nathanleebush

Am I wrong or do the sample images not look substantially less noisy than the A7s? http://www.filmanddigitaltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NYC-Night-51.2K_ISO.png

The Canon 1D C has too much going against it, despite the nice image/color. Those absurdly massive files, bulky form factor, price, and lack of EVF are deal breakers for me. Not to mention still image quality, which is using Canon's outdated (even at the time) sensors. I think it's slightly disingenuous to compare the used price of a three year old camera to the new price of a new piece of tech, with all the latest bells and whistles.

This could be huge! I've been collecting a lot of old Nikon glass, so this certainly would help with the breathing problems I've found with them, as well as the focus direction problem. I'm a little confused about a couple things. First, how do you attach it? Does it attach via step up rings to a fixed filter thread? Also a bit confused as to how it prevents focus breathing on lenses that otherwise have it. Also, does it similarly create a long focus throw quality to focus-by-wire lenses?

​That would certainly make sense, but I think all the working professionals would be annoyed at having to learn a new system and it would also remove a certain barrier to entry that is perhaps beneficial to industry folks, both stills and video. Just a theory, but could this confusion actually have some sort of economic reasoning? I personally have spent years wrapping my head around these concepts, so it gives me a slight edge over noobs. Not defending the practice, but anything that presents a competitive advantage in these crowded markets is useful for me, personally.

It's always strange to me that people rarely acknowlege the massive step backwards we've taken with digital for convenience. That's not to say I'm not 100% on board with digital because of said convenience, but the image quality seems inferior and not just from a subjective sense of the "look" of film. It seems fair to say that large format cameras from a century ago produced images with more dynamic range and just more (well this is subjective) 'character' than anything digital we have now under $50,000. It's a pretty simple concept, more area on a sensor/negative will always translate to greater color information and dynamic range, right? I've also heard it said from a film fetishist I know that the way light hits the film plane is very different than it hits the photosites on a sensor, and in his mind, reacts in a more organic way for this reason. Maybe someone with more technical knowledge than me can comment on this? At the limits of my depth here. Ten years ago in college, I shot medium format film with a rangefinder not much bigger than a Fujifilm X-Pro1. The negative was many multiples the sensor size of the X-Pro 1, and I think it's safe to say we're a long way off from Mamiya 7ii sized medium format digital cameras, for any price (though I'd imagine if one did come out it would be in car price territory). That said, I'd still choose an X-Pro 1 today for the convenience of cheap, massive cards and the ability to preview the image and reshoot without stressing about the cost of the film and the post headache (developing/digitizing). Also, with film all but dead, the post costs for working with film are insane. I can also get close enough to the look of film in post that the tradeoffs in IQ are worth it, not to mention that people are rarely going to see a high res version of the file, let alone a massive print.

​Love this detailed explanation. These do a real service for all of us, so thanks. I had the angle of view concept, but have always been a bit confused about how to multiply to find the DOF equivalent, so that's very helpful. It makes you realize that a big part of the equation is how well these cameras perform wide open or in that vicinity, since most lenses generally have a sharpness sweet spot in the middle of their range, but to get an decently shallow DOF on these 1" sensors you need to be shooting pretty open, so need a good performance from the lens wide open. This all exacerbates my main complaint about the weak ND the RX100 IV comes with. I'd love to shoot these pretty well open, but .3 ND does not allow for that at all in bright daylight. You can maybe get away with F/11. It's a shame they didn't make it .6 or .9 or even 1.2. Very confused about the choice by Sony the first go round, but that they kept it for the RX100 IV is baffling. Am I crazy here? What is the point of that weak ass ND?

​Well, Super 35 is roughly APS-C. APS-C is actually a 90s film size Kodak tried to introduce as an amateur alternative to 35mm film. But then digital cameras came out, and APS was adopted by early advanced digital cameras because it was so expensive to make large sensors.

Can anyone link to some specific cards that work for 4K capture? I figured I'd need one of the super fast ones the GH4 uses, but was able to get 4K using my friend's 80MB/s card. My 95MB/sec card doesn't work though. Also, does it have to be SDXC over SDHC? My understanding was that the difference between these two is capacity, not speed. Anyway, loving the 4K footage I've been getting from my RX100 Mk IV. And S-Log2 .. praise jeebus! Used it as the A Cam over my A7s on a Vogue Taiwan makeup tutorial I did, so the editor can crop into the footage when outputting to 1080p. I love this camera in almost every way, but do have a few complaints: Size bump over my (recently deceased) Mark II. That extra couple millimeters makes a ton of difference when pocketing this thing. I get that it's a lot more impressive in so many ways, from the lens to the EVF, but size is ultimately the reason I'm buying the RX100 over, say, the RX10: a carry everywhere camera as well as a capable B cam. I find I'm carrying it around my wrist rather than in my pocket because it's tricky to wrangle out, which kind of defeats the purpose.ND3 is not powerful enough. Why not ND6 instead? When I'm often in a bind and need to use it (midday light), ND3 doesn't cut it. In midday light I can maybe shoot with the aperture completely stopped down, which gives it that shitty infinity focus video look anyway. Limits the flexibility.I have the function menu and other function buttons maximally assigned, but there's almost not enough to not have to pop into the menu system more than I want to. Wish there was one more dial or button.Flash on my Mk II was a lot cooler looking. This seems like it was designed to be more flattering and more of a fill flash, but I like the harsh quality of the old one. Gave me that Terry Richardson/Yashica T4 look that I liked. This could be wrong, but my first impressions are that the image stabilization is not as impressive in 4K as the 1080p in my Mk II.. No idea why. Maybe it has to process so much more data? But I think the footage on my Mk II was super stabile compared to this.

This camera is quite possibly the most hubristic camera-spec-to-price-point camera Canon have ever released. I also think it's hilarious that they even mention the stills 'functionality' in the marketing. Chuck says "It can really do a credible job as either a video or a stills camera, depending on the needs of the user or the project." Uhhh, what? Unless you're a mom at a soccer game, I fail to see how 12mp JPEGs coming off a 1" sensor from a slow fixed lens will meet any photographer's needs. The whole spectacle is really absurd. Meanwhile Blackmagic announce the URSA Mini with basically every spec I desire outside of internal NDs at a base price only $500 more. It's really fascinating to watch how long you can milk brand loyalty and lens ubiquity before people wake up that you're selling the same thing for 3 times the price, while your competitor (BM) undercuts everyone else by half with almost 1/100th the manpower.

Love these monitor reviews.. keep em coming!

God it looks so beautiful.. If it comes in at a reasonable weight and VF price it will be exactly what I've been looking for. I might be high from the 15 hour shoot today, but I'm pretty sure this will be my next camera. Slow clap BM.. stealing the show for a third year in a row.

Uggh totally. We live in such an offended culture these days, where you have to apologize to just about any group that might have possibly had their feelings hurt. The American left has completely succumbed to this identity politics in a bid for votes. It's putting rational people in a bit of a bind, as the American right has become batshit crazy and lost any relationship to reality or science. But the left, which once had a set of proactive ideas and values, now just stands for aggrieved masses who feel they are owed the world and uniquely entitled to never feel slighted. I remember the same politically correct 'multi kulti' bullshit when I lived in Berlin a decade ago.

Oh man, this is such a bummer. It seemed like we were so close to the perfect camera (of the moment) by getting stabilization taken care of. I'm back to looking seriously at the Movi M5, but like you I like to just be out and discover shots, so I'm looking for the most portable carry everywhere solution. And I would love great stabilized video for when I'm traveling around Asia, so an M5 isn't really realistic for that kind of extended backpacking work. Hopefully they can get it sorted for the A7s II video implementation.

Is the stabilization similar in quality to the 5 axis stabilization on the Olympus OM-D cameras?

I'm a little confused about where this is in the development process. Is this a concept or do they have a functioning prototype which we can expect on the market in a couple years? Sometimes companies like to just drum up press (or distract from negative press) with pie in the sky concepts, like when Amazon announced its drone shipping concept when that is pretty much a fantasy at this point, or when Canon did a "camera of the future" concept a few years back which was like a science fiction vision of 20 years down the road. I'll also add that Sony is killing it bringing these cutting edge technologies to the masses, and finally starting to give us decent ergonomics to go with them. I tried the FS7 at PhotoPlus a couple weeks back and was blown away by that camera. C300 killer.

I'm loving my A7s as well. Sweet video.. I wonder, though, if the A7s is necessary for this kind of work. It seems to be a retro throwback, and you were looking to achieve a vintage music video look and make it look more like video. I think the best thing to do is just use the technology of that time to achieve that look, insofar as you can. Like my friend shot a music video in 8mm film and I was like "how did you get that 8mm vintage look?" And she was like "Uh, I used an 8mm vintage camera." Here's a music video I shot a couple years back using the FS700 (didn't have control of color or post, but many of the effects we achieved in camera anyway).

Well said.. It's fascinating to watch Nikon just refuse to do anything really but incrementally update their lines. There seems to be no grand vision or appetite for risk taking. Well I guess the 1 system is a risk, but not aimed at me, or seemingly anyone (moms who need 60fps photos?). I was a Nikon user a few years ago and got (back) into video through my D90, and stuck by them for a while, until it became clear they were just not going to innovate. Then I moved on to Panasonic and mostly Sony gear, both companies luring me over with bold redesigns and aggressive feature sets. The one thing I would slightly disagree with is the viewfinder being categorically inferior on DSLRs. Electronic viewfinders are making rapid strides and are right for many people, and certainly anyone doing video. And undoubtedly the day will come when we'll be looking at 20k pixel viewfinders where the eye can literally not resolve anymore detail. But Nikon seems just completely committed to the photographer's experience above all else, and mirrorbox optical viewfinders still have an advantage in terms of clarity. You're literally looking at the world directly when you look through an OVF. By choosing the EVF you are foregoing that directness advantage for the usefulness you mentioned: critical focus, information displays, exposure preview (though I've noticed it's not exactly WYSIWYG). But for straight photographers, the optical viewfinder is still hard to beat. I guess Fuji has the ultimate all in one with its hybrid technology, though you're still not looking through the lens with the OVF there. But ultimately your point stands. I'm immensely happy with my A7s, and rarely feel like I'm getting an inadequate experience looking through that viewfinder, and the filmmaking advantage is just phenomenal. Now if there were just more lenses (can't wait to hear your thoughts on the cine lens they just announced).

I think the ergonomics, massive native lens library, and relatively minor rolling shutter are another huge advantage on the GH4s side. But that's why this is a frustrating scenario.. too many great, and competing qualities for both cameras!

Looking at this a second time. Despite all it's limitations in very basic functionality, the image out of the BMPCC is still mind-bogglingly good. It strikes me as the most filmic of them all in this test. It's amazing that it's now $500. You're basically buying a sensor in a box, since the user experience is so godawful. But at that price, who can complain?

Thanks for the great first part of the review.. been waiting with bated breath all week! Looks like I was right to order one. Question: what is the workflow like shooting at 3200 all the time? My understanding is S-Log 2 only works at 3200 and above? Did you use NDs? Were you able to achieve shallow depth of field in the middle of the day? I've got a six stop variable ND but not sure how much flexibility six stops would give me in bright light. I'd love to see a video comparison of non-S-Log vs S-log, to see if it is such a compromise as to be unusable. It seems like the lack of LUT monitoring in camera and the high ISO requirement would severely limit the functionality of S-Log 2. Also, what's your take on Sony's 35mm FE mount lens? I'm looking to use this as a travel photo and filmmaking tool, and I like that lens for its size and it's AF compatibility. Obviously for video I dislike its lack of OIS, but it seems like an okay compromise for the size advantage for me, plus with the high quality crop mode, the lens could switch between a 35 and 50mm, which is a nice combo for my shooting. Finally, I'd just like to note something I see but find it hard to describe. It's the subtle video-looking quality in movement that is probably a symptom of rolling shutter. I notice it in the movement of the woman around 4:40 on both cameras. Just a general, hard-to-describe warbly, cheap quality to the movement that feels uncinematic. I notice it on most DSLR footage, so I'm assuming it's a symptom of rolling shutter rendered in micro. Can't wait for them to resolve this problem. I feel like the look and feel of motion is not given it's due in reviews, generally. Everyone's obsessed with moire and banding, but the movement issue is just as distracting for me, visually. Only a true global shutter could resolve it, but a software solution like Andrew mentioned last week that Sony's got in the works would be great, too.

OK Go, the band that only exists because of its capacity to make gimmicky viral videos.

Beautiful. Your work is really taking off in these last two videos. You've got a very filmic result with your post processing here. I'm also into letting the shadows go these days. Check out my insta: @nathanleebush

The 1080p image quality gains from a 4K GH4 file are well documented, but I've got a basic workflow question to extract the maximum IQ from my 4K files destined for FullHD output: I've got a basic two cam interview I shot with the GH4. I'm wondering how to maximize the extra information when outputting to 1080p. Will I have equal sharpness and color information gains if I edit on a 1080p timeline and output to 1080p as if I edit on a 4K timeline and output to 1080p? Is it the same effect in the end?

Wow, this is very helpful. Thanks!

I don't think the BMPC was meant as the kind of camera you'd lose your job over. If there's a budget, you'd maybe grab one as a b or c cam and probably not think twice about rigging it to the bumper of a car. It's schizophrenic for sure, with its pro codecs and IQ while also having massive gaping functionality holes, but for $1,000 I'll take what I can get. You're right though, these easy firmware fixes have been delayed far too long. But considering how tiny the company is, I'm always amazed at their output.