TheRenaissanceMan

Yeah, I pretty much figured this would be an 8-bit + RAW camera. Excited to see some footage from that new codec, but I doubt I'll ever be a C200 owner. Will most likely rent it and the appropriate media once or twice if producers insist on Canon though.

It's a damn shame Nikon cancelled the DL series, because otherwise I would've just told you to get one of those for deep DoF and stick with the D750 for people shots/stills. As it is, I think you're best off sticking with the D750, softish or not. The only one of your priorities it really falls short on is gimbal use, which is also the easiest point to rectify--just get the beefier gimbal. Or hell, get a really nice slider instead. That'll last for the next dozen cameras, and the (admittedly few) real estate videos I've seen have used them almost exclusively. Get a Tokina 11-16. It's an APS-C lens, but covers full frame at 15 and 16. Otherwise there's some good vintage 20/21mm Nikkors that could do the trick. I've never worked real estate, so I'm not sure how wide is too wide. Always go with easier to use over slightly better image quality. The most important thing on set is you. Your skills and attention are valuable; don't waste them focusing on a fiddly camera instead of your shots.

The NX1 is still so interesting...a unique combination of virtues no other manufacturer has put into the same body at a comparable price since. 4K, nice 120p/1080, solid AF, large comfortable body, long battery life, very good stills, and fairly good color out of the box. Cross a GH5 with an X-T2 and you'd pretty much have it. I think the Fuji is a better option than people make it out to be. There's a crop, but it's only 1.17x over the native, and there are plenty of speed boosters available. Battery life is decent with the battery grip, which also has a jack for direct power/battery charging with a wall adapter. Very good AF, about on par with the A6500. Very, very nice colors out of the box, and a lot of room to customize them in-camera. Tilting screen, nice (if slightly quirky) ergonomics, and one point over the NX1: a solid, complete, and affordable lineup of native primes and zooms. Stills are of course lovely as well. If I were replacing an NX1, that's what I'd go with. The G80/85 have some other weaknesses that may bug you, and the AF is not useful for video imo. If you do go the micro four thirds route, definitely get the Olympus 12-40 instead of the PL 12-60. Great manual focus clutch, amazing close focus (practically a macro), minimal breathing, and has a beautiful creamy look.

I'm with Mercer, the XC10/15 sounds far more suitable for you than a D7500. Deep focus, lots of detail, strong codec, and (in standard mode) accurate color (which I'd imagine is important for real estate). It'd be worth keeping the D750 alongside it for the agent interviews and stills (if that's a concern), but if you don't plan to, I'd sell it post haste if you want to get the most you can for it. That said, don't sell or switch cameras based on what some nerds on the internet who don't make a living from their images tell you. The D750 is a great HD camera. If you're happy with the images, your clients are happy with the images, and the camera doesn't make your life difficult, then why change it? You'd be better off investing in some lights or support gear, and just work on improving your craft.

Not sure why that quoted DBounce instead of me... It depends. If it's 8-bit, no. That'll just make it a suitable spec for broadcast. If it still only holds 13 stops of DR, then also no. I can get 13+ stops in 10-bit with many other cameras for less. If it only records to CFast and not SD, no again. It's less data that Raw Light, but still requires an expensive investment in a media format I can't use in many other cameras (almost never work with Alexa mini, use SSDs on the UM46) and don't think will ultimately survive. It would definitely be a step in the right direction, but it's not a complete solution. Plus it's still a year off, isn't it? Has anyone confirmed whether it's a paid upgrade or not?

A more modern sensor would be nice, as all its competitors are rocking new (ish) designs. I'd just settle for something that looks nice; I haven't seen a pretty video out if the FS5 yet. Back on topic, I had a play with the MP4 files from the C200. When graded, it did break quickly. I also noted that 100fps was noticeably soft. 50fps looked a bit better, and would be my preferred limit. Looks like you need to shoot Raw to get a high end image...shame, because the price for a full day's worth of CFast cards is almost as much as the camera itself.

Haha, quite possibly! The FS5 doesn't compete at all strongly with its Canon/Panny/BM competition though, and can't be bumped significantly in spec without rendering their new FS7 II completely redundant.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/06/03/sony-to-launch-a-full-frame-36x24mm-sensor-cinealta-camera-next-year/

It isn't 10-bit on the XC10, so I'll wait until Canon clarifies the point to change my stance. Also, is that codec update going to be a firmware upDATE or a firmware upGRADE? Important distinction. I may be in the minority, but I'm not very hot on Canon color, either. It's pretty, but not especially accurate and a little "Crayola" for my tastes. Those high ISO samples are crazy impressive though, as is the DPAF. For run and gun/doc, this thing is an absolute no-brainer.

I would ask for internal 10-bit 4:2:2. It's the minimum quality capture format I use for serious work, and most often what my clients request. All the C200's competitors in this price bracket include it--FS7, UM46, EVA. Comparing the C200 to the GH5 does seem somewhat antagonistic. Different camera styles in different market sectors at quite different price points. The EVA seems like a more natural comparison, and it's the camera I'd pick over the Canon. Super light weight (2lbs), great efficient 10-bit codec, high frame rates, Varicam color science (best in the biz imo), internal proxy recording, SD cards (more common, easier to source, and more likely to survive than CFast as a format), and the ability to (down the road) record nearly 6K raw with an external recorder to much more economical SSDs. The DR is still a question mark for me. Canon claims 15, but so did the C300 II, which didn't look nearly as good as the Alexa/Varicam. I have no doubt it'll be stronger than the C100 I, but by how much remains to be seen. I'm also curious whether the MP4 files can handle that kind of DR stretch without artifacts. Could be, but I'm guessing it'll be necessary to go RAW if you want access to the sensor's full latitude. That brings me to the Canon Codec Conundrum™. I was shocked to hear they'd incorporated an internal RAW codec, and truly applaud them for pushing themselves on the image quality front. There will definitely be some growing pains with NLE support, and media/storage costs will of course be a problem, but who in their right mind expected this from CANON? Definitely not me! However, here's the problem. Now the C200, like the 5DIII, confronts its users with a choice every time they shoot: sacrifice quality and enjoy the nice file sizes in 8-bit, or step up massively in quality to RAW and deal with the bulky files and a more labor-intensive workflow. I can easily see people considering this the best of both worlds--MP4 for doc/events/corporate, RAW for narrative/music videos/commercial spots. I truly hope it turns out that way; however, I can see just as many wishing they had a reasonable middle ground that gave them a higher-end image without the as much overhead. For me personally, I fear the camera falls into a real no-man's-land. I'll withhold any definitive judgments until I see more footage and hear more first-hand reports (and hopefully get my own hands on it), but as of now my eye is squarely trained on the EVA and Sony's big announcement. YMMV.

I suppose not, but they are calling it AVC-Ultra, which is not the same codec used in the GH5. I'd highly doubt it's the GH5 codec for two reasons: 1. The codec in the GH5 was brand new, not the same one shared with the larger varicams. 2. The Lumix team and Varicam teams HATE each other, and rarely share anything between the two lines.

Believe it or not, that amazing Varicam 35 reel that blew us all away a few years ago was shot on the same 10-bit AVC-Ultra codec.

I wouldn't go the nebula route. Haven't heard of motor noise being an issue on the H2, though I haven't used it myself. The Zhiyun Crane is another good option to look at.

Wrong topic?

Very interesting! Might take apart a couple of my FDs I haven't used in a while and do some modding of my own... Slightly OT, but what adhesive did you use to affix the aperture? I need to glue the filter thread ring back into my 35mm summicron, but I've read that many adhesives can give off vapors that fog up lens internals and/or destroy your lens coatings.

Ugh, I know! Even internally the camera is great, but part of me knows I'm not getting everything I can out of it. What are the biggest things you notice jumping up to external 10-bit? Just a lot more robust in the grade? Nice to hear the recorder is no fuss. I should invest in one or two of those d-tap Sony batts; battery life on the assist sounds irritatingly short. Not sure why they went with LP-E6 over Sony NP-F. Got a link to the batts you use?

Hm... I'll have to take a look at that. Only got my F3 a couple months ago and haven't hooked it up to an external recorder yet. How do you like the video assist on it?

You don't just use the S&Q control? And using shutter angle keeps everything scaled to your frame rate, so that's what I use: 144° when flicker is a factor, 180° when it's not.

Keep in mind that Sony had a big gap between the A7S II and FS7 for a long time before they finally released the FS5. Besides, it's not mission-critical for them to fill in every price category with a new camera, especially since $5-6.5k is something of a sweet spot for owner-operators and low-end rentals.

But converting the files to something your NLE can read takes some extra time, as well as factoring in the extra storage costs of RAW files. A horse apiece in my opinion, and the GH5 offers a lot ergonomically/feature set-wise (IBIS, HFR, 4K, uncompressed HDMI out, XLR-capable, no playback issues, etc) that makes it a more practical option for many shooters. The GH5 10-bit files offer enough latitude for color correction that there's no reason you couldn't get great results with a minute in Resolve and/or some of the excellent LUTs available, imo. Plus 4K is nice to have in the tool belt when clients want it. YMMV

Agreed, I would test ProRes LT and see if it works for your needs. The fact that the camera signal is RAW shouldn't affect the final file sizes, only your recorded codec.

Interesting. Does AE edit the GH5 clips natively? I was under the impression Adobe didn't support them yet.

Post workflow maybe? Resolve handles the files better?

I think the LUT is meant not to be a one click solution for grading, but rather to bring the GH5 to a neutral starting point from which to begin your grade.

Same, @AaronChicago! Based out of Milwaukee, but I'm in Chicago all the time. If you ever need a hand or want to do lunch, let me know! As for the video, the Ursa is obviously a step above the GH5(as expected), but I could get the two to match reasonably well in situations where I needed the GH5's smaller size/weight. Very much appreciate the test!