Mark Romero 2

I don't know if I added to the confusion or not. For some reason, I thought that you were on a more modest budget. Silly me.

You see, most of the people who inquire about equipment to shoot "student sports" and "baby showers" are not interested in dropping $30K on gear.

Also, since you mentioned you had "students," I assumed you were a teacher... and since teachers are the one profession who are paid LESS than photographers and videographers,  I thought your pennies might be precocious. 

So that is why I suggested something like a 24-105mm f/4 and a prime or two since it is a very affordable and still versatile combo with today's cameras that have better high ISO performance than cameras of even a few years ago. 

It would be very easy to recommend something like a pair of R5's or R3's or whatever Canon's flagship sports camera is and suggest dropping $1,350 on an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and while you are at it another $12K for an RF 400mm f/2.8. 

I mean, that's what the pros use, isn't it???

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I could also wait for Panasonic to maybe come out with AF that is good enough, but when will that be?  How many chances to create will be missed?  It's truly amazing and frustrating how fast technology is moving.

Panasonic won't be releasing a full frame camera for a while, I believe. I mean, they announced the development of the GH6 AT THE SAME TIME they released the GH5 II, so I don't think they would hold back on announcing development of a new S1 / S5 camera.

28 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Well said ...

Doing some quick math:

1. 24-105 f/4 would be  , plus  for a 24 and 85 f/1.8 - or thereabouts

2. 70-200 f/2.8 would be  used, plus  24 f/1.8 ( i don't think i'd need a 85 1.8 since 70-200 2.8 should be good enough on the R6)

Thoughts?

I think I would tend to agree with @kye that a 24mm prime is... kind of peculiar. And for a walkabout lens, I would look to something like a 35mm, too (I use zooms that are equivalent to 16-35 on my walkabout cameras).

Don't get me wrong; I am sure there are lots of people that use them well. Just for me, if I want WIDE, and if I already had a 24-105 f/4, then I would look at a prime or zoom that was 20mm or wider.

Maybe that's just due to my inability to think outside the box. 

Don't get me wrong; you can use 24mm prime for landscapes, but a 24-105 f/4 would cover that just as well.

So I guess my question is how would you foresee using the 24mm prime? 

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Many people (both photographers and videographers) will have two bodies, because:

1) you need a backup! Could be just "something/anything" to get you out of a pinch in an emergency, but ideally it would be an identical body (or at least, very similar). 

2) photographers will often run two bodies at once simultaneously, so they can switch from one to another very quickly. (for instance doing a wedding with a 24mm prime on a D760, and 85mm prime on the other D760. Or perhaps they'll use two zooms, such a Sigma 18-35mm on a D500, and a 50-150mm on the other D500. These setups could also change during the course of the day, same two bodies, but different pairings of lenses)

3) videographers often shoot with two cameras (or more!) rolling at the same time, so they've got another camera they can cut to during the edit that's in the same moment of time

Thus you've got many reasons here to go for two bodies, rather than just one. 

Unless you're working on the very high end for photography (and need something specific that's specialized from your camera kit), I'd go with a Panasonic S1H + S5 pairing as a starting point. 

If you really need high resolution, beyond 24megapixels, then I might go instead S1H + S1R, or a Nikon Z7mk2 + Z6mk2. 

But it is unlikely that's a genuine "need", as for most people, even the average professional, the DSLRs have for a long time reach "good enough" standards for photography. (unlike with filmmaking, where each step forward with camera bodies in recent years has been more worthwhile)

Heck, even an anciently old Canon 5Dmk2 or Nikon D700 is still "good enough" for many pros to use as their secondary backup! And even an old D810/D750/5DS is still a main camera for many! (Scott Choucino only just "recently" upgraded to the 5DS a couple of years ago)

 

 

As you can, I really really like Tin House Studio / Scott Choucino! He doesn't talk about gear too much (these videos are some of the exceptions! ha. But in a way, he "talks about gear" only just enough to address this and say "it doesn't matter") But he talks a lot of the philosophy / business behind what he does, which is broadly applicable not just to food photographers like himself, but even what I do as a Production Sound Mixer. Scott provides good food for thought. 

Agree that two bodies are better than one (particularly for the reasons you mentioned), and doubly agree that if they are similar bodies, it's going to be a lot easier.

It's easy to switch from the S5 to the S1 (despite having two different batteries), but a bit harder when switching to my Oly E-M1 MK II, and trying to switch back and forth between my Panasonic bodies and Sony bodies is just stupid. 

I am lucky in that I am using Godox flash and the transmitter works (to a certain extent) with all camera bodies, although it only provides TTL flash with Panasonic and Olympus bodies. 

On 10/19/2021 at 7:08 PM, herein2020 said:

 

I now shoot 95% of my handheld footage with the Sigma EF 50mm F1.4. That is by far my favorite lens although things do get tight sometimes due to the crop when I am shooting 4K60FPS, I couldn't imagine a 65mm. 

I was a big believer in the MP doesn't matter theme and even briefly owned the Canon R6 with only 20MP, but the part no one really talks about is when you need to crop and recompose your shot. Its easy for people to say just get closer or fill the frame with your subject, but when your lens is not long enough and you are shooting events where you cannot get closer to the subject, that extra MP really helps as you are forced to do some pretty extreme cropping. I end up stuck in some of the worst places imaginable yet still need to get a good shot of the speaker, or runway walk, or the crowd and sometimes every MP counts.

I am pretty jealous that you are able to go all in one one system, I am still stuck in nowhere land but such is life. 

I definitely think you should keep trying the VLOG footage and maybe while you are at it try Davinci Resolve over the winter. No more Adobe subscription for me and color grading is so much better. DR 17 is truly an incredible platform, and each update just makes it even better. Once they fix the Fusion integration it truly will be the complete package. I got so sick of the Adobe subscription that I learned the basics of DR in one week and have never looked back.

I shot my first Boudoir video recently with the S5; VLOG really let me push and pull the colors to get every scene to look exactly the way I wanted. It also let me shoot at ISO4000 and get really clean blacks without falling apart at the highlights, and the highlight rolloff is so much nicer than any of the built in profiles IMO (NSFW, 18+ only):

 

Darn, the only models I'm allowed to shoot are airplanes 😞

38 minutes ago, kye said:

...yet amateurs act like noise will escape from their images and kill their family...

LOL!!! True though. And this is despite the fact that the cameras of today are much better at higher ISO's than the cameras of about four years ago or so.

40 minutes ago, kye said:

Dropping a stop on the zoom, would save a huge amount of money and free up more funds for more compact primes at the wider end.  It's definitely worth confirming that you *really* need that 2.8 aperture.

Agreed. 

Personally, I think that if one were trying to get most bang for the buck, using a good f/4 zoom and a couple of primes that look good at f/2 (or faster) could provide an awful lot of versatility both for stills and video. 

(I am spoiled / biased toward the 24-105 f/4 focal range because the Panasonic Lumix version I use on my S1 and S5 cameras has 1:2 macro and has been great for the product photography I do on the side.)

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

But this is a good example of each person needing to figure out what works for them. 

Amen to that.

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

It sounds, to me, that 24 f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 should cover most of what I need for my mini doc interviews, filming/photos for track and field (indoor/out) and family events (indoor/out)

It's important to remember that most of the people who will be filming the diverse nature of topics you will be filming are pros or semi-pros, so they are going to have a bag full of lenses to choose from.

I may be mistaken but I thought one of your main goals was to keep things to a reasonable budget. In which case I thought that a 24-105 f/4 is a versatile lens that won't break the bank. For MOST things, I would pair it with an f/1.8 prime or two, and call it a day.

But... indoor sports is one of the most challenging things to shoot, either for photo or video.

So that is going to be the main challenge.

14 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Thanks Mark!  I am curious on a few comments you wrote:

 

• It does make sense I should learn to do some CC - and I will be using FCP - any good videos/free tutors online you suggest?
• I'm thinking a Sigma or used Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 as well as a 24 f/1.8 used
  • any big issue going 3rd party to save a few bucks? 
• The commnet on the Panny bodies - are you saying their AF is trash as I understand it?  The S1/S5 color does seem to rival Canon and I could see myself going there but the Canon AF makes it a must have for photo/video especially for a smuck amateur like myself lol
• Oh! I've been asking folks but having gotten much response - any places you suggest getting used bodies/lenses?  BH? MBP? KEH? all are reputable?

1) and I will be using FCP - any good videos/free tutors online you suggest?

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about FCP.

Lynda.com is good, and while it normally has a monthly subscription, many libraries have a free plan for library members. If you have a library card, check with your library and see if they have a free plan for members.

I have found that Lynda.com has very systemic programs where you learn step-by-step on how to use software. 

2) any big issue going 3rd party to save a few bucks?

Unfortunately, i can't say for sure, as I only have one Canon lens (EF 16-35 f/4 L) and while it is a great lens, I use it on my Panasonic S1 and S5 bodies.

My concern would be though that maybe SOME EF lenses won't give you the same great AF performance on an R6 as the (very expensive) RF lenses would.

3) The comment on the Panny bodies - are you saying their AF is trash as I understand it?

It's not trash, but if I needed to rely on continuous autofocus, then I would either use my Sony a6500 or my Olympus E-M1 MK II (or any Canon or Sony body made in the last several years, if I owned one). 

Panasonic AF just can't keep up with that of Canon or Sony.

And I have had occasions where the Panny autofocus basically decided that it wanted to focus on the background instead of on the subject talking for no apparent reason. 

4) any places you suggest getting used bodies/lenses?  BH? MBP? KEH? all are reputable?

They are all reputable, as you noted.

I will say that I didn't like the shipping options with MBP. I bought two SMALL lenses for my m43 Olympus E-M1 MK II and they shipped them in a BIG box (12 X12 X12 inches) that was full of packing paper / foam peanuts. And it took about 10-days to arrive in California because they took about four days before they actually shipped it out, and because the only option they had that was less than $35 for shipping was FedEx ground (which takes a week from East Coast to West Coast)

If they had packed it sensibly they could have sent it via priority mail for about $15.

There are also Roberts camera (technically used photo pro https://usedphotopro.com )and midwest photo exchange (they have a small inventory but good customer service) https://mpex.com/shop-used-gear

For expensive items, I sometimes and willing to spend a bit more if they have a longer return policy / warranty on used gear.

Hope this helps.

30 minutes ago, Django said:

...the focus breathing elimination...

While I agree with everything else you mentioned, I hate the focus breathing solution they came up with.

Ture, the field of view stays (pretty much) the same.

But you can still see objects in the frame enlarging and shrinking as focus is racked back and forth.

It was pretty noticeable in Jason Vong's video on the a7 IV where his girlfriend / spouse was standing with a bridge in the background, and while racking focus, you could see the pillars of the bridge getting bigger and smaller. 

Maybe others won't be bugged by it. Guess I have many pet peeves...

13 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Yes based on functionality for pros/prosumers, and "on-paper" stats I think you make a good argument.  At the end of the day when I'm watching content and see green/yellow shift in color my brain is like "this looks like shit" regardless of DR, resolve, or how easy it was for the creator to make that product - i'm looking at an image and my brain is calculating how much I like that image and huge component of which is determined by the color production.  

When I show random family/friends video the two things they *only* comment are are color and resolve/sharpness.  

I am producing these things for me 1st (image wise) and instructional/emotional products for my athletes, parents, and my personal family/friends.  That, for me, means that the work needed on Sony to get the color (1/2 the color/resolve equation I am arguing) takes too much knowledge and time.  So even if I could learn how to color correct videos over a few months the time it would take to do it is a non-starter for me.  

I am in control of making videos ... I have no deadlines, I have no one with whom I rely on being paid for this content - I am the customer - if that makes sense?

That excludes Sony - for me, for now - Canon is 1 as I would get great color, ISO, and AF with good enough resolve/sharpness, Panasonic is 2 though the AF means i'd need a 2nd camera for photo definitely and maybe I could focus manually on video, and maybe Fuji 3rd - though their ISO performance/Weak AF rule them out.

Based on that - any flaws in my personal situation?

While I still think you are making way too much of an issue over the sony colors, I guess that the R6 would be a a great fit for your needs.

Don't get me wrong: I do agree that canon colors are (subjectively) better than Sony cameras for most of the situations you are going to use it in.

I just don't think it will take you "a few months" to learn to color correct videos. 

And even with an R6 you ARE going to have to learn how to color correct videos. What will you do when an athlete is standing on a green field that is kicking up a ton of green tinted light on to their face? Or when they are standing on a red track and a bunch of red is kicked up on to their face? Canon's great color science won't save you then.

So if the AF on the R6 works as well with EF lenses as the Fro video you linked to suggests, then I wouldn't hesitate to get an R6 and use it for both stills and video. I think that is going to be your best option, and I think you wont lose any sleep over doing that.

As it is now, it is pretty hard to buy a BAD camera (unless you decide you want to buy Panasonic for that wonderful DFD autofocus... and this is coming from someone who owns two Panny bodies, an S1 and an S5).

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I've had a Fuji XT3 - LOVED the color but the ISO performance and autofocus made it not a good fit... 

Now ...

1. Canon R6 with adapter for EF lenses - this is my top move currently ...

Have you checked to make sure that an R6 with adapted EF lenses is going to give you the AF performance you want?

It doesn't sound like you have any Sony lenses, but otherwise I would suggest just get an a7 IV when it comes out (or get a used a7 III, although I guess the MK IV has some additional AF tracking abilities in video.

Yeah, I know, Sony colors, but the new a7 IV has the s.cinetoine profile everyone seems to love (not for me, but others love it) and the picture profiles on Sony cameras are EXTREMELY flexible (as Andrew can testify with his various EOSHD color profiles).

On the other hand, if the R6 with adapted lenses will give you the AF performance you need, then just get that (unless it has a time limit that you can't deal with... I don't know if it does or doesn't).

17 hours ago, MrSMW said:

The colour is also better from the 47mp sensor. I have not seen anyone mention that one but IMO, it’s not just the improved resolution, but there’s something in this 47mp sensor wherever it’s coming from…and that seems to be a bit of a mystery except it’s probably the same as the Leica SL2 and Q2 but with some slightly thinner piece of glass/a layer with the Leica version?

How does the 4K 60fps of the S1R look??? I think it is only a small crop, right? (Not the 1.5X crop on the S1 / S5 / S1H).

And the S1R has 10-bit HLG, right??? 

I would love to get 10-bit 4:2:2 4K 60fps in full frame but I wouldn't want to move to a7S III or a Canon R6.

I don't have an R6, so you might want to stop reading my response here, but...

On my Panasonic S1 and S5 cameras, I think the panasonic 24-105 f/4 is a really, really good all-around focal length, and f/4 is fast enough / bright enough for most things. In the not too distant past, professional wedding shooters / event shooters said that an f/2.8 zoom was a necessity, but today's cameras have significantly better ISO performance (both for stills and for video) than the cameras they used, so I think that an f/4 zoom on a contemporary body would be equivalent of an f/2.8 zoom on a prior body, at least in terms of noise or latitude.

Again, I don't know anything about Canon RF glass and have only minimal experience with EF glass (I use a Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L adapted on my Panasonic full frame bodies). The Panasonic lens has 1:2 macro capability, and if an RF lens (or the EF 24-105 f/4 L) has 1:2 macro, that might make a terrific first lens to do about 90% of your needs.

Anyway, I guess for me if I were to choose between a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 24-105 f/4, I would probably go with the 24-105 f/4... but that's just me.

Do you need a 16-35 zoom??? I use mine ALL THE TIME but I shoot real estate for a living. Personally, for landscape use I find 24mm wide enough, and even if I were shooting high-end architecture, I would use 20mm as the widest and more likely 24mm or 28mm. Alas, for REAL ESTATE they want WWWIIIIDDDEEE shots.

As @UncleBobsPhotography mentioned, maybe look at the EF 35 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses would be good.

Filming (and photographing) track and field would be the most difficult for me. For video, I might shoot 4K in aps-c mode for the extra reach. But I think for stills I would shoot in full frame mode. 

Anyway, hope this helps.

1 hour ago, scotchtape said:

The 60FPS is from the crop... so not FF.

We should know on the 21st... I think?!?!?!

I am both disappointed and relieved. If it was 60fps 4K full frame 10-bit 4:2:2, I would be tempted to sell my Panasonic S1 / S5 cameras. 

As it is now, not really enough to tempt me.

13 hours ago, kye said:

There's a concept that no-one talks about, and that I think is one of the most important things that exists with equipment, which is how using it makes you feel.

We all know the trope about content being more important than image quality, but no-one here talks about the factors that make the content good, and I think that a key factor in that is how we feel while we are filming.  

If we are fighting with the tech then we will be frustrated, less efficient, and generally in a bad mood.  Like when anyone is in a bad mood, this will radiate out to the people you are working with, the people who are around you, and perhaps the people in the frame.  

The opposite picture is also true.  If we are using equipment we love, then we will be upbeat, calm, and will have a positive impact on those around us.  Film-making is art, and art is about creative expression, which comes from a place of emotion.

Obviously, if a camera is fiddly to use and the ergonomics are crap then that's a challenge, but I find that the biggest barrier to feeling good while filming, at least for me, is knowing what kind of images I am creating, and this is all about colour for me, and it sounds like it might be the same for you as well.

Going back to Sony vs Canon, considering that you're using FCP and don't want to learn colour grading, I'd suggest going with the camera with the best colour science that you can justify (ie, it has to work practically with those "other factors" you mentioned).  

Definitely wait for the A74, as Sony colour science is getting significantly better with each generation, but make sure you're looking at footage that is SOOC rather than had a colourist put lots of work into it.

Best of luck, and don't forget that the equipment are just tools to get the outcome you want, and a great experience captured with a lower quality camera will make a much nicer video than a lacklustre experience taken with the best camera in the world, and while filming you're influencing the situation.

Yes, definitely true. The image out of my Panasonic S1 is noticeably better than out of my m43 Olympus E-M! MK II. But I love using the Oly and I loathe using the S1. 

Firstly, no matter which camera you use, if you "don't have the time/space to learn colorgrading or even colorgrade much more than basic adjustments...", then you need to NAIL your white balance. Maybe the auto white-balance in the Canon or in the Sony is better. Don't know for sure either way.

I know my Panasonic cameras have an easy way to adjust both color temp AND tint for white balance. Does the Sony allow for adjusting tint as well as just temp? How about the Canon?

There are several different custom picture profiles out there, and of course, there are Andrew's various EOSHD color profiles as well. Maybe one of the easiest ways to get pleasing colors straight out of camera is to turn OFF the picture profiles and instead use the Portrait setting in the creative styles. I have done that in the past and it is nice, although I prefer to turn down the saturation, contrast and sharpening, and I accept the fact that it isn't going to have as nice a roll off as shooting in the Cine gammas or in S-LOG.

16 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

The shipping said it was in customs then afterwards it said "returned to sender" now it says "ready for pickup" at the same city it originated from. I assume that means it was rejected by customs and sent back. There has been no update to the shipping or contact from the seller since Sept 23rd so I am just trying to get a refund at this point. I am somewhat bummed though the Alexa Classic realistically gives me everything I'd want in a slightly smaller package. 

 

I was using ProRes RAW which is virtually lossless. It's not as hard to match cameras it normal conditions but becomes trickier with mixed lighting or more difficult situations. That is where high end tends to shine more. 

Thank you.

Yeah, for the Panasonic S-series of Cameras, it seems like ProRes RAW is the way to go for ultimate quality / flexibility, if one has the time to put in the work. 

Wish that Resolve could work with ProRes RAW. Don't really want to convert to Mac's and Final Cut just to work with ProRes RAW.

45 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

Prores noise seems to look a little better too. Not exactly sure how to describe it. The fixed noise pattern doesn't go away unless shooting in RAW though. 

Thank you!

Thank you both very much, @stephen and @TomTheDP for the explanation and the video of the 55 Luts. 

The footage did look pretty "close" although both cameras did show off their characteristic tint differences. (Well... they seem to be characteristic in my mind since it seems like most Alexa footage has that green tint and most Panasonic V-LOG has that magenta tint.

@TomTheDP Are you using ProRes RAW or BRAW (which I understand is technically not RAW)??? 

I guess I am a bit confused on this. For some reason I thought the HDMI out of the S1 / S1H / S5 was only 10-bit... but I guess it would have to be 12-bit out to have actual RAW output.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:18 PM, TomTheDP said:

The raw codec is definitely more flexibile color wise though its very similiar in terms of the look. I personally like S1 color better than the GH5. I noticed shadow dynamic range is way way better with RAW. No banding in the shadows even when 6 stops under exposed and it retains the information. It does get noisy but the noise is much more organic than with the internal codec. 

Thanks for the note. Can you elaborate on "how" the noise is better? You mentioned it looks more organic, so does that mean it is more luminance noise and less chroma noise? 

Also, how is the noise / shadows if you DON'T capture in RAW but instead capture in something like DNxHR or ProRes (non-RAW)? Do you get better shadows without the noise penalty?

I'm worried that shooting RAW will slow down my computer so much when I have to denoise it. (I only have an RTX 2060 Super 8GB VRAM.

WARNING: Stupid question alert.

So... what would an Alexa classic (or other model available used for under $5K) give me over my Panasonic S1 and S5 bodies? (Especially now that I COULD record in BRAW if I pony up for a BMD 12G recorder)

Do those older models have the same 15 stops of DR that something like the Alexa LF or newer models have? 

Are the codecs that much better than anything I could get out of the S1 / S5?

Further Off Topic: It's funny to me how good Arri colors look AFTER they have been graded, but when they are SOOC, they just look so green. I've seen videos where they compare the (reddish cast ) Canon cameras to the (greenish tint) Alexa cameras, and they absolutely look like they were using color filters over the lenses since they were so differeing.

For what it's worth...

The 42MP Sony a7R III sells new for $2,800

I would imagine the a7 IV will try to sneak in under the $2,500 cost of the R6.

Knowing Sony, they will probably keep selling the a7 III new for a couple of years.

Sooooo... price-wise the a7 IV would slot in somewhere below the R6, far enough away from the $2,800 cost of the a7R III, yet high enough to allow the a7 III to sell in the $1,700 to $1,800 range???

Who knows what kind of video frame rates and codecs we are going to get then...

In clip attributes, do you have the data levels set to full?

In the settings monitor page, do you have data levels set to full as well?

What are your project-wide gamut / color settings?

The screenshot below is internal V-LOG from S5.

14 hours ago, macnerd said:

i haven't tested the 8k yet but 4k for 4k I found the a7s3 to be way sharper, to the point my clients knew I changed camera when I sent them raw footage

That's not a particularly good sign for the 4K on the a1 then. 

Generally, the 24MP Sony cameras that downsample from 6K in camera to 4K have had sharper 4K then the a7S 12MP sensors. Even the aps-c Sony bodies with 24MP sensors have had sharper 4K than the full-frame a7S bodies.