fuzzynormal

"If you buy this bundle you are not an artist and never will be, because you do not care." ​Ha! Pushing the boundaries of rhetoric, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Suffice to say, there's a perfectly legitimate possibility that an arrogant affluent rich kid with a hell of a lot of superior story ideas than industry professionals might end up with one of these cameras, simply because they just want something to shoot with, don't really know better because they're concentrating on story, and they'll then proceed to create something incredible...since, you know, filmmaking is kind of about effective storytelling, not sensor resolution. I seriously don't know if this is your true sentiment, tongue-in-cheek satire, click-bait, or just slamming Canon because of some internal-debate-feud you have going in your mind. Doesn't matter because, regardless, it's a fun read, if for no other reason than all the "huh?"'s I got to do. And yeah, it's silly marketing from Canon. But entire brands are built upon silly marketing. Honestly though, thanks for the funny words.

​Of course it would be a problem. And knowing why is kind of important. I think you ultimately made the correct decision. FWIW, I run and gun all the time. That's what I do. Even still, I don't use variable ND. Putting a proper and appropriate ND's on a lens is a 10 second process, so no big deal. Unless you're constantly popping inside to outside and can't stop rolling during your transitions, I don't see the great benefit of it. Plus, the goofy color-cast of variable ND is annoying to me. I believe there's now a Chinese company that actually makes lens adapters-to-mirrorless-cams with a slot for 52mm ND's, so if you want to decrease your filter swap time to 5 seconds instead of 10, there's that option too... Kinda cool. Anyone recall the name of that product?

I like Looks because it's quick and easy and I've found my own special recipe for a lot of my footage. But yes, you don't want to push 8-bit too hard. That's true regardless though.

​I'll concur. People will do stupid stuff. American legislation will move on that stupidity and "ruin it" because they can without upsetting too many voters. We are in full agreement with this concept. My extended point is that there's an absence of rules for numerous other stupid things because those other things have strong political influence. As you say, you can't take them away without troubling the electorate; things like drinking volumes amounts of alcohol legally or owning a weapons arsenal. Keep in mind there would absolutely be an absence of rules for drones if there was a "drone lobby" working K Street with the power of the AARP, or NRA. I'm just saying that's what it's gonna take to stop the inevitability of harsh legislation. And that is not realistic for numerous reasons. It's already "ruined" is what I'm getting at.

​I'm just saying I think you'll ultimately have a camera that works fine for you regardless. Choose either one and you're not going to be making a mistake because they both have strengths and weaknesses. Six or a half dozen. Whateva' You can't solve all your desires on a low-budget, so my advice (and my experience) is to not worry about it. I mean, I bought a EM5II knowing that the IQ was inferior to a GX7, but I willingly work within that limitation. Just something you gotta accept...or break out the pocket book and go upscale.

​Well, all I'm saying is regulation exists or not because of political clout. Lots of things influence that clout. Money, words, symbols, media metaphors, whatever. FWIW, I personally don't mind if drones get regulated. Let's also consider this: someone's going to die today because alcohol is a legal drug. Another person is going to die today because of a legally permissive gun culture. I'm not saying the way American govermnment works is right or wrong, just how I think it is. If you believe that you can organize a group of drone operators to influence, positively, future legislation then go for it. That is how it's supposed to work, but I'm certainly more cynical and believe that would, realistically, be a lost cause for the reason stated above.

​If you start caring more about getting nice shots than the camera, I think you'll be fine no matter what.

great shots mixed with what seems to be intense story telling. What's not to like?

​No, it's just a 33" "silk" translucent umbrella. Like so:

​I shot a small doc late last year with the GX7 and GM1. Hindsight being what it is, I'd say the EM5II would have been a better cam for that work. The 5-axis being a killer feature and the ability to record AND MONITOR the recording audio on cam is incredibly valuable. Still, the GX7 image is certainly better, it's just that all the handheld shots from the Pany's are a tad shaky... but that's okay. That vibe sometimes works. FWIW, and I don't know what you're going for in your doc so take this with a grain of salt, I'd think about doing your entire film with one cam and one prime lens. Something around FF eq of 50-70mm For me, there's just something pleasant about watching a film that has a very simple and cohesive visual aesthetic. Plus, if you're not fretting about loads of gear one can tend to concentrate on the more important things; visuals and story. But, again, I'm a K.I.S.S. kind of guy, nothing wrong with the alternative if you can keep it all under control. Good luck!

Super simple. 4pm-ish sunlight key through a silk umbrella. No fill.

​Yup. Although I hear the Lens Turbo II is a better bet. I don't know, just the opines I've seen on the 'tubes. Is the quality the same? Maybe. I think they're probably all made by the same orphanage/factory in Zhōngnán.

​It's a Fotasy speedbooster.

FWIW, I started experimenting with stuff. First try: I hooked up a Fotasy ($115) EOS-m43, put my old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 on it, and shot a low-rent PR vid with it. I stopped down to f2. Not bad. As mentioned before, I'm not terribly discriminating about bokeh, just want shallow DOF to really knock away background. That said, bokeh's a bit busy, but I'm encouraged. My next step involves a cheap Chinese speed-booster and the FD mount with a 55mm f1.2. We'll see how that goes. More than anything, I think I appreciate the idea of buying two cheap primes, a speed-booster, a dummy adapter, and then getting 4 focal lengths out of the deal. Whenever I can do more with less, I like that.

I got GAS. Burp. At any rate, looks perfectly competent for any number of things, shouldn't be too hard to make it do whatcha want... But you can say that about a lot of cameras. Maybe even the one on your shelf. Still, these new developments have me looking Sony's way. Good on them.

The XC10 the worst thing since Chicago Deep Dish Pizza.

​On the internet, I always ALWAYS assume the the latter until I prove it to myself otherwise. That's a good rule of thumb, BTW.

​I have a client that sends me on international tourism shoots every once in awhile. Cams like these with a small tripod are ideal for that assignment. It does seem like a very specific piece of gear that compliments a shooter's arsenal rather than defines it. If it fits your needs, it's kinda a cool tool. So be it, but I really don't think it's not ever gonna be a hot seller. And truthfully, the IQ might be better or worse than other options, but that's splitting hairs for me and my overseas shoots. I have to consider other stuff. If the IQ is not a disaster, (which it ain't) other things take priority. One positive, the form factor is just small enough and DSLR-like enough to allow it to fly under the "hey-look-at-me-I'm-a-pro-over-here!" profile. Anyway, I'm curious enough to try it...

Yup. That's sensationalist media that people get wound up about... it's almost completely irrelevant that it's not reality. It's a fear being stoked simply because it's the kind of ridiculousness they keep hearing on local news broadcasts and online. The same thing happens every damn year in regard to sharks. Nothing new ever happens regarding sharks and humans that hasn't happened for eons, but because it sells advertising via page views and paper sales, publishers print the stuff every August. Again, I don't even think any of this even hits the media radar if "drones" were called something by any other name. At least that's how it happens here in the U.S. What sort of recurring sensationalism do you Brits have to endure? BTW, if BranitFX really wanted to make that video look incredibly authentic, they really needed to rotate the screen vertically.

​Enamored with the aerial look three years ago. Now, not so much. Visual candy, yes, but once you get full up on the sweets it ain't so good...and everyone's got an ice cream cone these days. I got a corporate client demanding the stuff upcoming in August. Not particularly looking forward to wedging that type of visual into the production. Oh well. Technological progress.

​Looks perfectly fine and accomplished to me. The director's subjective decision regarding color was on target as far as I was concerned. Creative use of compositions and lots of fun production value for an indy music vid. Good work.

Depends on what you want to do. I wouldn't recommend necessarily making a wildly dynamic food video "just because." If it fits what you want to do or are hired to do, sure... but there's something to be said in making a video that's a bit more timeless and classic too. I don't do extreme food cooking like I'm base jumping of El Capitan, so that commercial looks a bit silly to me personally.

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration. They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything. Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction. It's a soft target. That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically. If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.

​Quite a lot, depending on how you handle it. It's not going to make every-single type of shot better, but if you work within the 5-axis' strengths/limitations, it'll reward the effort. The main strength I've found is that it'll allow you to do some shots quicker and easier than you'd be able to do otherwise. This sort of cam is really good for run and gun music videos like you see here, corporate shoots where you're grabbing lots of documentary style b-roll, and things like weddings. It's a lot of fun, great for a lot of work, but not perfect for everything. The interesting thing I've discovered using it is that when you hit the limits of the stabilizer's capacity, you need to recognize how to pull back from those limits. Once you go over the 5-axis' abilities and start getting the jello-warping, that's no good. You need discipline not to over-do it. So, you know, when you see other footage from this camera shot by an unskilled enthusiast, these mistakes creep to the forefront and don't make the camera look good. But, if you're considered in what you do, it is pretty enjoyable to use. I suppose you could say that about any cam... I wouldn't discourage anyone for getting their hands on it and giving it a try. If it fits for what you want to do it might be the ideal tool.

​Eh, never bothered me much. You can get easier interview shots with a FF cam, sure, but otherwise it's a really great image for not a lot of $$.