CTRT
-
Posts
75 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by CTRT
-
-
Get a GH4 which has just been discounted again (£750 body only) with a used Panasonic kit lens (£100). Then use the Supertone settings to avoid grading. Twice the sensor size, much longer battery, feels much nicer in my hands too.
Plus it has better 4K and the option for V Log if you ever want to step up in resolution and dynamic range in the future. Sounds like you are attracted to slow mo though, in which case the RX10ii wins if you want things like 240fps. I haven't even looked at it yet but I think the Gh4 just goes to 96fps.
I have read a few people saying the RX10 ii shoots higher quality/nier looking video than the GH4... I am not sure, at all, if that is true. Can you comment on that? I CERTAINLY considered that route, no doubt at all! Oh and could you please tell me exactly which lens you mean? Is that just the standard one that comes in a certain kit? And what are Supertone settings? IS that something in the camera? Sorry for my stupid.
EDIT: something like this: http://www.bpm-media.de/en/Sales/ENG-Live-Production/Cameras/HDSLR-Cameras/Panasonic-DMC-GH4A::368198.html
Oh and I am NOT attracted to slow mo' sorry if that came across in the things I quoted... what I am basically looking for is as sharp as I can get, with as much room to grade if need be, and at a price I can afford, as corporate video work is not my passion
I will reconsider the GH4! Thanks for your comments!Not true at all. You can shoot raw, "film" (which is a flatter look) or a standard video look. Even when shooting "film" mode, my experience has been that you can dial in a look with a regular old 2-way corrector plugin, which you can probably use in your sleep if you're done any editing. And the BMCs shoot ProRes, so you can jump straight into editing if you want.
Regarding your original post - there just isn't a "perfect" camera for many people. I'd say the Ursa Mini (the 4.6 with high frame rates) could be the last camera many professionals would need for a few years (4K at up to 60p, slow motion, raw) … but kitting one out to be useable would be the financial equivalent of buying 6 or 8 or 10 of the little Sonys. Not really apples to apples. The only thing that gives me pause with the Sony is that small-sensor look. There are workarounds, but they're huge compromises for things like sit-down interviews in limited space. I often find my camera 5 feet away from a subject with a busy wall 3 feet behind the subject. 70-85 mm, f 2.8 - f4 and It's pretty. Not going to happen with the little sonys.
Thanks for this... I am so tempted to go the BMPCC route as the quality of the footage online looks amazing, but there's soooo many caveats, plus buy adaptors to get a usual lens, plus all the other stuff you'd end up buying to make it functional. It's a lot more money.
Happy to know though that I could use one without having to learn how to use completely new grading tools! Thank you!
Oh, when you say that your shooting scenario won't happen with the Sony, why is that? Sorry to be a dope, but... I'm a dope. -
here's the explanation of the grading:
-
One shoots faster frame rates than your editing frame rate --if you're eager to do slow mo.
For instance, I often shoot 60p 1080 a lot because I like to be able to use my shots on a 30p editing timeline at regular speed AND switch over to 1/2 speed on certain shots if I wish. This works well because 60 is "smoothly" divisible by 30. Also, the higher frame rate of 60p seems to me to use only about a stop of extra light than 30p, so it's not going to crimp you from shooting in lower light situations.
Anyway, I think Andrew's basically saying you CAN shoot in those high frame rates if you want to because they hold up visually. In the past you'd get some weird image processing artifacts from capturing footage at such a high frame rate. This new Sony camera will not only shoot continuously (no buffering) @60fps, but also in 120fps. That's fun.
Here's an example of some 120 and 240 I did 3 years ago:
If you don't want to do slow mo, or if your clients don't require slow mo, this is all a moot point.
Also, I don't understand your comment about learning a whole new grading system simply because you switch cameras. Can you explain that?
Cool video!
Thanks for the explanation.
As for the blackmagic it shoots files in such a way that you have to grade them completely in post - they are completely flat looking otherwise.... I'll dig up a video that explains it... basically they look pretty awful without some pretty extensive grading using LUTS, etc. -
hey guys,
I posted on here a while back about buying a camera on the (relatively) cheap for corporate videography.
I had been using a Nikon D7200, which was a long term loan, but had to return it.
You guys were SUPER helpful and suggested lots of things, including the ... you guess it... RX10 ii, which at the time hadn't been released.
So I am now about to buy a camera, in the next few days, and have enough money for the RX10 ii or something similarly priced.
I read Andrew's review here: http://www.eoshd.com/2015/08/sony-rx10-ii-review-final-conclusion-and-introduction-to-its-smaller-brother-rx100-iv/
but was a bit confused by a few things.
He says:
"However it would be a crime not to mention the 1080p capabilities of these cameras, as they are absolutely stunning in what they deliver for that. Best affordable all-rounders for 1080p I have ever used. They are like a small sensor FS7 in some ways!"
and"The 1080/120p as I said in part 1 is perfect. This is the one to use for continuous recording, for very long slow-mo sequences or when you need to do a lot of slicing and dicing in the edit."
and
"Also I record 240fps in-camera to 50p or 60p (1080p) as slow-mo looks nice smooth, but more importantly this gives you the option to further slow the footage down by 50% to 30p or even 24p in post if you want slower. 240fps to 24p is “10x” slow-mo."
and then this:
"The RX10 II has a bug which I highlighted in part 1 where focus shifts slightly between High Frame Rate standby mode and capture mode. However the larger issue is really with how bad continuous AF is in movie mode and HFR (slow-mo mode). It has a mind of its own and unfortunately a rather dumb mind at that. Let’s qualify that statement… if the actor is not moving and you are shooting on a tripod then manual focus will do just fine. However for HFR at 240fps with a 2 second burst where you can’t touch the focus ring because the camera has locked up it really is continuous AF or nothing as far as I am concerned. You can focus manually in standby mode but by the time you are capturing your subject has so often moved out of focus, especially at the longer reach of the RX10 II’s lens which is so tempting to use for this. The way I am working for live subjects and not on a controlled set is to get out of movie mode entirely and use stills mode where single-shot AF is mega fast at establishing focus before hitting record. Very useful. Unfortunately this is not something Sony felt important enough to implement in movie mode or HFR mode. Here there is no super fast single shot AF, only the terrible continuous AF or manual focus which locks up during a shot. The continuous AF behaves like a drunk focus puller. Unreliable. Slow. Doesn’t do what you expect. You could have the easiest of shots, with the subject bang centre and taking up 80% of the entire frame and it will still find a way to slip away and find the background. It’s pathetic. Also whereas single shot AF takes mere miliseconds to establish focus, continuous AF in movie mode is Captain Slow around the Top Gear track… ah gradually here he comes… here he comes… round the final corner…and… over….. the………. line."
Actually, if I'm honest with you, I didn't really get a lot of what he was going on about, because I don't really know much about cameras... sorry everyone... I'd like to, but I don't. Saying that I have lots of corporate clients, including two agencies, and can edit and grade well enough to keep getting jobs, so... I feel I must not suck too badly, even if the terminology is pretty over my head frequently.
So the question though - at long last - is this. Is this still a good option for what I am trying to do? Will I be shooting normal video in 100fps now? Now that we have all seen it is it the best option? Or should l I be considering something else again? I
Oh and as a note, I always bring lights and record audio separately.
I looked at the BMPC, but the added price of a lens and a speedbooster, and having to learn a whole new grading system, seems like a step too far for what is essentially my day job...
I do also make music videos though, and may get one of those eventually for that...
Thanks for any help. You guys were so helpful last time; it's your own damn fault I'm back! -
There around three hundred cameras to choose from and about one and a half thousand lenses to pick. Good luck
Just tell me, what do you want in the camera for your work? Answer these
1-Let's say, resolution/sharpness, is that really critical or was the D7200 enough?
2- Lowlight performance at high ISOs?
3- Do you find you clip a lot of highlights and need a higher dynamic range?
4- Do need small efficient files for working fast or large maximum quality files to grade and take your time?
5- Do you want a small camera? pocket size? entry-level SLR size? Large SLR size? a camcorder?
6- Do you need to record audio in-camera or are you OK with recording externally and syncing in post?
7- Do you need the camera to record continuously for long times or is it OK to take smaller 15 min-ish takes?
8- Do you need it to have a long battery life or are OK with carrying/swapping batteries?
9- Do you like very shallow depth of field (beautiful background separation) or is it not critical?
10- What kind of zoom range do you require in a lens? (a wide angle you said?),
11- does it need to be a high-end stills performer like the D7200 or just fine enough?
12- Generally how much did you like the D7200 and what are the limitations about it?
(Sorry!)
Hi
1. The 7200 was good enough, and much sharper than what the company before me was producing. Video is ending up at 1080 on YouTube and company websites. Saying that, less sharp would not be an option.
2. Unnecessary as I always rent lights and shoot in well lit spaces. But of course having more flexibility is never bad.
3. That was an issue, but I think I've learned how to avoid it and work around it in the edit... having to worry about it less would be very welcome though!
4. I prefer larger (well higher quality) files that I can work down from... I don't know if that's just me being overly cautious though and would be open to hearing about alternative approaches.
5. I don't care about size as most of the time I'm using a tripod. Saying that, It'd be great to have something SLR size (or smaller).
6. No need for in camera audio
7. I have gotten used to recording in bursts of 20 mins or less.. the sensor on the Nikon would overheat (I was told by the owner that this was the issue) and cause the camera to stop recording. So I am used to the burst method. I would be open to better options as that could occasionally be frustrating.
8. I am ok with battery swapping, but only because I'm used to it I guess... I know battery swapping can be a pain, and not all cameras have external chargers... so it's not a huge thing I guess, but being able to do it easily, or not have to do it at all would be ideal.
9. It's not critical, but for my own creative stuff it's nice to have. For the job I can live without it or if need be do it in post. Though that's a pretty huge pain.
10. I basically need to be able to get someone in focus... actually, this image is representative of 90% of the shots I use:
I would often be forced to shoot that from about 1 meter. I don't know how to describe that as far as zoom is concerned. The Nikkor lens I used could do it, and sometimes I'd even zoom in a bit optically. The point is at about a meter or 1.5 meters I could get the above framing, more or less. and that's what I need.
11. I occasionally get asked for still photography, but up til now that has all ended up on FB. I would bring lights and be able to compose the shots, so... well, I don't know if that answers the question
Basically, "good enough" is probably "good enough". though I might miss the 7200 is the replacement was significantly worse.
12. Generally I liked it a decent amount. I did find some of the flipping between screen and viewfinder and menus and top LCD to be annoying. The autofocus was only ok and sometimes couldn't figure out what I wanted. So most of the time it was on manual. If I didn't do the lighting right - which could happen based on the back screen, the images could be VERY noisy, but that was probably just me sucking. I am open though to trying other things and being blown away. It was random that I got it, and as such I am not wedded to it, so to speak.
Hope that's all clear
-
It bridges the gap between compacts and dSLRs/mirrorless cameras. It has an all-purpose superzoom lens that ranges from 24-400mm. Really flexible. I consider the FZ1000 a mini GH4. Downside is the dynamic range... it clips rather quickly, operating noise of the lens and it's harder to create a shallow depth of field. Of course you can't really throw another lens with specific characteristics in front of it either. But it does make for a nice all-in-one solution and does offer dSLR-like controls and features.
The LX100 is more compact and unlike the FZ1000 that sports a 1" sensor, the LX100 has a four thirds, 4/3, 1.33" sensor. I like the image out of it a lot. Surely the lensrange isn't as flexible and doesn't feature some more advanced features the FZ1000 and GH4 do sport.
On another note, I don't know how much of what you do includes photography, but the 24MP APS-C sensor cameras offer that little more for shooting a bit higher quality stills.
I briefly touched on this subject in my first reply. If you want to adapt lenses to Sony and/or Panasonic, you can. There are cheap adapters from e.g. Fotga that hardly cost a thing. Going with vintage/2nd hand glass will get you great quality lenses for fair prices, they usually have full manual controls with an aperture and focus ring. Some newer Nikon lenses lack aperture rings, but because they're still mechanically operated, the cheap adapters feature a basic ring for closing and opening the aperture. With newer Canon lenses the aperture ring is missing as well. However, these are electronically operated. You need a fancy adapter with electronics built in to take full advantage of those lenses. So you might want to pass on those.
Then even better, if you get one of these Sony/Panasonic cameras you can get a focal reducer/lens turbo/speedbooster. These adapters contain glass elements that compress the image from the lens that's originally meant for a bigger sensor sized camera onto the sensor of the smaller sensor sized camera you're shooting with. This recovers some of the crop factor essentially giving you a wider field of view than a regular adapter, which also translates to a shallower depth of field and increased light gathering ability.
Look into the possibilities. Take your time to figure out what suits your needs best and drop by a camera store for some hands-on experience.
Lot's of things to ponder in this post! I really need to start embracing this tech and figuring out what it all means I guess
I noticed the GH4 as well.. I need to look into that more as well...
So many options!
Thanks for all of this info! -
No problem, take a look at the FZ1000 as well. It's pretty much the same as the LX100 with a smaller sensor, but it has a microphone input. The LX100 is a better camera, but the FZ1000 is a little bigger and has some of the cinema picture profiles. I know Sony has an update to their RC10 that shoots 4K and is supposed to be amazing as well. There are some options out there. Good Luck!!!
more options... ahhhhhhh....
I will check them! Thanks so much! -
Honestly, if I had your budget and was looking for a nice set up, I would probably go with the Panasonic LX100... Which would give me a built in zoom lens, 4K and 1080p video with full manual control and then also pick up a Panasonic G7, which would give me all of the above plus the ability to grow into interchangeable lenses. This way you could do multi-cam interview set up, run and gun shoots and a more controlled interchangeable lens shoot when necessary. I don't do that kind of work, but I would imagine the flexibility would be excellent for a video kit.
I was just looking at video samples from the LX100 and am pretty amazed!! For the price it seems almost too good to be true!
I was planning, if the work keeps up for another year - I get a job every month or so and they pay well enough - to upgrade properly, and I was hoping the loaner camera I had would stay in my possession that long Now that it's going away and I have to have a quick solution I am still considering that upgrade, but may have to wait say 18 months. But then if it was still going like this I could afford to drop 4-5k on a camera/lens and get something proper for the long run. So to speak.
The LX100 seems pretty perfect though! Thanks so much for that suggestion! -
You also might want to consider the 4K bridge cameras that are out. The Panasonic FZ1000, or the new Sony model, or even the Panasonic LX100. They all have a built in zoom lens, shoot 4K and 1080p at multiple frame rates. Really nice cameras for run and gun and simple set ups... Which sound perfect for interviews.
What is a bridge camera?? Sorry but that term is new to me!
EDIT: Sorry I just googled and discovered the answer! -
No, the lens will be manual only, but manual focus lenses are usually much better for video anyway. Of course, if you are only doing basic corporate, interview shoots, I can see how the auto functions would be beneficial. But, there are still a lot of lenses for both the Sony and Panasonic systems, so you wouldn't be limited at all. If you have any goals of extending your work into more creative areas, manual lenses are the way to go, IMO.
I don't ever use the AF for videos... I was really just curious
I actually didn't even know the Nikon had all the auto options until after my first shoot!! Whoops!
I did find the auto stuff useful for quick shots for fun at gigs or on the street... but that's not paying work... yet...?
Thank you for the info! I appreciate the info and advice! -
If you go the mirrorless route... Sony, Panasonic, et al... your lens options become endless by using cheap adapters.
oh! I didn't know such things existed... so even if I got the Sony or Panasonic I could still consider the lens recommended for the Nikon..? And do the adaptors allow things like AF, etc. etc., etc.?
-
If you like the a6000, but don't need the viewfinder, take a look at the a5100. It's an amazing little camera and it's dirt cheap. Manufacture refurbished bodies go for less than $300 on eBay.
ooh! That's very interesting! Saying that I might be lost without a viewfinder... at least with the nikon I found it very hard to judge focus quickly outdoors on the back screen.. then again that's not something I do very often, and wasn't for work, but for fun... then again, you never know I suppose..
Either way I'll google it! Thanks! -
Actually, are my lens options greatly limited by choosing Panasonic or Sony? Looking online it's hard to figure out exactly what the story is... hard for me
Thanks again guys! -
Only briefly tried it in a shop.
But I've seen enough videos of it to know that it performs very well with 1080p video. If you have the possibility to try it out in a shop, by all means do. It is a very neat camera, and a very portable one at that (coupled with the right lens).
Thanks I will... in the meantime I just checked the Sony A6000 and now I feel like I am back to having no clue... ha.
So I think I must limit my options:
Another Nikon D7x00 €1000-1200
Nikon D5300 €750
Sony A6000 €600
Panasonic GX7 €650
Hmmmm..... Of course I can always look second hand, etc.
-
If you want to go the lowest possible budget on lenses, I'd recommend Nikon 18-55mm for allround usage, and the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50mm f/1.8G for getting shots in low light or with good depth-of-field separation between a person and the background.
Cinegains recommendation on the Nikon 35-70 and Tokina 28-70 are probably very worthy to look at reviews of. I haven't shot with either lens, and hence I have no opinions about them, but they surely sound like good budget options.
Thanks! I really appreciate that... I am dutifully noting all of this and checking reviews, making a budget, etc.
Have you used the Panasonic GX7? Kinda fascinated now, especially at the price... -
The 18-70mm isn't too good actually. Long focal range, but not too sharp of a lens. It worked nicely on the older low megapixel cameras, but it's unsharp on the new high megapixel cameras. So, for still photos on a D5xx, there are better alternatives. For 1080p video, I guess the lens would perform well enough. But - it doesn't perform too well in lowlight, and it does not have VR, so I think you'd be better off with the 18-55mm kit lens. I've shot with both lenses, and I'd prefer the 18-55 any day.
Thanks! I literally was handed a camera bag with a few lenses and a camera and somehow managed to get these corporate video shoots.. ha. I had shot music videos with video cameras in the past, but never a DSLR. So I guess I'm coming at this from a weird angle.
Saying that, once I figured out what the Nikon was capable of, and as long as I rent lights, the video I've made has been pretty sharp! And the ease of use is amazing IMO.
The Panasonic is a very attractive LOOKING camera btw. I just had a look. But I need to try and find a way to compare the video quality to the D5300, etc.
Thanks again! -
I just checked and the lens I got used to was a Nikkor 18-70.
-
The 18-55mm kit lens is not the lens to choose when you need to shoot in less good light conditions - or when you want a shallow depth of field.
However. it is a pretty good allround and sharp kit lens for a low cost. It has VR (Vibration Reduction, Nikons image stabilisation in lenses), which can be useful for both video and photos. Also, it focuses very closely compared to most other Nikon lenses, which makes it useful if you need to get a closeup shot of something.
For its cost, it's well worth to have it. But it as a kit lens, or buy it used - used ones usually go for around 50-80 euros.
Ah I see!
At that price it def sounds like something to have as an option! I basically record sound with a separate recorder and lapel mics (I never have a sound guy available to me) and use a tripod as much as possible, as it make things so much easier when editing.
-
Yes, D5300/D5500 are good options since you are already used to handling a D7200. Any additional money is better to put on lenses / other equipment you might need. Consider camera body something that you will upgrade in a few years, hence it's wise to put less money on the camera body when you're starting out. Lenses, tripods and such will usually last a very long time. My advice to beginners is always to buy good optics from start and to put less money on the camera body.
If you want some alternatives and have the opportunity to try other cameras in a store, I suggest you take a look at the Panasonic models GX7, G6/G7, and the Sony A6000.
All of the above mentioned cameras have good quality at 1080p, what matters more is that you feel comfortable handling them.
If you get a D5300 / D5500, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be a great allround zoom, from fairly wide to normal focal length. Besides that lens you might want to get a 50mm f/1.8G for portrait shots. Those are my two AF lens recommendations on a budget (and should be fitting your mentioned budget as well).
Thanks! I appreciate this input... I will check out the Panasonic and Sony cameras... I don't know anything about Panasonic cameras at all...
I really need to learn more about the gear... -
You said you used two lenses and only really ever used the wide one, right?
Nikon D5500 w/ 18-55mm II ~ 719,- (D5300 about ~ 599,- )
Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8 ~ 679,-
For some more range, two suggestions: 2nd hand Nikon AI-s 35-70mm f/3.5 ~ 110,-* , 2nd hand Tokina AT-X PRO II 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ~ 299,-* (* target price for excellent condition lenses (or in other words: the price I got mine for))
For wider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II ~ 449,-
More about lenses: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/6396-lenses/
This is extremely helpful!! Thanks yet again!
-
Wow! I gotta say that the video looks more than good enough for what I need! Much appreciated...
Just had a look at lens though... dear god they're expensive!
Ah well, I guess you gotta spend money, etc. -
Thanks so much!
Trying to get my head around al of this and it's a lot to take on board, as all I really want to do is shoot some video. -
'Some of that work is video'... that's an oddly vague description.
What kind of shooting? Run'n'gun? Lightweight? Elaborate setups? Lowlight?
What is your budget? I might recommend you to get a Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K and then it's way outta your budget and way to bulky/heavy.
Also, do you have (Nikon) lenses already?
But ok, let's say you just want something as close to the D7200 you came to know rather well. So, basicly something that comes close to providing solid 1080p/60. Uh. In that case, how about sticking with Nikon and get that new D5500 (alternatively the D5300/D5200)? If you do have some Nikon lenses already, you can also adapt 'em to a Sony A6000 (recently got XAVC-S added) as well for example. Then there's the new Panasonic G7 if you'd like to go 4K. Speedboost some lenses. Or perhaps get the G6 that still holds great value (or even GX7/GM1). It all depends on your style of shooting, your requirements and your budget, so it's not such a quick question after all, I'm afraid.
But taken the fact you've been checking out stuff for days, what have you narrowed things down to yourself?
First, thanks for replying... I figured there was half a chance that my stupid vague question would go unanswered...
Second, I don't own any lenses; the loaner had two, one of which was wide angled, and was the only one I ever use for video. I'd have to buy a lens as well.
Third, you mention the D5500, etc., but I literally have no idea how these compare to the 7200 - quality wise... I've seen comparisons online, but they compare a lot of - to me - arcane bits and bobs, or things like WIFI that are useless to me.
Fourth, it's almost all professionally/well lit corporate stuff - interviews and cutaways to people wandering around in hotels and conference rooms. Tripod 80% of the time. Found the Nikon to not be great for video without one tbh.
Finally a budget.. top end would be €15-1600... saying that if I was a few hundred euros off something a lot better I could maybe source the extra cash. But it wold just depend on how much better for how much cash etc.
Oh, I don't need 4K, but solid 1080 is absolutely necessary. This all ends up online, and I can upgrade in a year or so if the work keeps coming.
Thanks again!
Oh and sorry, I had considered the lower number Nikons like a 5300, and Canon EOS 70D. I'd also been looking at a D7000 used, but then I started seeing all these other things like Blackmagic, etc., and got totally overwhelmed.
-
Hi everyone,
Thanks for having me
I have a quick question, bearing in mind I'm basically an idiot.
I have had a long term loan of a Nikon D7200. In that time I've gotten work, which is great. Some of that work is video work.
I now have to return that now and need to buy a replacement, but am not sure if my best bet is simply getting a direct replacement.
I am not afraid of buying second hand, but really need something that shoots video (well lit subject matter) as well as the Nikon.
Any advice will be hugely appreciated... I have been pouring over reviews for a few days and have basically lost the ability to reach any conclusions
So I read that RX10 ii review, and... help!
In: Cameras
Posted
ahh... so you're saying I won't be able to be past a certain distance and get the subject and the background in focus, if the subject is too far from the background?
I might be able to live with that, though you're right it could be pretty darn limiting!!
Thanks for your help!!
Thanks for all of that! Very helpful and exactly the sort of perspective I was hoping to find here!