Leaderboard

I just got my hands on an A7rIII and the greatest drawback of A7rII has been fixed: Shutter sounds great!

I've seen you make several good points in this community and if others don't, or can't or are unwilling see that it doesn't diminish your wisdom one bit. Some people just haven't worked it out for themselves. You've challenged one of my misconceptions about how the industry treated the NX1, and I thank you for helping me to become a more rational and less reactive being. There are some others here who are good people, but could use a little humility too.

I think the ES that @jonpais is using is "Errata Sendorum", which is an old Latin phrase used in English contract law in reference to failing to deliver an SLR Magic Rangefinder

8bit has very little bandwidth to be pushed around in grade. 8bit cameras are setup by the manufacturer through internal testing to capture the optimum image gradiation for it's respective sensor encoding. Just because an 8bit camera offers log or exposure tools doesn't mean that the image is that mallabe. The 8bit HEVC images coming out of my NX1 are vibrant and brilliant stock, and I notice very little artifacts as is. But I have little room to push channels in Lumentri before I break it and see artifacts, banding, macroblocking, noise, etc. Thankfully, Neat Video comes to the rescue and does a stellar job at cleaning up that mess, which is exactly what it was designed for. When I then view those results on my 10bit monitor, the image holds up rather nicely. For those with 8bit systems, don't feel discouraged or left out of the conversation, you have viable options.

At my store the Canon 2000d is cheaper than the Nikon d3400. Both 24mp, both metal mounts. One is newer. To a noob thats a big deal. I dont know how many times I see threads where they skip what they get recommend because the guy in the store said something else was "newer".

I get your point but is a metal mount really going to save any fallen entry level dslr from destruction? Unfortunately, we live in a disposable world I like these cheapo cameras. I almost bought a D3400 around Christmas when you could get a kit for $300. I’d like to see what people can do with these limited features.

This. A beginner is better of with a DSLR imho. Personally I use both a DSLR and a mirrorless every single day and imo they aren't ready to replace each other. Mirrorless wins in some respects and specs but gets killed in others.

If I’m a parent and my child shows an interest in photography, what camera do I buy them? This is Canon’s market for this camera. The parent isn’t going to research a Sony A7 plus adapters. They’re going to find a simple bare bones, inexpensive camera. A smart phone owner who wants a real camera for the holidays or vacation that takes good photos and acceptable video... they will look at this camera. Over the past few years that I’ve been frequenting this site, one of the most common phrases shouted time and time again is that Canon is in trouble... yet every year they sell more cameras and lenses than most of the companies combined.

Exactly. For North America and most Europe there are much better cameras and deals. For the same money you can even get the FF A7 and strap on a manual lens with an adapter and the quality will be miles better. Forthe countries that would really benefit from a low price point this is just too much. A mirrorless design would make much more sense than a crappy DSLR. Here is another article: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/03/02/canon-4000d-dumb-idea-or-canny-plan-please-let-it-be-the-latter Or this https://www.techradar.com/reviews/canon-eos-4000d However, while this low price point is designed to tempt new users, our worry is that the limited feature set and poor screen will see them quickly revert back to their smartphone. Eat beans for a month if you have to, but if you want an entry-level DSLR you'll be better off spending a bit more and getting something like the EOS 2000D or Nikon D3400.

It's alright. It was a no-budget project between friends. They got no label and I didn't have a production company. But they really wanted a video for the song, so the deal was that they could use my footage to make their own, official version and I can show my version with the song to people as long as the video isn't public.

You had fairly good interior light in your video. Forgive my ignorance as I haven’t shot with cine2 profile very often, but couldn’t you spot meter the interior and exterior and split the difference so you don’t have to push or pull either too much? Or over expose the exterior by +1.7-2 stops and then pull down your exposure in post. I know you’re not a fan of sLog2 but I believe the official Sony LUTS work fairly well? Or I’ve read that anyway. Also, auto iso works fairly well on the a6500, so test that as well.

Its not exactly easy to just look at an image and determine the stops needed (and Im not the guy qualified to answer). But yes, to my eye 13 looks more than enough. In many of the shots its even less. Its simply a very bright room.

Virtual violence is the last resort for people with no arguments.

Its not insanely high. The good old bmpcc could pull that of imo.

Time of day will be your friend. Doesn't hurt to have big windows like the ones on the first video. On your work, some shots you have very hot buildings outside but not enough light inside to compensate, so you have to compromise. Choose the time of day wisely and it will be easier to balance inside and outside. Don't fight the sun, use it.

Crop mode on the eos m has a area which is slightly larger than super 8mm, it's somewhere between 1/2" and 1/1.7" sensor size, depending on which resolution and aspect ratio you pick, so super 16 lenses would be fine on the eos m. For example, 1800x1024 resolution on eos m is a 4.66x crop from full frame, whilst super 16 is approx 3x crop. One of my no-brand adapters seems like your Fotodiox one, where the 6-66mm ends up exactly upside down. With this particular adapter I've been able to get closest to parfocal performance, so it's probably the best option for this lens. I made a video to test parfocal performance and vignetting in 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios, using this adapter. Movie crop mode records slightly off centre horizontally, so if you want 4:3 aspect ratio and are getting vignetting - you have to recentre the image in post... which I've done below in the 4:3 shots:

Canon M50 4k footage

Zeiss Jena are fun. Yashica Yashinon (not yashikor) are also nice.

Anything Russian for starters. Think: Zenit Helios, Jupiter, Industar, MIR, TAIR, et cetera. If you want something else special, try the Tomioka Auto Revuenon 55mm f/1.2. If you want soap bubble extravaganza try some of the original Optik Meyer Görlitz lenses (Trioplan, Domiplan, Orestor, Primotar, Lydith). Of course there's tons of others you could look at. There are a lot of dirt cheap nice Vivitar lenses out there, don't forget to check out the Carl Zeiss Flektogon line-up either. But I'd start with the Russians for sure.

I agree with you. A lot of people consider a 'good hybrid camera' as the ability to shoot good stills and video. I think a 'really good hybrid camera' allows you to switch between 'stills and video seamlessly'. So any 'automatic crop' (that isnt a creative choice) in say 4k is a pain although most people can probably deal with 1.2x to 1.3x. I also find it important to be able to maintain isos between stills and video useful which is why I dont like a lot of log gammas.

Exactly. Yes. Let me cite myself from the german thread, translation by Google : An ambitious short film project I've been preparing for almost a year now wouldn't profit much of HDR, thankfully. But I have another one, a comic short on the agony of the dying, and this one would. Will then probably borrow an Ursa Mini to shoot the (few) scenes in raw. And I hope by then HDR monitoring for grading will have become more easy and affordable. I wonder why Andrew Reid doesn't seem to be very interested in HDR. His videos are so 'impressionistic' and 'poetic' ...

I would love to know 'what' mojo is, but I don't think anyone will be able to answer in detail, so in the absence of a detailed description I'm happy to try and approach it from a different direction, which is to ask where are the examples of it and what is it that we can describe? My underlying motive for all this is to 'learn to see'. I am relatively new to 'real' cinematography / editing / colour work (or compared to some of you I'm a complete noob!) and I don't yet really know what I like, and when I see something that looks nice I can stare at it but I just don't really know what I'm looking at. Thus, all my questions. I am also a very logical person and the inner voice that reacts to creative content is quieter, so I have to learn to listen to it, and when I do it's harder to understand the subtleties of what it is telling me. Many people have made the very valid point that it's just a matter of putting in the work, and being organised: shoot, take notes, evaluate the result, analyse the notes; or pick something I like from a film and try and shoot it, dozens and dozens of times if necessary; and I would also add in others like find tutorials grading sample footage that is available and try to follow along. This methodology is excellent, but it makes sense to combine the work of making your own discoveries with the wisdom and knowledge of others, which is what this thread is. Since starting this thread I have shot, edited, and graded two ~1 minute long short films (about my fish - a well lit and reliable subject!) and done two other camera tests where I'm filming the same thing only changing one parameter then comparing the results, so I'm pushing forwards and learning things each time.

I sent you a pm about some great lights that Ive purchased. Took a chance on one and liked it so much I went back for a second.

This! lol.... I was thinking it, but you said it and articulated so perfectly. Thanks.

This is the statement everyone of us should print out and paste on our bedroom ceiling to go to sleep to and wake up to every day. If you're run-and-gun listen to the following tentatively, or not at all. The best looking films curate the living joy out of every scene. Nothing is left to chance or served up the "we'll fix it in post" line. That's lazy. Great, critically acclaimed images take considerable work, even with a full crew. The mentality of getting the shot as quickly as possible, as in checking off a shot list only serves business objectives, not creativity. If you care about your storytelling, care about and get passionate and intelligent with the tools you use to tell it. Get your hands dirty. Don't rely on your camera or editor. Scrutinize what every element in your scene is speaking to your audience. It all matters. You get out what you put in.

I wonder myself, never owned a Panny so someone can probably answer this with more confidence.... I feel Continuous AF may be the culprit as opposed to pure MF. People want amazing IQ but don't want to work for it.... Tsk... Tsk... Tsk.

Not me. Just a phone and computer monitor. I should be investing in an 60" OLED HDR 10bit 4k TV though, I mean if I'm serious about this filmmaking stuff and being relevant in the future. ?

My friend, I'm not going to lie, what the hell did you just say? ?

@Matthew Hartman "An operator is going to point his camera towards the talent at eye level. A visionary is going to find ways to do anything but that." Another one concrete/operative suggestion where to, between else, search and how to maybe reach mojo as - many already here suggest - add of personality touch. Thanks. Ask, exchange question and answers, and always say thanks for nice human answer as noble effort - (precondition for awakening truly "personal process and journey").

A bad operator will make any camera look like crap, that's why we see so much crappy smartphone content. Good technical specs do nothing alone. But in the hands of someone with a little skill and a lot of vision, (and some ingenuity) this is where good technical specs shine. Give a concert violinist a crappy violin and a world class violin and she's going to make them both sound amazing. But the better violin will still sound better and bring out more annotation, resonance, dynamics and expression. Anyone with a basic knowledge of photography and maybe a couple hours of training can operate a cinema/video camera and probably surmise a decent exposure. But you can't teach vision. Because vision a personal process and journey. This is where most of the "mojo" exists. An operator is going to point his camera towards the talent at eye level. A visionary is going to find ways to do anything but that.

The other guy also said "photography is dead, two years!".

It's not so much the crop itself, but the inconvenience of it if you're using it as a hybrid camera

As a creator I never see the need to analyze or quantify what I like and dont like. Imo Mojo isn't just some fluff word. Its a feature. I know when I see it and I definitely know when I dont. But just like everything within art its subjective. There is no point in trying to transfer it to someone elses eyes. They have to figure it out for them selves. Some like high resolution others hate it. Nothing wrong or right about it. I often get the feeling that it scares certain people. Some people are afraid to stick their neck out and say, "I like this and thats ok". They rather have a group behind them validating their opinion (thats how the fanboy wars begin). Or they take comfort in numbers (enter the spec warriors). I could show examples and go into detail why I think one image has more mojo than another. But I rather not. Because a great artists once said, "The problem with people that don't understand art is that they are trying to understand it". I try to live by that rule. (Ps. Im not talking about anyone particular. Just in general.)

I had a fresh look at some old NX1 files because I can now open them natively in latest Mac OS I was astonished at the high quality of the NX1 h265 files, compared to the Edit Ready converted files I used back at the time (I tried every h265 conversion software) I think if Mac native h265 had been available at the time the NX1 would have been better received I think all the DR problems, heavy contrast, highlight clipping you often see on NX1 footage is due to bad h265 conversion software, the native files look superb on a new High Sierra MacBook Pro

Need to see figures, but assuming that S35 mode on the A7III will have 1:1 pixel readout for 4K, which could be significantly faster than the 6K downsample from the whole sensor. So if you want minimum rolling shutter, and extra reach for action, then crop mode might be a good option.

Ebrahim Sadaawi.

Well strangely enough I 'am' an economist (or have a PHD in Economics from Cambridge Uni (UK))...

Maybe not my best and certainly not the video in which I was paid more or had the most production values and toys to play with. Still I'm really happy about the reception it got from a lot of people in this small country I-m currently living in (Dominican Republic, Caribbean). This music video was shot during a couple of afternoons with some friends with a lended camera.. For those who don-t speak Spanish the song is about a survivour of domestic abuse.

Here is my entry, amateur shooter:

@Mattias BurlingI feel the same about Canon, but not this one. I will add another camera to a dozen we have already mention being a better buy. The 1300D kit with the Canon EG100 bag and a 16GB SD card costs 325-350euros over here (all the shops selling this kit, and the country has one of the highest VAT numbers in Europe), and it has everything the 40000 has, plus a larger more detailed screen (Gordon Laing's words, not mine), metal mount, better build quality (also the usual Canon lettering and symbols on the buttons) and NFC. Everything else spec wise is the same, and the 40000D will launch for 380 euros body only. I will gladly pay less and get a better camera, + a lens, + a bag (it's free, why not) and a 16GB SD card. From whatever angle, it doesn't cut it. This should have been a 199$ release, so more people in India and China buy Eos cameras. A 380euros body only camera is not cheap for India.