EduPortas

I don't care about the technical specs of X gear or absolute technical quality of the image. Dude is clearly a gearhead. He shares no narratives (a review is analytical, not narrative work). So no, his review says nothing to me. But this type of "content" is what goes today by high-quality: talk about specs with the intention is to sell sell sell. Show some graphs. Record a quick v-log. Make you push that buy button. It's not a hobby, it's their job as influencers. That's why this blog is still relevant, even if the author takes six or twelve months to review X new camera 😅. At least I know he's not writing for the ad revenue and hot Amazon-BH-Adorama link.

Loyal reader since 2012 (or 2011? I forget). Never thought I'd see the day when the author of this blog would stoop down to some youtuber that is clearly a technician. Dude has no idea of what constitutes art and does not care. He's in it for the views and the afillo links. Guess it's 2021.

Every single movie I can think of that can be called art pushed normative boundries in some way or another. Most of them were missunderstood in their time. Contrary to what comes out today these creations had "weight": being subversive + having good exposition + good craftsmanship. There's some Hollywood stuff, of course, as well as cinema from other countries. Following that logic, 99.9% of the digitally enhanced stuff we're consuming today will most definetly not be remembered in 20-30 years. They are neither subversive nor have good exposition, but are techinicaly fantastic and produce a ton of money, but that's it.

Interesting thoughts, thank you. My main gripe with the new stuff is that a vast amount of new creators are better activists than artists. In the past, of course, directors, writers and producers were partisan to different causes, but foremost they were artists. Now it's the reverse: these guys are better activists than creators and their work leaves little doubt about it. For money reasons, of course, big companies have backed them.

Art has never been about not offending people. Some would say quite the opposite: you want to make people ponder. I think the current discussion is more about bland, well-poduced "content" on streaming platforms that is merely watchable, but very rarely comes close to being cinematic art. The truth is most of these new merely watchable shows have a heavy-handed ideological slant that make them transparent in their intentions, yet very profitable. Quite the opposite of art that is complex, layered and often contradictory.

Yes, but the thing is most audiences have become accustomed to these clinical/sanitized products and consider it the new "normal". They will gobble it up just because it's been released on Nflx or Amazon Prime and has a high level of techical polish but little depth. They think it's cool because it's new and since it's new it must be cool, right? As many have said, with most new shows and movies the agenda is so obvious it hurts. Yet after watching high-quality material (cine or TV) I like to reflect and ponder about the ideas inside the narrative, not become partisan to X o Y cause. Isn't that what cinema is all about?

Was thinking about the exact same thing today after watching some of Herzog's very first films from the 70s. Dude was really "out there". Sadly, we're not even on the experimenting level of cinema of the 80s-90s right now, let alone the 60s and 70s. I swear the ratio of crappy-to-respectable movies and series on Amazon and Netflix is about 9 to 1. But hey...that's what the masses want 😶

You could. But then hedge funds will start to make money off of other hedge funds betting who will go down each week. Same with stocks. They will bet upwards in price, not downwards as per usual. It's basically just a huge casino.

Because some dead French men of the XIX century and his pals made a bunch of experiments proyecting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 FPS. Then they arrived at 24 FPS and went "yeah, that looks about right and there's no perceivable difference between 24,25,26,27,28,29 FPS and 24 is cheaper to roll". That's the legacy. Like the wheel, why try to change what is already damn near perfect?

Obviously we are living in very different realities. We are a people who enjoy the outside world, despite high insecurity levels and overcrowding. Our weather allows that year-long. Over here enjoying a nice evening with drinks, dinner and a cool movie inside the cinema is the civilized thing to do during the weekend. We can even drink inside the movie theatre, hehe! Audiences are generally very respectful inside movie theaters. When they are not, they get shouted at until they leave the room (saw that during the last Nolan film). But that's rare and, honestly, comical. Pretty sure big movie companies will go for one last hurrah in my third-world country before migrating completely to streaming. Or at least I really hope so.

We know it is, friend. But not in a flash, more like a slow churning.

People who actually enjoy going out of their houses? 😛 Not everyone is rocking a 75-inch screen in their tailored-made domestic movie theater. If some of you guys are lucky enough to own a monster TV set and speakers then great, but going out for dinner and a movie is still a popular and accesible way to have fun. Has been like that for the last 100 years. Streaming services tend to rack-up. Their prices, as many have said, will only go up, even if we don't care for 99% of the crap Netflix and others push on their platforms. I WILL happily pay once or twice a month for cine ticket I know my family or friends will watch with me in a movie theather. Nice way to spend time and actually enjoy the outside world (facemask included).

I respect that. But the fact remains: cinema and a big ass TV in your living room are two different mediums. As such, the effects they produce are different. The way you receive content through them is different. You can'y say Western civilization without cinema. It's a ritual and a huge industry also. Are you ready to lose that?

How about going on a date? Breaking the monotony? Doing something different for a change?

Thank you. Too much has been said about Nikon exiting the camera market. Nonsense. People are forgetting that, unlike other camera companies, Nikon does not depend on video products for their survival. They can just keep trimming their camera lines until they reach equilibrium. They have started doing that. Their newer lenses seem really good (and expensive). If they stick some neat video options in their newer cameras I think it's a bonus. First and foremost, as I've said, they are photo camera company.

These are all important points, as well as the ones to mentioned previously. What we are seeing is a change of culture and a tranfer of power from big cinema distribution chains to Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. But here’s the catch: some of these production companies ALSO OWN their distribution service. It’s their clear and obvious interest to cut the middleman and the trend is destroying cinematic cuture. I can remember most great movies I saw in the cine theater. I remember Parasite, Dunkirk, Lord of the Rings, The Ring American version, The Ring Japanese version, Pulp Fiction, art house movies like The Witch in smaller venues. Heck, I even remember the original Dumb & Dumber! (great comunal experience with a cine packed with teenagers). But I cant’ remember even 10% of the movies I have seen on streaming services since 2013. They have little or no weight. Only my wife saves me from watching the same thing twice. “We already saw that one! Don’t you remember?”. No I don’t, sorry. They are a way to spend time, not an experience. Frankly, I can’t see large cinemas getting smaller to accomodate art movies and a select crowd. The entire industry is based on cashing in on huge blockbusters to finance smaller films that would never make it past a college script class. As you say, the plan is not sustainable. Either that or making movies takes a huge 180º degree turn and guys like Brad Pitt start charging $1,000 per project instead of $10 million.

Nikon is not a video company. Their forte is and will always be photo gear. They make very good products in that respect. A bit more expensive than the usual players, no doubt. But the quality is there. Let's be honest here guys: Nikon = Japanese ethos. Failing for them means being bought by another Japanese company. Since they are a part of the umbrella of the massive Mitsubishi group, I HIGHLY doubt we'll ever see a dramatic shift. At least not as dramatic as Pentax, which by the way still make a very good photo cameras.

I suppose it goes way back. A pride thing. Cameras, as most Japanese products, are built to last. Frequently they are over-engineered. We can criticize them a lot, but the products they sell tend to hang around much longer than competing products from other countries.

I'm actually excited about the cam. I think it's the least expensive FF interchangeable pro videocamera ever, not counting the Z cam FF model? The latter does not include a monitor or XLR handle, so the price difference is actually not that much between the two once you add those expenses. As of of right now you can purchase the FX6 for USD$7K with a 24-105 Sony lens. That's a huge price difference from older FF pro videocamera models from less than 5-10 years ago where Arri and Red were practically the only players in town. I'm not a Sony fanboy, quite the contrary, but this thing opens a new market for prosumers and videographers who are not cine buffs and don't want/need to spend 10K on extra accesories to start shooting.

Pentax is really drilling their niche product status, absolutely. As a MILC Pentax owner (Q system), I would be thrilled to get my hands on a DSLR that allows me to focus manually through the OVF. I've held off any new photographic purchases on the wake on their new APS-C camera with the "ground-breaking" OVF. We've waited long enough for an OVF SLR experiencie in a DSLR.

Why? It has RAW and costs the same as the C70, which does not. A new miniturization tax by Canon?

At $5500 body only, this ain't no amateur camera. In fact, it's the same price as the C200 with RAW, a profesional workhorse. So it's attacking that same market? I'm confused.

I agree that Sony is strangling its own APS-C with this new model. There are also older FF models by Sony that have come down in price and are still abundant. So yeah, if I were a Sony APS-C user I'd be worried (I was about ten years ago, so I sold my Sony gear, actually). Sony is clearly dividing their market: smaller and cheaper cameras like the recent ZV-1 and the bigger and more expensive FF models. The trend is V-loging, but the same gear can be used for a lot more. It's a marketing thing. Seems very clear cut.

Not "necessary", but certainly unique while shooting. Same goes for Medium Format. There's always that "look" defined by shooting perspective, lens, distance to subject, sensor size, etc. For shooting photos I much rather prefer a FF DSLR than a APS-C model. Video is debatable, though, since most of the time I'm looking at an LCD.

As someone said in another thread, as of this moment the 1DXM3 is the company's flaghship photo camera for video, not some MILC feature-happy product. That's logical: 1DXM3 is worth $6,500!