IronFilm

i'm a wedding photographer/videographer! Simon's "entry level" comment has a lot of truth in it. All you need to do to start weddings is borrow your friend's handicam. Or borrow a DSLR and call yourself a "cinematographer".
But I think it's worth noting -- at the high end, ie guys who are charging $20k+ a wedding, they're often still using 5DMk3s, though they might own C100s, C300s and Red cameras.
In terms of DSLR vs proper video camera, well, there's a number of advantages DSLRs give you -- low-light, discreet, full frame and shallow depth, requires easier gear (lower end steadicams, lighter tripods) and gives you the ability to buy nine of them if you have to for multicam coverage on a ceremony (though, usually, people won't use more than 3-5).
In terms of which DSLR, Canon vs the rest, well some companies actually do use one or more 1DC cameras... For the rest of us, a7s is probably the best DSLR, but one huge advantage of a Mk3 is that the ML hack lets you record past 30 minutes, which is a surprisingly big deal. Otherwise, if you have a lot of cameras to mind, you find yourself running around pressing record over and over, instead of shooting.

Value for money wise and besides the small size of this camera why will someone spend $7999 on this camera instead of the $7999 on a Sony Fs7 if video is primarily what you shoot?

​Wow Ebrahim, that sounds pretty radical! Isnt it a good idea to wait and see whats coming in the next days/weeks??
For me no matter how good the image is and how low the price is lack of flipscreen/touchscreen, peaking, live histogram and IBIS would make me think twice, not that I need all of them but for the high price I think the 1DC still leaves quite a lot of boxes unticked.

Any thoughts on doing a shoot out... 1DC (Log) v NX1 (DR Gamma)?

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings? As if you can't be an artist and also make money (a lot, in fact) with a not-necessarily-as-artistic job that just so happens to sharpen your skills as a shooter. Shooting weddings has allowed me to quit my shitty, irrelevant part-time day jobs and focus way more on my art since I can make the same amount of money in 1/5 of the time. So yeah, shooting a wedding might not stimulate my creative side quite as much as, say, an abstract non-narrative documentary, but at least I'm getting some damn good shoulder rig and glidecam practice during those 8-10 hours. Does that strip me of the title of cinematographer or artist? Or do those terms only apply when I'm actually working on an 'actual' film?
mtheory - you mentioned working on a commercial as an accepted use of the word 'cinematographer.' Where's the cinema in that? Sure, I'll admit that there's definitely more creative leeway, but you're still just selling something. A wedding and a commercial can both be infused with some strong creativity. They can just as easily be flat and boring, like the days when 'wedding video' meant shooting to VHS with lots of slow zooms and awful dissolves on every cut. By the way, if you can figure out a way to think creatively during a boring wedding, then you're probably going to fare well when you actually have some interesting content on your plate.
Ok, so maybe you don't actually have a disdain for those who film weddings (though I know plenty of people who do), maybe it's just the term 'wedding cinematographer.' But is it really so offensive for someone to use such words to market themselves to brides who probably don't know the first thing about video? They don't care that a wedding video is not technically 'cinema.' They want to know that you understand how important their wedding is and that you can capture it in an immensely beautiful and artistic way (at least to them). If someone calling themself a wedding cinematogropher helps them get hired, then so be it. If they happen to also be a crappy videographer, then so be it. I'm more worried about the over-saturation of the market than the degradation of the word 'cinema.' And honestly, the word has already been degraded in my mind by douchey film school kids who can't frame a shot but love to spew pseudo-philosophical garbage about 'pure cinema.' Nothing against film school, but man, I can't stand some of the people who come out with no experience, thinking they've already 'made it.' 
 
So there's my rant. I hope I'm not missing the point.

​Film, music video or commercial dont automatically equal cinematic. There are plenty of those that look more video than filmic.  And on the other side there are plenty of corporate films, weddings etc that look cinematic. There are no rules and no need to even have titles. Cinematographer sounds sounds wanky and videographer doesnt quite cut it. Its easier just not to bother with titles. 

So far this is what you guys have said are the benefits of the 1DC that warrant $8,000
 
18MP stills
Low light  (Nope)
Super compact
Long battery
Uses EF lenses  (So does A7s)
Extremely light  (Nope)
Canons colour science  (Nope)
Internal 4K vs Shogun/O7Q
Metal body   (A7s is more than strong enough)
 
So After ruling out the features that the A7s matches or excels at your left with these
18MP stills    (Meh nice but not worth an additional $6,000  also I have a D800 with 36MP stills which has better dynamic range than a 1DC yet I prefer the stills from the A7s because its dynamic range more than makes up for pixels)
Long battery    (Meh nice but not worth an additional $6,000)
Internal 4K vs Shogun/O7Q    (granted but a shogun isnt a burden, its a fantastic monitor with excellent exposure tools)
 
P.s. Just my opinion but I crossed out Canon colour science because its a myth and I dont know where that saying started. I dont call redish skin tones good colour science. C100, C300 and C500 are fine but their DSLRs like  5d's have contrasty unrealistic colour. 
 

​I'm not so sure about that. Just about every time I see someone ask 'what should I get as my first video camera,' there is often an overwhelming amount of T3i suggestions. That doesn't happen so much on this site, but elsewhere it seems to be the norm.

Someone should message Samsung and ask them to implement a 2:35:0 crop mode where it only records the image in that ratio. allowing the Camera to have better and more controlled rolling shutter results. Its the same with how the full 4k mode has less rolling shutter over UHD because its not scanning as much of the sensor do to a slight 1:85 crop to the top and bottom. Now image now much better it would be in 2:35?  Plus that aspect ratio works perfectly for a lot of filmmakers who'd be cropping their videos anyway.  I don't know how to submit suggestions to Samsung on future firmware features but I definitely think this would be a welcomed idea. 

Do not go to Full Sail. I went there for Digital Art & Design, the film program does not have the best reputation. Worse though is that there is not enough jobs available in orlando for the volume of film students in the area (UCF & Valencia are both less than a mile away) and you will have to move to out of the area if you want to find work. Also the tuition is insane, I believe it's currently +$90,000 for 2 years.
Those two New York ones are great, and there is a bigger film making community in the area. UCLA is also excellent, but hard to get into their film program.

Great post, Andrew. As an animator, I enjoyed reading the comparison of filmmaking and animation. For me the individuality of animation, especially if you work for yourself, is definitely the thing that sets it apart from filmmaking. This isn't to say you cannot be an individual in filmmaking, as I know I've been incredibly moved and inspired by some, but your point and the fact that so many are so worried about which camera, is it filmic, which LUT, how much rolling shutter, sensor isn't large enough, blah blah blah leaves the typical filmmaker in a world of hang-ups. In animation, your characters can be stick figures with squiggle motion, your world can be upside down, rolling shutter can be an effect your meant and dust on the lens is added for that one extra touch. I know because I've been caught up in the filming hangups myself, but I sure am glad I can set it aside when I want and just go create some characters. It certainly is freeing.

There is no indication of it being temporary or on sale. Maybe Samsung have decided that they should have the cheapest interchangeable lens camera that is 4K capable.

A recent rumor indicates that Samsung will implement a 4K crop mode (which should result in a faster readout speed & less rolling shutter) with the next Firmware update. 
Also, the NX500 seems to have a 240fps option. There's a picture floating around that clearly shows 240fps as an 1080p option in the NX500 menu. 

With 1.7X 4K crop you could forget about wide shots. So I guess it's only good news for NX1 owners, since having crop 4K functionality in NX500 makes it easy for samsung to add it as an aditional option to NX1 in the next FW update. If it's done due to lower processing power of NX500 (which I suspect is the case), I doubt we would expect a decent 1080p either. Since even NX1's 1080p is kind of luckluster compared to downscaled 4K in post. 
Oh well, I guess I am pulling out my preorder. 

That's a big turn off for me for NX500. I was expecting full readout->rescale for low light conditions to reduce the noise. Since Samsung decided to change how they produce 4K compared to NX1, they should have kept both options. 

The blackmagic has a horrid screen (need to buy an EVF/Moniter), horrific audio inputs (external recorders), poor ergonomics (Shoulder rig needed for handheld)
He said his budget is $1500, you are not going to get a BMCC with the gear needed to use it in common situations for under $1500. GH2/3 is plenty of camera to start shooting on.

NX1 body is now 11990 SEK (appr. 1299 euros),  used to be 14990 SEK
GH4 body is 12790 SEK
All prices includes 25% VAT

Steve, k I agree, but it would be nice to get the limit I set, for when I decide to shoot with auto iso. Not a higher iso!

.

I just ordered an NX1 this afternoon, and I can't wait to use it. This should be a significant upgrade from my hacked GH1, which is now a fossil.

​In many ways it's the spiritual successor to the GH1.
Been a while since I could say that a tiny mirrorless camera could not just keep pace with a $15,000 cinema camera, but outright beat it on image quality overall.

Wait...  WHAT?? The president of RED also owns bmcuser???? :-o
OMG, I could see how if you're not careful that could be a huge huge conflict of interest.

I suppose it is kinda ok when the BMCC still fell very short of of a RED (no 4K or higher resolution, no higher than 30fps frame rates, just to mention a couple of aspect) but now with the URSA, you have to wonder if Blackmagic Design continues to push into the high end but at radically under cutting prices.... how will this impact bmcuser when they're owned by the president of RED??

Imagine if BMCC announces at NAB a Super 35mm camera which does 6K @ 240fps for $5k? Then a year later drops that price down to $3k? (I doubt either of these things will happen, but possibly.... when you look at what surprises they've pulled already with the BMCC and BMPC4K, and the price reductions they've had with the BMPCC and also the BMPC4K. Heck, the BMPC4K got its price reduction before it even shipped!).

This could put the admins of bmcuser in an awkward spot whenever they need to make judgement calls.

I do think Ed's post reflects a time that's been a long time coming, has arrived, but some may not have adapted to it yet.  And ics is right on target too. 
Basically, the gear is beyond good enough and it's so cheap that anyone from almost any economic class can acquire one.
Let's be honest.  If you have the chops you could make a smartphone movie as artistic as anything out there.  Maybe not likely, but possible.  
In the past with video equipment, having a new gear really could make significant difference.  Investing in that gear was cost prohibitive for beginners.  These days, since just about anyone can afford the stuff, the only thing that's really going to make significantly noticeable improvement to a video production is one's skill and artistic level.
Yes, the pros will always have better cameras and lenses and many will covet that rare exclusivity.  However, the divide between low and high is now, practically speaking, indistinguishable.
If I had a time machine I'd love to go back and drop a GM1, lens mounting adapters, and a laptop on Kubrick or Leone's production facility's front door and let them have at it.  Something tells me they and their crew would do alright.

True. I also think that it takes a while, longer than people think, before one's skills outgrow even something as modest as a 7D or GH2. 

​I wouldn't be so sure about that.
It's also very funny how in the "weapon" subforum this guy called Phil plays cat and mouse with grown man who are about to spend several thousand dollars on their product and probably will have to rebuy expensive accesories. Showing pictures of buttons and logos with cheesy design of a thing called weapon reminds me of my 12 years old brother getting excited about new skins for counterstrike.
I recently had to laugh very hard after reading this comment on another website: