kye

With only a week left to enter, how are we all doing? Who has films on the way? I have two lenses I haven't shot with yet, although one has an infinity focus problem that I haven't resolved, and no opportunities to shoot in sight... ???

I'm curious about why it has to be FF? I like the FF look, but with great lenses that is possible on APSC or MFT, and when you factor in the price of this camera, the best lenses money can buy aren't actually that much money.

Let the hype begin. ....meanwhile I'll be over here with my GH5, which even with a full set of Voigtlander f0.95 primes would still be cheaper ???

Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a college-age girl living alone on an industrial farm I would definitely keep a baseball bat next to my front door! You never know what the yokels will do when they get all liquored up!!

Yes, that holds up very well.. even with very subtle tones on her face there's no visible banding or artefacts (even on your upload).

Great tips - I binge lots of film-making and travel film-making on YT but these aren't tips I've heard before, so this is really cool. I like the idea of "intermediate" tips, most channels don't get past using a ND. Makes me wonder what you would consider an advanced tip!

Looks like something happened....

Good points. For the test I did for myself I shot 4K h264, scaled some shots, exported in h264 (at a higher bitrate) and then uploaded to YT in 4K, as that is my workflow. Obviously if you're shooting RAW and delivering in Prores HQ then your thresholds for what is perceptible will be different. I was simply doing it to see if it mattered to me, and how far I could push things in how I shoot, hoping that it would matter less and I could use digital zoom to space my primes further apart and cover more zoom range with the same number of lenses. Fun stuff.

I think satisfaction levels are about comparing what you have to what you want. I think everyone probably always wants more, but it's about priorities. Do I want a camera the size of a GoPro Hero 5 Session, lenses that perform like Zeiss Master Primes, output files that look like an ARRI 65, and the whole thing to cost $100 with free shipping? Yes. But the point is that all that happens in the context of all the rest of what we're doing when we shoot. I think most real shooters are concerned with the total package of what they deliver, and if the camera isn't in the top 5 issues that are holding us back then we're not focused on it, and if asked we'll say we're satisfied. Everyone wants more, we just differ by how much we want it.

Great stuff! I can see some cool lens stuff going on. These lenses work really nicely at night!

Nice! Great work

https://noamkroll.com/why-i-just-bought-the-new-sigma-fp-mirrorless-camera-for-filmmaking/

I'm considering posting a blind test where some of the shots are digitally zoomed to various amounts and seeing which shots people could identify, and how much zoom was evident. What sort of shots should I include? I'm imagining if I included things like close shots of plants with a back-light to highlight all the tiny hairs and textures? I did a quick test like that for myself (thus the reference to me doing more tests than I share here) and I found that large digital zooms were visible but smaller ones were not.

Unfortunately. Of course, the other place that the knowledge lives is behind paywalls or online courses, but all of that is paid too. We're lucky for what Juan has given us. I suspect that part of his motivation is to show how little the YT guys know by showing what real knowledge looks like, and it certainly worked for me - the difference is pretty stark. Juan should work with someone to offer a course - I'd be very interested in it!

Remember that you were seeing the set through a camera. I'd imagine the set was lit normally and the set lighting was just way brighter. He was doing things in (what looked like) 120p, so at base ISO you'd need a bit of light for that.

Real world use of the strange wide-angle probe lens....

Ah, that makes a difference. I guess there's always the Lav-into-smartphone and sync in post option. In theory spending a few hundred extra is a worthwhile investment, but taking into account the fact that most vloggers are getting paid under $1 per hour, I'm not sure that investment stacks up!

I think it's the old problem that the people who really know what they're doing are off doing it, rather than hanging around talking about it (or making videos, which takes way more time than even posting on forums).

As above - you'll either lose quality or you'll make huge files. However, you'll make them way easier to edit, so that's worth something. 4K h264 files are a pain to edit with.

I'm sure that the older models would vlog pretty well. Each previous model probably had millions of vlogs shot on them!!

Do they see better in the dark? I understand that the pixels will be larger and have less ISO noise, but in an oversampled image the downscaling has an averaging effect on random noise on adjacent pixels, working as a sort of noise reduction filter. I'm genuinely not sure which would come out ahead. Does anyone know?

Resolve. Sorry, should have mentioned that. Check out the link to the other thread with the description of the adjustments

Balancing with natural light is fine but if the natural light changes then it can really trip you up, like on a day where the sun goes in and out of clouds. This may or may not be a concern (some places have blue skies 300+ days a year, so... ) For this situation I'd suggest renting a sound blanket (or whatever works) so that you can block out the natural light if it's being troublesome. This would mean you need a powerful artificial light, especially if you're bouncing it instead of using it directly, which is good advice. It would suck to start the shoot and not have a powerful enough light. If it leads to more work then you'll have some kind of commitment to buy something and you'll have more experience knowing what was required, both in terms of power as well as other factors, so you can choose a light that will work well for you and how you like to operate.

My take is that many of the things that camera nerds on forums obsess over are surprisingly unnoticeable. I used to get caught up in things like resolution and bit depth and colour science, and after seeing a few real tests (or even better - real world tests) I got a shock and learned that some things really make very little difference. That's why I question things I'm lead to believe and actually go and do tests to find out. I do far more tests than I talk about on here, gradually unlearning the BS that the internet is full of. Of course, much of what is talked about does matter and the vast majority matters sometimes and not other times. That deeper knowledge takes years to learn on the internet, or mere hours if you pick up a camera and go do a test and see what the end result looks like. “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.” ― Mark Twain