hansel

In these days of diminishing journalistic integrity, it's refreshing to read this article. Kudos, Andrew, for practicing journalism as it was intended, and for the reminder of why this is one of my most visited sites. Happy Holidays!
 

Andrew I applaud your article. One of the reasons I've followed this blog/forum nearly daily for the past year or two is your style. In a way, you seem to be the Anthony Bourdain of the camera world (I mean that as a compliment). You aren't afraid to tell manufacturers here is why your camera sucks and what it needs. That constructive criticism is exactly what is needed in this industry. I applaud you sir.

Emailed Richard Butler at DPReview.
But since he's on so many sites, it would really help to somehow get a wider audience to know what he did.
REVENGE!!

People didn't try to do everything on their own in the professional video field of old.
For interviews it would be a team
A sound guy, a camera man and the actual interviewer.
If you're doing all 3 jobs and find it hard, no shame in that... it IS hard
Being a camera technician on top of the other 3 roles is just too much.
Get an Ice Light 2, keep the GH4, keep the tripod and lav, dump the rest.

I think that is sound advice, thanks!
However, some stuff is just too much fun to ditch, like the gimbal and ifootage slider (the  pan tilt head was an admitted mistake). I am not ashamed to admit I rely on them to lift the narrative of my corporate work  - even though everyone insists the  story and content is more important (which I  agree  with), I want both. 10 years ago I used to be so envious of companies  using motion tools  and now they are  finally at a point where they  are reasonably priced to invest in for rhe type of stuff I do. I dont sell movement to clients, I just suprise them  with that  little extra that they may not get elsewhere. however, I do make sure my  ideas are on point before I choose the tool,  not  the other way  round.
This all reminds me that im in that right field, because as you  mention  its hard work and you need  to  love this gig to go through  this and I  geuss I  do.
Marco Pierre  White always says.... "perfection  is doing lots of  little thigs  well."
Thats what I tell myself every morning im packing all this  nonsense  into a bag and going to war with these overpriced, finicky  but lovable creative tools.
 
 

@Ed_David

Just as a point of physics from a goofy layman (me) that can kind of only half remember high-school science classes: molecules that get colder move slower.  After all, absence of vibration is actually absolute zero, right?
That's not exactly relevant, however.
Computer components being exceptionally cold won't change the laws of electromagnetism and the speed of light.  Waves of electricity are unaffected.
Of course, your components could get so hot that the molecules in the components would start to fly away and irradiate so violently that certain components fail.  That's always impressive.  Humans tend to like to see things burn and get blowed up real good.  It's a fun primal thing we all share.
All that said, if you computer is hot, cool it.

My buddy does have some good clients. One success story was when he invested a lot of unpaid private time in second-guessing the 'corporate identity' of the firm who made the announcement. He met the woman responsible for public relation with concepts ready to present. But he was wise enough to make her feel it were her ideas. They accepted his offer (reasonable, but not cheap) without batting an eye. The communication worked from the start (what's the right idiom? They were on the same wavelength?). He had thought out everything in advance, he could control the situation. The client came back several times despite cheaper competitors. If the client feels you are just some guy with a camera you will not be treated with respect. A successful professional must be a prostitute sometimes. The good ones make their sugar daddies think they love them. 

I'll try say it in a better way...
It's like I'm filming with a deconstructed lasagna. It sounds and looks good, even taste better sometimes... but sometimes I just want a plate of lasagna.

Just shoot both in LOG mode and apply the same LUT to both, then tweak any differences.
But here's an even better suggestion... if you want cameras to match, buy two of the same cameras.
The main problem here is it it seems like you have been convinced by online marketing and advertorial that you need all this extra shit.
On the GH4 you don't need a v-mount battery for interviews...
Unless you consider changing the GH4's battery every 7 hours to be an unsurmountable problem.
You also don't need a cage or to attach anything to the GH4 at all, like a shotgun mic.
For interviews you should click a wireless lav mic onto the subject. Not use a mic on the camera.
XLR is also overkill for an interview. 3.5mm jack just fine.
Problem solved.
You also don't need a monitor... the screen on the GH4 is just fine for interviews. Works as well as the screen which comes with the FS5, does it not? It's even a similar size! Guess that solves the cables part as well.
Speed Booster - I fail to see the hassle aspect of that. Attach lens. Film!
ND filters - for an interview? Were you filming it on the surface of the sun?
With such a small amount of movement if it is a locked down shot you wouldn't even notice if it was shot at 1/2000 anyway.
Keep it simple.
Keep it simple and try again.
Relax.
Don't buy a C300.

Films are not going away...far too much money at stake...what has changed considerably is the content created for television ( at the same quality level as any feature film now)...but sticking to movies...many links in the chain that either makes or breaks a project....and success depends on an audience member being able to completely immerse themselves in a film...hard to happen when you're watching something shot on an iPhone with little or no production design, bad sound and of course poor acting and directing...sorry....a little off topic, but read a post a while back saying in a 100 years there'll be no more movies made...as long as humans are around, we'll be hungry for the escape movies/television can bring us...as far as cameras today go...we're more than there and I think Andrews point is well taken...smartphones are the new point-and-shoots that consumers want and you can now use an actual point-and shoot as a crash cam or in a difficult to fit place or a drone etc....

I have the d750 for about 7 month now (better late then never). Two days ago I got a F2 as a backup body ;o ---> snatched it of the internetz for a good price and lots of accessorries.
I bought the d750 with the 24-120 f4 kit lens. The lens is quite nice. I got it mainly for its range and VR but I have it out on sale right now. I feel like I am not using it enough. It vignetts quite a lot and on the last shoot I put it on after one of the primes and it looked like it was almost 2 stops darker than my fiddy at F4. I don't know math but I felt kind of weird about it.
Once it is gone I might slowly go a bit more up market with my manual primes. I have enough of electronic crap that fails and becomes worthless ---> I go AF-D and AI-S it's enough for my little world. In 30 years I'll pop my AI-S on my F2 or what ever camera and it will most likely do. Also the price will be relativley stable for them.

Dear @mercer,
I pretty much only shoot with AIS lenses. I don't have any expensive cinelenses but handling the "ice" gives me uncontrolable hard-ons, if not to say they are rather pleasing my tactile sense. I never had a problem metering them. If I am out and about I pretty much only use auto ISO. But maybe you are using different metering mode than I do....

I don't understand the video and don't understand why it is being given as a good example of cinema.
This is mainly a cinematography forum, about cameras and shooting images.
It isn't a content lab.
OK you get 5,674,515 people to endorse your message, you move some of them, you get 48,000 likes and 179,000 re-tweets. I am sure the content must have some merit. But I am equally sure that it won't be remembered in 30 years like the work of great cinematographers is.
There is poetry not just in faces, words, music, dialogue, messages, content, stories...
Images are poetry.
If you cannot grasp this point and think that images are meaningless without shoving some kid's story in front of the camera, then reconsider and go and see Koyannisquatsi immediately. Cinematography in the purist sense IS content and HAS a message. Incredible camera work, beautiful rendering, the lenses used - the medium is the message.
Cinematography can also elevate almost ANY kind of content so that it has more impact and is more memorable.
I am SICK TO DEATH of people saying that boringly shot content is all we should aspire to because hey... it works... of course it does... but it doesn't mean to say a cinematographer should stop speaking the language of cinema and go and become a writer or a one-man filmmaker instead.

I was mainly asking because I know you do a lot of stills work and since the D500 seems to be geared more towards sports and wildlife, I wasn't sure if the camera made sense for someone like me that will do 90% narrative work with it... mostly amateur, hobby work.
I've owned about 10 cameras over the past year and I've come to realize I prefer the form factor of a DSLR over cinema cameras and mirrorless rangefinders. And with my skill set as a shooter and in post, that Nikon Flat image has been a Godsend to me, I would just like a few extra exposure tools that the D5500 doesn't offer with my ai-s lenses. I've contemplated picking up the 35mm 1.8G lens but I can imagine the focus ring isn't the most ideal for manual focus? Also, out of curiosity, do you know if AF Lock works in video mode with Nikon DSLRs? You'd think that would be an easy question to answer but surprisingly it is not. 
BTW, I had the Micro for a while, and I agree... what a lovely image... I just could not stand the form factor. I held onto it for a while hoping I could make it work, but it just never felt right shooting with it.
After shooting with it for about two months, I decided to go the opposite route and find a run and gun machine, so I bought the XC10 and wow what a cool camera that is... except I love shallow depth of field and the tactile feel of my manual lenses.
So, on a whim I picked up a D5500 because I had heard so many good things about it and it was dirt cheap... and I just fell in love with that Nikon image. I would plan on going out and shooting with the XC10, but would usually bring the D5500 instead. So, that brings me to here...
Anyway, thanks for your help, much appreciated!!!

The biggest problem is that most young people aren't into computers.  And without computers... there's nowhere to put the files that are on an SD card.
Hell... most average consumers of any age don't have a good grasp on the idea of files and folders anyway.  And that's a big part of dealing with files that a traditional camera generates.
Young people are all about the smartphone, SnapChat, Instagram, etc.  That's what photography is to them.  And it's actually pretty remarkable that the same device you take pictures with (the smartphone) is also the device that stores them, shares them online, and backs them up to the cloud.  They don't need to move photos from one device to another.
A person who has only ever taken pictures with a smartphone won't like to deal with SD cards and computers for general consumer photography.  It's almost like a person who grew up with digital cameras never wanting to deal with film.
But like Tony said... there will always be enthusiasts and professional who rely on "real" digital cameras.  For the average consumer though... it's done (or it never was)
Personally... I'll still lug my DSLR around to take pictures at dance competitions.  And shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom.
But I rarely see parents with DSLRs or even point-n-shoots anymore. It's a smartphone world for kids and parents.
Below is an example at an outdoor dance competition under a tent with terrible lighting.
My photo is on the left shot with a DSLR and external flash... and someone's smartphone photo is on the right:

I know which one I prefer... but the average consumer doesn't know or care.  
It's easier for them to just snap a pic with their smartphone than to deal with a separate camera, memory cards, a computer, software, etc.

Peaking, zebras, etc. are for enthusiasts.
Remember the difference between us and the rest. We care. They don't.
So it is time to say to them, fine, keep your smartphones, maybe some of you will come round to the idea of having a proper camera and some will not, but in the mean time we are not going to make any money persuading you with touch screens and wifi shit.

All these things are nice. USB charging, wireless file transfer, etc. However they will not save the consumer market one jot.
What average joe with a smartphone wakes up in the morning and says to himself "today I will run eagerly to a camera store and buy a Sony because it has Wifi, USB charging and a touch screen menu!!"
They are just not interested. SO Let them bugger off is the crux of my article.

@DPC
The main asset of these "professionals" is sales: saling their clients their style to shoot, compose, color science, etc. Look @DPC and @Richard Bugg, there are tons of PAID bullshit videos/films out there. Because the film companies found someone to pay for it, these are not necessarly good films. First point....second point, could you define "good filmic work"? I think there are thousands of opinions on this...
Let me give you an example: The so called "cinematic look" (Grading, shallow DOF, etc.) is not a big point in the eyes of many GERMAN clients. Many clients simply don't care about it. Many German corporate clients care about SHARPNESS and contrast - the same they care about when watching TV....OK, there might be some, who can be "convinced" to move to a Hollywood look. But generally they don't care...
So, filming companies who do much paid work are good sales people. There are so many independent (and in my eyes talented) filmmakers all over the world, who never sale a piece of their work...Economical success is not the same as successful filmic work...
Now on the 1DX II: I like this camera, but it's not affordable for me. It's a perfect still camera for almost all purposes (excepting highest resolution needs), unbeaten in sports photography, top notch in low light, well build, usable, rugged, top ergonomics. I know many journalists / documentary and narrative workers who use it. One of them is a good friend of mine and he is editing the Canon 4K footage on a i7 1.900,- Euro PC. So what? If you are talking about professionalism, you should consider, that working with this kind of files is normal (RAW eg). The fact, that this workflow might not be affordable for many enthusiasts like me, does not mean, that this is a bad codec. You just need some computing power for editing, but this is absolutely normal for people working on higher level or with RAW...
The DPAF is amazing. Even if some "professionals" claim, in professional work there is "no need" for a excellent AF. There is one. And some professionals use it excessively. Not everyone shooting films has a brigade of focus pullers or can shoot a scene over days ad ultimo...The excellent DPAF of the 1DX II is just a very useful tool, helping shooters to save money...

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft.
For me the biggest issue I have with the kind of cameras I can afford is rolling shutter. Out of camera color, dynamic range, 4K is generally not an issue for me ... GH4, A7s or Canon Mark iii... I'm happy with all of the results I get. I've said it many times before... and I'll say it again. My talent has not caught up with available and affordable technology yet... so you won't hear complaints from me. 
For hobbyists to be able to easily afford a $6000 camera is a bit of a slap in the face to pros who are producing work on lesser cameras without complaining. Not calling Andrew a hobbyist by any mean, because he has done paid gigs and EOSHD has become his profession... so there is tremendous talent and time spent on his part. But the article is either a bit click bait or bipolar for my liking...

Hi Andrew. I totally understand your point of view and I find this website very interesting. Even though I'm still "eating" to regular tables such as DPReview and other mainstream websites, picking the dish I like and ignoring the rest, I'm always curious to check your food. I know that your house will be different, a bit "bi-polar" sometime but always refreshing, free of any marketing interest and willing to be commercially incorrect in this huge ocean of product placement and influencers that internet has become.

For me Canon got a few interesting features (colors, DPAF) but the Cons are just too much for the price. However I have no religion in terms of gears. As long as you are comfortable with your Canon and others are satisfied with Sony or Pana, I totally respect that and will not do any proselytism.
That being said, I'm kind of confused by your Spanish video here. Looks like a video I could have made in 2 days back in the days when I started with my T3i. I mean the contrast, expo, colors, cuts and all that. I'm not attacking your skills, I'm assuming you make a living out of it and you surely have way more experience and knowledge than me but showing this type of video to illustrate a high end DSLR review is surprising. Perhaps this is what people are trying to say here.
 
 

I'm not sure that wether or not someone commercialises their work is particularly relevant, if that's what you meant. I have seen low quality output from people who charge for what they do, high quality output from people who do not, and a lot of stuff in between. So I'm not sure that commercialising your work is a necessary pre-condition for being able to express an opinion. Nor is it necessarily a good indicator of quality. Hence, not particularly relevant.

We could send a petition to trump to ban all camera companies who don't put atleast 4K10bit prores and compressed raw in their video capable cameras, after all these japs steal your money by holding back on functions and selling new cameras with minimal upgrades over and over again.

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

I agree with @dahlfors.
The d750 was my first Nikon and I do have Issues with the usability still after 6 Month that upset my workflow pretty much every time. Also I find it rather clanky... flip out flash and mode dial are looking/feeling quite fragile to me. Been on crop before, I would/should have waited for the d500 as it is a different league quality wise. Saying that, now that I have tasted the full frame, it feels quite nice to have a bigger sensor/lenses going with it, and I would probably not go back to a crop...
...unless it is stuffed with "proper" video features...120fps, peaking, some kind of AF support etc....don't care for 4k atm, my phone has got more processing power than my computer.