jax_rox

It's personal preference. Some people live and die by their RED. Others Alexa. Others again Varicam. Still others F55. Some love the C300. Or C100. Or 5D. Or A7s. Or a GH4 The smart people do their own research, decide what they like best and use it. There's no such thing as an objectively best camera. I like my A7s and my F3 for day-to-day photo/video low budget stuff. When I have a budget, I'll rent an Alexa. Or a RED. Or an F55. Depends on the budget, depends on the project, depends on the needs of the script. You can spend all day arguing about which camera is better at this or that, but at the end of the day it comes down to what you like the most, and what helps get you the best images possible. I hated what I saw of the F5 and F55 when they came out. Now that I've used them, I appreciate them for the tools they are. You can get great things out of both of those camras. It's just that the original footage I saw didn't have someone behind the camera getting great images. Conversely, I liked what I saw of the Blackmagic cams when they were announced/released. Then I used them a couple times and determined that I hated them. Use what works for you People who buy purely on resolution are simply following marketing gimmicks. Even then, if money were no object they'd go for the one with the 'richest blacks', 'most vivid colour' etc. -- Resolution's not everything. You can't tell me my iPhone gives me better images than an Alexa because it's 4k and an Alexa's not. Majority of cinema is still projected at 2k. Netflix caused controversy by specifying that all new original material must be 4k. Many people are up in arms because technical 4k resolution doesn't actually mean a picture is any good - and actually having 4096 pixels doesn't mean you actually have '4k resolution'. As many will attest to Canon not having 1080p resolution, despite the video files having that many pixels, the same is true for 4k. That's why the Alexa can scale up to 4k so well, but you're better off scaling down a 5k-6k RED Epic, because if you shoot at 4k it'll be just a tad soft..

But you know what? The a6300 will be <1/3rd the price of a 5DIV. The RED One and even RED Epic/Scarlet spent a lot of time overheating. To the point where you might need to put it on ice. That made it unusable for some/a lot of people. You either use the camera and find the workable solution for you, or you go with something else. It took them a while, but the RED barely overheats anymore. The fan can still be pretty noisy though. Has it stopped people from using it? Sure, some. Use what you want to use and who cares what anyone else is using. Depends what you want out of a camera. I'll take an Alexa over a RED any day, despite the fact that the Alexa can't even do 'real' 4k (exception of the 65), whilst the RED's currently doing 8k.

I find Lomo's a bit.... ehh hit & miss. I like some, I dislike others. Personally, I can think of few cameras these days that are only PL mounted. And if you're using one (like an Alexa or Varicam35), why the hell are you skimping out on your lenses? If your camera does have other mounts/adapters available, then I think there are at least equal quality lenses to the Lomos for similar prices, which are a bit more.. er.. modern filmmaker friendly. I thought about a Lomo set, but went with Nikon AI primes, because I don't particularly like dealing with the 'rabbit ears' for focus (though I also don't particularly like the backwards focussing of the Nikon's). There are others though - the OP already has Contax mount glass... so my question would be what camera do you want to use them on? Can you adapt the Contax to it somehow?

A) It's unlikely as hell B) Sony already made a 'mini-Alexa' with the F3. Sony tried and failed with proprietary media in consumer/prosumer cameras. A number of times. There's a reason there's no more cameras on the market that only take MemoryStick cards anymore. I mean, who knows really with the Sony con/pro-sumer digital camera division - they're renegades. I just can't see them taking the gamble on this one.. And if, for some reason, they decided to - you'd be looking at a ~$4-5k body, plus the extravagant cost of the XQD media. At which point, why not buy an FS5?

Man, I totally disagree. A good Cinematographer/shooter/DP/whatever you want to call them can make an ordinary shot look nice. A nice camera can help them, sure, but it's the guy behind the camera at the end of the day. I've seen some absolute sh*t out of Alexas, REDs, F55s, C300s etc. I've seen horrendously noisy RED and Alexa footage. I've seen Alexas exposed incorrectly so as to massively reduce its dynamic range. I've seen people suffer from IR contamination because they don't know what they're doing. I watched footage from a very seasoned DP when the RED Dragon came out - and was amazed at how noisy the red channel was. He hadn't used the camera before, and wasn't aware that the red channel was going to get that noisy, so couldn't compensate. In the grade, they de-noised it. But you're talking about a RED Dragon being operated by a seasoned DP and there was still this ugly red noise. I've also seen some amazing stuff out of all of those cameras. I've seen noiseless RED footage and Alexa footage, after a bit of post-processing, and careful exposure. I've had the simple fact that it's not the camera, it's the person re-enforced so many times through my own experiences, and I think a lot of the time, people would be better off learning more about exposure, lighting, lighting ratios, metering etc. etc. than trying to find which new camera will finally make their footage look like a Hollywood movie.. -- The 80D is not great for video, but it will probably be popular in the market it's aimed at. I think Canon knows 'serious hobbyists' are a market that have already moved off Canon - and who knows, maybe they haven't seen a huge effective decrease in sales for this particular series. I do think there's merit in comparing similarly priced cameras, especially for video - as this forum is tailored to that specific market, and it is pertinent to point out Canon's 'failings' (for lack of a better term - market choices could be another). But that doesn't mean the 80D can't be a capable camera in the right hands. Get informed and make an informed decision. A different camera is probably going to give you better quality, but hey - if you want to deal with some of the issues outlined here, that's your prerogative. No camera is perfect, so you'll always have your own preferences and compromises. If you need that Dual Pixel AF, and need AF with your Canon lenses, and you can't spend heaps of money... maybe it's the camera for you

I honestly thought that was the point of this forum? I've tried to make similar points so many times but figure that's just what this forums all about..

Imagine the resolution on the film grain Seriously, I love film and will defend it as much as possible... But you can't say 35mm is 4-6k, S16 is 2-4K and S8mm is HD.... And then turn around and say you can get 4K out of Super 8. With the new 8k cams coming out, Kodak will soon be saying that 35mm gives you 10k! I'll concede that resolution on film doesn't really work the same way as a digital sensor, but you'll really just be getting finer detail on the grain - which sure, can give you the appearance of extra resolution..

Rokinon Xeen's are the most affordable PL 35mm lenses I can think of on the market. if you're talking S16, there's a lot of affordable options - however 35mm coverage PL lenses, you'll struggle to find much that's of any decent quality for <$2500+ per lens. The Zeiss CP2s are, honestly, affordable PL lenses despite being $5k/lens You might get lucky on an eBay deal, but you're still looking at a few thousands.. Some of the older RED zooms and Sony primes you might find a bit cheaper, but their build quality leaves a lot to be desired (there's a reason they were quickly discontinued).

Until you encounter that magic smear

I.... have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore

This is internal XDCam as well - not shot by me, but I think demonstrates really well what you can get out of an F3 (watch in HD) - and that's even without going through an external recorder https://vimeo.com/16937523

I did? It may not be super common, but if you look hard enough... I dunno, all I know is what I've seen and used. I know that I struggled to get footage out of any Blackmagic camera that I really loved. Sure, it was okay.. acceptable.. But I never loved it. And I, honestly, am yet to see any footage from the BMPCC, BMCC, BMPC that I love. That my just be me. I've seen some amazing footage from the F3. And I'm continually surprised at what you can get out of it for the price I paid for it.. Personally, I loathe the form factor of the BMPC, but to each their own. I dunno man, as I say I got mine for $1500 with media and 444 upgrade. I already had my Shogun. Realistically, you're only looking at an HD recorder, and you can get a Ninja Star or similar for anywhere from $250-500 if you look hard enough. So, really about on-par with that BMCC price. If you could buy a Sony FS7 for $4,000 we wouldn't even be having this conversation as I would have already bought it You might get a used FS5 for around that price, but it would be a struggle.. I also disagree about mandatory rigging. Most F3 packages for sale tend to come with the ET shoulderplate that was made for it - or similar. Realistically, it's no different to any other camera. The F3 actually takes considerably less rigging to get it to sit comfortably on your shoulder. And because most/all of the specific rigs are discontinued/second hand - you can get one significantly cheaper. I bought a top plate for my F3 that used to retail for close to $300. My local camera shop simply had it as excess stock and wanted to get rid of it. I bought it for $9. Realistically, an F3 is no less difficult to put on a gimbal or steadicam than an URSA mini or FS7. Maybe more difficult than a BMCC, but it would only be in terms of balance (it's longer). Any of the other cameras mentioned need at least as much, if not more rigging to be able to operate comfortably, and generally the rigging is more expensive. The only ones that may not are an FS7 and URSA mini, both of which are out of the price range. All that said - I agree that lighting is more important, and honestly I'd probably keep the NX1 and spend more on lighting than getting a new camera. Depends what you want. I like having a hybrid so I can take photos when I want - but if you're not fussed, I would only sell it for something that costs similar (say an F3 ) and spend the rest on lighting and grip.

RGB 444 is essentially raw anyway. The F3 is better in low light, and behaves much more like a 'real' camera than the Blackmagics. Good form factor, and many of the cheap deals include partial or full handheld rigs to boot. Personally I like the image out of the F3 better than that out of a Blackmagic - and considering it's cheaper than a BMCC, I wouldn't hesitate to get one. Plus you get SxS recording in addition to external SSD recording - you can have proxies and full res if you want, quite easily.

This. Best bang-for-buck on the market right now. Alternately, spend a bit more and get a used RED One, but it will be much more frustrating than an F3. Plenty of movies and television have been shot on F3. Plenty more feature films and television have used the F3 as an A-cam versus the BMCC. Unless you desperately want 4k or something..

There are significantly more Sony lenses on the market, especially in APS-C crop format. There are less E-mount full-frame, though significantly more than four. A 'quick google' doesn't really count as extensive research... If you look through the history of my posts, I couldn't agree more that any camera is simply a tool, and I think too many get bogged down on here in things that, in the overall scheme of things, don't particularly matter. I think you should test what works for you and make a purchase decision based on that. An 80D probably isn't that for many people - an a6300 isn't for me, despite the fact that I have an A7s and perhaps should be more interested in it than someone who has no investment in the Sony ecosystem. That doesn't mean these cameras aren't THE camera for some people, or can't be. Too many people have their opinions tinted through their own purchases, and instead of recognising the strengths cameras, they often blame the camera for their own inadequacies (i.e. I have no idea how to colour grade, but instead of acknowledging that, I'll pretend I do and blame Sony for giving me bad colours). My overall point was merely that native Autofocus is still quite good, and there are a number of Sony lenses you can use with the camera. And also that only a couple of years ago, Canon was excused for having mediocre auto focus performances with their own native lenses in video mode, with people saying 'it doesn't matter because you should be shooting manual all the time anyway'. Now Sony has decent auto focus on their native lenses, but average auto focus on lenses that are adapted via a third party adapter, and it's suddenly a reason the camera is sub-par. I just don't understand how something that is/was not an issue for Canon, is an issue for Sony? How good is the auto-focus on adapted lenses for Canon? It simply amazes me the lengths some people will go to defend a brand or product. Everything is a tool in the end, so why do you care so much if someone uses something else? I don't care what anyone uses, I just want people to have as much un-biased information as possible. If I was looking for something with high-quality 1080p, there are few Canon cameras I would consider because the vast majority of them are not really giving that. Does that make them awful cameras? No. It just means there may be other cameras (including from other manufacturers) that give you what you want. That's why this camera may be big with YouTubers - they don't care about most of the things that we do. That can make it the best camera for them. If so, good on them. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its issues.

Being able to bump your ISO and not worry about noise is something that I never thought I would find so handy. Being comfortable with stopping down to increase your depth of field, and Compensating by increase your ISO and not having to think about noise. It's so under-rated. That doesn't mean you shouldn't light your scenes, but it also means you can comfortably shoot a scene at F4. Especially if you want a pic+video cam.

Yeah, because Canon cameras work really well attempting to autofocus Nikon lenses.... Again, not all that long ago it was blasphemy to even suggest one would use autofocus when shooting video. Now, Canon having better AF is a major plus point for Canon... I just don't get it...

The simple fact that this shot has been graded introduces a factor that is totally independent of the camera itself. I think the problem is people were so damn keen for Slog and never learned how to properly grade things. I recently saw a commercial shot on an FS7 and was surprised it wasn't shot on an Alexa. The F3 was, for a time, considered a 'mini-Alexa' and has very similar colours to that which you can get out of an A7s. If you've been a Canon shooter for a number of years, you may find it more difficult to get the colours where you want, but the same goes for anyone switching manufacturer. Every manufacturer has different colours and different colour science. I can't think of one manufacturer that has objectively bad colours, it's just that some people are used to one or another, and when the Sony footage they've spent 2 months working with takes a bit longer to get where they want it to than the Canon footage that they'd been working with for 5+ years, it's the camera's fault. You may find the Sony a bit more difficult to get where you want it to be, but that doesn't mean that it's the camera that's bad, or faulty. Also, how can you possibly take at face value the grading attempts of an amateur colourist? I wouldn't expect an amateur colourist to get amazing looking results out of anything, let alone base a purchase decision based on their results. The 'ungraded' versions of those images look significantly better.

Develop your own Picture Profile... you know, the exact purpose for Picture Profiles? I don't really understand how it was so acceptable to tweak your Picture Profiles on a Canon to get the look you wanted, but on a Sony it's a reason that a Sony camera is terrible? Shooting flat on a 5D became the defacto standard so that you could get the best DR and colour range. But now, if you don't shoot flat (or in one of the many designated Cine gamma modes) and you happen to get different colours than a Canon (remembering that they're two different companies and the colours you get out of an A7s are really not all that different to any other Sony on the market), it's an awful, unusable camera... Nikon have different colours to Canon too..

It's super trendy at the moment to bash, or be 'disappointed with' Sony colour, but it's really not an issue.

Go A7s. You won't look back. I went from a Rebel series camera to the A7s and the difference was night and day. a6300 hasn't received the greatest of reviews so I would avoid that. A mate of mine owns a GH4 which he likes. Personally, as much as I try to like it, for me it doesn't even compare to the A7s. Yes, you can get great images out of it. But I'd take my A7s over it unless I was forced to shoot 4K internally for some reason (maybe the production has no budget and the Director has an inexplicable phobia of external recorders??). YMMV

Will you ship to Australia? Interested in the A7s underwater housing, also some of the filters: What size are they?

NAB 2016 will be all about 360VR I reckon. Someone may come out with a 360 camera to rival the OZO at a significantly cheaper price...

With the 4.6k sensor you get full DCI res. Not sure why the '4k-only' version has such a strange resolution. It's pointless, they mas as well have excluded it altogether and just made it a UHD-only camera.

Just think of LUTs as what they are: They're a way of taking one set of values (the input) and translating it into another of values (the output). What's contained within that can be simple, or it can be complex, but it is no more than a translation of values - and is not tied to film in any particular way, at least not moreso than digital.