Leaderboard

Ok It works now. I did not have the top dial set to manual it now works when set to manual... Very happy now all is good.. Sorry for the excitement Someone can delete this topic now..

I use both. GH4 with Panasonic primes and zooms, the 3 Voightlanders 0.95 and the SLR Magic 25mm/0.95 and 35mm/1.4. I love the GH4. It's quick, easy and reliable to use, compact and lightweight, and superb image quality. You do need to set colour in camera rather than pushing the grade too much. Great quality 4K published on a 1080 timeline. Lovely clean image with a slight filmic grain. I shoot mostly travel, hotel and property videos with it. It's a complete and mature system. I'm very used to the system and the workflow, one take and I know I've got the shot, it's never let me down. You can shoot beautiful work with a GH4, and with a speedbooster and cinema glass you can achieve any look you want. Recently I spent an hour watching NX1 user footage on Vimeo and Youtube, and immediately ordered the NX1 and the 2 pro lenses from the Samsung website. Delivered the next day. Oh boy, this camera is awesome. Image quality exceeds the GH4 in every measure (I only shoot up to 800 iso, I prefer to light the shot if necessary, so I can't judge high iso performance). Autofocus is superb and very useable (I can never use AF successfully on the GH4). The image grades beautifully and the colours are amazing, there's just something special about the image in my view (I tend to drop the saturation a little). Ergonomics are great, like the GH4. The NX1 stabilises better in the hand than the Panasonic (NX1/16-50pro vs GH4/Pan12-35 f2.8). The image detail is mind blowing, you can't distinguish between a 4K frame grab and a 28MP RAW photo file (so long as you're exposing the scene nicely). I can shoot footage on the NX1 I never would have dreamed possible before. The NX1 is my go to camera. I'd go NX1, no doubt. Edit: just to add, of course it depends what you're shooting. If I was off tomorrow to Spain for a month shooting villas, I'd take the GH4. Anything 'creative', I'd go NX1 and pick up some nice vintage glass.

http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/swu-download.pl?mdl=ILCE7M2&upd_id=10327&os_group_id=3 When Andrew reviewed the a7ii we were all on the same page about the IBIS being really underwhelming because it introduced a really uncanny microjitter that seemed to tilt and lightly stretch the image towards you and away from you, just saw this update. Anyone with the A7ii wanna install it and give it a go for us? Or maybe Andrew could revisit it? Curious if Sony even noticed the IBIS wasn't very well received for filmmakers. If they addressed this that would mean they're listening, which would be rad.

Rent both of them for 2 days. Since it'll be a decent sized purchase it might be worth it.

I can at least sort of understand why Andrew and other fans of the show care- something they've enjoyed for years is being taken from them. But the people condemning Andrew as some sort of homophobe/sexist/racist because of this, it strikes me as being ridiculous. Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to demonize them. Andrew has come to the defense of the host of a show you don't even watch, so why do you really even give a shit? You'd think this is the great social justice issue of our time the way some of you are carrying on. Remember, we're talking about a tv show about cars. Just because I might disagree with Andrew on this issue doesn't mean I have to disregard everything else he says. This sort of demand for purity, that if someone doesn't 100% agree with you they're a terrible person and nothing they say is worth a shit, it's fucking nuts and a dangerous mindset.

Not sure if its been said already (but despite many things i don't like about the institution) the bbc they have handled this clarkson melt down quite well in the circumstances: ~ Conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the incident. ~ Let tank driving clarkson fan boys blow themselves out with their misplaced rhetoric while keeping mostly schtum. ~ Then drop the facts and make the correct action. TV shows change and finish, people will move on. The sky wont fall in, the bbc will keep going. For those who think he is a troubled anti-establishment comic genius and/or offers some kind of satirical critique of our 'PC' times or whatever, we could argue forever about how sadly confused i think you are but there is no need - he's gone, it's over. The people charged with disposing of large sums of public money for on-screen talent have correctly decided even money making fictional cult figures need to keep their fists to themselves to stay on the payroll. This isn't crazy "PC world gone mad" kind of stuff - it's called the modern 1st world where people with money, power and connections still quite often 'get away with it' but in any given time and place there are some limits and the limits (and principles) in this case are widely understood and accepted. The outcomes were inevitable the moment clarkson acted out in the way he did. Why he or anyone else would think there could be another outcome is a mystery to me and maybe represents some kind of wider cultural dissonance but probably not and its all just been a wonderful opportunity to learn a bit more about each other :-) Andrew, I can see these threads have been popular, thank you and well done for hosting them.

NX1! Definitely NX1! If you don't care about transcododing the h.265 (which doesn't take that long) then there is basically no con to getting the NX1! I'm shocked with how pleasing/amazing the image quality is. The image to me feels like a Canon C500 in 4k Or a Red Epic! It's incredible!

O7Q+ records A7S 4K.

FLOATING ZONE FOCUS EXPLAINED Nikon calls this Close Range Correction and Canon calls it Floating Element, so for the sake of accuracy Rectilux calls it Floating Zone Focus. Back in the day, when lenses were focused by moving the whole cell forward and back from the film plane, it was noticed that when close focused, the image quality suffered. For example, it is usually found that say a vintage 135mm lens would typically be limited to 1.5m close focus for this reason. Nikon found that by shuffling the distance between lens elements, using a mechanical cam system that they could tighten up the dispersion of the imaging rays to give much improved close focusing capability. Rectilux does the same thing but manually as detailed below. As you know Rectilux 3FF-W will focus from 0.6m to infinity when the anamorphic and taking lenses are simultaneously set to infinity. Call this configuration ‘INF-INF’ Now say you are on set and the shot list says you don’t need to focus on anything beyond 5m. Just set your anamorphic and taking lenses simultaneously to 5m. Call this configuration ‘5-5’. Thus 5m is the new infinity and means that you can shoot from 5m down to much closer than 0.6m (I will leave you to do the calculation) and the close shots will be much crisper than the configuration ‘INF-INF’. Of course the whole stroke is available to you, so much precise focus is easily obtained. Now say you have a romantic candlelit dinner scene. You want lots of bokeh and also want to use it to blot out background distractions. Storyboard calls for reverse head shots and you tell your AC to configure Rectilux to ‘2-2’, meaning set the anamorphic and taking lenses simultaneously to 2m, so now 2m is the new infinity and gives you very close focus capability, so that when the guy proposes and puts the engagement ring on his GFs finger you are there to scoop it up, filling the frame with this shot. I suspect now you will come to realise the additional advantage of the quick change system, enabling you or your AC, to quickly remove the scope and set it to the desired ‘X-X’ configuration and put it back ready to shoot.

I’m sorry, Eleison, I’m afraid I didn’t get the point from your “pies and girls” examples. The question here is not whether too many pies or too many girls spoil the fun. Andrew asked a valuable question: “Does downgrading your equipment to simpler, more basic models make you more creative?” Creativity is the key here. Assumption: Less technology, more minimalism inspires creativity - this is the art of downgrading. But, is it really true? A lot of talks on modern minimalism discuss whether minimalists should avoid technology. How to achieve minimalism? With or without technology in order to become more creative? Andrew, you have given some examples why “technology is a drug”, which blocks your creativity. The “hypnotic Galaxy Edge” blocks you from writing lyrics, the old iPhone doesn’t. Neither of these smart phones would block my creativity of writing lyrics. (I’m not a poet anyway) Sitting in the Berlin U-Bahn is not a romantic and inspiring environment at all, regardless of the writing tool. (I know what I’m talking about). Is minimalism and technology compatible? Does minimalism inspire creativity? A creative artist will find his way to frame and create his art work, regardless of tools and quality of the tools. Should an art painter use more simple brushes or extra cheap paint just to increase his creativity? Would I become a more creative photographer just because I exhume my old EOS 300D and retire my 5DIII and new GH4? Why not downgrading even deeper and going back to analog film. The good old film has a DR of about 14 - 15 stops. Not many of our today’s digital cams can yet keep up here. “A myriad of choices presents a mountain of distractions.” Andrew says. Yes, it’s true, when being in Disney Land or in a shopping mall. The numerous choices of my GH4 settings doesn’t prevent me from creating the imaging task as wanted. In manual mode I can freely pick the basic settings, the crammed full menu doesn’t block my creativity - provided I have some. But when I want to frame an extra touch to the images, e.g. HDR, slow mo or a time laps, I’m glad that my trusty new camera helps me with its latest technology - going creative. “The downgrade (. .from a class leading EVF . . to a boring old mirror box. .) worked by giving me a more responsive way to capture moments and less choices to consider whilst doing so.” Andrew says. Less choices give more responsiveness? Why then critisize Canon of being slow in their technology development? Canon delivers “last era” equipment - already downgraded to less choices ex-factory.

Most of the people in the comments disagree with you, so why on Earth would you assume that everyone else who read the post without commenting agrees with you? I don't think you can rely on your site statistics being an indication of how many unique visitors you have either. There are probably quite a few of us checking in regularly on the progress of this discussion. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Clarkson positively endorses it. People have various ways of rationalizing their own behavior or excusing their own mistakes as exceptions, but if he's going to do things like this, there should be consequences. The actions of any individual are invariably explainable if you look closely enough at the circumstances of their lives, and you can have all the sympathy you like for someone who is going through personal issues, but it just isn't sensible to allow someone in a poor state of mind to hold a position of responsibility. When people say things like "I don't mean to be rude, but...", they generally follow it up with something rude. When they say "I'm not racist, but...", they generally follow it up with something racist. It's a familiar way of anticipating an objection and maintaining some deniability, so when you preface your comments by saying you consider what Clarkson did wrong, but go on to argue that he still shouldn't be sacked, you can maybe understand why some of us take that to be a less-than-convincing denunciation. I don't think anyone here is arguing that you positively endorse his actions (that word again), but you are clearly downplaying their significance. Your explicit attempts to justify applying a double standard to talent vs non-talent are also deeply troubling to me.

GH4 fan here btw.

Ha

Well for instance the lens option is not really a "con". Because since you have a super 35mm you have better wide angle options. And because Samsung pro lenses are really fantastic. Since I have both of them I would tell you that I think the main difference - the one that makes you pick one camera rather than the other - is the "look". And personally the image I get from the NX1 I find it to be so much better than the GH4. Also the battery runs forever, the videos are highly compressed (H265 takes little space on your hard drive) etc. And yes H265, you have to transcode for now (but iffmpeg or rocky mountain converter are fast and very easy to use). For me right now the debate is more about macroblocking and banding (NX1) vs noise (GH4). But considering that, I still always pick up my NX1 rather than my GH4.

​I disagree, and so does UK law, at least in the letter of it - in two respects - the work being responsible for the health and safety of it's employees is one, the other is the idea that if you by your action or inaction cause harm to a human, you are liable to undo the harm you allowed to happen. I will never agree with the principal that you can abuse your employees by overworking them, burning people out with stress and causing serious mental and physical illnesses and not take responsibility for that. We are not talking about schools excluding naughty children, children are, by definition immature and not able to act appropriately. When an adult does not act appropriately, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Why has he not acted appropriately" and if there is the suggestion that he was under a large amount of stress and pressure, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Who continued putting him under stress and pressure, despite there being large warning signs that he needed help". At that point, serious questions need to be asked of the people who did that, how they did that, why they did that. In this case we know who - the BBC, we know why - money. The BBC burned a man out, and when he was all done, threw him away, because they wanted money. You are correct in that he could have played the PR game, which I read as lying to people about his state of mind in order to further his career and public status, however, I have more respect for him that he doesn't play games and is just straight forward. We need to celebrate people who are themselves, not a carefully managed image, we need more people who can be joke and be happy after losing jobs, more people for whom the glass is half full. Finally, the people abusing Oisin are disgusting, the absolute worst side of humanity. I have nothing to say beyond I hope the police investigate each and every last one of them.

At best, this might be a somewhat decent competitor vs FZ100 and RX10. But I'll be skeptical if they manage it, hope they do! Would be nice to see more competition in that market. However, this certainly is no way at all the "GH4 competitor/killer" which was rumoured to come from Canon.

so much wrong with this.. viable if it's $200

​What is your point Jay Edgar? Who asked you for a review of EOSHD? Better yet, who do you think cares what you think? If you don't like the site, go somewhere else. Why take your time to bag on Andrew? What are your accomplishments? Since you think the site is so crappy and so easily outdone, please direct us to yours...So easy to bag on someone else and their accomplishments. So easy to be critical of others. Seems like you got your shorts in-a-bunch over the Clarkson issue and want to take it out on Andrew Reid because of his position. I commend Reid simply for the fact that he took a position and felt strongly enough about it to vocalize it. You don't have to agree with it, that is alright, but don't shoot the messenger. It is so easy and safe to play in the middle, don't take a stand, don't say anything controversial, and by all means, don't offend anyone. It is also gutless. Clarkson understands this and so does Reid.

Just wanted to say stab, that the video you posted was gorgeous! I could never be brave enough to do any wedding video and on the basis of what you just showed, if I were in the Netherlands when I got married, you would be top of my list!

There actually is a very nice wide, bright and native solution coming up: the Voigtlaender 10.5mm f/0.95. Won't be cheap though. Probably well over €1000 http://voigtlaender.com/10,5-mm-f-0,95-nokton.html Or the Kowa 8.5mm f/2.8, same price range... http://www.kowa-prominar.com/special/wide_lens/index.htm Expensive, but good: http://whimsical.nu/2014/12/01/a-kowa-prominar-8-5mm-f2-8-micro-four-thirds-lens-review/

​ Thanks JFR. First, would you mind editing your post and deleting the link that I've posted and you quoted? I just wanted to show it to you, not have it here online forever. Thank you very much. If people are interested in my work, they could visit my website http://www.cinematicwedding.nl . The video you posted is indeed 'the next level'. Great looking footage, editing, grading, etc. But that is nowhere near 'run & gun' like we wedding filmers do. These shots are prepared and prepared well. They used lights, production design, etc. I'm sure most shots are done in multiple takes. This is more like a short film. Although I get your point, this isn't really a fair comparison. When I bought my GH3 2 years ago, there wasn't an alternative that could shoot 1080p at 50 or 60 fps. There is now. Of course I will be upgrading along the way, but the camera is not my limiting factor at the moment. Neither in my creativity, nor in what my clients think of my films. Quite the opposite, they are often amazed by the 'clear image' and slowmo. Unfortunately, my business is not high enough ranked in Google yet to make enough money to constantly upgrade all my gear. As you understand, the camera is only one of the tools one needs to buy to make good films. And as much as I agree there are better camera's out there in terms of DR, colors and low light, the GH3 and GH4 are more than great alternatives. You are right that ISO 1600 is the maximum ISO one can use. We never go over it. But with a Speed Boosted f1.8 lens I've only once encountered a venue where it was slightly too dark and that was in the film that I posted here. Anyway, will check out more work of Delivery Men. Cheers.

​This particular video has nothing to do with weddings, it's a preplanned production set, everything you see in that film is staged, you can make any camera look good in such a situation. Don't know if you ever have shot a wedding, their is no-one that says "action!" , there are no second takes and if you have to shoot from inside a venue directly into the sunlight during a ceremony that's just bad luck.

I have shot 6400 iso on the gh4 in 4k and it looks fine when downscaled into a 1080p project, that's why low light is not a issue for those camera's, ofcourse a c100 or a7s will shoot cleaner and can go higher in iso but why would you, if I can show a candlelit venue the way I can see it with my eyes when using a gh4 I don't need a a7s to turn night into day, I just need to show it like it was and then 3200 iso and a f2.0 lens are already sufficient. Also remember, we are not talking high end commercial productions here for corporations, these weddingsfilms are for regular people that can't tell the difference between a image from a sony a6000 and a canon 1dc, as long as you manage to get the content right and have sufficient skill and talent to use your camera's at their best and edit it into a compelling piece then the gear doesn't matter. Almost all current camera offerings below 1500 dollar are suitable camera's to cover weddings, even high end, with.

Andrew- as a successful blog owner you have the option to help or to hurt the world with your voice. Clarkson is an alcoholic, an addict. His behavior is irrational and he can't be reasoned with while he's drunk. Even sober, addicts tend to not behave rationally. This doesn't mean they should be isolated, in fact the best way to help a person suffering from addiction is to immerse them in compassionate fellowship. Do you know any addicts? Have you seen any turn their life around, and help others to heal? If not, perhaps attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (or similar) to witness addicts helping each other heal through fellowship (addicts are always addicts and never 'cured'; always mindful to avoid falling into old patterns). Since moving to LA in 2006 I was surprised how pervasive drug, alcohol, and sex addiction is in the entertainment industry. People doing drugs and drinking on set isn't healthy and is unfortunately very common here (not allowed on my sets- what one does on their own time is their own business). Instead of turning a blind eye to addicts on productions, we should provide daily reminders that there is free fellowship available to help people deal with life (such as AA). Even better, entertainment companies should provide in-house help to encourage people to live healthy, drug-free lives through fellowship. The BBC did the right thing in letting Clarkson go. Clarkson needs change in his life to give him a chance to deal with his addictions, ideally through positive connections to other people through fellowship. Discussion addiction on a filmmaking blog is totally appropriate. If the film industry can help heal its players, then it can help create messages and positive influence to help millions of people suffering in our world.

Are you serious? A GH3 + Speedbooster + Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (f1.2 with SB) is not bad in low light at all. Sure, there might be better low light camera's, but this isn't bad at all. Also, I need the 50p 1080p for slow mo and I simply like the current look I'm getting. At the time I invested in these camera's, C100's couldn't even do 50p/60p at 1080... Many people don't take these Panasonic 'toys' seriously but I guess that's actually a good thing. By the way I forgot to mention that I need this wide angle mainly for the 2nd camera, in this case the G6, to record a wide view of the ceremony. ​

Even a 4.3" 800x480 DP4 costs $599. How much money do they make on these things? I wish smartphones had video input options... I'm already walking around with a nice 5" 1080p screen... The SmallHD 502 on-camera monitor features a Full HD, 1920x1080 LCD display. With a pixel density greater than the iPhone 6 similar to any 5" Android smartphone in the price range of $300-500 that has been released the last few years.

Weird. Not a single word about Clarkson's behaviour or responsibility ? It's everyone else's fault according to you ? Never mind him being drunk while at work and hitting a superior, right ? I only see 1 person doing any moral posturing here. Defending alcohol abuse in the workplace and physical violence. And if you're going to get upset with every person disagreeing with you, maybe you simply shouldn't allow comments. That'll save you the trouble of responding. I don't have a problem with your opinion. But calling this a threat to democracy and free speech is ludicrous. A soccer player getting sacked can still find another team to play for. A recording artist dropped by their label, can still sign somewhere else. If he's really that special and unique he'll find another sponsor and you'll continue to enjoy him. You've now posted 3 times about the same thing. And plenty of people have disagreed. Are you going to keep posting until we all agree ? Or all leave ?

Andrew, I don't really get this issue and all this talk about nanny states and mollycoddling and self-emasculation and the triumph of cowardice over creativity. yes, you're coming around to the fact that what Clarkson did was unacceptable, but you still seem to think that Clarkson was singled out for something since Clooney or whoever is still working. why do you think Clarkson is being singled out? with all the ranting, it comes off as slightly unhinged Fox News-esque raging at Political Correctness, which in its essence amounts to "think before you speak". there is no "dogmatic liberal elite" coming for the rights of white men over the age of 30 to say what they want about blacks, women, the French, and automobiles. your concern for the crew seems disingenuous since your biggest bone is approximately "why can't we make the jokes my grandfather used to make?"

​Yes, the law requires nothing. Yes, it's a matter for the employer. But does it (harm) have nothing "to do with Clarkson having ... alcohol related emotional breakdown"? The only people who would find the BBC's actions completely wrong are those who have never employed others, or been employed in a larger organization for which everyone depend on to put a roof over their head, food in their mouth, send the kids to school (not to mention they want people to focus on THEIR work, not some guys' boorish behavior). It is a real risk that if they kept him on and he ran someone over while drunk most managers would lose their jobs and many people lose their jobs--not to mention the person he killed. It's hard to fix things behind closed doors when the other person is harming others in front of a world-wide audience. Maybe BBC management over-reacted, maybe they didn't. We'll never know. TV is a collaborative effort. It is never all about one person. Why should he risk everyone's happiness on one man's alcoholic problem which is getting worse, not better? My 2-cents is they tried as hard as they can to keep the show going. At some point, you have to draw a line. How to you reign in a guy who has all the money he wants. Can get laid by just showing up to the local bar. Has people who want to be around him everywhere? Can get invited to the best parties? What you want to recognize is this is NO victory for BBC management. This is a failure for all concerned.

​ I have to wonder, does all this moral posturing make you feel better? And what have you done to be so defensive about your ethics anyway? So it's ok for two stars to punch each other then? I am not condoning any bad behaviour, like I made clear in the blog. It's all wrong. Any kind of physical or verbal abuse is, no matter who does it or where. It's wrong. The problem here is that it should have been sorted out as the small spat it was, behind closed doors. Why get lawyers involved, investigations, pandering to the press and Twitter? To be so dramatic and political about it is bad management. The BBC ride roughshod over what the audience wants time and time again. It's a split lip. It's not manslaughter. It's not serial sexual assault. In over a decade the producer and Clarkson had a positive working relationship. I am sure they will put a token eco-friendly feminist in charge of restructuring a guy's motoring show and ruin it for everyone even more. I can only hope the current production team and presenters go to Sky. The BBC ruined F1 coverage and they will now ruin Top Gear. What do the key players have to say now the news has broken? Captain Slow - James May... "Well apparently they have shot him. I’ve only found this out by prising the information out of various BBC sources, nobody has actually told me officially until a few moments ago when they emailed. I don’t really have anything to say about it. It’s a tragedy. I’m sorry that what ought to have been a small incident sorted out easily has turned into something big... I have only known for the past few minutes and if you excuse me I have to write the eBay listing for my Ferrari." The producer with his swollen lip... "I respect Lord Hall’s detailed findings and I am grateful to the BBC for their thorough and swift investigation into this very regrettable incident, against a background of intense media interest and speculation.  I’ve worked on Top Gear for almost a decade, a programme I love.  Over that time Jeremy and I had a positive and successful working relationship, making some landmark projects together. He is a unique talent and I am well aware that many will be sorry his involvement in the show should end in this way."   This is also worth reading... "...it’s further evidence of [the BBC's] self-emasculation, its sheepish, apologetic jettisoning of anything that might rile right-thinking viewers or make Hampstead-dwelling licence fee-payers choke on their Ovaltine. With the elbowing aside of JC, we are witnessing not simply the sacking of an employee over a scuffle, but the willingness of a scandal-stung, crisis-ridden BBC to ditch anything that has the whiff of controversy and to bend its knee to the bland, larks-free worldview of the right-on." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/top-gear/11494207/The-dogmatic-liberal-elite-have-finally-kicked-out-Jeremy-Clarkson.-I-hope-theyre-happy.html

Hello, Sorry for my bad english… Until now I came every day on your site because you give interesting information on filming. But your pathetic defense of a TV animator is really without interest and make only noise on the net. I was ignorant of the guy and the program, since then I watched a bit and mama mia, what a lost of time, money, petrol, air! In other places, there is so many interesting people not able to do their second or third film and you say nothing? So many people killed for interesting and generous ideas and you say nothing? So childish… And your selfish critic of "political correct" when people have some view on how can work relations between people and you prefer mysoginist, racist behaviors? That's all for today. Jacques Hoepffner

Simple really, the guy twatted somebody therefore he is a twat and should go. "Thow shalt not act like a nob."

I'm not being entirely disengenius at all when we're talking about criminal behaviour in the arts. Especially because your article is talking just that. The question is where do we draw the line? If Clarkson's 20 second physical assault became manslaughter? Yes it matters and I haer to agree that people (no matter how creatively talented) are not above the law because fans like their work.

Statement from the BBC making it official http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2015/03/25/bbc-releases-statement-on-clarkson/ What a bunch of morally posturing white suited little shits.

Gonna have to disagree on this one again. O Russell and George Clooney and the Producers and Warner Brothers haven't all worked together since. They obviously had wanted to finish the film (whereas other films some talent simply walk away). And there was a 5 year gap for O Russell. In this parallel you suggest, yeah it would be nice if Top Gear could finish it's last two recordings with Clarkson as a proper send off. Christian Bale, while bordering on verbal assault, he never actually punched the Shane Hurlbert and just ranted at him about "unprofessionalism" and the lights lol. Let's take this further... the director of Midnight Rider makes good films I think. But do you think that film should have been finished? Nah... him and his crew were idiots. There's more to life than just appeasing fans and the money train.

Can't speak for the zoom. The DR60D can be odd with AA rechargeable batteries - I think if you have one that's starting to get weak, the 60D detects it and starts throwing warnings. Seems picky about rechargeables. But with a USB battery (the kind to make your phone run longer, by Anker, etc, $20-$30 - it'll run about 24 hours. So that's all I use now). The 60D has phantom power and will "handle" any professional mic signal. I feel the meters are too conservative - you would want to do some tests, record some test audio and look at the waveforms in an editor - it doesn't have tons of gain to spare but is fine for anyone that knows gain staging and mic placement. I find the limiter and low-cut to be very well done and I just leave 'em on now. I shot an Emmylou Harris solo show and used it for the board feed, I turned off the limiter and low-cut for that. Final mix really came out nice.

So true for many. To have many choices and options can make it confusing and complicated. Even give you anxiety. It was easy when I was buying soap in the former East Germany. There was only one make . When I was in the US, there was a huge assortment of all kinds of makes and types of soap there. What to shose?

This thread doesn't address one of the greatest issues of choice vs. creativity - which is partnership vs. control. For the last year or so, I work work work with macs and digital... but my creative work, my play? Film, 60's era metal cameras, an enlarger and lith developer. Every step of that process means working within the confines of the medium. Particularly lith printing, which is very hard to replicate across 2 prints, and is packed with "ghost-in-the-machine" oddities based on chemistry and temperature and the fact that every print you make changes the chemical composition of the developer. You simply can't "control" any step of the process with any sort of totality, from exposure to final print, like you can with a digital camera and Photoshop. But once you decide you are a "partner" with the media, the game changes. Why do we make partnerships? Usually to add unique strengths which we don't possess or aren't remarkable at, to our creative, business, romantic, or fun pursuits. When you allow chance and surprise into the process, its like being handed a very active and very able muse. I shot about 200 frames, digital, of a nude for a friend who wanted to get a sense of "how she looked" in that scenario. I shot 3 or 4 frames with an old Minolta rangefinder, and one of those just had lots of the mojo I want from a shot. Printing it was work - to get those tools to sculpt the print into what I wanted, while making room for the oddities of the process and making them work together. It's probably my favorite bit of creative output this year. And those things inform my "controlled" work as well.

Bought a Panasonic LX100 about 3 months ago. I've been taking it EVERYWHERE and shooting stills and video that I wouldn't have taken the lens cap off the 5D Mark III. Can't remember having this much fun shooting! More importantly . . . taking risks with the smaller camera. Isn't that what being creative is about?

forgive me my trusty 300D, you were my first and best, i shouldn't have sold you and anyone that came after you just didn't feel right, it wasnt the same.

I have been thinking about this lately as well. It seems that the more gear that we acquire, the fewer personal projects we take on. Lately, for me, the idea of only owning three primes is suddenly very appealing. And for all of the thousands of dollars that we pour into shoulder rigs, monitors, follow focuses, etc, shooting with a stripped-down camera is extremely freeing. The pressure of creation is off, and the limitations become exciting. Taking this a step further, I have been thinking a lot about taking on what I'm calling the "1450 Challenge": for my next personal shoot, all camera dept. gear (including lenses) must fit into one Pelican 1450 case. Also, I agree on your point about computers. As an experiment, I recently sat down at the dining room table with a notebook (a paper one!) and a ball-point pen. I scribbled an outline for a feature film that I have been wanting to write and got more done in four hours than I had in the last four months while sitting at my computer. And then as soon as I went back to type the whole thing out in Celtx, the process slowed right back down. Less is more.

Works fine for me and is very useful. I have the original, not the MKII - you really need to do some tests with the unit - my meters are very conservative, and if I set levels at what seems proper, I have pretty weak tracks. The self-noise of the 60D is fine, but I'd really like a beefy waveform. Set it to really hit the peaks and use the minus-6 backups. The limiter is very natural sounding - I use it all the time. It's not a total brickwall, but it helps. One of those Anker USB phone batteries will power the DR-60 for hours or days. The the 60D is very picky about internal batteries and will report "dead battery" for batteries with a lot of juice left, esp. with rechargeables. Any USB power source (like a little phone charging brick) will power it via USB if necessary when you're in the studio. One final tip - just do the quick format for cards - the full format, myself and many people give up after ten minutes or so and disconnect power.