Leaderboard

from 0:00 to 1:34 is the T3i, and 1:40 to 13:59 is the Pocket, then it goes back to the t3i from 14:00 until 17:30. I graded all the pocket cinema camera footage with Neumann luts "The Halfling profile" As a final render I upscaled everything to 4k and uploaded to youtube. So for best viewing results 4k is your best bet as it does benefit quite a bit with youtube compression. Let me know what you think

For these reasons: - To see the difference compared to XAVC-I. - When there hasn't been enough card space for XAVC-I. On the Ebrahim vs Andrew debate: - Canon C cameras are awesome. They are popular for a reason. The focus peaking and usability is BY FAR the best I've used on any camera. - Sony have more bang for buck such as HFR/10bit. Great to see them innovating. - Canon cameras are underwhelming but work amazingly well. Sony's are spec monsters but need a year to mature. Depends what's important to you? - The FS5 is not a cinema camera (yet). - No camera makers are crappy or garbage etc. Just different. It's great to have choice and see what works for your style.

EXACTLY! 4k on Youtube looks very close the the original footage before youtube compression. So 1080 uploaded in 4k is a huge benefit. For instance. If you watch my film above in 1080 the film grain/noise looks like blocky moving pixels and ruins the film look and feel, but in 4k mode it looks like fine grain and doesn't distract.

Atomos always advertise their recorders as capturing a 10 bit file, even if the camera only outputs 8bit (e.g. 5D, A7S). You have to go to the camera manufacturer to find what the output bit depth is. I can't find anything saying its 10 bit out from Canon so I'll assume it isn't...

The Sony FS5 is a miniature version of the FS7 cinema camera and Sony's competitor to the Canon C100 Mk II. It's also one of the most capable slow-mo cameras, with a 10bit 4:2:2 internal codec at 240fps. Read the full article

Disclaimer: This is just for fun. Not meant to be fair, well lit, perfectly graded, scientific or anything else. Just a few shots while I had the two film cameras loaded. IMO Film still kicks the ass of digital in looking what I consider "Good" and in dynamic range and color. But this is not suposed to be proof of that concept. If you want an example of that I say watch "The Hateful Eight", "The Hurtlocker" or any other well shot movie on film. In this video I compare some footage from a BMPCC, Digital Bolex and A7ii to a 16mm Bolex H16 and a Krasnogorsk-3. I did it just for fun so don't read to much into it The BMPCC was shot in Prores and the D16 in Raw. Both where graded with a 7207 LUT. The H16 was shooting actual ISO 250 Kodak 7207. The Krasnogorsk was shooting ISO 50 Kodak 7203 so thats the LUT the A7ii received.

The codec is the single reason why the FS7 has much better performance. I rent it and on a few occasions I got 2 64gb cards in situations where data dumping was nigh on impossible. That said, I've had some great results with XAVC-L. Just not enough, unless Tetris style highlights is your thing! That's what I love about the E-mount. Whipping out all sorts of glass and observing all those different looks. It's absolutely staggering how much the lenses affect the image quality and characteristics. It's the main reason I hated the RX10 II - the lens (expectedly sterile as hell). Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 + A7SII is a favourite right now. Love it.

Sony: Many cameras with so many serious defects, for their price... when you get the chance to have 4K 10bit 4.2.2, we'll talk!!!!

The ergonomics and features-set of this camera are near perfect for my kind of work. I cancelled my Ursa Mini 4.6k not only because of a change in working preferences, but because I wouldn't be able to use the camera with ANY of my grip equipment. (I still want it though! Haha). The FS5 seems like a great cousin to the A7S II and A7R II. Although I've used the FS7 many times this year, the bulk of the camera and the compatible grip equipment really does hurt to the point I now have to properly exercise my back. Not that the FS7 is particularly heavy, after a few hours you really start to feel it. Hard. My setup is much more portable now. Got some Lupolux Dual LEDs (v-lock powered) and a Scorpion Light Kit (which I fully recommend. Amazing kit!). Smaller cameras are a much better fit as its much more liberating. Loving the A7SII in particular. Andrew highlighted this in the review regarding the macro blocking issues in XAVC-L. When using it on the FS7, the issues are very very severe: - Heavy macro blocking, above the mids in particular. - Macro blocking in skin tones under mixed lighting. Blotchy/ugly. (Fine under controlled lighting). - Terrible blocky quality with fine textures (hair) or moving particles (steam/smoke). - Tearing/smearing of fine edges and reflective items. Purple fringey smudge look. -Colour blotches/pixelation in when lighting colour is mixed. (Such as tungsten with a blue kick on the edge of the face. Anything stylised is problematic). - Exceptionally noisey in Slog, especially when using HFR. Noise is INSANE in slo-mo Slog! - Captures audio 4 frames out of sync with footage. (Doesn't happen in XAVC-I). - Some very heavy aliasing on thin, fine details. (Like a steel fence). I'm not sure if these issues are as strong on the FS5, but as it stands it's a deal breaker. XAVC-L, in my experience, is absolute garbage. I'd like to see how the camera footage performs with external recording. The RAW upgrade sounds cool. But having a 7Q+ on top of the FS5 kinda defeats the object doesn't it? It would be ace to have a smaller version, like Atomos do with the Ninja Star. I'm looking forward to your review and seeing how this camera progresses. If XAVC-L is fixed/bypassed efficiently - I'm a confirmed customer!

Exacly the same settings and lut as I posted earlier.

Having a blast with my Sony A7Rii. A most awesome little camera. Below are some shot I captured with it whilst playing with lighting.

Some wine store I found, the christmas display was gorgeous so I just had to film it. This was graded with my previous settings that I posted (the wedding one), barely had to tweak !

I don't know Mattias, you might say it was just for fun but your dog looks like getting paid to stay still.

The Moeller 32 (which is still one of the most underrated anamorphics out there) could be an option. Regarding imagequality, sharpness, and especially character there is not much left to be desired. The downside is of course you cannot go wide (less than 50mm on mft) and focusing is anyoing. The Moellers are my favourites and despite Lomo and all the colorful and huge projection-things there is not much left I haven't tried in the budget area BTW with modern sensor you don't have to worry about losing quality on 2x stretch. That was different in the old (small gauge) film days and was the reason why many adapter have the 1.5 stretch.