BenEricson

28 minutes ago, Matthew19 said:

nice looking statist propaganda you got there. 

Now I finally get to find out which state everyone is from. 

^ Hah. 

I like this piece Ed. I saw you were tagged in it and watched it. It has a nice look, perfect for the piece. 

Bought the F3 because I like the stuff you've done with yours. Old camera but the color is great, totally blown away for the price. People should experiment with different cameras and break the molds a bit. Shot with the Fuji XT-2. Can't believe how nice the baked in color/resolution is out of that thing. 

5 minutes ago, joema said:

Go back to Kodachrome -- your life will definitely be easier since it's no longer available. However Kodachrome did make the world look like a "sunny day". That's because it was so slow you could only shoot on a sunny day. 

Who wants to shoot in the rain. S-LOG2 2000 ISO. Great idea guys. 

Film, 16mm or 35mm still, looks much better in harsh lighting conditions. 

16 minutes ago, Volker Schmidt said:

interesting comparison shots:

 

You're right, there really is no comparison. 

2 hours ago, Matthew19 said:

somehow Bloom has been able to make canon colors look like sony. Otherwise beautiful work and a lovely camera.

Agreed. Philip "10 percent off film convert" Bloom. 

19 minutes ago, independent said:

Of course it looks good, it's pretty close to the 1dc, clog be damned.

But slow motion (and cute music) are naturally crowd pleasers. A bit of a cheap trick, really. 

24P, under challenging light, with movement, capturing motion - those are the stress tests. 

Definitely true, but a nice trick to have on the camera you choose to buy. Insanely clean images from what I see. I wonder if he uses any noise removal.

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Be very careful about mixing up imagery created by the camera vs by the person / lighting / grading / set design / etc.

As when you look at imagery made when the C500 came out it would almost all be made by near top level pros. 

While the FS5 is more enthusiastically taken up by many newbie pros / indy film types, who at each level of the production have nowhere near the same level as what is done with the C500. So how much of that final "cinematic look" comes from the camera as you think vs coming from literally everything else?

I understand that. I'm not even going off of those examples, just my own in experience with the Sony sensors vs the Canon sensor/look. It's frustrating to hear people recommend the Fs700/7Q for a feature or interviews. 

The C500 with the 7Q pumps out 4k Pro Res HQ files with that beautiful Canon look. Our work went from the FS700/7Q to the C300mkii. The difference in color and overall feel is night and day. It's literally easier to light, easier to color correct, etc. The FS700/7Q is a specs monster, but even the original C100 puts out much nicer color. You can hand off the Canon files with a ready to go baked in look. 

I've just gone through the frustration of the Sony sensor and the color it produces. There's a lot to be said for a camera that just works, with beautiful color out of the box and ND filters.

Gotta mention again, the Cine Alta is not the same as the FS700 or the FS5. The F3 is in a whole different league with color. 

16 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Depends on what you're looking for and what you want. 
You could for instance get a Sony FS5 for less (which will also give you 4K raw with the Odyssey, & once stripped down would be a far nicer casual run & gun camera).

An URSA Mini 4.6K or Kinefinity Terra 5K is also cheaper.

So yes, the Canon C500 has had a big price drop, and almost kinda sort of is creeping into entering the start of the "ok good value" category, but there are still quite a lot of other good options out there in that price range and cheaper if you're wanting a 4K raw camera.

I would say the FS5 is more comparable to a c100ii. It's not in the Pro commercial market like the C500. You could shoot a nice looking feature film on the C500. It has the cinematic look that the FS5 does not have.

15 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

It's a great camera, and the image is excellent. But, in my opinion it doesn't have enough features that are relevant in 2016 to warrant $7,000. If it had DPAF I'd say yes definitely.

Really? The FS5 is brand new and can't really compete with the C500s color, native EF lens mount, and 4k/60.

3 hours ago, Dogtown said:

I'm shooting now with a Sony F3, along with a Zeiss ZF kit of primes, along with a Nikon 35-70 and a Nikon 80-200. I love the image i'm getting with this kit, but want to up the game and capabilities next year.

I'm also shooting with the Sony F3. We use the Canon C300ii at work. I love the F3, the C300ii definitely beats it with the size, auto focus, better color in mixed lighting situations, but the F3 comes really close. I think the C500 might be the next camera I buy. Would definitely drop the cash on the C300ii, but no 4k/60p is definitely limiting for the future. You sure can shoot a nice looking interview with the C300ii. Easiest route to the best looking colors. 

1 hour ago, myJTP said:

I just played around today with my 5Dmk4 - 4K24 and the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 I think it will do a great job replacing my 16-35 on the full frame 1080 mode

 

That's some pretty intense chromatic aberration.

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

If it has the same bitrate as the 80D and comes in at less than a grand, the M5 will probably replace my GX85. And if the 5-Axis is as good as it is on the XC10, it definitely will. With a speedbooster, it will be a 5-Axis FF pocketable monster. Would have liked to have seen 4K, but the 1080p from the 80D looks as good as 4K downscaled from the GX85, so who cares about 4K. I'll save transcoding time. 

It'll deliver perfect color in a small package. For whatever reason, everybody needs their crappy looking 8 bit 4k haha. 

Another thing to mention is, the original C300 is still being used pretty widely. If you're not rendering out to 4K, I am not sure the upgrade is really worth it. 

Man though, if you shoot a lot of interviews, you will really really please your clients if you shoot with the C300ii. The color is just so amazing. The auto focus is also incredible. Those two features alone are worth it. No 60p/4k is a really big bummer.

3 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Believe me, if I could be pleased with Sony color and image I would go to them in a New York minute--they give you so many more bells and whistles for less money, I'd be an idiot not to make such a move. But they fail to satisfy regarding to most essential things--that's my take anyway. I can live without super slo-mo, but not without image, skin tones, and color.

Exactly. 

I do want to say, the Sony Cine Alta cameras are on a different level. The F3 has amazing color. So cheap as well.

5 hours ago, BrooklynDan said:

Any of these cameras, if handled properly with a modicum of lighting and color correction expertise, will produce a feature film-quality image, 4K or HD, 8-bit or RAW, full frame or micro 4/3. Stop complaining and shoot something.

The Sony FS700 S-Log 2 and a lot of the FS5 and FS7 footage is completely gross looking. 

The Sony F3 allowed me to, "just shoot something," the same way you can with a C300 or the Canon DSLR. The non Cine Alta Sony color science is a real problem. 

Bringing up film is relevant cost wise, but 16mm has never given me any issues besides price. Maybe we should bring up early digital formats.

Just now, estarkey7 said:

That's actually pretty sweet. Don't need Log gamma with performance like this?

Real nice. Go home Sony, your colors are drunk.

Canon Color and Dual Pixel Auto Focus. This will be a hit.

Just now, jax_rox said:

But therein lies the problem, surely. If you want a Canon look, why the hell are you shooting on a Sony?

It was the camera my work had invested years ago. The 7Q greatly improved the setup, there's just HUGE issues with the S-LOG2 profile. 

Nobody wants Sony color, they buy the cameras because of the price point/feature set. 

8 hours ago, deezid said:

Already did, trailer included.

On page 2. ;-)

Ah, okay. That was a nice piece, well shot, the colors looked nice as well. You did say it took a fair amount of grading though, yes? 

I saw some noise in the shadows. I would imagine a 1DC would look just as good if not better though.

I've used two Sony cameras a lot. The FS700/7Q which is so sharp and the files are amazing, colors are terrible. The F3 which I own now is in a totally different league with color, really a shame it can't do 4k. Anyway, a lot of my bias comes from using the FS700/7Q setup. That camera is really a struggle/impossible if you're going for the Canon look. Perhaps I need to give the A7S a try. The size is a huge advantage.

Just now, deezid said:

Pretty much what I did.

Almost no banding.

After grading really nice and saturated colors with great skintones and rolloff. 

Post some frames please.

2 hours ago, j.f.r. said:

 

That looks like Canon! Nice.

I think this sums it up. Do a quick search for A7Sii footage on video, sort by recent, checkout the still frames. Do the same search for a 5D or even a T2i, compare the colors. 

Skin tones are great. I would move them out from the wall to create some depth, possibly hide the LAVs or use two booms if that's not possible. 

15 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But you were saying the Odyssey with the F3? & in that combo it is overkill.

As BMD VA & Samurai Blade already have SDI.

And F3 can't do raw or 240fps.

Overkill unless you need/want dual output SDI/60p. I'm shooting a ton of 60p and the 7Q is easier than paying much more for the 444 enabled F3.

The 7Q is also a very very nice monitor. If size is an issue, obviously go for the BMD VA. The 7Q is only like 1000-1200 used at this point. 

On July 27, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Kingswell said:

I saw an fs700 with 4k firmware go for £1800 on ebay the other day.. If you had another £1k for an external recorder you could have a solid 4k HFR camera under £3k. 

I'd buy an F3 as a B or C camera, but not as a main camera these days. Wouldn't go higher than a £1k for it.

 

Agreed, the fs700 is an insane deal. 

Im curious how much you have shot with the fs700/7q? My work recently went from the fs700/7q to the c300ii. 

I will tell you that the f3 color wise is in a completely different league than the fs700. It is much more comparable to the red/c300ii than the fs700. 

If you shoot extreme sports, event videos etc, fs700 is probably great, but wouldn't be my first choice if I shot a lot of interviews and certainly not narrative work. 

i just bought the f3 for a project over the summer and I so happy with the results. The black magic cameras are also great, but the image seems more fragile, more noise, the color takes more time to get to a nice place, also the ND/IR pollution situation will drive you nuts. 

That being said, fs700/7q is hands down the best deal right now for a 4k setup. Go for the F3 if you want superior color, but to impress clients and the high frame rates with resolution, you probably want the fs700. I have been shooting a to of 1080/60p through the 7Q and have been so impressed by the image. 

On July 20, 2016 at 8:23 AM, ricardo_sousa11 said:

These would be the ones I'd go to, by priority order :

FS5 + good glass 

FS700+Odissey 

URSA 4.6k

BMCC

IMHO these are future proof and can get you pretty stunning results, specially if you pair them with anamorphics!

 

Personally, I would not mess with the FS700. I shot with that a lot and the colors and skin tones are just off. Not too sure about the FS5, but I think an F3 is like 1/3 the price and the savings could be spent on glass rental...

I bought an F3 a month ago, maybe my favorite camera I have owned. The color you can pull from the camera is just so nice. Excited to be working with it. It reminds of the BMCC or the pocket, with NDs, really nice battery life, and the reliability you expect from a camera in that class. 

Attached a couple stills. There's tons of F3 footage online, but just wanted to give that camera an up vote. I would get the F3 and a the 7Q recorder used. The whole package should be under 3 grand.

2 hours ago, syrcular said:

Professionally I work in post production and work with a lot of Arri Alexa footage, so I'm used to working with a very filmic look.  So astetically I strive to shoot footage of similar characteristics.  Outside of working in post I like to shoot short films, music videos and mostly narrative works.  I feel like I can do better in this day and age than the long in the tooth 5D.  Here are some features I'm looking to have in a new camera....

I just bought a Sony F3 and absolutely love the look. I wanted something that would put a bit thicker image than the C100ii. At work I use the C300ii, which is also outside of my budget. The F3 gives me really nice color and a really clean image. You can't get the crazy sharp 4k look that the C300ii can get, but the color is definitely there. It has a nice feel. You can get one used for 1500, throw a recorder in with the package it's only 2k. The size sucks, battery life is great, internal NDs, XLR audio. 

C100ii just dropped to 4k, I would imagine used they are around 3500? That's getting to be a pretty nice deal. If you're tired of the 5D, you may want to go for the 1DC. If you need XLR audio, maybe go for the C100.

25 minutes ago, neosushi said:

Also I went to my dealer today and tried the C300 mkII. Damn it's heavy and there's just no easy way to film handheld with it. You really need the total rig + EVF. 

24-105 and the view finder? Has been working for me when I need a small kit.

2 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

That said, I enjoy using the original C300. It's a very simple, no frills, always works kinda camera. It will be interesting to look at the used market for the C300 II in a year or so. 

Same goes for the C300ii. The image is absolutely beautiful with little to no work. You can shoot mixed lighting, still get great looking skin tones. 

No 4k/60p is definitely a bummer, though.

3 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

In every one of my local rental houses in the UK... all of them have said the C300 II is never getting asked for. One of them even sold off their C300 II's.

Meanwhile in the states... This has been like this for weeks.

8 minutes ago, vaga said:

Thanks for the insight. I meant, how do they telecine live?

The game is shot standard broadcast. The 16mm was for highlights.