BTM_Pix

Here they are dealing with someone who's asked for a mirrorless D5

I was leafing through this in a bookshop last week and found it pretty interesting. I held off buying it because there is a new edition due at the beginning of next month so I'll be picking it up then. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Filmmakers-Eye-Learning-Cinematic-Composition/dp/0240812174/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492802217&sr=1-1&keywords=the+filmmakers+eye

I'm tempted to register there just to reply to him that the only way we'll definitively know if Canon are ripping us off is if we have to pay by Western Union and Canon tell us their mother is posting the 5DMKIVs back.

I'll give you fair warning that this thread will probably not be most, if anyone's, cup of tea ! And will probably be of zero interest if you are working on narrative projects where you have more time and control and have a broader artistic vision. But it might be worth a look if you are a hack like me and considering doing some vlogging or other quick projects. OK, so, I've got some projects coming up over the next few months (that quite large bicycle race they have every year around France being one of them) where I'm going to be doing a lot more video stuff and the nature of most of it means it needs quick turnaround. I've been doing a lot of testing recently in preparation for this regarding cameras and ancillary packages and workflow etc and one of the things I'm butting up against is trying to find a balance between an image that I'm happy with and getting it out quick enough where it won't have be re-packaged as an historical documentary. Obviously, I need to sort out where the bottlenecks lie and I've been doing some testing today to nail some actual comparison figures down that will hopefully force me to make a definitive decision as its so easy to get bogged down and have paralysis by analysis. The requirement I have is to be able to bring footage in that may not have been shot in ideal circumstances - whether that be to do with location, preparation time and/or just plain incompetence - and make it look decent within time and my own correctional ability constraints and have it be consistent enough to be repeatable to be able to do day in day out whilst traveling and without overtaking my primary gig at these events which is shooting stills. The other requirement is that I'll be shooting this stuff on small stuff like GX85/G7/Mavic/Osmo and X-T2 so there won't be a lot of RAW going on here or even LOG to be honest so this is where it starts to get me bogged down as on the one hand there isn't massive latitude on the way in and then often way too much potential on the way out to go down a rabbit hole time wise trying to polish them a bit. Added to that is that I'm not going to have a massive amount of computer horsepower on the road so whatever I do is going to have to be done with FCPX so, again, I'm trying to minimise the potential for endless fiddling about for that reason as well. Which also brings me to the other issue which is that having everything in H264 coming off these cameras is adding to that pain as well. My options then are : 1) Use a flat profile in the camera that requires a corrective LUT from the get go 2) Use a standard picture profile in the camera 3) Use either option 1 or 2 but record them externally in ProRes Option 1 gives me the most scope for correction but also for time loss, option 2 gives me the best route for speed and consistency (by forcing me to 'learn' the profile and not be reliant on fixing it in the mix) and option 3 makes whatever one I choose a lot easier to shuffle around inside of FCPX. The downside of using the external ProRes recording option is that its bulky, power consuming and eats up hard drive space. The compromise option to keep the ease of use within FCPX is to transcode the camera files to ProRes before they get there and in the case of option 1 add the corrective LUT at the same time. What I needed to do though was see exactly what the comparative times were like using the different options so I can find the sweet spot. Or the least worst option as the case may be. So I shot a 10 second clip on the G7 both in a Flat profile and a standard one (Cinelike D to be exact) internally to the card and then with the same profiles out again to the Atomos Disco Inferno * All files were then copied to a regular USB3 external work drive. I took the Flat and Cinelike D H264 files through a few typical journeys through FCPX, which were 1) Straight through (with the corrective LUT applied in the case of the Flat profile) 2) With a basic exposure and colour balance applied 3) As 2 but with an additional Sharpen and addition of a 'style' LUT applied 4) As 2 but with an additional Sharpen and FilmConvert process applied I then did exactly the same passes after converting the in camera H264 files into ProRes using EditReady (with the correctional LUT for the Flat file added in the transcode) and then the same again with the externally recorded ProRes versions. For a bit of sport, I then went for the absolute fastest path possible which was to plug in the SSD from the Atomos and edit the ProRes files straight off that. If you are still awake, you can see the results in the spreadsheet I've attached. The results are not in the least bit surprising as - spoiler alert - ProRes files with minimum fiddling absolutely cane H264 files that need massaging but its informative to me at least to see the extent of it quantified within how I would use it. What's interesting is that the H264 files do OK at the beginning but this is largely because the copying and/or transcoding time of the ProRes files goes against them before they've even got into FCPX but once the heavier lifting comes in they are soon overtaken by the ProRes versions. And the cumulative effect of the multiple corrections needed to be applied to the Flat version also add up dramatically, especially when FilmConvert comes into the equation of course. And then finally when creating what would largely be my target output format of 1080p rather than the 4k timeline, it ends up being even worse. Its worth bearing in mind that this is only a 10 second clip so its not difficult to imagine how alarming that 60 times real time render would feel like on something a bit more substantial. Yes, of course, it should be expected that it will take a while with FilmConvert on it but its sobering to see thats already 6 times real time without anything but the required correctional LUT on it. In comparison, the Cinelike D H264 version is half the time and only begins to be drawn back to it when FilmConvert is applied. And the conclusion? Well the gold standard in this test in terms of getting the fastest throughput is the externally recorded Cinelike D ProRes read straight from its own SSD so thats no surprise and would be the way to go for me in terms of shifting stuff if I master the profile and retain control of the shooting situation (or the serenity to accept that I can't) and don't mind lugging around something that is significantly bigger, more power hungry and unwieldy than the cameras its attached to. The other non surprise is that the Flat profile whether in H264 or transcoded to ProRes is the worst performer. Bearing in mind that this test just measures file transfer/rendering time then the additional time in finessing the Flat profile (which would be substantial in my case) makes this an order of magnitude worse. Which leaves us with trying to find the sweet spot which in this case would be split between Cinelike D in H264 if it was only going to be lightly touched or a transcoded version if it needed more work. There is a balance to be found between the two because whilst there is a time and disk space penalty to the transcoding, it does pay off even if you don't go to heavier correction because FCPX plays much nicer with ProRes files full stop. My conclusion for these summer projects then is to stick with an in camera profile, work within its parameters instead of changing them or ignoring them and take the transcoding time hit at the beginning of editing. And buy more hard drives, obviously. * Yes I know its Ninja Inferno but its just stuck in my head as Disco Inferno now and I'm ceasing resistance.

Should be in the official Quick Start guide that.

I can just picture him sat there reading the sales info for that adapter. "Allows you to connect any B4 lens to your micro 4/3rds camera"

Steady on. It will be dull test footage all the way. I'm even thinking of buying a cat specifically for this purpose. Currently browsing for a PL adapter and might even go mad and pick up an old B4 lens as I'm determined that the much vaunted flexibility of this camera that I've got myself so keen on is going to be taken to the limit by attaching any tubular object that has glass at either end of it! This guy sets the bar pretty high though when it comes to mounting B4 lenses on MFT mount cameras.

Spec wise undoubtedly not but until they bring out the lenses and the rest of the package then I'd still say that for the job we use it for then we still have the better tool for that job. To paraphrase Muhammad Ali....The sensor can't capture what the lens can't see. Float like an optically stabilised 400mm f2.8 and shoot with a D3* *Yes,yes,but D5 didn't rhyme

You'd be surprised how many I still see kicking around. They've mainly been gracefully moved off the front line to serve as remote cameras behind the goal etc but they're still a very competent camera low light wise so they still see duty with short primes on for wider perspective shots (or when players come over the ad boards over your head celebrating!) as without the grip on they're compact enough to be sat on top of your bag to be grabbed if needed. I've shot weddings and boxing on the same day a few times. Often at the same event

Unfortunately, resting on the gear is becoming more and more prevalent as its getting increasingly difficult to afford to replace it. We can take images today that we couldn't have taken 10 years ago without the technology but I'm not sure its the case to say thats the case from, say, 3 or 4 years ago. The last eyebrow raising lens that came out for sport was Canon's 200-400f4 with the switchable 1.4TC. Its an absolutely fantastic lens and for quite a number of Nikon shooters that I worked alongside who were at an upgrade point, that lens and the 1Dx which meant Canon had caught up low light wise tipped them into switching over. But that was 4 years ago now and nothing has really come along since that anyone has really gone "yep, game changer. That'll make my images better". So, as we are on this plateau and money is tight, people are going to sit tight as they've got bigger challenges than being able to get the right images with what they have. The images are the least of the problems! The opportunity is with people like me who are approaching a crossroads as there isn't enough gaffa tape left to hold their gear together and the prospect of spending £12-15K on a body and lens isn't hard to stomach both financially and emotionally! Thats why I think they've made a bit of misstep here because its not cheap enough and the rest of the system just isn't there yet. Far from forcing Nikon and Canon's hand into an instant panic response as they presumably thought would happen, they've probably bought them more time by coming in at this price and without the rest of the eco-system to go with it. Having to use adapters even to use their own brand of lens and relying on other manufacturers to produce adapters that will let you possibly use Canon lenses more slowly and maybe without being able to use TCs ? Its not even bringing a gun to a knife fight to be honest. It just reminds me of Neville Chamberlain on the steps of that plane waving that piece of paper that guaranteed peace in our time. Only this time, its a spec sheet. And this lukewarm reaction to it is coming from me, someone who is mad enough to be actually actively pursuing using compromised mirrorless systems for shooting sport professionally! Imagine what the cynical ones amongst my brethren think about it. But as I keep saying, though, I bet it will be a fine camera.

Well, well, well... I have just managed to buy an absolutely mint condition used LS300 for just under £2K and will take delivery of it next week. I'm mildly excited at this development.

This might be of interest Jon as he's just shot all the GH5 profiles with charts and scopes.

'Current EOS 5D Mark IV camera owners can have the Canon Log feature upgrade installed for $99 at any of the Canon service centers across the U.S. starting in July.' WTF?? Looks like Canon have noted Panasonic's "we'll send you it in the mail" approach to log upgrades and gone "Nah, fuck that....lets go utterly retro and make them actually physically bring the camera to us to have it done". Strikes me as a bit suspicious that you have to take it to them. Is this their sneaky way of getting a firmware and hardware mod on that locks Magic Lantern out of it permanently thereby ensuring no one gets a free ride from buying future Canon cameras whilst simultaneously making them $99 a time for the upgrade and saving them that darn $2.99 on postage into the bargain? Fiendish if so.

For completeness, here is a (very) short compilation extract of a couple of the shots as they were recorded to the Ninja Assassin using the ProNegStd -2/-2 profile in 4K ProRes 422LT https://mega.nz/#!dj5AWagD!_TgG79KA4Z21eJHTMoUPj3cYBQ2HNb60oLRE6m79dxU

The ProRes advantage for me isn't necessarily quality based (I suspect that it will be small) but to just be able to connect the SSD and get on editing without transcoding. Thats another advantage in terms of throughput to using the ProNegStd -2/-2 if I'm not having to add the same number of corrections. I was baulking at the price in comparison to the BM Video Assist 4K as its not far off double when you hustle for a deal on the BM but the 4K60p was a differentiator (I'm not just using it for the X-T2 and you never know with Fuji they may add that with firmware!) as was the much more comprehensive metering and the brighter screen. If I was just using it for the X-T2 then, yes, I would much prefer a 5 inch screen but the PIX-E5 is almost 50% more again and doesn't have the 4K60p capability. If I get a chance I'll do an internal/external comparison with ProNegStd -2/-2 at some point.

Yes, it will be. As I said earlier, it was exposed to 100 deliberately to see what could be done with that in mind. Did you use the Fuji LUT in combination with any of your corrections ? I found that using that and reducing the saturation in the highlights was slightly more effective but it is an awful lot of work - for me at least - to get back to where you could have started already by just using the in built profiles. For what I'm going to be doing with it where I'll need quick turnaround (and because I always end up down a rabbit hole with colouring) having ProNegStd (-2,-2) ready to go in ProRes is the more useful function.

If I was them and trying to build a flagship that was trying to knock the other two out of the water, I'd have turned up with all guns blazing. As it stands, even if they want to appeal to hybrid shooters by emphasising their video chops, by leaving out 4K60p they're already been outgunned by one of them. Strange decision.

Sorry, they (Sony) are so far off my radar that I actually didn't realise that their two long primes aren't native mount for this camera. Is there not a known AF speed hit using that adapter and will it still do AF-C? With regard to the Canon shooters, my view would be that the more general photojournalists are the more likely to transition while still using their Canon glass. Sports shooters would need an awful lot of convincing regarding using adapters, particularly when adding TC's in between them as well. The amount of tolerance for any reduction in AF speed would literally be zero. I think for those - and many other reasons such as interoperability and accessories such as speedlites and remote triggers etc) if they do go it will have to be lock, stock and barrel as an entire system. Which is why I still think my money is on the two current dominant brands to win the mirrorless war when they eventually pull their finger out and make one. But if I was a Canon shooter, rather than a Nikon one, doing what I'm doing now which is trying to buck the trend and go mirrorless in sport then I'd be very interested in trying it out to use with my existing glass but it would have to be about half the price to warrant the risk!

Had to laugh when I saw the LCD when he was shooting from 6:40 ish He does love a bit of face detect auto focus Max, doesn't he

I absolutely agree. I exposed it as that purely to get it up that high so people wouldn't say "but..but...you didn't use the whole range" But also as a test to check that if I was going to go that high that the meters on the Ninja Inferno had a basis in reality when the footage was brought into FCPX. Incidentally, I wish it had a different name as I have to type 'Ninja Inferno' very slowly and deliberately as it just morphs into Disco Inferno in my head! As for the original post, yes, its FLOG then ProNegStd (-2,-2) so people could compare FLOG against a vanilla OOC look. And to see if they could then make it look better obviously. Spoiler alert, I could make it look the same and different but not sure if 'better' would describe it necessarily.

I'm reading a lot about this being a pro sports camera so just my thoughts as a working pro sports photographer... In terms of speed, this thing obviously ticks a lot of boxes. But its not just speed we need in terms of fps, af and evf refresh etc but its speed of the glass and the throughput of images. Like any other manufacturer trying to usurp Nikon and Canon, the response to this in my particular field (no pun intended) - and it may will be different for non-sports dedicated photojournalist - is "Yep, thats very nice but where is your 400mm f2.8 ?" and "How fast can I review, select and get an image out of it?" For the lens issue, honestly if they turn up trying to turn anyone's head with that 100-400 they launched today and offering it as the answer they'll literally get laughed at. I've shot with an f5.6 lens of course but its the very specialised constant aperture 300-800mm "Sigmonster" that only sees the light of day (quite literally) for very particular circumstances like Cricket or motor racing when there are range issues. For low light football, even in Category A stadiums holding major finals, its a major risk unless you are absolutely sure that you can guarantee the light. For slow shutter speed stuff like profile shots its fair enough but not when you need to push the shutter speed for action shots. Even with bodies that do a gazillion ISO the end result can look rough. But its not just the light gathering thats the issue, its the subject isolation that a 2.8 gives you that you just can't replicate with a 5.6 So I'm baffled why they haven't brought out a 400mm 2.8 at the same time. The image throughput is another issue and it remains to be seen how intuitive their image review process is but already one alarm bell is that I can't see an image lock button on the back of it. I've droned on at length about this on another thread but its a massively important function for ingesting only the relevant images out of a few hundred when you're in a hurry. And we're always in a hurry! If they haven't made that mappable to a function button then, like Fuji, its such a fundamental feature that you wonder who they've actually been doing any research with. With regard to the ethernet port. Well, yes, its a decent feature to have but if we've got an ethernet port at our pitch position (a bit of a luxury actually) then we have it connected to our laptops for two reasons. 1 - Its the laptop that is needed as a central comms point (it may be taking images from several cameras, its FTPing edited images, its receiving emails from agencies etc) and 2- We can't be tethered to the camera when shooting as its as dangerous as it is restrictive when you're working in these environments. I've attached a picture of my shooting position from a Champions League final (yes, the gap between the two larger gentlemen). When you are in such a restricted space and juggling two long lens cameras, while simultaneously editing images on a laptop that is literally perched on your lap, the last thing you can be is physically attached to it. The cameras get totally abused in these circumstance with being dropped (intentionally sometimes) so cables are a no no. And, of course, we're never shooting with just one camera so there's no way we're going to be adding a router into this equation, hence we need a wireless module. Even if they are the ludicrously expensive ones like Nikon and Canon do. The bottom line I suppose is if we can't capture what we can capture now and work the way we all work now then there is no compulsion to change, especially when there isn't a massively compelling price differential and the lenses that they do make that would be worthwhile (the 300 f2.8 and the 500 f4) are a lot more expensive than the equivalent offerings from Nikon and Canon. And thats before we get on to the fact that those lenses from the other two are battle hardened, proven pieces. Has anyone ever even seen one of those Sony long primes outside of a trade show? In their defence - and seemingly unlike Fuji - they seem to be taking a serious approach with regard to service levels that pros would need and I'm sure we'll see their presence at events with mobile workshops and equipment loans like Nikon and Canon do. This is a good sign but, again, they face an uphill battle here because even at regular events where there is no official support, you'll always be able to borrow something in an emergency off another photographer. So, if I need to use an ultra wide for an exterior stadium shot, for example, I can probably walk about 20 feet in the photographers room and cadge one for 20 minutes off another Nikon shooter. Not quite as easy when you're the only Sony shooter in the room! So, if they're to do this (at least in my field and it could be very different for non sport shooting photojournalists etc) its going to take a lot of persuasion to get people to change. Just producing the body is the tip of the iceberg. I often compare this to what happened to RED when they thought producing the original RED ONE would let them take over Hollywood. Its everything else around the capture device that needs working on too and thats why they're many generations down the line and still on the coattails of the established dominant player. There is definitely a market for a mirrorless camera to take over in my field but I still believe it will have a Nikon and/or a Canon badge on it. The market for the goods we supply as sports photographers is shrinking financially and people tend to get even more conservative and will only switch when there is a major financial incentive. I just don't think Sony tick that financial box and its where Fuji might have an advantage. The resistance to change is what they need to get over and for every sports photographer like me that wants to make a change there are probably at least a hundred that don't. This isn't a number I'm plucking out of thin air either. Next week, will be the first Premier League game that I've shot on a mirrorless system (the X-T2) and I would hazard a guess that its the first Premier League game that anyone has shot with it. Am I nervous about it if it will perform ? No, not really as I've run enough tests to know IQ wise its up to but I do have reservations about how much it will get in my way in terms of getting those images out. What I'm more nervous about is having to field all the "What the fuck is that?" reactions from the other snappers and the sneering about using a 'toy' camera. Overcoming peer pressure is going to be a bigger task for Sony than overcoming EFV blanking to be honest. I bet you its a fine camera though.

At that price, at least you'll probably lose zero money selling it when you get home so that mitigates the risk/nerves massively.

Scratch that, the new camera isn't in the ballpark for what you're after.

Looks like a very, very capable camera but..... Why were they whooping that lens? If it is for sport, they're going to have the same issues as Fuji by having a body capable of getting them into the D5 and 1dXII level IQ wise but not having the lenses to go with it. The 300 and 500 primes they have are actually way more expensive than the Nikon and Canon equivalents and without a 400 at all they've got a major gap.

Very concerning about the dust issues you've had. Did they seem surprised at the extent of it or was it just like business as usual for them to see them with that much dust? You might want to hop onto this Sony live stream announcement as something seems imminent http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/follow-the-sony-live-announcement-stream-now/