kye

I get what you're saying about the RAW still having a look, and I would have thought this would come from the different sensors in each camera? Isn't a camera something like this: light hits the sensor RAW data is read off the sensor (1) the data is de-bayered into an image the image is processed (colour science, resizing, white balance, etc) internal capture: the image is compressed via a codec and the compressed file is saved to a media device OR external feed: the image might have display information added, is encoded into HDMI/SDI/etc and output via a physical port on the camera OR camera display: the image might have display information added, is resized to the display resolution, and passed to the screen I would have thought that at (1) this was what was saved by ML or other RAW formats? Maybe compressed via lossless compression. Which would mean that the only difference between cameras would be the sensor?

To add to Andrews comment about Resolve, if you're considering it there are a few articles about editing with Resolve that might be useful. They're from editors, not all-in-one people who would colour grade as well, but they're still potentially useful. My take on them was that Resolve is promising, if you configure it with the hotkeys the same as your current NLE then it's straight-forward to learn, but everyone says it's interesting but they're not going to use it solely for editing yet. They don't normally give any reason, I suspect they're just being careful and not wanting to stand out as being too 'radical' as it may be too shocking for people. I use Resolve as an all-in-one but I work on multiple projects that are tiny so my experiences with it really won't translate to your situation.

@webrunner5 @dbp - what about the 5D RAW footage makes it so desirable for you? Considering it's RAW, we're bypassing colour science, codecs, compression, resizing, and most things that determine the 'look' from a camera. I'm guessing that what is left is the sensor itself and how it responds to colour and luminance, and perhaps lenses. But to play devils advocate a little bit, those don't seem (to me at least) to be killer things that would make 5D RAW footage better than any other flavour of RAW surely? I'm not criticising, just trying to learn

Everything is a compromise in product design. The trick is making the compromises that please the most people My approach has always been to record in a neutral style and adjust to taste later on, but I don't have radical tastes, so it's not a big change. Of course you're totally right that there's a bunch of things you can't easily change in post - try changing the shape or texture of the bokeh of a lens in post for example!!

Yeah.. The way I read it is that people have to choose between the features of the competitors and the reliability, DPAF, and colour science from Canon. We buy what we buy despite the weaknesses. Canon have shown with the XC10/15 that they can fit the guts of a 4K cinema camera in a very small package, and they've shown they can fit the guts of an APS-C DSLR in a small package. A camera somewhere in-between the XC10 and the C100 in both size and functionality would mean that people could buy Canon and it would be because of the features, not despite the lack of them! It's a rare glimpse into the dark underbelly of camera modifications.. like the people who grind off the VIN from stolen cars and serial numbers from guns!! ?

An A7III type camera from Canon that had a good codecs, DPAF, canon colours and reliability, and had 1080 that was downscaled instead of upscaled would be a win for me!

Interesting articles @webrunner5. It seems that in this market, if you want something in DSLR form-factor then there is nothing that has all the features you want - every camera has real weaknesses. I'm guessing that Canon and Nikon will release things that are news-worthy, but I suspect the best we can hope for is another camera or two that have different weaknesses. I'm hoping for one that has strengths and weaknesses that align with my style of shooting but I wouldn't bet on it!!

This is a good thing - film-making is a very complicated and complex topic and you're now aware of this. My advice is to think of all the equipment as tools, this is important because: you don't choose the tools then work out what style of art you'll make - it's the other way around great artists work inspires love for the work, not the tools - no-one asks what paintbrushes Monet used to a certain extent, the tools don't matter - as long as they are good enough to meet minimum standards then they're fine Start with what you want to achieve and work backwards. This forum is full of people with huge amounts of experience, but we can't help you to pick the right tool for the job if you don't tell us what the job is, or if you don't have a solid idea of it yourself. Much work is ahead of you, but if you put the effort in then you will receive lots in return.

Absolutely. One of the decisions was between 16:9 content (YT / TV shows) or 21:9 (movies). My previous 1080 display lasted 10 years before it died, making it economical even though I bought it early when it was really pricey. I kind of went that way with my UHD display, hoping it would last a long time, but secretly I think that if they released a 21:9 monitor with enough resolution to fit a 4K frame in it without resizing then I might be tempted! It would be a great editing resolution - in the same way that they market 5K displays to be 4K preview window plus menus. Totally. A wonderful way to see what quality is possible at various resolutions is to get a DSLR and shoot a time-lapse in RAW and then process it. If you film something that moves slowly then you can even use an ND and small aperture to have a 180 degree shutter to replicate natural looking motion. No cinema camera in the world will give you a better quality input to play with than an 18-24MP RAW 12-14+bit image sequence! I'd look up these cameras actual resolutions in the EBU test database, but I can't quite be bothered enough right now If someone else is keen to see the real resolution of these then have a look here: https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_tech3335

@Trek of Joy great post - out of likes for today though.

Thanks everyone, it's great to get such a helpful mixture of technical and more philosophical tips. As @OliKMIA says, it's the creative process, and I am definitely still working it out for myself but I have got a lot of elements down. I shoot a lot, and @mercer and @IronFilm are right that it shouldn't get in the way of the trip, but for me the logic is actually a bit different. I like shooting, the challenge of it, the way that it forces you to actively look, rather than just passively drift through situations. I also use photography if I'm a bit bored too as it's fun to try and challenge yourself about how to have as much variety in your B-roll for example, which is great if you're in-transit between locations. Also, I think I shoot a lot of clips because I want to enjoy my holiday and so in a way I'm shooting while thinking about my holiday instead of shooting trying to think about the final edit. I'm also shooting in-case something happens in much the same way as a street photographer would find a background and then frame and pre-focus and just wait for someone to walk through the scene, but in video you need to be rolling if you want the whole shot. It makes me far less efficient, but in a sense I'm trading off enjoyment of the holiday vs work in the edit suite. Also, I like to be spontaneous and let the holiday dictate what I shoot, rather than pre-visualising or planning as @mercer and @Don Kotlos mentioned and then making the holiday fit more into the shooting. I also don't like to direct, so these trips are mostly fly-on-the-wall (or massive-camera-on-the-wall as the case may be!) On this whole trip I might have asked someone to stand somewhere or to look at the camera only a handful of times. The last thing a family holiday needs is a bossy photographer ordering everyone about all the time I think I've got the technical aspects of editing that @tellure mentioned mostly in place, I use markers, scrub through longer footage, use an editing codec (720p Prores Proxy proxy files are smooth as silk on my MBP), and removing useless clips. I got this editing process from Kraig Adams at Wedding Film School who did a BTS of his whole editing process (10 x 1hr YT videos from nothing to finished films) and what I liked about it is that you don't spend time looking at 'bad' clips again and again, but @Don Kotlos is absolutely right about it being the "brute force" method, and that's definitely what it feels like!! The other approach that @NX1user and @Mark Romero 2 mention is that instead of starting with everything and deliberately taking out the bad stuff to only pull in the good stuff. This makes total sense considering that only a small percentage of the footage makes the final cut. The challenge I have with this approach is that I think I will start off finding some good footage that suggests a particular style of edit but then later on I'll find more footage that suggests a different style of edit, and now I've reviewed a bunch of shots with one style in mind but am now going in a different direction and so many decisions were made incorrectly. I think this would work well for videos that are pretty straight-forward, or for people who can hold a lot of information in their heads and can remember what footage there was and kind of hold multiple edits in their head as they're working. This is absolutely not me!! Breaking it down into bits as @Anaconda_ says is a good idea, and publishing them to keep up motivation is also a good idea - thanks @User. I'm still not sure if I'll end up with just one final video or multiples. In terms of the final output I'm also undecided. I've previously condensed week trips into sub-5 minute videos, but this one had a lot more locations and activities. I've thrashed this out with a couple of friends and we came to the conclusion that the length is irrelevant as long as it stays interesting - I've seen a 25 minute home movie from a 5 week trip through Europe that stayed interesting, so it can be done for home videos, plus there's the "super vlog" format that seems to work really well too. Getting more understanding about what my audience wants would be good. Unfortunately it's mostly relatives and friends that are in other cities / timezones and aren't up for critiquing my film skills so that is likely to be limited. Music is important too, but I don't think that starting with it would work for me. I think my editing process is more 'emergent' where my review of the footage (however tedious that is) gives me a sense of what happened and the vibe, then I can get a bit of a high-level view, which obviously you can't from 1100 clips, and then I bring the music in, and then the structure comes from that, and then the clips kind of conform to the music. It's not a straight relationship between the clips and the music. Perhaps the most crucial part of the whole picture is motivation and creative energy. As @tellure and @jhnkng suggest, it's limited and needs to be managed. I know that procrastinating is a sign to manage my energy - unfortunately I feel half-way to burn out just living normal life (full-on kids, full-on job, full-on family, etc etc) and I will look back on a month gone by and be annoyed that I didn't do any real video stuff (camera tests don't count!) but the truth is that I was just tired for the whole time. I'm trying to improve other parts of my life but it's slow going and I want to still be able to share some of these moments.

In addition to the useful (and immature / tasteless) contributions above, another thing would be to shoot a huge amount. Faster cuts means more shots. Think about it like this, if shots are held for 1s instead of 4s each and every one of those 1s shots are the 'right' moment (framing smile etc) and are in a different location then that means you need 4 times as many shots. TBH you're either a genius or you're crazy to try and apply this to a wedding scenario, and I really hope that the couple (and guests) really understand what it involves. If you've got a couple who are having a simple outdoor ceremony and are willing to do lots of location changes and poses etc for an hour or two (or four!) then that's totally cool, but if you're going to try and apply this type of film-making to a traditional wedding then you're either going to get normal shots and not create something like this or you're going to interrupt their wedding day a huge amount, and potentially both. Good luck - it's a beautiful style, although I would have thought that IS of some kind would have kept the hand-held look but cut out the sharper jitters making a nicer final product.

Your budget is very modest for getting a whole film-making kit that will do weddings, or any multi-camera setups. However if you start off renting cameras and lenses when you need them then I'd imagine it is probably sufficient for everything else. Renting will also give you the advantage of trying different cameras and seeing how you like them - I've seen pros and cons in the wedding and corporate space - one of the significant ones being the Canon Dual-Pixel AF. Then when you start making money from the work you can buy the right cameras and lenses that you know will work for your style. If you haven't already seen it the Wedding Film School YT channel is a goldmine of useful information on everything about weddings - commercials, business, tech, logistics, etc.

Early last year I decided to "go 4K" buying a new MBP laptop, Dell 32" UHD display, XC10, and later on also upgraded my iPhone 6 Plus to iPhone 8. (happy Christmas to me!) I chose a 32" 16:9 display because after reviewing the THX and SMPTE standards for cinema displays (I think it was SMPTE, there were two standards anyway) they suggested that from my viewing position it was the right viewing angle. I contemplated a 42" display, which would have been near the outside range of the two specs, and I also contemplated one of those 21:9 displays but they aren't full UHD so you can't see the full resolution on them. What I realised was that the difference between 4K and 2K (or UHD and 1080) is that the higher resolution has 2x2 pixels for every single pixel on the lower res. This may sound obvious, but think about it this way. Unless you can see the individual pixels on your 2K / 1080 display from the viewing position, you won't be able to see any more resolution or detail in 4K / UHD. Of course, as others have said 4K gets less YT compression (which I personally verified here if you're curious) but it also has some interesting benefits as a capture format even when you are exporting to a lower resolution. One of these benefits is that in theory it turns an 8-bit colour space into up to an 10-bit colour space, but this is a complicated concept depending on many things, so it's probably better to think of it as potentially being better but not necessarily.

Any predictions? All the usual suspects appear to be there..

I expect that it's a common problem, but how do you get over the 'hump' of starting editing a new project? My most recent project is a family holiday during which I shot 1100+ clips over about a 10 day period, and I'm now procrastinating on editing it. My process is normally: review each clip and pull any good moments onto a timeline to create an assembly if the chronological order I pulled them in isn't quite right I'll group sections together and arrange them in chunks then I review the clips rating them into a few groups - normally "great people shots" "good people shots" "great non-people shots" "good misc" and "didn't make the cut" then cull all the "didn't make the cut" ones and start assembling little stories (sequences within locations) then I find music then I start to edit to the music and iteratively cut more and more out until I've got a tight end result The challenge I have is that step 1 takes forever and it's often quite demotivating finding that I missed shots, camera wouldn't focus, things I thought I had I don't, mistakes, etc. Once I get the music in place it becomes enjoyable, but before that it's just a chore. I've read that instead of the above where you touch every clip, some multiple times, that you just pull in the great clips and go from there, but I've found that often clips that aren't great are needed to complete sequences etc, and constantly playing "where was that clip I saw yesterday" doesn't sound like much fun either. I don't know what the answer is, but maybe there's a way to think about it that helps? I suspect my process is OK, I just need to change my perspective to make the process more enjoyable, such that I'll actually do it. I love to shoot way more than editing, so I have dozens of projects sitting unedited on HDD.. thanks

That's not a bad combo. It means that you'll use the 12-40 as a "wide but slower" lens for landscapes, establishing shots, and groups of people, all of which don't require razor thin DOF. Couple that with a fast prime that's somewhere in the 35-100 range (70-200 equivalent), and you can use that for portraits, detailed shots, and extra reach, which would all benefit from shallow DOF and add that bokeh sheen to your final projects. I guess it could be either overlapping with the 12-40 as a more generalist lens or a bit longer to give more reach and variety. A lot of the time a combination of using your feet and cropping in post can give you enough focal length variety, but it depends on your style and the situations you're in.

To add to what @IronFilm says, having two bodies is the killer combo for stills event shooters, and it's normally it's the 24-70 f2.8 on one camera and 70-200 f2.8 on the other. In a setup like that you have to pay for the two lenses anyway, and buying an extra body for backup is good business sense, so you may as well put it to good use while you're at it. Some photogs would have a "lesser" body as their backup, which if that meant it was a little cropped then you might have it on the 70-200 and that would mean you get a little extra reach on the zoom. It means there's a hole in your zoom range, but it's not that large and photos can always be cropped, although your mileage might vary with video depending on capture format, codec quality and output formats. I know it's not cheap, but it's a good use for your "old" camera when you upgrade. Edit: a lot of pros just use two normal camera straps crossed over their chest, so no need to go spend a lot on fancy straps (although they are comfy!)

I'd suggest working backwards from what you're trying to do. 1) Work out what types of shots you are likely to want for your style of film-making - it can be useful to look at your previous work and look at what ended up in the final cut 2) Work out what you need to get those shots - there's no point having all the primes in the world if the situation requires being able to quickly change between a wide and tele shot to capture a moment, but also if your look is more important than getting every shot then a slow/bad lens may never make the final cut 3) Then work out what is the nicest / lightest / sharpest / fastest lenses you can afford You might have the nicest lens in the world but if you miss the shot then the lens is worth less than a bad kit zoom that would have at least framed it right.

Yeah, it really is about your frame of reference. I used to think of my 700D as my "big camera" because I'd come from P&S and then m43 mirrorless before picking up the 700D! I've been into hifi (another horribly expensive hobby - I don't recommend it for your wallet!) and I remember the first time I had a reality check about the amounts of money involved. I was regularly listening to systems in the $80-250K range, and would think of a pre-amplifier as a budget model if it cost less than $20k. You can buy brand new cars for less!! You're probably right. My wife keeps saying this to me, well, that I worry about the size of the camera too much. I've done enough street photography to know that when it comes to members of the general public it's as much about how you act in public as anything else. I've shot with the XC10 on two trips now, the most recent one with the Rode Video Mic Pro Plus on top, and it now feels pretty close to "normal" now, so the 700D feels comfortable. I guess my worry is that going bigger is like a blind auction. You can go bigger and bigger and then with no warning you'll hit trouble of some kind. It would suck to be refused entry to a venue because you had the camera with you, or were forced to hand it over for 'safe-keeping' while you're out supposedly having fun (I'd just be worrying about the camera because these places will never take responsibility if something is 'lost'). I actually lost a Gorillapod SLR (a ~20cm tall bendy tripod) in the Vatican while on a package holiday. The rules they have in security is "no tripods" and because it had three legs, they flagged it. They were good about it and would have put it in a locker and returned it to me, but the tour was going in one entry and out another on the other side of the place, with no time before the bus left for me to go back and get it. Game over. I want better images but not enough to start having people ping me whenever I'm going into controlled situations. The kids school gets a bit funny with photography because of posting photos of other peoples kids onto social media, plus they also record things themselves and sell the DVDs (eg, school plays). The XC10 got some serious looks from the AV staff the last time I used it to record bits of a graduation ceremony. It's just a hassle I guess. It will be interesting. I should go read up on the rumours. Do we know if it will be focusing on video quality? @Mokara wrote a great post explaining that the DIGIC 1080 processing is likely thermally limited, which makes sense as all the Canon video models have fans. It might be another great camera with the same soft 1080 encoding. Sorry mate - I should have said. It's actually a lot better than you'd think because the XC10 is a proper grip you can get your fingers around. I have largish hands and find that with DSLRs now I notice that the ends of my fingers are mashing against the front part of the hand-grip, but almost not at all with the XC10. Here's the top-down view of XC10 vs 1DXii: and just for amusement and a subtle attempt to get back on track, here's the XC10 vs M50 - much smaller again:

Only lol - the 1DX is HUGE!! I think we live in different universes!!

It does, I suspect almost as many as the XC10. It was the interchangeable lenses to give me f2.8 on FF (or F4 in a pinch) that is missing, and then with that the AF system to match. Beyond those things the XC10 is just great.. Getting half-decent 1080 on a Canon DSLR was a big compromise of many aspects to try and get the depth and separation that larger apertures give. Thanks for trying though!

Thanks @Mokara that makes total sense. I realise I'm having the same conversation in multiple threads now but I guess I'm more concerned about the size rather than the form factor. The XC10 has lovely image processing (1080 included), has a fan included, and is still a lot smaller than the smallest of the Cinema cameras. Canon would absolutely kill it by taking a DSLR body (perhaps something like the 80D) and then: removing the mirror to make it mirrorless and using that space for a continuously variable ND filter this would allow a mode where you could set shutter speed and aperture and then by controlling the ND and the ISO it would manage exposure in all situations using a really nice sensor that did fast read-outs and had lots of DPAF points if they put in a high-speed buffer chip they could have very low RS too putting in both a DIGIC and a DV chip to enable full quality processing yes, this would mean the body would have to be a bit bigger and include a thermal solution, and hopefully would offer 4k60 and 1080p120 adding a CFast card slot for high-bitrate files I realise this could be CF or high speed SD but I already own CFast cards for my XC10 and this is my fantasy so... adding an extra dial and one or two extra custom buttons the XC10 only has one dial and three custom buttons and they're not quite enough and while we're at it, include a crop mode for ~3x zoom but with the same image processing This would create a camera that would be a high performance hybrid (as it should retain all the stills functionality too) and perhaps a new line. This sounds like a big ask but the XC line was brand new, and was aiming at people that wanted video on the go with the ability to pull still images from that video, so in a way Canon already has a hybrid line. So then, if you're going to have a hybrid line then why not have a high-end model in that hybrid line? Yes, charge for it. But it doesn't have to be so large. The logic makes sense because: It won't do video as well as the dedicated video cameras with heaps of buttons and SDI connections and all that pro stuff (if that stuff didn't matter then why were there other cameras in the range above the C100 mk I?) It doesn't do stills as well as the dedicated stills cameras like the 5DR or 1DXmkII (or, I could put it another way - start with an iPhone and .....) These cameras can be radically smaller. I'm just suggesting the next logical step in convergence.

For me it's a case of starting with what is best for the subject matter of the material, and what the film conventions are, and then working back from there with the minimum equipment. I agree with you completely - just because IS means you can get gimbal-like smoothness doesn't mean every shot should be a gimbal shot. I think I use the IS to be able to get the same kind of shots that those with tripods typically tend to do, but just not needing the setup time and hassle. Ie, static shots, pans (if there's a landscape or something larger than fits in the frame), or to follow an object (a person or animal). It's interesting that the C100mkII is smaller, it doesn't look that much smaller unfortunately although it's hard to find a good picture. I guess that what I'm asking for is somewhere between the XC10 and the C100. In terms of adding features, it's more likely to be a reduction from the C100 - a C50 perhaps? - although I'm not convinced that the increased size of the C100 sensor must mean that the camera has to be as large as the C100. The argument that a C100 isn't too large because larger cameras exist is just silly. It's like saying that the truck that is too large to fit in your garage does fit because road trains exist. I'm right there with you!

But..... BOKEH!!! (Yes, you're right...)