peederj

  Most retailers who have the return policies want you to try the products risk-free. Jeff Bezos for instance is maniacal about getting people to try stuff from Amazon guilt-free because it's one advantage of brick-and-mortar stores he can't otherwise match. All of my dealers feel the same way. Some of my boutique dealers don't even ask me for a credit card at this point, they just let me go home with the merch, knowing it will come back in saleable shape.   If the dealers don't want to do that they can have a restocking fee or no return policy. Most such dealerships are now dead or dying at least in the USA.   What's unethical and bad for business is getting a customer stuck with something they are unhappy with. Businesses need customers far more than customers need businesses...and the money is always more valuable than the products sold at retail prices. The customer should make the best decisions they can and avail themselves of every facility offered to them by the dealers in good faith.   I did not recommend replacing a rental service with a return policy for a paid shoot. That is a bit unethical. I recommended getting the products in your hands risk-free and cost-free for an appraisal. I do that with all my purchases and trust me my dealers wouldn't have it any other way.

  My suggestion is to get your hands on both cameras in a risk-free manner and A/B compare them to the best of your ability. Many retailers have 14-day or longer return policies if you can put the sum on your credit card.   Blackmagic Design has made domineering the online discussion a crucial part of its marketing blitz and as a result anyone who says anything realistic about their products gets attacked. I would lean in favor of any company confident enough to let its products speak for themselves rather than send out these aggressive shills and massage blogger/reviewers.

ETTR is a generally debunked strategy, promulgated by the Luminous Landscape (which is actually as stupid as most of the other photog sites but arrogantly pretends otherwise). For one thing, RAW converters are optimized for correct exposure, not overexposure, so their tweaks will not benefit ETTR images. And for this particular camera, ETTR is an especially problematic practice. For one thing, the camera has no highlight rolloff capability at all, it simply hard-clips everything over 100 IRE. For another, the sensor is tiny and you often have very little light available. And for a third, the blacks come in around 20 IRE and in a log gamma ought to be lowered, not raised, along with the noise. You shouldn't overexpose your highlights, but for the BMD camera your shadows should be printed 20-25 IRE (by the log gamma, not by overexposure!) and then lowered accordingly in post.   Proper exposure is going to work best on this camera and most cameras in fact. It's the log gamma that raises the shadows for you going into the codec (this won't happen in a truly uncooked RAW). So expose to protect, but not overexpose, the highlights (because you have no choice), and monitor in "Video" mode to have the shadows crushed out for you, so you don't underexpose trying to force better contrast. I don't know if these cameras have waveform monitoring, probably not. But the auto-iris thing or zebras should get all but the finest specular highlights down below clip for you.   When I looked at the ProRes footage from Brawley I saw a lot of grain but I didn't see much opportunity for NR...I predict they are doing NR in-camera to try to save that sensor and then doing grain simulation to try to save the over-NRed image. I understand a lot of RAW implementations have NR baked-in as well, no idea about these cameras as you couldn't get ahold of one back when they were interesting.

I don't think the BMD ProRes really offers 13 stops. That might be something they claim they can get in RAW only, and under ideal circumstances they don't describe. One hopes they aren't saying to get the 13 stops you have to use the NR in the included copy of Resolve.   White is set to 100 IRE and black to 20 IRE from what I could tell. In contrast (haha) the C100/Canon Log/clean HDMI/Ninja 2 ProRes chain has white at 110 IRE and black at 10 IRE. So even though the Canon output is 8 bit it uses a broad code base to retain color fidelity across the full 12 stops they claim for the sensor at base ISO. I felt the BMD Pocket ProRes was more like 11ish stops...there's a lot of grain (added intentionally?). I'm assuming these are base ISO clips, in which case, there probably was an ND filter tacked onto the lens?   Anyway this BMD Pocket is a camera that you have to be as careful exposing as you do a Rebel or other cheap DSLR. A "fetus Alexa" (PB's funny term) this is most certainly not. Its highlight curve is nothing at all like an Alexa's (which itself is completely unique and film-like) but its in-camera look is "Alexa-inspired," which may have subjective benefits, but has none of the objective ones. But you can get good images out of it as long as you avoid moire as you would on the Rebel and have more light available than you would need on the Rebel. Can you make a Rebel look like this footage? Yes with enough post massage you could, you have a much better sensor but a much worse codec.   I would still get the hacked GH2 or GH3 instead of this Pocket if the assignment was "small interchangeable lens camera." The Panasonics are sharper/higher res, have an adequate codec, have I would imagine much better lens support, and far better ergonomics and workflow. And cheaper in the case of the GH2. This BMD Pocket has better in-camera color/"look" and a better gamma. But it doesn't relieve you from having to expose the shot properly (undermining the supposed DR advantage) and is nearly as soft as 5D3 H.264 footage but suffering from moire regardless.   I'm sure people will make good stuff with these because it's captured the imagination of so many ambitious people new to filmmaking, but it won't be the camera to credit for the stuff being good. The Rebel or hacked GH2 would be similarly good and much more flexible on "set." Up from there, the 5D3 RAW completely undermined BMD's value proposition, understandably resulting in a massive price cut for the cinderblock cameras.   You'll be relieved to know that's all I have to say on BMD until we see some sign of the 4K camera. I'm still guessing that will be next year or not until they have found a completely different sensor than the one they were sampling, which could be more than a year from now.

In "Reverie" Vincent Laforet was chasing Vittorio Storaro.   Philip Bloom chases Ken Burns.

Vincent Laforet is about 1000 times as good a filmmaker as Philip Bloom. I can't even imagine the comparison is being made. That's a Pulitzer prize-winning NY Times photographer vs. an ordinary broadcast news cameraman.   I challenge you to find something shot on DSLR that makes better use of color than Reverie, for instance. Sure the aliasing is simply dreadful, and one must remember the 5D2 didn't even have 24p at that point. But it was justifiably famous (find me a PB frame as iconic as the cobblestone shot) and it's a predictable shame that most indie DSLR guys emulated Bloom and his boring moving slideshows than Laforet and his exciting narrative structure.   People would apologize by noting they can't afford a helicopter.

I am a radical, but I think a camera should be introduced with chart tests (resolution, moire, DR, and color), and an ISO ladder of the inside of the lens cap to show the noise floor. Some form of motion and visual load testing would be useful too to stress the codec and reveal any ghosting. Ideally these tests are carried out in a fully open, documented, reproducible manner by an independent test lab that knows how to do them properly. We then have an objective baseline for the camera system, and can move on to subjective concerns.   I think it's fine for there to be whizbang marketing pieces made, though ideally they aren't made by the gear reviewers (e.g. Philip Bloom being paid to make the GH3 promo and then casually leaving such conflicts out of his "ethics statement"). People want to get excited about their new toy. Certainly the C100 promo was embarrassing other than for those memorable girls on the beach and their lovely skin. The C300 promo was way over the top but announced Canon was now in town. These things cost a fortune to make and for a small struggling manufacturer are a luxury best left to the volunteer enthusiasts like you guys.   Though I honestly doubt anyone in this thread has ever shot footage in their entire lives that is as good as Reverie. I certainly haven't. But it's fair for you to criticize as it was made in the interest of separating you and your money. The people that bought 5D2s in 2009 after watching it still aren't suffering for their purchases however.

That would be an awesome firmware update. "Oh, uhm, we decided to give you another stop of dynamic range and stop clipping out the super-whites. Enjoy!"  :lol:

So if these really are straight-from-camera clips, I see what the deal is...BMD have given their customers a very "today" look out of the box. The colors are desaturated and the grain is even more desaturated, and fine enough to look "filmic." That's fine and it would save me about 30 seconds post work per project.   But I also see what a well-respected DP just noted over on one of the Dragon threads..."The BMCC has the worst highlight roll-off of any of the digital cine cameras." Wow it's just clamped and hard-clipped...these highlights are simply unrecoverable. There's nothing that can be done with them. I had to leave them as is and just preserve the clip through post.   That really sucks. I hate to say it yet again but it is the elephant in the room. The footage from yesterday's full-sun EXT DAY shoot on C100/Canon log/Ninja 2 had very broad DR and I was able to recover far more highlights than I thought possible in 8 bit. It was like working RAW. This BMPocket footage is no better for highlights than cheap compact camera video. Check it on a waveform scope.   It also leads me to theorize what's going on here. When I use quick & dirty LUT products (which is only in a rush) I often get this clamping/clipping problem on the highlights and blacks. What I think BMD have done to make their camera appealing to their target demographic is pre-process the image in a similar way to how most experienced pro's post-process it. So to get their in-camera "look" at least for ProRes they are probably doing a combination of quick & dirty noise reduction, LUTing, and grain simulation, with the results having the unfortunate effect of clipping the highlights and tying your hands in post to their look. They leave the contrast "flat" but really don't have to...that's also a marketing thing to make you think there's more DR there than typical cheap video cams, but I don't see that there is. Not on the highlight end certainly! I also didn't find the image much sharper than 5D3 footage. They are probably having to blur things either optically or digitally to cut down on the aliasing a native res sensor is prone to. But decent sharpness could be recovered...but that fights against the grain thing they are doing. When you work in post, you can sharpen before the addition of grain, which is a much better way of doing business. Not here.   I really couldn't do much with the image (clip sized for the 500K limit attached), a little sharpening, some added saturation as I am tired of the austere Scandi look, and an attempt at correcting the contrast curve but with no ability to touch the highlights and make the image pop.   Makes me wonder how cooked the RAW is. If we ever get to see the RAW. All of these same processes could be quietly done to RGGB and marketed as "RAW" but in no way a lossless record of what came down from the sensor.   Anyway I once again thank John Brawley. He does a nice job of quietly letting pro's know to laugh the BMD products off but also make them appealing and rewarding to the target hobbyist.   [attachment=603:BMPC Test.jpg]

Well I hope everyone is creatively fulfilled. And my recommendation for that is...drumroll please...   Shoot with what you have. Quit buying stuff. Borrow or rent as needed.   I think if you're a creative genius but under-equipped people will see through the limits of your equipment and solve those problems for you.   It doesn't matter if you're poor...it does matter if you have no talent or can't bring yourself to use and develop what you have. If you are suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome you will never, I promise, never be satisfied enough with your equipment to decide now you are finally ready to be seen and judged.   Go ahead and be seen and judged with whatever's at hand. Get used to it. Thicken that skin. See how lame you are...not your camera, but you as a creative artist...and fix that. The camera is the easiest thing to fix. Your mental blocks and your inexperience making art are the things that need to be fixed.   If someone came to me and said they want to be a filmmaker I would hand them an RX100 with a small pistol grip and a removable ND filter and tell them to go out and make something. Go ahead and use the auto everything mode if they want. Or they could use an iPhone and a $13 collapsible 5-color reflector. And by stripping away all other concerns they would be trained to focus on what matters in art, and be able to do the maximum number of iterations per year creating things, because they weren't wasting time transcoding crap in Resolve.   No one in the audience cares about your camera. Boo hoo. Fellow camera enthusiasts are not a meaningful audience. Pick something easy and use it. A lot.

I see the RED camera as the elitist camera...the one ambitious amateurs buy trying to buy themselves credibility. I see the C100/C300 and FS700 as the practical personal cameras for people that shoot enough to not want to hassle with rentals. I see the Alexa, F5/F55, C500 and Phantom as rental cameras for productions with a budget (and OK RED can fit in that crowd too, but as rental, not purchase). I see the 5D3 as the dual use high-end camera, the D800 and D7100 as good options for that too. I see the Rebels and little Panasonics as learning cameras. I see the RX100 as the fun pocket movie camera and the GoPro Hero 3 black as the go-anywhere rugged camera.   I see the BMD products as weird experimental prototypes for the hacker/tinkerer set. People who are more interested in equipment for its own sake than filmmaking. Which is fine, and you can praise it irrationally if you want. But then to go bashing cameras that actually put food on people's tables in comparison? It's not a matter of elitism so much as it's the nerve of hobbyists telling working people they're doing it wrong.

That collage took some work. (And then you went and cut it down!)     I addressed this in the recent strategy thread. Why aren't the "DSLR shooters" willing to fork over $5500 for a nearly-complete camera that saves you from buying endless add-ons? ND/IR filters, XLR preamps and built-in stereo mics, top and side handles, EVFs (OK but it's usable in a pinch) and articulated LCDs, EF mount adapters (assuming people have some of the 100 Million EF lenses extant), peaking, zebra and waveform monitors with audio level metering, one-touch custom white balance, log gamma, usable ISO 6400 and 20,000 with post NR to save on lighting, cheap compact commodity media and replaceable batteries that last all day without offloads or recharges,... how many things have I overlooked that the C100 offers included in the tin? How much does all that cost to duplicate (in an awkward manner) for your "cheaper" solution?   Why am I one of the only people willing to point this out?   Oh right, because everyone else who realizes this is out shooting and no longer thinking about cameras. Come to think of it I'm late getting the shot list out.

  I'm glad you're having fun as entertainment is the point.   I'm having fun too, and far less frustrated as I actually use a camera system that's mature and designed for making movies.   Andrew, like myself, is a "negative knowitall," and the only major filmmaking blogger willing to give a camera manufacturer a fat lip. He's too loose a cannon to co-opt, and calls 'em as he sees'em, and that's an invaluable and refreshing resource as the rest of the major bloggers are timid little churchmice hoping to get advertising/demo video money and choice exclusive breaking news if they're not already firmly on the corporate teat.   But the general sentiment here, while badboy and a lot better than most of the other fora, is still a bit clueless and stuck in 2010. I.e. DSLRs, which is OK and e.g. ML RAW certainly gave them a boost as the GH2 hack did when it came out. The BMD cams are a step back...you have the size and weight of a big camera (heavier even than the C300...same weight as the C500! And then add a battery somewhere else!) but none of the ergonomic advantages. Tiny sensor with moire, an artifact Andrew has viciously lambasted Canon about for years but only mumbles about over BMD. BMD is given a pass time and again with the only complaint being order fulfillment...isn't that odd? (The C100 shipped on schedule, and I got mine the day after without even preordering. But we're only supposed to be negative about the C100 here?)   The question people should be asking is why is there such rabid support of BMD when everything they've done is way worse in multiple (though OK not all) dimensions vs. what every other major manufacturer has done? Shouldn't there be a bit of reality in the mix of discussion here? Shouldn't we be defending each other from unfortunate wastes of money? What better reason for a gear discussion forum?   If all you are left with is ad hominem and various forms of "shut up!" then why not just let it go? I don't attack anyone personally who isn't interest-conflicted (and once again I myself have no conflicts of interest), nor do I try to shut them up. You are all welcome to speak and yes I am happy to correct you.  :wub:

...And the 5D3 is what...a 20th generation product from an industrial giant that has custom IC's made for its needs and plenty of mass to sink the heat with. Plus has CF to write uncompressed to rather than trying to squeeze into SD. Didn't you say something about "hard maths"?

  Sounds familiar.

  Given how hot the Pocket cam apparently gets as it stands, I think we can cross RAW off the list of possibilities. Nearly all cinema cameras, we note, have active cooling systems. They may be able to squeeze compressed RAW of some form onto the SD cards just to pretend to make good on campaign promises. But I have a feeling that at least part of the holdup on the Pocket is thermal...they want to be sure the L-ion doesn't explode into flames as that is something that could threaten the company's existence via litigation. So they dribble out a few for early adopters to beta test (and hopefully not sear their peckers actually putting it in a pocket).   There still isn't a good option from them. The EF mount is an exercise in completely wasted flange distance. Can't speed boost nor internal ND nor anything. The passive MFT version natively supports what, four lenses in the entire world still? And won't supply power to any IS lenses or focus-by-wire ones you might adapt...you'll have to get one of those powered adapters to also plug into your external battery. And I don't think the Speed booster will be supporting those either very soon. The pocket doesn't do the RAW thing, has an even smaller, low-res sensor, and is hilarious to consider as a serious filmmaking option. The 4K camera apparently doesn't exist, and if it does, has very low DR and a base ISO of 400...a bizarre combination of next-gen resolution and old-school image quality.   Camera companies should start with one good and affordable option that builds their reputation. Work the bugs and quirks out of the one option, get the production right, sell it for a comely price and once established you can diversify. There's an awful lot of things that have to go right on a camera. BMD tapped into the dream but can't deliver on the reality. So they are selling off their early prototypes. The fact that the cinderblocks remained in stock at B&H for so long indicates to me that demand has actually dried up and they had to reprice the units trying to move them. I question 20K pocket orders...like phony Youtube view counts, it's free and easy to pretend you're awash in demand...and if they do have a lot of orders, I wonder how many will be returns.

  You do realize, right, that just the IR/ND filter set alone of the C100 would cost you over $2000 in Pancro glass to duplicate in quality for any other camera?   http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/blog.php?id=6201317295579746489   http://blog.abelcine.com/2012/12/10/abelcine-expo-highlight-filters-for-digital-cinema/   And would your add-on set be as effortless to access and as beautifully designed, with the IR filter permanently sealing the sensor/ND compartment from dirt and dust?   Wait, I know...16 Million colors per pixel simply isn't enough.     You know you are drowning in "hype" when anyone making vaguely realistic comments are swiftly demonized as "haters."   C500 cameras are designed to be rentals, few people in that league would *buy* a camera in the first place. The right tool for the job? C500 would be for 4K low-light work with an external recorder.   RED cameras are like red Ferraris...the people who buy them are compensating for something.   Yeah yeah yeah, ML is now obsolete.  :unsure: Decisive masterstroke for Petty, dual use be damned.

Won't the Speed booster vignette crop lenses? I guess the BMD sensors are so tiny it's a non-issue.   Maximum output aperture on a speed booster is 0.9. They make the centers sharper but can reduce sharpness toward the edges.

The thing that sticks out for me that has gone unmentioned in the analysis is that Petty for the second year running is blaming an unnamed sensor manufacturer for the delays in shipping his own company's products. Last year, recall, it was "bad sensor glass" at fault. This year they "only got their first batch of sensors last week" and "couldn't complete the software" as a result.   Andrew specifically I would think would find that puzzling, as his first article on the 4K sensor being used was over a year ago IIRC, and he followed that up with an article on the factory and staff behind that sensor. Furthermore if BMD had no sensors at all to work on software for, whatsoever did they display at NAB, and then at the LA showcase a couple weeks ago? Did they replace sensor manufacturers entirely and are they going to announce new specs accordingly?   No most likely Petty just got on the phone with the sensor company and agreed to not name them and possibly some other concessions if they would quietly take the blame for BMD's failures in finding good and fast firmware programmers for the cameras and materials they already have piled up on the shelves around the office. And not wanting to undercut their customer they conceded to it. It will take a disgruntled employee or something to find out what's really going on in there...if anyone still cares by that point.   I'm sure they'll have an active MFT version of the cinderblock and it will be this same price. I think getting the full version of Resolve and then selling the cinderblock mint may be a good choice for budding colorists. They want to flush out inventory as the ML RAW has stolen their thunder. And yeah it sucks for the early adopters but some of us have been warning you!

I think Canon just think it's weird there are this odd group of people savvy enough about image quality to care about moire but unable or unwilling to bring themselves to buy the C100 + Ninja 2 that gives you Canon's best sensor, best ergonomics, and best 1080p picture for only $6500 ready-to-shoot, batteries and media for a whole day of footage included.   A couple wedding shoots and that's paid off. A single corporate shoot and that's paid off. Entirely. Who are these people and why are they still insisting on DSLR kludges for video? Only dual-use with stills shooting in one body justifies it. In which case the 5D3 is pretty damn good and they let you use the Ninja with it or the RAW hack for $4000 ready-to-shoot batteries and media included.   I think the real issue is these people have this mental block about whether their work deserves a professional solution or not. The C100 is smaller and lighter than the BMCC and about the size of a gripped 5D3. The Ninja 2 is smaller and lighter than a V-mount battery solution for the BMCC and requires no more cabling. Plus it adds a handy peaking monitor, and records direct to ProRes 422 HQ in a mature implementation with review and even in/out point and favorite/reject settings via XML. People in that uncomfortable market segment just aren't willing to take themselves seriously...it's not the extra $2500. If it really was about money then camera image quality is probably far down on the list of daily compromises they might complain about.   So I don't think Canon particularly finds that segment helpable, and it's tough love to force them up into the pro level. Having the C100/Ninja 2 do I want to struggle with my 5D3? No, but I use it for stills and B-cam work without hesitation. Do I want to use Rebel footage at this point? Hell no but I've learned how to massage out a lot of the codec misery if I absolutely needed to. Below the 5D3 only the RX100 and GoPro Black make sense for me due to form factor and salvageable IQ (fisheye distortion correction, NR, etc.).   BMD on the other hand has its sights exactly on that segment, people who are willing to suffer to save that $2500. That's a surprisingly big segment given all the fuss they have kicked up. I would rather have one of the small Panasonics than any of the BMD products. And the rigging requirements, post workflow for RAW and its storage requirements makes it a pound foolish proposition anyway. The BMD option actually costs more than the C100 + Ninja 2 TCO for less quality and far more hassle on set and in post.   And that answers your bafflement: what's going on here, the anomaly, is based on this mental block, this self-esteem problem shared amongst that segment. It's not that they don't have money. It's not that they are unwilling to buy fancy toys or adopt a pro workflow. It's simply that the camera component specifically is a symbol of their stature that they are unwilling to bring themselves to amplify. It's sort of a modesty thing.   Get over it and go make something worth looking at.

The Schoeps of course has the best sound but not the best reach and tends to crap out in humidity. Sankens can also be very good but priced accordingly. The MKH-416 is the warhorse Hollywood relies on. I dislike everything cheaper, though I do like the Rode Stereo VideoMic Pro a lot for on-camera room tone.   Cheaper shotguns will lobe out irregularly off-axis and potentially color the room tone as Smeeth suggests, but the ones I'm recommending won't if aimed properly at the source (and your soundie should have headphones and taste and adjust accordingly). A wider pickup pattern will pick up more, not less, early reflections for a given distance from the source...and unless you are doing extreme closeups you will want to keep them out of the shot. Thus the value of shotguns, a microphone equivalent of a telephoto lens, giving you good isolation at 1-2m distance.   Tip of the day: while it's consistent to boom shotguns from above the talent, this is just standard because of whole-body shots. If you aren't shooting the feet, or are doing punch-ins, I find it better to mic from below the talent than above...as people are more likely to look down than up, and when looking down, tend to speak quieter than when looking up. You can have the mics on stands below the talent in this case. Shotguns are also almost always better than lavs but having a lav as a backup (use moleskin to adhere them to the inside of their shirt, address face clear and up) is a damn good idea.

  Yes a lot of the problem stems from how much hype built up around their camera experiments. Had it been kept humble...sort of like the Digital Bolex or Kinefinity have been...then things would be a lot more normal. "There's this odd camera from Australia, quite clunky and primitive but it's cheap and records direct to ProRes or RAW even albeit from a small, moire-ridden sensor...whenever it ships" would be fine, everyone would know what they were getting into. But instead it's been like "OMG I'M CRYING THE REVOLUTION IS FINALLY HERE FILMMAKING HAS BEEN LIBERATED FROM THE STUDIO SYSTEM AND I HAVE MY ALEXA FOR $3000 AND CAN WASTE EVERYONE'S ARSE WITH THE BEST IMAGE QUALITY EVAR EVAR EVAR."   The hype got so intense that as Andrew has noted, BMD has become a household brand for "high-end cinema" amongst a nearly consumer level crowd, yet the company is utterly unable to serve such a crowd to its expectation levels, where all the features of all the lenses just work, the ergonomics and quality have been worked out, and order fulfillment is crisp and dependable. The very worst thing is how disappointed most people must be with their purchase and yet unable to bring themselves to admit it given how socially unacceptable it's become to say anything vaguely against this messianic corporate identity. (Cue protests from people who've never shot with anything better than DSLR)   Meanwhile the people who know better aren't stepping in to restore order, because they have the opinion seen above:      They know that the Japanese manufacturers could be giving us a lot better format and codec than they are right now (viz. the ML hack) and hope that the BMD hype will force their hand. It's quite possible the C100 is as cheap as it is (only a third the introduction price of the C300 less than two years ago for nearly the same camera) because of the BMD nonsense. But I discount much of that angle, I think the Japanese see BMD quite rightly as a bumbling beginner who's biting off more than they can chew, and they are also primarily interested in the 4K transition and are holding back the next generation of quality for it. They also are confident enough to take the time to make a product that really works in general and doesn't force productions onto a bleeding edge with dropped and pink frames and lenses that won't focus etc.   I hope development accelerates but not to the point of bleeding, but I think BMD's role in that has been overstated as misty-eyed heroism. Sony, for instance, is a desperate company already and needs the 4K transition to compete with Samsung et al. Canon is getting crushed by smartphones. Panasonic is gasping for air. JVC is a joke. BMD is a hipper, white JVC...rolling out "ooh-ahh" innovations before their time in forms that are laughably impractical to the experienced...but they're seen as the Second Coming of Steve Jobs.    Marketing!

Sennheiser MKH-416. No exceptions.

I find the OS on the Sig 17-50/2.8 to be designed for stills, it's much more grabby than the Canon version and doesn't have smooth pans. Also the focus wheel is crazy short and undamped. So I don't really recommend that lens for video although it does work and is lovely sharp with nearly L-glass level color. The Canon version is bigger but offers better pans, has more focus throw and smoother zoom throw and a touch more reach.   The best lens I think for you would be the new Sigma 18-35/1.8. Doesn't have OS but it has SPEED and sharpness and replaces a whole handful of primes for the APS-C/S35 format and under $800. You will just have a bit of trouble with HH shots, but when shooting wide it's not all that critical, you will need a good balanced shoulder rig of steadicam.

An awful lot of the photography sites are 100% idiotic. Credit to Andrew for calling them on it.