fuzzynormal

On the other hand, doing work-for-hire can be a creatively unrewarding slog too.

With current camera sensitivity across all brands you wouldn't have to. If the ambient light "floor" is decent for what you require, then you can concentrate on using small simple elements for moderate fill. I do this often with my documentary production. Every situation is different though. And other shooters have different tastes in lighting. Ironically, I'm more of a minimalist/naturalist. But knowing what's needed or might be needed is the main thing. For example, more than a few people here on EOSHD use modest implements and make it work. I used to be in a shitty bar band and I used to do video production for it as well. Often I'd work with the venue to adjust lights on hand. Without fail they were always positioned wrong and set to unflattering angles. With only a little tweaking and collaborations with the bar we could usually improve it. Assuming they tolerated my input and modifications. The main thing was typically keeping the illumination variance under control and creating useful pools of light for the singer and band members. The other big thing was to avoid direct key. Anything straight on ruined the vibe. The lighting had to still have some drama to it.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they? I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.

Guess I mis-read then. Compromises are certainly a decision of priority regarding what to do. I'd say that raising ISO is low on my priority list. As I mentioned, I shoot docs, so I find myself in dim situations often. I like to go with faster lenses to compensate. Nothing wrong with having a good low-light camera either, (soft gentle light can play very dramatically) but my point is that utilizing light in a wise way is fundemental to capturing images. Assuming that just using a more light sensitive camera is the panacea for shooting would be a mistake. Now, all that said:

Well, I'd say run and gun docs might lead you into situations that have dark corners...but even so, I've rarely gone over 1600 myself. At the very least one should carry a lens for those low light situations along with some modest small rig for supplemental lighting. It doesn't take much. A tiny LED would throw enough photons to add interesting rim/side light. After all, a f.9 and a LUMIX camera is pretty competent in low-light up to 1600. It'll capture pretty clean in a very dim room under those parameters. But, seriously, if you have advanced knowledge going into a setting, you should be able to analyze the light, develop a strategy to handle it, and keep it controlled for your gear. (not even saying you HAVE to do lighting, but you should understand it) Otherwise, WTHeck are you exactly doing? A filmmaker should be at least a tiny bit concerned about the craft. You just wrote that using lights is a compromise? As a filmmaker and photographer this makes my brain hurt. I think I may have thrown up a little too.

I just watched one of my favorite films of all time yesterday. Technically it's flawed, but who cares when the story is just so good? I mean, as an example, watch 70's American cinema --the films from that era that have stood the test of time. They're not still around because what they captured was pristine. (Although some of it still looks incredible) But mostly it's still relevant because of the stories. Making something that persists into the future and has some sort of narrative resonance may be wishful thinking on my part, but in this final stage of my career, I'm at least gonna try. ...and "content" doesn't factor into that effort.

FWIW, he'll work for cheap.

Hackintosh for you!

Oh, no doubt that some young folks coming up will do both, mixing provocative elements as they go. Its just that, for a guy my age, I'm gonna stay out of it; played with doing so about 10 years ago on YouTube, but couldn't get comfortable in it...also was too soon, I think.

Also, I have almost no doubt their current path has a better chance to be more lucrative and notorious than the one I'm on, but the style of content-creators is not one that I personally would find creatively fullfilling or artistically worthwhile. I like traditional movie-making too much "Content" will have a place, but I think overall it's probably just not for me.

Here's my take: "Content" is its own word. "Filmmaker" is a different one. The latter needn't concern themselves too much about the former. I respect content creators for YouTube --as I don't have the motivation to do it, but "content" is not really art; it's not really filmmaking, is it?

Not going to comment on the actual content...just going to say that the director is horrible at doing interviews. That was as bad and as dry as it gets.

As an official grumpy old man, I support this grumpy man rant.

To the point: I've considered Contax glass for my M43 cameras. What's the defining characteristic of the lenses that make such a decision worthwhile?

Just a general question to all: how important is AF on these cameras to you? I mean, I truly never use it. Why does it matter to y'all in a practical motion-picture-shooting way? Just seriously curious about the people that find it a huge benefit. I admit I'm a little blind in this area as I'm an old-school manual focus guy simply because my era demanded it.

FWIW, I'm always okay with people expressing themselves. While I tend to have a different view on things from, say, a fundamentalist evangelical, doesn't mean I'm offended by hearing someone else's POV. Not in the least. I live in a country with very dogmatic and puritanical opinions about stuff that I personally think often retard the advancement of a healthier society. However, having a thin skin about my fellow citizens that think so would be ridiculous. For instance, hate speech from a racist can be ugly, but I'd rather those that feel that way express themselves openly so I know who the dickheads are. I figure one either embraces all expression or not. It's not like some things should be cherry picked. By all means, do what you want. We're born in a time and place that allows it. Be grateful for that. Most people throughout history never got that opportunity. I would agree with that. It seems to me that's the direction of things overall.

As do most, but religion is a niche market too.

Keep us connected how things go for you. Nice that the Canon cam can do fancy hack video, but certainly curious how practical it is in reality. In the past, I've haven't been able to get happy with RAW shooting/editing workflow, but I tend to capture a ton for doc work, so my shoot ratio is up there. I truly am an inconsiderate filmmaker in that regard. Overall, I'd love some options for RAW workflow that fit my needs, as color correcting shots before the edit doesn't jibe with how I like to do things.

1st rule of fight club...don't talk about fight club.

Well, I do tend to do that more than make movies, so...

I'm just grateful we're offered such imaging products that are so cheap and competent. Its really kind of nuts --and I'm still amazed this kind of gear (across the entire segment) does what it does. I think I might go make a movie with it or something...

While I still use my 5DII to this day, I wouldn't go that far. Although, I take your meaning.

Rumors, specs, and then, finally, in-the-field-reality. Once part three of that equation is happening let me know. Regardless, looks like competition could be moving the needle a bit.

Your opinion is well reasoned. However, if someone uses certain gear and they enjoy it, that's perfectly fine. In this hybrid market it's all a compromise anyway.

Not my work, but certainly one of the most "American" movies I've seen in years. If you live overseas and your vision of USA culture is what you distill from Hollywood, well, here's something a little more accurate to the world many of us grew up with: https://vimeo.com/96897402