Dimitris Stasinos

Sadly the diffrence between P4 and Mavic in image quality seems big, if not huge (at least judging form these early videos). The word "huge" may sound kinda extreme here, but when you have a tiny sensor like this and you need every bit of it to produce a decent image, and then.....Dji cripples this Sony IMXsomething through software to protect Phantom 4's sales...then, yeah the difference is huge. I wanted to like it though...practical as hell..

20 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Take a second read in my stuff. They are all the same shit, more or less. As said before, they can be synonymous of fun, personal use, even some inserts (de)pending on certain circumstances and tricks. No more than that.

A purchase can't necessarily mean a professional tool, as for instance. As same as a toy can be used in a gig if works. Mission accomplished. What's wrong on it? Just don't expect you'll become a race pilot only because you're able to drive fast in the highway with your brand new car. The F1 from 80s, 90s or whatever year you want will always belong to a different league. No matter what techie pins they will try to sell the fanciest new toy you/we all want to buy and play with.

Nothing wrong with your 35 mm golden standard :). I agree with every sentence you wrote on your last post, there is indeed a thin line between tools and toys which can be surpassed with tricks. But this line gets thinner & thinner every year...I am seeing professionals that own very expensive aerial platforms, building their portfolio from staff that they have shot on their free time using these little guys...Yeah they are made for fun but this is what also feeds professionalism...pure fun...I used a Dji S900 with a GH4 last month. No fun...Acceptable dynamic range, great resolution, nice colors...but no fun...It's not funny (nor proffesional) when you use a 7000 usd machine that might perform an impressing flip of death on a poor man's head because dji messed up it's late update. Look at what Phillip Bloom made with a GoPro3+ and a poor Phantom (try to download the original file):

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

LOL Definitely, quote of this thread!

My vote is on Mavic. Purchase, as well :-)

GoPro is the most horrid camera even before the Lumière brothers did their presentation!

No Protune saves the grace or its absence in pallid colors all the same from one side of spectrum to the other extreme. No idea why people dare to shoot on it other than personal stuff and a few shots as inserts when the magical hour cheats all of us...

The most horrid camera in comparison with what? Dji Mavic?....or Canon 1dc? Lets say you had mavic on your mind...where did you see its grace? Those early videos have been processed and graded in post from pros to look as good as it gets...and they still seem jittery & soft....Not trying to bash you here, just trying to undestand your statement. I am not a fan of GoPro either but you are saying that you will purchase mavic because "No Protune saves the grace or its absence" on GoPro. Cmon... in terms of "real" quality they are both S**T next to a mirrorless camera but this is not what we are discussing here, we are trying to find their pros & cons for casual semi-pro use...right?

34 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Cameras, drones, it's always the same thing... they have the oppertunity to make it the ultimate thing out there... but they all just focus on one aspect instead of doing it all. I guess that's what running a business is about... not neccessarily beating the competition, but doing something different and leaving room for improvement so you can sell another one at a later time. Ugh. Need more people like Elon Musk that try to push the boundaries of what is possible with technology.

This is very true...All i see is the same Sony sensor (with some minor differences) in a great variety of products like Phantom 4, GoPro, Mavic and even smartphones..but nobody has unlocked it's full potential. Dji has shitty compression (and dlog is a total joke), gopro has that ugly ultra-wide lens and smartphones are just smartphones...Sony's latest action cam gives us 100 mbps but there is not a f***ing drone made for it.

Anyway, it seems that karma has a better construction quality (mavic looks like transformers toy with cheap plastics) and better IQ, from what we have seen so far. But in linear mode you are stuck to 2.7K. I am hoping for a direct comparison between these too, a proper one because all these A versus B videos are usually made by amateurs and focus on silly things. 

45 minutes ago, squig said:

1Dc MJPEG files are about the same size as 5D Mk3 raw 2.39:1 1080p files (62MB/s); even at full 1080p it's only around a 30% increase in disk space to shoot raw.

If i remember correctly the bitrate for raw 1080p is 83 MB/s not 62. The 1dc 4K files are about 30% smaller as you stated but i guess the quality (just guessing here since i do not have the 1dc) after downscaling to 1080p will be equal if not superior. Maybe Andrew can enlight us. Also, i had i card failure with the ML hack (Lexar 1000x fried) and i have never used it after that so this is why i don't recommend it (only as a free time luxury as i said before).

As a 5d iii user and big fan of 5d ML raw, i always wondered how raw on 5d is considered as a "real" option for this camera and not a luxury (time consuming, unriable, extreme cost per Gb of footage etc). It seems that you need these cameras for real jobs so i would stay away from a camera which has two modes: A) crappy & softy low cost HD (personal opinion as an owner...don't shoot me...), B) spectacular & CC friendly raw with a serious price tag. For me, a tool has to give a constant result every time i use it, because you never know what kind of challenge you will face in the near future. Lets say you have a 2-cam/100 min event coverage next week....hmmmm....mode A...damn, what if you desperately need mode B? You have seen it, you liked it but you can't have it this time because it's not a video clip.

Also, you may have become used to the workflow but you will never look back once you have used a proper codec from a serious video camera.

Also  If you keep your 5d and purchase an A7s ii you will have to face a painful workflow on the one hand and a CC odyssey on the other to match these cameras in post. So, i would pay the difference for a 1dc...

I am wondering a couple of months now, wouldn't this be a perfect camera for aerial shots? Have anyone here thought this scenario? Its light, compact, descent at night shots and provides extra stabilization. The missing piece in the puzzle is only a proper gimbal. Any ideas?

9 hours ago, jase said:

this ia due to the tiffen ultra contrast filter. Together with filmconvert this combo really sings, because filmconvert lowers the shadows in such a way that you only need to adjust the highlights and some subtle skintone correction.

Dude!!! Thanks so much for this. I didn't know such a product exists...Except from the shadow lifting which seems wonderful have you noticed any downsides to this filter? Also, which one is yours?

9 hours ago, BenEricson said:

I get what you're saying. The FS700 is really nice to use because of the slow motion, internal ND, XLR, and the 4k. The sony FS7 seems to nail color a lot better and there's some magic cameras like the Sony F3 that just have beautiful color. I use the c300ii at work, the 5D raw for personal stuff, and I just recently picked up a micro cinema camera as well. The only camera I struggle with color wise is the FS700. It doesn't matter how flat the image or how many bits I am supposedly getting...

 

Thanks for the footage! I am downloading it right now to see what you are facing. I guess the problem lies on the skintones because the overall scene (1rst frame) seems nicely saturated.

13 hours ago, BenEricson said:

 

5D3 blows it away. It's nearly impossible to get a saturated commercial look out of the FS700. You can get a nice grade, or something interesting, but you won't get that canon look. 

The F3 actually produces really really nice, cinematic looking color. The FS700 can't even come close to the F3...

I have to disagree with this. Not with the fact that you don't like the look, this is clearly a matter of taste and many people don't like sony's colors. But with the "blows it away" thing. i would agree if were talking about it's internal codec where the image (especially when shooting slog) brakes apart when you try to bring it on par with Canon. But with a Shogun or an Odyssey device there is no look that can't achieve with this camera. I can ensure you that i had a really hard time to make the opposite: to match the 5d iii with Sony and bring up those silky ugly skintones which everyone hates (i totally understand this) but i kinda like them...I guess a more talented colorist can do this though...

Have someone compared GX80 with G7? Does actually the lack of a low pass filter make a difference in video?

Taranis, i have them both. I have spent a lot of time grading 5d iii raw footage for fun in Resovle. After pairing my FS700 with a shogun and tried to grade 4k ProRes files (with a rec709 lut baked in from shogun) i almost felt like home, without the painful workflow of course. I didn't make a direct comparison, but from what i have seen they are very close, except from noise. 2000 base iso in Slog for fs700 forces you to crush the shadows, sometimes more than you would prefer to. But i can live with this. The 4k ProRes meets my expectations for every kind of work.

Can you guys suggest me a european store to buy the GX80? Ι was considering DigitPhoto as someone here mentioned it but its in French and can't order in complete darkness neither using Google translate