mikegt

This is definitely one of the more obtuse posts I've read on this forum - you are deliberately trying to distort what I'm saying. > $100 some phones/cameras from "insert Chinese brand" that record 4K video You can't change the lens on a phone, or even change the focal length. We are talking about cameras made for enthusiasts here, not for selfies. I never said anything about the price having to be $1,000. If you want 4K and a full-frame sensor, the Sony cameras offer both and cost thousands less than the 1DXII, plus Sony includes the video features left out of the 1DXII (see below). In any case, decent 4K does not require a full-size sensor. You seem to be deliberately missing the point here, which is that Sony, Panasonic and BlackMagic offer 4K cameras that are affordable for most folks. Canon chooses not to, and this is not due to any technical reason - they are protecting their high-priced Cinema line. They are protecting their Cinema line to such an extent that even the $6,000 1DXII has been compromised to meet that goal, by leaving out features like modern codecs, focus and exposure aids, Log, 4K HDMI out, raw video, etc., etc - all features Canon is willing to give you in the $16,000 C300, which is their cheapest Cinema line camera that can do 4K.

I looked up Canon's specs on the 1DXII body. Canon says it is "weather resistant" but not weather-sealed. They don't say it is compliant with any of the common industrial MIL-STD ratings used to test ruggedized equipment. In fact, they don't claim that the 1DXII can or is designed to survive drops of any kind, or full immersion in water. Also, Canon says the operating temperature is only between 32 to 113°F. So it will not work in freezing temperatures or near volcanoes. I'm sure the 1DXII is more rugged than the average consumer camera. But saying you can safely drop it off a building or use it in extreme temperatures is a bit of a stretch.

To be accurate, the issue is it doesn't fit the idea of a camera optimized for recording video. To reiterate: No focus peaking, no zebras, no articulated screen, no 4K HDMI out, no built-in WiFI, no modern codecs, no raw video and a viewfinder that doesn't work when recording video. The price is perhaps the biggest issue. For $6K you can get a lot more camera as far as video features go from other makers. For stills, I think the 1DXII looks like a great camera. Finally, I can't speak for everyone of course but I know that a lot of Canon fans (I am one of them) have been waiting for a 4K capable camera from Canon that is in the same ballpark price-wise as offerings from Sony, Panasonic, BlackMagic, etc. If the $6,000 IDXII is going to be Canon's only answer to that need, that is really disappointing. If you don't like me daring to say that then please don't read my posts. If you like the 1DXII at the price it costs and the features it offers then buy one. If Canon ever releases a 4K camera that matches or exceeds what you can get from other makers priced in the same ballpark as what the competing models cost I will be the first one to praise them for it.

I will do axe grinding on anything that appears to be over-priced and under-spec'ed. Speaking of motivations, you do seem to be intensely trying to sell us on the 1DXII; I have to ask, do you work for or get compensated by Canon or any of its affiliates ? That is a false statement. I've posted a lot of stuff on Nikon, Panasonic and other cameras lately. You on the other hand have been trying to sell the 1DXII like it was the Holy Grail. Very weird.

The Alexa is in an entirely different league from the cameras we have been talking about. The body alone costs as much as a brand-new BMW 5 series, it's built like a tank and records at a much deeper color depth than anything ordinary mortals can generally afford to buy. This is why 4K makes so much sense on the cameras we can afford - not necessarily for making the final product in 4K, but for being able to intelligently (a computer is needed) interpolate down to very high quality HD. Mathematically at least a proper interpolation of 4K down to HD can give you 4:4:4 color depth. You also reduce the picture noise as well (since you are making it four times smaller). In many ways you can say that 4K is the best thing to ever happen to HD. I'm sorry that you are not able to see the virtues of shooting in 4K. Like it or not though, it is the future.

Well, your previous post did seem like a rant, so I think you did get upset. > But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the G7 is superior for video compared to You are getting a bit fixated on just the G7; I was speaking in more general terms in regard to other cameras compared to the D750. If you want a big sensor then get a Sony A7 series as I previously said; don't get a G7. I really don't know what you are talking about in regard to color, the D750 does not appear to have any particularly overwhelming advantage in that regard. Obviously you have invested a lot of money and faith in your D750. Perhaps it would be better if you did not read my posts, because having owned one I will never say that it is superior to all other cameras when it comes to video.

Mattias: Obviously I have upset you. Let me be very clear where I'm coming from here: If you are happy with your D750 then I'm happy for you and will not say that you made any kind of mistake in buying one. But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the D750 is superior for video compared to cameras that can do 4K, and telling them they are better off without modern focus aids, EVFs, etc., is a bit misleading and is not IMHO just a matter of personal taste.

> Again, there is no clear answer/winner here. Its all down to the users needs. There is no one solution that fits everyone and every situation, but that does not mean that there is not a solution that would be a better fit for most situations and most people. I'm only writing advice here, take it or leave it as you wish.

No fog, and yes the lens was clean !!! Settings were out-of-the-box, nothing customized. Also no post processing whatsoever. I do agree with a lot of what you said, thank-you for posting a lot of info on how to get the most out of a D750. In regard to your examples, obviously you have taken considerable care with both camera settings and sharpening the image in post. Your results do look better than what I got out of my D750; but they are not 4K quality, as you said. BTW, the G7 I think is improved over the GH4. The G7 is about one stop better in low light performance, and rolling shutter in 4K mode has been reduced. I compared the D750 and G7 for rolling shutter; the D750 was a little better but not by much. I would not consider either camera really suitable for recording super fast action! Also it's not an apples-to-apples comparison: The G7 is recording a lot more pixels (four times more) in 4K mode than the Nikon is in HD, if we could get the Nikon to record 4K it's rolling shutter would probably be worse than the G7 due to the sensor being double in size. While you appear to be very happy with the D750, I'm not sure we should advise someone shopping for a film-making camera that the two cameras would be equally good for that purpose. For one thing, with no custom settings and no post-processing sharpening, one can still get sharper more detailed images out of a camera that does 4K than one that does not, all other factors being equal. Also, as you mentioned the less expensive G7 and the Sony 4K cameras have a lot of video features (focus aids, an EVF, etc.) that Nikon doesn't provide with the D750. Full frame sensor cameras undeniably have a definite advantage in low light, but does that fully offset the shallower depth of field that can make keeping moving subjects in focus more difficult? My other concern with the D750 as a film-making machine is value-for-money as far as it's video feature set is concerned; you can buy a Sony AS7II for just a bit more money, or at least three G7 cameras with lenses for the price of one D750 with it's kit lens, and these cameras give you 4K which the Nikon cannot do. If low light were a priority, to be honest I would tell someone to not buy either a G7 or the Nikon, but instead to consider the Sony A7SII. I spent $3K to buy a D750 and had high hopes for it; I really wanted it to work out but for film-making it became clear that at least for what I wanted out of it, this camera was not going to be the best solution for me. I believe the most important thing I learned from having my D750 was that I had made a mistake trying to get one camera that would be equally suitable for stills and video. IMHO it is better to get a mirrorless camera for video, and keep your old DSLR around for taking stills. Then take the money you saved and buy some nice lenses...

Thank-you - high detail scenes are indeed the problem. The Nikon has a 24 megapixel sensor and 1080p HD video is only about two megapixels. So 90% of the sensor data has to be dumped which does tend to kill fine detail. With a powerful processor you could interpolate the image data down in a way that would preserve the detail, but it appears that most DSLRs don't have the computing power or sufficient cooling to do intelligent interpolation; instead they just dump the extra pixels. Hopefully the next version of the D750 (the D760?) will have 4K recording.

As I said previously, the D750 with it's full frame sensor does have an advantage in low light. However, in good light, recording in 4K, the G7 just blows away the D750 in regard to sharpness and detail. I can (and will if needed) post tons of comparison shots that prove what I'm saying. If the D750 could record in 4K it would likely beat the G7's video quality, but it can't so it doesn't. I think there is a perception here that cameras that cost more will automatically do better than the "cheap" models. This is not always the case. And big sensors don't automatically make better movies than small ones (in fact the tiny sensor in my iPad Air 2 makes sharper more detailed movies than my Canon DSLRs). What the camera maker does with the data coming off the sensor is perhaps the most important factor - pixel binning and line skipping will turn even the most perfect image into a blurry mush. > low DR, colors and firmware quirks...Lowligt was of course very bad...sold the G7 and got the D750 for its imo superior video.... You must of had a defective G7. Or perhaps you didn't know how to turn 4K mode on (by default out-of-the-box the camera records in HD, you have to go in the menu system and select 4K recording). I haven't encountered any of the issues you mentioned with the G7. Like any camera the G7 is not perfect, but I have been very happy with the sharpness in 4K, colors are good and reasonably accurate, and I have not seen any firmware "quirks" in the four months that I have had the camera. As for low light, it's no A7S but up to ISO 6400 it's pretty clean in average room light. I will say that the D750 makes better movies than my Canon DSLRs; but it just can't match the detail and sharpness of good 4K cameras such as the G7, GH4 or any of the Sony 4K models.

No, the fence is not the point of focus. It just looks slightly sharper because it's closer to the camera. If you look at the detail on the fence it is not sharp, so even if it was the point of focus it would not be very impressive. In any case, focusing was done manually, and carefully set on the trees, not the fence. The camera was also mounted on a rock steady heavy-duty Bogen professional tripod, so motion blur was not a factor. In regard to diffraction, the aperture was set to F8 (ISO was at 100), so diffraction was also not a significant factor. The lens used was Nikon's standard kit model, the 24-120mm F4.

I think you might be disappointed with the D750. I owned one for a month but returned it; one of the reasons why is that the video resolution is limited to HD and Nikon is doing some pixel binning or line skipping. I found the level of picture detail & sharpness, while better than most Canon DSLRs, to be disappointing. I replaced it with a Panasonic G7 (similar to the GH4 you sold). Shooting in 4K on the G7 and "down-rezzing" it to HD yielded a much sharper image than the D750 was able to produce. The one advantage the D750 does have is better low light capabilities thanks to it's full frame sensor, but for me at least it was not enough to offset the lack of sharpness and detail in good light. If your priority is good low light video then an A7SII, which costs only a bit more than a D750, would probably make a better choice. I uploaded a frame grab from a video I shot on a D750. As you can see, fine detail on the trees and grass is getting lost due no doubt to line skipping or pixel binning. (you'll need to click on the image and then expand it to full resolution by clicking on the "full size" link on the lower left of the screen to see the lack of detail I'm referring to).

As I thought, you don't have an intelligent response. Thank-you, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make here all along, The 1DXII does look to be a fine stills camera, as I've been saying. I totally agree that someone who needs a *proper* video camera should look elsewhere. As the owner of four Canon cameras (two DSLRS, one HD camcorder and also one of the tiny IXUS models) I think it's a bit shameful that in early 2016 we can buy for around $1,000 interchangeable lens cameras from Sony and Panasonic that record 4K video, but are being asked to pay a minimum of $6,000 for the same thing from Canon - with less video features than the other manufacturers offer on their $1,000 models ! I know I will get a lot of angry responses from Canon fans for daring to say this, but it is the truth.

I stuck around for three pages worth, so your statement is a lie. But you already know that. As long as I'm still here, would it be too much to ask you to make an intelligent response to the points I raised regarding the 1DXII: No focus peaking, no zebras, no articulated screen, no 4K HDMI out, no built-in WiFI, no modern codecs, no raw video and a viewfinder that doesn't work when recording video. And it costs double what you would pay for the full-frame A7SII, and six times or more what you would pay for a 4K capable cropped sensor camera that has the video features Canon chose to leave out of the 1DXII.

For video, what exactly can the 1DXII / 1DC do that a FS5, FS7 or A7SII can't do ?? We certainly know about the stuff the 1DXII can't do: No focus peaking, no zebras, no articulated screen, no 4K HDMI out, no built-in WiFI, no modern codecs, no raw video and a viewfinder that doesn't work when recording video. And it costs double what you would pay for the full-frame A7SII, and six times or more what you would pay for a 4K capable cropped sensor camera that has the video features Canon chose to leave out of the 1DXII. > I'd be really surprised if you worked in any camera-making or using What a stupid thing to say. You must be a hardcore Canon fan to be this angry at someone who dares to question how wonderful the 1DXII really is. For the record, I'm not famous or anything but I have worked in Hollywood as a camera assistant and visual effects technician on productions for Disney and Paramount that have been seen by millions. Have you even visited the place? I own two Canon DSLRs, one m43 4K camera, a Canon HD camcorder, Ricoh HD actioncam, plus numerous older DV and 35mm cameras and even a few antique Super 8 models such as the famous Nizo S 800. I could certainly afford to buy a 1DXII but I never will, as I said previously appears to be great for stills but is clearly over-priced and under-featured as a video camera. > Germy1979 said: Lol. These threads always turn into a Skip Bayless/Stephen Smith pissing contest by page 3. You are right. I've said what I had to say, so I'm done with this thread.

Well, every post is "just someone's opinion". But what I'm talking about is basic physics. The further away from your body that you hold an object, the more stress it causes requiring increased force to hold it in the same position. Your arguments might be more convincing with better grammar. > You can throw it on the ground! Throw a $6,000 camera with a $2,000 lens on the ground? My friend, I think you need a straitjacket more than a camera.

I'm sorry, but you are really missing the point here. It's not about carrying a camera on your shoulder or not; it's about having something designed to be used so that it is steady and not a strain to hold for long periods while filming. Any full-frame DSLR with a mirror is "out of the box" going to be uncomfortable to record video with hand-held for long periods of time since you can't brace it against your body; you have hold it some distance away to be able to see the screen. I never said I was opposed to add-ons; but good ones can add at least a grand to the price (a Zfinder alone costs around $500). So now you have a big rig that you are carrying around that is going to draw some attention on the street. And you are close to the price of a FS7, and even with no add-ons the 1DX II costs more than a FS5. If you want to shoot video with a DLSR form factor their are better choices out there - the most obvious being the Sony A7S2. It's half the price of the 1DX II, has all the video features Canon left out, is much smaller and lighter and has an electronic viewfinder so you can hold it against your body for stability; no add-ons needed (although some folks do build rigs for their Sony cameras). And no, I do not work for Sony.

I smell a troll. Trolls launch personal attacks like you just did; and they make comments that make no sense (read your own posts for examples). The other possibility is that you work for Canon, and are getting paid to boost their new camera and rage at anyone who doesn't agree that it is totally awesome. The 1DX II looks to be a fine stills camera, but is over-priced and under-featured for serious video work.

Apparently you have never seen an Alexa. Go and Google a picture of one being held by an operator. The weight rests on the operator's shoulder and there is an electronic viewfinder designed to meet the eye in that configuration. You can't carry a 1DX on your shoulder in its out-of-the-box form factor and the viewfinder doesn't work at all when in video mode. You can buy a load of accessories to fix the ergonomics, but then if you are going to do that why not just buy a camera designed for video recording in the first place? The 1DX is a stills camera with video as an add-on. Poor out-of-the-box ergonomics for filming, a viewfinder that doesn't work in video mode, no peaking, no zebras and 95% of the native lenses (not counting the super-expensive "Cinema line") are not optimized for video (they are not parfocal, maximum aperture often changes with focal length, no powered zooming, etc.). The huge sensor, which is wonderful in low light, unfortunately makes the depth of field very shallow so focus accuracy becomes critical. Also its size makes rolling shutter more likely. These are some of the reasons why the regular Alexa and Canon Cinema lines don't use full frame sensors. Checkout the sample videos for the 1DX II - they appear to be carefully shot with the camera on a steady support and very slow panning (if any) to avoid rolling shutter artifacts. Note that I have no problem with mirrorless SLR form factor cameras with electronic viewfinders being used for video; while they are not designed for shoulder mounting you can steady such cameras against the face so the lever principle does not apply; and they are generally smaller and weigh less than cameras with mirrors.

Right....a mirrorless camera with a viewfinder you can't see through! Ergonomically all DSLRs (cameras that use a mirror to provide through-the-lens viewing) are not optimum for film-making. In movie mode you have to hold the camera away from your face to see the rear screen, and something as heavy as the 1DX with a typical full-frame lens is going to weigh around 5 or 6 pounds, multiplied by the lever principle - the further away you hold a weight from your body while standing-up, the greater the strain on your back. I know all about this because I owned the big Nikon D750 with the heavy kit lens, but returned it because it was killing my back when recording videos. For serious film-making, an 1DX owner is going to have to invest in a Z-Finder and a rig to redistribute the weight, etc. This can easily add $1,000 on top of the price of the camera...which puts one in the ballpark of what a Sony FS7 would cost, a camera which is designed from the ground up for shooting video. So to all you professional filmmakers out there, a question: If the cost is about the same, would you rather have a FS7 or the 1DX II?

Full-frame cameras have super shallow depth of field; video shooters really need all the focus aids they can get. For stills plus occasional movies the 1DC is I'm sure a fine camera. For folks primarily making movies, there are better and less expensive options out there.

I guess the more you pay, the less you get ? Don started the list of features you don't get with: No peaking. No zebras. No C-Log. Only 1080p HDMI output. Here are some more: No built-in WiFi, needs $600 dongle. No articulated screen. I also have to say what is up with the tiny screen size on such a huge, heavy premium-priced camera? The smallest cheapest smartphones have bigger screens than this monster. With the amount of unused space on the back of this massive camera, Canon could of incorporated a much larger screen and still would of had plenty of space left over. My little Panasonic G7 has peaking, zebras, 4K HDMI output, built-in WiFi and an articulated screen and costs only $750 with a kit lens, versus the Canon at $6K with no lens. The G7 even comes with a high-res OLED viewfinder. The Canon 1D X is a better stills camera and better in low light. But with its high price (you can buy eight G7s with eight lenses for the cost of one 1D X body), the list of missing features on the Canon is disappointing.

​I got the list of chemicals used for film processing straight from an EPA white paper on pollution issues with film labs. They do not consider these chemicals to be "benign", as you put it.

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster. Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids. The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds. All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing. And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step. An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio). Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie! For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm). And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.