Leaderboard

Wrote up a little guide for people new to this and looking to buy their first recorder. And is the way I see the world of low budget recorders is they're ranked like this (starting from worst/cheapest to best/expensive): Tascam DR22WL / Zoom H1 (I'd suggest skipping right over this tier of recorders! But hey, my first ever short film I did years ago was with a chinese shotgun running straight into a Zoom H1!! :-o Shocking but true... everyone starts somewhere!) Tascam DR60D mk2 (the DR60D mk1, before the mk2 came out, is what I myself started out using for no budget shorts as a budding location sound recordist) Tascam DR70D (the *minimum* I'd recommend for a location sound recordist, even if you're just a student / no budget guy. Although in desperate cases, you could scrape by with getting the DR60Dmk2, but doing the opposite and stretching for an F4 is very worthwhile. Certainly, I could travel back in time I'd just have gone straight for the Zoom F4 from the starts! *Except* the F4 didn't come out until a few years later... you live in a very lucky time with so many wonderful options to choose from!) or Tascam DR680 (these can be found at bargain prices secondhand, which is what I did before I then later on purchased a Zoom F4 once that came out & I spotted an F4 at a good price) Zoom F4 / Zoom F8 / Sound Devices MixPre6 (I skip right over the MixPre3, as the MixPre6 is very similar yet does so so much more at only a relatively small extra cost. Also I regard the three of F4/F8/MixPre6 as all on broadly the same level to each other, just varying slightly from each other in one area or another that ones might have a small lead over the other one. This is the tier where I'd see you're now reaching the semi-pro level) Sound Devices 633 / Zaxcom Maxx / Sanosax SX-R4+ (finally you have now got up to the "industry standard" when it comes to recorders people use for small shoots, especially when mixing from the bag. If you're doing this full time as your job or hiring someone who is, then likely this is what is being used. Either that or similar gear, or even something better above this) And if you considering ones priced above those last three.... you're surely doing this full time as a sound recordist and getting a healthy income from that, so why are you asking us here on Frugal Filmmaker? ha! :-P But yes, tonnes and tonnes more options exist at the higher end as well! Finally, if you're considering something in the budget range within what I just covered, but isn't one of those that I mentioned, then it probably is *not* a good idea to buy if you're intending to be a location sound recordist. Something else only might *maybe* make sense if you've got in mind some other purpose for it, such as perhaps you want to record a band in a studio (which has very different needs / constraints), or you're the rare exception which proves the rule, or you are getting lucky finding some amazingly priced deal which can make an otherwise bad purchase decision then make sense if "the price is right". For instance I didn't include the Roland R88, as I feel it is extremely poor value for money in 2017! However.... there was a time at the end of 2016 when the Roland R88 got a huge price drop because it was being discontinued. Even with that massive price drop, the Roland R88 probably still wasn't a smart purchase vs the Zoom F8, but the big drop in price at least made the R88 a somewhat competitive option worth mentioning in a round up of all the various choices. However, that sale is now long since ended, and the prices I see on eBay for a Roland R88 is even higher than what you used to be able to buy it new from B&H Photo! Clearly those eBay sellers are dreaming. Anyway, that was just one example which might have been applicable but isn't now, so I don't rule out the possibilities of something like that perhaps popping up again in the future especially if you very keenly look around for secondhand deals. But for over 95% of people reading this, that won't be applicable, and just stick to going with one of the main ones I mentioned earlier. http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/

Welll.... that is one way to misinterpret it and put a massive negative spin on the situation! All they're doing is further expanding the range of D750 that they're accepting back. That is *not* the same as a recalling it for the 3rd time. This is extremely generous of Nikon! If only other manufacturers could have as good customer service as Nikon has..... do we ever hear about Sony offering a recall for the overheating a6300? (just to pick out one Sony camera, but really, it could apply to ***ALL*** Sony cameras! They've all had some issues or another with them) Clearly Nikon is being a good corporate citizen here, is head and shoulders above the others. Yet people repay Nikon by ripping into it? Sad. The Nikon D750 still stands strong as arguably the best choice DSLR for stills in its niche (i.e. the $1.5Kish all rounder FF DSLR).

And I think you missed my point.... as this isn't what I'm discussing. This is exactly like complaining that the URSA Mini Pro doesn't come with a waterproof housing. Well yeah, no surprise!! As what you really want here is a GoPro. Totally different use case. And is a product aimed at a totally different market niche. That is what she said ;-)

Yeah..... if you're using a Zoom H1, then you're not a production sound recordist. Which is the perspective I'm writing this from. (and from that perspective, *any* of those which I mentioned will make up a very small sized kit indeed! Size truly isn't a concern here, even the biggest and heaviest, the Zoom F8, is still a shockingly tiny sound recorder! Arguably it is too small) If you have a Zoom H1 then you're probably a solo videographer grabbing some ambiance (or using it as a "poor man's wireless lav" in the groom's coat pocket, as I often used my Zoom H1 with a cheap lav mic), or a musician, or a busy executive using it as a note taker, or a journalist, or any of a bunch of other uses than a production sound recordist (still, not a terrible thing to keep around in your bag for in a pinch. I often have a DR22WL or H1 tucked away in my bag). Sorry, again this is totally irrelevant just like the size question. As I'm not discussing microphones, but recorders. Tonnes of indie filmmakers (yes, even amateurs who have no intention about ever making a dime from this) might spend five thousand dollars on their camera kit (heck, just a 5D mk4 plus 2x f2.8 zooms will eat all that up & more! And that is before you count tripods/gimbals/lights/batteries/media/etc). So thus I'll be totally unapologetic in suggesting that just perhaps a person could spend half that on a super ultra basic sound kit? Although yes, if you're someone who has gone ultra low budget and is shooting with a secondhand Panasonic GH2 with some adapted old Nikon lenses, then sure I reckon have your boom op use a Tascam DR60D with Sennheiser ME66/K6 (with Rode WS6) and a Samson C02. That could be an appropriate matching budget level (well... sort of! You're likely still spend way less on sound than on the DoP's kit!), and is why I did mention the Tascam DR60D mk2 as an appropriate starting point for the very budget constrained. For sure, just like how there are still people out there doing little corporate videos with a Canon T2i. Doesn't mean we should be recommending that is a level to aspire to! No, I'm trying to showcase some of the better options (just like why in the camera side of things people talk about say the Panasonic G80 or the URSA Mini Pro, or any of the zillions of others out there!). Bringing a bit more balance back to the discussions :-) Rather than only the focus on cameras. As sound is half the film!

Nothing worse than having to hide your boom pole. I say flaunt it as long as there are no children around.

I recently graduated from my uni with a compilation of clips. All footage except for the first shot is filmed with the NX1. Mostly with the 16-50S and occasionally with some analog zooms. One major mistake I made with exposing is blowing out highlights. Even if your subject is in the 35-50 IRE, you can still save it in post by bouncing it up to 60-70 IRE.

The Tascam DR-10CS/DR-10L is even smaller. It only records mono, but I like using it for lavs or shotgun mics which are mono anyway.

I wasn't being entirely serious mate so I'll probably just hold firm at my current level of calm. With regard to the D750, I'd love Nikon to recall all of their camera body variants for free shutter replacements just to be on the safe side as it would save me a load of money! To paraphrase Alan Partridge about The Titanic enjoying 1000 miles of trouble free cruising before it hit the iceberg, at least the D750 owners have had a couple of years rather than a couple of days use out of it

Lots of pseudo bullshit in this thread... Short and simple: YouTube reencodes EVERY (valid) file you upload. Uploading in 4K and above triggers YouTube to make VP9 (higher quality) streams almost immediately. (This is the key thing here as the MP4 stream is absolutely shit, turning your footage into macroblocking smears.) You don't have a corporate or partner account, your videos will always suffer from poor bitrate.

Turns out the TL2 is much improved right up until the point you attach their Visoflex EVF at which point it, erm, breaks. Sales suspended until they fix it and seems as big a failure in testing as Leica have had since they decided on Victoria Beckham as a good candidate for a bit of celebrity product placement.

Yep, you have to pay an expensive fee for it, even though the little A6500 has it. Unless you needed to shoot long sequences at 120 frames at a low bitrate (like a dance routine) - at that price- this update is a waste of money.

I have a NX3000, and I can't even find the sevice menu, to unlock unlimited time limit! If you have any info about it, please share. Great little camera by the way, and it's video much more organic that NX300/NX30, huge imporvement. I use it as a permanent "action" camera with the fish eye on it. "from NX1000 to the NX300" NX500, NX500 was the last of this great series of compact mirrorless.

Yes, its hard to predict the matter whether Samsung may reenter, but its a possibility and as I personally have seen, I have to disagree with people relaying on their smartphones, its become a new "trend" if you want to buy fancy big spec cameras it seems. And the Samsung NX Mini is a genius camera, I still see those around being used from time to time, frankly not everyone have the money to fork out for a top of the line smartphone just for the camera. While Canon and Sony sales may be dwindling, compact small form factor cameras seem to be a hot selling and even the camera store in this tiny town of 20k people is selling them a lot, how much it is going in the bigger world I do not know but Samsung was LEADING the race with the best small form factor cameras from the NX1000 to the NX300. Someone even hacked the NX3000 I think to shoot 1440p video, pretty amazing back then when only GH4 was the big 4k player in town.

I think he actually does it for the A6500 too...not positive though, but I know he does them for more than Panasonics. Yes...ditto the Impulz luts...bought them initially with the LUT Utilty but I never use them.

I was in the same camp but I recently saw someone here post a link to an official statement announcing they are closing their entire digital camera division. It was a S.Korean publication. That being said, Samsung has a tendency to word things vaguely, and sometimes open-ended. This could be a factor of poor translation but as an American I have a hard time putting their statements into proper perspective. The way the article was worded seemed like Samsung felt that they could no longer compete in this space because in their view, consumers were dropping DSLR, mirrorless, and point-and-shoot cameras in favor of smartphone camera technology. They even sighted Canon losing business in this metric too. While I agree these findings could be very possible among your average consumer, it sure leaves hobbyists and professionals out of the equation, and I feel that's very, very unfortunate, and way too reactive to the natural peaks and valleys of supply and demand. The above being said, I personally suspect that if the market shifted Samsung will shift with it. I've seen this happen time and time again with most of their product offerings. Right now, they are hyper focused on their smartphone, VR, smart home and smart appliance technology. But there's nothing to say that this will always be the case in the foreseeable future. Look at Olympus and Fuji. Almost went into damn near obscurity and then low and behold we now have new offerings from them in the pro space. What I find interesting is that Samsung still officially advertises their NX products AND continues to update their Camera Manager app. However camera and lens firmware updates have frozen for over a year now. I suppose these are low level efforts on Samsung's part. But is it a strategy to keep the door open with consumers should they decide to re enter the market? This is why I put together the Keep Samsung NX Alive petition. It was in effort to demonstrate to Samsung that there IS still a demand for their NX cameras. Is 1,500 signatures in a span of almost 2 years enough of a demand for Samsung? I don't know. What I do know is that I tried like hell to reach the proper people in charge of that division and have not received and ounce of correspondence back. This could mean so many things, and with all the legal controversy at Samsung headquarters in recent years, it's very hard to read into it. I also know that if you read the almost 800 comments attached to the petition you quickly see a central theme. People love the shat out of the NX1/500 and Samsung's glass. As Enna Park, a huge Samsung NX1 pro and all around great guy from South Korea once told me, "Samsung boss is a chicken heart".

Yeah the look he gets is very subtle, but very organic. I only watched his 5D3 videos, but now I have to watch his GH4 videos as well.

I've used Leeming's LUT with both the GH4 and now the 5...it's for both CineD and VlogL and it gets them to the same color space....comes with a settings manual and his follow up support is ridiculously good for what he charges...the big advantage is that CineD is a better choice for shooting high ISO and Vlog of course for higher DR...he calls it a LUT to get you to a point to begin your grade, but I do little to the image once applied...most the guys on DVXuser use his Luts for shooting professionally with their GH cams...he developed the first (for GH4) over a period of months with several members and through tweaking...testing and feedback, really tapped into the enormous pottential these cameras have...could not recommend it highly enough for the Pannys.

Hey Oliver, great topic. Thanks for posting. I don´t use luts on REC709 footage, which I´ve mostly been shooting so far other than some FS700 8bit SLOG tests. The only ones I used with success are from Juan Melara, his free Kodak and Fuji Print Luts. Some interesting results can be achieved. But after two or three months I started to grade all my footage by hand. More reliable workflow with much better control and achieving better results regarding the final look. Here is my latest example of 8bit REC709 footage, shot with the kewl and always fresh Panny G6:) By the way, Oliver, we would love to see more of your awesome work in context with the cameras you shot them with. I think you could give great BTS glimpses into the trickery of small cam big result magic! Well here my latest shot and hand graded piece:

If you look more closely at DXOMark measurements (the graphs) the D5 has better dynamic range from about 3200 to 51200 than the 1DX II. Which is more important (low ISO or high ISO dynamic range), can be argued depending on the application. Typical sports shooters are shooting publication ready jpgs in the camera which mean their dynamic range is limited at that point in practice even if they once in a blue moon get the chance to use low ISO. Furthermore the tonal range (number of tones that can be separated from each other and noise) and color sensitivity (number of color values that can be distinguished from each other and noise) are greater in the D5 across the 100-25600 range than in the 1DX Mark II. For me these are very important measures of the smoothness of tones and colour gradations especially if the contrast is increased in post they determine how well the image's tonal and colour integrity hold up. To decide on which sensor is best for a given application, one needs to look at the shooting conditions and what kind of post-processing / look is preferred for the final image. The D5 isn't the ideal camera to shoot in direct sunlight due to its lower base ISO dynamic range; that much is clear. On the other hand, the 35mm full frame camera which has the best base ISO dynamic range is also made by Nikon: the D810. So they have solutions for this situation also, just in a different camera. The D500/D7500 sensor allows fast reads for high fps use, which the D7200's sensor (which scores better on dxomark for low ISO metrics) is apparently not well equipped to do. However, many users of the D500 report that they find the high ISO image quality to be better in the D500 than in the D7200 and the color neutrality is held across a greater range of ISO settings than in previous cameras. This is also true of the D5. So there are characteristics of the new sensors which are missed by dxo's overall scoring (which is mostly based on low ISO performance and ignores large parts of the elevated ISO measurements) but appreciated by photographers who use these cameras. In dxomark's graphs, the D7500 has better dynamic range than the NX500 at every ISO setting but the difference is pronounced from ISO 400 to 25600. DXO weight their overall score heavily on base ISO results which is usually not what people are using in practice unless they work in the studio or are tripod based landscape photographers. I think there is useful information in DXOMark data but you have to go into the graphs in the Measurements tab to access it. I think the cropped 4K (which is the same actual pixels crop as is used in Canon's 4K capable DSLRs) is used because it requires less processing and produces less heat than doing a full sensor read and resampling the images to 4K. I don't think it's a question of who makes the sensor so much. If they wanted to they could make a full frame 4K camera but it would cost more and most Nikon users are focused on still photography and only need some video capability on the side for occasional use. I realize you are interested primarily in video and would like Nikon to do better in that area. I am sure this sentiment is shared by many, however, Nikon's history is in still photography and they remain primarily focused on that. Users who have greater priority needs in video tend to congregate to other brands. Since Nikon is working on a full frame mirrorless camera I would expect that they will implement some form of phase-detect focus sensors in the main image sensors and at that point there will probably be more interest in using Nikons for video. But at present it seems that all the optimization that Nikon do is to get the best still image quality possible for the applications expected for each particular camera.

Maybe Andrews review might help? http://www.eoshd.com/2015/01/slr-magic-10mm-t2-1-review/

Stick to super 8 like me Your Movexoom is a good camera. Most of the cameras are ridicolously cheap but stock and processing is so so expensive. I think its not cheap in Japan either. Single 8 was very popular there btw and is maybe better than super8. The problem with super 8 and anamorphic is that 2x stretch is too wide. The film is just too tiny and too grainy. The grain look oval. Thats why all those Iscos, Mollers (for 8mm) had only 1,5 factor. Only the Baby Hypergonar with 1,75 was wider. So you could achieve true 2:35 cinemascope. But the image was too bad. Try to use Kodak 50D negative stock that has so little grain like 16mm and will work best with your 2x Sankor. Keep on filming !

Let me propose this thought in the meantime. Was there ever a time in which 120fps @ 1080 was suitable or widely accepted by an average audience? I think it's important to remember in the face of ever evolving technology that "good enough" doesn't simply go away just because "better" comes along. I'm as guilty as the rest of you for wanting, possibly even lusting over the latest and greatest camera tech. And certainly when you hit the professional circuit many operators and even some clients will judge you solely based off the equipment you associate yourself with. But I have to remind myself that a great many times my 2014 camera (NX1) has helped me achieve great success and continues to do so in 2017, and this will only stop when the camera becomes physically nonoperational. The point is, creativity isn't beholden to the current state of technology. Creativity exists on it's own. The technology can help express that as a tool but technology is not creativity itself and can achieve nothing on it's own. Like many of you, I want all the power and features of Arri and RED products, but under $2,000. No one WANTS to pay $50k for just a camera body. They pay that price because there is no alternative. We are incrementally getting close to this ultimate goal, and I would argue had Samsung stayed in the digital camera market that would have raised the bar for competitors. 4k/60fps would have already been the current standard by every manufacturer. But we're not quite there yet and without companies like Samsung raising the bar, ("like" meaning huge R&D departments) we will continue to see incremental movement in this area from the likes of Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, etc., etc. Consequently it also happens to be a marketing tactic. But should that prohibit any of us from expressing our creativity and ingenuity in the meantime? Hell no! We already have exceptional quality today. Think back just 10 years ago with tape based camcorders? Let the haters hate. You and I have pretty images to create.

If you're not rich enough to own a handful of PL lenses yourself, then don't buy it in the PL mount.

You should start by @Tito Ferradans 's single focus shootout video for the best single focus comparison ever !

There are more people today taking pictures with a Samsung camera than with a Nikon. Fact.

deciding which camera to buy based on a DXOmark score is as sensible as a mixed metaphor on a bull. and as td^ says I agree with you on most things, but not this. I dont agree with him either. Clearly image quality is not determined by dxomarks. Surely you know better than most: horses for courses. D5 is about speed. according to dxo my d5500 has better dynamic range than my d800. It just doesn't. Maybe in the testormatic-dynamic-rangifier2000 it does, but in lightroom and photoshop - in a picture of an actual thing - it does not. Similarly my canon 7d would get near the 5dmk2 in theory, bit in practice the shadows were a mushy purple and green nightmare. Anyhoo, IMHO the d800/d810 still has the nicest image on the market: and that's not bad for a 5 year old camera.

The D5's low ISO dynamic range is obviously a trade-off for it's ability to maintain good dynamic range at very high ISOs. It's one of the very best on the market in that respect. Don't like it, don't buy it. As far as the D7500 is concerned, don't take Dx0marks scores for gospel. The larger pixel pitch of the D7500 gives it much better dynamic range from ISO 400 onwards than the SAMSUNG. Dx0mark's maths is massively biased towards high res sensors. And doesn't take into account DR at high ISOs. The sports score is also effectively meaningless as a result What's the difference between a score of 1300 ISO and 1400 ISO. less than 1/6 of a stop??? how is that a useful metric? When the d7500 is a full stop ahead of the SAMSUNG in dynamic range at high ISOs. They've gotten their maths all muddled up in the color depth scoring (which is heaving biased to high res camers), which has a big effect on the sports score. We're talking about difference here of 1/3 to 1/6 of a stop in DR, and about APSC sensor that are closing in on their theorital limits between trade-offs of SNR and pixel pitch. This is a pointless discussion. When all APSC nikons have been more than good enough since the D7000,

+100500 I've invested in all the best NX primes thinking to flavour 16-50S, plus i have Nikon mount Samyang 24mm/f1.4 and Samyang 16mm/f2.0. And you know what? I rarely use all the bunch, but 16-50S is almost there. Also i love little 16-50/3.5-5.6 power-zoom (which came with the camera). You would not believe, but it is the second run-and-gun lens i use - it is sharp, great AF (much-much better that any NX prime), OIS supports the video nicely...

The 16-50S is one of the main reasons staying with the mount. I can't think of any better overall lens for an APS-C sensor. Image Stabilization, good focus dampening (or whatever it's called), fast AF (fastest on the system at least), 2f for its wider focal lengths (almost prime territory really), dust/splash proof, good build quality, iFN function (I just put the ISO there) and relatively light (for such a lens) that goes from 24-75mm. Those few extra mm in the wide end is a huge thing for me. If you only have to own one NX lens, let be it. I have a moderate collection of legacy lenses but I have replaced most with NX lenses.

Yes and you have to take into account that X amount of people Only paid 500 bucks for one for awhile. Oh I still doubt it is going to look as good as the Raw on a BMPCC. But they are not very practical without a rig. And by the time you rig one out really nice you are not too far form a GH5 price. I just don't know if they are worth the hassle anymore. And that Look is only needed for people like us, on here, compared to thousands of people that want the digital look, buying them for the 4k.. And with the GH5 heck you don't even need a tripod for a lot of stuff. And a really good monopod might be a great thing to invest in for a lot of the rest, the ones with the feet or foot on them... Its like a Sony F3, I have always wanted one, but you need to buy the one with the true 444 upgrade in them, and they are over 2000 bucks. Are they still worth it? That is GH5, Canon C100 territory, damn near a original Mini Ursa price! I am not sure on that move either. A F3 is old just like my Af100, does that make them useless no, but now I think maybe better stuff is out there for nearly the same money. Hard decisions when you don't have a lot of cash. And it is not just the body you are buying, it is the System you are getting into. That is where it gets damn expensive. But hopefully you can use parts of it on another camera.