DBounce

The people making the documentaries certainly care what the image looks like. Which is my point. The people with the talent to win choose Canon. Again having a Canon does not make you a winner... but clearly winners prefer Canon.

I agree, but they do know what they like image wise. This is why Arri dominates the Academy Awards as the camera most used on winning films. Same is true for Canon in the documentary world. It’s not about the camera, it’s about the imagery. Or do you think it’s all just a coincidence? The audience may not know or care what cameras were used, but they certainly know what imagery they prefer. Let me tell you what they really do not care about... lofty spec sheets.

Let me simplify this, winners choose Canon because they are focused on image, ease/speed of use. They view the camera as a tool. The footage is the product. For them image is first and ease of capturing the image is important so they can capture that footage with little fuss. They are focused on reliably and fast service should a issue arise. Canon is well known for providing a system that is well suited for professional needs. Using Canon does not ensure a win... but clearly those with the talent to win favor Canon.

I think the results speak volumes, Arri, Panavision for Feature films and Canon for documentaries. As for what about the ones shot with other brands? Well, they simply didn’t make the cut... they were not considered to be worthy. It’s really that simple. I think if your goal is to impress the Academy you should plan wisely in every aspect of your production; from story, script, talent, crew, sets and yes cameras also. Is it possible the Academy favors the Canon image? Sure, why not? Most people love the image Canon's produce. Is that thought really so surprising? Here’s a quick takeaway... Winners choose Canon. Got a problem with that statement? Let’s see your Academy award winning documentary shot on a Panasonic? I’m not saying you couldn’t shoot one... who knows? But I’ll bet if you do, you’ll be confessing you actually used a Canon? Ok I’m bustin balls a bit.., but there is clearly a correlation. If you listen to most of the people here, they will tell you that no one uses Canons for doc work anymore... Sony owns the market. Well, if that’s true, it’s even less probable that all the documentaries that were nominated were shot on Canons... and yet despite massive odds in Sony’s favor, only the documentaries shot on Canons were nominated. Now I understand that there’s much more to it than choice of camera... but at the end of the day my initial thought remains true... winners choose Canon. Tech geeks sit around pixel peeping, oogling technical specs and shooting test charts. I myself was guilty of this... till one day I sat down after comparing footage from all the top contenders and reached an astonishing conclusion; The image matters... motion matters... that’s what people see. Ease/speed of use matters that’s what allows you to get the shot. When I put these things first the choice was clear... Canon. We have enough detail... too much honestly. Sharper lenses, more resolution is not the answer. That’s only useful in industrial cameras or medical devices. For cinematic imagery we have more than enough detail. Canons match well to Arri’s in every aspect save for dynamic range... and that can be controlled with thoughtful camera angles most of the time. I believe the people that have the talent to win or be nominated for an Academy award put image first. I think tech specs are for nerds. I can’t recall ever watching a movie trailer where they focused on dynamic range or low-light performance as reasons to see their movie. No one cares... no really, no one cares. Virtually everything currently out cinema camera wise is frankly good enough. If you can get usable 6400 ISO that’s super flexible. Turning night to day is just foolish.., damit, just shoot in daylight if that’s your goal. Many will rebut these comments, but in the end the results are irrefutable. Nuff said!

I don't think you could ask for a better endorsement than the fact that every nominated doc was shot on Canons. Any arguments that suggest otherwise are plainly disingenuous.

This is a nonsensical argument. Too much low hanging fruit to pick off here. If this is honestly your view, what can I say... good luck with that!

https://***URL not allowed***/oscars-2019-all-nominated-documentaries-shot-on-canon-cameras/

I think OIS is more about micro jitters from hand movement also. EIS is better if what you are looking for is a replacement for a gimbal. The Samsung Super Steady Shot as seen on the new S10 phones is a good example of just how effective EIS can be for video. Granted, in its current implementation the phone is limited to HD footage. But nevertheless, the concept shows huge promise. A system such as this combined with a camera array and ample processing power will likely negate the need for gimbals and point and shoot cameras in the not too distant future.

As seen @2.16 into the video, there is no data transmitted to the camera from the lens.

@sanveer it also has post re-focus ability. This is pretty amazing in a package this small. And while it is true that the image processing does take some time, from the review I have seen it does not slow down image capture as the processing is done in the background.

OIS is not the way forward. EIS as seen in the new GoPro and Samsung S10 devices is the future.

Today Nokia unveiled its new Nokia 9 Pureview phone. A phone the combines 5 back mounted cameras into 1 to produce realtime HDR images. Nokia worked with Light to produce the new camera technology.

A lot of harm could have been done had this asshat gotten away with this fraud. He should face the same punishment that the attackers would have faced had the attack been real.

You do know that Samsung supplies the Amoled screens that Apple uses? The new S10 has 1200 nits brightness vs 700ish of the iPhone. Also 2 million to 1 contrast ratio vs 1 million to 1. The new screens on the S10 are Samsung’s most advanced mobile screens. Their most color accurate. Much better that anything they have ever produced. Certainly better than anything they have ever sold to Apple.

The S10 has a HDR10+ screen and is the first smartphone to be HDR10+ certified. So I’m certain your old iPhone doesn’t have this screen.

He did this one in a hurry. Those look more like EOS R specs.

12 bit, 444 and raw are important if green screen or correcting for exposure are important. But generally not so important. I’m mostly shooting 8 bit on the C200. It’s nice to have the option of higher bit depth, color or raw, but there are trade offs in speed and size that take precedence imo. Then there are things that make life easy every time you go to shoot. Things like reliability, AF, ergonomics, menu navigation, media type, flippy screen, etc... Combine that with easy post processing and you end up with a camera that is a pleasure to work with.

@Geoff_L cameras are constantly evolving so today’s best may be surpassed by something else in the future. This certainly holds true for specs... but the same may not necessarily hold true for the overall cinematic or organic imagery that each camera produces. All of the past cameras I have reviewed were perfectly capable of producing good quality images. The GH5S is a fantastic camera... hindered by less than great AF and a low resolution sensor... effectively relegating it to video use only. The GH5 is limited by poor lowlight performance. I use to carry both when I would travel. The Fuji X-T3 was a wonderful little camera. It’s S35 sensor is a great compromise for video use. If not for the fact that after committing over $15k, into two bodies and a selection of their best photo glass... and MK cinema lenses... both bodies up and died, with no harsh use, while only being weeks old, I would still be happily shooting with them. The Fuji’s have their own mojo. They are also fun to shoot with. My only real complaint was reliability as per my own experience after owning two bodies. For reference, I have never had any other brand of camera body die on me... not completely anyway. The Nikon Z6 is a great showing for a first try at a full frame mirrorless camera. Similar in image to the Sony. But with better color science imo. The reliability of the Nikon was solid. The video performance clean. The stills performance... subpar. Far behind Sony and Canon; Especially in challenging lighting conditions. It’s a good image overall, but lacks any mojo... something the Canons and Fuji both have. You are left with an image that has you working harder, both in production and in post to somehow make it look special. It’s a tiresome effort. But again highly subjective. I will concur... the 1DC looked great. Indeed, it’s hard to argue the 1DC did not produce one of the most filmic images of any digital camera to date. No list of most filmic digital hybrid could be complete without mentioning it. I would truly love to see that camera... with a sensible codec, make a return in mirrorless form. But I think the days of $15k DSLRs are behind us, so hopefully Canon will give us something a bit more reasonable. At that kind of money there are smarter choices for video than a hybrid. It’s not that any one of theses cameras cannot produce cinematic imagery... it’s just that some do not require the same amount of lift to get you there. I’m not a pro, so I like things to be as easy as possible. If there was a camera with a “instant Hollywood blockbuster” mode... and if it looked convincing... I would be all over that thing. For me, the less time and energy I need to spend getting the image I want, the better.

Glass, grading and lighting etc... do not affect motion cadence. And since we are speaking of motion picture or movie recording the "motion" part is pretty important. If you are going for the video look/sterile digital look, there are a myriad of options. It really comes down to the look you prefer. Neither is "right", it's a personal choice.

When I first discovered these issues during my two months with this camera I got much hate for reporting them. These are defects... regardless of what Nikon says. Those Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak.

Please go ahead and post some examples... and I don’t mean frame grabs. That will speak volumes. I can personally only speak from my own experience. Having had the Nikon Z6 and Atomos V for two months. A professional lighting kit. Setting up a number of shots, metering for correct exposure, correct white balance and using equivalent lenses, I concluded that the imagery from the Nikon seemed less organic, more digital than the comparable Canon offering. Yes, the Nikon was less noisy at high ISOs, but in spite of having a technically superior sensor, it nevertheless yielded a more digital/vidieoish image. Do some test back to back like I did... Canon EOS R vs the Nikon Z6. The difference will become apparent.

@kye the only problem I see is that Panasonic and Fuji have been working on this technology for several years and still nothing you could buy.

They won’t... they must protect the FS lineup. Fuji and Nikon are the new disrupters.

Never seen this to be a problem.

Because the organic sensor has built in electronic variable ND. https://www.google.com/amp/s/***URL removed***/news/1440456457/panasonic-unveils-industry-first-8k-organic-image-sensor-with-global-shutter.amp