nigelbb

I suspect that Nikon & Canon just got the same answers from the extensive marketing research & focus groups that these vast corporations use to find out what consumers really want.

The 30 minute recording limit is a business decision made by Panasonic to avoid paying the 4.9% European import duty on camcorders. It makes precious little difference to the retail price but as in common with all the other DSLRs & SLTs the vast majority of the sales will to people for whom video is either not a consideration or of minimal interest Panasonic prefer to have the price slightly lower.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1347623824' post='17972']The GH2 would have been awful were it not for the hack SO Two major concerns.[/quote]That is total crap. The video image using the standard firmware is very decent indeed especially V1.1 that enabled 24/p25p at 24Mbps. There are plenty of people using the GH2 without any hacks as the image is plenty good enough & it doesn't hang/freeze & need the battery pulled to reboot it.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1347377497' post='17776']It's a bit of a lost cause, when the 550D and 600D have much better image quality through ML2.3, and 7D support hasn't even begun.[/quote]I thought that the image quality of all the Canon APS-C sensor DSLRs was the same. They are using the same sensor after all & Magic Lantern is more about improving functionality than anything else (unlike the GH2 hack which doesn't alter functionality at all).

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1347317501' post='17735']The U2711 and Cinema Display are both high end displays, they are a big leap in terms of resolution, contrast and colour from your average monitor.[/quote]The Apple Cinema Display & the Dell UltraSharp U2711 apparently use the same panel. The Thunderbolt version is neat as it is effectively a docking station for your MacBook with 3xUSB ports a FW800 port GB Ethernet port and a Thunderbolt port for daisy-chaining.

[quote name='Philip Bloom' timestamp='1347210080' post='17646']sorry that you don't really know my work or consider me a DP. Each to their opinion. Doesn't matter than 99.9% of my work is lit. Often in complicated ways but I guess you my work more than I do! :)[/quote]Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting & obviously I have got the wrong idea of your work from 5D2 pieces like "Sofia's People", "Cherry Blossom Girl", "San Francisco's People", Skywalker Ranch" etc; C300 work like "Le Mont, La Pluie et La Nuit: The beauty of Le Mont St Michel" or even stuff you did with the Letus adaptor like "Return to Dungeness". All of which I assumed just used available light but maybe they all involve subtle & complicated additional lighting that is just very natural looking. You have a great eye for an image & I am a big admirer of your work. Your popularising the 'film look' first with 35mm adaptors & latterly with DSLRs has been an inspiration to us all.

The good thing about Phillip Bloom's work is while he is an excellent camera operator & has a great eye for an image he is no DoP so most all of his work just uses available natural light. Contrast this with the super-slick professional demo piece 'Afterglow' from John Brawley on the the BMCC involving 1.2K HMI lights, reflectors & flags & a even a Steadicam operator all designed to make the image from the camera look as good as possible. Philip's Naked Cinematographer approach is the opposite of the latest Zacuto Shootout where the best DoP wins rather than demonstrating what the camera can do without any outside help.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1346849922' post='17362']Not sure about investing in EF-S as opposed to EF, just because it's limiting in a way, but it depends how you think you may use it in future.[/quote]The Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 is one of the very few EF-S lenses that it's really worth investing in. Optically it's very good but the build quality is very plasticky & not up to the weatherproofing of an 'L' lens. The Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 is the only other EF-S lens that's really worth it. It probably would be better to invest in full frame lenses but you need these two lenses to get wide end for the APS-C sensor as there is no full frame equivalent. The former is like a 24-70mm on a full frame while the Tokina is like a 16-35mm.

[color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]When I bought my Canon 600D I went cheap & bought the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC instead of the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS as it was half the price of the Canon lens. The IS was really noisy, the AF was slow, you need to slide the switch from AF to MF when manually focusing or you fight the AF motor & worst of all [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]the focus & zoom rings rotate the wrong (Nikon) way[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]. There were other things that bugged me that I don't recall now but the Canon lens is just so much better that it is easily worth the money even if it did cost more than the camera. The optics of the Tamron were OK but everything else was so irritating that I would have been cursing my meanness every time that I used it if I hadn't returned[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)] the Tamron the very next day & bought the [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS EF-S.[/background][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]The Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS is a really fab lens for any of the Canon APS-C DSLRs. It is very sharp, has fast AF plus very quiet & effective IS. It's the lens that I use most of the time on my C300.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='XXX' timestamp='1346336854' post='16963'] BTW can anyone point me to some videos putting the C300 in good use?[/quote]Philip Bloom mostly uses the C300 now. He most recently filmed the Adidas advert with the team GB Olympians lip-synching with it http://philipbloom.net/2012/08/12/teamgb/

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1346263607' post='16859'] Yeah. I'm pretty sure the Kineraw kills it for $6300. Comparable price range and what not, What's funny is, people are buying these Canons up left and right. It's crazy. C300 $16,000 ....... Scarlet X (raw) $16,000 C500 $30,000 ....... Red One MX $25,000 5Dmk3 $3500 ....... Blackmagic Cinema Cam. $3000 C100 $6-8000? .... Kineraw S35 $6300 I guess it's just loyalty at this point. [/quote]There are plenty of reasons apart from loyalty e.g. having a worldwide spares & service support organisation is a major consideration for many.

It's a great looking camera & very likely to be used by professionals instead of a DSLR. We currently use a C300 plus a couple of 5D3s but will probably get a C100 when they ship. If the C100 is good enough we might even sell the C300 & 5D3s & just use three C100s instead. However there are a whole load of people using a GH2 or 550D/T2i or 600D/T3i who are never going to be in the market for an $8000 camera.

As it happens I do own a C300. It's not so expensive for what it is & a lot cheaper than a 2/3" Panasonic P2 broadcast camera. It's complete & self-contained ready to go out of the box (just add lens, battery, microphone & CF cards) to deliver HD footage ready for broadcast. Don't be misled by the hoo-hah regarding RAW. The Alexa shoots RAW but most people evidently shoot ProRes with it. I am sure that the BMC will be a lovely little camera & very suitable for time-rich but cash-poor filmmakers who have been making do with DSLRs but the C300 is in a different league with regard to ergonomics, ease of use & the ability to quickly deliver the finished product. I had a BMC on order but cancelled & got my deposit returned. I was caught up in the hoop-lah along with everybody else when it was announced but in the cold light of day I have come to realise that practical difficulties of using a BMC (both shooting & in post) outweighed the advantages. We shoot events & a C300 backed up with 5D3s is a better fit for what we do. If I wasn't earning money from video work but just filming stuff for my own amusement then a C300 would be seen an outrageous extravagance (although still less than the price of a nice car) whereas a BMC at about 1/5 the price could be justified.

or even edited C300 footage let alone actually shot with a C300?

[quote name='moebius22' timestamp='1346068213' post='16599']The GH2 gives you better image quality and better lens adaptability than the Canon[/quote]The GH2 gives you a different image quality whether that is better or not depends on personal taste. It certainly has a bit more resolution but lacks dynamic range & doesn't have such nice colour rendition. I prefer the colour & look from the larger sensor. The lens choice for Canon is still very wide as while you cannot use Micro Four Thirds lenses you can use just about any manual 35mm lens except ironically Canon FD lenses (last made about 20 years ago).

The BEST quality imaging HD camera for making films below £12,000 is the C300.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345824305' post='16421'] That it has a soft image requiring work in post isn't the only problem people have with the 5D3. 5D3 sits on my desk in front of me. It is soft. Yes it does sharpen up a bit in post. But still not as much resolving power as a $700 GH2. The codec on the FS100 is better. I could go on...[/quote]You choose to ignore the point that I made that straight out of the camera the 5D3 is no softer than the 5D2. It doesn't have the moire & aliasing of the 5D2 either. With a bit of sharpening in post it looks even better. It doesn't necessarily require work in post as it's all a matter of taste. All these cameras have good & bad points. The soft look of the 5Ds can either good or bad depending on the shot. The GH2 has horrible ergonomics & the FS100 isn't a shining example either unless you are used to the overcomplicated fussiness of Sony cameras covered with little buttons. The 5D3 is a perfectly decent camera for shooting video. It is in all ways better than the 5D2 that everyone knows & (mostly) loves. I don't care if the image out of the GH2 has a higher resolution as people don't look as nice as they do when filmed with a 5D2/5D3.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345816296' post='16407'] How is it different ergonomically to a DSLR?[/quote]A DSLR is designed to be handheld with a sculpted body & handy rubberised bits to grip. This BMCC is shaped like a small toaster with zero attention to ergonomics.

That the 5D3 has a woefully soft image is just a stupid Internet myth promulgated by people who haven't used the camera. The image straight out of the camera it is no softer than the 5D2 that most everyone loves. Add a bit of sharpening in post & it looks better than the 5D2. It's not usually possible to add sharpening in post to the 5D2 due to aliasing problems.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1345708121' post='16272']I don't think any one said that the BMCC has better "Resolution" then a 5D.[/quote]In the blog entry Andrew in fact wrote "Resolution is superb. Best I have ever seen for the price. Better than the C300 and better than the GH2." I seriously doubt that BMCC has better resolution than the C300.

[quote author=evil_thought2 link=topic=621.msg4890#msg4890 date=1335772052] well, what happened to 5d3, gh2, and fs100 comparison that you were going to post? [/quote]The exercise would be pointless as removing the OLPF does not improve resolution of the 5D3. Barry Green's analysis of resolution charts shows no extra resolution just false detail i.e. aliasing which is what you would expect from removing an antialiasing filter. It actually screws up the camera even more by adding a pink/red cast to the image from IR pollution. Here is a link to the analysis http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278918-Canon-5d-mark-iii-improved-olpf-removed-for-higher-resolution&p=1986135028&viewfull=1#post1986135028 Presumably those who damaged their cameras by removing the OLPF are either keeping quiet because they are embarrassed to have been fooled or desperately trying to fit the OLPF back into the camera :)

The downloadable file is not as I expected the raw .MOV file off the camera but as I see from running exiftool it's been processed by Premiere Pro. The only part of this static frame actually in focus is a small portion over on the left. There is a pronounced pink/red colour cast. Apart from the colour cast it looks no different than I would expect from any 5D3 or 5D2 in bright sunshine. If it's meant to demonstrate improved resolution it's a very poor example.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=561.msg3687#msg3687 date=1334106663] [quote author=jcs link=topic=561.msg3677#msg3677 date=1334104382] [quote author=moebius22 link=topic=561.msg3673#msg3673 date=1334103053] Wait till somebody figures out they can do this for money. [/quote] $450 USD + shipping (includes optical replacement glass): http://maxmax.com/IRCameraConversions.htm [/quote] A service like that [i]could[/i] be a solution for many people here. It is worth the price if they can do the 5D Mark III, and do it right. I'd enquire and explain the situation with a link back to this article. [/quote]Over on dvxuser there is a report from someone who has had their OLPF professionally removed by www.maxmax.com His verdict -  "So far, I am a bit underwhelmed." "The difference in resolution is negligible" "Camera works fine, no aliasing to speak of but also very little gain in sharpness" "right now I'm unimpressed." http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278918-Canon-5d-mark-iii-improved-olpf-removed-for-higher-resolution&p=1986130831&viewfull=1#post1986130831

It's more than a couple of weeks since there was any update here & I just saw a posting on dvxuser from someone who has had his 5D3 professionally modified by www.maxmax.com. His verdict? "The difference in resolution is negligible" http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278918-Canon-5d-mark-iii-improved-olpf-removed-for-higher-resolution&p=1986130831&viewfull=1#post1986130831 Please Andrew can you update us on your results. Are you still convinced that this surgery improves resolution? Are there any drawbacks (aside from voiding the warranty)?