reasons, one of them being financial. The industry is content with the status quo, and changing it would impact everything from rental houses to folks who work full time on sets doing jobs that are dependent on film production continuing the way it does.

Ok, that's interesting.

- Canon XL-1 was used for a particular effect in 28 Days Later. 

- 5D M2 was used very sparingly in House for some specific shots that required very low-light.

- SS used the iPhone 15 with a bunch of different and very expensive tools, unlike a "normal user" would.

- FX3 illustrates my point. The effect of that particular accesible camera changed the industry for the better. Being a Sony though, it still is part of a very conservative tech ecosystem.

Now the mold has been broken again with an even cheaper kit that included almost everything you need to make a Hollywood-level movie or mini-series. I was honestly shocked at how good the technical quality of the series was when watching it on a big-screen TV. 

Only the most hard-core of technical specialist will notice this is not an Alexa.

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

FWIW, if you watch the BTS, they were most likely over $30,000 on the camera package alone.  I'm not sure if it was specified whether they used the Ronin 4D 8K or 6K, but I'm assuming the more expensive one.

$10,000 - camera
$5,000 - lens
$280 - focus motor
$400 - DJI transmitter

Then add in the set of master wheels that I saw in at least one BTS photo and at least 3 high bright remote monitors + handles that I saw in another.

$10,000 - DJI master wheels
$1,700 - monitor (x3)
$730 - handles (x3)

And then add in the car mount and a drone strong enough to carry a 15 pound camera, and it's not out of the question that that all would total about $50k.

If your definition of "serious film project" is $1m+ budget, then that is indeed a small portion - but it definitely ain't cheap.

I can also say that as an owner of a Ronin 4D and a person who loves it, it would not be my choice if I could pick only one camera.  To say it has quirks would be the understatement of the century.

As a second camera?  It might be top of my list.  And I'll be in that "wave of new pro and amateur projects" filmed with one - for the feature that I've been asked to shoot, it'll likely be UC12K as the A camera and Ronin 4D for most of the handheld, car-mounted stuff, faux-jib (Flex mounted on a monopod), etc.

Thank you, that's great info.

They used the 6K model which costs a measly US$5,000. The 6K US$9,999 model includes a very decent T3.0 lens. Again, for Hollywood, that's less than drinks on a Friday.

There's some more technical info here ---> 

https://ymcinema.com/2025/04/16/the-heroes-of-adolescence-dji-ronin-4d-and-cooke-sp3-32mm/

We're about to see come huge changes in the industry now that hegemonic power are being shifted. The camera industry is not impervious to that huge seismic tech shift. 

Since this forum has taken a strong liking to cinema this past couple of years, I'd think it be useful to point out the gear used in this very popular series.

As you probably know, they used a DJI Ronin 4D and a Cooke SP3 32mm to shoot the entire series. That's about US$12,000 in total (not counting storage media).

Either way, it's a breakthrough in the  film industry that wishes to distance itself from the Arri/Sony duopoly. For the independent film industry this is even more important. Yes, for a mere mortal that's quite a bit of money. But for a film project -- any film project that wishes to be taken seriously -- it's basically peanuts.

Arguably, it's a pretty decent looking media product. Only the most ardent film aficionados will notice any difference, if any, from an Arri or Sony film cam. For 99.9% of the rest of the world, it's great quality.

I can see the American film-industry boycotting the Chinese DJI to protect their American gear. The wave of new pro and amateur projects filmed with the setup seen in Adolescence will be huge. We are "there".

9 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Would it be a fun camera? Fuck yeah. And then some.

It is. Mainly bc the original X100 is so limited in terms of AF and, as you said, focal length.

But once you learn to live with that it's a very enjoyable experience when shooting through the hybrid OVF (forget about the EVF).  There's still nothing out there. 

For maximum fun I just leave it at F8, 1/125 and move around the ISO during my trips. Single point center AF. Basically a point and shoot.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Thoughts on the best fun-factor cameras, I am thinking Fuji X-Pro 3, Sigma Fp, all the things that doesn't try to look like an EOS R5, but feels and looks a bit different. Niche artistic tools. I think I would rank my favourites as follows but pretty sure I have forgotten some...

You cannot not include the original X100.

It's basically just a point and shoot rangefinder with a 35mm F2 lens and one usable focus point in the center. Leaf shutter, incredibly advanced flash system, great skin tones. I really enjoyed using it until the TikTok fad made it a risk for me to use it for street photography. These suckers have become absurdly expensive.

Now I'm having a blast with a tiny Nikon ccd point and shoot from about 20 years ago. 

Cheap as beans, fits everywhere, has flash, a nice wide to tele lens and the gf likes it. Of course the battery is mediocre, is very slow in operation and has glacial autofocus.

BUT once you print an image created with those ccd sensors you realize the hype is real.

I have NEVER seen skins tones as natural as the ones produced by these old Nikons (3300, 3400, etc). 

On 3/15/2025 at 1:12 AM, octoplex said:

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.

Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics

Pretty sure Dogma 95 will be right up your ally (Lars Von Trier, Soren Kragh-Jacobsen, et al.)

They proposed the same thing as you: no frills film-making with the story as the most important element.

Enjoy --->

FULL LIST OF DOGME 95 RULES

Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).

The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).

The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted.

The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).

Optical work and filters are forbidden.

The film must not contain superficial action (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur).

Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (That is to say that the film takes place here and now).

Genre movies are not acceptable.

The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

The director must not be credited.

19 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

This thread was a lot better when it was trolling people about Dave Bautista and/or Perry Farrell.

So Dave Bautista is NOT related to Perry Farrell?

17 hours ago, MrSMW said:

That ^ is Dave, well known camera reviewer and influencer.

Normally ends his reviews by smashing the kit to pieces.

And here is a pic below after he went on the Matt Granger diet.

Damn, gotta update my YT algorithm. Reviewers will do anything for clicks in this day and age LOL 

14 hours ago, MrSMW said:

He’s a well known camera reviewer who wears oversized trousers (pants to the US brethren but trousers in the more civilised world who can also spell words like civilised properly) with his pockets stuffed full of camera gear like flashes and tripods and snacks.

Who the hell are Jane’s Addiction?

Before your explanation I really thought you were talking about this guy

14 hours ago, MrSMW said:

He’s a well known camera reviewer who wears oversized trousers (pants to the US brethren but trousers in the more civilised world who can also spell words like civilised properly) with his pockets stuffed full of camera gear like flashes and tripods and snacks.

Who the hell are Jane’s Addiction?

Thank you. Never heard of him.

JA are a popular 90s grudge band. Famous songs include "Jane Says"

On 2/21/2025 at 4:50 PM, IronFilm said:

He's also been working out, so he's been gaining muscle, thus he's lost even more fat than that. 

Yep, that's impressive by any measure imaginable.