Jimmy

I go to alot of VR/AR expos with my job and have seen some (fairly crude) hologram tech, so if they have nailed it... It will be interesting.

I can't see any current tech that would display holograms bigger than a few inches tall. I still struggle to see many real world uses for it... Games, some eduction, maybe some mapping that required a 3rd axis. Most everything you can imagine would simply be quicker and better on a 2D screen though. VR/AR needs to have a wide field of view.

Please keep us updated.... I feel like I need a shower every time I visit their forum... The blind worship is ridiculous.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?159541-HYDROGEN

Some kind of hologram smart phone

8 hours ago, kkfok1031 said:

May I know the highest resolutions that can be achieve with 5D Mark III with crop not more than 2x? 25p is enough for me. I have been trying to search for this info in Magic Lantern forum, thanks.

3072x1308 (2.35:1) is the sweet spot, right now. Continuous, smallish crop (under 2x)

10 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

The client loved the FS5 - the slo-no and the HDR screen. I could tell it's presence made them feel confident.

This is a sad reality when working for some clients. You could rig up a small camera to look all big and pro, but you are back to square one again, in terms of mobility.

I'm back in the world of Magic Lantern again! Alex is a genius. Can't wait to test the new builds. 1920x1920 is just perfect for my (very unique) needs.

Gone from 5D iii to Sony A7s to NX1 and back full circle.

The 5Diii has really held it's value... I sold mine for £1500 with 24/105mm lens for £1500 2 years ago and they are going for more than that now!

Canon's trump card is it's lens collection. That's what stops the vast majority of people switching.

As long as they are king of the lenses, they can play catchup on the camera itself. It might seem backward, but that is the truth for many, many professional photographers.

For video, they clearly see 1080p as fine for the consumer and 4K as pro only. So many choices now that I don;t know why anyone gives a shit anymore. If you truly love the Canon look, get a 5Diii, 7D etc and hack it. Should we have to hack a camera to get it to 2017 specs? No.... Can we, hell yea!

Your lens choices will go a long way to making a natural image.

I love my bmpcc... Great image.... but the more boring things like screen, battery, handling etc make it a way worse option for practical shooting. HFR, AF, Ibis all check more boxes for the gh5 too.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Your brother may have used it, you haven't, so it's a second hand opinion you've got of it.

I have used it! This is like the twilight zone. I had a GH2 and GH4, so helped him learn the system, showed him how to grade log etc (he is a drone photographer 1st, but he is adding video to his drone setup).

My initial point was that Daniel might miss the 13+ stops DR, rolloff etc that the FS5 raw offers, which you are now backing up as better IQ. If Daniel rarely uses raw anyway, it's less of a point though.

I'm not saying anything bad about the GH5, not in the slightest. I like it alot. Amazing quality for the money.

53 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Jimmy hasn't used a GH5, if he had he'd see that it had an image that is better than the Sonys, 10bit codec, much better colour, at least 12 stops dynamic range in V-LOG-L, far less compression, less macro blocking, clean shadows and it does have HFR 1080p all the way up to 180fps.

hahaha, my brother owns a GH5, i've used it loads. Why jump to conclusions?

If you love it, great.... (he loves it too.. hell, I really like it).... I personally think, it doesn't hold up to the raw of 5Diii or FS700 though, which is all I mentioned.

If you think the GH5 compares favourably to the FS5 raw, then perfect (i've not tired FS5 raw).... If Oliver finds the same results, then he'll save himself a bunch of money and go much smaller, perfect.

You're gonna get a bit of an echo chamber here, lots of people with new GH5s... and also lots of people who haven't used a bigger setup.

From the style of work you make, I think you will miss having a truly top quality image in your main camera (raw, 13 stops dr, nice rolloff, HFR etc)

I sold a combo of 5DIII (ML raw) and FS700/OQ7 setup to move to NX1 and A7s ii... regretted it massively. At the end of the day, IQ is what really counts and I traded that for mobility and specs. I have now sold it all up and gone back to a 5Diiii.

You already have some great cameras for the mobility stuff, why not just use them on the shoots that you feel you would benefit from mobility, but have an F5S, C200 or whatever for the shoots that need a higher level of IQ.

I did used to hate tethering the OQ7 to the FS700 though. C200 or the new panny look far more interesting, small but with internal cinema quality IQ.

1 hour ago, jgharding said:

Yeah... I'm gonna be offloading the Red cos it doesn't get enough use. If I need something like that I'll just hire in future.

It's too big heavy and clumsy to be fun.

I miss when I started out hacking the 550D

I'll swap my 550D for your RED!

Yea... Next gen VR headsets for 2018 are looking at 2000-3000 ppi... It's insane resolution. 

41 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Only one of these examples involves one of the larger pro cameras, the C200 and I am not even convinced of what it gives to a music video shoot exactly...

C200 was just an exmaple of course... FS7, RED, the new Panny etc could all take it's place

Having good skintones, DPAF,  sync'd audio, NDs, a good codec for post, HFR options at 4K etc would all benefit a music video over an A7sii

I make my money from landscapes and drones... So smaller is usually better for me too (i've lugged a HVX200, external recorder and heavy tripod up plenty of mountains, not fun!)... but that is more a practical consideration rather than a creative one.

Has anyone actually ever said production cameras are more creative? They are just better for production. Though NDs, better handling and better audio can be very creative features.

If I'm climbing a glacier... Then carrying up all the shit needed for a production camera is gonna hinder me.. (c300 is about as big as I'd want to go)

Horses for courses... As ever

10 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I was meant for this to come across from the needs of a sole videographer / two man band kinda thing. I'm looking at this as a hierarchy of cameras that serve a different purpose, but can also be cut between seamlessly in post. 

For instance - the FS5 kitted out does pretty much everything, it's the highest quality and therefore is the A-cam. The A6500 sits on a gimbal due to it's small size, autofocus and HFR. The A7SII grabs a different angle where the light isn't quite a good (lowlight) and shot handheld (IBIS). The RX100 is mounted into a tight space to grab a difficult angle I'd struggle with using the FS5, or be slipped out the pocket when a shot opportunity suddenly arrives. 

This is how myself, and many others I know set up their cameras and shoot. So with any major camera purchase, I have to think about the others too. 

I'm flirting around the C200 vibe as I'm a fan of Canon imagery. But I'm fine with Sony, and I'll stick with it. 

Yes, ideally Canon would have an array of cheap cameras that use the same sensor/colour science... But that is not Canon's way (unless you have huge swathes of cash to have a couple of C200s, a 1D-Xii, a 5Div and maybe an XC15).... But If you are successfully using all those Sony cameras and they are blending well with the FS5 in raw, then swapping out the A cam shouldn't be too big a headache. The FS5 raw is so much better than the rest, with no inherent WB problems, yet you are still successfully matching them up. Matching them to a C200 shouldn't be that hard.

Oliver... If you are mixing your Sony B cam with FS5 raw, I'm not sure why you would have an issue mixing them with c200 raw

Sony raw has nice colours and skin tones

Now do the same test in a high contrast scene, with a human face and harsh highlights.

Maybe they will have 8bit 4K and 10bit 1080p?

I would be fine with that.... The 4K would still be good and the pristine 1080p ideal for alot of current clients

It's not like this is the first ever raw camera.... Not really sure what the debate is here. You either work with raw like you would film (as we have with blackmagic, Canon ML etc)... you choose the 8 bit codec which will be great for most things (firmware version) or you use something like Atomos/Odyssey to capture raw to Prores 10bit.

Can't help but think that if it were Panasonic that had launched a camera with raw, this article would have a different tone.

11 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

I think 95% using MP4 is very realistic, on average we bring in hundreds of GB footage per day in MP4 (sometimes much more if we have lots of shooting at once on difference location), can't image what RAW will gonna bring..  no one is gonna shoot raw on live event/interviews etc.

Why would you buy a c200 if that is your need though?

This cam seems more like a music video, short narrative setup... Raw will be used alot. 

Now... The c200 could have been an amazing run and gun... But in typical fashion, canon have ballsed it up a bit.

16 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

RED stated 13 stops on the RED One...DP's found it at least 31/2 to 4 stops below that...not suggesting it's the case here...however until these cameras are out in the world, they're just numbers on a piece of paper...that of course goes for the EVA1 as well!

That's not the point.... The point is that this is the new sensor tech.

If it was the same as the c300/100 they would claim 12 stops

18 minutes ago, ade towell said:

I thought the c700 sensor was bigger than the c300 mk2 sensor? Now I'm confused....

Sorry... Should have said sensor tech

The C700 is indeed bigger, but I think it's safe to assume that is the same tech

7 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@Jimmy and all: Can we clarify this please? I heard this 2 conflicting views about the C200 sensor. In my mind, it is a big deal what sensor do they use. The first things I read about the camera the Canon reps said that it is the C700 sensor, but then I got confused!!

Canon are stating 15 stops DR... Same as C700 and C300 ii

On the C100 ii and C300... They state 12 stops.

It's the new sensor and that is a BIG deal

There are two things stopping this being a slam dunk .. 10 bit codec and 2K raw

Bloody Canon!

This is the 2nd time I've seen you mention the C200 having an old sensor and one that was in the C100 ii

This is the sensor in the C700 and C300 ii... Only a year old and their best sensor ever.