hmcindie

What's wrong with the Canon menus? You can do your own menu plus everything is quite neatly layed out left-to-right. Compared to Sony menus on the A7s, Canon is considerably better.

There's something that bothers me when people say stuff like "overused". If you go to 500px.com and look at photos long enough, they will all start to blend into one another and everything will look "overused". Don't spend that much time looking at "overused" stuff. One day its DOF, the other day its slowmo and then its another thing. Forget about that. Would you limit your style because someone has seen something like that ON THE INTERNET? Oh hell no.

​That's not the real world. Creative superstars CAN act out and they do act out. Only people who are not creative superstars don't get it.

​Well I agree with MattH, you seem to not understand how sensors work. The scanning speed is pretty much the same, no matter how much you do cropping from top and bottom. For example, the 5d in cropmode with magic lantern has the same scanning speed as in fullframe. The area is just much smaller so that same speed is enough for the smaller area. Even if you start the scan from the middle of the screen, the speed of the actual scan line-by-line will be the exact same so in the end, cropping in post will do the same exact thing.

Or did he? ​ So you can take outtakes just out of context and get your panties in a bunch? How many years has Clarkson done that show? And this is the worst? That's fucking stupid:

​Actually 99% of CMOS cams are terrible in rolling shutter people have just gotten used to them. My first EVER HDV cam (first HD-consumer cam, cmos sensor, released in 2005) the Sony HC1 has the same amount of rolling shutter (in 25p) as the FS700. Not much progress there. I've gotten used to it but damn I was like "wtf is wrong with the movement" when I started using the HC1. It was really weird. People have gotten used to it. A couple of years later the Canon HV20 came out which had True Progressive and it had WORSE rolling shutter than the HC1.

Am I the only who has lost several shots because of the record button placement? I shoot a lot of run&gun and almost every shoot some shot is fucked up as I tend to press that record button with my hand somehow. A7s seems to also have this weird bug where sometimes you press record, you get the 0:00 sign and think it's recording, only to look at the screen a bit later and realize it isn't. Anyone else bumped into it? High ISO max for me is 25,600 on the A7s as on the 5d it's 6400. So the A7s is about two, two and a half stops better in lowlight. It seems to do noise reduction internally, but atleast that saves me from doing it later myself. Works great for stuff that you just hand over. Also it goes crazy high for those silly situations where you need more (we actually lit an object from an iphone that was 3 meters away at 25,600 so it's pretty crazy)

​I once rented from a guy who had a .. "production studio" in his house. The service was really bad and it was only about 40 euros cheaper than a proper rental place. Never doing that again.

​Freaking awful? Like AWFUL? If that is not hyperbole then what is? I've gotten some great shots out of that beauty.

Well how far down the ladder can you go? I never got any depth-of-field on a 1/3" camera system and I do with FF-systems. Do I blame the system? I don't care, I just know that I can work with FF easier. Now you can also get quite close with s35mm and stepping down a bit maybe with m4/3 too. Modern focal reducers also help a lot. But everytime you step down until you get to 1/3" you lose the ability to control dof easily.​ That's a bit like saying "who needs anamorphic, it's just a system?" well yeah...

​The Sigma 20mm f1.8. Photographers tend to dismiss that lens but I effing love it!

The thing is, equivalence math doesn't work when fullframe can go f1.4, what is the equivalent s35mm lens on that thing? Or in my example, an equivalent of 200mm f2.8? I have the 20mm f1.8 on a fullframe lens and there is nothing that can create that look on a s35mm system, except for real cinema lenses. Sure if you drop your aperture down and down and down, sooner or later you will get an image that basically matches 1/3" cameras.

I disagree with people claiming fullframe wide open is unusable. I used the 200mm f2.8 on a dialogue scene on a 5d wide open and the shots came out beautiful. With a smaller sensor? They still would've been good, but they wouldn't have had the magic where our characters were completely alone in a crowded environment. And their faces looked good.

That's one of the things I like about the A7s. It can do 120fps and record audio at the same time. People were like "why?" Sony but I think it's a great feature.

You really need to turn down the sharpening on the C100.

Look at me screwing up the quotes... Ergonomic differences of the a7s to the 5dIII: Horrible record button placement. Body is too small which causes problems like too small dials and buttons. Handling feels like handling a lens with a tiiny wiiny box, not good for handheld at all (not that the 5d is good there either but better). Changing framerates and NTSC/PAL switching is quite bad. NTSC/PAL needs a format (!!). Flipping lcd is good but it only really flips upwards. Downwards it doesn't go almost anywhere and when you add a plate to the little bottom of the camera, the lcd wont flip down at all. Can't take stills at the same time as movies, have to flip modes around. One thing that I do like about the ergonomics of the a7s is that you can zoom in while shooting!

Contrast levels are different = shadows look different. The output of the slog through HDMI is different to internal encoding so you must set the levels in your editor to same before comparing (16-235). It's hard to gauge sharpness as everything is blurry.

​Like I said, they are not engineers (though I have no idea what tests you are referencing as you posted no examples and quoted nothing). And why does the quote system claim I quoted Julian??

​I wouldn't call any of the bloggers you see posting DR- measurements actual engineers. That doesn't mean they won't get it in the ballpark. There are methods of doing proper DR testing but bloggers usually test one camera and scour the net for other results which is not very scientific.

​You'll see it on the histogram (the histogram shows full 0-255). On the slog everything clips at 235, earlier on the histogram. With cine4 it goes up completely.

​Not with Slog. With Slog it clips at 100. With Cine4 it goes up.

Always wanted to do an action scene in an elevator, sorry about the weird language! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hDxdbni7tw

​When I was a projectionist, I basically ruined one film by misaligning one of the heads so the film got a good 15 minutes of huge scratches before I realized it. During the next screening I was like "Please be no scratches!" to no avail, haha. One other beautiful mishap was when I was rolling a film back into reels for shipping and that whole effing film (two hours of 35mm) dropped to the ground (I forgot to put a blocker during rolling). Called my boss 10pm "Hey man, what's up? I just have this film and it's lying on the ground in a mess, what to do?". It took us something like five hours to fix it which was surprisingly fast I thought.

​This. My work quality has gone up since I started shooting raw with the 5d. And it's mostly because of the limitation of time, not the image quality per se. That makes me think more and it has - surprising myself - had the effect of making everything more thoughtful.

In that case I'd just buy the cheapest option possible, maybe some of the older Sony nex-5n models or the a6000?