newfoundmass

If they re-released the pocket with the same sensor but with a battery that lasts at least 90 minutes I'd buy it. That was literally the only reason I stopped using it. There were times I just wanted to go out with it and film some cool stuff without having to rig it up, but it was just a pain. I loved everything else about it, even the quirks, but battery life was such a deal breaker. To this day though that image is my absolute favorite out of any camera I've ever shot with. Using that camera made me better at my craft and I miss it.

For me it's the original Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. That camera, and all the wacky c-mount lenses I used with it, was just so much fun to use and everything I got out of it looked so much better than it should have, at least to my eyes. I FELT like an artist using it, as opposed to a videographer. That was such a special sensor, and to this day I still don't understand why every camera manufacturer hasn't switched to a menu system like it (and the other BMD cameras.)

This. Yeah, we can look back at older films and remark about how nice they look, but I can name you just as many (and, frankly, probably more) that look like absolute dog shit visually. Ironically, some of those are my favorite films! But most of them weren't made to intentionally look that way, they just did because of budget limitations. There is a lot of really bad looking films out there though. In fact I'd say most films from the film era aren't any more remarkable looking than what is filmed today digitally. There certainly are exceptions, which is why I do agree to a certain extent that it's unfortunate that most everything has moved to digital, but I can't say that every film I watch today would look substantially better if it'd been shot on film, especially lower budget ones. It's really easy to look back with rose tinted glasses and say "everything looked better back when it was shot on film." I think the bigger issue with the move to digital is how disposable images have become in general. We all shoot thousands of pictures on our phones every year but most we never look at again after taking them. In fact, most of the time we put little thought into taking them. Or at least I am guilty of that. They just sit on our phones, taking up digital space waiting for the day when maybe we remember that we documented this moment or that moment. Whereas with film, or even video tape, aside from the camera itself, you were limited by how many pictures were left on the roll, how many rolls you could afford to buy, and then the cost of developing them. You also didn't get that immediate feedback of looking at a photo you just took to see how it turned out, instead you had to wait until it was developed. I remember going to sports events as a kid with my camera and only having two rolls of film. That was roughly what, 50-60 pictures total? I had to choose carefully what pictures I took less I run out of film and miss something extraordinary. I couldn't just waste pictures! Now though I'll take 60 pictures in the span of 5 minutes with my phone! Taking photographs or moving images was a much more thoughtful experience in the film days. Today that doesn't really exist, because content is so disposable. Even if you are fortunate enough to create something that breaks through, something else rapidly comes along to take the viewers attention away. With the rise of TikTok it has gotten even worse than it was during YouTube's peak. 15 seconds and then it's on to the next thing! Still, that isn't to say it all is bad. But it's not all good either.

I very much prefer the image of the OG S5 over the S5II X, but people really make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the "worse" image. It's really not that bad. In the year I've had it not one client or viewer has complained about the image; in fact it has been the exact opposite! I feel like cameras have plateaued so now people over analyze and overstate every little thing. But virtually all of this stuff doesn't matter to the audience that we are creating these images for. Anyone with any discernible talent will be able to take the S1RII and create compelling images with it. That bride is going to love the pictures you take, the corporate client is going to be ecstatic with the talking head interviews you shoot, the MMA school is going to be psyched with the promotional video you film, etc. As long as it's in focus, the colors are okay, and it's framed well, these folks aren't going to really care if it's a little noisier than the R5II or if the rolling shutter is slightly worse than the A7RV. I don't know how it is where you all live, but there are literally people making money using cheap Canon Rebel DSLRs and kit lenses in my area. I see friends post their wedding pictures, their kid's senior portraits, baby pictures, and all of that stuff on Facebook all of the time. Most of the time these photographers aren't even good at what they do, put people I know still go crazy over them and post these photos they paid for proudly on social media! These photographers still get paid work, not just because they are cheap (that certainly helps!) but because the average person's standards aren't all that high. That's not to say that we should lower our standards, just that we should remember the big picture (no pun intended) and stop worrying about the small things that aren't going to matter to 99.9% of our clients/audience.

I'm sure he'll argue "that was almost two years ago!"

But cameras are funner and this is a camera forum 😉

I've never bought anything from lensrentals, though I've rented from them! I found they kept their gear well maintained, but obviously when buying something from a rental house you're buying something that was heavily used and there's always a risk to that. Do you know if they have any warranty? The good thing about the other places is they give you a warranty, which is always nice.

Right? Haha.

Still about $1500!

I get it, but you can get fine audio from almost any mic, as long as it's close enough to the source. Add some tweaking in post if needed and 99% of those watching aren't gonna notice the difference between a $100 mic and $500+ mic. As long as it's not peaking, there's no hum or other noise, it will be sufficient for YouTube. I mean, heck, going back to my buddy that uses a cheap Movo wireless mic going into a T3i that has terrible audio preamps! That gets used on the local nightly news on the NBC affiliate! I quite like Lumix colors, and the natural profile on the S5 is what I usually go with when I don't need to do heavy grading. As long as your white balance and exposure is set correctly you'll get very good results, and 8-bit is good enough to do some tweaks as long as you don't try to push the colors too much. Markus is great in that he thinks of some creative ideas, especially outside the box ones. I quite like his video/photo content, though when I read up more about him I cringed quite a bit when it comes to his health/motivational speaking stuff. Aside from disagreeing with most of it, he is accused of hiring people to attend tapings so that it looks like he's giving these motivational speeches in front of large crowds that uses for promotional videos when they are just paid actors. So I just stick to the video/photo channel, haha! I've never had an issue with using manual focus on the Lumix S5, and I usually use the screen instead of the EVF (I know, I know!) You can also buy a cheap 5 or 7 inch monitor if you have trouble nailing focus, but I've never had that problem personally. Also auto focus really isn't that bad on the S5, especially if you are there to monitor it. I definitely understand why people who are used to PDAF complain, but I've used it for year and really don't have a ton of complaints about the auto focus, especially once you get used to its quirks. I know @MrSMW, who also used the S5 a lot, has similar views. Having PDAF on my S5II X is nice, but I still use AF on my two S5 bodies and it's "fine." It's weather and dust proof! Haha! I am not trying to be a shill, but it really does blow my mind that this camera is so readily available for under $1000 on the used market. I just don't think you can beat it when it comes to video features, especially when it comes to full frame. It is very easy to overlook the EVF and auto focus when you take into consideration how powerful it is in every other way. And it's a camera that will still stand up 5 years from now, in terms of image quality and usability. I've had it for a couple years now and I still haven't used all the features, like anamorphic and external RAW. So it's literally a camera that technically I could still grow into using if I decided I wanted to use those features down the road. The only thing that I would warn about those is they can overheat when filming for long times and the X-T3 has recording limits in all modes, from what I remember. I really looked hard at Fuji a few years back; if not for the bad IBIS and the recording limits/overheating it was the system that I honestly thought would have been the perfect, as I really like Fuji colors. It's still over $1,000 here in the States. I've been keeping my eye on the used prices because I increasingly want one haha!

I wish more companies would do stuff like this. I'm looking at you, Panasonic.

You can film 4K on cheap v30 cards. You can get a 256gb SD card for under $40 and a 512gb SD card for under $60. I use them on my S5 and S5II X.

I get it, but it's probably the best mic under $100 that he can get and better than the Deity he was considering. For someone just shooting YouTube videos that aren't generating revenue it's more than enough.

Also, instead of the Deity I would go with the RODE VideoMic GO II. It will sound pretty good as a boom mic if boomed close enough and is surprisingly decent directly plugged into your computer if you need to do voice overs, since it has a USB-C connection.

Just a small correction: the Lumix S5 has unlimited record times in 4K 8 bit except 60P. Record limits are for 4K60p and 10-bit. There are SO MANY options when it comes to affordable lighting these days. I mean, realistically, you could get away with $7 clamp lights, cheap LED bulbs and using shower curtains as diffusion to start off. Especially if it's only ever gonna be used in your "studio". Here are a couple videos that might be of some help when it comes to lighting. Markus is an eccentric, kinda weird fella and I don't always agree with his conclusions, but his videos are always interesting and he buys a lot of stuff to try out (just try not to get suckered into his health/motivational grift): I was just going by what he wrote in his original post! He mentioned wanting a camera and a 50mm. I'd recommend he goes with the 20-60mm kit lens too. f3.5 isn't bad at all on the wide end and it's a really good quality lens to the point that it's kinda insulting to call it a kit lens when compared to every other kit lens out there. I use it on almost every professional shoot I do. Yeah, the Z6 is a lot more limited when it comes to video than the Lumix S5 is. The S5 is very much a video focused hybrid, while the Z6 was a photo camera that also did some video. It was a big step forward for Nikon in the department, but the S5 is superior in every way other way when it comes to video other than maybe autofocus.

I don't see why you couldn't get a used Lumix S5, a used 50mm f1.8, a tripod, mic, and lights for $1.5k. If you get the Lumix S5 for $730 and the Lumix 50mm f1.8 for under $250 (https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/panasonic-lumix-s-50mm-f-1-8) then you're already under $1k. That leaves you with $500 for a tripod, mic and lighting. That's very easy. There are so many decent affordable options in those categories these days.

With the way the journalism industry works, especially in television, in five years he'll probably be in Wyoming or some other small market, assuming he doesn't become one of the anchors or lead reporters! I haven't had cable in 8 years, but yeah, I think a lot of them are still in 1080i. I think you have to pay extra for anything that is 4K, including on streaming services like Netflix.

Canon never would've priced the C70 that low but they probably should've. By 2020 the winds were already changing in the camera space, whether it was mirrorless or video/cinema cameras. People were a lot less willing to pay the Canon tax when everyone else started releasing cameras with everything they could put into them for the same price (or sometimes less.) ESPECIALLY when it came to full frame and how the market was swinging in that direction. The choice is easier if you were already a Canon or Sony shooter, but in late 2020 if you're looking to purchase a camera and aren't already a loyal Canon or Sony shooter, I think the FX6 probably won out for most people. And then when the FX3 came out, if you hadn't jumped on either the C70 or the FX6, you had a compelling option for even less money WITH a upgrade roadmap to the FX6 right there for when/if you decided to upgrade. Nevermind when then the FX30 came out, adding another path you could take to get to an FX6. The C70 had a much pricier roadmap should you ever wanted to upgrade. I don't personally even like the image coming out of the Sony cameras. The Canon C70, in my opinion, has a much nicer image. But I'd still have gone Sony if I had to choose. As a tool it just made sense and was the direction the wind was blowing. Plus I know so many more people shooting with Sony, which would have made it easier to collaborate. All of my friends who work for major sports leagues and sports franchises have switched to Sony for both video and photo. I'm talking people who work for WWE, AEW, the UFC, the NBA, the Boston Celtics, etc. Ten years ago they were all Canon. Canon still wins with brand recognition. If you ask most folks to name a camera company Canon will still be the first one most people name. And if you look at your normal brick and mortar store, like Best Buy here in the United States, you'll see their best selling camera is the Canon EOS Rebel T7, a seven year old DSLR. At Walmart it's the EOS Rebel T100, another seven year old DSLR. But on the professional end Canon is losing ground and has been for a while. I'll ask him, but my honest guess is he's expected to provide his own camera and is using what he had. If it's what he had, or if it's what he could afford, I get why he uses it over his phone. He can still get decent shallow DOF when doing interviews, and good enough quality footage. After all, Vermont is a very small television market! It was still funny though; it feels weird to have so much nicer equipment to film my rasslin' events with than the local NBC affiliate uses to cover our event! But when people see it at home I don't think they really care what camera they used or if the audio sucks, as long as it's in focus and the sound is audible. With the way the journalism industry has collapsed he's probably not in a position to be able to purchase a nicer camera. Which is a bummer.

Yep, he uses a T3i and a cheap MOVO wireless mic (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1542503-REG/movo_photo_wmx_1_2_4ghz_wireless_lavalier.html) right into the camera. Budgets for local news have been cut all over the country; lots of reporters use their cellphones or their own cameras now. When I first did ENG work I was the camera guy that worked with the reporter and used professional equipment provided by the station. Now they all do it themselves for most stories, and only use the professional equipment (which is also mostly ancient) for major stories/press conferences/live feeds. The Panny DVX200 was pretty ubiquitous up here as far as station cameras were concerned but those all went away and now my bud uses a T3i and a $40 wireless mic system haha. Wild times. When using the C100 mk2 recently I fell in love again with the body design and, honestly, the image looks good upscaled to 4K. I could very easily take three of those bodies and do my multicam work with them, upscale it to 4K and it'd be fine. Most people wouldn't notice or care. There was some voodoo going on, too, when it comes to that codec. 8-bit at 28Mb/s or whatever it was shouldn't have been as thick as it was, but you could do some pretty heavy color grading on such a small file. The only thing that I would miss is IBIS, but with a body like that it is less of an issue. I know sites like Lensrentals sell them used for under $700 now, and you could probably find them even cheaper on eBay if you wanted to risk getting something that had no warranty, exchange, etc. It's a testament to the kind of workhorse that camera is that there are so many out there still going strong all these years later.

Yeah, I'd escalate it to a manager or something. This is nonsense!

For me I only really need three cameras, and they're what I have: Lumix S5 (2) Lumix S5II X (1) They cover all of my professional needs and I also just enjoy using them for my own personal use. I do plan on picking up a S1R when the used price goes down even more. Having a high resolution stills camera for promotional pictures I think would be useful. I could also use it for backstage promotional videos at my wrestling events. I've also debated getting the Lumix S9 as an everyday carry camera. I really don't enjoy using my phone to shoot photos and video. It just doesn't give me that good feeling I get when using a real camera. I sometimes feel like I'm in the minority though in that regard.

While I understand what you're saying and somewhat agree, there are more people using FX3s than C70s, and there are plenty of reasons people went for it instead of the C70, namely lenses, full frame sensor, and price. When you then factor in the FX6, which was similarly priced and had "better" features, the C70 seemed like even less of a good deal to those who weren't married to Canon. Not only does this graph support that, but just my own personal experience does too. Between sports, weddings, conventions, festivals, commercial shoots, news gathering, and docs etc. I really can't emphasize enough how few people I see using Canon these days, let alone the C70 or C80. Compared to 10 years ago or so when I'd do these same events and there were tons of C100s and camcorders, it's really night and day. Though the guy coming to do a story on my wrestling event this Sunday for the local NBC affiliate will be using a T3i, which cracks me up.

Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix comedy special "Inside" on the S1H, too. Yeah, by the time they released the C70 (for $5500) the landscape had radically changed. It was only three months later that Sony released the FX3 for $1600 less than the C70 and 18 months later that they released the FX30. Unless you were a loyal Canon user there weren't many reasons to buy one of their overpriced cinema cameras when there were more affordable and, arguably, better options. If Canon had released the C70 for $3500 things might be a bit different today.

Events are my bread and butter and they are dominated by Sony. I really don't know many Canon video users outside of corporate shooters, where the C70 is a big hit with them. A friend of mine is also using C100s and I got to use them again recently, which reminded me how much I loved that camera and wanted to get one so bad for the longest time! But here, at least in the northeast, Sony really has taken over from my experience. Meanwhile I'm over here trying to do all of it with my Lumix cameras! Haha!

The decline in Canon's cinema lineup started a while ago. It took them too long to release a 4K successor to the C100, and what they have released are too expensive. I mean, the C70 was $4500 on release which is a lot when you compare it to what else was out there in that price range. Before that your options were the C300 mk III ($9,000) and C500 mk II ($11,000). That's a lot of money when Sony had cheaper options. I know so few people shooting video on Canon these days, and those that do are mostly in corporate work. I'm actually surprised that many films used Canon cameras.