BenEricson

I wasn’t kidding before, you really need to go shoot a roll of 35mm stills! Reading about the stuff will only go so far! It is clearly incredibly difficult to explain why film is good, especially when it needs to be explained in a very analytical way. Deakins just uses the regular Arri LUT that Yedlin seems to hate and it looks amazing. Sicario looks better than knives out, no? They both look “filmlike.”

You could easily say the same about VHS or Hi8 in the 90s and early 2000s...

You should try shooting a roll of 35mm still. The skin tone, color, and look are you get from film are absolutely amazing. It just looks right. I would imagine the guys on that colorist forum are likely a lot of veteran colorists that most likely value work flow over everything. I know this dude grades a ton of stuff shot on 35mm. Beautiful work. https://www.company3.com/artists/stefan-sonnenfeld/

Right. I would also wonder if everyone's financial situation / the lack of traveling might explain an even further drop. Any used 35mm or Medium Format gear right now is $$$.

I’ve kind of noticed the same. The Canon provided LUTs still need a little additional work to get the image to a nice place. Where are you getting noise? From my tests, I wouldn’t consider it to be an offensive amount of noise, but I am also not seeing a huge improvement with the DGO sensor, when compared to the C300 Mkii. I felt the Rec.709 straight out of camera looked really really bad on skin. Can you post some samples?

Availability. They’re really hard to get ahold of. I just got one of a few from a local shop here in Seattle. Seems very good so far. My vintage Olympus and Nikon glass with adapters also hit infinity perfect, meaning the flange distance is properly calibrated (this was an issue with the metabones right out of the box.) my 35mm F2 IS works great with the speed booster and AF. I don’t really have much to say besides the adapter works as it should.

Interesting that you say that. I own the 24-105 RF and I can tell you that the EF version has a stabilizer that is smoother for video work. The EF version has more of a pleasing sway, while the RF version can feel jumpy. I will be selling and purchasing the EF version that is better for video and half the price! I also find the third "control ring" to be incredibly annoying. This wouldn't be as much of an issue with a prime lens, but when there's 3 gears on a lens, it becomes really difficult to operate on the fly.

You are correct in your research. Let me rephrase what I said. I believe that if you're after that overall softer / filmic look, the bmpcc will get you there easier and quicker. There's no sense shooting with a GH5 if you can get that look with less work. A colorist friend of mine often says, "the least amount of moves wins.

I have to disagree. In my experience, even the ProRes HQ offers a very unique and pleasing unprocessed feeling image. IMO a lot of the magic is in the highlights.

I wonder if lack of a need for upgrade is a factor. A 5D Mkiii from 8 years ago is obviously much better than any cell phone, but also pretty comparable to a DSLR bought yesterday. I think cameras have been good enough for a while. This is obviously the case for video cameras... My partner takes photos for her business with a Canon 60d and an iPad. That camera is 10 years old and still more than enough for most quick product photography shots for the web... Why would she upgrade? The film market is pretty decent right now. Tons of people shoot film, but all of those cameras already exist. There are more than enough to supply to demand, unless you want a particular point and shoot, Leica, certain medium format cameras etc.

I personally love the camera and I find the weight and form factor to be great for shooting from the hip. You need to have your left hand supporting some weight on the lens, with your other hand in the grip. Shooting eye level handheld is another story, not realistic unless you strip down the top handle and monitor.

No, I can’t find any either. From what I have seen, the DGO sensor is worse than the sensor on the C300 Mkii or the C200. You don’t even need to shoot raw to that look on the C300 mkii - 12 bit 1080p or 4K 10 bit both look excellent. This is coming from someone who just bought the C70 but has used the C300 mkii on hundreds of shoots. To top it off, my initial tests don’t show the sensor to be any cleaner than the older ones. Kind of a disappointment...

Picked up my C70, Canon 24-105 F4 RF, and EF adapter. Did some quick tests with a 35mm F2 IS and one practical lamp in the living room. Color looks like normal Canon color to me. I'll hopefully have time to shoot more stuff tomorrow afternoon. Initial thoughts... Camera feels pretty nice in the hands. The custom presets are really crippled. They took away BT.709 / C-LOG 2. Also, for some reason clog 2 clips at 85 IRE. There are a ton of options for removing all of the noise reduction and you can go all the way to -10 sharpening. I think lowering the in camera sharpness and pairing the camera with older lenses will help to get away from that plastic skin look.

What about an RF full frame camera?

Wow. Too many cameras. I wonder if it'll be RF mount.

With a loupe it is possible. It basically performs how any DSLR has for the last 10 years. The FX6 has no point of contact on the rear of the camera. IMO the FS5 or C300 is a better design than either one of them. I think Sony and Canon have realized they can save the money by not putting in a EVF and still sell just as many units.

I heard something like 7 hours off a BP-60? Insane.

Sale on BH right now. 187 a piece.

It's all a trade off. It is likely there will be some chromatic aberration wide open. (The case on the FS7 / Metabones.) The lenses are also quite a bit larger. Look above at how ridiculous the 18-35 looks mounted so far out on such a small body. The focus ring looks uncomfortable to operate. It almost looks like it needs a rail system, certainly would for a 70-200. I do understand it is much more practical to have the 24-105 in EF and be able to choose between S35 and FF with a quick adapter swap, BUT the 24-105 in RF for example, has been reviewed as a much sharper lens compared to the older EF version. Exciting times to have these options and be able to argue over the many looks we can achieve! I will be buying the speed booster, but I am also excited about the quicker AF and smaller size of the available RF mount lenses.

I have a C70, the speed booster, and this lens on pre-order. I might pick up the 85mm F2 IS as well. The new 24-105 F4 IS looks interesting, as does the 24-70 2.8 IS. The RF mount features better AF, smaller sizes, and faster more light sensitive lenses. IMO buying this camera and not embracing the new lens options doesn't make much sense. Cool. Thanks. What frame rates work with the V60? 4K/24/10bit?

Which cards are you using? I notice Sandisk only makes cards up to 128gb in V90. The V60 come in 256gb... Did the V60 seem to perform perfectly for 4k/24p/XFAVC? To be honest, I am a little bummed they went with SD. I would prefer c-fast or some sort of card that feels a bit more durable.

They're worse... Every camera in the 90s and early 2000s at least had a viewfinder and was usable for extremely long periods of time handheld. I think the C70 a better design than the FX6. At least you can throw a loupe on the back and have two points of contact.

Maybe true, but the baked in Profiles on the Canon just look better out of the box. I believe that is fact. The skin shows less flaws and appears smoother. I agree, opinions on color grading log files creates a different argument all together. I am really wanting to see more standard Rec 709 examples. Agreed. Personally, I think the subject looks better with a little more saturation in the skin and a bit more contrast. I am more concerned with the texture. It is just looks so sharp to a fault. Again, there could be additional sharpening, processing, etc. Who knows. I would love to see camera with some vintage glass.

Agreed. The C300iii looks great. The RF mount is very exciting and has an advantage over the EF. These two lenses in particular., both very fast lenses with IS and macro. The prices are also great. Both are under 600. Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Lens Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Lens

Well yeah, I more meant the IR pollution. I know this has been taken care of on most of the hard stop filters. Still an issue with variable, no?