mercer

Sorry, I meant creatively bad, not technically bad.

I meant two well shot films but yes I agree with you.

Sorry if I change the subject, not my intention. These discussions become ever evolving and a lot of times I skip pages and respond to specific posts. As a whole, I agree that Canon's progress has been slow and I also agree they're missing out on a market but I wouldn't be so hyperbolic to say they don't innovate at all or will go out of business because they haven't included 4K in enthusiast and consumer lines of cameras. But to address your specific points... okay it was $12,000 and it was in 2012 but it was still 2 years before another company offered 4K in a DSLR form and arguably still has a better 4K image than its competitors. DPAF is a pretty substantial development and probably ate up a lot of their R&D budget over the past few years. Your other points I agree with, in fact, I agree with most specifics of every argument and point you made in your post. I just disagree that the lack of 4K in their consumer line will have lasting effects on their sales. They are a frustrating company because I love a lot about their cameras, or what was pulled from their cameras, but I also want some modern conveniences like peaking, zebras, IBIS, etc... especially since when Canon gets around to implementing these features, there's no doubt in my mind, they'll work better than their competitors variants. For example, focus peaking on the XC10 and the EOS-M models is the best peaking I've used. Out of curiosity, when you were asked to review the 5D4, was it inferred they were looking for a fluff piece? Or were they genuinely interested on your take of its video? Did they seem open to suggestions, or just looking for online coverage?

The real problem is, that no matter what argument I, or others, bring... you will not accept it. In your mind, cell phones will ruin all camera sales, so what's the difference? The problem is professionals purchase cameras based on lenses and until Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and Olympus build their lens line up, Canon and Nikon will be selling to the professional and cater to the professional stills camera shooter. And if a professional needs video, they hire a camera suitable to the job. And your irrelevant references to Kodak, Nokia, etc... will not change the facts. Mirrorless still only accounts for 25% of sales and I am sure Canon is aware of trending markets. The idea that some guys on an Internet forum knows better than the leaders of a billion dollar company that has been in the lead with sales for decades is quite frankly laughable.

Yeah for the most part I agree with you. Content and creativity will always beat tech specs, but there is something to be said of perception. An AF100 will be taken more seriously on a set by actors (many who are working for free or next to nothing) than a GH1 will. Of course, the creatives won't really care about perception. I think the difference in consumer equipment versus professional equipment is where the divide is. A bad movie shot on an Alexa will still look better than a good movie shot on a GH1 or a t2i or a D5500. And sometimes the look can make all the difference to an audience in its perception of quality. But we do live in exciting times, and the fact that a talented kid with a GH2 or t3i can go and make a movie the masses could watch... that pretty effing awesome.

I sing it from the rooftops so you may have read... I've been shooting with the 5D3 and ML Raw for the past two months. While I've been shooting my film, I've realized how much storage I need, so I've been deleting a lot of old test footage from my hard drives. Of course, I get nostalgic, so I've been watching a lot of the footage before I delete it. The only stuff I feel remotely attached to is the footage from my D5500. So much so, I'll probably end up buying a D7500 for some Nikon Flat 4K. Or if I really want to save some money, I'll sell my D5500 and make the small upgrade to a D5600 for the video timelapse. The IBIS is nice with the GX85, but with a simple monopod or shoulder stock, I can get just as good stabilization with a more organic feel to the video than I have ever gotten with a Panasonic. Also, adapters are annoying and the affordable micro 4/3 glass feels like they may break just by looking at them cross and the expensive glass, like the Voigtlanders, are awesome but they're a lot of money for a micro 4/3 system, IMO. Of course, that's just me. The GX85 is a fine camera that has proven to be a reliable tool. I just like the Nikon image better.

Remember... there's a reason why high end, professional photographers use Canon or Nikon. It's the glass. So base your decision from that. I personally wouldn't risk relying upon electronic adapters for the work you're describing. If you need Canon glass, use a Canon. If you need Nikon glass, use a Nikon. Since this is a hybrid photo/video job, Canon seems like the logical choice. If you hate the idea of using either, then make sure your choice has the native glass you need to do the job.

Wish there were more posts like these. With all of the arguing over specs and brands, I think we can learn a lot from this post. With a humble AF100, which can be bought for less than $700 on the used market, a great looking film can be made. With a couple grand more, an amazing looking film can be made. In the end, I didn't care what camera those movies were shot with. I was engaged with the story. I want to see both finished films now.

The problem with this rationale is the false notion that 4K video will save Canon. And that is simply not true. And this false narrative that Canon hasn't innovated in the past ten years, with video, is absurd. I could easily argue they've been more innovative than every other company... • 1st camera to offer manual video • 1st camera to offer 4K video • 1st camera with a LOG Profile. • 1st camera(s) to offer usable Touch/Tracking AF • 1st camera to offer 4K 60p In this arena, Canon will always cater to their stills customers. The 6D2 is a stills camera with plenty of upgrades for a stills shooter. Look at their promotional videos that highlight their cameras video capabilities... they hire stills shooters to video them.

C100ii and a 1DXii. Great workhorse video set up and a workhorse stills/video hybrid if you need 4K at 60p for some things. Hire out the drone when needed. Get a 24-70mm, a 70-210mm, and a couple primes.

Will do but I probably won't get around to it until early next week.

I recently did a handheld test between the GX85 in 4K and 1080p vs. the D5500 in 1080p. I used the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 with both cameras. I do not have a speedbooster for the GX85, so I used a simple adapter. The FOV was obviously different. I have yet to look at the footage, but I have a feeling there will be little difference between the two images in terms of visible quality. I will post the results here when I finish. You may be better off keeping what you have. There is some fine work done with the Nikon Flat Profile, so maybe a simple upgrade to the D5600 would suffice. Otherwise, if you can raise the money, the D7500 should drop a little by the holidays or you can do what I am considering, either the a6500 or the Fuji X-T20 if you want/need 4K.

Did you get an a6500? I have been toying around with the idea of buying it again. I think the 4K is unmatched at its price point.

VLog on the GX85 would have been a hot mess anyway. Panasonic didn't offer 10bit video, for $2000, on the GH5 out of the kindness of their heart. However I would still love if the LX100 could get CineLikeD or V... but that sounds like an improbability as well, I suppose?

So you don't trust his opinion because in one statement he says that he downscaled to 1080p from 4K but then in another sentence he says he doesn't like the ultra sharp images from some lenses? I don't see how they are conflicting statements? I have been thinking long and hard about 1080p vs 4K. As you know I have been shooting Raw for the past couple months. I don't even shoot at 1080p... I'm shooting 2:35 at 1920x810 and IMO it has a better image than any 4K I have ever shot... but it is Raw, so it isn't a fair comparison. So I'll digress... Over the past 6 months, I've had 2 FZ2500s. The first time I bought it, I purchased it two weeks after release and paid full price for it. I specifically tested the 200mbps, all-i 1080p vs 100mbps IPB 4K. I downscaled the 4K to 1080p and on my 40" TV, I noticed absolutely no difference between the downscaled 4K and the high bitrate 1080p... in fact, if anything I found the all-i 1080p had slightly better motion cadence at true 24p. The problem with that camera is that I think it's too expensive for what it is, so I returned it. I bought it again, a couple months ago, for a casual camera after I got my 5D3 and the image looked so brittle in comparison that I returned it again. So, I really don't think 4K is a necessity and I believe that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't be able to tell the difference nor care. With that being said, I still love gear and I want a 4K camera. I have yet to see any 4K image, less than $4000, that looks better than the 1DC. That camera has some special mojo going on. So I will probably save up for that and hopefully can find one for $3000 this time next year. In the meantime, to quench my unexplainable desire for 4K, I may pick up an LX100... because the 4K out of that camera also has some special sauce going on. I keep wanting to test the 4K out of the D7500 because I just simply love the Nikon Flat 1080p... seriously one of the best images for the money, but with the crop and its inability to meter older Nikon lenses, the camera is overpriced for my needs... or desires. So since I can't justify Nikon 4K and can't afford Canon 4K yet, another option for me is the Fuji X-T20. It's in a comfortable price range for me. I should be able to sell it for not much of a loss next year and put that money towards the 1DC. As much as I am tired of the fat adapters laying about, in the end Fuji color and my Nikkor 35mm 1.4 could make a perfect little combo. But then again, I want IBIS too... will the madness ever stop? I think regardless of what tech is available, people should really look to what is most important to them in a camera. If they need 4K at 10bit... get the GH5. If they need really good 1080p, maybe get a Nikon or Sony a7s. If they need great auto focus, get a Canon 80D. If someone needs 4K or even really wants it... then that's what they should buy. But since the title of this post specifically asks... is it really necessary? Nope. It is not.

???

Don't be pissed, even if the 6D2 had 4K, I think you may have had unrealistic expectations. If you need all of those specs, you should have bought a GH5 before this season started because you can't get them for $5000 with a Canon and it will probably be another few years, if ever, that they offer 10bit 4K at 60p in a consumer DSLR. If there is any truth to this rumored FF mirrorless, that will be the most telling about Canon's intentions going forward with video in a stills/hybrid form factor.

Ben, I am glad to hear you bought another one, your XC10 videos were amongst my favorite and they truly captured the spirit of this S16 digital camera. I still have the XC10 saved in my eBay search... just waiting for that price I feel comfortable with. I keep chasing the XC10 form factor as well. I've had two FZ2500s and the RX10ii since I've sold the XC10. Both were cool cameras, but neither are as unique as the XC10. The FZ2500 has solid high bitrate, all-i 1080p, shutter angle, decent Touch AF and tracking, multi strength, body selectable NDs, internal zoom, slow/quick at the touch of a button. Even with all its strengths, it just isn't worth $1200 in my opinion. The RX10ii I really liked as well, solid 4K image, okay 1080p at hfr, good preamps, sLog2 but both feel more like camcorders than S16. That zoom through wide angle is a cool trick. I had one for my ZR60 back in the day. I hope Canon continues to update the XC line. As is, it's a blast to shoot with, with a few refinements, it could be epic.

Thanks, I think you suggested the Arri workflow to me before and I forgot to test it... thanks for reminding me. CineLOG is available for Resolve, isn't it? If so, once purchased and installed, does it appear in the Camera Raw settings in the right corner as an option along with Blackmagic Film, Arri, etc...? I've read some about CineLOG and it seems to give you the most options for coloring? Is it a simple process, or will it require a lot more time and/or skill to eek out a good image?

Ok, @hyalinejim this makes perfect sense. Thanks for the the detailed reply. Right now I am processing my MLVs through Raw Magic to create my CDNGs. I was using MLRawViewer and exporting as "LogC" and I was VERY happy with the results, but ever since I updated my Mac to Sierra it has become very temperamental. So I've been going the Davinci Resolve route as Blackmagic Film. I'm still shooting so I am not really invested in any particular method yet, but I have deleted most of my original MLVs, so I have to go forward, with this project at least, using a program that will accept DNGs. For the "dailies" I've been just processing them out as ProRes, as shot, and then doing a basic correction/grade in FCPX. Inside FCPX I've been testing various LUTS, in Color Finale, including BM Film to Rec709 LUTS, Arri to Rec709 LUTS, a universal LOG to Rec709 LUT or running it through Colorista IV as Alexa. I've also tested just using the simple Color Board tools in FCPX. I was very adamant about WB while shooting, so the footage usually need little to no adjustments and I am mostly playing with saturation and exposure and then adding a finishing LUT or using Tint, and/or Colorize as a final "look." I then use Sharpen, in FCPX at default. I have found many looks and methods I like but I am a little concerned because correcting/grading a long project is something very new to me. Other than a couple tests, I've never tackled to color anything long form, so I am searching for a method that will offer both ease and consistency.

I've been testing out a simple LUT workflow and I have found a few that work fairly well. This is known as Hunter's LUT. The idea behind it is to underexpose 5D3 ML Raw footage by about a stop and then this LUT is supposed to help mimic Alexa footage. Here is where you can find information. And here is a screen grab from my film using the LUT and some slight adjustments in FCPX... I've just been testing some different looks for my film. It seems like an interesting concept, but it isn't a hundred percent what I'm looking for. Here is another screengrab using Captain Hook's Basic LUT for BlackMagic Film... they work pretty well with 5D3 Raw footage... I believe @hyalinejim made a Kodak Ektar LUT for 5D3 Raw as well. Does anyone know of any other LUTS specifically designed for ML Raw footage? Or some that work well with it?

Looks awesome. Congratulations on some of the best GH5 video I have seen. I've been very critical of the work I've seen coming from the GH5, but you have definitely proven that this camera is a force to be reckoned with. I look forward to the finished video!

I liked the XC10 a lot. It just lost its value way too fast for my comfort zone. Especially since prior to that, the most I had ever spent on a camera was $600. I didn't notice the ghosting as much as others did. I shot comfortably up to 1600iso without any real noise issues. I haven't shot with 5D3 Raw at higher than 1600 either, but it hasn't bothered me. This was 5D3 at 1600 ISO, but with the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 wide open, so that's still what... two stops better than the XC10 would be at 1600. If my memory serves me I'd say 5D3 Raw is cleaner at 1600.

I've been lucky the past year or so. I took a $2000 purchase of the XC10 and was able to sell it, for a small loss, but use that money to test a bunch of cameras. While I figured out what I wanted to shoot with, I consistently spent a small amount more to constantly upgrade what I tested until I was able to afford the 5D3. Also I always bought better lenses than I had. So over the past couple years I was able to narrow down what I wanted to keep and make a good return on previous lens purchases. Four years ago I could barely afford my $200 eos-m. now I should be able to afford a 1DC by next spring.

Btw, I thought you really liked the 80D?