Jump to content

Why are bad cameras the best cameras?


kye
 Share

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
29 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

That looked really good. Then I see, shot of GF3. Wow! @kye GF3 is still sporting the same 12MP sensor from the GF1 which has underwhelming dynamic range and harsh highlight clipping even in raw photo. Hats off to your video, great colour!

Thanks!!

That's the second grade I did on that little edit.  The first was with a 250D 2393 PFE film emulation combo, and it well and truly broke the image!  Especially in the sky, it really exposed the jagged compression artefacts.  So I re-did the grade manually, dealing in a number of adjustments that are similar to a film emulation (including things like lowering the luma of saturated colours, etc) but limiting them to juuuuust before the image broke.

I think I've worked out that the GF3 is basically the digital equivalent of the 8mm film camera when film was in.  It's not sharp, hasn't got leading image quality, hasn't got stabilisation (except if you put a huge lens on it), and is full-auto, but is small and fun to use and gives a very "amateur" aesthetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

I posted this before, but here is some Lumix G6 footage I filmed, lit and "directed". Mighty Canon FD 28mm 2.8, nFD flavour, shot wide open. Such a kewl tiny and great looking lens, which you mights still be able to get for 20 to 40 EUR.

 

Speaking of great colour....  great colour!

Things like this just make me more motivated to practice my colour grading and develop my skills.  Every time I fire up Resolve and do some colour grading I can feel that I'm getting just a little bit better.  Both in seeing and noticing things, and also in being able to make the colour how I want.

While I was watching it I kept thinking of the FD and then thinking it was a Canon camera, but a G6 - that makes it all the more impressive! 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

I posted this before, but here is some Lumix G6 footage I filmed, lit and "directed". Mighty Canon FD 28mm 2.8, nFD flavour, shot wide open. Such a kewl tiny and great looking lens, which you mights still be able to get for 20 to 40 EUR.

 

I have the same lens, yes it has a unique look to it. Good choice for that video Marty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got into the intuitive side of grading again as much as I did with the G6. It was a camera which only lacked one thing to me, a 100mbit codec without noise reduction. I have been saying this a dozen times on the forum, I know. 🙂 Still got my G6 laying on my desk, like a good spirit, though it gave up working. The 28 nFD is a gem of a lens, especially in lit scenarios but also outside. The G6 not haveng IBIS made me film very carefully. I might pick up my almost unused G7 and give it some run. Kinda exiting thought!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

I posted this before, but here is some Lumix G6 footage I filmed, lit and "directed". Mighty Canon FD 28mm 2.8, nFD flavour, shot wide open. Such a kewl tiny and great looking lens, which you mights still be able to get for 20 to 40 EUR.

 

Very nice atmosphere and moody colors! Yeap, the FD 28mm 2.8 is one of my favorite lightweight wide lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

I never got into the intuitive side of grading again as much as I did with the G6. It was a camera which only lacked one thing to me, a 100mbit codec without noise reduction. I have been saying this a dozen times on the forum, I know. 🙂 Still got my G6 laying on my desk, like a good spirit, though it gave up working. The 28 nFD is a gem of a lens, especially in lit scenarios but also outside. The G6 not haveng IBIS made me film very carefully. I might pick up my almost unused G7 and give it some run. Kinda exiting thought!

Oh, I think the G7 was one of the best m4/3 cameras ever made, up there with the Olympus E-M1. Even though they are both older cameras now I think they still hold up in this day and age as way above cameras for what they cost, and output wise stellar. Overall, the G7 is better for both photos and video, but for photos the Oly E-M1 is amazing, I think it is even better than the MK II version output wise. More pure looking.

The G7 probably would not be my top pick for a Filmic, Cine look but for a person that wants a pick a cheap camera up and shoot for not much money it Really gets the job done with little to no hassle. Throw a 14-140mm kit lens on it and you are ready for nearly anything. Killer combo. It has amazing color science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh, I think the G7 was one of the best m4/3 cameras ever made

Same sensor as the GX7?  'Cuz that's really my favorite.  I lost that camera and regret it to this day.  I should buy another one just so I can put it on my shelf and smile at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 11:56 AM, webrunner5 said:

Some camera comparisons to ponder.

 

Thanks for posting this - I hadn't seen it and I really enjoy doing these blind tests as they reveal what products you like and also reveal what things you're looking for (I look for colour first and foremost, then texture).

My results were as follows:

F BMCC
D GH4
B- NX1, C100
B GH2, Z6
B+ GH1
A 1DC, EVA1
A+ GH6

The BMCC looked like it had colour issues (likely IR pollution).  Most of the cameras got marked down for looking "dirty" which came from shadows being too blue or the image being unacceptably noisy (some noise is fine).  I went back and forth on the top five as some of them made the saturated colours in the checker look neon and others made them darker and desaturated them slightly (like film does) so this aspect is sort-of personal taste.

I must say that I wouldn't have predicted the GH6 coming out on top next to the Z6, 1DC and EVA1 in there, but if the test had included a more modern Canon camera, a current BM camera, a Sony FF camera, or a Sigma FP then I suspect the GH6 might have struggled as those are all excellent.

It's also sad it didn't include a OG BMPCC or BMMCC.  Here's a video that @mercer showed me that is just spectacular.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

That lens is working well for you. Looks good, amazing for what they are price wise used.

I keep thinking I should do a sharpness test of the cameras / modes / lenses I have.  For example, obviously the 4K on the GX85 will be sharper than the 1080p from the GF3, but I haven't yet tested the 1080p24 or 1080p60 on the GX85.  

Of course, you can't test a codec without a lens, and how will (say) the GF3 with the 12-35/2.8 at F4 compare to the GX85 with the RMC Tokina 28-70 / 3.5-4.5 on the m42 SB? Not sure.

I've tested the GF3 with various lenses before and established that I only find the image acceptable if the lens is quite sharp to compensate for the soft codec, but how much softening does the GX85 need from a lens?  Not sure.  What about the P2K or BMMCC, also not sure.

How much can be achieved through sharpening in post?  By which mechanisms (I think Resolve has at least three ways to do it)?

Essentially it's about knowing what I like and then making pairings that can give me that (maybe with some treatment in post), and also give the right stabilisation and focal length and aperture combinations for whatever it is that I'm shooting on that occasion.

Lots more work to do yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not too fond of sharping in camera or in post at all. I think doing that with a great lens known for sharpness, Zeiss comes to mind, is the way to go. It is natural looking and predictable. And yes certain cameras are known for good sharpness also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, webrunner5 said:

I am not too fond of sharping in camera or in post at all. I think doing that with a great lens known for sharpness, Zeiss comes to mind, is the way to go. It is natural looking and predictable.

I suspect that you're right for most cases.  I've tried sharpening the GF3 image and it just reveals the compression around edges coming from the poor codec (17Mbps just isn't enough), and I've found that higher bitrates mostly don't need sharpening and higher resolutions don't need it.

What did need it though was the RAW and Prores 1080p from the OG BMPCC and BMMCC, as it was a little too soft straight out of the camera for my tastes.  I'm not sure how much this was due to the lens sharpness (the specific video I'm remembering was the BMMCC with 14mm F2.5 lens wide open - maybe if it was stopped down where it's ultra-sharp that might not have needed it?).

Anyway, apart from the BM cameras, I've never needed to sharpen, only to soften, but maybe there's a combo of camera / codec / lens that benefits from a little sharpening.  Adding a little sharpening in post can be invisible.  In my test where I zoomed in post to 150% it was obvious which the zoomed image was until I added some sharpening to match and then they were indistinguishable and the image didn't look sharpened at all.

Anyway, all this is why I need to do the tests.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...