leeys

What is your final output? If it's web like YouTube it really won't matter so much.

​Shouldn't the D810's video be pretty good too? I definitely wouldn't mind Nikon paying me to take a D5200.

D5300 is pretty good, and since the D5500 is out you should be able to snag one for cheap.

Sorry man, you want to spend $1000 and have it all? Even spending $5000 is not going to get you that perfect camera either! Given what you stated earlier in the post, I suggest keeping an eye on Samsung.

This. Always this. The assigned scores are absolute rubbish. You must click to the measurements tab and go through the data yourself. That way you can find out how a camera's sensor actually performs. Eg the 7DII might be poor in many areas, but in ISO 800-3200 its DR is much improved over the 7D and it actually is pretty much on par with the Sony 24MP sensor, making it perfect for its target market. Colour sensitivity is still a bit rubbish so have fun with the Canon splotchy noise though.

Heh, always got to have a Canon fanboy bashing Andrew every now and then, eh? Canon has an amazing marketing and dealer network - why sell a 5D4 at US$3000 when you can sell a C100 for twice the price, or a C300 for five times the price?

​You know what's the real scary part? It's a camera that sits below the 5D3's price bracket. I said it back then, the D750 would be a 5D3 killer if people would stop thinking that Canon and pro bodies are so great.

My bad, I was thinking of the earlier BMCC.

The main advantages of the Ursa is in the raw workflow and the connectivity and handling. The GH4 is still pretty capable but doesn't have the flexibility that a raw workflow provides. I still think in this case you really need to think about logistics - it will play a big role in your shoots. Oh, and I don't think they share sensors. BMCC uses a 4/3 sensor while the Ursa uses a S35 sensor.

Definitely a screen recorder. In another life I used one to do in-house training videos for a sales force. I'm not sure what's good for the Mac though. Sorry I can't be of more help here. Not a lot to say, but if you're going to record mouse cursor as well do rehearse your mouse movements. :P

f/8 be there is for 35mm still cameras. For smaller sensors you'll need to downsize accordingly. I'd definitely consider weight unless you can afford to be airlifted to wherever you want to go. What's wrong with the GH4 anyway?

Hah, yes, games have the other issue - no motion blur means 24 fps in games is a terrible experience.

I guess not everyone here is a professional or an enthusiast. More zoom = better is a fairly common consumer sentiment... until you show them the results from a high end lens.

You know, it's amazing how on the mainstream tech sites 3D and HFR were proclaimed as the next best thing. I'm now starting to wonder on their impartiality...

Shoot a ruler and do the math.

No one uses that benchmark it seems! I started with stills, and m4/3 is now better than nearly every single film I've used back on 35mm (I'm excluding certain low ISO emulsions which had incredible resolution). I still get plenty of idiots saying shit like "you should get full frame so it's like the film camera you used to have."

It's not just pixel size anymore - modern sensors don't really have that limitation as much due to much better design (gapless microlenses for example). How the sensor is designed and what is it optimised for plays a part too. The 1DX, D4S and A7S all have sensors designed for much better performance at higher ISOs at the cost of base ISO performance.

No, not really. If you do what the thread poster suggests you might be surprised.

That's why I'm in general not so ga-ga over the 35mm shallow DoF look. Plenty of work out there where the client wants to have enough of the image sharp that the FF advantage just goes away, leaving me with the disadvantage of a unnecessarily large kit.

I don't really agree with you on the full-frame thing - a few of us are doing work on the smaller sensors. 35mm isn't the professional option, like how some MF snobs back in the film days were. Like in film, we have a choice of sizes to work with, and some of us just use the smaller ones that's good enough (like 35mm, which to me is probably worse than a 1" sensor in some areas, depending on the conditions and film stock used). What's really missing is the AF - it's just not good enough to cover every situation. Lenses are easier to overcome if the mount has enough traction.

I don't think there's a camera in this price range that'll do 4K in 60 FPS!

Geez, another Canon fanboy. Messiah? It's just a camera for goodness sake, why the religious fanaticism over it?

Here's another pro tip: Never make gear purchases this close to a shoot. You never know what hiccups you can run into.

Hah, that's the truth! I'm getting the feeling your area and my area have quite different building styles. A lot of the places I've been have no access to natural lighting. I need to either use my lights, or use their lighting (because the owner wants to capture the "ambient design choices we've made"). As a commercial shooter you don't always have the luxury of using the best methods all the time!

Wow, 50-50 is a difficult split. I really don't like using the Sonys for stills, and while the D750 is pretty good there are still a few stupid design decisions (no focusing aid of any kind once recording starts) so using it for video isn't as good, but it's a Nikon DSLR, so stills will be excellent. Bit disappointing on the IBIS from the A7II. Wonder if it can be fixed via a firmware update.