josdr

I am in the same boat.  I need to see how 2021 develops before investing in a new camera.  By the time I know if I can expect a good year in 2021, the C200 Mark ii will either be out or at least announced and I can decide between  it or the C70.  
The smaller form factor of the C70 is nice, but the lack of RAW and EVF are annoying omissions for me.  Plus I'm not a fan of being tied to SD cards only for recording internally.  I've preferred CFast card recording on my Pocket.  As much as I've valued the mirrorless form for my cameras, I prefer the C200 body if I'm honest over the C70.

I think this movie is a great example of how Hollywood just seems to be out of touch with everyone. They aren't in touch with the woke folks, not with the right side or centralists. But what can you really expect from people who pretty much live outside of the realms of the normal people they attempt to cater to.

Its humorous how DC goes from something like the Joker to this. 

I’m just here for the bronzed MILF’s.

You wrote  a lot of words but are unable or unwilling to a address my main critique of your  Orwellian statements. That the author of the article should seek mental health help and whoever does not agree with you (shock and horror indeed) should immediately be castigated according to your fellow film critics down the pub.
I think your intended audience is the skewed distorted catoptron of reddit , rather than this forum, but as yourself I am a guest here so do continue preaching as as how the bronzed MILFs hypocrisy of another silly Hollywood movie is the latest Magnus opus of how should we think. I may disagree with you but I would strongly support you actually having the ability of being able to express your views , even if they are part of a skewed social conditioning by the mass media system you have been subjected to.
Woe to us if we err from the prescribed truth you and the MILFs prescribe for us. How dare the author post articles you disagree with "publicly" on the internet tubes. What next, clubbing seal pups and not being vegan? A culture that has been conditioned to be "insulted" with whatever it does not agree with its "leadership" is of course a mark of an emerging authoritarian regime. 
Lots of the "people around here" do not seem to conform to your ideas. Are we all to be liquidated mentally for not calling MILFs doing cgi stunts an anathema to good cinema? 

Def gonna skip this one then, as I found the previous one already unwatchable junk. 

Thanks, I guess I wasn't waiting long enough, I tend to hit Enter the second I post a link.
 
Here are two recent videos shot with the S5. The images in the videos are taken with a Canon 5DIV. All natural light only for the video portions.  The audio is using the XLR module via the lav mic. I have found that the XLR adapter seems to be a bit more problematic with the S5 than it was with the GH5 especially getting it to work with the Sennheiser wireless kit. I once had to restart the camera to get the audio to start working after turning on the Sennheisers and I had to disable ALC in the camera because it kept shutting off the XLR input even though the audio was not peaking.
As far as film look vs looking too digital, I don't really focus on things like that, I feel like on a cell phone which is where most of my videos get watched, the audience just couldn't care less so I can't let myself try to achieve things that my audience won't pay more for. I do miss my GH5 MFT Voigtlanders though, they had this look that was way more pleasing to me than I've been able to get out of the Canon and Sigma lenses. I just picked up some ProMist filters that I'm going to try out on my next daytime shoot; if Voigtlander made L mount or EF mount lenses I definitely would consider getting a set. Which does bring me to my last point which is I don't think it is the sensors which make the image look too "digital", I think the lenses have a lot to do with it as well and no matter how much post processing you do, if you start with a difficult sensor/lens combination it's never going to look as good as if you had a lens that got you 90% of the way there in camera.
 
 
 
 

Great clip but I will agree as well. Sorry! It has nothing to do with your handling at all.. Even at golden hour in the great outdoors, something is not quite right. I suppose it is the same for most cameras of course.
 

Thank all for the positiv feedback.
In this clip i made a try to get away from the digital look..
 
  

I can definitely imagine that these cameras are great for company work. @omega1978 wedding videos are as good as it gets in a non-controlled environment for company work . Very nice work
@PannySVHS I agree that you can take the super high resolving look in post but there is some emotive character missing vlog or not. Unfortunately I never had the pleasure to perhaps shoot an s5/s1 along with my x-t3 in the same exact setting in order to be able to describe it further. I am envious of Panasonic's approach of making their cameras more videocentric friendly in their use (most fujistas are ignorant of what their cameras can do video-wise )
Do the professional panasonic cameras have better colour science or is this as good as it gets and the rest is production value and ease of use? I almost bought a gh a couple of years ago but I still did not like the look back then. I am not bashing Panasonic at all , these are fantastic cameras I would be very happy to own.  I am just interested in what their everyday experienced users critically think away from "the mine is better than yours" mentality.
 
I suppose the feeling we are after is too fleeting and complicated to be explained in a couple of paragraphs

This is the trailer for a new wedding website. I have to reframe some shot, was made in rush 😁.
what do you think ?
All shot S1 with Canon 35 1.4, 85 1.2 on MC21 4k50p natural profil 

I think, image quality is overwhelmingly good, to a point I sometimes feel like I cheat. You can always take away the super high resolving look in post. A few clicks, done. I still have issue with oversaturated blue caused by lensflares, f.i. from my FD 50mm 1.4. I would do more testing before shooting something sufficient with a lot of backlight in combination with that or other lenses. Colourscience is awesome. I can create any look I want from it. With Vlog, it is a cinema camera through and through for the price of 1500USD.
@omega1978 The part with the couples kissing is conceptually the strongest. Rhythm is good, even for viewers like me to keep on track, even without interest in an immediate wedding.:) Good and solid work. Music is not my friend in this video.:) Future couples will like your video. Well done and thank you for showing! Grading is a bit on the saturated side, well, it looks like a wedding video:) Couples looking good, which is most important for a wedding video. They will book you, I am very sure. cheers

Yeah def agree, its part colour science but also too sharp and detailed. Using vintage lenses helps, but for narrative work I would use a proper cinema camera. But the s series is great for company videos and thats what I will use this cam for as it is a faster way of working. (Ibis, small, less weight, pretty good battery life)

While a lot of work, craft and talent has been poured in all the latest videos from the S range cameras I find the footage too "video" for my liking. It is very clean, it has nice  hues but it seems to lack soul...  Just my feeling, I am not bashing on what are clearly excellent cameras. Some of the videos in this thread are great but you cannot help feeling how better they could become due to some more emotive colour science. What is the critical opinion of the S camera owners?

Happy Newyears to you too mate😁👍

Happy new year to everybody, with health and lots of creativity and happiness. A thanks to Andrew for keeping this community alive.

I have the 25, 35 and 50mm of this Meike cine lenses. The only downside is the lack of focal length wider than 25mm for X-mount. An optic around 18mm would be really the best.
Otherwise, it's good and really good : Long focus throw / Focus ring is very smooth / No focus breathing/  10 pieces blade /Incredible optical quality / An incredible manufacturing quality (I haven't seen a single dust inside my 3 optics) / All is metal.
The 35mm is the focal length I use the most because it's the basic focal length on an APSC sensor. 
 

It seems like a lot of sensors that don't list having dual native ISO actually do. XT3 seems cleaner at 3200 than 1600, which would make sense considering it uses a similar sensor to the BMP6K.

The video is for a guitar pedal brand, and the track was recorded especially for this video. 
I need more time with the C70 and I need to see how it is with RF lenses (but they are $$€€££!!) 
Id say it’s definitely worth the price tag. It fits in everything a video camera has into a very helpful (and innovative) form factor. You just pick up and shoot, no messing around. It’s the form factor of the future, in my opinion. 
Its always nice to have RAW, however I barely use it. For its purpose, I don’t think it needs it. But is always nice to have. 
The footage is very high dynamic range, I’m not used to it being this high. It’s easy to grade and the footage looks great. The A7SIII is a little more contrasty. 
4k120 is slightly softer, whereas the A7SIII is the same in every 4k frame rate. 
The AF is good on Sigma 18-35, not great on the 50mm. Not used RF yet. It’s not as good as the A7SIII with native lenses. The A7SIII is more featured and works fully in all recording modes. 
I need more time with the C70 but my early impressions are very positive. The A7SIII is really in it’s own “space”, it’s probably the best all round video tool for the money and in my opinion, “camera of the year.” It’s almost flawless and very refined. 
The C70 wins as a conceptual innovation. It’s beautiful to hold and makes shooting very joyful. 
 
 

You have hit upon the crux of the matter, lighting. We would all like a magic sensor (me included) that would lift shadows for 6 stops and lower highlights for 8 stops but really if you are in that situation, you should either light your main point of focus (not the whole scene if you do not have the means to do it) or you are possibly going for artistic, high contrast effect .  Don't get me wrong I have had similar thoughts but at the end of the day I think that the FF argument is a bit animal-farmish (FF good, aps bad). Masterpieces have been filmed with way lesser sensors than we have. It is in the nature of the age to rush through things I suppose. Sony has the best sensors for low light ( I have had them in my Fuji's for years now) and I bet that my X-t3 at 3200 iso  is cleaner or as clean  than the C70 with its ridiculous price tag. Day By day I am getting disillusioned by the frankestein rigs surrounding a DSLR in order to shoot. the c70 is the right idea at a very wrong price 🙂

For some time I've been thinking about the texture of film.  I've also been thinking about the texture of RAW images, both 4K and also 1080p.  And I've been thinking of the texture of low-bitrate cheap digital camera images, and how much I don't like it.
Last night I watched Knives Out, which was very entertaining, but of note was that it was shot by Steve Yedlin ASC, and that it was shot in 2.8K RAW and mastered in 2K.
For those that aren't aware, Steve Yedlin is basically a genius, and his website takes on all the good topics like sensor size, colour science, resolution, and others, and does so with A/B testing, logic and actual math.  If someone disagrees with Steve, their work is cut out in convincing me that they know something Steve doesn't!
This inspired me to do some tests on processing images with the goal being to create a nice timeless texture.  Film has a nice analog but very imperfect feel with grain (both the random noise grain but also grain size of the film itself which controls resolution).  Highly-compressed images from cheap cameras have a cheap and nasty texture, often called digititis, and is to be avoided where possible.  RAW images don't feel analog, but they don't feel digital in digititis way either.  They're somewhere in-between, but in a super clean direction rather than having distortions, with film having film grain which isn't always viewed as a negative distortion, and highly-compressed digital having compression artefacts which are always viewed as a negative distortion.
Here's the first test, which is based on taking a few random still images from the net and adding various blur and grain to see what we can do to change the texture of them.  The images are 4-7K and offer varying levels of sharpness.  
The processing was a simple Gaussian Blur in Resolve, at 0.1 / 0.15 / 0.2 settings, and adding film grain to kind of match.
On the export file the 0.1 blur does basically nothing, the 0.15 blur is a little heavy handed, and the 0.2 looks like 8mm film, so very stylised!  
The video starts with each image zoomed in significantly, both so that you can see the original resolution in the file, but also so that you can get a sense of how having extra resolution (by including more of the source file in the frame) changes the aesthetic.  Interestingly, most of the images look quite analog when zoomed in a lot, which may be as much to do with the lens resolution and artefacts being exposed as it has to do with the resolution of the file itself.
My impression of the zooming test is that the images start looking very retro (at 5X all their flaws are exposed) but transition to a very clean and digital aesthetic.  The 0.15 blur seems to take that impression away, and with the film grain added it almost looks like an optical pull-out on film was shot of a printed photograph.  In a sense they start looking very analog and at some point the blur I'm applying becomes the limiting factor and so the image doesn't progress beyond a certain level of 'digitalness'.
In the sections where I faded between the processed and unprocessed image I found it interesting that the digitalness doesn't kick in until quite late in the fade, which shows the impact of blurring the image and putting it on top of the unprocessed image, which is an alternate approach to blurring the source image directly.  I think both are interesting strategies that can be used.
Now obviously I still need to do tests on footage I have shot, considering that I have footage across a range of cameras, including XC10 4K, GH5 4K, GH5 1080p, GoPro 1080p, iPhone 4K, and others.  That'll be a future test, but I've played in this space before, trying to blur away sharpening/compression artefacts.  
There are limits to what you can do to 'clean up' a compressed file, but depending on how much you are willing to degrade the IQ, much is possible.  
For example, here are the graded and ungraded versions of the film I shot for the EOSHD cheap camera challenge 18 months ago.  These were shot on the mighty Fujifilm J20 in glorious 640x480, or as I prefer to call it 0.6K....
IIRC someone even commented on the nice highlight rolloff that the video had.  All credit goes to the Fuji colour science  😂😂😂
Obviously I pulled out all the stops on that one, but it shows what is possible, and adding blur and grain was a huge part of what improved the image from what is certain to be several orders of magnitude worse than what anyone is working with these days, unless you're making a film using 90s security camera footage or something.

You are correct. The x-t3 sensor is Sony derived and that has been the case for models

Cinematography has never or will continue to rely on fullframe.  Fullframe helps with noise, and depth of field in tight spaces with wider lenses, but S35 still delivers great IQ when used well. 
I appreciate hybrid users will favour fullframe, its where many of the camera choices are based and popular for Photography, but if you're dedicated to video, S35 is still the preferred format option in camera choice.

Not in cinematography. Photographers are conditioned (especially the older ones) to think that FF=better because of stupid bokeh photography but in cinematography colour science will always be king. Along with framing and staging your pieces of course...
 
Regards
 

Not in cinematography. Photographers are conditioned (especially the older ones) to think that FF=better because of stupid bokeh photography but in cinematography colour science will always be king. Along with framing and staging your pieces of course...
 
Regards
 

Not in cinematography. Photographers are conditioned (especially the older ones) to think that FF=better because of stupid bokeh photography but in cinematography colour science will always be king. Along with framing and staging your pieces of course...
 
Regards