Oliver Daniel

Argh not this again.... I do shoot in XAVC-I, but like I've said before sometimes I've had to switch due to a lack of card space or because I'm comparing it to an XAVC-I shot for laughs. I've attached a shot here which I recorded at the end of a shoot. Cards were nearly out of space so just recorded some stuff for giggles - still properly lit and all that. Look at the wallpaper though. Slog3 with a bit of grading. XAVC-L. (XAVC-I doesn't do this). It can wrok in a lot of situations. Some of my shots look great and it grades pretty well. But it breaks. A lot. Sadly i can't share actual files because of the contracts.

I'm not going to comment every reply there, I'l just say they were informative and good to read. The whole thing is very subjective, and what technically doesn't work for one user is another user's creative holy grail. I've left shots in my work that are full of technical errors, but eh ... I got the shot yeah? I think my point with lighting is that many times people point their finger at the camera (ugly colour, loads of noise!!) when they haven't actually taken the steps to understand how to work with their tools. I can see what Alister is getting at by blaming the users with a tech-savvy explanation (regarding the FS5), however in this circumstance I know from experience using Sony cameras and their codecs that the fault is with Sony (poor XAVC-L codec). On the FS7, a perfectly exposed shot in XAVC-L will show hideous macro blocking on a magnolia painted walk, for example. I personally don't want to worry about things like that while shooting when I've done everything I can to expose the image and maximise technical quality. For that reason, the FS5 (currently) would drive me nuts.

I think it's more wise to choose your camera and stick with it. Ignore the other releases, it's just distracting (but a bit fun of course!). I spent a significant amount of funds on a new lighting setup, all battery operated. Lenses too. Both of these are much more important than the camera. Last much longer and have a bigger impact on the image (than a camera). If too much focus is going on operating the camera on a shoot, then things won't turn out so good. The real beauty happens when the tools become second nature and 99% of your attention is on the subject matter.

Well, seems like my experience on the FS7 with XAVC-L is indeed the same with the FS5! It's definitely the quality of the codec which is the offending element, as XAVC-L is pretty terrible on both cameras. I think Alister is a fantastic resource for Sony cameras, and I don't think he should be protecting the FS5 when the A7 cameras offer better codec performance for less money. I'm not a scientist or technician but.... I do think he is right about Slog and low light though. It's true you can get a smoother curve with Slog from shadows to highlights, however I picked up that Alister is reflecting on how much data is being thrown away in Slog in low light. You are stretching information in scenes where there is actually little information to record (such as very dark shadows) thus amplifying noise and artefacts. Squashed into an 8-bit codec. So it makes more sense to put this information on a gamma curve where more data can be recorded. A huge lack of understanding for many A7S enthusiasts is they think that scenes can be lit by just bumping up the ISO and shooting in Slog for higher dynamic range. They are just amplifying information that isn't there, which greatly affects colour rendition, resolution, noise etc. This is the reason for bucketloads of very poor footage from the camera on Vimeo. Instead of focusing attention on camera tech, more people should focus on how to use light. This alone is the single, biggest quality difference between one image to another. Many of us are forever chasing the resolution/bit rate/HFR race with ignorance towards more important pieces to the craft. Buy one body, learn it, stick with it and spend your other money and time on lighting/composition and how to use it.

When people try and be original, loads of people end up doing the same thing. I tend to think that originality just happens naturally. It's something unique that became unique on its own. As for trends, some people like to be part of something, and others just want to "fit in". Might be boring to be that way for some, but everyone is different.

I personally don't give a monkeys what anyone looks like. If you want to have a swirly beard, wear a banana suit, grow some horns and have a tail (or any kind of fashion combination) then that's fine by me. Let people be who they want to be

The FS5 is actually more appealing to me than the FS7 because of the brilliant ergonomics and vari-ND. The issues with the image I raised regarding with XAVC-L is on the FS7. Sometimes these reported issues are very very severe, no magnification required. I hope it's different on the FS5. (and I'm one of those shooters who doesn't give much of a crap about people peeping my pixels). The RAW output isn't here yet, it's like an unreleased camera, so nothing to judge from yet. I hope it's marvellous so I can buy one. The only major issues I've found with the A7S II is that Slog3 sucks in XAVC-S 8 bit 4:2:0. So I don't shoot with it. Life is good.

The codec is the single reason why the FS7 has much better performance. I rent it and on a few occasions I got 2 64gb cards in situations where data dumping was nigh on impossible. That said, I've had some great results with XAVC-L. Just not enough, unless Tetris style highlights is your thing! That's what I love about the E-mount. Whipping out all sorts of glass and observing all those different looks. It's absolutely staggering how much the lenses affect the image quality and characteristics. It's the main reason I hated the RX10 II - the lens (expectedly sterile as hell). Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 + A7SII is a favourite right now. Love it.

For these reasons: - To see the difference compared to XAVC-I. - When there hasn't been enough card space for XAVC-I. On the Ebrahim vs Andrew debate: - Canon C cameras are awesome. They are popular for a reason. The focus peaking and usability is BY FAR the best I've used on any camera. - Sony have more bang for buck such as HFR/10bit. Great to see them innovating. - Canon cameras are underwhelming but work amazingly well. Sony's are spec monsters but need a year to mature. Depends what's important to you? - The FS5 is not a cinema camera (yet). - No camera makers are crappy or garbage etc. Just different. It's great to have choice and see what works for your style.

The ergonomics and features-set of this camera are near perfect for my kind of work. I cancelled my Ursa Mini 4.6k not only because of a change in working preferences, but because I wouldn't be able to use the camera with ANY of my grip equipment. (I still want it though! Haha). The FS5 seems like a great cousin to the A7S II and A7R II. Although I've used the FS7 many times this year, the bulk of the camera and the compatible grip equipment really does hurt to the point I now have to properly exercise my back. Not that the FS7 is particularly heavy, after a few hours you really start to feel it. Hard. My setup is much more portable now. Got some Lupolux Dual LEDs (v-lock powered) and a Scorpion Light Kit (which I fully recommend. Amazing kit!). Smaller cameras are a much better fit as its much more liberating. Loving the A7SII in particular. Andrew highlighted this in the review regarding the macro blocking issues in XAVC-L. When using it on the FS7, the issues are very very severe: - Heavy macro blocking, above the mids in particular. - Macro blocking in skin tones under mixed lighting. Blotchy/ugly. (Fine under controlled lighting). - Terrible blocky quality with fine textures (hair) or moving particles (steam/smoke). - Tearing/smearing of fine edges and reflective items. Purple fringey smudge look. -Colour blotches/pixelation in when lighting colour is mixed. (Such as tungsten with a blue kick on the edge of the face. Anything stylised is problematic). - Exceptionally noisey in Slog, especially when using HFR. Noise is INSANE in slo-mo Slog! - Captures audio 4 frames out of sync with footage. (Doesn't happen in XAVC-I). - Some very heavy aliasing on thin, fine details. (Like a steel fence). I'm not sure if these issues are as strong on the FS5, but as it stands it's a deal breaker. XAVC-L, in my experience, is absolute garbage. I'd like to see how the camera footage performs with external recording. The RAW upgrade sounds cool. But having a 7Q+ on top of the FS5 kinda defeats the object doesn't it? It would be ace to have a smaller version, like Atomos do with the Ninja Star. I'm looking forward to your review and seeing how this camera progresses. If XAVC-L is fixed/bypassed efficiently - I'm a confirmed customer!

I've spoken many times on this forum about issues with the XAVC-L codec. I've used it vastly on the FS7. In a nutshell, it's rubbish. Macroblocking and tearing is severe, especially in the higher luma range. Very severe. The XAVC-S on the A7S II seems much better. Isn't this codec supposed to be worse than XAVC-L? This codec on the FS5 is a massive deal breaker for an otherwise interesting camera. A firmware update to XAVC-I would make it an absolute mini beast, but we know that's not going to happen!

I made a mistake and bought the RX10 II because I was impressed by the "specs". I had the camera for 2 months and hated it. Only recently I played with the C300 again. Specs are "bad", but the image and usability is fantastic. Love the C300.

Proof in the pudding that "specs" don't mean much. We've probably all seen it.. but this was shot on a GH3.

I've got the DJI Ronin-M. I'd describe it as a very sexy girlfriend who you have lots of arguments with. It's a bit too heavy for long use. Works really well with the A7S II IBIS with 24-70 f4, pretty much eliminates the bounce. Thumb controller is ok. Had a BeSteady before (now the ACR Plus). Very nice organic movement (actually better than the Ronin for that), but would regularly act like a dying crab. The pistol grip is definitely the way forward, but the market needs to mature first. Bit too early. Blackmagic Micro would be a very interesting camera on a pistol grip! Everyone will have these in a few years - of course it will all come down to creativity.

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this.

Most "tests" are terrible. This camera is obviously a powerhouse imaging device and will be spectacular in the right hands. I cancelled my pre-order as I needed to spend my cash on a camera system that was working now for next lot of work. Sure I'll be re-visiting a purchase mid-2016, if it ever gets released!

I enjoyed it, however, I'm finding myself getting less and less impressed with mega blockbusters, no matter how good the visual effects wizardry is. I think I'll put this down to desensitisation. Most mega blockbusters have the same plot. Get a team of people together to beat evil, lose throughout the film, and win at the last second, just as everything blows up. Again. I find myself much preferring the Netflix Marvel series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones) above their mega big budget siblings. There's a lot more story and risk to enjoy. They feel more real. Despite my blockbuster grumblings, Star Wars Ep. 7 was very well done and it's great to see vulnerability in all the characters, and plenty of humour. Everyone sounds and looks ridiculous...probably my favourite thing about Star Wars. It makes the prequels look absolutely shockingly dire.

I've lost count at how many family/friends TV sets I've "fixed". Quite recently I walked into a friends house and they were watching the Walking Dead. My first reaction was "why does it look so cheap"? and within 5 seconds I picked up the remote and turned off that awful "Tru Motion" thing. As if by magic, The Walking Dead didn't look cheap anymore - it was looking great. Nobody in the room noticed the difference untilI I switched it to compare. "You are a genius!" they said. Erm... To be honest, it absolutely bamboozles me why the TV manufacturers have this hideous setting on as default. It's as if they are trying to programme our minds to watch things differently. But it's just not right. Like the Hobbit in 48fps... it's horrible. The magic is gone. The magic of natural, seamless 24fps is timeless. It works. It doesn't need altering. The TV manufacturers need to stop.

I don't know why FCPX continues to be bashed. It's an absolutely incredible editing program, very intuitive, very fast and greatly supported by third party software (plugins etc).

My God, that Aurora website and logo is like a spoof of 80's/90's graphic design.

One thing that others haven't picked up here is music videos. How many do you do? The 240fps 10bit on the FS5 is a huge feature that music video clients LOVE. Huge selling point. Plus the 10 bit is super useful for Chroma Key. The FS5 partners well to the A7S II for multi-cam. Canon doesn't really have an answer for a C-series b-cam, apart from the limited but lovely picture of the XC10. I've not used the C100, only the C300. That camera is the best camera I've used for docu-style by an absolute mile.

We all obviously live in different worlds. Having the best gear does NOT make you a professional. The thing that makes you a professional is getting the required job done to an excellent standard, always. I built my business is on DIY lighting, a few Canon FD lenses and a cheap DSLR. I recently used a £5 "shitty" zoom lens on a decent budget music video shoot, because that lens was the best choice for the shot. The job was still professional, no matter what tools I used. I made the right decision, and that's what professionals do. I find on most sets that a lot of stuff is knocked together with duct tape, garbage bags and pieces of string. It doesn't matter what you use - the thing that matters is the final result. That's all people care about. An example... this particular shoot was shot with a GH3 and a few cheap vintage primes. The shot looking down over the cross shape was pulled off by sticking the GH3 on some rods, pulled against a pipe on the ceiling with a piece of string. The string was then tied to a suitcase on the ground with bricks in it, to keep the camera fixed and steady. No optical or electronic stabilisation used whatsoever. We had an idea and pulled it off by using whatever we could find. In the end, the solution was effective and the audience would never know. It doesn't make us any less of a professional when the end result doesn't say otherwise.

Most of the tests we see of cameras is usually bushes, trees, buildings and other inanimate objects. Not many actual faces or lighting, because that's a lot of effort isn't it? I also like to see cameras performing at their best, under great lighting conditions, actual faces and thought-out compositions. That's why my "camera tests" are actual shoots. I just thrown them in straight away and see what happens. The Raven is an obvious powerhouse of a machine, capable of wonderful images. The reel shows that, so job done

Since when did Speedboosters become amateur? That's like saying contact lenses are for lazy people.

Have you tried the Sony A7S II with any of the Sony/Zeiss OSS lenses? I've got a 24-70 f4 and it's very good with the 5-axis. It's like a shit steadicam. Works beautifully on the Ronin-M and eliminates the "bounce". I'm in agreement with you regarding the handling. The placement of the menu button is very frustrating, and the menu's themselves are a mess. I dropped the RX10 II because it was "soulless". The features are great, but using the camera was very boring and rather sterile. Aesthetically emotionless. That said, the A7S II is almost an ultimate video artists tool. Adapting all those lenses in full frame is magnificent.