Leaderboard

My dear erstwhile member can you please stop attacking John Brawley now. I have long since given up on camera forum arguments so might not be completely up on who is right and who is wrong-evil / killed-a-kitten, but can we tone it down a bit. It's JB! We could be learning so much and having such interesting cameras talks with a film industry guy and I am sure one of the only people with a Blackmagic Pocket 2 prototype yet instead a handful of you are just bitching. It's pointless. Even if you disagree with him on certain matters, hold your tongue a bit for the benefit of the rest of us who are interested in what he has to tell.

Seems like EOSHD is only for angry keyboard warriors like you who care more about a camera's specs and starting an argument and less about actually shooting and creating. JB is a true professional who most of you here (including myself) could learn a ton from. Blackmagic actually give him cameras to shoot with prior to their release. Rather than engage in meaningful conversation, most of you are more interested in a slanging match than you are about actually learning anything. I actually agree with John, we should stop using the word sissy as a put down. What a toxic forum.

Grow up you clown. You’d just sweep a complaint under the rug would you ? The were complaints raised within my department by those affected directly with the HR departments of the studio I was working for. I leaned about it after the fact. It’s disgusting that you’re still picking a fight here. Move on. JB

That would be ironic. Well it certainly saves having to buy more than one expensive autofocus adapter. Even for Nikon G glass. The TechArt is mindblowingly good for stills and AF-S... but again same limitation as the Metabones for AF-C in video mode... And it's pretty noisy. Apparently it can focus larger lenses up to 700g The motor housing is tiny, much smaller than the motorised Sony A-mount adapter. Vogitlander 35mm F1.2 autofocus anyone?

I bought an old Hi8 camcorder because I think they have a certain gritty charm to them. Have been using it alongside the A7 III to film an indie band. Quite interesting to see the difference

It's flown under the radar for video but the Sony 100 megapixel CMOS sensor is doing amazing things over in the Hasselblad camp - 4K RAW to be exact. You can see a great video of that below but first - I present to you the humble Fujifilm GFX 50S. If I told you Fujifilm had a full frame mirrorless camera system to compete with the Sony A7R III, a lot of people would sit up and notice. However the GFX 50S is a medium format camera, and these don't really register on the same radar screen as others. Read the full article

Sorry for the long shots, I should have filmed more yesterday evening. Movements at the railway in my neighbourhood Oostzaan. Filmed with the combo NX1 + Yashinon 45 f1.4 + Bolex 16/32/1.5x + HCDNA. Graded with the lut from Casey Wilson, The NX1 DC Kodak and Filmconvert.

I originally got one of these to use with my RX100 but I've just been having a play with it with the A6500. All I wanted it for really was to replace the ludicrous video record button as I was getting tired of carrying cocktail sticks round with me to operate it with. However, another huge bonus that I didn't realise it could do is that the zoom rocker on it (which I use to control the optical zoom on the RX100) actually operates the Clear Image Zoom function on the A6500 (and the other A series cameras) Being able to power the camera on and off from it as well is also very neat. For £21.99 it's certainly a lot cheaper than the official Sony one that it, erm, 'resembles quite closely' too

Now none of the A7 series cameras over heat anymore. You can buy a original A7 or a A7s for less than 1000 bucks all day. Cheaper than a A6500, even a A6300 at times. And the 1080p is killer in the A7s. And it sucks in the A6300, A6500. But 4k is Killer in the A6500. Plus you are talking FF here also, with the ability to use the crop thingy.

I am not an audio guy, i am completly ignorant in that department. I did a couple of videos of a friend of myne playing guitar in the middle of trees and i just used a Zoom H4n Pro to record it, its not perfect but it works!

Great suggestions everyone, thanks I can't really afford those shotgun mic enclosures so i'll just have to pray for a less windy day and hope the deadcat suffices next time. @newfoundmass Just an acoustic. No speakers

I'd think of it as allowing you to record extra channels. One thing that can come in handy is safety channels, which is where you record the same signal but at a lower volume in case there's a loud bit that overloads the louder signal, so in post you can use the quieter track (turned up to match of course) for that little bit. Alternatively, you could buy a second 10 pound lav and record a third track. When recording a guitar people often record it with two microphones, one on the body and the other closer to the strings, which can be panned a little left and right in the mix giving a nice stereo spread, or mixed in mono to get a nice balance of body and string sound. Alternatively alternatively you could record the crowd with the extra channel and mix that in to taste as well. In audio extra channels give you flexibility if you use them right

Trying to get nice 1080 while casual handheld shooting with an ILC is a mine-field I've been trying to cross for some time. To grossly over-simplify: All cinema cameras are out because they're either too heavy or too attention grabbing Canon non-cinema cameras are deliberately crippled to protect their cinema line Canon with ML is unreliable and has a steep learning curve The GH5 either can't focus reliably or people can't work out how to do it The Sonys all seem to overheat (although depending on what you shoot this might not be an issue) and the smaller/cheaper ones have bad RS The Fuji XH-1 chews batteries and the extra grip costs extra and makes it pretty heavy Things like the original BMPCC need a rig and becomes cumbersome (BMPCC needs external power) Going modular with things like the BMMCC requires a rig and BMMCC has almost no controls and so you can't use it to adapt to changing situations Mostly the way I see people getting around this combination is to either choose Canons soft 1080, sacrifice reliability and use Canon ML RAW, get a fast fixed-lens camera like RX100 or RX10, accept RS and overheating with a6300/6500, or accept a fixed focal length and give a big middle-finger to the whole industry and use their phone (where with up to 4k60 and 1080p240 it beats everything up to 10x or 20x the price). Or just put it on a tripod, and accept that you'll get hassled or barred from most places you go. The basic issue is that industry assumes that consumers who want convenience don't want image quality (compact point-and-shoots), consumers who want image quality only take photos (Canon DSLRs take lovely photos), or that if you want image quality then you're a pro and you can use a tripod and don't mind a huge camera. We're caught between the other users basically.

Right, you weren’t specifically referring to the GH5 as much as you were referring to any modern camera with modern conveniences but you have been known to defend the GH5 to no end... which is cool, I do it with my 5D3 as well. It doesn’t much matter anyway, this thread has nowhere to go until some footage is released and some cameras are released into the wild. With that being said, I really do appreciate John Brawley’s contributions to this site. The discussion I had with him the other week regarding his experience on the production of The Resident was insight rarely received from a pro to an aspiring director. And he seemed more than happy to offer it. So maybe it’s a little unnecessary to pick apart the minutiae of every sentence and every word he ever posted on this forum to “win” an argument?

Why can't canon just do something half decent? I'd kill for an APS-C canon version of a6500 or GH5 etc... Yeah I know why, but still it would be nice.

I know Servers, the things that hums along in data centers and never break, right? Well no, they do break and what is considered essential is the ability to repair them and replace parts along with the support to back it up. Same with cameras, I know a pro sports shooter that had his gear held up for a big game and Canon had reps waiting with gear in hand for him to do his job. Now I would not expect same level of support for consumer equipment, but iMac Pro to not even be fixable?

Vimeo definitely has some playback issues. I have a fast connection

Vimeo would be perfect... If they ever got it working.

The GFX 50s is a fantastic camera for sure, I ended up coupling it with Hasselblad XPAN lenses (ironically made my Fuji) ... they work brilliantly and are extremely compact. BTW I shot this video with the GFX 50s soon after buying it, really love the colours and how the shadows hold up in low light, just a shame the overall video quality is not quite there...

From my understanding, they've been recommending the 0.71x adapter as this will get the best out of the sensor before you start vignetting on aps-c lenses. While it might be best to wait and see what Metabones come up with, a BM rep has said this:

Bravissimo brotha', you can tell a difference between a lens manufactured by Sony and a lens manufactured by Voigtlaender. Sick skillZ! If he use the same lens with focal reducer you will not see any difference between the two images. I have tried it.

Yeah they just don't work in video mode. Only Sigma's new lenses have the faster bus between the lens and camera for advanced protocols in video mode. The Sigma MC-11 really is wonderful for Sigma's own lenses and stills mode. I believe Metabones have made some progress with video AF on Canon L lenses although not sure if it goes from being unusable to great... I'll have to give their latest firmware a go soon.

The Rode WS6 for a shotgun is quite darn cheap. Even a Rode Blimp is very affordable.

I agree with JB's "move on". But just one - hopefully last - remark. Frank Glencairn never used the term "sissy", not even "whiner". I know him well from the german slashCAM forum. He never uses questionable language, but he likes to provoke others with what I'd call an old hand's attitude. His article starts with: You don't need a grade in psychology (which I almost made) to very quickly find out that he is actually asking to be challenged and that his often slightly, but unmistakably condescending tone is meant to hurt. Whom? The con- and prosumers that are not up to his professional ethics and complain about missing features (among others, but that'd take too long). If you read between the lines, he says: A *real pro* needs no AF or IBIS. jonpais must have felt that JBs comments said something similar. Now how did he come from feeling insulted as an amateur to being dismissed as "sissy" (if we accept the sexist meaning)? I think that's a rather easy transition. Video gadgetry is "a man's toy" (please don't quote me for that, it's not my opinion, I just try to nail down the underlying emotions), and not being a "real pro" is equal to not being a "real man". Rather blatantly irrational, if you ask me, but it's the reason why so many hobbyists insist on using pro NLEs - to which Frank Glencairn often wrote, you can make the same edit decisions (that's your professional or creative part) in Windows Movie Maker or iMovie, I appreciate his views. Let's move on.

http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/ In my eyes the DR60D/DR70D were the best bang for buck recorders for their niche. However the Zoom F4 now is only an extra hundred and fifty more than a new DR70D, so now I don't see any point in it after the price drop of the F4 to such an incredibly low price. Oh and I could record with the 3.5mm input (*and* the XLR inputs) on the Tascam DR60Dmk1 I owned ages ago, but... then you can't run a safety track on the XLR inputs as well at the same time. "Directionality" and wind noise have almost no connection to each other. You need proper wind protection instead. Likely at least say a Rode WS6 windshield, but potentially a full on blimp with deadcat would be necessary. http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php Put on your best quality fire retardant suit beforehand.

Here's some more info, but it's more that I thought these were funny questions to be asking about this camera. And this one answers my thoughts on having 3 audio inputs. It doesn't sound like you can record a stereo track via the 3.5mm socket AND the XLR at the same time. You'll have to choose if you want the left or right channel off the jack. Perhaps you can mix left and right to one single track, but that means you can't really control them independently once its recorded. That said, most of the boxes I'm talking about have input level control anyway. As long as you get it right while recording, this could still be a viable option if you NEED 3 inputs.

Ha no I doubt you did. H1 still has better amps than an average phone so it should still be a bit better. Since the videomicro has a built in amplifier and requires only a tiny bit secondary amplification, the more amplification an external microphone needs, the larger the difference between the H1 and the phone will be. Would you notice it in a street audio recording? Probably not, but for a quiet interview you might. Also it gives you other things like decent built in mics for stereo recording. Also it is easier to boom with the micro or leave at a remote spot without worrying damaging your phone.

@Inazuma My guess is that if you didn't use the TRRS cable then the phone wouldn't have 'seen' the microphone and wouldn't have used it - instead using the internal microphones as you suggested. This is the cable @Don Kotlos mentioned here: http://www.rode.com/accessories/sc7 but any good quality alternative should also work. I've used this setup and it works well. @Kisaha is correct that the Rode VideoMicro is a good mic but is pretty wide. As others have said, the general sound quality advice definitely applies here in terms of getting the mics close and providing appropriate wind protection (dead cats). If you want to get the Rode mic close you could just mount the mic / phone combination somewhere close-by, or run an extension cable, but if you're going to do that beware of interference. Running long cables without interference is the main reason why pros use balanced audio connections (XLRs) - for short runs it normally doesn't matter. To expand on the reference that @Kisaha made to my comments in another thread, I mentioned that putting dead-cat style wind mufflers on internal microphones can be very effective if done correctly, however there are a few things to keep in mind. I've seen reviews of products similar to the one Kisaha linked to and they are mixed - some work ok and others are terrible. The best results I've seen were DIY and turned massive wind noise (from someone using the internal microphones on a point-and-shoot camera while riding a skateboard at perhaps 20mph into a decent headwind) where no dialog was audible into the same situation having audible but subdued wind noise. This is a huge difference, thus my comment about it in the other thread, however it may or may not work for your situation and I've seen most DIY solutions of this type fail almost completely. I would recommend buying an adapter cable for the Rode mic and then doing as many tests as is required to confirm that you're getting the best audio out of the equipment you have, and only then working out what other equipment you might need. Preparation and knowledge of your equipment and basic techniques is absolutely critical, which is why pros can reliably get good results even with modest equipment.

Can you kind of explain the set up a little more? Is it all acoustic with no speakers at all? I think the H1, using it's stereo mics, alone could produce decent results as long as it's close to both. Or use the VideoMicro with the H1. Get it within 2 feet of the guitarist on a stand and I think it'd be decent enough. If it's windy put a dead cat on it. You obviously won't get studio sounding audio but it won't be awful. Otherwise I'd get a small diaphragm condenser mic if you're willing to spend a little extra, though unlike my suggestion for vocals I don't have a specific suggestion on what mic to get. For vocals I'd get a Shure SM58-LC. It's about $30 US above your $70 price range but it's a very good mic for the price. I'd put it on a mic stand and have the vocalist just sing it that way.

Wow! GREAT idea! I will now have to find my Mamiya 645 85/1.9 N lens. I also have the wonderful Mirex EOS/ Mamiya 645 tilt/shift adapter. This combo with my Metabones 0.67 XL Speedbooster should be interesting.

Be sure to incorporate Arri's 709 RGB primaries; that's a critical step. This brings up skintone, especially relative to blue, all things equal. Main/Soft incorporate this, as well as a nicer starting point than standard Arri 709 Here is a breakdown on Arri 709: http://bjorkvisuals.com/articles/demystifing-arri-alexas-rec709-lut And you can dial in a post-production variation of the Rec 709 Lut to your taste here: https://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/tools/lut_generator/

Delved into this for a bit and built a nice set of bloomy organic taking lenses. My picks so far. Zeiss Biotar 58mm f2 (black m42 version) - sharp, beautiful bokeh, not too clinical. Kiev 8b 65mm f3.5 for Salyut 88 - such a hard focal length to find but sometimes it’s perfect. Slow, and so so bokeh, but a nice flat focal length Meyer Optik Primoplan 75mm f1.9 - essentially the softer, longer cousin of the biotar. Lots of blades, gorgeous bokeh, and a great anamorphic focal length. I got the black reissue used on BH for $1000 and the classic Jupiter 9 for the 85mm. Love the softness.

Check the DPReview studio chart 5DS vs 5D3 Slightly finer detail Then check it against the rest of the Canons... thrashes them all. 7D II, 80D, 1D X II, the lot. https://***URL removed***/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7 Also check the 42MP A7R II 1080p (pixel binned) vs 24MP Sony A9 1080p (full sensor readout) - something weird going on there as A7R II looks better.

Not that I really care about this argument, but right or wrong... Jon Pais, for dramatic effect, (or melodramatic effect... lol) was quoting Frank Glencairn’s use of the word “sissy” in his article. Obviously he was doing it because he wants to remind the world that the GH5 still exists and that AF and IBIS aren’t just for sissies... they’re for fanboys as well... lol. Is it kind of annoying... yes, but at no point do I think he was using the term, sissy, in a derogatory way. And I don’t think Frank Glencairn meant it that way either when I read the article. This world is getting so politically correct there will be no such thing as comedy in a few years.

forget about canon

I get the "false-equivalency" argument. I shoot M43 all the time. And, if you look reeeeeely hard enough, I do think you can tell a difference, in aggregate, between M43 and FF. The telltales of FF shooting can be evident if you know where to look. For instance, usually a smoother bokeh and sharper focus with shallow DOF. A f2 through modern glass on a FF sensor, for example, can look "cleaner" in a way that M43@f.95 does not. These advantages, I think, are nit-picky though. The differences are subtle. It's often really hard to tell! And if a skillful someone is shooting m43 with fast glass, you're probably not going to know the difference or pay attention enough to care in the first place. I'm shooting a doc right now with the Voightlanders on the GH5 and I'd put it up against anything I've shot with my FF Canon equipment. If you're shooting M43 or FF, your viewer doesn't really care. Are you a good shooter? That's what matters. All that said, and like I've mentioned before, I still prefer to shoot FF on a fast 50mm prime for interviews. It's just easier to set up a shot 'kuz of space and lighting --and you can really throw the background out of focus with a f1.2. That forgives a lot of sins in corporate locations/environments. Hey, I'm a practical guy. OTOH, when shooting interviews with my M43 gear I tend to use my 42.5mm lens @f1.2 --and the DOF is wildly shallow and intense too. The flatness of the "portrait" FOV is a nice look unto itself. One just needs more physical space in the room to make that happen. Also, you end up farther away from the interview subject, which can impair any intimacy if you're trying to create such a thing. My decisions tend to be less about opticals and much more about other considerations. Freeing your self from the dogmas of "this vs. that" with gear is a big step to make. I encourage everyone to make it ASAP.

I don t get the point, you always can tell which picture is fullframe and which is apsc or mft or whatever. It s not about the light, it s the look, and this look you can t replicate using faster lenses.

If you look at Nikon lenses the large flange distance means the angle can't be too high simply due to the distance. (ignore the wonky ultra wide angle that had a long element stick in under the mirror). Sony on the other hand had a huge problem with the a7s giving a red cast with some wide angle lenses.

I'm in that camp, the B85 has swirly cat-eye bokeh wide open - especially when the background is trees/foliage. I much prefer the FE 85. The B135 does the same thing, hate it. The B25 and B18 OTOH are flat out awesome. I have the FE 28 and 85, and sold the Batis 25/85 to get them. The Huff comparison demonstrates exactly what some make so overly complicated - play the equivalence game with aperture/FL and you get the exact same image across various sensor sizes. Though Huff's fanboy "Olympus has better rendering" with a drill shot is just silly. FF's advantage over m43 is even with a moderate aperture lens like a 1.8, you get DOF that requires pretty expensive m43 glass. With the cost of top shelf m43 and aps-c bodies hitting $2000, you really have to evaluate the entire system and your needs because the difference in price isn't that much - especially if you're buying f/1.8's in FF-land and faster glass in m43-land. Used prices also level the playing field quite a bit. I saw an a9 for $2600, a7r3's are dropping to about that level too. Other bodies are far less. If you're shopping Sony, the F/4 zooms have been around awhile and so on. Cheers Chris

Ok than If you look the initial provided comparison in A. Read's article, apart of nominal/objective perspective equivalence it is also noticeable (as one poster already noted) that aesthetic impression of depth of field is not the same. Plans in perspective looks closer or further, so in one case there's impression of stronger 3d quality, or a even deeper background in whole. That is result of inner construction qualities of lenses - and that's the one of the reason, between others, why some lenses cost more and being acclaim as more precious. That fact I used as argument in statement that it is note quite correct to compare very high-end and very precise thought-out m43 lens with their cheaper FF contrepairs based only on the mathematically same DoF. For example, Voigt 17.5 here used in comparison, as also others in the Nokton m43 lines, are extremely precise constructed to be able to provide specific chosen (and of course subtle) distinctive effects. It is as secret receipt of chosen accentuation and inevitable compromised weaknesses - on which distance image is most detailed with smooth back-and-side rollofs or bokeh nuances; which distance-sharpness to sacrifice to achieve wanted strong effects at other favorable distance; on which aperture and why lens get highest sharpness and where (center and peripheral distribution of sharpness); how to play with color shifting and contrast across aperture range; how to render (faster) movements vs static shots etc. We can appreciate it or not, being exalted or not depends of taste and personally search specific attributes - but it is without doubt that very sophisticated know-how experience and long tested elaboration, as also higher quality glasses, are involved in construction of these lenses - so, are they really pricey or not, it is very disputable. Having opportunities to compare them with actual results of much higher price cine-lenses (apart of more technical traits as level of focus breathing etc) - I'd say that nowadays these voigts are very moderate or even cheap in price. By reports and tests it looks that the same is applicable to, say, Veydra line, for their chosen and accurately aimed/provided qualities - some relevant testers claim that they are even better than Zeiss Primes, but double or triple cheaper.

The Olympus 40-150/2.8 Pro is one hell of a lens!

Ummmm....

It is fighting physics. There are manufacturing limitations when grinding and polishing glass as well as manufacturing limitations as to how perfectly you can align and space each of the elements correctly. Optical designers only have a limited range of glass types to use. Eventually tolerances, manufacturing limitations and material availability/costs mean it's a technical and/or economic impossibility to match the performance you get from a simple longer/slower lens on a bigger sensor. If sensor size didn't make a difference to the image we wouldn't see Arri, Sony, and RED all moving to FF / VV and bigger as their flagship camera systems.

I use them for stills too. No complaints here. My Oly 2.8 pro lens does render a little more detail if one is pixel peeping, but nothing I've noticed to be remarkable compared to 2.8 on the Voights. Anyway, this is the most EOSHD'y of EOSHD topics. The great debate among camera nerds. As if sensor size one way or another really matters to people that actually shoot stuff that gets used for any real purpose. I mean, I have footage from my old XH-A1 that rivals most of the footage I shot this year. I certainly have my own preferences for shooting FF and like it, but ultimately it's not going to make a big difference on what is shot and deliver on a job.* Just curious, but aside from something needed in extreme low-light situations, can anyone here provide an example where what they did on M43 or FF would ultimately matter a hulluva lot to the client? *to the people I usually gig for anyway

Oblique rays strike the center of the image as well as the corners. These are aperture dependent and are called marginal rays. The relationship between f-number and the marginal ray angle is given by f/# = sin(theta), where theta is the marginal ray angle. So, at f/1 the marginal ray angle is 30 degrees, and so on. The obliquity of the marginal ray does cause a form of pixel vignetting that perhaps should be called pixel apodization. The effect is that the edges of bokeh blurs - where the marginal ray obliquity is highest - is darkened relative to the center. The good news is that this is the definition of "good bokeh". I think Andrew's two sample images reveal this effect. I would guess that the bottom image was shot with the faster lens.

Micro's motion felt good at 180 shutter. Yes, on Ursa, I found 190 degree shutter was too blurry, 180 was too choppy and 185 was just right for me.

I may not be a fan of how some of the conversation but you do come across as somewhat prententious just for the sake of winning an argument. You sound Petty.

John Brawley comes from Australia, the land of Crocodile Dundee, Castlemaine XXXX. Argueably one of the lesser PC country on this planet. Regardless the word 'sissy" does not exclusively apply to genderbase. We all know Jonpais did not meant to imply sexism but those who are soft living when he used the word "sissy" but somehow Mr Brawley wanted to out him as some kind of enemy of the #MeToo movement . It was pretentous and immature.