newfoundmass

On 9/12/2019 at 1:29 PM, Snowfun said:

Are the MFT SLR anamorphic really that bad? I’m often tempted even tho’ the x2 looks slightly absurd on P4k but have never got round to it.

I don’t want the hassle of adapters etc etc so they have obvious attractions but if the image is as terrible as implied then maybe I should stay away. 

Tom Antos has used them quite a bit, so they can't be that bad. 

A lot hinges on what kind of events you're talking about. If you need to be able to record for longer than 30 minutes you've pretty much only have Panasonic to chose from. While Sony says their cameras, starting with the a6400, have unlimited record times, they will overheat if you go much longer than 30 minutes. The a6600 might be better though? 

The GH5 with the 12-35 f/2.8 is an excellent combination. It's what I generally use for event coverage, unless I know I'll need more reach. I don't even bother with a gimbal most of the time unless I absolutely need to, instead opting for a cheap shoulder rig that helps stabilize and make longer shoots easier. 

12 hours ago, TurboRat said:

Agree here. Reviews for the G95 aren't great since the G85 is still a good buy

Not to mention for a little more you can get the GH5! 

8 hours ago, kaylee said:

under $500 has gotta be potato

ive gotten good results from them before, but if you have the budget i would NOT recommend using one

You can get a Panasonic G7 for under $500 now. It arguably has a better image than the GH4!  There are quite a few Panny cameras under the $500 range at this point that are excellent value! 

I'm trying really hard not to get one, because I don't need one, but that's how good a value those are! ?

I mean it's easy to crap on Canon but it's true. I'd have to say they'd take up most of the list. 

I'd also put the Panasonic G95 on there, as though it's a great camera it's a marginal upgrade over the G85 and you can get the G85 for so little now that there's not a lot of reasons to get the G95. Probably not a worse value than any of the Canons in that price range, but it was a disappointing release and I've heard almost nothing about it since release, which isn't a good sign given how popular the G85 ended up being. 

Not to knock Aputure, cause they clearly make incredible lights, but you can get Neewer or YONGNUO lights in the $25 range that have a CRI greater than 90. I think the YONGNUO YN-300 lights I have are in the 94 to 95 range? The options for affordable, decent lighting in the last 5 years have increased dramatically. Caleb Pike did a video covering like 10 lights under $50 and it's wild what you're able to get these days. 

Obviously if you're able to afford Aputure they're one of the best choices, but if you can't don't get discouraged, there's tons of options. 

The GH4 obviously isn't a great low light camera, but it's weakness there has always been overblown. If you're relying on only available light you'll run into problems, but anyone should be able to get fine results doing even minimal lighting. $7 dollar clamp lights with CFL bulbs or $25 LED lights from one of the many Chinese manufacturers will go a long ways in lighting a "low light" scene. Even in 2019 the GH4 is more than capable for that kind of work. My friend's production house still uses the GH4 for most of their work, opting to rent if necessary. I still occasionally work with one when helping him out. If the bulk of my work wasn't event related I'd have bought one, but ibis is a huge help for my work. 

What lenses do you have? The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 is really cheap new or used. There's also a lot of fast vintage glass out there: you can get the Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.7 for well under $50, or the 50mm f/1.4 for around $50-75. I am just getting my feet wet in some narrative work and I love my Minolta primes; they have such great character. Just lovely glass.

Tl;dr: rock n roll with that GH4 girl! 

Adorama is selling the Godox Sl-60w for $109.00, which is a steal since you're dealing with a reputable company and not a random eBay seller. 

It's a great light, and while it's not the Aputure 120D killer that people use for click bait YouTube titles, it has great output and high CRI. I built a kit out of em and they're great! 

https://www.adorama.com/gosl60w.html?origterm=sl-60w&searchredirect=true

Sometimes it feels like some people will never be happy. 

This is great news, whether you buy it or not. That affordable anamorphic lenses are hitting the market is a big deal and a sign of things to come. 

I really wish I'd waited to update to DR16.

That's a very good point Kye, though I still think Shell should look into lighting and audio. Those are the things that you'll need regardless of the project, it's just a matter of figuring out which work best for the most work you do.

I spent so much money on gear that I rarely use. It's nice that I have it when I need it, and it has often gotten me jobs, but gear is such a addictive thing. I'm glad to have finally moved on from being impulsive, though I'm still a sucker for a real bargain! 

16 minutes ago, Shell64 said:

I currently have $200 to invest in extra gear for my kit. I already have a g7, lenses, Tripods, etc. I do not have any lights, stabilizers, or cages though, and only have a cheap lav mic. What are some things you would buy if you were in my situation?  (total of everything must be under 200)

What kind of stuff are ya shooting? Lights and sound are definitely what I'd invest in, regardless, but getting the right lights and mics for what you'll be using them for is key. 

For a mic the RODE Video Micro is a good choice for $60ish dollars, though the Movo VXR 10 is I think $40 and there's not much difference between the two. They can both be used on camera or boomed with good results. 

YONGNUO has some pretty good LED light panels starting at around $25. Aputure has some better ones too for a little more money. You can also go the clamp light route, with either CFL or LED bulbs, you'll just want to get higher quality bulbs so you don't have to worry about flicker.

I just picked up two Godox SL-60W lights for $200 total on eBay that are arriving tomorrow. You can get one of those for around $120, and it's comparable to the 120d from Aputure. 

Panasonic certainly needs to sort those issues out. It seems Panasonic did themselves no favors with the scenes they set up for people to test the camera with. 

Most opinions I've seen have been very positive, but you always need to take those with a grain of salt until people have really been able to spend some time with the actual camera released. That's one of my biggest problems with these press events: you can't tell a lot from spending 90 minutes with a camera, good or bad. You get a partial picture, but some of these reported issues, for example, are things people might've not noticed until having used the camera for a considerable amount of time. 

I have more faith in Panasonic than I have in a lot of other companies, but they definitely need to make sure these issues are resolved, if not by the time it's released (preferred), but shortly afterwards. 

It's frustrating to see Mokara make the same argument over and over again despite all logic and reason.

Canon left out 24p in their lower end cameras because they wanted those users to spend more and/or invest in the new RF mount cameras. 

It really is that simple. It's a calculated move where they've decided that the rewards outweigh the negatives. 

Casual users are unlikely to care or notice, which is the only thing Mokara is correct about. 

Enthusiasts/low budget filmmakers will either pay up for more "premium" cameras, because of brand loyalty or the amount of money they have already invested in Canon gear, or they will move on to a different camera system. 

From a purely financial standpoint it makes sense, because unless their sales absolutely tank, they'll end up making more by forcing people to pay more for the features they've always had, even if a percentage of users abandon Canon. They've probably calculated those customers were at risk of buying different cameras anyway. 

But by removing 24 fps from their new sub $1,300 cameras they've given you two choices if you want to stay with Canon: pay up or buy up the remaining inventory of soon to be phased out cameras that are collecting dust in warehouses and store back rooms. 

45 minutes ago, TurboRat said:

You put both Zooms and lavs on bride and groom?

I put one on the groom and one on the officiant. Sometimes I'll also just put the H1 on the podium if there is one and only lav up the groom. 

I've thought about trying to lav up the bride but I think it's too invasive. 

I'm still skeptical about the claim that the Z6 is getting internal RAW. I'll believe it when I see it. 

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Gee thanks! But no, not really. I still work an awful lot in the low budget / indie tier of productions. 

Tomorrow's short film is an ultra low budget self funded short film, yet it will be shot on an ARRI AMIRA, and I'll be showing up with my so called "fancy" sound gear from Zaxcom/Sanken/etc (no DPA mics though, sorry)

Many forum goers just need to set their sights a little higher. 

I think there's a middle ground: I think that people should expect at least minimum level of quality from a $200 wireless system, especially from a company like RODE. That is to say, people should rightfully expect the thing to work as advertised. I'd also say though that a $200 wireless set may not be the best choice when shooting something like a wedding, where you've got one chance to nail everything. There's just too great a chance that something will happen. That's why I use a Zoom H1 and a lav. Definitely not fancy but I've never had it fail on me, which is more than I can say for most (all?) wireless systems I've worked with. 

4 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Not only that there has been no evidence posted  whatsoever that their is a substantial cost in having 24p AVC codec available in a camera. None.

There's actual documentation citing the exact opposite! 

28 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

I wish he would shut up already. This thing has already been debunked and he is still going off. 

It's beating a dead horse at this point. 

9 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

They got rid of overheating in the smaller A6 APSC cameras so it seems like they could with full frame too, even with 4k 60p. I mean the XT3 does 4k 60p in its smaller body. 

I honestly think its a money motivated move not a lack of tech. The A73 is probably still selling pretty well. 

The a6400 still overheats in 4K after 30 minutes or so. 

6 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Thx, just checked their S1 photographs. I am prolly a too big of a canon fanboy, but I like the 5D iv photos a lot more, offcourse its not a direct comparison and depends on the photographer, grade. But overal I dig the Canon look more then on any picture I have seen on the S1, but prolly just a personal preference thing. Too bad Canon sucks video specs wise...

I don't blame you, Canon cameras produce such lovely images without having to do a lot of processing. It's hard to beat them when it comes to images straight out of the camera. 

I think the S1 though is still an excellent stills camera. I've found it to be more pleasing than Sony, for instance. 

8K is just a way to sell TVs. As stated previously, the screen size needed to get the benefits of 8K is far larger than most people will ever have. The average TV size in the US is under 50 inches. You'll need a TV at least twice the size to begin to see the benefits of 8K. 

We haven't really even achieved the benefits of 4K yet! I don't even know how much of the country can even stream 4K yet. 

From a production standpoint, 8K has some uses. For most of the users on this forum, they don't really NEED 8K even if they WANT it. 

21 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Are there any actual photo's shot with the S1h that we can download somewhere or even see, I know they are orienting it to video, but in the end its a stills/hybrid camera, and there is not one picture on their website? If I would consider this camera it is also because I could have 2 bodies in one. 

I haven't seen much of anything on its photo capabilities other than a Panasonic rep saying that it can do everything the S1 can do. 

I trust Panasonic when it comes to the GH6, so I'll take a wait and see approach, but that's a lot of MPs. 

If there's a reason to it's fine, but I'm not a big fan of it as a stylized choice, though there are always exceptions. 

9 hours ago, Dunjoye said:

All those features you mentioned are in the 1dx mark ii, bar IBIS.

This is one of the sillier things ever said on here. That's a $5500 camera. The X-H1 is a $1300 camera. 

That you need to spend $5500 on a Canon camera to get the features you can from a camera that's 1/4 the price is an issue. 

9 hours ago, Dunjoye said:

Which supports my argument that the niche market for video dont really know what they want , when they often pretend like they do.

They want all of that for under $5500 ?

I mean it's funny, because when you look at all the channels that have "DSLR" in their names almost all of them now shoot on Sony or Panasonic.