jax_rox

FS700 with an external recorder will easily hold up, assuming you have some decent lenses. FS700 without external recorder is, IMO, an extremely disappointing image. You do get the S&Q motion which is pretty good. Depends if you're happy always using an external recorder, I guess.

Eh, by October there'll probably be another Sony camera out, and even possibly a GH5. A Canon camera that barely competes with last year's specs is not going to compete with next year's specs. But hey, it's Canon - so 75% of the people on here and a whole bunch of other people will all buy it and tell themselves it's the greatest camera in the world. Also, they're going to have to offer more than H.264. Say what you will about Sony, but at least we get XAVC-S, and 4:2:2 via HDMI.

The more expensive the lens, the more likely it is to hold its value... at least to an extent. You gotta have pretty sh*t hot lenses to begin with. For example, the value dropped right out of Sony CineAlta Primes, and even Red Pro Primes have seen their value diminish since they stopped making them. High-end anamorphics, expensive vintage lenses, Angie zooms, Cooke lenses, Fujis, Aluras, Ultra Primes etc. are going to hold their value significantly moreso than a Canon or Nikon electronically controlled 24-105 or 24-70.

I want one with a mechanical shutter... Make me feel like I'm shooting on film again...

I actually think it would've been pretty damn great to have an OVF on the D16. Probably not doable at the price range, though.

S16 cameras have viewfinders which allow you to look straight through the lens. I'd love to have a digital camera with an optical viewfinder, however I find it much more pertinent to monitor what you're actually getting on a digital camera. Also, not sure this was meant to replace S16, just an idea of a digital version of S16. Bolex's were standard 16mm anyway.

It's also almost impossible to predict if a lens is going to appreciate in value. Certainly small flange depth lenses won't hold their value as much as they're significantly harder to adapt. Older lenses like Super Baltars and Zeiss Super/Standard Speeds, Cooke Panchros, Lomos etc. have seen their values increase hugely, thanks in part to the lust and want for 'older' glass for a specific look, now that we're trying to take the 'edge' off digital. In addition, the rarity of a lens adds significant value. Super Baltars haven't been made since the 70s. Zeiss Supers and Panchros since the 80s. One imagines that an older set of lenses that can cover and resolve 8k/full frame+, and are rather fast, will continue to appreciate in value as other sets break, deteriorate etc. Think back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s... how could anyone have predicted that old school 'soft' lenses would come back into fashion? EF glass is unlikely to appreciate simply based on the fact that there's so many of them. There's really no secret recipe. If everyone thought they knew what would appreciate in value, everyone would buy those lenses - which would stop them from appreciating as they'd be so common. Think of the expensive Canon 50mm f0.95. Sure, they made around 20,000 units, but it's still a pretty rare lens - and that's why it's expensive. Compare it to the Helios 44-2, one of the most mass-produced lenses ever. Production on both cameras stopped a long while ago, and yet one can be had for $40 - the other $4,000.

The D16's inherent problem is that it is a niche product priced in such a way that it's not really practical for most people who are looking for an A-cam at that price level. For the cost of it with a PL mount, you can get a Blackmagic, FS5, secondhand FS7, FS700, F3, even an A7s with Shogun. All of which offer different looks, but tend to be more versatile and practical than a D16. The image is beautiful, and I love S16. But I think the entire reason that it has a 'habit of getting into a disproportionately high number of talented hands' is the simple fact that you're looking at a S16 digital camera which is quirky as hell, and priced way too high to be much more than a 'for the love of it' kind of camera. So those who have the kind of money to blow on something like it are not the same people that are buying a BMPCC which has the same sensor size. They are great sensors. However, even the F35 exhibits some pretty awful smear under the right circumstances - and I'm not talking about very specific circumstances, I'm talking about even street lights can cause a CCD to smear. And it's pretty ugly. It's funny to look at these sensors with a love... I think they're great but at the same time I remember watching movies that were shot with the Panavision Genesis at the time, or partly shot with them, and not particularly liking it - at least in comparison to film. I remember watching Get Smart and immediately picking the Genesis shots, and really disliking them. It's funny how perspectives change... -- On a different note - why the hell aren't all camera manufacturers including false colour into their cameras? I hate zebras, and always have. Yet everyone seems to think that's the only exposure tool people want (in addition to Histogram, which I also find pretty useless). I've used the Shogun on cameras that don't really need it just to be able to use the False Colour and Waveform (I use my meter, but also make sure I always check false colour and/or waveform on digital).

I'd agree with this - there's a reason very few people use S16 lenses on their MX in 2k to shoot, despite it being very possible. The resolution is just not there. REDs are optimised to work at their max resolution. Even an Epic will perform significantly better at 5k than it will at 2 or 3k.

Well, considering an Arri from 10 years ago would be a D20 - there would actually be a lot of benefits to using the GH4, depending on what you're shooting. The D20 has a nice sensor and can give you a nice image, sure - but the mucking around to get that into some sort of workable format and workable image is ridiculous. The camera has been discontinued, and even its successor has been discontinued. How easy will it be to find parts if something goes wrong? It's actually more like saying 'I'm not going to spend money on a 10 year old camera that's been long discontinued, when I can spend the same or less on a camera that will give me an image that's nearly as good, and be 10x easier to work with, and is newer, so is likely to stay relevant for a bit longer.' You should only ever consider buying a camera if you can be confident you'll be able to make a return on it within 18 months. The technology moves so quickly these days that a 7 year old camera becomes irrelevant very quickly. Not to mention, the RED One is already 8 years old. To expect it to continue to hold up in another 7 years is naivety. Would you call the Sony F900 still relevant? Unless you've just got money to blow (in which case just buy something, why are you asking), you should be pretty certain you can pay it off within 18 months. If you need a camera that's going to attempt to stay relevant for the next 7 years, you're going to need to buy a relatively new, relatively expensive camera now, and even then you'll likely be disappointed if you really can only pay the camera off over 7 years. -- On the question of RED One vs RED Scaret - the Scarlet is by far a better camera. But the ROne kit is pick up and shoot, whereas the Scarlet one you're going to need all sorts of other things. If I were you, I might think about something like an FS5 - gives you pretty good quality, soon to give you raw, can have a PL mount put on it, is 4k, pretty new, etc etc. Plus you can put cheap lenses and expensive lenses on it.. I think overall you'd probably be happier. The FS700 has been able to stay somewhat relevant thanks to its raw recording (though it is still only four years old). Otherwise, maybe a second hand F5. You'll probably only get the body, but that's essentially what you're getting with the Scarlet anyway. It doesn't necessarily have the name recognition of RED, but realistically you're not going to book jobs based on the fact that you own an 8 year old camera. Maybe if you can find the money to upgrade the Scarlet to a Dragon sensor..

I was under the impression that one of the main purposes of fly-by-wire focussing is to eliminate breathing..

Actually, in 4:2:0, both Cb (B-Y) and Cr (R-Y) are captured equally, but on alternating lines. I would posit that the reason things can fall apart on any digital sensor when shooting in warm white balances is because most sensors are weakest in the blue channel. Digital sensors are most sensitive to green - hence the proliferation of green screen. This mimics the human eye, which is also most sensitive to green. Sensors are least sensitive to blue, so when you're shooting under Tungsten light with a Tungsten white balance, the blue channel gets very noisy, especially when compared with shooting daylight balance, where the light is mostly blue, and therefore the blue channel gets the 'saturation' it needs to stay 'quiet'. Therefore it makes sense that even shooting daylight balance (considering digital sensors are 'biased' towards daylight) to saturate the sensor with more blue, will clean up better as the blue channel will remain quieter/less noisy as compared to shooting under tungsten balance. I can't imagine chroma subsampling post-sensor does wonders for the blue channel either, so you've got an already noisy blue channel having its resolution reduced and compressed - which is why it's much less of an issue on a raw, or 444 subsampled camera.

I use FCPX a lot - I use it for a lot of my XAVC editing, as I don't own Premiere and find the ingest much easier than transcoding for Avid - my XAVC stuff is usually shirt turn around. So, it's more than just a few day trial. I've used it for a number of full projects over the past couple years. My points still stand. FCPX has potential, and it really depends on what you're doing and how you edit as to whether you'll love it or hate it. I personally find I can use it okay, but it's not my first option when I can help it.

Most 'non-film' lights, and even cheaper 'film' lights don't generally have high CRI, so will have a colour cast - which means it's almost impossible to have a 'this settin for this' other than to know the relative white balances (5600 k daylight, 3200 k tungsten). I sometimes like shooting daylight at 6500 k, but that can change depending on what I'm running.

Personally, I don't think it really makes much difference these days. Not sure I'd want to try and run Avid on an underpowered Macbook, but Premiere or FCPX will be fine with it. Granted, Premiere plays nicer with Nvidia/CUDA cards, and Apple only allow OpenCL AMD cards in their new Mac Pro (which FCPX is tuned for), but there's no reason why you couldn't/shouldn't run Premiere, or any NLE on a Mac. There are plenty of things that FCPX still can't do - like export an OMF, for example. There are things it is good at, but there are certain projects where I would avoid FCPX if I could. If it's the only thing you have - you've gotta work with it. The 'magnetic' or 'lack-of' timeline is both great and awful, depending on what you're doing and how you like to edit. Things that are quick in other NLEs can end up being much more difficult in FCPX. And vice versa. Simple things like fine adjustments to cross fades, or lengthening a clip that has a crossfade on it become more tedious and annoying.

Mac Pro is a better computer IMO, having run both. You get dual video cards (and pretty great ones), a better processor, more RAM out of the box, with more slots so you can max out higher, you get 6 THunderbolt 2 ports versus two, in addition to the 4 USB 3 that they share. Plus you get HDMI, so you don't necessarily have to use up a Thunderbolt port on a display or display adapter. You get a PCIe SSD, which flies - though its capacity is smaller than an iMac. Dual Gb Ethernet.. Plus, if your internal HDD ever fails, it's heaps easier to get into a Mac Pro than it is an iMac. Even a new one. The downside is the cost of displays, though if you're already running a Mac Pro, one would assume you already have those? The iMac is a very capable computer, but if the question is what's better, the Mac Pro is a better computer, even if you're comparing top of the line iMac to the base MP. If you're comparing a completely maxed out iMac (i.e. top specs in everything), the gap narrows, but the Mac Pro still has some leverage over that iMac. Have you looked into upgrading your cMP tower? There's so much you can do, especially if you have $2400+ to throw at it (not to mention all the Thunderbolt extensions I imagine you'll need to invest in), that would get it running as good as a 5k iMac or new Mac Pro. Depends how old your cMP is, but you can put a Radeon R9 4GB in it, you can put PCIe SSDs in there, you can put SATA SSDs (you can even run SATA III with the right adapters). You can max out your RAM to more than 24GB (which is what you're looking at for your iMac) and you can even have your processor(s) upgraded. All of those things would likely come in at <$2400. You could have work/scratch drives internally RAIDed. Or externally if you like, via eSata or USB3. The only downside of an older Mac Pro is the lack of Thunderbolt, but I don't think it's as much of a downside as it seems, considering USB 3.1 superfast, eSata, etc. and you're saving money overall, whilst getting similar performance (at least to that iMac). YMMV

Yes definitely this. MC is developed around the keyboard, whilst the others are significantly more mouse dependant. Even things that there are keyboard shortcuts for, are often easier/more precise with the mouse. I'm curious as to what sort of things these are? I may benefit from the fact that I'd used Avid Xpress Pro before I made the switch to Apple and FCP, so I knew the basics of Avid. It is definitely a learning curve, but I find that MC forces you to think differently about how you edit - which I like. For me, it was about thinking more creatively, and methodically - or with more of a plan.

Haha, this is so true. DJI stuff is smart, so it can lull you into a false sense of security, and make you think you're a better pilot than you really are. They do take some time and practice, but the stuff you can get out of them is pretty great, considering the price.

I second Media Composer. It's my favourite out of the main three (FCPX, Avid, Premiere Pro). FCPX also can be quite powerful, but it can also be incredibly frustrating. I was using FCPX for a while, as it was the only software I had that could handle XAVC (couldn't get MC to do it at the time, despite installing the correct AMA plugin). The architecture it's built around, and the background import and exports are really great, but the essential lack of a timeline (instead multiple storylines) is a double edged sword, and whilst it makes things like dragging a single clip over another clip pretty easy, it also makes fine adjustments of other things very difficult. It's also almost impossible to get an OMF out of, its XMLs are quirky, no EDL etc.... Avid MC would be my first choice. I haven't used Premiere enough to really comment on it. Maybe trial all three and see what works for you - of course budget will always play a factor

I like to shoot with Classic Soft filters on the lens, but that will obviously be different for SLR/Ms

Of course, but we're only just starting to see the first A7s hacks... Imagine it like the very very first ML hacks.. we may not be weeks away from raw video, but who knows what we could get, given enough time.

Well, so far we've been gifted unlimited record times, so... you never know... Don't think it will be as simple as a line of code a la F5/55, but if ML could hack a 5D to get raw out of it... who knows what's possible

If I had to choose one lens, it would be a Fuji Cabrio 19-90mm T2.95 Or perhaps the Canon 17-120 T2.95

If the client needs 4K, chuck the Shogun on the A7s! Or hire something that can comfortably do it, assuming you're charging out appropriately. You'd be surprised though at how few require 4k. There are some broadcasters requesting 4k, but I've recently been shooting cinema commercials for brands, and the cinema's requirement is a 1080p DCP - not even 2k!

But do you need 4K? Depends what you're shooting as to whether the lack of 4k is a problem or not.