newfoundmass

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

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I understand your point about media and that would be a major concern for me as well. The SD cards needed for high quality 4K are expensive so I would pick a camera that uses CF, CF Express or an SSD, although I personally loathe SSDs attached to a camera but for your use, it makes sense.

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.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Both of these pain me so much. 

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.

4 hours ago, Walter H said:

If full-frame is a requirement for you, the Panasonic S1 has no record time limit but the S5 does - 29:59 (although that limit might now exist with an external recorder). But the S5 does have a screen that flips out and twists so that you can see yourself and see your framing once you get to work and make any adjustments. Helpful. 

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.

2 hours ago, alsoandrew said:

What lighting would you suggest? I am thinking of buying a main light + parabolic diffusor and a panel light. Maybe some reflectors, a matte panel, C stands, and some paper lanterns. And repurposing a few desk lamps and floor lamps for the rest. 

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):

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Just a 50mm? Probably won't be wide enough for everything they want to do. Thus why I suggested they get three lenses. 

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.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

If you're seriously committed to the idea of going FF, no matter what, then at least go for a S5mk1 instead of a Z6mk1.

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. 

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

IF I was in his shoes, I'd still be getting something like a FS5 / C100 on the cheap, even if the local TV market is not demanding anything better from me. For three reasons:

1) providing a bit higher quality footage than expected will help reduce the odds he gets fired/cut at some point over the next 5yrs+, even if it just improves the odds slightly by 10%, that still makes it worth it 

2) this next point is kinda the same as the previous point, because having a proper video camera means there is less fluffing about, and he'll be able to get the shot / get better shots when under pressure, thus "getting better quality shots" (in terms of content that is, not just image quality)

3) he can diversify out and dabble in doing videography work too for local companies / events

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!

1 hour ago, Django said:

You must consider most network channels in the US (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) still use 1080i; 720p HD resolution. This opens up or rather holds back quite antique video shooting standards versus Europe that has vastly transitioned long time ago to FHD and even 4K with 10-bit 422 requirements. Of course cable TV & streaming services in the US have higher requirements too.

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.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Doubt Canon would ever have priced it that cheaply right from the start. 

Maybe if Canon had announced their C70 six months (or even better, a full year plus) before the Sony FX6 (rather than what happened is the C70 was announced me weeks before the FX6) then maybe Canon could have at least made a substantial move in closing the market share gap between Sony and Canon.

Although, I am doubtful, remember back in 2020 then Canon's RF lens lineup was pitful, while Sony E Mount ecosystem had been built up over years and years. 

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.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Yup, there has been a big shift over the last decade.

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. 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

It really is quite sad, when you could pick up a Panasonic DVX200 or a Sony FS5 (with a lens) or a Canon C100 (with a lens) or a Sony PXW-X70 or Canon XC15 for just a thousand bucks or less.

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. 

49 minutes ago, mercer said:

To me, that's an eye opener right there. 

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.

58 minutes ago, mercer said:

I was thinking about buying a C100 Mark II to mess around with. Was using one of Canon's 1" 4K camcorders recently... the XA15 I think... and it was amazing. Hadn't had so much fun shooting since I first bought my 5D3 and the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L I used to own. I'd imagine a C100 is right up there.

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.

7 hours ago, Django said:

The C70 wasn't that overpriced in the sense that its an actual cine camera with pro I/O, ND filters, large battery etc. It also had a pretty singular DGO sensor from the top of the line C300 mk3. FX3 was basically a rehoused A7S3.

The main issue is that C70 was RF S35 but with zero APS-C RF lenses so you had to get the speed booster to adapt old EF glass. Really convoluted approach.. C80 is what it should have been from the start.

Still for solo docu work I'd take a C70/C80 over an FX3 for the NDs, internal RAW, battery life & I/Os.

You'd have to step up to FX6 for a fair comparison. FX3's competition is R5C.

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.

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

I do remember cheering out loud when I saw the filmmaker Cullen Hoback using an S1H on some BTS footage of the HBO doc from 3 years ago about The Q-Anon cult. I think he shot the whole thing with two of them. 

Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix comedy special "Inside" on the S1H, too.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

But the big shift over from Canon to Sony happened in the 2010's, and I think back then the lens/camera mount was less of a big deal.

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. 

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Sorry my reply was to this comment by @newfoundmass

"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."

I assumed the people he knows didn't make Sundance accepted documentary films, and work on events.

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.

I really do think this is a solid release. I do hope that we get more overheating tests and if there is an issue a firmware update to somehow fix it. Having overheating issues with active cooling is wild.

I do think I'll end up picking up a S1R. Having a higher resolution stills camera for taking promotional photos of performers in higher resolution could be really useful.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Why? What did he say

He essentially said he doesn't need/want to create "art", that it's not relevant to what he does or what his videos are about. He said he COULD if he wanted to, but doesn't want to. "If you want reviews like that, go somewhere else" was basically what he said. He said he doesn't care how these cameras perform in those scenarios, and says he really doesn't even care about things like DR or rolling shutter because he only makes videos in his basement set where he has lighting and the cameras are on tripods. He just tests that stuff because it's what people asked him to do. 

If you take that, and then go back to the video last year where he complained about Lumix and bragged about going on these exotic trips and never actually shooting anything, it just makes you wonder why he is even interested in cameras to begin with because he seems to have no real interest in creating anything with them other than videos of himself in his basement. 

I guess it's a living, but he seems miserable.

11 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, I think he is in his own right to only be a seller or using his channel to promote whatever he feels like. The fact everyone thinks because someone is somehow connected with cameras needs to be an artist is pure nonsense and even some lack of knowledge how an industry works.

I don't think it's nonsense at all. Cameras exist to create art. If you're not interested in creating art with them then why dedicate your time to them? 

It's like someone owning a bunch of guitars but not knowing, and having no desire to learn, how to play them. 

14 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

How come? Well, cameras are one of the main points for marketing to each release... ;- )

Because most people aren't going to ditch the convenience/familiarity of their iPhone for a camera focused phone from a camera manufacturer even if the photos and videos are significantly better than what the latest iPhone offers. And those that would be interested in such a product are so few as to make it extremely difficult to make a profit, I imagine.

I don't hate Gerald or think he's a bad person, I'm just bummed at what he has become. He genuinely seems pretty miserable doing this stuff, and the more he shares about himself (the comments about why he doesn't create anything were really illuminating) the more I wonder why he is even into cameras to begin with. If you aren't inspired to actually use these things to create art or entertainment, then what are you even doing?

Those comments in particular brought me back to a comment he made in his previous video last year, where he bragged about being brought on these press trips to exotic places and filming nothing. Say what you want about those trips and whether they are ethical or not, how are you not inspired to photograph or film the sights and sounds of these exotic locations and the elaborate sets these marketing folks have created for you if you're even remotely into cameras?

Surely your interest in cameras has to go beyond what you film in your basement and the tests you run on them... right?

Gerald DOES get a lot of dumb criticism, but he also uses that to deflect valid criticism by lumping it all together.

This thread, which also is related to another time Gerald got upset and decided to rant to his subscribers to make himself feel better, discusses most of the criticisms and his hypocrisy. He helped create the beast that bothers him so much today.

I remember making this post in October 2022, which is around the time I kinda realized what Gerald really is about. It still rings true, too. 

Quote

 

Watching the Gerald Undone video, and it's really a bummer to see how much of a Sony shill he has become. He will bring up negatives, but then downplays them or just outright dismisses them as not important. Meanwhile, he'll temper his compliments of other cameras. The titles of his reviews from the last year or so really sum it up, honestly.

Sony a7R V Review: A Fantastic Camera!
Sony a7 IV Review: The Best Hybrid Camera for the Money!
Sony Alpha 1: A VERY IMPRESSIVE Camera! (Sony a1 Review)
Sony FX30 Review: Good Camera. Great Value!
SONY ZV-E10 Review: Sony's BEST Budget Camera
The SONY a7S III: A Technical MASTERPIECE!
The SONY a7C: Why THIS Camera Is IMPORTANT!

vs.

Canon R3 Review: 10 Things I Love/Hate
Fujifilm X-H2S: A Very Nerdy Review & Technical Guide
Nikon Z6 II - Video Review & Blackmagic RAW Discussion
The PANASONIC S5: A STRANGE but POWERFUL Camera
Sigma fp L Review: A VERY CONFUSING Camera!
Kinefinity MAVO Edge 6K: An Undone Review

I don't even think he does it on purpose (or maybe he does?) But it feels like we're far ways from what made him appealing to me in the first place, which was a measured analysis of a camera's capabilities.

 

I don't think any camera company could enter the phone market and be successful at this point. As @ND64 mentioned, even the Chinese companies are having trouble. Heavy hitters like Microsoft and Google have tried to enter the market to little success; Microsoft failed while Google has a very small piece of the market despite being the primary developer of Android. And I think trying to appeal to folks that want better photos and videos is such a small niche that I don't think it'd work.

On 3/5/2025 at 6:51 PM, Davide DB said:

Sorry guys, I had to do it.

I really don't get this guy anymore. This video would be perfect for the "Rise of the salesmen, Death of the artist" thread.

@Andrew Reid feel free to delete this post 

 

 

He could probably save himself all these headaches by giving more context in his videos if he feels that they are being misconstrued or misunderstood.

It's hard to feel too sorry for someone who created the problem he now has. He pigeonholed himself into being THAT guy because it was what got the most views aka generated the most revenue, and now he hates it.

Seems less like "Rise of the salesmen, Death of the artist" and more "Rise of the salesmen, Reaping what you sow."

Hopefully they fix that for you, because it really doesn't make sense to limit it to certain modes. 

4 hours ago, John Matthews said:

After ralphing up my lunch from watching rolling shutter comparisons, I can safely say the Lumix S1Rii is pile of crap comparatively speaking. It's completely unusable in this regard and I'm sure Lumix will either be releasing an update or submitting a recall. Here's the proof: 

 

Forgive me because I've been terribly sick and am just waking up, but the rolling shutter only seemed really noticeable when dynamic range was on. For everything else it looked fine.