Leaderboard

I bought a used OM-1 a while ago, and it's slowly turned into my favoured camera for video since then (despite some of its annoyances). I think part of the reason for that is because it has a very fast readout stacked sensor, with rolling shutter time around 5-7 ms in FHD & UHD, which seems to give a 'solidity' to the video combined with fluid motion handling (I normally shoot at 50p), compared to my G9 with about 12-15 ms rolling shutter. If my liking of the OM-1 video is due to low rolling shutter then maybe I'm subconsciously sensitive to the picture distortions created by rolling shutter (including interactions with the IBIS behaviour). But then I'm often filming subjects like trains which readily show up rolling shutter distortions, so maybe that's sensitised me to it?

I was recently considering getting an HPX170 for a project, although I couldn't really justify spending the money. But there are some good videos on youtube demonstrating what handling the footage with modern upscaling and color grading software can do for cameras like it. It seems the majority people still actively using these cameras are Skate videographers.

With all the digital standards out there it's unfortunate that no consumer camera manufacturer developed the hot shoe as a modular communication standard. We could have had add-on EVFs, microphones and audio adapters, monitors, timecode boxes, etc. The argument that they wouldn't have sold becomes quite different if you think of the potential sales of accessories over 10 or 20 years of cameras that supported them. Imagine if you could buy an adapter that mounted into the hot-shoe and gave two or three hot-shoes across the top of the camera (maybe only to the left to avoid the dials) and you could put whatever you wanted in there. USB was released in 1996, almost 30 years ago with 12Mbps, and by 2008 it had 5Gbps, so it's not like the technology in, say, 2004 wasn't there yet.

I've seen Gh1 videos which impressed me a big deal color wise. I had posted one a few years ago. But textures were never that appealing to me because of the codec. G6 was so much better in that regard. From cameras i used myself I was the least happy with motion when footage was too sharp as it was with my S1 or when codec was not up to par like on a G6 in lowlight. I love my Bmpcc and Bmmcc for colour and motion. My Sony PMW F3 looked great, judging from my own test footage and the clips which were still on the card when I bought it. Ikonoskop is a camera i always wanted to try. The Coney Island video on vimeo impressed very much back then. Colors, motion, plasticity, setting and summer grooves did their thing but colors were really magical. It is not a S16 but a 16mm camera iirc.

What I'd like to see is a tiny OLED viewfinder that would connect with HDMI and 12volt DC. There are a few nice EVFs that connect to proprietary hot shoes such as the Canon EVF-DC2, FUJIFILM EVF-GFX, Sigma EVF-11, Sony FDA-EVM1K, etc. however they aren't able to be used with other cameras. I'd like to see something like this, or an adaptor from the hot shoe connectors to HDMI and D-tap. Then if you have a cinema camera you're not left with only huge EVFs (which are really just small monitors with a loupe.) The one that seems to have this potential is the Sigma EVF-11. In pictures it shows what looks like a USB-C plug, two pins, then what might be a micro-HDMI. It might be possible for there to be an adaptor to use this.

After owning a variety of consumer/prosumer camcorders (starting with VHS-C in 1995, then several DV then HDV), I skipped DVD-based ones and decided that the memory-card based ones (that I could afford) were getting too small and light to hand-hold with reasonable stability. Also viewfinders were becoming rare other than on the higher-end camcorders. Having noticed that reasonable video was starting to appear as a feature in 'photo' cameras, I tried a Pana TZ7/ZS3 compact, then a Sony HX9V compact and Pana FZ100 superzoom. Decided that I preferred the form-factor/handling so moved on to a Pana G3 MILC - nice and compact, good to hold, with a decent viewfinder, video, audio and stills. Upgraded after a while to a G6 with 14-140mm lens (probably my all-time favourite lens) - much larger sensor than any consumer camcorder but still a fairly compact setup for something with a 10:1 zoom lens. As I'm very much a hybrid shooter, I prefer the m43 'compact MILC' form-factor (and the IBIS). The only 'icing on the cake' that I'd like is a quality power-zoom lens with a decent range - the (now obsolete) Oly 12-50 is about as close as m43 has ever got to that. So no, I wouldn't buy a 'camcorder' form-factor camera again. (When I look at some of my old VHS-C or DV footage, it just reminds me of how far consumer/prosumer video capture has improved over time...from less-than-SD resolution, interlaced, noisy, smudgy video to pristine 50p/60p UHD from a pocket-sized camera - wow!)

LX10 in TM700 body with 10bit 422 4K up to 60p would be perfect. @John Matthews I think small sized camcorders were used to be called palmcorders. So, yes, 10bit palmcorders with 2/3 or 1" sensors, HLG, NDs and with solid manual operating such as focus ring and physical buttons for the essential parameters like iso, aperture, shutter and color temperature. I still like the size of a HPX171, which is still much smaller than an EX1 and kind of a pretty camera like the legendary DVX100. So will try that one some time. Mike Krumlauf is always fun to listen to. Such an old school guy with a love for cameras and an impressive mullet. 🙂 @Matt Kieley

Those cameras are a bit too big for me. I'm really hoping for a small 2/3 inch sensor with modern codecs and frame rates. I'd like sub 400g but happy with sub 500g. I'm thinking an enclosed LX10 lens with more reach and a sensor, processor, and battery slapped on the back. Something tells me that it should be possible.

Interesting. The BenQ 4K monitor I generally use (on MBPro M1 Ultra) will give me 24Hz but not 48. Resolve playback at 24 seems smoother, however.

Since that 24p argument discussion I've been thinking about frame rates and motion a lot and shot a few tests etc, and eventually got around to thinking about how to view content on the computer properly. I finally realised that the solution is to set your display to 48Hz (or 120Hz / 240Hz if you can do it) and that will give you proper 24p playback. I do all my streaming and YT viewing on my computer via a display that the OS controls, so currently with a 60Hz refresh rate I'm perfectly recreating the 30p (yuk) and 60p videos (double yuk!) but the 24p is jittery. My current MBP can't do 48Hz but the newest ones from Apple can do 48Hz and 120Hz / 240Hz, so it's on my radar. I currently edit in Resolve through a UltraStudio 3G box that drives the display directly with whatever the timeline resolution and frame rate is, but that's only for my videos, not for watching anything else unfortunately.

I've been watching the TV show M*A*S*H (1972-1983) and I'm finding it really interesting: The storytelling trumps the image quality, and it only takes a few seconds to stop looking at the image and start paying attention to the content It was shot on 35mm film, but was before colour grading, so the image is about as pure as you get The image is rather drab in comparison to any image that has been colour graded Whenever they cut to a shot that fades out or does a freeze frame the image degrades significantly in resolution and the colours and contrast shift significantly, presumably because it had to go through another generation to add the effect, so the quality and resolution limits are no joke However, having said that, the skin-tones and the high-DR external shots filmed in full direct sun are world class, even compared to the flagship cameras of today from ARRI. It makes it obvious that ARRI are in the business of making cameras with as many film-quality pixels as possible, and everyone else is in the business of making cameras with as many pixels as possible and letting quality fall where it may.

I think I gonna try out some 3 x 1/3" CCD magic some time with a Panasonic HPX 171 or 151, both writing to cards, p2 cards and 8bit 422 100mbit DvcproHD the former, sd and 8bit 420 25mbit Avchd the latter. They would function as a Dvx100 Andromeda substitute:) @Matt Kieley Both are sporting less than perfect 1080p resolution and higher framerates at 50/60p in 720p or 1080i. For best image quality of the bunch it would be a HPX250 with perfect 1080p even at 50/60p, also sporting a 3 x 1/3" sensor design plus 10bit 100mbit 422. No CCD magic though. 3 x CCD and perfect HD with high bit rates comes in big shoulder cameras only. But then some 2/3" calibers. And a Varicam among them. Would like to find out which one is the smallest of these biggies. This thread has the potential for a perfect nerd cave. Great place to be. 🙂

I thought about starting a new thread, but there is already so much theory packed into this old discussion that I decided to revive it and see if the last nine years of camera releases might add to the discussion -- which always seems to bring up some high emotions (for those of you who feel an eye roll coming on, feel free to write me off as not knowing what I am talking about and move along). I'm coming at it from a deeply subjective standpoint. I always try to find wide shots with people walking in them as my baseline. More cameras than not look "off" to me. With that out of the way, which cameras produce your favorite 24p motion in 2024? My favorites are all older cameras: Motion Picture Film - The original and best. It pulls me in and almost puts me in a trance-like state. Red One MX - Honestly, the best digital motion I've seen. It looks better to me than any newer Red or frankly, anything from Arri. Ikonoskop A-Cam Dii and Digital Bolex D16 - Really nice. And some sleepers too: Canon EOS-M with Magic Lantern - It just looks right to me. Much better than my C70. Panasonic GH1 - Odd, I know. But yes. And it looks slightly better to me than the GH2.

And yet here he is last month shilling a product that enables you to automatically edit your weddings using.....yep...AI. I have to say that the use of AI to isolate the voice better in the clip he is criticising is a far better use of it than this editing one.