mercer

Also ai-s lenses tend to have a shorter focus throw than ai versions. So if you shoot handheld without a rig and follow focus, you may prefer the shorter focus throw (I do) but longer focus throws are usually easier to get more accurate focus. If you choose against the Nikkor ai-s lenses, then your next best bet would be between the Zeiss 50mm or the Canon FD. The Zeiss will be more adaptable if you ever move to other systems but if you choose to expand your set, the Zeiss lenses will be more expensive, but in the end probably a better investment. With that being said, I prefer the Canon 50mm 1.4 FD over the Zeiss 50mm 1.7. But I may be in the minority with that opinion. Unfortunately, none of them will match perfectly with the sigma you already own, so the Sigma 30mm 1.4 contemporary may be a better choice for consistency.

What about it... elaborate?

I don’t know, the facts are this... James Gunn made some off color jokes on Twitter 10 years ago. When Disney was forced to deal with the situation today, they chose his jokes and him weren’t right for their brand. Going forward, another production company may be fine with it, that is also their right. I don’t believe James Gunn is a pedophile. I believe he was trying way too hard to be edgy and now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. In the US, our brand of liberty is based upon individual freedoms but also individual responsibility... This is the perfect example of that.

Yup, it’s pretty simple and Disney, for their image and business model did the only thing they could. They have fans and shareholders to answer to. As I said before, the jokes weren’t even funny and were uncomfortable to read. You’d think after one bad attempt, he would have learned from his mistake.

They weren’t even funny jokes about pedophilia. He should have been fired by comedy. At least Michael Jackson jokes were humorous. They were a bit much, but that is by my standards. Who am I to say what jokes somebody else can say. But I can choose to associate with him or not based on those jokes... which is what Disney decided is their right as well. The good news, for James Gunn, is that he can make films and self distribute those films and I am sure he will have a huge following and make a ton of money.

Sorry but that is just incorrect... especially for vintage lenses. Perhaps modern lens manufacturers started using 3rd party glass manufacturers once trade and manufacturing changed in the late 20th century but for this discussion, Leica glass, Zeiss glass, Minolta glass are definitely relevant parts of their lenses, their designs and their overall look. Even Nikon wholly owns a subsidiary that manufacturers the glass for Nikkor lenses... https://nofilmschool.com/2016/10/nikon-shows-you-how-they-make-glass-nikkor-lenses-factory-tour

Okay, sorry I misspoke when I wrote Leica built, I meant... built to Leica specs with Leica glass. For instance, the Leica 35-70mm 3.5 has a later version that was built in West Germany. It is the same exact optical design, but clearly a different exterior than the previous, Made in Japan, version. So I think it's probably similar to Contax Zeiss and Yashica. The Contax Zeiss lenses were built in the same factory as Yashica lenses but the Zeiss lenses had Zeiss glass... as you probably know there are unsubstantiated rumors that some of the Yashica ML lenses used Zeiss glass overstock. I have one of the rumored lenses... the 50mm f/2 and it does seem a little more Zeissish... but that could be in my head.

@cantsin and @BTM_Pix , it was my understanding that they were Minolta designs but Leica built with Leica glass? I’ve had both the Minolta 35-70mm 3.5 and the Leica version and although similar in looks, the Leica was definitely different. Sadly, the guy who sold me the Leica, decided that the zoom ring was completely locked up in shipping, so I was forced to return it before I had the chance to use it, but most online accounts describe the glass has Leica written all over it?

Magic Lanterm does if you’re using a native Canon lens.

Btw, what lenses did you use. From your BTS photos, it looks like maybe the Sigma 18-35mm?

Wow, this is probably the best looking GH5 footage that I have seen and yes this is definitely better than the original... and that looked great as well. You’re obviously a very talented and skilled operator and colorist but even with my limited talent and skill, this makes me think that maybe I discounted the GH5 too soon.

I’m not going to even pretend to know what it’s like to shoot or even choose to shoot with a Cine camera but your choices only leave you with two options, IMO. I know what I would choose of these two, but everyone has different needs... It’s quite simple really... it’s the Panasonic route with the EVA1 and GH5/s. Or The C200 and 1DX Mark II. Other than media costs, the C200 gives you the juiciest files in camera with Raw video and DPAF. And then for gimbal work you have the 1DXii. I know you have stated it’s a no go due to HFR desires from your client but you are left in a sticky situation here and it seems like the type of scenario where one needs to educate the client of what is possible and available. The time (money) saved with the Canon with AF and color science should negate their desire for a little slower motion... which can be achieved in post. With that being said, I don’t want to beat a dead horse so if you aren’t interested in that at all then I apologize for furthering the discussion... So it seems the EVA1 makes the most sense for you. The FS5 could work but then you’d need the external monitor/recorder solution to get the beefier codecs. And the B-Cam wouldn’t meet broadcast standards if your work requires it. And if it does, it seems an Ursa Pro and P4K is your best option, but you’ll lose any real AF possibilities. Honestly, there are no options to meet your needs, so maybe you should just rent based on the job. Maybe in some circumstances you can get by with the EVA1 and others a C200 would work better. It seems like you are getting to a higher production level and renting may be the most cost effective and profitable solution. To add, look what MTS Films are doing. I follow them on IG, so obviously I don’t know the ins and outs of their business but it seems like they have a GH5 package and an Ursa package and perhaps rent if they need a Red or an Alexa or other camera.

Sorry missed this the other day. I think the inappropriate c-mount lenses shoe horned on is what appeals me the most about c-mounts. Until recently I’ve only used adapted, vintage lenses... so I have quite the... collection. Back when I had the G7, I had my first opportunity to test them on a modern digital camera and in the first few days I captured my favorite images I ever captured with the G7 and Micro 4/3. Once I started testing and using FF lenses, my results were lackluster. So, in some ways that added character of the jerry-rig kind of helped... for me anyway. Interesting about the E-Mount. I’ve been watching a ton of a6000 videos lately and I’m still blown away by the video quality nearly 4 years after its release.

A few test shots from a recent location scout. I've been using my Canon 28mm f/1.8 lens a lot lately. It is just so versatile. I originally thought it would be too wide for my tastes as I usually prefer the 35mm-60mm focal lengths, but the ability to get a shallow depth, close up or a fairly, wide establishing shot has been great.

Isn’t the 240p in the Eva1 cropped?

Gotcha, does the focus peaking work while using AF? Just curious if you could see the change in AF with the focus peaking dots.

If the AF is that good, why do you even need an external monitor?

Well played... well played. Lol. Seriously, though... we briefly discussed this before... and there is just something about that FF image. Other than going to the complete other end of the spectrum to shoot S16 with the Pocket or Micro, I barely like the idea of shooting Super 35 anymore. And with my distaste for adapters growing by the day, M4/3 seems like a strange crop factor to my eye now. @BTM_Pix ironically c-mounts are the only things I miss about M4/3 or S16.

Do you prefer the Sony over the GH5?

A nice image is a nice image... I don’t care when the camera came out. I really don’t need or want 4K right now... ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL PAID GIGS. The point of these jobs are to get in and out, bring it into the computer with a light correction and an edit. The point would be to make money with the least effort and that’s one of the biggest pluses with the C100. It’s a money maker. Throw a portrait lens on the end, and let the soft Canon color do its job and make me money. The end. Here are a few short films I found shot with the C100 that look pretty nice to my eyes... is it an Alexa... no. But for the money, what more do you need? If you cannot make a good image with a C100, you sure as hell won’t be able to with a GH5/s, or with an a7iii or insert whatever camera you want. There’s also one called “Commute” that I like a lot but for some reason I cannot post it here but it comes up on a google search called “C100 Cinematic Short Film Vimeo” But honestly, there are dozens and these are but a few I quickly picked. As a narrative filmmaker, I’d be more than happy with that IQ. Filmmaking is an artistic craft and this camera gets the craft out of the way and lets you concentrate on the artistic element. You can spend all the time you want chasing the newest best camera. And when you think you find it, don’t worry, a better camera will be out in a few months...been there, done that. For me, it’s simple... what camera will make me money so I can fund some short films... if I could also shoot a short film or two on that camera... even better. Here’s another great looking short...

Well, that is an interesting argument and very well said... But... I could and would argue, that my interest in the C100 is completely different now that I saw how small it is stripped down. Originally, I would have agreed with you and would have planned on using it on a tripod as you explained. But now, I would strip the top handle off and use a lens with IS and go handheld... Or put it on a shoulder rig with the side handle stripped off and a follow focus. I’ve been following a production company on IG and the main shooter still uses his trusty BMPCC with a small handheld shoulder rig and counterweight. He uses the built in screen and has it rigged right at his eye... so I am sure something similar could be rigged for a C100?

Another comment full of white noise and unrelated information. I hope people will eventually realize that there is information pertaining to the original post within the so-called “white noise.” Conversations evolve and unless the OP is stupid he will get plenty of information from this evolved discussion, but to make you happy I will end every comment I make in this thread with C100... so... C100 I mean seriously, if comments didn’t evolve, this thread could have been completed with one simple reply that stated, “Yes, it is still relevant.” End of discussion. C100

Well, don’t take video at playgrounds with your pants down and you shouldn’t have a problem...? But seriously, this is why you should buy a camera that has IBIS, a good selection of native lenses and a good color science. Probably the E-M1 Mark II is your best bet. I’ve seen some going for $1500 or less on eBay. Get yourself a good strap and you can practically walk around with the damn thing while glancing down at your camera... nobody will even realize you’re shooting anything. Or obviously for the straight out of camera look you like, the Fuji XH-1 would be a good choice.

Who am I to tell anybody how to spend their money, but seriously... the P4K is like the last camera you should buy. To shoot in 4K, you are going to need expensive CFast2 cards. You are going to need about a dozen batteries or an external power supply to last you the day. You'll need a cage. You may need an external monitor. If you're getting a speedbooster, you may need rails and a follow focus. You'll need an IR filter and a good Variable ND or ND filters. If you go native, you'll need a couple fast M43 primes. You're looking at a price point that is closer to 2500 bucks when all is said and done... maybe more. At that price point, you may as well go with the GH5s, you can find them now for around $2000. For the type of casual shooting you do, go for the bells and whistles... even if it costs you about the same... you'll be plenty happier at the end of the day. That is exactly what happened to me... I just never got much better. LOL. But at my level, I can't afford, nor really want someone else to shoot my stuff. There is something organic about being behind the lens... even as a director, that you just don't get sitting on the sidelines while someone else shoots your material. If an actor misses their mark, or ignores it, I can adjust how I would want it adjusted. The devil is in the details with me.

Not really. Not a lot of reasons to shoot slow motion in narratives... other than a couple hundred frames here or there. The 720p 48p and 60p really is good enough for that. And if I really need it, I’ll just slow down the 24p in FCPX... 99% of the audience wouldn’t even notice, especially on close ups. Don’t get me wrong it would be nice, but it’s not a deal breaker. I don’t want to be cinematographer, I just want another outlet for my writing. If anything, I am interested in directing more than cinematography, I just would consider myself a visual director. I went from being a horrible operator to an acceptable one literally overnight by getting a 5D3... and some of my images, I’m actually proud of. So for me, the 5D3 is as good as it gets with my budget and skill set.