Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thebrothersthre3

Matching Fuji, Panasonic and Canon

Recommended Posts

Really debating what camera system to go with right now. I am very happy with everything the XT3 offers, and I currently own it along with a few Fuji lenses. I may just buy an XH1 and XT2 for my B and C cameras and call it a day. 

However I am also toying with the idea of a GH5 or C100 as a B or C camera. If anyone could send me some side by side footage from a C100 or GH5 next to any Fuji camera recorded in LOG, I'd appreciate it. Something with skintones would be awesome. Want to see how easily I can get them to match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Really debating what camera system to go with right now. I am very happy with everything the XT3 offers, and I currently own it along with a few Fuji lenses. I may just buy an XH1 and XT2 for my B and C cameras and call it a day. 

Start with the problem and then work your way to a solution.  Otherwise the grass will always be greener, this is why companies do marketing - to trigger the "wouldn't it be great if..." reaction.

Matching colour in post sounds important to you and will add more fiddly work to every project, which is the last thing any of us needs in our lives!  If you buy an XH1 and XT2, what major problem will you have with that setup?

Once you know what major issues you'll have, then you can work out what you might buy instead, then you can assess what issues that will add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kye said:

Start with the problem and then work your way to a solution.  Otherwise the grass will always be greener, this is why companies do marketing - to trigger the "wouldn't it be great if..." reaction.

Matching colour in post sounds important to you and will add more fiddly work to every project, which is the last thing any of us needs in our lives!  If you buy an XH1 and XT2, what major problem will you have with that setup?

Once you know what major issues you'll have, then you can work out what you might buy instead, then you can assess what issues that will add.

That's definitely true, maybe I just needed to hear someone else say it. I used to own the GH5 and part of me wants it back. Its probably more of a hiccup in my workflow though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just share experience and point of view, not at all advice. So, from my narrow perspective and goal of usage, I learned that my decision primarily and mostly come from lenses, not from cameras. I learned that I'm so fond to old school manual and cinema lenses, that I can't really find enjoy in modern, electronic, plastic ones without precise MF. For some reason that maybe origin from my character or education, I simply can't use autofocus, although it is great add - maybe I don't like helps and adds. But, I also learned that, unfortunately, I don't fully enjoy in permanently usage of adapters. So, my totally narrow experience say: choose first lens(es), then system. Cameras comes and go, bettering each other, lenses may stay with us for a long time.

Having said that, it seems to me that both Fuji and Panasonic (and BM) today are extremely attractive. Without doubt, we can match them, but why complicate matters and do so? At the moment when I started to be more seriously engaged in video/movie shooting, Fuji had no enough competitive characteristics. Now it is different, although still not quite.

If I'm starting now and have XT3 in hand, maybe I'll wait and see coming of XH2 - it seems that it will be greatly rounded tool. But, I will not choose that if I don't firmly know about most important lens that I'd stick with it - it is Fujinon MK zoom. I tried Fuji XF lenses, but I was not fully satisfied with them, as also with Panasonic, Sony, even also and Olympus ones. But now I think that SLR Magic or Makinon or so make old school Fuji primes and there are also Veydras that give wider angle to APSC sensor.

It seems that new Nikon cameras have to have adapter for using old beautiful Ais's. Pity, but maybe I could digest it. In general, it seems to me that FF cameras are not yet enough reasonable choice for my narrow usage. I had few Sony ones.

The most important reason for still staying with Panasonic is, of course, again lenses. But I'll not name them :)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

That's definitely true, maybe I just needed to hear someone else say it. I used to own the GH5 and part of me wants it back. Its probably more of a hiccup in my workflow though.

I sure like my GH5, but if I was constantly having to match it to something else I'd probably like it a lot less!

49 minutes ago, anonim said:

I can just share experience and point of view, not at all advice. So, from my narrow perspective and goal of usage, I learned that my decision primarily and mostly come from lenses, not from cameras. I learned that I'm so fond to old school manual and cinema lenses, that I can't really find enjoy in modern, electronic, plastic ones without precise MF. For some reason that maybe origin from my character or education, I simply can't use autofocus, although it is great add - maybe I don't like helps and adds. But, I also learned that, unfortunately, I don't fully enjoy in permanently usage of adapters. So, my totally narrow experience say: choose first lens(es), then system. Cameras comes and go, bettering each other, lenses may stay with us for a long time.

Having said that, it seems to me that both Fuji and Panasonic (and BM) today are extremely attractive. Without doubt, we can match them, but why complicate matters and do so? At the moment when I started to be more seriously engaged in video/movie shooting, Fuji had no enough competitive characteristics. Now it is different, although still not quite.

If I'm starting now and have XT3 in hand, maybe I'll wait and see coming of XH2 - it seems that it will be greatly rounded tool. But, I will not choose that if I don't firmly know about most important lens that I'd stick with it - it is Fujinon MK zoom. I tried Fuji XF lenses, but I was not fully satisfied with them, as also with Panasonic, Sony, even also and Olympus ones. But now I think that SLR Magic or Makinon or so make old school Fuji primes and there are also Veydras that give wider angle to APSC sensor.

It seems that new Nikon cameras have to have adapter for using old beautiful Ais's. Pity, but maybe I could digest it. In general, it seems to me that FF cameras are not yet enough reasonable choice for my narrow usage. I had few Sony ones.

The most important reason for still staying with Panasonic is, of course, again lenses. But I'll not name them :)

This is excellent advice.  Lenses are really the place to start with building your setup to deliver the aesthetic you want to create.  

Also, don't underestimate the benefits of only having to buy one set of lenses that can be used across all your camera bodies.  And also maybe things like batteries, media, and accessories, although they're potentially more universal, or aren't the same across a brand.

Also also, if you have a setup with different brands and different non-compatible lenses then if a body fails you can't swap in another unless you have duplicate lenses and everything.  From a purely artistic perspective having a mixture might be an appealing thought, but from a "get it filmed, get it edited, get it out the door, get paid" kind of perspective, compatibility has real advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Really debating what camera system to go with right now. I am very happy with everything the XT3 offers, and I currently own it along with a few Fuji lenses. I may just buy an XH1 and XT2 for my B and C cameras and call it a day. 
 

I'd maybe pause until the X-T30 comes out and take stock then to see how much of the X-T3 it ends up containing.

The X-T2 is currently ridiculously cheap secondhand so if you need something in the short term as a second body then I'd be inclined to go for that as B camera now and decide whether it stays there or becomes the C camera when the X-T30 shows up.

If you decide to ditch the X-T2 at that point then its likely the current used price hasn't got that much further to drop so you won't lose much money on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, kye said:

I sure like my GH5, but if I was constantly having to match it to something else I'd probably like it a lot less!

This is excellent advice.  Lenses are really the place to start with building your setup to deliver the aesthetic you want to create.  

Also, don't underestimate the benefits of only having to buy one set of lenses that can be used across all your camera bodies.  And also maybe things like batteries, media, and accessories, although they're potentially more universal, or aren't the same across a brand.

Also also, if you have a setup with different brands and different non-compatible lenses then if a body fails you can't swap in another unless you have duplicate lenses and everything.  From a purely artistic perspective having a mixture might be an appealing thought, but from a "get it filmed, get it edited, get it out the door, get paid" kind of perspective, compatibility has real advantages.

Maybe as somehow interesting topic for further thinking, during time I made one conclusion - that people  that are genuinely (I mean, from some deeper intellectual foundation and motivation) attracted to filming are mostly divided into two (of course very often intertwined) categories: "storytellers" and "painters". Maybe Hemingways and Faulkners, to say so in anglosaxon's language frame. For "painters", lenses are fingers for touching the world, for "storytellers" far more less so, more just tool for crafting story and secondary to "speaking tool" that are cameras. Because "storytellers" are primarily tend to present great, intriguing, moving story, "painters" to spread and disclose/integrate inner human being with universe. One begin with "I told you story about fabulous world", other one "I show you world as story through perception".

What is relation with OP question? I don't know, I just hope there's always some minimal chance that in my words exists some sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, anonim said:

Maybe as somehow interesting topic for further thinking, during time I made one conclusion - that people  that are genuinely (I mean, from some deeper intellectual foundation and motivation) attracted to filming are mostly divided into two (of course very often intertwined) categories: "storytellers" and "painters". Maybe Hemingways and Faulkners, to say so in anglosaxon's language frame. For "painters", lenses are fingers for touching the world, for "storytellers" far more less so, more just tool for crafting story and secondary to "speaking tool" that are cameras. Because "storytellers" are primarily tend to present great, intriguing, moving story, "painters" to spread and disclose/integrate inner human being with universe. One begin with "I told you story about fabulous world", other one "I show you world as story through perception".

What is relation with OP question? I don't know, I just hope there's always some minimal chance that in my words exists some sense.

It makes a lot of sense to me.  

I think it also links into what inspires us as creative people.  I know that when I was writing electronic music I would hear a sound and it would make me really excited to make it into a song and to add other cool sounds to it.  When I look at the output of my GH5 It motivates me in a similar way because the aesthetic is what I want to create and it lifts my mood just looking at it.  There are likely many story-tellers who also appreciate the aesthetic of various elements of the camera system.

I would suggest that this emphasis on aesthetics is what drives some people to look at vintage lenses instead of using modern lenses that are technical superior in most cases.  Some want that 'look' whereas others just want something that will capture the image accurately and get out of the way.

I also think that neither has any advantage.  I watched the first episode of Russian Doll on Netflix and I was hooked because it had a unique story element that really engaged me as a viewer.  It could have been shot on a potato and it would still have been engaging and made me want to watch more.  It's also beautifully shot, which sure helps, but it's not why I watched the entire first season in one go, only finishing at 3am.  

The advice of playing to your strengths is really good I think.  You can be good at every element of film-making but you're not going to hit real success unless you really differentiate yourself by getting great at one thing.  If you're a storyteller then tell great stories with whatever camera is easiest.  If you're a painter then paint exquisite pictures.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kye So nice, never heard of Russian Doll (I had no TV last at least 20 years), now I've just found serial and will watch. Out of curiosity, if I'm not mistaken, you are from Australia, so do you know if anybody made adaptation of Patrick White novel "Voss"? That book is marvelous stylistic achievement and it would be truly challenge for an Malickian visualisation...

So to maybe simplified connection - especially for "painter"-like inner creative impulse, it seems to me that organizing equipment collection primarily around lens choice is good-to-think direction. Why? Maybe because manual focusing better/deeper connects shooter with live visual presentation of world as media, as alter-ego, not just as narrative elements. In that regard, old school lenses are also far better for capturing some sort of characteristic "soul" of impression.

Actually, I found that modern lenses are often imposing and falsify reality in harder way than so-call "lens with character": human eye (with soul behind) also doesn't view object in such sterile way, so it is also fakery of objectiveness and computative-selective precision.

Having said that, I come back to Fujinon zooms or Veydras or manual Leicas, Voigts etc as possible referent points: some of them aim to be  reflective glass in purest neutral form but always checking subtle deformation of eye-perception (that was philosophy of Mandel), some so excellent simulate more subtle emotional "abberations" that, actually, belongs to unevitable psychology of humane eye in process of viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah stick with Fuji... not just lenses, but batteries, codec, menu system... in the end, why run around like a chicken with its head cut off.... if its all in the same system - you have simplified your life and all you are looking to do is match colors.

If you were starting off with a new system, I will always recommend PL lenses to start your lens collection.... like @anonim said don't depend on electronic AF - go straight MF. Its easier to switch systems if you aren't really invested in any company.

I know everyone boasts about Canon's DPAF - but in my opinion - not a fan.... it works on faces, but on animate objects - sometimes it hunts. And, in critical situations, time sensitive moments - thats not cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, anonim said:

I can just share experience and point of view, not at all advice. So, from my narrow perspective and goal of usage, I learned that my decision primarily and mostly come from lenses, not from cameras. I learned that I'm so fond to old school manual and cinema lenses, that I can't really find enjoy in modern, electronic, plastic ones without precise MF. For some reason that maybe origin from my character or education, I simply can't use autofocus, although it is great add - maybe I don't like helps and adds. But, I also learned that, unfortunately, I don't fully enjoy in permanently usage of adapters. So, my totally narrow experience say: choose first lens(es), then system. Cameras comes and go, bettering each other, lenses may stay with us for a long time.

 

 

5 hours ago, kye said:

I sure like my GH5, but if I was constantly having to match it to something else I'd probably like it a lot less!

This is excellent advice.  Lenses are really the place to start with building your setup to deliver the aesthetic you want to create.  

Also, don't underestimate the benefits of only having to buy one set of lenses that can be used across all your camera bodies.  And also maybe things like batteries, media, and accessories, although they're potentially more universal, or aren't the same across a brand.

That definitely makes sense. Its partly why I am considering switching over to exclusively Canon cameras for the glass options. There is a wide selection of glass for manual and auto focus options. Fuji doesn't have a ton of manual glass options. I use auto focus to the point where its a bit essential for how I shoot. However I also use manual focus a lot too. Like you had mentioned Fuji auto focus glass is not really ideal for manual focus. I already have a set of Minolta vintage glass, which I love. But than comes the issue of fuji and minolta not matching color wise, not sure yet how dramatic the difference is.

 

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'd maybe pause until the X-T30 comes out and take stock then to see how much of the X-T3 it ends up containing.

The X-T2 is currently ridiculously cheap secondhand so if you need something in the short term as a second body then I'd be inclined to go for that as B camera now and decide whether it stays there or becomes the C camera when the X-T30 shows up.

If you decide to ditch the X-T2 at that point then its likely the current used price hasn't got that much further to drop so you won't lose much money on it.

This is what I am going to do. I was considering waiting for the X-T30. The only thing I need it to have is log or eterna. However the other downside of the X-T30 is no battery grip. The X-T2 plus battery grip might actually be more advantageous to me than the improved auto focus of the X-T30. There is also the issue with the XH-1 of moire in 1080p recording which is a bummer.

 

4 hours ago, kye said:

It makes a lot of sense to me.  

I think it also links into what inspires us as creative people.  I know that when I was writing electronic music I would hear a sound and it would make me really excited to make it into a song and to add other cool sounds to it.  When I look at the output of my GH5 It motivates me in a similar way because the aesthetic is what I want to create and it lifts my mood just looking at it.  There are likely many story-tellers who also appreciate the aesthetic of various elements of the camera system.

I would suggest that this emphasis on aesthetics is what drives some people to look at vintage lenses instead of using modern lenses that are technical superior in most cases.  Some want that 'look' whereas others just want something that will capture the image accurately and get out of the way.

I also think that neither has any advantage.  I watched the first episode of Russian Doll on Netflix and I was hooked because it had a unique story element that really engaged me as a viewer.  It could have been shot on a potato and it would still have been engaging and made me want to watch more.  It's also beautifully shot, which sure helps, but it's not why I watched the entire first season in one go, only finishing at 3am.  

The advice of playing to your strengths is really good I think.  You can be good at every element of film-making but you're not going to hit real success unless you really differentiate yourself by getting great at one thing.  If you're a storyteller then tell great stories with whatever camera is easiest.  If you're a painter then paint exquisite pictures.  

 

5 hours ago, anonim said:

Maybe as somehow interesting topic for further thinking, during time I made one conclusion - that people  that are genuinely (I mean, from some deeper intellectual foundation and motivation) attracted to filming are mostly divided into two (of course very often intertwined) categories: "storytellers" and "painters". Maybe Hemingways and Faulkners, to say so in anglosaxon's language frame. For "painters", lenses are fingers for touching the world, for "storytellers" far more less so, more just tool for crafting story and secondary to "speaking tool" that are cameras. Because "storytellers" are primarily tend to present great, intriguing, moving story, "painters" to spread and disclose/integrate inner human being with universe. One begin with "I told you story about fabulous world", other one "I show you world as story through perception".

What is relation with OP question? I don't know, I just hope there's always some minimal chance that in my words exists some sense.

I am at a bit of a crossroads in regards to this. My interest as a filmmaker was initially story driven, though that may be because at the time I didn't really understand the visual element or what went into it. I've since delved into the obsession with cameras and gear, which oddly enough doesn't really correlate much with story or visuals. I love good visuals and they compliment any good story but of course like most people what makes me excited to turn on the TV is an engaging story and compelling acting. Though I have to say when amazing visuals and amazing story meet, that's what gets me truly excited.

 

1 hour ago, mkabi said:

Yeah stick with Fuji... not just lenses, but batteries, codec, menu system... in the end, why run around like a chicken with its head cut off.... if its all in the same system - you have simplified your life and all you are looking to do is match colors.

If you were starting off with a new system, I will always recommend PL lenses to start your lens collection.... like @anonim said don't depend on electronic AF - go straight MF. Its easier to switch systems if you aren't really invested in any company.

I know everyone boasts about Canon's DPAF - but in my opinion - not a fan.... it works on faces, but on animate objects - sometimes it hunts. And, in critical situations, time sensitive moments - thats not cool.

I am coming to a point where I am a bit of a utilitarian. If only to let me focus more on the creative aspects without gear holding me up more than in needs to. I really like to use auto focus for certain applications, though I use manual focus a lot too. Might have to look into Fuji zooms, though not sure if I am ready to jump into PL mount glass yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If only to let me focus more on the creative aspects without gear holding me up more than in needs to. 

Yeah... well... gear never holds anyone back...

Its a mental state that you and most people on this forum have... including me.... its just G.A.S.

Trust me.... this constant look for the best gear... best color... best dynamic range.... never ends and these companies are more than willing to fulfill your needs only for you to blow more of your money - supply and demand - the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer just to feed this never ending need for consumerism.

You need to "focus more on the creative aspects without" thinking about the gear your are using.

If Ford Coppola kept thinking about the gear holding him back..... Well.... you know how that would have ended up... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Yeah... well... gear never holds anyone back...

Its a mental state that you and most people on this forum have... including me.... its just G.A.S.

Trust me.... this constant look for the best gear... best color... best dynamic range.... never ends and these companies are more than willing to fulfill your needs only for you to blow more of your money - supply and demand - the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer just to feed this never ending need for consumerism.

You need to "focus more on the creative aspects without" thinking about the gear your are using.

If Ford Coppola kept thinking about the gear holding him back..... Well.... you know how that would have ended up... 

True though shooting weddings ends up being a lot more utilitarian than directing a movie. I am not saying gear is going to prevent you from making something great, but it makes it easier or else we'd all still be shooting on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a concept that I particularly like called Satisficing.  The general idea is that you work out what the minimum criteria are, and then you work out how to meet that criteria in the most efficient way.  Applied to equipment, it might be that you need certain resolutions, apertures, lens range, battery life, reliability, etc.  You then work out what options there are and buy the cheapest / simplest / easiest one and then ignore any options that were better than the one you chose.

We kind of talk a lot on here about how we love high quality images and therefore if we could all afford it we'd have an Alexa.  Apart from the times when we often have criteria that rule it out (like, most of us can't afford one!) if we worked out we just needed 1080p RAW we might instead end up with a BM camera instead.  

Personally, I had a Canon 700D and I was dissatisfied with the sharpness (this was before I knew anything about anything) and so I decided to go 4K.  I got the XC10 but ended up being dissatisfied with the images that came out of it because the lens had a very small aperture and I wanted to get more depth - the images from it just looked flat.  Then I got my GH5 and some nice lenses and I love the look of it.  I watch high budget films shot on Alexas / REDs / film / etc and I see the BM RAW from the P4K but the grass isn't greener for me.  When I look at the footage I just want to love the images I get, and with this setup I do.  

There's some part of me that looked at my previous setups and said "no" and now it says "yes" and I don't feel the need to upgrade.  It took a GH5 and a few nice lenses to get over that line for me (as well as me having to work out what it was that was important to me) and now I'm satisficed.

I think that's a good way to think about it, and it can work for the creative elements too.  There will always be a better lens, a higher DR camera, a cleaner more directional mic, a cleaner preamp, a higher bit-depth, a higher bit-rate, etc, but once you're satisficed then those things stop mattering.  If you're feeling the urge to buy then work out what it is that your current equipment doesn't do for you (that you actually miss in real life, not in tests or spec sheets) and then work out what is the cheapest easiest simplest way to fix that, and stop as soon as you get there.

6 hours ago, anonim said:

@kye So nice, never heard of Russian Doll (I had no TV last at least 20 years), now I've just found serial and will watch. Out of curiosity, if I'm not mistaken, you are from Australia, so do you know if anybody made adaptation of Patrick White novel "Voss"? That book is marvelous stylistic achievement and it would be truly challenge for an Malickian visualisation...

So to maybe simplified connection - especially for "painter"-like inner creative impulse, it seems to me that organizing equipment collection primarily around lens choice is good-to-think direction. Why? Maybe because manual focusing better/deeper connects shooter with live visual presentation of world as media, as alter-ego, not just as narrative elements. In that regard, old school lenses are also far better for capturing some sort of characteristic "soul" of impression.

Actually, I found that modern lenses are often imposing and falsify reality in harder way than so-call "lens with character": human eye (with soul behind) also doesn't view object in such sterile way, so it is also fakery of objectiveness and computative-selective precision.

Having said that, I come back to Fujinon zooms or Veydras or manual Leicas, Voigts etc as possible referent points: some of them aim to be  reflective glass in purest neutral form but always checking subtle deformation of eye-perception (that was philosophy of Mandel), some so excellent simulate more subtle emotional "abberations" that, actually, belongs to unevitable psychology of humane eye in process of viewing.

My theory is that some of us like older lenses because they're less sharp, and when we were growing up the cinema was also less sharp, so the old lenses are triggering that nostalgia.

I shoot my GH5 with the least sharpening (and soon to start using 5K open gate mode), lower bitrates, and also with softer lenses and I love the images because they kind of feel timeless to me.  They feel 'right'.  If I look at a 4K YT video shot with an RX100 it looks too sharp.  If I look at footage from my 700D it looks too sharp and compressed, if I turn down the in-camera sharpening then it looks blurry.  Therefore, there must be a middle ground somewhere in there.  That middle ground is kind of my reference, and the look my setup gives me hits that middle ground and so I don't get distracted by how sharp / blurry / compressed the footage looks, and due to the DR and 10-bit it has a kind of film-look to it that also triggers nostalgia for me.  To me it looks timeless.

Who knows what the nostalgia will look like in 30 years time when the people in their teens now are watching over-sharpened 4K YT videos and Transformers 6 will be in their 40s and wanting to create a nostalgic look. Maybe they'll take their 12-bit RAW 8K VR goggle 360 footage and over-sharpen, then blur, and then over-sharpen again to get that digital pushed-to-breaking-point look that they fell in love to, had their first dates watching, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kye said:

My theory is that some of us like older lenses because they're less sharp, and when we were growing up the cinema was also less sharp, so the old lenses are triggering that nostalgia.

Maybe, but I, personally, don't think so, or at least I can't approved that nostalgia effect in myself. Simply argument? I watched Tarkovski's Nostalghia 100 times (btw even wrote big 3-parts novel with same title and motto from that movie) - but I properly enjoyed just in last restоration of it, which is, actually, pretty sharp and detailed :)The same goes with 3 movies from Parajanov that are, finally, very recently restored/saved out from too soft, muddy look. Or, maybe there's some false hope for me, maybe I'm still not too old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, anonim said:

Maybe, but I, personally, don't think so, or at least I can't approved that nostalgia effect in myself. Simply argument? I watched Tarkovski's Nostalghia 100 times (btw even wrote big 3-parts novel with same title and motto from that movie) - but I properly enjoyed just in last restоration of it, which is, actually, pretty sharp and detailed :)The same goes with 3 movies from Parajanov that are, finally, very recently restored/saved out from too soft, muddy look. Or, maybe there's some false hope for me, maybe I'm still not too old?

 

53 minutes ago, kye said:

There's a concept that I particularly like called Satisficing.  The general idea is that you work out what the minimum criteria are, and then you work out how to meet that criteria in the most efficient way.  Applied to equipment, it might be that you need certain resolutions, apertures, lens range, battery life, reliability, etc.  You then work out what options there are and buy the cheapest / simplest / easiest one and then ignore any options that were better than the one you chose.

We kind of talk a lot on here about how we love high quality images and therefore if we could all afford it we'd have an Alexa.  Apart from the times when we often have criteria that rule it out (like, most of us can't afford one!) if we worked out we just needed 1080p RAW we might instead end up with a BM camera instead.  

Personally, I had a Canon 700D and I was dissatisfied with the sharpness (this was before I knew anything about anything) and so I decided to go 4K.  I got the XC10 but ended up being dissatisfied with the images that came out of it because the lens had a very small aperture and I wanted to get more depth - the images from it just looked flat.  Then I got my GH5 and some nice lenses and I love the look of it.  I watch high budget films shot on Alexas / REDs / film / etc and I see the BM RAW from the P4K but the grass isn't greener for me.  When I look at the footage I just want to love the images I get, and with this setup I do.  

There's some part of me that looked at my previous setups and said "no" and now it says "yes" and I don't feel the need to upgrade.  It took a GH5 and a few nice lenses to get over that line for me (as well as me having to work out what it was that was important to me) and now I'm satisficed.

I think that's a good way to think about it, and it can work for the creative elements too.  There will always be a better lens, a higher DR camera, a cleaner more directional mic, a cleaner preamp, a higher bit-depth, a higher bit-rate, etc, but once you're satisficed then those things stop mattering.  If you're feeling the urge to buy then work out what it is that your current equipment doesn't do for you (that you actually miss in real life, not in tests or spec sheets) and then work out what is the cheapest easiest simplest way to fix that, and stop as soon as you get there.

My theory is that some of us like older lenses because they're less sharp, and when we were growing up the cinema was also less sharp, so the old lenses are triggering that nostalgia.

I shoot my GH5 with the least sharpening (and soon to start using 5K open gate mode), lower bitrates, and also with softer lenses and I love the images because they kind of feel timeless to me.  They feel 'right'.  If I look at a 4K YT video shot with an RX100 it looks too sharp.  If I look at footage from my 700D it looks too sharp and compressed, if I turn down the in-camera sharpening then it looks blurry.  Therefore, there must be a middle ground somewhere in there.  That middle ground is kind of my reference, and the look my setup gives me hits that middle ground and so I don't get distracted by how sharp / blurry / compressed the footage looks, and due to the DR and 10-bit it has a kind of film-look to it that also triggers nostalgia for me.  To me it looks timeless.

Who knows what the nostalgia will look like in 30 years time when the people in their teens now are watching over-sharpened 4K YT videos and Transformers 6 will be in their 40s and wanting to create a nostalgic look. Maybe they'll take their 12-bit RAW 8K VR goggle 360 footage and over-sharpen, then blur, and then over-sharpen again to get that digital pushed-to-breaking-point look that they fell in love to, had their first dates watching, etc.

 I grew up watching cropped VHS movies though, so low quality video does hold a certain nostalgic to me. I can feel nostalgic about something I never experienced though, I have a fascination with the 1960s and 80s even though I grew up in the 90s/2000s. There is definitely a difference between film and digital though its very hard for me to make out. A good copy of an older film looks very detailed especially once you get past the black and white era. I remember seeing Star Wars the Force Awakens and I really couldn't tell it was shot on film though it was advertised that way.

I've been going through the same process you have. GH2(Broke) then I got the GH4 followed by the GH5. Sold both and purchased a X-T20. My reason for switching was actually color. I got the XT3 when it was released and for me I am satisfied with it like you are with the GH5. I have weighed things a lot and there really isn't much more I need. An Alexa is cool but at the same time the XT3 gives me things the Alexa doesn't and its more practical for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 

 I grew up watching cropped VHS movies though, so low quality video does hold a certain nostalgic to me. I can feel nostalgic about something I never experienced though, I have a fascination with the 1960s and 80s even though I grew up in the 90s/2000s. There is definitely a difference between film and digital though its very hard for me to make out. A good copy of an older film looks very detailed especially once you get past the black and white era. I remember seeing Star Wars the Force Awakens and I really couldn't tell it was shot on film though it was advertised that way.

I've been going through the same process you have. GH2(Broke) then I got the GH4 followed by the GH5. Sold both and purchased a X-T20. My reason for switching was actually color. I got the XT3 when it was released and for me I am satisfied with it like you are with the GH5. I have weighed things a lot and there really isn't much more I need. An Alexa is cool but at the same time the XT3 gives me things the Alexa doesn't and its more practical for me.

It sounds like you want to just stay with Fuji :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, kye said:

What bodies do you think you'll get?  

I have the X-T3 so I'll get an X-T2 next. I just don't really need IBIS. The Xt2 also apparently has less moire in HD 60p and 120p. Might eventually get a 3rd XT2 or XT3 plus external recorder. My setup for weddings is two shooters plus a 3rd unmanned camera doing a wide shot which needs no record limits. Using a G7 atm, which works for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...