Andrew Reid

Tony really does have a bunch if Iscoramas and very good ones at that. Have a look.

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1343119715' post='14400']We'll see if digital mimics all the imperfections of film in the future. Honestly, i'm not convinced, the cameras haven't been going in that direction so far, but lets see.[/quote] You can mimic the imperfections of film in post. The problem is not that the cameras are too clinical, it is that the Hollywood people are taking all the imperfections out of their images, giving us stuff which is too glossy, to commercial, too clean. This will get even worse after The Hobbit and 4K 48p. I remain to be convinced by the artistic merit of that as well. We shall see...

Great article. Very educational. Didn't even realise Phantom did 1,300fps in 2.35:1 2K mode, the highest I have seen from it has been 600fps. Agree with him that getting noticed and putting money into a production is more important than blowing it all on a $20k or even $100k camera. What is great about DSLRs is that you can invest more in the things that actually matter (and your lens family of course :) )

£850 for the pancake kit in the UK. That is more than I paid for my GH2 nearly 2 years ago, nearly as much as a high end mirrorless and nearly three times the price of an entry level NEX camera. The basic kit with the usual el cheapo 18-55mm is £769 and that doesn't include the EF adapter. There is no body only deal. US pricing is less in dollars(!), but the major retailers are not stocking it according to Canon, only more specialist stores and places like B&H.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/canon-eos-m.jpg[/img] The Canon T4i in a smaller box Where do they get this kind of innovation from? Combine the controls of a compact with the guts of a T4i, to make a camera that is too dumbed down for enthusiasts and too expensive for casual snappers or your mum.

Where's the Canon advantage now? [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500d54883c0aa_canonadvantagegone.jpg[/img] Now tell me they haven't let their significant lead slide away.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343044169' post='14353'] I don't really see a problem with them using the same sensor again (if indeed they are). Look at a still RAW out of a 7D and tell me what's so wrong or dated about it. However, it does bother me that they line-skip, and that they keep using the same codec when they have a better one in the 5D already. It is understandable though that they don't want their lower end cameras to be the first ones to deliver better specs, they wouldn't release a 650D that's way better than the 7D, and if they have any big improvements coming, I'd say they'll arrive with a 7D replacement, or maybe the rumored new full frame camera. [/quote] Of course there's nothing 'wrong' with the 7D's sensor in raw stills. This is Canon after all. It is the lack of progress and creativity that concerns me. The 7D's sensor was great when it came out 3 years ago. Way above any competition. Now APS-C rivals have nearly all caught up, and even the smaller Sony CMOS in the OM-D E-M5 too... At ISO 6400 even. Nikon D3200, OM-D, Fuji X Pro 1 and NEX 7 all are newer technology, and mostly better image quality be it in resolution terms of low light terms.

Is the G1X pocketable like the S100? Last time I checked, it wasn't. EOS M could have been an enthusiast's wet dream, instead it is a dumbed down T4i for your mum! She'd be far better off with an RX100 anyway.

[quote name='nickname' timestamp='1343003455' post='14325'] andrew, the sony rx100 is not a large sensor compact. its sensor is only about 30% bigger than an s100 sensor. and it does not in any way deliver dslr like quality. dr, colors, sharpness, dof are completely in small sensor territory. even at base iso it looks soft.[/quote] Wrong! Where the hell are you getting the 30% thing from? Also please do name a compact with a bigger sensor... I'll give you all night to think about it. Bye!

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342994911' post='14319']If you look at a well lit shot/scene on film, and then the same shot scene on the GH2 (with adjustments for highlights/shadows), the differences are far from subtle to me. The GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances.... You can intercut digital and film yes, of course, i've done it myself intercutting 35mm and the 5D! On many occasions you don't notice[/quote] So are we talking about something so subtle here between 35mm and 5D that on many occasions you don't notice, or are we to take you at your previous statement that the GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances. Not film-like? That is a bit of a narrow view. You're talking about subtle differences. To claim the whole damn film (like Blade Runner) looks the way it does because of a tiny subtle difference, is crazy. You haven't even mentioned lenses yet. Most of the Blade Runner look has nothing to do with 35mm - more the fact it is shot with anamorphic lenses. You don't mention the DP, director, once... Not a single time... So are you saying 35mm has the magic that no director is capable of adding? Or are you claiming it is a small subtle difference and digital is not quite there yet? Which is it? Is your main bone of contention the Zacuto shootout lighting? What are you judging the GH2 from, exactly? It looks as digital as you let it be, my friend. HurtinMinorKey - No Country and There Will Be Blood came out at the same time, I watched them at the same time, they were both nominated for Oscars, and I rate them equally as highly. I am amazed you can say one is amazing and one is awful. Amazed.

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342950645' post='14303'] My point is about the basic aesthetic features of film. 'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film. People compare digital to film because film has a particular aesthetic quality that is currently unmatched by digital, the same way artists may prefer particular paints, and so on. Of course professional film-makers will make digital/film look good. This isn't an arguement about professional/amateur. The fact is, there are no digital films that match the best 35mm films yet from an aesthetic perspective and that is down to the camera. There are some very good digital films, but until i see something matching the filmic look of There Will Be Blood/Jesse James i will continue this point. [/quote] I am glad you like There Will Be Blood. I do think digital has a harsher look than film - but Axel makes a good point about more care being taken with film. Digital is too forgiving. The differences in aesthetic between a GH2 in its comfort zone and 35mm film are subtle compared to the the differences between handling with care and not. Using an anamorphic lens on the GH2, exposing for the highlights, catching natural light at the right hour, having the light diffuse through fog or smoke in a real location, handling with care in post, softening the image, reducing contrast with flare, even adding some scanned 35mm film grain - all reduce the electronic digital look and add life. You really can intercut between digital and film, if done right even you wouldn't notice. The Alexa looks great - I don't mourn film, what I do mourn is the artistic sensibility and care which is being lost in the digital age especially in Hollywood. It is people who put the digital BAM look into digital not as much the camera itself.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/canon-EOS-m-2012.jpg[/img] Canon last had an EF-M camera and lenses in 1991 (inset, LCD screen pic) The Canon EOS M mirrorless camera with new EF-M mount and lenses is due to be officially announced on Monday. The EOS M seems to be closest to the Sony NEX C3. The lack of physical controls hint that it is too basic to compete with the NEX 5N or NEX 7. Because it is designed to work with Canon's new STM AF lenses which use phase detect AF on the sensor I am 100% certain the EOS M will have the same 18MP APS-C CMOS as the T4i / 650D. Using the G1X sensor would make it incompatible with the very EOS-M lenses it is pictured with at launch. The 18-55mm EF-M STM and 22mm F2 EF-M STM. Will the new mount be the basis of a C100 affordable digital cinema camera, following the strategy of Panasonic and Sony?

I really think you are attributing far too much to the look of film. I can put life into a $700 digicam. The right light and the right lenses, the right grading and the right sensitivity of handling in post is all you need. Film has a nice grain and latitude. The mythology of a cinematic image is not just in film like grain and latitude, it is in so many other aspects of the camera, lens, light, location, actors, costumes and most importantly cinematographer.

I think the way film is processed and projected in this day and age makes it look more like digital anyway. I don't think it even has much of a classic look to it any more on most film shot big budget features I've seen, it is not much in evidence. Nolan is a good director, but a little over hyped. Better is Paul Thomas Anderson. Never seen someone better at getting the most out of talent that he manages to do. His characters light up the screen... No, they set it alight completely. Burn baby burn.

They've gone profit mad. 550D, 600D, 7D, 60D, 650D, G1X and probably EOS M too. That is a lot of cameras based around one 3 year old sensor. OK the G1X gives it a trim and the 650D gives it some phase detect pixels - oh great. By the way with the 18-55mm kit lens, I just cannot see what benefit the phase detect AF sensels on the 650D's CMOS give. AF was just as crappy as before when I tried it out. Whilst D5100 was nailing it, albeit not quickly, the 650D was failing altogether and doing lots of REALLY SLOW HUNTING. Build is also really really dodgy and I am not just talking about the whitening rubber issue. There was wear on the side of the ISO button too, and the whole thing felt a notch down from the 600D with a lower grade of plastic. I know Canon have had a difficult time recently as have all Japanese companies with the faltering global economy, strong Yen and major issues with natural disasters but for Canon to be dropping the ball big time like they seem to be doing is just completely unacceptable.

It isn't 1.7inch, it is 1/1.7". That is much smaller than the 1 inch sensor in the RX100. The LX7 looks good but it really will not benefit from the small sensor no matter how good the lens is. Let's see what the noise and dynamic range is like, if it beats the DSLR rivalling stills I am getting from the RX100 for those two attributes, I'll eat my lens cap.

There are some nuances yes, I agree. But really no camera has a soul if the person behind it is soulless.

That thread is still here http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/794-the-panasonic-gh3-product-suggestions-for-panasonic FZ200 - constant F2.8 is very impressive for 25-600mm on a bridge camera. I have tried the very long 30x optical zoom lens on the small chip HX200 from Sony and that is actually a very cool tool, loved shooting at extreme telephoto with it. At 30x it also gives you a very 'DSLR feel' with a shallow depth of field despite the small sensor, and that is at F5.6 not F2.8 so I can only imagine the FZ200 will be even cooler. 720p at 120fps will also be a reason for getting the FZ200. Really is will be an amazing shot grabber for telephoto slow mo. Good to see that Sony and Panasonic are still pushing even if Canon isn't. Had a go of their bridge camera today and it was SO poor. Zero AF ability, rubbish screen, poor build, awful grip (I almost dropped it the first time I picked it up, it really is shocking) and signs of major cost cutting throughout.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500ad15a53a2c_in495munchbstscream1893.jpg[/img]

I actually think for all Nolan's insistence on shooting Batman on film it looks like it was actually shot on digital. Very clean. Will be interesting to see what job Roger Deakins does on Skyfall with the Alexa Studio and anamorphic. If anything is designed to mimic the overall aesthetic of film and not just the specs side, it is that and it is him.

I agree digital needs roughing up. Some don't agree. This is all subjective. I agree with you that digital needs careful handling if it is not to look too clinical and better technical capabilities do not always improve the image. 24p is less technically capable than 60p but it looks more cinematic. However putting the life into a shoot is YOUR responsibility isn't it? The lens has a lot to do with it as well. The reason so many modern films look lifeless and plastic is not because they were shot on digital. It is because of the decisions people are making in post and when shooting.

Wait a few years and medium format cameras will be shooting video. IMax camera for the masses. In terms of sensor size the 5D Mark III is Vista Vision, i.e. 35mm turned on its side. Sort of!

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500ac56b6b1b1_1280pxIMAX_camera_1.jpg[/img] IMAX camera - Makes so much noise that dialogue has to be dubbed when shooting with it.

Great images there Andy. Didn't realise IMAX film was so insanely large and that it runs sideways through the gate? I thought 65/70mm was the largest it came. [quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1342881595' post='14244'] Are we beating a dead horse here or something man? Digital is badass. I'm sure it mathematically beats the brakes off of film with a spec sheet pimp slap. & i like the Hawaii video on the F65. It looks really sharp. [/quote] Where is this F65 Hawaii video? I want to see it.

Digital HAS beaten film. I am pretty sure 5K or Super Hi Vision would look more detailed than the best S35mm film scan on IMAX. Would you notice even more resolution from 65mm on IMAX? I haven't yet. For sure digital has better sensitivity to light with less noise. With the Sony F65 it also has a wider colour gamut and better dynamic range. Case closed!