Leaderboard

I think there are three things going on. 1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning. As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased. 2) People don't remember what film looks like. The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out. Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight. Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way. It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes. 3) People have changed what they like. As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day. The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like. I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

Yes, I very well know that - it's the main reason I use micro-4/3 cameras and long telephoto lenses for wildlife video and stills. Full-frame lenses of equivalent 'reach' are far to large and heavy for me to want to carry around, so I accept some picture quality compromises instead e.g. low-light performance. If you want to keep the lenses small, then use 'cropped' sensors e.g. APS-C or micro-4/3 (or maybe use 'APS-C' lenses on full-frame sensor cameras - I think Sony and Panasonic support that at least, maybe Canon and Nikon too). You just have to decide which set of compromises you can live with... I agree. Whenever I look back at video I shot in the past on VHS-C, DV and HDV tape, plus a variety of small-sensor cameras (like HX9V and FZ100), and compare it to 1080p let alone 4k from my Pana G9, I'm reminded how much video consumer/prosumer quality has dramatically improved over time...(as have camera stabilisation and the displays we view it on).

Honestly almost any camera released these days will have good video, especially for the kind of work you mentioned. In the grand scheme of things, when someone says they prefer the video quality of one camera over another the difference isn't THAT huge. Not trying to speak for @MrSMW, obviously, he might disagree, but just as a general rule any camera you get today will be more than enough when it comes to image. I mean a hacked GH2 or a GH3 both can give you lovely 1080p images and those cameras are well over 10 years old.

Yeah, it's probably a better idea to have two bodies with dedicated lenses instead of switching them. I think 35mm is a very good choice because you can also switch into APS-C mode and turn it into a 50mm, effectively giving you two focal lengths with one lens.

I've been running some tests over the past 6 months or so with different cameras and lenses trying to simplify my entire workflow and gear. Over the years, in search of the perfect camera/lens(es) combo(s) I've become a slave to the gear that collects dust in my closet. Anyway, I feel like I know which direction best suits me, but I figured I'd share some of my results. Here are a couple frames from the Sigma FP and Nikkor 24mm f/2 ai-s lens. I've never really been a huge fan of wide angle lenses but there is a good reason to have one in my kit. On other cameras, I have found the Nikon lens to be lacking and it's flaws show, but I could always recognize that there is something funky and great about the lens, especially wide open. It wasn't until I shot it with the FP that I saw its true potential... My color work probably needs some tweaks, as they look a little too contrasty for my normal tastes.

I agree. My only comment re. OM-1 video is I did not like it as much as full frame Panasonic, otherwise it was and is very good. I don’t remember his name, but Chris Something is an OM Systems ambassador and shoots some amazing stuff on the system so it is 100% doable.

I don't take photos except with my cell phone (and they are pretty good - my cellphone uses AI, much more advanced than most cameras). The ZV E10 has lots of Picture Profiles and a large amount of customizations for each. The ZV E10 has the latest Sony "color science."

I would recommend not changing lenses at a concert. Firstly you'll lose time finding enough space to change them, or balance the lenses in your arms and risk dropping everything. But most importantly, concerts get hot and you will 100% get condensation on the sensor, meaning you'll be unable to shoot anything for a minute or so each time. Better to have two bodies with a nice combination of primes (say the 21 and the 50) But I would personally stick to the zoom on cam A with a super wide prime for cam B.

If you are not going to shoot log, and want ooc colors, and a small camera for video, you might consider the Sony ZV E10 (not ZV E1). It is APS-C but smaller and lighter than the fx30. No IBIS or 10bit (which you do not need), but with Sony OSS lenses (there are plenty), handholding is fine. and, of course, those lenses are small. You have lots of controls of color and looks in the camera. Onboard audio and mics are very good (like the ZV E1).

...and also don't/can't possibly remember the sometimes scratched, fuzzy, grainy, cue-dotted n-th generation distribution prints (with mono sound and worn sprocket holes) that played in the average neighborhood cinema... while at university I sometimes projected 16mm prints for the film society and they were decidedly 'well used' at times. I guess they think the pristine 'digitally restored' old movies they see today are what they really looked like to the average cinema customer 'back in the day' 🙂.

Now, the question is, how are the log profiles of cameras different? And do those differences matter? Here is what Fuji says, from their official data sheet, about their Flog2 profile: "The gamma curve of F-Log2 follows the density of negative films, which has a high compatibility with post production technique fostered in the field of cinema film. It also configures 0% CV (Code value) as 95/10 bits and 18% gray CV as 400/10 bits. The gamut of F-log complies with ITU-R BT.2020 and realizes ease of cinema-like exposure and easy grading on the DCI.P3 color space." [emphasis mine] Note the references to film and cinema. What does Fuji mean by that? Has anybody at Fuji seen actual movies?

Yep! (...still enjoy reading about the 'better' cameras though - GAS addiction? 😉🙂)

It's funny, because I see so many people who won't even consider cameras for one reason or another, when I could do virtually everything I do with my S5 bodies with a couple GH3 bodies and still be very pleased with the results. I'd obviously have to overcome the limitations when it came to autofocus and stabilization, but from a pure image stand point they'd still be more than enough. Upscaled to 4K for streaming it'd be nearly indistinguishable from real 4K (see: Nigel Barros going back to the GH3 for the millionth time.) I have the luxury of having "better" cameras but I don't NEED better cameras. Most of us don't.

Their Eterna profile SOOC is pretty good and can take a light grade.

Well if you don't like the size of the A7iv which is I believe the smallest and lightest of that type of FF hybrid, then an OM Systems camera is probably what you are looking for. Something like the OM-1? I had one in to test and thought it was a fantastic thing, but just wasn't blown away with the video quality compared with FF Lumix, but otherwise, great camera, if a tad over-priced.

Have you tried using https://camerasize.com/compact/ to compare the size and weight of various camera and lens combinations? It's a great tool for quick visual size comparisons of the top, front and back views (and hovering the mouse pointer over a camera or lens picture will pop up dimensions and weight info). For example, this is a comparison of A7c, FX30, A7 IV, R8 and X-T4 - https://camerasize.com/compact/#858,895,883,903,841,ha,b

One shoots slightly higher res stills and the other shoots ‘arguably’ nicer video. Real world, not that much difference. Folks tend to prefer one brand over another for any number of reasons. Personal needs and choice in the end. I have looked at; Olympus, Fuji, Sony and Nikon at one time or another (usually too many times!) in the last few years, but the combo of Panasonic bodies and Sigma lenses works best for me, all factors considered and the S5iix is going to be my workhorse for the foreseeable future, for photo and video.

What's the benefit of the Z9/ Z8 for video over the Canon R5. I don't know enough about the canon, but I thought it was meant to be a good video hybrid?

Time for me to post some Tevidon 25mm love. Finally got to film a clip, got to like it, grade it and post it. First one is in the big and mighty GX85 thread. Lovely, quirky and most of all such a satisfying lens and combo. cheers 🙂

Dear friends, some shutter therapy with the beautiful GX85. Lens is a gem too. I will post the second video in the lens section. 🙂

Early days and as with the S5 that preceded it, like it but don’t love it. To be fair, it’s not it’s fault but more my use case for it which is long static stuff and a tiny amount of gimbal. Edited one shoot so far with it and no idea what the critics are saying about it…but as above, fairly limited and controlled use so far. Shot another job but not edited it yet and then a third later this week. Really, the S1H is my workhorse for the greater part of my video work and that is a case of ‘love’ over simply ‘like’. Has a certain mojo to both using it and the output. In other news, my pair of S1R’s came back today and just in the nick of time as I leave tomorrow for my next job. I’ve tried selling one of them once previously but came to the conclusion last week, without going Sony or Nikon (both with native or adapted Tamron lenses), I just cannot get from my current need for 4 working cameras, to 3. Not without chucking 10k into the mix on top of all my trade in kit…and I cannot justify the cost right now. Or this year. Not complaining though… In my ideal world, I would flip to a 3 camera system without hesitation but also unless any future camera has internal ND, using any system for hybrid work is a pain in the arse! I know because I have been wrestling with it for about 12 years and still have not found the ‘perfect’ solution. Does it exist? Nope. Could it exist? Yep. Easily, if we mashed up a few of best bits of several manufacturers… Will it exist? Probably soon. I think we are one step away and it will become reality if internal ND’s can become a common thing. In the meantime, I will ‘soldier’ on with my pair of S1R’s for stills (and emergency video use), S1H for primary/creative filmmaking and S5ii for the more static stuff, gimbal and anything requiring good AF.

Just got the R8 today and use it for an Indian Ceremony, shot most of it in 4K50P and the heating indicator only goes up to 1 bar so that is not bad. So much lighter vs the R5 on gimbal, I can felt the weight saving!