unadog

The overall issue, I think, is that a camera is a whole "ecosystem", basically the basis of your "Brand/Style/Look." Who you are, what you are "selling" to the client or marketplace. Going back to the 1DsII days again, I remember pro's that had been using the 1Ds complaining that it took them 1 year to find the "look" that they wanted with the the 1Ds. Damned if tehy were going to upgrade to a new camera, and have to spend another year just to find what they were looking for in the next camera ... (The 1DsII was the first camera that made me stop shooting 6x7 negative film on my Mamiya's: the first all around digital camera that was really **there** to do pro work. We do not have the equivalent DSLR video camera to that 2004 still camera yet - maybe within the next year?) That, to me, reflects the "ecosystem" from an artistic standpoint. It isn't auto focus, or frames per second, or AdobeRGB, or sRGB, or 8 bit or 12 bit, RAW or JPEG, in camera sharpening or post sharpening - IT IS ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, plus the photog/DP/director. We have to be just like other artists picking tools. Pick up a camera. Learn it. Find what you like - a color, the way it renders a certain blue, red, green. A sharpness or blur, the way it smears around the edges (Holga, old lenses, etc.) Build on that. Explore. Devise a project, mood, feel, look, esthetic. Learn the tool so that it becomes intuitive. I probably shot a minimum of 40,000 images a year on the 1DsII until I knew exactly what I wanted out of that camea, for my work, and exactly how to get it. You can use any camera currently out there if it accomplishes what you want to do. there is no one camera that is best for anything. The BMCC is a niche camera in many ways in the "DSLR" market. First - obviously - no stills! That is either: [indent=1]1) good,[/indent] [indent=1]2) bad, or[/indent] [indent=1]3) irrelevent. [/indent] For me, I bought the 5D3 recently mostly because I needed High ISO still images in low light. I also like the autofocus in low light for stills. So the question isn't: $3,000 for the BMCC, or $3,000 for the 5D3. It is: $3,000 for the 5D3, full stop. Then for video: Can I justify another $3,000 for video? Are the incremental improvements worth the depreciation of XXX per year ($1,000 first year, $450 second is my guess on the BMCC) Will I also need a full video camera like the FS100? XH-A1? Should I just buy one of those, and add the GH2? T4i? or the BMCC? What is the total cost of my video kit? Rambling - gotta run. I hope that reads OK. Michael

[quote name='Pierre_move' timestamp='1345801259' post='16390']And Canon producing a similar camera some day? Well yes of course.. the technology progresses, cpus get more powerfull, [/quote] I am not convinced that Canon has released their video-centric, pro-sumer follow-on to the 5D2 yet. The 5D3 is a really great, all around stills camera, with somewhat improved video (still probably the best all around DSLR video, with the D800 about/almost tied.) The T4i is a pretty nice, entry level stills camera, with about the same quality as the $8,000 1DsII from 2004, at 1/10 the price, $800. It has decent video, a few newer features that are first out of the gate on a Canon DSLR that will show up on later models - touch screen, face tracking, silent auto focus for video, integrated phase detection. But it is a consumer stills camera. The Canon EOS M mirror-less is for non-photogs explicitly (a repackaged T4i), although it will bed a nice form factor for video. The big question is whether Canon releases the Big MP Full Frame camera next this fall, because of the D800 (they have had one in test for years), or the little brother to the Canon 1DC, with all of the "free", firmware related features that they can put in, but fewer of the higher end, high priced features - processors, memory, bandwidth, etc. that cost real money. The BMC is a great idea. We all know that something like the 18MP chip in the $800 T3i/T4i, along with the dual Digic 4/5 processors in the now $1,100 Canon 7D, are **perfect** for video, if handled correctly: offloading of the sensor, downsampling, compression or not, HDMI out, codec, bit rate, etc. As a still photog, I have shot RAW+JPEG for 10+ years. RAW for most final images. JPEG in sRGB, Picture Style, Sharpened, etc. so that I can post 800 fashion images to the web within 3 hours of a shoot, for the models to review, so that they can learn what they look like, etc. Or so that I can throw 20+ top selcts right out of the camera to the web. We obviously don't have RAW yet. We need both! We need GREAT+ images, straight out of the camera, 99% baked and ready to use for the client & ourselves & for the web. We can't afford daily rushes and hours of processing every day when we are already workinhg 12 hours, and a good colorist/editor/tech is just as expensive as the DP. But we also need highest quality, malleable, 12 bit, high data rate files, for best "artistic" or "contemplative" work. It's coming. In bits and pieces from different directions. FS100, FS700, C300, C500, 1DC, BMCC, GH3, ..... Cheers! Michael

[quote name='Shawn_Lights' timestamp='1345779100' post='16362'] Going to have to disagree with you about the inside shots being ugly and the grain looking like digital. [/quote] Well, I come from a fashion photography background. The face was ugly, in both the RAW and the grade. I probably could not get beyond that. The lighting was harsh, deep furrows in the brow, etc. And that is not just a product of the resolution. The grain, well ... not sure what to say. Again, maybe my large format (4x5 or medium format), ISO 100 fashion background. It is hard to seperate the technical from the overall look. There is a lot that goes into a good image. I did love the look of Shot 3.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345762961' post='16345'] You are damned right they have a risk aversion. They probably even have an entire risk assessment department! [/quote] I think this is a product of the economics of a large corporation. I helped start a subsidiary for a Fortune 5 company in 1995 that we grew to 600 employees and a multi-billion dollar business. Then Corporate changed directions and shut that company down (repurposed the employees.) We VP's would have loved to buy the company and run it, we could have make a few million per year. But we would have been competing directly with the parent company, and they were looking for profit in the realm of $1 billion to $2 billion from each unit. They could care less if we were able to bring in $5 million or $10 million. It was totally irrelevant to them. It is the same thing here. Canon is looking for category leading products, in every market worldwide. They aren't going to devote scarce internal resources to a product that might sell 10,000 copies, when they have 3 others in the pipeline that will each deliver 150,000 to 2 million. It's a fact of life in a large company. I see so much emotion involved in this all over the web, every time a new camera comes out. It gets a bit tedious. A little morte professional and business analysis would be useful - there are reasons for thethings that happen, and Canon is still by far the largest camera company in the woprld. Us? Well ... by comparison ... not so much. ;>) I posted elsewhere, I had a Kodak 14n full frame 14 MP on pre-order at 3 places in 2002/2003 when it was first announced. It looked great on paper! Unfortunately, it had some issues when it first came out that limited it's use to 25 ISO, shots with no aliasing, moire, etc. They continued to tweak it over teh next 2 years, and some folks were able to make great images with that camera. Canon announced the 16 MP 1DsII about 6 months after the Kodak started to ship, released it 2 months after that. The 1DsII was a truly great all around camera. Perhaps still the best that I have ever used in some ways (out of 35+ cameras I have owned - Mamiya 7II, 645, 4x5, etc.) We will ghet trickle down of 12 bit, 4:4:2 and 4:4:4, RAW, Canon Log, uncompressed HDMI out from the 1DC, C300, C500 as the hardware becomes less expensive. There are also a lot of things that are firmware based. Hopefully either Canon or ML will deliver some of those this year yet. I actually am **hoping** that Canon has not yet released their "video centric" camera for this cycle. The 5D3 is obviosly a very core "photo centric" product. The T4i is an entry level product with some of the features that we will see on the next video DSLR. I hope that the rumoured "entry level" full frame camera that is expected this fall is more focused on video. Unfortunately, ther D800 may force Canon to release their high MP camera this fall, and defer on a video DSLR to winter or spring. Too many launches already in the wings. We will see ... Of course, we also have their camcorder division. Cheers! No offense meant, just my 2 cents. Michael

Thanks for sharing. The RAW and resolution are nice. I think it will be a great niche camera to start. I loved the look of the later image (Shot 3), where she is in the "window/porch" toward dusk with the dress. That grades well too. The interior images and the sparkler images are somewhat ugly. That worries me a bit. Sensor video look? Lighting? I will have to reserve judgement on that until I see more. I have to say that I really do not like the grain of these images. It looks very digital and is quite distracting to me. I don't know why so many seem so confused about sharpening and Canon files. I have owned just about every digital Canon since the D30 (not 30D.) Each camera has it's own, unique AA filter, and it's own requirements for sharpening to REVERSE the effects of the filter. Canon has always used a strong filter. This is the same thing that Nikon did in camera in the D800E. They left in the first AA filter, then immediately put in a "cross" AA filter to counteract it's effect. That is what you are doing in post. It is the first of 3 stages of sharpening ( 1: post capture; 2: creative - portrait, landscape; and 3: output - screen, broadcast, web, printer) I automatically apply USM (300, .9, 0) in Premiere Pro on an Adjustment Layer to counteract the AA filter. I have been doing a variation of this since 2004 with the 1DsII 16 MP sensor. Canon recommended (300, .3, 0) starting with that sensor. I think we are in the realm of "all around cameras" and "niche cameras" here. The BMC looks like it will be great for certain tasks and certain looks.