2025 camera rankings new vs used

[fuzzynormal]

Well, I figured if the viewers online are so non-discriminating and it just needs to be vert-vid to be a reel on our group's page, I'll just do it like this and call it good.  I'm lazy, I guess.  Also, we ain't trying to maximize views, so no real PR stakes involved here.

 

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

3 hours ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

And nobody seems to want to turn the camera 90 degrees

I think the goal is to record once and have a frame that can be cropped to work with both landscape and portrait edits.

[Clark Nikolai]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Well, I figured if the viewers online are so non-discriminating and it just needs to be vert-vid to be a reel on our group's page, I'll just do it like this and call it good.  I'm lazy, I guess.  Also, we ain't trying to maximize views, so no real PR stakes involved here.

 

 

It looks like even the eagle is wondering why you aren't holding the camera vertically.

[fuzzynormal]

16 minutes ago, Clark Nikolai said:

It looks like even the eagle is wondering why you aren't holding the camera vertically.

Dang.  It even affects wildlife!

[FHDcrew]

Something interesting I’ve found, my most common deliverables are actually 2:35:1 and 9:16. If you want to deliver both horizontal and vertical and frame for 2:35:1, you end up with some solid headroom for vertical stuff. Decent alternative to open gate IF you are making 2:35:1 content. I get that 2:35:1 is def a personal preference and there’s a lot of work that has to be 16:9, but I’ve found that can work well. 
 

I get it though. Open gate is useful. 

[newfoundmass]

11 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Honest question, Do you really think people would notice if you center cropped your 4k or higher 16x9 videos to vertical for social media? Like the loss of resolution is that bad when viewed on instagram or facebook after compression? It can help a bit for framing in my experience but it feels like companies are marketing the social media angle as an easy feature that’s already built in and people are drinking the kool aid. 

My argument for open gate is really the benefits for anamorphic shooting. Cropping for instagram from a 4k 16x9 file has always been fine for me. 

When using 16:9 to create vertical videos, the loss of resolution is less of the issue (at least for me) and more the POV, especially as it pertains to action. You lose so much information cropping a 16:9 video into a 9:16 timeline. Open gate allows you to crop off less from the left and right, giving you more perspective.

Here is an example, though it's not exactly a perfect one, since one shot is made from a cropped 16:9 frame and the other is from a cell phone that was filming in 9:16, since we were doing quick on site turnaround working with the college that hired us' social media team, but you'd get the same effect using open gate like we usually do. (Sorry this was just the easiest/most recent example I could make.)

This is made from a 16:9 frame. Notice how the celebrating wrestler takes up the entire frame, so you can't see many of the attendees?

Here is a shot straight from the vertical video. You'd get the same view if you were cropping an open gate image.

The second image is preferable, especially when it comes to marketing ourselves to other colleges who might be interested in hiring us, as they can better see the reaction everything is getting from the students in attendance. Plus, it just offers a broader image that better illustrates the vibe and excitement of the audience.

[newfoundmass]

double post sorry!

 

 

[Ilkka Nissila]

14 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Social Media, visually anyway, is vertical.

I don't quite see it that way; if social medial platforms are viewed on a computer, the browser takes up all the display area available and fits the content using the whole window, this can be vertical or horizontal or square for that matter. Basically only when the social media is viewed on a mobile device do some apps and websites default to vertical viewing, but that's a limitation of the device basically, and the typical way people default to using it. Originally instagram photos were square, not vertical or horizontal. Some social media platforms assume that a video is shot vertically on a mobile phone, and for a time it wasn't even possible to shoot in horizontal oritentation and have the social media site or app display it correctly; it would always force it to the vertical format. This, however, is incompatible with the way most news media sites present videos, which are horizontal only, mimicking TV. When these news media sites then displayed social media videos or cell phone videos, they would not be able to technically display the video as a vertical, instead they generated blurred sides to the video to turn the vertical video into horizontal. This is all a bunch of nonsense really. Vertical videos make it difficult to show the context and environment in which something is happening. This is why cinema and TV are in landscape orientation: it's better for displaying the content. Photos have been always shot both vertically and horizontally (probably most still horizontally, for the same reason as video), as the continuity can be broken in stills and one can simply flip the camera quickly to vertical and shoot some (portrait) shots that way and return to the landscape orientation to show context; in video, one can not do such flipping without causing problems to the viewer. Books and magazines naturally lend to images in portrait orientation or in some cases, square; for displaying a landscape image in large size one would need to use a double page spread, which of course is commonly done, but it does create some issues if an important part of the image is in the mid section. What's more the verticals in (still) photography were traditionally not anything remotely like 9:16 but 4:5, 3:4, and 2:3. I think seriously social media apps and sites should consider making the vertical format something like 4:5 rather than 9:16 as the latter is just not very good. It's too narrow. Device fitting inside a pocket in an extreme limitation. Clearly, if the main reason vertical videos are requested by advertising clients is people looking at their mobile phones in tube or bus, or wherever, the quality loss from cropping from 16:9 is hardly going to be visible on those tiny displays. Sure, the angle of view is narrrower but it's always going to look awkward having such an extreme aspect ratio in a vertical image.

 

Interesting to hear that there are now high-resolution displays which show video content in public. I can't remember for sure seeing such things myself, though it's possible that I have seen it but didn't pay attention to it. I would be very surprised if those displays are as elongated as 9:16 though. It just doesn't make any visual sense to use such an extreme aspect ratio for vertical content when there is a choice to stick to 4:5 or 2:3. And when those much more suitable aspect ratios are used for the vertical content, the cropping from landscape 16:9 is less extreme and easier to manage.

[newfoundmass]

5 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

When using 16:9 to create vertical videos, the loss of resolution is less of the issue (at least for me) and more the POV, especially as it pertains to action. You lose so much information cropping a 16:9 video into a 9:16 timeline. Open gate allows you to crop off less from the left and right, giving you more perspective.

Here is an example, though it's not exactly a perfect one, since one shot is made from a cropped 16:9 frame and the other is from a cell phone that was filming in 9:16, since we were doing quick on site turnaround working with the college that hired us' social media team, but you'd get the same effect using open gate like we usually do. (Sorry this was just the easiest/most recent example I could make.)

This is made from a 16:9 frame. Notice how the celebrating wrestler takes up the entire frame, so you can't see many of the attendees?

Here is a shot straight from the vertical video. You'd get the same view if you were cropping an open gate image.

The second image is preferable, especially when it comes to marketing ourselves to other colleges who might be interested in hiring us, as they can better see the reaction everything is getting from the students in attendance. Plus, it just offers a broader image that better illustrates the vibe and excitement of the audience.

I meant to mention that the cell phone was attached to the camera cage's coldshoe. Open gate is great for creating shorts in post, but for quicker turn around putting a cell phone on your camera and shooting clips that can be quickly posted is a great option. 

[kye]

4 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Interesting to hear that there are now high-resolution displays which show video content in public. I can't remember for sure seeing such things myself, though it's possible that I have seen it but didn't pay attention to it. I would be very surprised if those displays are as elongated as 9:16 though. It just doesn't make any visual sense to use such an extreme aspect ratio for vertical content when there is a choice to stick to 4:5 or 2:3. And when those much more suitable aspect ratios are used for the vertical content, the cropping from landscape 16:9 is less extreme and easier to manage.

They're everywhere, and are often just normal TVs rotated 90 degrees

In shopping malls

Some are pretty big

Some are pretty tall too, presumably for narrower spaces

Outdoors

Bus stops

In shop windows

etc.

[John Matthews]

18 hours ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

It's a bit of a vanilla option when you can get a used S1 for same price which is same spec but a much more premium body, or pay a bit more and get an S9 with PDAF

This logic rings true for so many cases. "With just a little bit more you get" will make you end up at 2k. In this case (S5 vs.S9), I think some people would pay more for the S5 over the S9 (and it's PDAF) to not have the limitations of continuous lighting only and no indoor shots at high SS of 1/100 (no banding in PAL regions)... never mind the weather-sealing, mic port, better IQ (in 4k, especially with RAW) and EVF. Doing it all again and a lower budget, I'd probably get the S5D + 18-40 for 799 euros (new with 5-year waranty). After, I'd get some awesome Konica lenses.

[Thpriest]

I think that shows that Lumix has several bargains on the second hand market and you can pick and choose according to your needs.

[Ninpo33]

7 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I meant to mention that the cell phone was attached to the camera cage's coldshoe. Open gate is great for creating shorts in post, but for quicker turn around putting a cell phone on your camera and shooting clips that can be quickly posted is a great option. 

One step back or just a tad wider it would end up the same. I have dual frame guides running to always remind myself to allow for a just a  little more room if I need to pull some vertical content and no ability to shoot a second take specific for socials. How often do you deliver 4k or 6k vertical video? So far to date 1080p is always what I’m delivering for meta and tiktok. Optimal file sizes and load times. They’re just going to compress it all to shit anyway. It’s always changing anyway. For the longest time it was square on instagram and only in the last few years did vertical reels take over in popularity with tiktok. The younger generation is actually against high res video now and say it looks “too slick” and like they’re “being sold to”. Now i’m being asked to rough things up and i’m not even kidding… “shoot it with a 90’s camcorder” 

we’ve lost the plot. 

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

The younger generation is actually against high res video now and say it looks “too slick” and like they’re “being sold to”. Now i’m being asked to rough things up and i’m not even kidding… “shoot it with a 90’s camcorder”

Seeing this a lot in the wedding industry; a few shaky clips of Super 8 digitised and people go nuts for it.

Same as for a handful of blurred OOF images. I have couples asking for it but there are lines I won’t cross for the sake of my artistic soul.

Unless they want to pay me a lot more money and then the devil can have it…but sadly they won’t pony up for that so go elsewhere.

People have ever-increasingly short attention spans and values.

For instance, just 2 years ago, I had 100% take up from clients offered a free book from their wedding. Only 5 acknowledged receipt, never mind thanked me for it. I was selling these books just a few years prior for €500 and after stopping that due to massively dwindling sales to the point where it was a PITA, to do so, brought them back as a relatively low cost (to me) marketing exercise.

Last year, approx 95% take up of the offer (all they have to do is confirm current address which I already have and contact number in case the courier needs to contact them) and even less acknowledgement of receipt.

End of this year, just 12 months later, just 4 of this years clients ‘accepted’ a free ‘€500’ professionally printed book from their wedding and not a single one acknowledged receipt, never mind any kind of gratitude.

It’s a shit show; attention spans, attitudes, just basic manners and going back to ‘The Game’ (but the bigger one as in the entire industry and what you have to do to simply survive) I’m happy I’m on a countdown to get out of it because whilst it’s not exactly ‘soul-destroying’, the joy of any of it is being sucked out of it year on year.

I’m not a doom & gloom kind of guy, but the whole World is a bit of a shit show and getting worse so I am actively pursuing avenues to be an increasingly lesser part of it.

And I just found out, Santa Claus is not a real person!