Leaderboard

I wasn't a hipster before it was cool to not be a hipster, so... wait, damn.

congratulations on your purchase andrew looking forward to hearing more about it!! ...i think this is a fun discussion~! cuz ykno, if we ALL agreed on this stuff 100% and we ALLLL shot with the SAME CAMERA...... well, how boring would that be~?! cheers guys~!!

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.

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

In the past, I've found the two usually don't go together. But if you search hard enough, a sharp zoom can cut it. First test I shot using the Anamorphic Shop's Focus Module with a Schneider Cinelux MC and a Nikon 35-70 f3.5 on the a7s. ClearImage zoom was set to 1.3 to avoid vignetting across the full focal range (full coverage on MTF it seems). Most of this was shot wide open on the lens. Just sharp enough for my tastes. Hopefully in the coming days I'll get a test out using the 80-200 f2.8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeMMkV9s3-U Any other experience with zooms and anamorphic?

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.

I point you to some of my thoughts: http://***URL removed***/forums/post/57013879 I don't have a gh4 so I don't know if the difference is big enough to justify a jump. But the Nx1 is dirt cheap right now and here in europe I get the sense camera shops just want to unload the gear, so you may be able to talk them down. Many camera stores have used samsung gear as well. As I point out, I got my nx1 and both S lens for less than the cost of an A7rII body. The detail with an Nx1 is just insane. I find the footage relatively easy to work with and get cinematic results. I would never buy a camera just because its resale might be good. I want to use it for a long time. If I do ever sell it, I will sell the entire system. If I was to advise I would get just the samsung lens your shooting would require for all the auto focus and the rest. Fill in with canon or Nikon manual lens with adapters. MF works brilliantly on the nx1.

Beards come free with the Digital Bolex.

For me this hipster shit is great, nobody expects you anymore to shave every single fucking day.

I feel the same way about Speed Boosters and shallow-focus. Enough, already!

The word "hipster" means, something I dont understand and therefor dismiss to cover my ignorance. So I dont really get the question.

I personally don't give a monkeys what anyone looks like. If you want to have a swirly beard, wear a banana suit, grow some horns and have a tail (or any kind of fashion combination) then that's fine by me. Let people be who they want to be

You can get a broken AF version of the 28-70 if you look around. It's a heavy lens but optically excellent.

Hey well this camera lets you shoot in either.

I still really like your Vivid settings. I have been mostly using the G7 lately but I had the NX500 out the other day and that Vivid with contrast at 0 looks sweet.

Not sure if you mean fs7 or fs5, but, since you mention raw output: On another thread in another forum there is a discussion about Sonys implementation of 12 bit raw from the fs700 and the fs7. Mitch from cd, Alistair Chapman, and some others in the industry weigh in. In short, it appears that unlike the fs700, the raw from the fs7 is worse quality than the internal video. Not sure how the raw of the fs5 will be implemented, but in the case of the fs7 it is at best questionable.

Like Mattias said, he's right the sensor is what makes the difference between those two. CMOS has a 'clearer' more modern look than CCD, which looks more analogue and more like a film stock. The Ikonoskop shared the same Kodak CCD as the Digital Bolex and I found the look differed a lot from the Blackmagic CMOS as well

I believe you've got to look ahead when buying a camera like this. It isn't something I'm going to use for a week then chuck away The macro blocking bug doesn't bother me in the slightest. Two reasons - one it is a bug, and bugs get fixed. Two, it is getting a RAW output On the older sensor in the FS700, that raw output to an external recorder was one of the best images around. Users will testify. On the FS7 it will be even better and what's more you don't have to fight the ergonomics. By comparison the C100 II bores the crap out of me. Yeah I know it's a solid option. But the creativity of 240fps and RAW trumps peaking. Sorry but it does. I see the C100 is a lot of people's unicorn camera, it can do no wrong?! I'm quite familiar with the C300 and C100 II images. I once did a direct comparison with the 1D C. Well the 1D C walks all over it. The NX1 is better looking than the C100 II as well. If you want to know what an image free of compression looks like and 14bit colour then shoot raw on the 5D Mark III, it's no mystery. Done it, seen it. I know for a fact the C100 II's image does not look as good as raw from a camera half the price. So using it as some kind of magic imaging benchmark for the far superior FS5 isn't a good idea. 5D2 / 5D3 raw would be a better one if we're talking colour. The FS7 though is a big beast. I'd take the small size of the FS5 and variable ND filter any day. XAVC-L or XAVC-I are kind of a moot point when you're shooting 10bit ProRes from a RAW output, not to mention Cinema DNG. Dear Sony - Take my money Let's see how the internal codec pans out in the real world beyond the 200% magnified tests on Vimeo which probably highlight a bug rather than the actual potential of the camera. I rather like 100Mbit/s 8bit 4:2:0 on the A7S II, not many people complaining about that is there? There's no reason the FS5's codec should be any worse.

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.

Bloom feels pretty positive, http://philipbloom.net/blog/fs5doco/ Only 3 minutes left btw, happy new years to you!

Until Canon ditch the ef mount and give us an adaptable mount the real cinematographers will never take to the canon c series no matter how good the image is. It's about the glass. Anyone happy with shooting a movie on L series lenses doesn;t put enough attention to detail into the overall image. The number of wedding videos I;ve seen falling fowl to Canon C series cameras and L lenses is amazing. This little fs5 will allow a full set of oct18 lenses to be used and regardless of the codec it'll look great. The Sony FS7 and now the FS5 offer the most comprehensive optical options for cinematographers. The e-mount - ef metabones allows the normallows to shoot with the L Series glass they acquired before moving from 'still photography to video', and the fun adaptors from e-mount to Leica, PL, Oct-18, etc etc etc etc etc allow the cinematographers the ability to shape their image with the nice glass.

Happy new Year Andrew! Sony, Canon, Samsung, it does not matter to me. Cameras are tools. The FS5 sure looks like a winner to me. However, being an amateur looking to upgrade from a DSLR, I am having a hard time justifying the expense (5600$ usd plus shipping). I just stumbled upon a slightly used, mint condition C100 for 2000$ usd here in Canada. True, the original C100 is strictly a 1080p camera with no slow motion capabilities and a crippled codec that does not grade well, but I'll couple it to a Blackmagic Video assist monitor / Prores recorder. For my needs, that`s going to be good enough for now. I'll rent an FS7 when I will need slow motion. I wish you a lot of creative fun with your new FS5, and all the best for 2016!

Why would anyone with an FS7 use XAVC-L? I don't think i've ever even explored it.....:-) And we're ALL waiting for the 4K Atomos Ninja Star. I'll take 3 thanks.

Thats pretty much what Gorilla Grain is. Just place them on a layer on top of your video and switch them to "Overlay". Done. Looks great. A tip, don't buy them straight away. Sign up for their email and download the demo, what a while and they will send you a 50 dollar rebate. They have one for free that you can try first. http://gorillagrain.com

That is indeed a real pity. Definitely political.