webrunner5

You know I just noticed the New DJI x5s m4/3 Drone Camera just happens to have the same sensor! Interesting. It looks like Olympus, Panasonic, DJI, and hell maybe even Black Magic may all be in this on developemnt cost and sensor design??

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/11/15/djis-inspire-2-and-zenmuse-x5s-camera-auto-avoiding-5-2k-raw-aerial-video/

This is the specs for the Olympus EMI mkII sensor. I would imagine it will be the same for the Panny GH5. At the bottom of page is the sensor specs.

http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/olympus_om-d-e-m1-mark-ii/

So I guess it will be

Sensor resolution:5208 x 3916

Max. image resolution:5184 x 3888

Guess that works out to be 20.8mp sensor with 20.4mp output, or 6k there abouts.

Also on the video tripods with multiple legs, not the photo single ones,  Never get one with a center section that raises.  And the ones with a bowl are the hot setup. I like the 3 section better than the 2 section for 2 reasons better. 1 The top section ends up being supported better by the next section down because it is not usually extended all the way, and 2 they tend to be able to go higher, not often you need that but when you do it beats having to carry two tripods around. They tend to weigh a bit more which is a good thing also. And don't be shy about hanging something from the center of them also. You can't have too much weight on a video tripod for stabilization. But tripods are personal thing, and you tend to use what you can afford, maybe not what is the best.

8 hours ago, Vesku said:

So the GH5 has at least 6000 x 3375 pix sensor = 20.25 Mpixel

Well seeing how the Olympus EM1 mkII sensor is 20.40 Megapixels makes me believe that they are the same. I don't think it will be multi aspect. But math never was my super strong suit.

4 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Might be worth while looking at some used Miller Solo sticks and a 75mm half bowl to mount the slider on. 10 lbs weight at one end of a slider might be a challenge for one tripod.

Good thing about the Solo sticks is they can get down nice and low. 

Good advice.

Good point. Not many tripods can go that low unless you buy a Hat. I wish I had one that can do that at times. But as old as I am probably would need a crane to get back up!

4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

The iFootage Wild Bull comes with an adjustable 75mm bowl. Of course, you can always hang some weight from the center of the tripod if you want some extra heft.

No I mean the Benro S8 head. Can you balance the GH4 and the lens shown without adding some weight somewhere to the head? Does the counterbalance go to 0 for light loads and really work?

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

The Benro just arrived. I think it is a perfect fit with my iFootage Wild Bull tripod. My biggest gripe is with the knob (not seen in this photo) that tightens the QR plate in place - the camera body interferes with it, meaning I must use the camera in a forward position rather than centered over the tripod.

 

So are you able to balance it without adding some extra weight??

Cheap sliders slide on tubes, better ones use a belt of some kind. And the even better ones have a heavy flywheel. But it depends on the weight of the camera you are using. You don't need a heavy duty one for a Go Pro. And you can't use a cheap one with a heavy camera. Pure Physics.

22 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Great and promising info, thanks Luke! (E :-)

I don't like hearing "the many words in gray" thingy! 6k thing not surprising.

5 minutes ago, scotchtape said:

What are you guys using to attach the slider to the tripod? Ball head? Fluid head? Bowl adapter ?  Thanks

Oh my God forget a Ball Head unless it is the size of a Softball.  Bowl Adapter works but you usually have it attached to a Fluid Head. I have several Bowl Adapters that I can use, They are rather cheap to buy.

I would rather spend my money on this one instead of that one you show.  https://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-546GB-Pro-Video-Tripod/dp/B004OV8832/ref=sr_1_12?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1481606056&sr=1-12&keywords=video+tripod

And don't buy it from that just Launched guy, probably a scam. Amazon is full of them Bastards!

I have had very few Video tripods that work with single legs like most photo tripods are made. And you need the spreader on the bottom, not mid way. When they, looks like 3 leg ones, are in their lowest position they are VERY stable. It is easy to spend your money but there is no real cheap way out on tripods unless you go on ebay and buy a beat up, used high dollar one for cheap, because you really can't wear out a really good tripod.

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Hey,

I visited Japan for a week, and tested out the 5D III and to see what it can do with Magic Lantern. 

 

That is just wonderful. Well done. Just shows what a hacked, cheaper camera can do with some really good skill. Made my day.

Well the problem with the Sony FS5 is it's weak Codec that is for sure, and not so hot low light ability. Like has been stated on here, no camera made yet is perfect. At least not under $10,000.00. And it appears to be the case over it!  For 1080P I don't think you can beat the Sony F3. But it is an older camera, like the Red MX.

The MX is surprisingly still future proof to this day. If as you say you don't do much Run and Gun well I think it still might be your best bet. It has a pretty great past history of really good films made with them. Weight and startup delays are the worse features. I don't mind the weight actually. Not when it adds to durability. I don't see how you can go wrong with it if you can get a full working kit for say $4,500.00 or less.  It probably has the best image quality other than the Canon C500 but it takes a lot of work to get it the way you want it over the Canon. Canon Color Science is hard to beat.

There is really not too many 4k older, cheaper cameras other than the Sony FS700. So I guess your choice is the MX, Canon C500, or the Sony FS700, or Blackmagic Ursa if you want 10bit, 4k.

This is a pretty nice list of camera specs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sensor_interchangeable-lens_video_cameras

I would imagine it is a lot harder these days with everyone with something, even a Smartphone that can record Video. When I was younger it was rare for anyone to have anything even close to professional equipment. But I got into it when Pro Digital cameras were coming out. Ikegami was about the first, then Sony, then Thompson was hot rodding Sony cameras also. Panasonic, JVC was doing the lower end stuff like VHS, SVHS, later on. Prosumer things. I never could afford a integrated ENG rig for years. Had separate recorder setups. Old wooden tripods with fluid heads that would have supported a 70mm Mitchell Studio film camera that weighed 50 pounds LoL . Oh it was fun! Lots of people had a cheap 8mm film camera. Other than some Bolex movie stuff, wind up at that, which few could afford, they pretty much sucked. So getting jobs were easier but man the money it cost to move up. 16mm you could not afford the film let alone process it. Anything used was beaten to hell and back, till the end of it's life back then.

So you had to work in the business, or know someone that did, or be rich as heck, and not many people were rich then. Plus camera setups on Digital cameras were a voodoo science back in the days. It was a turd to do well. So if you were skilled wow you were in in a heartbeat. Didn't make much money but was fun just the same. Now editing you Had to work or be in the business, stuff was scary expensive. Later some of the smaller TV stations would let you rent out usage of the machines at the studio for a somewhat reasonable price to help offset their investments which were pretty unbelievably high.

One good thing back then the technology did not change very rapidly so you could somewhat learn it before it was outdated like now! But most people seemed nicer back then. The whole world was nicer, politer back then.

But now you can't wait to get out of bed to see what new technology has bought today. Exciting times to be able to shoot stuff nearlly as good a NBC, CBS, ESPN in the palm of your hand. So don't be too grumpy about your craft, we are a lucky few even now. It is just the beginning for you younger people.

3 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

I'm really liking the look of the FS5 from both it's specs/accessibility, and of course, footage too .. No internal 4K 10-bit though .. Quite possibly a deal-breaker, given I want to stick to my SmallHD 501 as the external monitor ..

How's it compare to the MX in terms of dynamic range, low-light, motion etc.?

I see Adorama has a used Sony FS7 for $6,799.00. They do 4k 10bit internal. Pretty much same DR and Rolling Shutter as FS5, but do not have the Variable ND thingy. The new FS7 mkII does have it. And are damn good in low light. I am trying to spend your money LoL. 

5 minutes ago, mat33 said:

I think most of these cameras are capable of achieving your clean digital or a more vintage look with selection of the right glass, filters, lighting and grading to suit a specific project. I would look at each of your options for motion cadence, highlight roll-off, skin tones, DR sweetspot and see what works best for your type of projects. 

  

What camera is that shot on??

Well with firmware 1.1 it can record 4k both internally and export it also at the same time. But you can't monitor both at the same time, have to pick one or the other to look at on a external monitor.  I am not sure if the internal is 10 bit, I think 8bit?? It can do 4k Raw with the sony Raw recorder. It has 14 stops of DR, so that is pretty good. Rolling shutter is 3.8 so that is not bad. FS5 has the same sensor as the FS7. Firmware 1.1 fixed blocking issues. It is small enough stripped down to use on drones also which is nice. I think the Varaible ND filter is nearly worth it just for that feature. You can keep the same DoF no matter what the lighting.

They have 2.0 firmware out now that the ND filter density can now be adjusted automatically.  Which means automatic iris, that is huge, because it has the variable ND Filter which is magic on it's own. Shooting and recording in RAW mode are now supported. (“CBKZ-FS5RIF”, sold separately, is required)The zebra function has been enhanced, allowing you to select two types of setting. Also, the level settings can now be adjusted in 1% increments. You can now select the audio that is output in the headphones.You can now acquire and record position information when shooting using the GPS function.

I don't really see how you can beat this camera for the money. It really is a bably FS7 now without some of it's better Codecs. Well low light I guess is not it's strongest point. Not sure now with newer firmware updates. The Red MX is pretty terrible in low light. Well hell of all the videos to drag on here LoL. Have to have Vimeo Pro account like I have to see. Bahh!

Well it seems you can buy a new one cheaper than used after a Quick search. B&H have them for $5749.00 US new. I have seen them used in the high 4,000.00 US Dollar range with a few accessories like extra batteries, top cheese plate etc.. They are a pretty great camera. 4k internal etc. And they are amazingly small stripped down. Fit in the palm of your hand, but are a powerhouse in reality.

A Sony FS5, FS7 right now I think are the best thing going for the money. Canon C300 mkII is nice but close to 9 grand. Both out of my range. FS7 out of yours. I don't know what to tell you. There is the Black Magic Mini Ursa 4.6k in that range also. Not a real workhorse yet, but a few firmware updates and I think it might be hard to beat for the money. Poor mans Red for sure.

The new Canon C100 mkII is very hard to beat, but it has 8 bit only which you don't like. But color science wise, focus wise, small size wise I think it is hard to resist. And it is fairly cheap. If the Canon C500 had DP auto focus oh my God. But they have NO autofocus at all.   

I don't know if you Really don't Need 4k, but if not I would go with the Sony F3 and buy some damn good cine lenses for it. You can always use the lenses on another camera down the road. They are more future proof than any camera and add more to the look of a film than most people believe. They are expensive for a reason. F3's aren't called a mini Arri for no reason. Even the ones with the RGB 444 can be bought for 2,000 bucks on ebay US dollar. I have seen them for 1,400 lately at times. Crazy cheap for a camera that was $16,000.00 4 to 5 years ago new. Now not as bad of drop in price as you can buy a Sony F65 now a days. They were a 1/4 million dollars new. 10 grand can buy one now.

15 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yup, for the money, the G7 cannot be beat. Well, I actually like the image from my D5500 moreso than from the G7, but that's irrelevant to this discussion, the point is that when using this level of equipment you're never going to get the best of everything. The $400-$1000 camera market is a confusing beast. I've been searching for the best camera, for me, in that price range, and everything is a compromise. I've settled on the idea that I want a couple cameras for different jobs, because none of them will do everything you need or want. But in the end, story is king as they say. 

There is a guy over on dvxuser selling a Sony FS100 for 700 bucks OBO. Now that is a buy for a camera that you can make a good movie with!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?351098-Sony-FS100-with-Canon-EF-FE-Adapter-700-OBO

I would think it would be a bit of overkill. Might be hard to get it to balance. For my G7 I use a https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000JLO6RS/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 I even hang my 19x Fujinon B4 lens on it and it works good. Probably not a super pro head, but it gets the job done, balances well and is light to carry. And the price is right! There does seem to be a shortage of medium sized fluid heads for sure. GL.

55 minutes ago, mercer said:

Sometimes, when you shoot wide and you want to nail exposure on your subject, you decide to let the sky, or something else, run a little hot.

Yeah the G7 is not a DR king for sure. And low light is pretty poor also. You are not getting an Arri for 400 bucks LoL. But for the average audience they probably will never notice the difference truth be known.

Porn films come to mind now on Digital or 60 years ago on 8mm. Nobody was looking at the films from an artistic viewpoint, they were looking at the content LoL! Good material wins over great film making any day. Now if you have both that is called a smash hit Oscar winning movie. Hard to do that.

You must not get very much sleep at night LoL. I like it, did not really know where it was going, which is a good thing.

I have to agree. Unless you are shooting 4k nearly any camera made in the last 4 to 5 years can make a great movie if you are skilled I don't care what the price. And if you want 4k cheap buy a Panasonic G7. Its what's between your ears, not in front of them, that make good film making.

One more link to talk you into the C500 LoL. http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-canon-c500-vs-film-camera-test/

14 hours ago, gatopardo said:

JVC LS300

JVC LS300 is 8bit output also.  Wouldn't a used Sony FS5 with the latest firmware tick all the boxes also?  You can strip it down and use it on a Gimbal, use it shoulder mounted, a lot more versatility. And with FilmConvert you can make it look like any camera you want.

Also the Red MX or Sony F3. Red is far from a run and gun camera for sure. Not that the F3 is a lot better. It is just the Sony F3 is so damn cheap for what you get. Unless you buy a Whole Red MX kit form someone I think I would pass. Bits and pieces for them are crazy expensive to add on.

But the 4k on the Red is sort of future proofing itself more so than the F3. If had 6k I guess I would have to go with the Red MX or Sony FS5.

I am not too big fan of the Sony FS700,  Now if you need Slo Mo it IS the camera to buy. But it does tick all the boxes you want. Probably the best one trick pony available for the price. Not much it can't shoot. I have seen the 4k model for 4k lately. That is a bargain for what they can do.

And to add a Canon EOS C500 4K Cinema Camera. They pop up at 5k once in awhile. B&H has them for 7k new. Older science but wow what a great look.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-red-epic-vs-canon-c500/

Wow no easy choices.