jax_rox

I'd be more inclined to rent Angie DP Rouge's - I freaking love those lenses! Again, don't underestimate the importance of glass - say what you will about Sony, but shooting F5 or F3 with Angie's or Ultra Primes is magic. Mine has the full upgrade, and I can confirm that you can do 50/60p 10-bit 422 over single HD-SDI. Can't attest to whether it would need dual-link without.

Looking at profit over a decade is dangerous. You could have once said that Kodak was the most profitable camera manufacturer too. Things have changed a lot since 2006 - and if you think Sony or Panasonic are simply going to go away, you'd be mistaken. Yes, Sony has had troubles in their camera division. But that doesn't mean they can't, or won't have success now. Works for Sony - paid upgrade to unlock raw on the FS700, FS5 and FS7? Paid upgrade to shoot 4k on the F5? Paid upgrade to get Slog444 on the F3? etc. etc. I think the big difference is Sony develops these cameras with an upgrade workflow - you still need to get accessories for the FS700, FS5 or FS7 to enable the raw output, but if you want to do it that option is available, it will just cost you a bit extra. Would you prefer to pay $1,000 to enable 4k on your C100 or would you rather have to pony up thousands and thousands of extra dollars to buy a C300? The 4k on the FS5 OOB isn't as good as the 4k on the FS7, but if you want to pay $500 you can get raw out of it. The FS5 fills a spot in the market where HD is necessary and 4k is nice to have. If you need 4k all the time, you can go for the FS7. If you buy a C100, you'll never be able to shoot 4k on it. Call it marketing hype if you like, but there's a lot more to gain from enabling even a somewhat crippled 4k mode than there is to have people at the point of purchase thinking about needing to hire something else if they ever want to shoot 4k.

Depends what you call 'proper' colour correction Firstly, the F3 and F35 are very different beasts to the newer Sony cameras, with totally different sensors that behave differently. Secondly, having shot extensively with both the F5 and F55, I'll say they're both different cameras to say an FS7. Perhaps the difference between an FS7 and F5 isn't as pronounced as say the FS7 to F55, but it's still different. Realistically, an F55 kit should probably still sit within your budget, and the F55 is an great camera. As always, each has their quirks, but I'm very happy shooting with both the F5 and F55 if I can't rent anything else. Keep in mind the F55 has the same CFA as the F65, so the picture is closer to an F65, the F5 has a picture closer to an FS7. Either way, if you think you're going to get A7s-looking stuff from any of these cameras simply because of SLog2/3 then you are mistaken. It's sad that Slog has had it's name somewhat tarnished by people using it in 8-bit 4:2:0. I think more important is the glass you put on the front of it - it can transform the look of a camera. You may also want to see if your local rental house has the new VaricamLT or an Alexa Mini - you might be able to fit them in your budget.

Without veering too far off-topic, the F3 is incredible given you could buy an F3, recorder and a few lenses and get out of it for less than the cost of a 5DIII body. I shot another commercial on my F3 this week and was once again super impressed by what I get out of it + my Shogun Flame. I have no experience shooting raw on the 5DIII but the image out of my F3 is miles ahead of what I get out of my A7s or what I've gotten in the past out of any Canon DSLR.

I'd highly recommend a Sony F5 package - I don't know the local pricing, but I'd imagine you should be able to quite easily rent a full production kit (including matte box, FF, head/legs etc.) with a basic primes set (Zeiss CP2s or maybe Cooke Minis) within your budget. Failing that, an FS7 package. Both allow you to shoot 4k Slog3 (or REC709 if you really need). Again, I don't know the local pricing, but most rental houses will allow you take gear for test shoots if you have an existing relationship, or have committed to a long term rental.

Do you have filters to hold and flare to control/cut? If so, then yes. If not, then no. Depends what you need/want. Personally, I'm a fan of Arri, Chrosziel and Bright Tangerine, all of which can be had second hand for <$1000. Side and top flags on a matte box? Of course. Much easier to slide on a top or side flag on the matte box, and then it's set as you move around as well. Trying to cut the flare other ways can work better for big flares, but are also much more time consuming, and in some/many cases would be unnecessary with the right matte box. Depending on how much you spend, they're generally significantly better quality, with less/no colour shift. Don't forget there are hundreds of other filters you can use in a matte box other than just NDs. Colour filters, grad NDs, softening filters etc. How big are the lenses you need to cover? Overall, you'll probably get away with 4x4 for the majority of lenses you'll use. Some bigger cinema lenses may need PV (4x5.65) filters, and PV is certainly the de facto standard amongst rental companies these days. Good ND filter brands are Tiffen, Schneider and Formatt.

Do you also find weird how soft the image out of the Alexa is compared to an NX1? Of course, the FS5 is no Alexa, but a 'softer' image does not mean a worse image than a sharper image, and it does not mean less resolution. There would be web videos where a comparison between a RED and a GH4 or NX1 would see the latter sharper. There are too many variables to compare too accurately, apart from the fact that sharpness or lack of it doesn't really make an image overall. I find it weird that people complain about a camera being too soft, and then try and find a way to make their own camera just as soft looking. In regards to that video, the test is very unscientific, and the stuff I've shot on FS5 has never looked that soft.

Sounds like renting's probably your best option, and will likely serve you better anyway. You'll be able to customise the things you need a lot better and easier than having to cobble together parts on a limited budget (and can potentially shoot on a better camera/lens combo to boot!)

100% this. Many people tend to equate documentary with running around and grabbing what you can as it happens, but in reality there are plenty of documentaries that consist of lit, staged interviews, staged shots or re-enactments, establishing shots, slow-mo and B-roll that you can get a few shots at. A music video could be a few shots of the band performing, or it could be a high-production value narrative-style video that's fully lit and with a large amount of support gear. As always.... it depends

FS5, unless you're desperately stuck with Canon. Will say, the C(x)00 series is a pretty good doco machine, but the FS5 will give you plenty more options including slowmo and 10-bit HD.

In camera trick? Using a global shutter ?

Overall, mirrorless is smaller and lighter, and as the rebuttal argues, most of the pictures in the original article uses the absolute biggest lenses available for the E mount, and compares them with average size, or smaller DSLR lenses.

That article sounds like it's written from the perspective of someone who's never owned a mirrorless camera. A mirrorless setup is most definitely smaller and lighter. Indeed, there are some situations (and Petapixel seems to have cherry-picked all of them) where the size difference doesn't really add up. But I can tell you, my A7s + Sony 70-200 is significantly lighter and certainly smaller than a similar Canon setup. As is my A7s + 24-70 or 16-35. I would suggest that in this particular case, the reason Sony mirrorless has taken off like it has, has actually very little to do with the fact that it is mirrorless. I would suggest that features like Full frame HD video downscaled from 4k with large dynamic range and Slog (and in-camera 4k!) is the main reason people bought it for video. Best looking full frame DSLR footage on the market (without hacking the camera). Huge MP counts, IBIS, and importantly, the ability to adapt lenses - particularly PL lenses (for video anyway). Yes, as the article says, adapters can be cumbersome or annoying, but that's the case with any camera system. If you buy a camera system partly because of the adaptability of the mount, you can't then complain about using adapters. Anyone who thinks the primary reason the A7 series is a winner is the fact that it's mirrorless isn't paying attention. The fact that it is mirrorless may allow some of these features to be available, but I think most people are buying for specs and features.

It doesn't make any sense for an A7rII to be used in this sort of capacity. In addition, the C100 has been out for longer than both the FS7 and FS5. The FS7 is gaining more and more traction every day. Keep in mind that the NFL were shooting film up until only a few years ago. If you like what you have, and it's reliable and works for you, what incentive is there to change? Plenty of prodcos and owner/operators who bought C100/300s when they came out that see no reason to switch. That doesn't mean something like an FS5 or FS7 isn't just as good a camera. In addition, it's an effort to change from one ecosystem to another, which means unless it's vital to you staying competitive, why would you go to all the trouble to change ecosystems? C100/300 is a great little camera. So is the FS7 and FS5. Both have their places, and serve their purposes. I hired F55s and F5s for a project I was shooting recently. I didn't want to hire C300s or C500s. Different projects, different people, different needs. Use what works for you and your project. Nothing is gained from camera or brand-bashing. Except you preclude yourself from using a potentially superior product based purely on some zealous brand loyalty.

There's a difference between creative under-exposure, or balancing levels of exposure relative to the chosen aperture, and general under-exposure. Take this example frame from Miller's Crossing. It's not underexposed, everything is designed in such a way that it feels like night-time. The important thing is ensuring your bright spots are sitting right - in the OP shots, the bright spots are underexposed, and so the exposure should be bumped. Alternately, it may be a log gamma shot, or not have had it's exposure corrected properly from a log shot.

Eh. Maybe Medium format is just another way to 'tell your story' so to speak. There were people shooting both 35mm and medium format back when it was film only. Similarly, there are people shooting CMOS medium format and 35mm. The new Panavision DXL is a CMOS sensor, as is the Alexa 65mm.

In terms of the medium format look for video... It can be beautiful. But it can also be weird and distracting. I like the idea of using it in conjunction with S35mm... or I guess as a tool for the right shots/films. Anyone else notice the jump between S35 and 65mm on Captain America? You get this incredible separation... but that means some of it looks like it was shot on a green screen (when it wasn't). In addition, it makes focus more tricky. Anyone see Interstellar on a big screen? Focus issues galore on the IMAX stuff. Obviously that's partly due to the fact that it was film as well (no monitor to check focus), but even still, the splits become impossible in many cases - two shots for example can be a case of one person in focus, and the other not. I think it's beautiful imagery, but for medium format shooting, I think it's important to really consider your shots on the format, and if you do you'll get significantly better results. I really hope that if medium format video comes to an affordable camera, we don't see another 'full frame DSLR' style shooting explosion, where nothing's in focus except the person's nose, as if that's somehow more 'cinematic'.

I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again. The 'right camera for the job' depends on so many more things than just the type of job. There is a right camera for you, and there is a right camera for your project, that's for sure. But there's no definitive 'right' camera for a particular job. Again, it depends, and the more we suggest that it's cut and dry, the more people get disappointed because this camera doesn't do this or that, or doesn't work the way they like. In the end, they blame the camera system, when it's not really the camera system's fault. To your point, an Alexa Studio can certainly be used for making a documentary or a wedding video. Is it the best choice? Well, that depends on you. Do you own an Alexa Studio? Do you have clients willing to pay to be able to access that quality of footage? If so, then maybe it is the best choice for you. If not, and you're looking for a camera for weddings, then it's going to depend on a number of different factors. I know wedding shooters who still shoot on prosumer 1/3" sensor cameras like the Z1, NX5 etc. I also know wedding shooters who shoot on A7s'. I know wedding shooters who shoot on F5s and REDs. I know BTS shooters who shoot GH4, and I know BTS shooters who shoot Alexa. It depends. The 'what camera should I get' question may be annoying, but the reality is that people asking that question are better served once you know what their needs are, rather than selecting it from a chart. Big DPs when deciding what to lens a movie with, they don't just go to a chart that says 'Feature - Alexa Studio' and choose that way. If you really want to serve these people, you'd be better off having a thread that outlines the pros and cons of each camera system, and has a preamble about how to ascertain what you need in a camera system.

Of course, but the assumption was that everything else is equal, in which base higher bit depth and more colour information is going to work in your favour every time. Getting everything else right is very important, but all else being equal the BMPC will still key easier. And as I said above, allows a lot more room for error. If everything else is 100% perfect, the GH4 will be easy to key as well. But how often is everything else 100% perfect? Realistically, even if the GH4 takes only 5 extra minutes to get the key right because of its bit-depth and lack of colour, multiply that over the amount of videos you're doing and you can end up with hours of unnecessarily wasted time. I do agree with you that the actual setup is more important than the camera, however. But I don't think the choice is between a BMPC and no lights in a small room versus a GH4 in a large room and a full lighting setup. Though, I could be wrong.

Except it would actually go more like this Friend: "I need a camera for a commercial shoot tomorrow, what do you recommend?" Me: 'What's the commercial? What's your budget? Are you going to go and buy this camera off the shelf, or can you rent it? What's the plan? Commercial for YouTube or for television? Are you lighting extensively? What are you looking for out of a camera for this job? Will you be grading? Who will be grading it? Studio or location or both? Friend answers questions and I can recommend a camera accordingly. Conversely, if a friend came to me and said 'hey, you know about cameras, what's the best camera for a commercial' (and this has happened exactly like this in the past), I would say 'well it depends on what you're doing, there's no real best camera for a commercial, it depends on so many things - not the least of which is your budget. Tell me more about what you're doing and I can give you a recommendation.'

But a general guide doesn't exist, unless your general guide is a discussion about the pros and cons of each camera for the situation. A poll provides no context. What's best for a feature film? Well, what's your budget? What sort of film? Is it a sci-fi involving green screen and VFX, or a gritty drama? Is it a studio set-up with jibs and dollies and steadicams, or will you be handheld for the whole thing? What's the intended output (i.e. do you need 4k)? Do you have the budget for a lighting and grip package? There's so many variables that it's impossible to say 'Blackmagic Cinema Camera'. The BMCC, for example, is a worse choice for low light than say an A7sII or a 5DIII. So is your film being shot at night without lighting, or on a set with a full lighting setup? The premise of the thread is not a bad one, but it should be as a discussion, not a poll with a definitive, or 'general' answer.

There's no such thing as a 'best' camera for anything of these things. All of the cameras listed will do a great job on any of the productions listed. But each has their own pros and cons that you need to figure out which align best with what you need and like. You can't choose an objectively best camera for any of these situations, as an objectively 'best' camera doesn't exist.

Bump that exposure up

Wouldn't the cost of a GH4 + external recorder push it up to the same as a BMPC anyway..?

Consumer grade means it's built to a price and you're paying $3,000 for a camera instead of $30,000 so don't complain too much. Think of TVs. A $10,000 TV is very different to an $800 TV, even if they both display movies. You would expect a $10,000 TV to last longer and perform better than an $800 TV.