Jump to content

So I read that RX10 ii review, and... help!


CTRT
 Share

Recommended Posts

hey guys,

I posted on here a while back about buying a camera on the (relatively) cheap for corporate videography.

I had been using a Nikon D7200, which was a long term loan, but had to return it.

You guys were SUPER helpful and suggested lots of things, including the ... you guess it... RX10 ii, which at the time hadn't been released.

So I am now about to buy a camera, in the next few days, and have enough money for the RX10 ii or something similarly priced.

I read Andrew's review here: http://www.eoshd.com/2015/08/sony-rx10-ii-review-final-conclusion-and-introduction-to-its-smaller-brother-rx100-iv/

but was a bit confused by a few things.

He says:

"However it would be a crime not to mention the 1080p capabilities of these cameras, as they are absolutely stunning in what they deliver for that. Best affordable all-rounders for 1080p I have ever used. They are like a small sensor FS7 in some ways!"

and

"The 1080/120p as I said in part 1 is perfect. This is the one to use for continuous recording, for very long slow-mo sequences or when you need to do a lot of slicing and dicing in the edit."

and

"Also I record 240fps in-camera to 50p or 60p (1080p) as slow-mo looks nice smooth, but more importantly this gives you the option to further slow the footage down by 50% to 30p or even 24p in post if you want slower. 240fps to 24p is “10x” slow-mo."

and then this:


"The RX10 II has a bug which I highlighted in part 1 where focus shifts slightly between High Frame Rate standby mode and capture mode. However the larger issue is really with how bad continuous AF is in movie mode and HFR (slow-mo mode). It has a mind of its own and unfortunately a rather dumb mind at that. Let’s qualify that statement… if the actor is not moving and you are shooting on a tripod then manual focus will do just fine. However for HFR at 240fps with a 2 second burst where you can’t touch the focus ring because the camera has locked up it really is continuous AF or nothing as far as I am concerned. You can focus manually in standby mode but by the time you are capturing your subject has so often moved out of focus, especially at the longer reach of the RX10 II’s lens which is so tempting to use for this. The way I am working for live subjects and not on a controlled set is to get out of movie mode entirely and use stills mode where single-shot AF is mega fast at establishing focus before hitting record. Very useful. Unfortunately this is not something Sony felt important enough to implement in movie mode or HFR mode. Here there is no super fast single shot AF, only the terrible continuous AF or manual focus which locks up during a shot. The continuous AF behaves like a drunk focus puller. Unreliable. Slow. Doesn’t do what you expect. You could have the easiest of shots, with the subject bang centre and taking up 80% of the entire frame and it will still find a way to slip away and find the background. It’s pathetic. Also whereas single shot AF takes mere miliseconds to establish focus, continuous AF in movie mode is Captain Slow around the Top Gear track… ah gradually here he comes… here he comes… round the final corner…and… over….. the………. line."

Actually, if I'm honest with you, I didn't really get a lot of what he was going on about, because I don't really know much about cameras... sorry everyone... I'd like to, but I don't. Saying that I have lots of corporate clients, including two agencies, and can edit and grade well enough to keep getting jobs, so... I feel I must not suck too badly, even if the terminology is pretty over my head frequently.

So the question though - at long last - is this. Is this still a good option for what I am trying to do? Will I be shooting normal video in 100fps now? Now that we have all seen it is it the best option? Or should l I be considering something else again? I

Oh and as a note, I always bring lights and record audio separately. 

I looked at the BMPC, but the added price of a lens and a speedbooster, and having to learn a whole new grading system, seems like a step too far for what is essentially my day job... 

I do also make music videos though, and may get one of those eventually for that...

Thanks for any help. You guys were so helpful last time; it's your own damn fault I'm back!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One shoots faster frame rates than your editing frame rate --if you're eager to do slow mo.  

For instance, I often shoot 60p 1080 a lot because I like to be able to use my shots on a 30p editing timeline at regular speed AND switch over to 1/2 speed on certain shots if I wish.  This works well because 60 is "smoothly" divisible by 30.  Also, the higher frame rate of 60p seems to me to use only about a stop of extra light than 30p, so it's not going to crimp you from shooting in lower light situations.

Anyway, I think Andrew's basically saying you CAN shoot in those high frame rates if you want to because they hold up visually.  In the past you'd get some weird image processing artifacts from capturing footage at such a high frame rate.  This new Sony camera will not only shoot continuously (no buffering) @60fps, but also in 120fps.  That's fun. 

Here's an example of some 120 and 240 I did 3 years ago:

If you don't want to do slow mo, or if your clients don't require slow mo, this is all a moot point.

Also, I don't understand your comment about learning a whole new grading system simply because you switch cameras.  Can you explain that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One shoots faster frame rates than your editing frame rate --if you're eager to do slow mo.  

For instance, I often shoot 60p 1080 a lot because I like to be able to use my shots on a 30p editing timeline at regular speed AND switch over to 1/2 speed on certain shots if I wish.  This works well because 60 is "smoothly" divisible by 30.  Also, the higher frame rate of 60p seems to me to use only about a stop of extra light than 30p, so it's not going to crimp you from shooting in lower light situations.

Anyway, I think Andrew's basically saying you CAN shoot in those high frame rates if you want to because they hold up visually.  In the past you'd get some weird image processing artifacts from capturing footage at such a high frame rate.  This new Sony camera will not only shoot continuously (no buffering) @60fps, but also in 120fps.  That's fun. 

Here's an example of some 120 and 240 I did 3 years ago:

If you don't want to do slow mo, or if your clients don't require slow mo, this is all a moot point.

Also, I don't understand your comment about learning a whole new grading system simply because you switch cameras.  Can you explain that?

Cool video!

Thanks for the explanation.

As for the blackmagic it shoots files in such a way that you have to grade them completely in post - they are completely flat looking otherwise.... I'll dig up a video that explains it... basically they look pretty awful without some pretty extensive grading using LUTS, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a GH4 which has just been discounted again (£750 body only) with a used Panasonic kit lens (£100). Then use the Supertone settings to avoid grading. Twice the sensor size, much longer battery, feels much nicer in my hands too. 

Plus it has better 4K and the option for V Log if you ever want to step up in resolution and dynamic range in the future. Sounds like you are attracted to slow mo though, in which case the RX10ii wins if you want things like 240fps. I haven't even looked at it yet but I think the Gh4 just goes to 96fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the blackmagic it shoots files in such a way that you have to grade them completely in post - they are completely flat looking otherwise.... I'll dig up a video that explains it... basically they look pretty awful without some pretty extensive grading using LUTS, etc.

Not true at all. You can shoot raw, "film" (which is a flatter look) or a standard video look. Even when shooting "film" mode, my experience has been that you can dial in a look with a regular old 2-way corrector plugin, which you can probably use in your sleep if you're done any editing. And the BMCs shoot ProRes, so you can jump straight into editing if you want.

Regarding your original post - there just isn't a "perfect" camera for many people. I'd say the Ursa Mini (the 4.6 with high frame rates) could be the last camera many professionals would need for a few years (4K at up to 60p, slow motion, raw) … but kitting one out to be useable would be the financial equivalent of buying 6 or 8 or 10 of the little Sonys. Not really apples to apples. The only thing that gives me pause with the Sony is that small-sensor look. There are workarounds, but they're huge compromises for things like sit-down interviews in limited space. I often find my camera 5 feet away from a subject with a busy wall 3 feet behind the subject. 70-85 mm, f 2.8 - f4 and It's pretty. Not going to happen with the little sonys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a GH4 which has just been discounted again (£750 body only) with a used Panasonic kit lens (£100). Then use the Supertone settings to avoid grading. Twice the sensor size, much longer battery, feels much nicer in my hands too. 

Plus it has better 4K and the option for V Log if you ever want to step up in resolution and dynamic range in the future. Sounds like you are attracted to slow mo though, in which case the RX10ii wins if you want things like 240fps. I haven't even looked at it yet but I think the Gh4 just goes to 96fps.

 

I have read a few people saying the RX10 ii shoots higher quality/nier looking video than the GH4... I am not sure, at all, if that is true. Can you comment on that? I CERTAINLY considered that route, no doubt at all! Oh and could you please tell me exactly which lens you mean? Is that just the standard one that comes in a certain kit? And what are Supertone settings? IS that something in the camera? Sorry for my stupid.

EDIT: something like this: 
http://www.bpm-media.de/en/Sales/ENG-Live-Production/Cameras/HDSLR-Cameras/Panasonic-DMC-GH4A::368198.html

Oh and I am NOT attracted to slow mo' sorry if that came across in the things I quoted... what I am basically looking for is as sharp as I can get, with as much room to grade if need be, and at a price I can afford, as corporate video work is not my passion

I will reconsider the GH4! Thanks for your comments! 

Not true at all. You can shoot raw, "film" (which is a flatter look) or a standard video look. Even when shooting "film" mode, my experience has been that you can dial in a look with a regular old 2-way corrector plugin, which you can probably use in your sleep if you're done any editing. And the BMCs shoot ProRes, so you can jump straight into editing if you want.

Regarding your original post - there just isn't a "perfect" camera for many people. I'd say the Ursa Mini (the 4.6 with high frame rates) could be the last camera many professionals would need for a few years (4K at up to 60p, slow motion, raw) … but kitting one out to be useable would be the financial equivalent of buying 6 or 8 or 10 of the little Sonys. Not really apples to apples. The only thing that gives me pause with the Sony is that small-sensor look. There are workarounds, but they're huge compromises for things like sit-down interviews in limited space. I often find my camera 5 feet away from a subject with a busy wall 3 feet behind the subject. 70-85 mm, f 2.8 - f4 and It's pretty. Not going to happen with the little sonys.

Thanks for this... I am so tempted to go the BMPCC route as the quality of the footage online looks amazing, but there's soooo many caveats, plus buy adaptors to get a usual lens, plus all the other stuff you'd end up buying to make it functional. It's a lot more money.

Happy to know though that I could use one without having to learn how to use completely new grading tools! Thank you!

Oh, when you say that your shooting scenario won't happen with the Sony, why is that? Sorry to be a dope, but... I'm a dope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called the "circle of confusion," which, when trying to understand the physics of light when being bent through curved glass, can be appropriate. 

Basically, a large sensor camera with a large aperture lens creates an image with a very shallow depth of field.  This is useful for creating images that have focus on a certain subject, like someone talking, while other things farther behind or in front of the subject are out of focus.

It's a useful look to achieve for certain things.  

If you do an online search of the phrase "circle of confusion" and "Depth of Field," you'll learn a lot about what you can and can't do with particular cameras/lenses.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't need slow mo you would be crazy to get the RX10ii imho (bear in mind I am a newbie so don't take my word too seriously). I really considered that camera and am glad I didn't get it, even though I haven't seen any side by side comparisons. I had virtually the same sensor in a RX100ii and the colors were not to my taste, it was always a compromise with image quality compared to my old basic DSLR (Canon 600D- which made awesome "filmic/cinematic" video imo).

Andrew does say the 4K on the RX10ii isn't great in the final review and I can completely see why after using such a similar sensor. Next time they will revamp the sensor, but for now my guess is that it will always be a compromise next to a GH4. The word "mush" comes to mind and I am 90% sure you will see that in edges and highlights. Plus I always found with my RX that I made scenes look like they were filmed late afternoon. It is a nice warm look, but totally inaccurate, so I sold the RX and used a phone for a few months- I preferred the lack of dynamic range for more realistic color.

The RX10ii sensor is better now with 4K and S-Log added, but I still can't imagine that it will genuinely come close to the GH4, even with a crappy kit lens: I got the 14-45mm Panasonic which came with the old G1 camera (£110)- gets better reviews than the newer plastic kit lenses. It was only a bit extra for the lens with a G1; so I got the package, kept the bag and then swapped the G1 camera for a 135mm vintage lens in my local used camera gear store. And bought a cheap Pentax K (PK) adapter (£15). Also found a 50mm PK lens (worth £15, but is actually pretty good), so it has worked out nicely for now.

There is a Panasonic 14-145mm kit lens too, but I think it won't be as sharp from what I read. Sounds like it isn't too far off though if you want the extra range. The best bit is I/we can upgrade when funds allow to a Metabones Speedbooster and the Sigma 12-35mm lens and get V Log, which is like twice the camera again (I think all that costs about £900 extra).

I think the fact that Panasonic's latest camera is just the GH4 with V Log (GH4R) kind of proves that they have reached a plateau. The GH4 is the cheapest pro camera and the RX10ii is the most expensive consumer camera. When there is a sensor upgrade we can go smaller, but M43 seems to be the limit for now to me. Side by side the sensors look a similar size but there is literally more than twice the sensor readout on the GH4.

Google "Supertone for GH4" for the settings- it is just a simple adjustment to the Portrait profile which takes a minute. I haven't had time to look at my footage yet with it compared to the flatter profiles, it just sounds like a nice way to get realistic colors straight out of the camera. I have been meaning to search for it on this forum to see what people think, so I am not the best person to ask really. Actually I will have a browse now for opinions about it from the likes of Andrew, Ebrahim and the like... 

If Full HD is all you need: The BMPCC is ridiculous. If I could settle for 1080p I would get that in a heartbeat. It is a load of hassle but so is the NX1 and people still love that. The BMPCC is the most beautiful video I have ever seen (for the price). Just looking outside our house the footage straight out of it was on another planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called the "circle of confusion," which, when trying to understand the physics of light when being bent through curved glass, can be appropriate. 

Basically, a large sensor camera with a large aperture lens creates an image with a very shallow depth of field.  This is useful for creating images that have focus on a certain subject, like someone talking, while other things farther behind or in front of the subject are out of focus.

It's a useful look to achieve for certain things.  

If you do an online search of the phrase "circle of confusion" and "Depth of Field," you'll learn a lot about what you can and can't do with particular cameras/lenses.  

 

ahh... so you're saying I won't be able to be past a certain distance and get the subject and the background in focus, if the subject is too far from the background?

I might be able to live with that, though you're right it could be pretty darn limiting!!

Thanks for your help!!

If you don't need slow mo you would be crazy to get the RX10ii imho (bear in mind I am a newbie so don't take my word too seriously). I really considered that camera and am glad I didn't get it, even though I haven't seen any side by side comparisons. I had virtually the same sensor in a RX100ii and the colors were not to my taste, it was always a compromise with image quality compared to my old basic DSLR (Canon 600D- which made awesome "filmic/cinematic" video imo).

Andrew does say the 4K on the RX10ii isn't great in the final review and I can completely see why after using such a similar sensor. Next time they will revamp the sensor, but for now my guess is that it will always be a compromise next to a GH4. The word "mush" comes to mind and I am 90% sure you will see that in edges and highlights. Plus I always found with my RX that I made scenes look like they were filmed late afternoon. It is a nice warm look, but totally inaccurate, so I sold the RX and used a phone for a few months- I preferred the lack of dynamic range for more realistic color.

The RX10ii sensor is better now with 4K and S-Log added, but I still can't imagine that it will genuinely come close to the GH4, even with a crappy kit lens: I got the 14-45mm Panasonic which came with the old G1 camera (£110)- gets better reviews than the newer plastic kit lenses. It was only a bit extra for the lens with a G1; so I got the package, kept the bag and then swapped the G1 camera for a 135mm vintage lens in my local used camera gear store. And bought a cheap Pentax K (PK) adapter (£15). Also found a 50mm PK lens (worth £15, but is actually pretty good), so it has worked out nicely for now.

There is a Panasonic 14-145mm kit lens too, but I think it won't be as sharp from what I read. Sounds like it isn't too far off though if you want the extra range. The best bit is I/we can upgrade when funds allow to a Metabones Speedbooster and the Sigma 12-35mm lens and get V Log, which is like twice the camera again (I think all that costs about £900 extra).

I think the fact that Panasonic's latest camera is just the GH4 with V Log (GH4R) kind of proves that they have reached a plateau. The GH4 is the cheapest pro camera and the RX10ii is the most expensive consumer camera. When there is a sensor upgrade we can go smaller, but M43 seems to be the limit for now to me. Side by side the sensors look a similar size but there is literally more than twice the sensor readout on the GH4.

Google "Supertone for GH4" for the settings- it is just a simple adjustment to the Portrait profile which takes a minute. I haven't had time to look at my footage yet with it compared to the flatter profiles, it just sounds like a nice way to get realistic colors straight out of the camera. I have been meaning to search for it on this forum to see what people think, so I am not the best person to ask really. Actually I will have a browse now for opinions about it from the likes of Andrew, Ebrahim and the like... 

 

Thanks for all of that! Very helpful and exactly the sort of perspective I was hoping to find here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's the explanation of the grading:

 

 

That is ancient history.  I like Dave a lot but he is an amateur.  Well I like him because he is an amateur.  It's nice to learn along with him and he is not arrogant.  He doesn't have an attitude.  But he is not an experienced colorist.

Also you have to realize since that video was produced the world has been flooded with tons of LUTs for the BMPCC.  The scene that he presented as particularly problematic for grading isn't an issue now.  Well at least not an issue the way he describes it.  For sunsets all you have to do is set the BMPCC at 5600K.  Then in Resolve use something like Captain Hook's free LUT.  Boost... or reduce saturation to taste and then tweak the color.  It is nowhere near as bad as Dave makes it out to be in that video.  But remember that video is a historical artifact.  So many niggles he brought up in that video were fixed through firmware updates that are still being produced.  Great video at the time and I agreed with him 100% but a slew of LUTs, firmware updates and a $500 price drop and I became a believer.

I still would like a camera that produced solid video straight out of the camera but the BMPCC has come a long way.  By the way I am not recommending the BMPCC to you.  I am just clarifying some points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is ancient history.  I like Dave a lot but he is an amateur.  Well I like him because he is an amateur.  It's nice to learn along with him and he is not arrogant.  He doesn't have an attitude.  But he is not an experienced colorist.

Also you have to realize since that video was produced the world has been flooded with tons of LUTs for the BMPCC.  The scene that he presented as particularly problematic for grading isn't an issue now.  Well at least not an issue the way he describes it.  For sunsets all you have to do is set the BMPCC at 5600K.  Then in Resolve use something like Captain Hook's free LUT.  Boost... or reduce saturation to taste and then tweak the color.  It is nowhere near as bad as Dave makes it out to be in that video.  But remember that video is a historical artifact.  So many niggles he brought up in that video were fixed through firmware updates that are still being produced.  Great video at the time and I agreed with him 100% but a slew of LUTs, firmware updates and a $500 price drop and I became a believer.

I still would like a camera that produced solid video straight out of the camera but the BMPCC has come a long way.

Thanks for this!! That's some great information... 

I hadn't ACTUALLY checked how much Resolve cost until about an hour ago... holy cow! I mean, a grand isn't that much, but on top of all the other costs it adds up quickly!

I am thinking in a year I may just add something like this to my business, but the total cost is too much for me now...

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damphousse what's the deal with BM? Have they given up on the consumer market now? It would be nice to get the pocket camera with 4K. Seems like they have decided the money is in cinema.

Sorry, not watched the video- Dave's sparkly blue eyes and accurateness bores me stupid. In fairness he is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh... so you're saying I won't be able to be past a certain distance and get the subject and the background in focus, if the subject is too far from the background?
I might be able to live with that, though you're right it could be pretty darn limiting!!

Thanks for your help!!

Not quite. In this context, we're talking about achieving the opposite of keeping many things in focus.

In the example mentioned, the subject would be in focus and the background would be blurry. 

Therefore the image would be more pleasing because the subject would be the focused visual interest while the background would not be --on account of it being out of focus and not revealing distracting details. 

And the author of the post mentioned that the space needed to accomplish such a look would be smaller...because larger sensors with wide-open f-stops can make that look happen in shorter distances. 

Its all about the math of how light moves through your lenses and how much area you're trying to focus that light onto. 

You don't really need to know the ACTUAL math, but understanding the concepts allows you to make good decisions on how to shoot things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damphousse what's the deal with BM? Have they given up on the consumer market now? It would be nice to get the pocket camera with 4K. Seems like they have decided the money is in cinema.

Sorry, not watched the video- Dave's sparkly blue eyes and accurateness bores me stupid. In fairness he is good.

I don't know what their consumer strategy is.  They don't seem to discontinue any cameras.  They just seem to add more.  They just added the 1080p global shutter micro camera (with no LCD screen), but they've kept the 1080p rolling shutter BMPCC.  Obviously the Micro is targeted more towards cinema as you indicated.

4k would be nice.  It would help with the moire/aliasing.  Really if I had a 4k BMPCC I would stop looking at cameras.  What blackmagic has done is interesting.  There are now a flood of affordabe 4k cameras out there but only Blackmagic is giving us raw and Prores HQ 4:2:2 for less than $1,000... and their colors are great in my opinion.

I look at all these other videos and see blown highlights, compression artifacts, and bad color.  But they all trounce the BMPCC when it comes to moire/aliasing.  Honestly don't know what I am going to do going forward.  There are times I just want to downsize to an LX100  but then I see one of my nice BMPCC videos and decide to just keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. In this context, we're talking about achieving the opposite of keeping many things in focus.

In the example mentioned, the subject would be in focus and the background would be blurry. 

Therefore the image would be more pleasing because the subject would be the focused visual interest while the background would not be --on account of it being out of focus and not revealing distracting details. 

And the author of the post mentioned that the space needed to accomplish such a look would be smaller...because larger sensors with wide-open f-stops can make that look happen in shorter distances. 

Its all about the math of how light moves through your lenses and how much area you're trying to focus that light onto. 

You don't really need to know the ACTUAL math, but understanding the concepts allows you to make good decisions on how to shoot things. 

Ohhh... so you're saying I would have a harder time getting a shallow depth of field... the blurry background? That might actually suit as I can do that in post if I need to.... it's a pain obviously, but I have done it in the past... 

A lot of the work I do, the clients want things - posters or signs - visible in the background... I think its ugly, but money is money... 

I don't know what their consumer strategy is.  They don't seem to discontinue any cameras.  They just seem to add more.  They just added the 1080p global shutter micro camera (with no LCD screen), but they've kept the 1080p rolling shutter BMPCC.  Obviously the Micro is targeted more towards cinema as you indicated.

4k would be nice.  It would help with the moire/aliasing.  Really if I had a 4k BMPCC I would stop looking at cameras.  What blackmagic has done is interesting.  There are now a flood of affordabe 4k cameras out there but only Blackmagic is giving us raw and Prores HQ 4:2:2 for less than $1,000... and their colors are great in my opinion.

I look at all these other videos and see blown highlights, compression artifacts, and bad color.  But they all trounce the BMPCC when it comes to moire/aliasing.  Honestly don't know what I am going to do going forward.  There are times I just want to downsize to an LX100  but then I see one of my nice BMPCC and decide to just keep it.

In 12 months I might try to add a BMCC 2.5, or whatever the equivalent is then ... lol.

I would LOVE to have something I could use for higher end clients, as there's a lot of room to grow here in that market... as it is I could probably pick up an extra job a month if I had one... but... it's a big investment... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's probably easier to get a deeper depth of field on a large sensor than it is to get a shallow depth of field on a small sensor, sometimes. if it's you're only camera, go for some middle ground sensor size (micro four thirds, aps-c) to have (sort of) the best of both. focal length could be all you need to change to get either result you mentioned with the hypothetical interview.

could you handle raw or a higher end codec if you got a blackmagic? no offense, obviously we're all learning, but you sound a little new to all of this (which you can stop apologizing about btw ;) ). gh4 is a great image, not too expensive, and some slowmo ability if you ever want it. g7 might be a better option - cheaper, pretty identical image, still some slowmo ability, though you'll never get log. might want to keep this next camera you get as cheap as possible, with a workflow and ergonomics you know you can handle, while still having an acceptable image and somewhat large sensor, if this is one you'll be learning a lot on. and then if you decide you need something later, you can upgrade no harm done. used to be the t2i everyone would recommend here (still what I use), but the g7 is a big jump in image quality and not a big jump in price. kit lens and a fast, vintage prime, you'll be learning a lot and have very few restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's probably easier to get a deeper depth of field on a large sensor than it is to get a shallow depth of field on a small sensor, sometimes. if it's you're only camera, go for some middle ground sensor size (micro four thirds, aps-c) to have (sort of) the best of both. focal length could be all you need to change to get either result you mentioned with the hypothetical interview.

could you handle raw or a higher end codec if you got a blackmagic? no offense, obviously we're all learning, but you sound a little new to all of this (which you can stop apologizing about btw ;) ). gh4 is a great image, not too expensive, and some slowmo ability if you ever want it. g7 might be a better option - cheaper, pretty identical image, still some slowmo ability, though you'll never get log. might want to keep this next camera you get as cheap as possible, with a workflow and ergonomics you know you can handle, while still having an acceptable image and somewhat large sensor, if this is one you'll be learning a lot on. and then if you decide you need something later, you can upgrade no harm done. used to be the t2i everyone would recommend here (still what I use), but the g7 is a big jump in image quality and not a big jump in price. kit lens and a fast, vintage prime, you'll be learning a lot and have very few restrictions.

I think I could probably adapt to a higher end codec without much of an issue, over time... that was the thing that scared me about trying to make a quick transition though as clients (banks, sports teams, accountancy firm) can't really wait for me to figure out a new system... :d

But I recently had to hire a second camera guy, to help me keep up with the jobs, so I will be able to expand to nicer gear I think, but maybe not for a few more months... 

Anyway, I'll check the G7! Thanks for your help!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what I'm reading, I'd recommend refining your technique and craft before investing in a camera.  

However, I do know that doing both in tandem is possible and often a strong motivator to get better.  I admit to doing this just to shake myself up a little and rejuvenate my process.

Without question, however, if you want to be accomplished at this sort of thing, it's not enough to just do it, you have to try to understand everything that's going on and then do it well.

In my market there's hundreds, if not thousands, of people that claim to make videos, but only a handful that can do the one-man-band sort of thing with any notable craftsmanship.

Of course, it depends on your angle in relation to the work.  Being a good salesman is more important for the commerce often times than having a flashy reel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what I'm reading, I'd recommend refining your technique and craft before investing in a camera.  

However, I do know that doing both in tandem is possible and often a strong motivator to get better.  I admit to doing this just to shake myself up a little and rejuvenate my process.

Without question, however, if you want to be accomplished at this sort of thing, it's not enough to just do it, you have to try to understand everything that's going on and then do it well.

In my market there's hundreds, if not thousands, of people that claim to make videos, but only a handful that can do the one-man-band sort of thing with any notable craftsmanship.

Of course, it depends on your angle in relation to the work.  Being a good salesman is more important for the commerce often times than having a flashy reel.

I explained it a bit more in my previous post, but in a nutshell:

I was offered a corporate job based on some music videos I'd made. That has snowballed. I know the camera I was using, but not because I understood it - I knew if I did certain things, certain things would happen. I have no background in photography, and aside from a ridiculous obsession with film I never saw myself as connected to film/video. I am a professional musician, and own a mastering studio, but neither of those make very much money. 

So when the corporate videography work came my way, and I had a camera, I took a shot... surprisingly I was offered more and more and now I have pretty constant work with pretty high profile clients where I live. 

Now the loaner camera is gone, and I have to have something I can use to keep my work going... I asked on here a few months back and people suggested a variety of things... the RX10 ii seemed great as it was all in one, and good enough for what I need, but ... I have also come to realise that if I had better gear, and could produce better quality content, I would get more work.

I am in no way trying to be a film maker.. I wish I was, as I LOVE film... my artistic idol is Chris Doyle... maybe he's old hat now, but back in the 90s I was obsessed with HK cinema, and saw literally hundreds of HK movies and became obsessed with that sort of film making... not the kung fu stuff, the dramas and art house stuff.. 

Anyway, if you wanna talk technical stuff about music I can do that alllllllll day... I am just wary of being sucked into the whole technical side of this as I just am not... music is what i have invested all my emotional and mental space in for decades... it's hard to even consider being willing to throw myself into this as an art... I just... maybe I will at some point, but right now I wanna just keep working... 

I hope that doesn't offend everyone; I LOVE this stuff as an observer, but just can't commit to trying to be anything more than a glorified technician at the moment. Saying that, making music videos is a great outlet for my arty side - which is my largest side - so to speak - and I love being able to just explore and learn when I get the chance to make those.

Oh and yes, I have found that being good with clients and delivering things quickly has gotten me more work than anything else...  I see people a LOT better than me losing work because they can't deliver on time, or more often, they can't deal with clients without their ego getting involved... which is absurd when you're making corporate stuff, IMO. Just make the client happy, get the next job, and try and enjoy it as much as possible.

Thanks for your honest and thoughtful post though... I understand your position very well.

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...