zlfan

9 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

This is a really weird paragraph.

APS-C is popular in the filmmaking community because it's a really close match to the size of Super 35 film.  A majority of films made for decades were done on that film and there are bazillions of lenses that support the format.  Since the lens is generally much more important than the sensor, S35 continued to be popular in the video world.

Also, the real-world differences between FF and APS-C/APS-H are not nearly as big as people make them out to be.  One thing that hinders APS-C adoption in the still photo world is the lack of high-quality lenses optimized for the format.  As somebody mentioned before, Canon barely make any of them for RF mount and barely made any for EF-S mount.  On the other hand, Fuji APS-C bodies are growing in popularity and have a fantastic line-up of great lenses to support them.

It has nothing to do with rolling shutter, fwiw.  There are full frame cameras with global shutter.  Readout speed is only partly based on sensor size.

lens compatibility is a valid point here. but they are exceptions, like sigma 18-35 f1.8, canon efs 17-55 f2.8, etc. 

saying 135 full frame is not significant better than aps-c, whereas, a lot of still photog will be unhappy about this. even in video world, there is difference. i remember that i watched many 5d2 videos on vimeo in 2008-2010, and 7d videos. somehow, 5d2 just feels better than 7d. you have to watch many to get the feeling. 

in the still world, there are more choices on sensors in addition to sensor size, like ccd vs cmos, kodak vs canikon, etc. even canon 1 series vs lower tiers. in the video world, such differences are not there. to my opinion, video world has fewer options in terms of sensor. video world spends a lot of time on codec, whereas, still world cares about only uncompressed raw, uncompressed jpeg, tiff, etc.

probably, the major difference that the video world cares that the still world does not pay any attention is the rolling shutter. 

16 hours ago, kye said:

Alexa LF and 65 are both FF or larger, you know, just in case you care about if what you're saying is actually true...

 

i understand your point here. alexa 65 and alexa large format are equal or larger than 135 full frame. what i was talking was that the alexa classic and its direct followers like alexa ev, alexa 35, amira. especially, the alexa ev was about the same era as 5d3ml. the former is s35, 5d3ml is vista vision. alexa ev/35/amira have not one side win over 5d3ml. the same as f35. alexa 65 has three alexa ev sensors and alexa lf has two ev sensors. 

I think that the still photo cams reach plateau at around 2005-2010, the video cams at around 2010-2015. There are improvements later on, but not revolutionary. 

It is not so exciting to talk about cameras now. It is more about content. 

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

For a dedicated video camera, the C70 also has great DR, internal ND, and decent audio - and it has RF mount.  Put on Canon's focal reducer and your lenses will look almost exactly like they do on FF (though then it will be EF).

I'll do a side-by-side with my R5.  I never noticed raw video having a lot less DR than stills, but I never did any formal test.  I mostly just thought it seemed pretty mediocre/blah for both.  😄

As time goes on, I care less and less about having full frame for video.  I bought two dedicated cameras for video work in the last year and they were both RF mount with S35 sensors (though the K-X is more like APS-H than APS-C).  I've liked everything I shot with both, except for self-inflicted technical problems (which were no fault of the cameras').  

in the still photo world, people care full frame much more. aps-c or aps-h are considered lower quality. i don't know why in the video world, people don't care about full frame that much. maybe the full frame has more rolling shutter in video mode, which is not important at all in still photography?

personally, for still photography, i don't care about sensor size, i use nikon v1, pentax q, canon nikon pentax minolta olympus aps c, and 5d3 full frame, and kodak 645 pro 36x36. actually kodak 36x36 is the best, 5d3 is good, but not significantly better than others. nikon v1 1 inch sensor has better dr than many larger sensors. pentax q is good at iso100. 

16 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

The R5 seems like it would be a really weird choice for the ML people since it already shoots 8k raw - and I haven't noticed the DR in raw on my R5 seeming all that different from the DR on still images.  Whatever differences there are, IMO they wouldn't be enough for me to use ML raw and have to convert each clip before importing into Resolve vs just being able to directly open the Canon raw files directly.

Better for ML to target bodies like the original R6 which didn't include any sort of raw video - or even better, flesh out support for the M series which is tiny, cheap on the used market due to being a dead system, and has some models that are at least 4k capable. 

At least, if I were on the project, I'd be more excited to tell people "Now you can shoot 2.5k raw (or 3.2k or whatever SD card slot can support) on a $400 M50" than "Now you can shoot otherer more differenter raw on your $2,300 camera that already has raw."

you are right. r5 has low priority in magic lantern community. on the other hand, if there is no magic lantern community, r5 would have no 8k raw in stock mode. even so, r5 raw is compressed. people tested it against the 5d3ml, the dark area of r5 raw was not that good. 

8 hours ago, ade towell said:

I thought you were all about 60p, 5diii is only any good at 24/25p

Have been using the R5 recently and the DR in video is a long way below the DR in stills, I use Panasonic S5ii when DR is likely to be an issue especially in the shadows - there is something strange going on with the R5 and R6 in the shadows, as though it is cut off prematurely

For an allrounder video camera with internal ND, audio etc there are some great deals on Canon C500ii at the moment, would get my vote although wish it was RF mount

For a stills and video camera the Nikon Z9, Z8 looks hard to beat

I am not limited to 24p. If the camera has 60p, I will use it. If the cameras, like the magic lantern cameras, use 24p to maximize the resolution, I will use 24p. I don't limit myself. magic lantern is true lossless raw, so even at 24p, slow panning is usable. 

r5 canon raw is compressed, i think the compression ratio is 3 or 5. the dark area loses the details due to the compression. 

there are very few cameras better than 5d3ml. Alexa ev or other Alexa members may have better dr, but only s35 sensor, and much larger body size. f35 has ccd, but s35, and cumbersome body too. they may be better than 5d3ml, but to me, it is more a give and take option instead of they are blowing 5d3ml out of water. r5 has 8k raw, but not uncompressed. so on for others. I think 5dml already reaches a plateau, even though other cams are better, but not so much. 7d2 gives 1080p 60p slow, which is the weakness of the 5d3. 7d2 1080p s35 may also have effective dual pixel af, which is very useful for tracking. 

anyways, I think ml cameras are the best deals in this world. 

On 5/19/2024 at 4:02 AM, zerocool22 said:

Are there any good eos r or 7d2 magic lantern videos? I saw a 5diii magic lantern vs eos r magic lantern, but found that the 5diii had more DR over the eos r. Could be a bad test. 

Don't have any canons left, to test myself. Strange that there are no comparison video's online. Like eos r magic lantern vs pocket 6k, a7s iii, s5 and so on.

5d3ml if operates in full sensor mode is a vista vision cam, eos m is at most a s35 cam. 5d3ml certainly is better in terms of resolution and dr. 

On 5/18/2024 at 2:22 PM, SRV1981 said:

I’d pick the pocket 3. 
 

 

why is this one better than go pro?

On 5/16/2024 at 7:54 PM, zlfan said:

if 7d2 magic lantern matures, probably it. can do 1080p 60p s35 no alias no moire. the major issue is just like 5d3ml, no realtime high res preview on its own lcd. crop mood is so good for this. I like eos m, 100d too, although ml is not as stable as 650d/700d, but smaller, especially m, with a pancake lens, not much larger than the GoPro 12. 

to correct this. if only operates in 1080p full sensor s35 modes, actually lcd is high res high fps realtime. the preview issues are in the high res modes. 

even the latest fx9/fx6/fx3 will have issues in slow panning if they are not operated in raw modes, how can other lesser cams survive the 24p yet the thin codecs?

I have tested with nano flash 280 mbps iframe, on f3 at 24p, still the slow panning looks jumpy, although much better than the stock codec. at 30 p / 59.94 i sdi output on c300 og, the nanoflash 280 mbps iframe really is smooth. so that 6 frames really matter, even when using 280 mbps iframe, a codec is similar to or higher bit rate than the prores raw. how can thin codecs of 24p provide "filmic panning"? oh, does filmic really mean fuzzy or dizzy? lol. 

f900 with a hj 22x. your shoulder and back will enjoy the combo. lol. 

if 7d2 magic lantern matures, probably it. can do 1080p 60p s35 no alias no moire. the major issue is just like 5d3ml, no realtime high res preview on its own lcd. crop mood is so good for this. I like eos m, 100d too, although ml is not as stable as 650d/700d, but smaller, especially m, with a pancake lens, not much larger than the GoPro 12. 

c300 og with nano flash 280 mbps I frame 59.94i 1080p is good enough for slow panning. c300 og's stock 50 mbps 23.97p and 29.97p 1080p are not usable for slow panning. I use 59.94p timeline in davinci resolve, and get 60p footage, seems fine. 

there is a cost effect ratio here too. other than magic lantern cameras, uncompressed raw cameras are extremely expensive, like the Alexa family. on the other hand, a 60p camera with a low end codec can be very cheap. doing action packed shots, the latter one will be more suitable. try a 24p thin codec camera, you can hardly see clearly anything once the camera is panning, tilting, or doing other complexing movements. 

I just watched the gold rush 1925. where is the 24p magic? why am I still enjoying the story and composition and action such much? lol.

Black Magic just announced a new full frame 12 k cinema camera, can do 12k 60p. The higher resolution, the more severe dizziness if there is camera movement. For example, sd 480 shaking and panning does not give much dizzy feeling, but 1080p is much worse, 4k is even worse. 12k with 60p is much smoother than 12k 24p in moving scenes, due to the high resolution. 

initially, 24 fps and cameras were motorized due to the need to synchronize with sound. 

when I watch Chaplin's soundless movies, I really enjoy them, and I think they are cinematic. like city lights, modern times, and earlier ones. sometimes he even used rack focusing. Chaplin was during the transition period of 16p soundless to 24p sound. I think 24p effects are exaggerated and glorified and even sacrified afterwards. 

7d2 can write 200 MB/s for both cf and sd cards, much better than 5d3. not sure about eos r. 

On 4/7/2024 at 7:46 PM, kye said:

The pro cameras are pro because they have xls, nd, double recording, sci out, etc.

It's like saying "I really like my Toyota hatchback. it bests all of my so called super-cars and hyper-cars. if you don't care about acceleration, top speed, braking, cornering, cool factor, etc."

🙂 

agree. pro io is useful, especially for Multicam shootout. iq wise, they are not that outstanding. 

I set my epic-x mysterium-x to 5k 60p 2.40 5:1. I used 5k 24p 2.0 3:1. I don't see significant improvement over r1mx 4.5k 24p 2.40 7.5:1. 

I really like ml raw. it bests all of my so called pro video/cinema cameras. if you don't care about xls, nd, double recording, sci out, etc. if you don't care rolling shutter. 

nikon always does surprising game changing moves. d90 earlier than 5d2, buying red, z mount shortest flange distance, etc. 

On 2/17/2024 at 2:48 PM, PannySVHS said:

You can head over to german cult testing site and check the news via some auto translate. Magic Lantern also got into the 7D MK2!

exciting. game changing. 

but strong codecs are better than weak codecs.