Leaderboard

Well if you aren't into winter sports there isn't a hell of a lot else to do in Canada but "escape" through movies, or movie making LoL. I have met a lot of them when I lived in Florida. They overall didn't seem to be a happy Lot to be honest. They took everything Way too serious. They acted like their mother was watching them all the time alive or not! Stiff upper lip and all. Stressful way to live if you ask me.?

This is surprising! I live in Vermont, so I know a lot of Canadians (eh?) and the only negative interactions I have really ever had are with French Canadians. They drive too fast, pretend they don't speak/understand English (most of them do!) and can be pretty sour. And before anyone accuses me of being prejudice my Mom's family is French Canadian! So some French Canadian runs through these veins! ? Really though I think part of it boils down to the importance of art and creativity in Canadian culture. Culturally they focus on the arts more than the US does these days. As someone that grew up in the late 80s and the 90s, art and music programs began to disappear during my time in school. I think that began even earlier, unfortunately, starting in the 70s. Those programs are what stimulate creativity in children and send them on the path to creative outlets like photography and film. Degrees in the "liberal arts", theater, and even stuff like journalism, etc. have become kind of punchlines and are viewed by many as useless degrees in the United States these days. Without going on a political rant, the TL;DR version is simply the United States has really focused itself culturally on money, economics and... That's about it. Even our film and television industry has become more about money and economics than artistic expression and creativity. Films make more money than ever but those films are void of much substance. They're incredible from a technical standpoint, but Transformers 8 and Fast and the Furious XXI aren't exactly leaving a positive impact on the culture of the United States. They're made for economic reasons, not artistic. When you watch films or television made in other countries you'll often see that they've been made with government grant money, whereas most films and television is made here using private money with tax incentives. Heck here in the US people are trying to defund what little is made with tax payer money! PBS is one of the few American outlets that still produces things with substance but is constantly targeted by people trying to defund it. I think you can also trace the decline of American influence globally in part to the decline of the arts here. Obviously there are a ton of other factors, but American entertainment was a huge part of spreading American culture and ideas (for better or worse) to the world. Anyway. Ha ha ha ha. As others have said, I think it's a cultural thing.

The Z6 is full readout with no line skipping or pixel binning. You are thinking of the Z7 which does do that. The downsides are poor RS, external Log only and it appears the AF becomes unusable with Log on. So yeah there still is no perfect hybrid mirrorless for video today. Maybe next gen Canon/Nikon/Sony..

Definitely have a look at FHD Crop mode. It is indeed supersampled from 4K and has super good sharpness/detail that rivals C line FHD. The way i have my EOS R setup is FF FHD on Movie Custom 1, FHD Crop mode on Custom 2 & 4K on Custom 3. By pressing mode and selecting C1/C2/C3 i can very quickly switch modes depending on the scene and double the focal length of my primes. Personally, I love the ergonomics. I use the grip though. Its quite different from any other camera so it might take a moment to get used to it. The customisation of the camera is pretty deep, i really enjoy that too.

Honestly, I think a filmmaker like yourself would be better off with a C100 or FS5, etc... you are a talented narrative filmmaker... go grab a cinema camera, with all of their bells and whistles and let the camera help you rather fussing about with these hybrids and their auto-everything.

So many good cameras out there.. When I watched the GH5s vs P4K video I was more impacted by the slight changes in focus between the two cameras instead of the cameras themselves, which is in the skill department not the equipment department. I remember someone (@kidzrevil perhaps?) speaking about the Resolve Super Scale feature and how great it is, so that's something that might breathe new life into lower-resolution footage. More info: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/resolve-15-super-scale-feature/ In terms of using slow-motion, I would suggest it's a new genre of film-making. Like all genres it will have fans and critics. Personally, I agree with @mercer around testing a camera by actually making a short film. That way, not only do you test the equipment by using it how you would on a real project, but you also get a real short film at the end of it, which is what all this fussing with cameras is ultimately for, right? ?

Once you get used to a EVF it is very hard to go back. Zebras, focus peaking is a real advantage having that in the viewfinder. Especially when you get older and can't see the rear LCD up close or far away. ?

Happy new year all! I’ve finally (finally!) made my first short narrative film. I’ve been a full time videographer for 8 years now, writing on and off in my spare time, but never actually got out and turned my writing into a film. So I decided enough was enough and asked my brother if he was up for the challenge of making something in our home village over Christmas. 8 hours writing and pre-production, a single 8 hour day of filming, and 8 hours of editing. Loved the process. Lots of lessons learned. Here’s the result, and would love your feedback. Cheers, James

A7S II + canon FD 35mm 40$ lens. No IBIS, no AF, with Sony colors that people can't live with, no 4K.

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have. Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that. But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points: With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-) But yes, you're right, it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language. And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi. I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!

I went from a GH4 to a G85 and loved pretty much everything about the G85, except the HD bitrate. The build was still nice (the G85 is half metal, half plastic, whereas the G7 is all plastic), IBIS was a game-changer for me, and the lowlight and color were a bit better too. But the 25mbps HD wasn't quite enough to stay sharp during fast action and camera movement, which is a lot of what I shoot. The codec has to default to a softer mode to keep up, and it's noticeably softer to my eye than shots with less motion. The GH4's higher bitrates didn't have to do this as they had enough data to work with to maintain a higher level of detail. But, so long as there isn't a ton of motion in the frame, and you don't try to grade/CC it too much, the 25mbps looks pretty great. Which is how 95% of people will be using it.

Couldn’t imagine pulling focus with any degree of accuracy while l supporting the weight of the gimbal rigged with camera. I think you’re better off with AF or a dedicated focus puller.

I guess it takes a lot of practice. Also, some lenses use focus by wire, some linear, some don't - what makes it more problematic...

There are a couple of exceptions but I'd say in general terms that the past 5-10 years have produced better drama TV series from the UK than comedy. That could all change post 29th March of course when God knows we'll need something to laugh about.

I have to say that considering how much film production has gone on in Canada in the past 30+ years then I think the answer should be "why wouldn't there be so many Canadians doing photo/video for a living?" Favourable exchange rate, a range of tax incentives, English (and French in parts) speaking crews and the ability to double as a range of US locations (especially NYC) etc etc has all added up to making it an attractive proposition to shoot there over the years. This list of films shot in Toronto for example illustrates the point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_Toronto Telefilm Canda is also very active with co-production agreements with numerous countries and all of this production creates not only a lot of activity at the high end but obviously also filters down and creates a sizeable base below it. Clearly, looking at YouTube then, a lot of Canadian have just taken the previous job the outside world knew them for and just put the letter 'V' in front of it

RAW images out of the G7 and GH4 and GX85 all look pretty simular. The G7 and GX85 seem to hold a bit more detail and have a little less color noise. Looks like the GH4 has better rolling shutter performance though and the 1080 is definitely better. The G7 is limited to 24-60p at 30mbps while the GH4 does 100mbps or 200 all-i

I found a used g7 on amazon for just 50€ more than the gh3 and I've bought it! It has warranty and I could always send it back if I don't like it ?

Basically any Tenba backpack

There are a lot of variables in what you are looking for but here is a rough guide to storage size per min for common formats. There are a number of calculator apps available for Android and iOS that will give you an exact result for more cameras and codecs but the chart above should be enough to get you in the ballpark but the biggest variable though - and one which no calculator will get you anywhere near a solution for - is the shooting ratio. If you were doing a 10 minute UHD film shot in RAW on the BMPC 4K then it would need 123.6GB of storage (12.36 x 10) but that is if you did it in one take of course. The shooting ratio will vary wildly and make the total storage requirement many times that amount but only you will know what that ratio will be depending on the type of film it is and how you will be shooting it and numerous other different unique factors. Just as an FYI, here are the shooting ratios for some feature films. Aim for Primer but budget closer to Hateful Eight !

Not sure about the RAW controls on the Lite version, I've been using the paid/Studio version since 2014 or so. This one was made back when I used premade LUT:s pretty heavily, I think in this one I used a Visioncolor Osiris LUT, either KDX or Vision 4. In addition to the LUT I added a manual soft clip on overexposures and separated the skintones and gave them a warmer look than the rest of the image. I think there was a denoise on the first node as well, at a strength of 2.0. That's my go-to denoise level, on 4K/4.6K RAW footage it removes distracting noise but retains the detail. Aforementioned method provided a hard-edge, modern look to the footage, but currently I gravitate (in narratives) more towards the early to mid 90's filmlike look with softer details and tones, smooth rolloff, less contrast and more pronounced grain... And lots of haze. Probably because it reminds me of the movies I grew up with - and now it's actually attainable with low budget.

I agree I must have been doing something wrong looking at some of the samples here and from my archive.

Unfortunately, I'm not (ultimately) in that camp... As far as I can recognize it, for me all this fussing with cameras has, at the end, two - strangely and maybe interestingly - two complete opposite but convergent goals: escape from loneliness and escape to loneliness - or, better to say, creative solitude. So, cameras with their specifics for me are ultimately tools that help me to find a peace in that creative shelter with least amount of distraction. Saying that, with due respect for any camera's combination of virtues and isolated advantages, besides appropriate aesthetic image BM cameras were greatest for me because of providing me the best opportunity to forget to annoying WB set up... As much as GH5 (with help of GHa lut) is greatest for me because of, besides enough appropriate image, provides me the best possibility to forget to annoying antishaking set up. And when I said "aesthetic appropriate image", I mean, of course, to opportunity to dive as much as possible into wonderful solitude world of grading... ... and to wait for someone noble to join me in that world and break my solitude of an filming/dreaming/sleeping beauty (or, well, the pretty ugly beast).

Some lens observations from the 2.0 obtains which finally coupled the IBIS to OIS. 10-24: wow, this lens is Olympus good now, simply amazing how good the stabilization is. As an extreme test, I followed my toddler around for about 10 minutes, and all of it, besides walking up the stairs, was excellent. 18-55: noticed a big difference in panning quality, no more floating image. Otherwise it’s a slight improvement. 55-200: not listed in the release as an improvement or upgrade. I’d say it improved at least as much as the 18-55. 18-135: got my personal one refurbished, exhchanged or fixed by Fuji USA... whoa. This is like shooting the 12-100 on the EM-1ii. The image quality is still lacking, but if you’re in decent light, handhold this all day long. Fuji did a great job on this update, makes the X-H1 a much better camera for video. There is something about this camera that is just more fun or easier to use than my work X-T3, maybe it’s because I like what I’m shooting more.

I'm not so sure...

Most camera tests are more influenced by how accurate the focusing of the lenses is, or how similar the shots are (true A/B comparisons require you to point the cameras at the exact same thing under the exact same lighting - something most reviewers don't understand!). You want to do normal tests and also stress-tests. Trees blowing in the wind is a good stress-test. I designed a torture test by making a 4K video file with 3 frames of completely different photographs, exporting it as Prores and playing it on repeat, then setting the camera to a very short shutter-speed and framing up the monitor. Codecs normally do well when frames are similar to the previous ones, but do badly when frames are very different. This test absolutely destroys some cameras and others hold up very nicely. It's a total exaggeration but gives useful information if you don't have a tree handy. It's also 100% repeatable between cameras so is a valid test. My advice is to test things properly, make your decisions, then move on to making real content

We spend a lot of time here talking about different systems, but remember to take into account the practicalities of actually owning multiple systems. Fuji and Canon both have nice colours, but they don't have the same colours, so there would be work in post to match them, especially in scenes like the wedding ceremony where I imagine you've got a multi-camera setup and are cutting between them frequently in the final edit. There's also the advantages of having compatible lenses, media, etc. Unless you knew that you were always going to use the C100 with the wide, and the Fuji always with the long lens, but I suspect that's not the case.

Fuji has pretty nice colors without grading, its actually the reason I switched over from Panasonic. But yeah it probably is a good way to go, though no 60p. Built in ND's would be nice. I can't really say anything about C100 auto focus as I've never used it. Yeah I forgot the C100 is actually pretty small. I'd not go for an FS5 as I am color blind and need either a Canon or Fuji to rely on lol. I might pick one up if I find a really good deal on it. I need three cameras for shooting, a used C100 might a good option third camera. Continuous recording is nice.

No I am saying to buy a C100. Hell if you buy one with the battery charged all you have to do is throw a mike on it, a cheap SD card in and away you go. Don't need no 4,000 dollar computer to edit the footage. No spending all day to correct the colors, and hell if you get one with DPAF it might actually be in focus using a cheap ass EF-S lens. No cage shit, no battery solution from hell, just killer sharp 1080p footage. Not sure what else a person needs?

I'll have to dig through the Nikon z6 thread. I saw something from DPreview about the Z6 4K looking better then the Z7 and the Z6 1080 having more sharpening.

If your subject is in a small area and not moving very far or fast, I found the original A7s AF was ok (IE a singer that stays put around a microphone stand). For very low light and for stills it will auto focus when almost every other camera has long given up and gone to bed. For AFC? no, just no.

I seriously doubt that is not the Only goofy thing he is into. ?

ah sorry, somehow i didn't join the dots correctly. now that you clarified your situation i can see where your coming from ?

90 percent of my lenses are not AF Nice for certain shoots but not a deal breaker... FF 4K 10 bit is a valuable addition to the mirrorless range of cameras. It was the Z 7 or the Canon C200 ... not missing the Canon at all.

@Rick_B Thank you very much for your kind words, +1 for the @KnightsFan treatment! Just an iPad Air here, mostly an Android/Windows guy, but I too trying to buy reputable products from companies with great R&D departments; plus, I was getting seriously frustrated with all the cheap (or not so cheap) monitors all these years, so when I went super small, I chose the smallest possible, and with all the benefits mentioned above (no lag also!).

@Rick_B I appreciate you taking the time to ensure that I see that. Always happy to give my opinion on gear!

I think because other cameras still haven't caught up. You'd expect cameras now to be doing the same thing for cheaper.

Canon 1DX2 is still the only FF camera that can do 4k60p in early 2019. Fact. Dual Pixel AF is still the most reliable AF for video. Fact. Sony has been maxing out 8-bit 100mb codecs for some years. that's another fact. XT3 doesn't have IBIS. It's the smallest camera of the pack. Still got number 1 position in the ranking. Fact.

To be fair, the filmmaker didn’t ask for his work to be posted here and torn apart.

I am dumb enough to shoot sports (including AFL and cricket) with old manual focus lenses. I think pretty much any old zoom in the 70/80-200plus range will do and it will depend on the lens condition and how hard its life has been more than anything. Most will not be that great but you will get something you like. My favourite lens for this is out of budget (Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall) - photos from this lens used in newspapers including Greyhound racing (Greyhound Recorder) as well as Australian football. I had some (Womens) AFL shots from a cheap old Tamron adaptall zoom (80-250 3.8-4.5) used in a Newspaper as well. Two old zooms I had and liked are the Canon FD 80-200 f4 L, Tamron adaptall 70-210 3.5 (model 19ah). I also have an old Tamron adaptall 70-350 4.5 that might be good for sports and while rare can be had cheap though is sometimes listed for much more than it is worth (it was a very expensive lens in its day but does not use any fluorite or ED elements). Many of these old timers have a bit of purple (or other colour) fringing. Get the longest fastest you can find and bonus points for ED/Fluorite elements ( 70/80-200/210 2.8 if you can find one in your price range) Other options would be the Canon 100-300 5.6 L EF. Maybe a bit slow but still quite good and can be found cheap (maybe on Ebay from Japan) and is as old as some FD lenses (I regret selling mine) and also something like a Canon EF 70/80-200/210 f4 (there are a few but maybe look at the old constant f4?). For evening/overcast afternoons in winter, 2.8 can be very useful with a longer lens. For Australian football, even 600mm (FF angle of view) and except for one sided games, you can spend a lot of time watching from afar and more so for kids.

It had 4k too

I think there is something wrong with me. All the videos I see the last couple of years are in a slower motion than I experience in life. I am not sure if reality is slow, and I too fast, or I am just.. well.. slow!

I have a set of FD lenses, from the days of film, and the 200mm 4f is quite interesting, with good sharpness from wide open, very small, and very light, with a built in sun hood (!), nevertheless, I haven't used it for at least half a decade now. Modern lenses can't just be beat in ease of use and AF performance, something that is really a must for sports photography. I advice you to search for the cheapest equivalent of the Canon 70-300 on m43 land and be merry!

Where is Jon?! Point me ton his comments. I missed his vitriolic attitude! DISCLAIMER: this is going to the general topic. To the point now, most professionals work with M focus, with non IBIS cameras and deliver 1080p, and the percentage must be something like 95% of the total world output, or even more. Because 400 people on youtube use only AF and IBIS doesn't make it the norm. For everyone youtuber there are dozens of hundrends of photo/videographers, from 50€$£ videographers (yes, they do exist and they use mainly camcorders on a monopod) to Hollywood and Bollywoodameramen amd everything in between. I see most people here do care for youtube or something, but real life is a lot different than the latest war on specs, and the world is not only Australia and North America. The vast majority of the world still work with 70D and C100 cameras and produce glorious - low bitrate - 1080p videos! Professionals and big production companies do not change cameras at a whim, only a few, and "rich" hobbyists (rich, in comparison with a 2nd or 3rd world country hobbyist, which, you know, is something like 6-7 billions of people!). So, the adaptation of technology is not as fast as we think from this forum. Most people and organisations I know still shoot Canon by the way. 80D is like a dream for them. There are a few cameras that made a dent in the industry. C100/C300 was the first wave, FS5/FS7 the last few years (after the C300mkII release, Canon have lost most of the market), GH4/5, A7sii/A7iii are some other cameras that sold really well.

Best cheap 5”: Bestview S5 Best overall: SmallHD 503

EOS R certainly wins most hated camera of 2018 award! Yet despite it's on paper limitations and for sure poor 4K RS performance, its a camera I very much enjoy shooting with.. and the perfect B-cam to a 5D/1DX/C100/C200. Canon did get a few things right: the only FF MILC with a flip out screen, the FF MILC with the highest bitrate ALL-I codec, the most reliable and smoothest AF in the game. Those 3 things alone should give it some points. The IQ as stated is indeed just cinematic. That word gets thrown around a lot but the reason it applies here is thanks to the thick codec, alongside 1:1 resolution and lack of digital sharpness on default in C-log, paired with the acclaimed Canon color science. Then you have the smaller things: Smart EIS, 3 custom movie modes, custom ring lens control, MF bar (works for me personally), touch & drag AF, MF focus guide, AF override..etc Finally when the Vari ND adapter will become available.. well that could just be a game changer. Now i do understand, none of this makes up for the poor RS or severe crop factor. So yeah dog this camera all you want if those 2 are deal breakers to you. Just wanted to add some perspective as one of the very few owners of this camera around here. And FWIW i do think Fuji, Nikon, BM & Sony have all kicked it out of the park much further than Canon and certainly deserve the praise. Happy NY everyone ?

It does squeezes 2x as well, but GH5's HDMI will output 4:3 image in 16:9, so it will appear as a picture in picture. Keep that in mind. I use Feelworld F7 which has custom zoom and custom anamorphic stretch options, works like a charm with GH5.

I do not see red or arri implementing good autofocus. So not sure why blackmagic should. Its a cinema camera, and ibis or autofocus are not on my havetoo shortlist. The pocket 4k is on place 1 for sure on my list.

That's a great name for a custom flat profile