Tim Sewell

Every job is hard work. That's why it's called 'work'. If one wants to do one of these jobs that are fun, that have far more wannabees than well-paid practitioners, then you have to be prepared to starve a little to get into them. It's always been that way. Of course, there was a period when it was considerably easier to make a living in photography - I did it for a while and did pretty well, but it was always precarious because marketing, advertising, even wedding photography; all that stuff is the first thing to get cut when times are hard. there have always been just a few people at the top who can ride out anything going on in the wider economy and then a lower tier of people who do well when times are good and not so well when things go south. That's why @Mattias Burling is right on the money when he talks about having many strings to your bow. If you're skilled and enthusiastic in a wide range of related activities - copy, reportage, photography, videography, AV etc etc then you can still do well - especially if you're prepared to relocate to somewhere with a thriving media market. It's tough and it's not for everybody. For me - I somehow acquired 3 kids and maybe I hadn't developed my business enough by that point, maybe I wanted to 9-5 to spend time with them, maybe I just plain and simple wasn't good enough at it - but I discovered I could make more in 2 days writing software than I could in a week doing stuff I really wanted to do and the trade off - in terms of supporting a family - just wasn't worth it. But if you're good, have wide range of skills and talent, don't mind hard work, are highly adaptable, make your own opportunities - there's probably never been a better time to make a good living in the creative industries.

Another 'shot by a photographer' sample:

And Ram Rockwell!

Definitely happy news to brighten a Monday morning.

@BTM_Pix - peace and love, peace and love.

Seeing as arguing is the new co-operating here at EOSHD: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-drummers-of-all-time-20160331/ringo-starr-20160325

I'm not aware of the forum rule that outlaws 'wild conjecture'.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arri+LF+sensor

I have no skin in this game, but on the Fuji camera forum I frequent a couple of people who have received their X-H1s are reporting that the AF is noticeably quicker. Obviously that's for stills - and they haven't detailed the lenses used - but I guess we shouldn't dismiss it too early. Those of us who use Fuji cams know that there is a difference similar to that between the weather in England right now and that enjoyed in the Florida Keys in AF performance between lenses.

Haha - even the bag is £232!

We should keep it going as a sticky and change the title to 'Shit-posting thread' for when anyone feels like letting off steam.

The reason, apart from habit and intransigence, for choosing Arri/Panavision (and to a lesser extent Red/Sony, and recently Panasonic) has always been the issue of reliability and availability. You don't want to stand down a million dollar a day set while you wait for a broken camera to be repaired or replaced and the big boys have that professional level of service down to a tee. Now I don't personally think that any currently available prosumer camera along the lines of GH5 etc yet has the effortless cinematic qualities of an Alexa, but it's easy to see that it won't be that long before they might. At that point we may reach an interesting tipping point where the whole reliability/repair/spares issue becomes moot as a production can just buy 50 of the things and still be quids in on their camera department costs. Interesting times.

Canonet QL19!

@BTM_Pix wins the internet for today. This one's going to run and run. View outside my window this morning as I prepared to open the thread:

Aside from which, the major benefit of smartphone movies becoming acceptable would be the element of democratisation that might bring - lowering the bar of entry etc. Major Hollywood players choosing to shoot a movie on an iPhone and getting it theatrically released really isn't anything to get excited about under that criterion.

This thread's going on longer and proving more divisive than bloody Brexit!

The thing is, by shooting on film I don't need to be 'extremely skilled' or spend any time at all to get the look I want. Plus I get all the fun of developing my own films, with the artisinal satisfaction that it gives me. I wouldn't use film for most paid jobs, I hasten to add - my cameras are old and cheap and I wouldn't want to rely on them if I absolutely have to get the shot. But for personal work I'm finding that 7 times out of 10 I'm plumping for analogue. And, as Mattias says, and as I mentioned previously WRT one of his images - there's a particular quality, especially to out-of-focus areas, that film gives that I have never, ever, seen fully mimicked digitally. I've seen lots of digital files that look like analogue, but I've got lots of analogue images that could be nothing else.

Depends on the film stock. Some films I've been using recently would be quite hard to replicate digitally.

I see your point, but that just isn't how most people buy cameras (ebay, shopping around etc). Exactly what they want to do is to walk into a big name store and take whatever the assistant tells them is best for them. It's not (at this level) that much of a considered purchase. In fact, I'll bet the majority of cameras at this level are bought within a week of someone's holiday when they suddenly decide they ought to get a 'proper' camera. There's nothing wrong with that and it shouldn't really even be worthy of a thread on what is, in fact, a highly specialised forum. Edit: Forgot to add - it may well be that they had to switch to a plastic mount in order to keep the price the same.

You only have to go to a big box store to confirm this - around 3/4 of the TVs on display at my local Curry's (one of the main UK TV shops) are 1080P.

Why on God's green earth would they?

If Canon didn't make and sell stuff like this it's doubtful they'd have had the resources to research and develop DPAF - so that's good, right? Anyway - they make cameras for every segment - why grouse every time they bring one out that isn't for the segment represented on this forum?

Oh no, sorry, I just meant in general - not related to camera buying habits.

The rule of thumb I give my children is to always assume that at least 75% of the population are stupid.

Actually Canon are very canny, as a business, when it comes to releasing new cameras. Here's the thing - we all know that Canon have the resources and the patents to bring to market a stunningly advanced mirrorless camera. We all get frustrated because they continually fail to do so and we wonder why. Well. If Canon were to produce such a camera it would, undoubtedly, dominate the market and sell in the millions. But for how long? Canon know that they have a number of very hungry competitors snapping at their heels who are apparently willing to spend pretty much whatever it takes to build market share. Any amazing camera from Canon would only have the market to itself for what? A year? 18 months? By that time PanaFujiOnyUs would leapfrog them and the cycle of huge R&D investment would start all over again. Where is the benefit in that to Canon? They know that they can release cameras that tick a few boxes and are 'just good enough' for Mum, for Dad, for the kids on their gap year trip to Thailand and sell oodles, getting a great ROI - and they can do that year after year, model after model, because their market position is such that the vast majority of people's first 'proper' camera is always a Canon (see also white lens effect). The moral of the story is - don't waste emotional energy expecting anything ground-breaking in a Canon mass market camera. That's not their segment.