DBounce

Well we can expect to see people unloading their A7Ss on ebay and the prices dropping pretty soon, as it seems the A7Rii will be a more balanced camera in a smaller form factor when shooting 4k.

Well we can expect to see people unloading their A7Ss on ebay and the prices dropping pretty soon, as it seems the A7Rii will be a more balanced camera in a smaller form factor when shooting 4k.

Awesome! Here's to hoping it blows us all away!

The biggest problem with the 1DC is it's price. And I'm not talking it's used price. Used is like a box of chocolates... And since new is $8k, what exactly is the point in comparing the two as if anyone actually cross shops them. 
If I was seriously considering the 1DC, I would also be seriously considering the Ursa Mini, and the FS7, and the C300 Mkii. So how does the 1DC fair in that company? And I'm talking the total package, IQ, easy of use, media, workflow etc...
So given the current options, and the NEW price of the 1DC, how many here plan on picking up a 1DC for $8k new?

It's almost as though the ursa mini wasn't announced. Save your pennies and get something from 2015 era.

All else being equal gear can make a difference. Not sure why everyone keeps bringing talent into the equation. I believe the assumption is that the person buying the "high-end" camera is a professional who is capable of delivering pro level work. And if this is the case other factors now come into play. 
If not all movies would be shot on $197 camcorders purchased at best buy.

What is called for is really a change in perception. To say something looks like video does not mean the same thing today as it did 20 years ago. Years ago it was an insult, because most video looked pretty darn bad. Today it is simply a different feel... Cleaner, sharper and it can still be very cinematic. It think instead of saying something looks like video, what most people really mean, is it does not look cinematic.

What is called for is really a change in perception. To say something looks like video does not mean the same thing today as it did 20 years ago. Years ago it was an insult, because most video looked pretty darn bad. Today it is simply a different feel... Cleaner, sharper and it can still be very cinematic. It think instead of saying something looks like video, what most people really mean, is it does not look cinematic.

The problem is in the "not yet as good as film" part. The point is: that is not a fact, but an opinion. Perhaps shared by many, but clearly not everyone.
In any case, every time a discussion comes up about digital cameras and the film look, why do we go off on extraneous stuff like movement, and lighting? Obviously we're talking CETERIS PARIBUS. I'm really looking forward to Mattias' comparison since he'll be holding everything else constant.

What exactly does this mean? I used to think that it meant that the image lacked depth. Or perhaps the image looked somehow artificial. But anymore what I think it really means is that the image is clean. The truth is many modern cameras produce clean images, and frankly that's okay. My eyes don't see film grain when I look around at my surroundings. So why do we expect cameras to show this when it's not really there? The so-called "organic feel" is nothing more than distortion. My eyes "are organic", and the images I see with them are free from this grain and other artifacts. 
This whole "video look" thing reminds me a lot of when CD first came out. Many audiophiles complained that CDs sounded too digital, too clean... Sterile. Some producers even went as far as to add noise and hiss to their digital recordings in an attempt to make them sound more organic. I think that many filmmakers are following in these same footsteps. Trying to make the new digital format appear more like the old noisie, distorted, soft format that they are accustomed to.
I watched the trailer for Revenant... That's the new movie that was shot on the Alexa 65. It looked wide, it looked impressive. But you what? It didn't look like film? And do you know what else? I really didn't care that it didn't. 
The truth is, if you are attempting to make your video look more "filmic", what you are really trying to do is make your video look more vintage... You are living in the past... clinging on the a memory of how movies looked when you were a kid. It's not bad to look like video, this is what the Alexa 65 has shown us. 

What exactly does this mean? I used to think that it meant that the image lacked depth. Or perhaps the image looked somehow artificial. But anymore what I think it really means is that the image is clean. The truth is many modern cameras produce clean images, and frankly that's okay. My eyes don't see film grain when I look around at my surroundings. So why do we expect cameras to show this when it's not really there? The so-called "organic feel" is nothing more than distortion. My eyes "are organic", and the images I see with them are free from this grain and other artifacts. 
This whole "video look" thing reminds me a lot of when CD first came out. Many audiophiles complained that CDs sounded too digital, too clean... Sterile. Some producers even went as far as to add noise and hiss to their digital recordings in an attempt to make them sound more organic. I think that many filmmakers are following in these same footsteps. Trying to make the new digital format appear more like the old noisie, distorted, soft format that they are accustomed to.
I watched the trailer for Revenant... That's the new movie that was shot on the Alexa 65. It looked wide, it looked impressive. But you what? It didn't look like film? And do you know what else? I really didn't care that it didn't. 
The truth is, if you are attempting to make your video look more "filmic", what you are really trying to do is make your video look more vintage... You are living in the past... clinging on the a memory of how movies looked when you were a kid. It's not bad to look like video, this is what the Alexa 65 has shown us. 

Totally agree. 
I see some of these "characteristics" an issue in a lot of these new consumer 4k cameras. Images so brittle and oversharpened that they look hyper-real and thin. A lot of electronic lenses are the same. You see a huge difference when shooting raw where images have color depth, tonality, organic motion cadence, and high dynamic range. 
Nearly every single camera out right now has a "video look". The best way around it is to shoot raw and use cinema lenses. Then become bankrupt.

Ok, I'll go...
Internal 4k.
BSI sensor.
Memory on sensor.
60fps 4k. That's what I said!
1.5 f/stop impovement over current model.
No, it won't have this last one... But how about a flip out touch screen?
 

Well this might sound strange but I like to see work from both talented and hopeless filmmakers. This way I can better judge what a camera is capable of. Obviously a great filmmaker will have impressive results with anything halfway decent. But watching a few clueless wannabes gives me an idea of the camera's performance under less than ideal conditions. 
Another thing to note is generally more expensive gear is owned by more experienced users. There are many great examples of well shot FS7 footage on the web. But A7s is a mixed bag of talent, with a healthy dose of clueless amateurs thrown in. NX1 and GH4 perhaps even more so. But this can be constructive if you have a gauge of where your personal artistic talent rates at the time. 
I find Blackmagic cameras seem to look cinematic under most circumstances. Even in the hands of the truly talent challenged. That said, content then becomes the issue... And bad lighting... And framing... And story (or lack of story) etc...

The replacement for the NX1 will no doubt be out in the near future. I'm thinking Sammy is on a roll right now, so who knows what they will have to offer. Between Samsung, Sony and Panasonic, good options are within sight.

Bahahaha! Everyone raves about how the A7S opens up new creative possibilities, than slams the first real short to make use of its capabilities, even though some of you apparently paid so little attention that you didn't even know where the film takes place! I love it. Do you have any idea how hard Kubrick--hell, ANY filmmakers from before digital--would've creamed themselves over this? 

As a writer, a filmmaker, and a published critic, my opinion is that the short is good. The acting is good not great, the story is clear, concise, and kept me interested, it has a unique, ethereal look, and it the title left me with something to ponder. My friend, a very passionate physics major, insists that space is the next frontier, we'll die out eventually if we don't get out there, it could hold the answers to so many global problems, blah blah blah. But what if what's out there isn't our refuge at all? What if it's a trap, and we're the refuge for it?
That's not a lot of meat on its bones, but it's better than shaky street scenes, travel videos shot from the tour bus/boat, and endless boring landscape montages. 

It's important we give credit to the craft. After all, isn't that why we're all here?

I think camera/lens selection can affect the mood or style of the story. I tend to choose gear to match the story. My camera choice for a documentary would be different than that for a film. It's all important to producing the end product. Of course story comes first. Lighting is important. But they all work as part of a system.
No one buys a drill because they want a drill... Problem is they don't sell the holes.

8k it's going to happen sooner than you think. Oculus stated 16k is ideal for VR. So 8k is a given. New chips will support it natively. It's in the cards.

My money is on Samsung. I've got a feeling they're in it to win it.

My money is on Samsung. I've got a feeling they're in it to win it.

Indeed, everyone is stating how wonderful the A7Rii is, yet the only footage I have seen didn't exactly blow me away. Not that it was bad... but it also wasn't great. I need to see a lot more to be impressed. Personally I was more taken with the footage from the blackmagic Ursa 4.6k. Which should bode well for the mini.

Anamorphic 2x full frame zoom, 24-35mm f2.8 priced under $2500.
Anamorphic primes @ sub $1k for full frame, aps-c and m43. This is long over due imo.
Guess I would just like to see some affordable anamorphic options. Not adapters, but true anamorphic lenses. And while we're at it, all cameras should offer an anamorphic mode with desqueeze.

Just watched this. Very disappointing... Largely because we all know the camera can do much better. Unfortunately this production did little to make a case for that argument.

Many are dismissing Samsung as irrelevant. This is a mistake, Samsung appears serious about the camera market. Their smartphones have the best cameras in the industry. This is proven true in numerous test. Their screens are also rated the best, and with the new color profiles are now also considered the most accurate. They create top hardware cpus etc... All of these technologies are readily applicable to high-end cameras. And they have financial muscle. At $200 billion they dwarf Sony $34 billion, Canon $49 billion and Nikon $4.7 billion. Samsung is the biggest player in the camera industry. The NX1 is not their end game... it's just the beginning.
If Samsung wants this market they certainly have the means to own it. 

​I believe it's because many here have previous positive experiences with Canon cameras. For this reason we would very much like to see them make reasonably priced cameras that we can utilize for serious work. To sum up how I feel about Canon... Disappointed.