kye

I put -1 against my previous comments and replace them with agreeing with the above. This is completely it. Hi-fi used to mean something back in the day but now it's taken over by mediocre (and occasionally very poor) equipment providers and is now basically a marketing term. People that used to do hi-fi now either don't use that phrase anymore, or have replaced it with 'high-end audio' or 'ultra-fi' due to the inflation in the term. Hi-fi used to mean a minimum level of subjective quality across a range of different aspects of sound reproduction, and there were a few things that the technology of the day were weak on, one of which was frequency response. Then what followed was an arms-race of sorts to get the widest and flattest frequency response, but unfortunately the other things that used to be assumed fell by the wayside in pursuit of this very marketable measurement, and now hi-fi is basically populated with products that do this one measurement well and everything else atrociously poorly. The kicker is that frequency response (and a few other common 'marketable' measurements like THD) are actually very poor representations of sound quality.

How do these adapters work with multiple AF points and things like eye-detect AF. Do they allow all the smart focusing modes, or just a limited AF mode like a simple centred AF point or equivalent? People pay a lot for 4K, and considering that a shot out of focus is basically a 240p or worse video file, I'd say that you're not understanding what is at stake. Most of the vloggers I watch have mentioned that they bought their main cameras with their own money. Maybe they get a second much cheaper one 'on loan' but that's the minority. I think assuming that people are 'on the take' is easy to assume, but may not be true. Your point is well made and I totally agree, however there are quite a number of elitist ivory-tower snobs on here who insist that unless you're shooting in controlled lighting conditions on a set with a crew of dedicated people that you're basically not a real film-maker and you don't even deserve the soft 1080 that Canon gives you. They don't say it explicitly, but it's behind many of the posts here. Its been strongly implied that if I want better quality home or holiday videos then I need to: buy a cinema camera, hire a sound tech with a boom mic, learn to manually focus (including sporting events), control my DR via lighting and modifiers, use a tripod, and do multiple takes.. instead of asking for a DSLR sized camera with good IQ, reliable AF, audio recording and processing advances from this century, IBIS / OIS, and being able to enjoy myself while recording a clip.

A lot of the YT people I watch are professional youtubers, and I listen with interest when they reveal how they make their money (I am interested in business models). They typically have a business plan that has multiple revenue streams, but relies on creating quality content that gets lots of eyeballs, then using those to: get sponsorships for posts sell their own merchandise (t-shirts, hats etc) get affiliate income from amazon via equipment links ("I made this cinematic video with these pieces of equipment... <link> <link> <link> <link> <link> <link>") sell their own LUTs, Lightroom presets ("get the same look at this cinematic video you just watched") sell courses they've created (how to do video-related thing course / how to podcast) sell themselves on Patreon (not really compatible with the above) There's always an acknowledgement that getting in early to a platform gives you the best chance to build a following, so there will be a huge groundswell of these people trying to build an audience, which will mean that the platform will have a huge amount of quality content on it almost immediately. Vloggers often meet up with each other (at sponsored events, product launches, conferences, etc) and you get to see BTS on other vloggers channels through these. One thing I've noted that is interesting is that the RX100 style cameras are very popular with people who produce instagram content and they use them vertically. If you thought YT was disposable content then you're in for a shock about how disposable Instagram Stories - they automatically disappear after 24-hours, yet some people record them in 4K vertically, edit in PP/FCPX to music, and grade them before uploading. The comments from those people is that Instagram Stories are easier to do well in because it's the same work as a YT video but there are less people willing to edit and grade so you don't have to be as good to be in the highest quality content creators.

Hunches are fine when declared as so. The problem is when people state their hunches as fact.. If we deleted all the posts that were speculation, opinion, rampant imagination, and fighting over Canon 1080p and colour science, etc there would only be a small amount of content remaining here!!

Awesome - my concern was if they knew what they were getting but if they're into it then that will be really cool. I like it when people do something a little different The combination of that song (the amount of style and how rhythmic it is) and your editing and shooting style will be something to see - your reel looked good and had a few cool moments where the visuals matched the music, but not so many that it distracted too much. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with ?

It also might be an interesting way to not directly compete with YT, at least at the start. I'm pretty sure that there's a clear progression about who adopts a new social media platform first. IIRC it's something like the kids go first (as they're always searching for something new where the adults aren't hanging out), then the 'cool' people (as they're often associated with the kids, or just like new shiny things), and then the people who follow the cool people, and then the people who follow those people, and then everyones grandma. It sounds like they might have a natural fit with the first two, which you would need if you were going to go up against the YT behemoth.

Just wanted to say that's a great looking still.. nicely done! It would be great it has the option to crop in or not to. I think that's one of the biggest advantages of having a hybrid camera for video. I'm looking at new cameras and if I end up with the A7III then when combining the 24-105 F4 with the 1.5X crop mode and the 1.5X digital zoom makes that lens a 24-236mm, which is a fantastic walk-around lens.

Wow. So, not a competitor to YT then.... well, unless there's data suggesting that people are now moving to vertical mobile use? I don't say that to be funny - I remember watching an early talk about how mobile was taking over PCs and the guy put up a huge number on the screen (it was over a thousand) and said that the number was how many people had used eBay on their mobile phone to buy a Ferrari. As I am a bit of a laggard with tech I was shocked, but now I've caught up so it doesn't seem so silly. Maybe it's one of those things that the kids are doing and we don't know about yet? In a way vertical video makes sense because people are taller than they are wide, and most short-lifespan social media video contains only one person.

Ah, hadn't gotten around to watching that yet. Pardon me!

I think this post is silly. It's the equivalent of saying that if you want a smartphone that's silly because you could have all the functionality by just buying all of these things: The reason that we wouldn't buy all those other things and prefer a smartphone is that all those other things are way too large to carry around and be practical, plus they're really expensive...... just like cinema cameras are way too large to carry around in many situations, and are really expensive. I get that this might be good advice for you, maybe because your priorities are equally fulfilled by either option, but that's not true for many other people. I voted Yes because if Canon made such a camera I would buy it. However, if the Pocket 2 doesn't have good autofocus then that would be why I'm not buying it. If it had good AF, that would be absolutely killer!

I've been in the high-end audio game for about 20 years, mostly in the DIY end, and I'd agree with this. MP3 was universally criticised by high-end as 'the death of music' but it's not that bad. Agreed - there isn't a direct parallel. Someone above mentioned valves, which might also be a good example. Solid state is kind of like consumer 4K - it's more representative of reality from a measurement perspective but has a brittle and unpleasant subjective experience. Also digital vs analog. I've heard good digital, and I've heard digital that sounds better than a turntable, but it took $50K of custom digital to beat a $2K turntable setup. Considering you can buy $100K turntables, I'm not sure if there's digital that can match that. Also, amplifier power. 100W solid state amps replaced 9W valve amps but I think someone summed it up when they said "if the first watt is awful, why would I be happy there are 99 more?". For context, your hifi spends most of its time using less than 1W, unless the music is heavily compressed. If you're listening to something with really large dynamic range like classical music then it spends most of it's time using less than 0.25W.

I have said it before, but they might abandon the A7S line and introduce the A9S - it would mean they can put in lots of extra goodies compared to the A7III but can also charge for them as well. Every camera line goes EOL at some point. We seem to be saying "how can they possibly improve their tiny mirrorless line without cannibalising their cinema line" quite a lot. Surely there are reasons that people would prefer a camera the size of an FS5, VENICE, C200, etc over a FF DSLR sized body? Even just ergonomics? If they can figure out what the value a larger body has then maybe that's the solution to overlapping their cinema lines. Thermal management sure is one thing that currently differentiates them, although the XC10 proved it doesn't require much size to implement it.

It's the Law of Conservation of Energy Mirrors. They move out of DSLRs and into phones

Netflix?? ???

Me too. I did street photography for a while as training for holiday snaps (as both are improvisational) but it's a lot of work to put yourself out there, especially when people hassle you in the street. "You can't take my photo - I know my rights!" "Isn't that a security camera in that shop over there pointing at the street?" "uh, I guess" "It's taking photos constantly, all the shops have them. If it was illegal then all those shop owners would go to jail" "Uh, errr,... you can't take my photo - I know my rights!"

@jonpais cool video, with AF much improved! Out of interest, you seem to film quite a bit in public and it looks like no one minds. Is there a technique you use? Do you ask permission beforehand? Does no one really care?

I run Resolve on my 13" MBP and it works pretty well with proxy media. What part of the performance isn't working for you?

Huge props to everyone for all the drone jokes ?

I was being sarcastic actually.. thus the crazy emoticon. Sorry if it didn't translate. Not sure if this is directed at me? Anyway, I tried to be truthful but also helpful - I've seen BTS videos of weddings shot in very unusual styles and the couple were completely cool with it, so it can definitely work, but it needs to fit with the situation and expectations of the couple and the guests. That is an excellent idea. If I ever need a more powerful light (unlikely considering I don't really use lights much) I'll consider just buying a second one. Thanks

I like them too. I have the smaller one of those and also bought two cheap eBay LED ones that also charge off USB. The Aputure one has a high CRI and the others are a bit blue in comparison so they make nice kicker / hair / background lights with a bit of colour contrast. Also, they all fit into the little pocket-camera sized case that the Aputure comes in, so I have a (low power) three point lighting setup that fits in a pocket! It's what I used to take this photo: A good addition to those is the smallest Gorillapod and then you can easily mount them places like doorframes, backs of chairs, etc.

Art vs Engineering. When the purpose of something is to please the senses, then Engineering can help to achieve that, but often Engineering runs away with itself and forgets the end-goal. I believe that every decision about a concrete aspect of film-making (the way a sensor responds to light, DR, shutter speed, colour balance, frame rate, audio frequency response, music pace and style, the words in the script, the costumes, the hair / makeup, the objects on set, etc etc etc) has a subjective impression associated with it. The 'art' of a film (or how good it is) is down to how well each of those decisions were aligned with the overall goal of the film. For example, if you were shooting a futuristic sci-fi, using 8mm film, poor audio frequency response, period costumes, classical music, etc would be a terrible choice as these are all aligned with a period piece. Similarly, having loud heavy metal music, desaturated cold colours, overall low-key high contrast lighting, aggressive characters, etc would make a terrible rom-com, but is a good starting point for a horror film. Those who understand the aesthetic associations of their tangible decisions made throughout the creation process will do well in creating a finished product where the elements contribute to a coherent and powerful final experience for the audience. Engineering is providing us with options to control aspects of the process, Art is choosing from those options.

They can also be a good place to network. Film-making is a team sport after all

I know!! Just think what it would be like if it was shot on a GH5.. the shots would be stable, with nice colours and no clipped highlights.. of course, the people would still be out of focus, but nothing is perfect! ?

Congrats

Actually, it's more likely to be the one in the camera... if you compare the original images to his edited ones they're not much different!