Tim Sewell

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Sorry but this I simply don't believe. On niche forums maybe. But I say not even 1 out of 200 you meet on the street regularly watch 4K content on a 4K TV. Most of them don't even watch 1080p all that often.

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.

8 hours ago, Cliff Totten said:

I will literally bet my entire life savings and,...Hell, my very actual "life" that Canon is too terified to put any log gamma in this camera too.

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?

Quote

Film-makers drawing conclusions about people's intelligence based on which cameras they buy.

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

Quote

The scary scary fact, is that half of people are dumber than average. Even scarier, it is ALWAYS going to be like that! :-o

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.

Quote

I think in the not too far future you won't even be able to buy a stills camera. It will have 8k and you just use frame grabs, or hell 10k or more, but I doubt it have the same usage for a shutter button as we have now.

I think you'll be able to buy cameras affordably that will do that, but I don't for a moment anticipate that that will result in the demise of the true stills camera. There will still be a substantial group of people who want to take individual shots - myself among them - for the art and craft of it. I can definitely imagine frame grabs becoming much more prevalent in commercial and reportage situations though.

Fabulous! It's the out-of-focus areas, to my eye, that make analogue images so organic. I've never been able to get my digital files' to look like that.

Quote

Fuji has cultivated a user group that's very vocal about things like the exposure comp dial, and not about zebras.

Definitely right there. The Fuji users' forum I frequent is, in general, pretty sniffy about video. Most times, when someone comes up with a video related question, at least 25% of the responses will be 'buy a video camera'.

4 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Another huge reason that pushed me towards stills was also the ability to shoot film every single day without spending much money.
Cinestill even makes Kodak Motion Picture very available for still shooters. Raw and Film in your bag at all times.
And it also opens up the door to very affordable medium and even large format.

It's intoxicating

We've got a company here in the UK called Nik & Trick who are marketing Vision 250D in 36 exposure rolls and have perfected low-volume remjet removal and processing (using RA4 chemicals, I understand). I'm eagerly awaiting the return of my first roll of photos taken on that. They sell the Eterna movie films for stills use as well. I look upon film photography now as having a bag full of different sensors - quite intoxicating, as you say. Now I must go and replace the seals on the Canonet QL19 that arrived yesterday (£40, perfect condition) so it's ready for my monthly trip to London on Friday.

Speaking of stills - your Instagram account is one of the best I follow - keep it up!

Some lovely stuff there @Rodolfo Fernandes (I just hope no-one quotes your post in full, though!)

Mattias you've put into words the same experience I've been having. For my part one of the main drivers in my moving more and more to stills shooting is time. I have 3 children and a full time job. Generally, the most I can expect is to get away on my own for maybe one afternoon a month. As Andrew says above - video is slow - especially for me as the kind of video I want to shoot can't be done handheld with a single AF lens. I need tripods, prime lenses, filters etc etc etc and I would spend so much time lugging all that stuff around, setting it up, breaking it down, that I just didn't feel able to create anything that matched whatever artistic vision I have. With stills shooting I can go out for that same afternoon and (generally) generate enough material to keep me happily editing for most of the month; especially as I can, unlike with video, also take a camera or two and a few lenses out in my messenger bag when I'm on family outings and shoot more satisfying images. I'd still love to realise the visions I have for video - who knows, maybe when the youngest reaches teenagerhood in 10 years I'll be able to devote the time to video that it requires and deserves (and be shooting on a 18 stop DR organic global shutter sensor with 14 bit 8K at 480fps, no doubt!). Until then I'll concentrate on stills, I guess (and all the fun I'm having down the analogue hole I've recently fallen into).

Although I really do hope I can give my X-T2s a decent outing this summer - maybe when the wife takes the children away to the Isle of Wight?

Fuji X Photographer Jonas Rask's somewhat, er, idiosyncratic X-H1 test vid: 

Heh. I'd sell everything I own for an affordable, ergonomic camera with global shutter and raw recording., especially if it had all the other features of a modern hybrid.

Edit: Apart from my lenses and my Olympus OM1.

Quote

The artistic choice made was multi camera for a deserted area. 

Thus budget/time forced them to not use S35

Reading the full American Cinematography article it seems that the choice to use DV was in part driven by cost and logistics, but also because Boyle and Mantle felt that the harshness of the format matched the script's darkness and brutality. So a technology choice deriving artistic benefit from an economic necessity. the impression I get from the musings on how great the London scenes would have looked on 35mm was that there is an unspoken proviso - 'but not for this movie'.

28 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

You sure you're not phasing into an alternate dimension?  That could be scary. 

the Clerkenwell Road (or 'the hipster highway', as it's known locally) is an alternate dimension.

5 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Im with you. When anyone calls someone a "hipster" I always read it as "I don't understand and that scares me so I resort to name calling". 

With you to a point. When I see a victorian-dressed bearded guy in wooden headphones riding a penny farthing in Clerkenwell, however, it's not fear that's my motivation when I snort about hipsters. I wouldn't, mind you, use the word to denigrate someone's choice of imaging technology.

I can't be bothered to get into any lengthy discussion about this, but 28 Days Later wasn't shot on those cameras because they couldn't afford to do it on 35mm. As he says, in the passages you quoted:

Quote

...  but we made an artistic decision and I stood by it.

59 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

I quote a whole segment of the DoP of the 28 days that said clearly he would prefer to shoot on glorious 35mm, and all you got to say is that I do not have the right to have an opinion??! wow...

I can't find where he says he would have preferred to. he said he could imagine how lovely those vistas would have looked on 35mm, but that that wasn't what they were doing.

9 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Regarding the 50mm and 56mm I bought both and decided to keep the 56mm. For 23mm and 35mm I prefer the f2 WR versions.

That's interesting. I was intending to get the 50/2 as my next purchase (although that's been put off for a while as I'm enjoying the 7Artisans 55/1.4 far too much to take it off the camera right now). Obviously there's a major price difference with the 56/1.2 - is it £300 better?

I have the 35mm f2, the 18mm f2 and the 18-55 f-whatever and they are all among the best modern lenses I have ever used. The 35, especially, rarely leaves one of my bodies. I also use my Samyang cines via both a straight adapter and a speedbooster clone; all work very well with the excellent X-T2 EVF (which has been considerably improved in the new cam).  In addition I use a plethora of old Tamron Adaptall and OM Zuiko lenses which are all, again, extremely easy to work with. So I would say have no fears about the small, light f2 range of Fuji primes, but also know that your existing adapted lenses will fit right in to a Fuji kit. Of the Fuji zooms, Fuji forum dwellers seem to rate the 16-55 and the 50-140 most of all.

I think that people who want the image Fuji X series cameras give will overlook or work around the ergonomic shortcomings of this new camera, while those who don't will continu to happily shoot with their preferred camera. 'S all good, man.

I must say I rather like the Eterna sim. As I probably won't be buying this camera (not new anyway - maybe S/H a year from now) I sure hope it Kaizens into the X-T2 as well.

Quote

If you want to predict how the video industry will go, just look at the trajectory of the stills industry. 

You're absolutely right here. In the noughties my wife and I had a nice little side business doing wedding and events photography and we were soon able to charge £1200 - £2500 a pop, depending on the coverage - and make a profit from prints and albums until we stopped doing them. By 2010 that market had pretty much dried up in the very prosperous southern seaside city in which we live. The lower end were leaving the photography to an uncle with a DSLR while the higher end were booking nationally-known wedding photographers. Of course, part of this was no doubt due to the financial crash, but a lot was to do with the fact that an amateur uncle could produce images that were 'good enough' for people to whom wedding pictures were of lesser importance.

I don't think it will go quite so far with video. Producing good video of something like a wedding takes a lot more concentration and effort, not to mention skill, both on the day and after it. Uncle might have a great hybrid mirrorless, but he does also want to get drunk, eat food and chase the bridesmaids - none of which activities mix at all well with shooting the wedding video.

Quote

Red One MX around 2008 of filming. Cinematography by David Mullen, who still later in 2011 stated that it would be well for cinema prodcution. This movie has a highly stylized look and production and color design.

He did a great write up on that movie (Mullen, that is). The whole thing was shot on a sound stage and for very little money. David Mullen is a great guy (and a great DP), who shares his experience and expertise willingly and exhaustively with the community.