austinchimp

Haven't been there for a while but you might try the Media Markt shop if you have a car to drive to it.

Seems like we're both on a similar career path. Interesting to hear your thoughts on photography. It's something i do professionally more these days while my personal projects have dropped off. I can see photography offering me more personal enjoyment outside of work than video making for sure. When you make videos every day for a living it sure can wear you down and take the fun out of it.

Does anyone else think the skin tones are a bit orangey in the style of the GH4? Hopefully just the grading as from my own tests on GH5 the vlog gives very nice and natural skin colour.

I have found an improvement using x264 as opposed to h264, but yeah, there's certainly an issue and I haven't found a good way around it. Uploading prores files directly also seems to help.

How do you compare the A99 ii to the 1DX ii? Which would you pick for run and gun?

Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take. Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later. Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story. But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting. In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness. Take from that what you will.

Very interesting. I've been thinking of this myself. Can you show us any examples, or sample footage? I don't own a canon myself right now although I'm toying with the idea of getting a 1DX mkii.

So I, like many, bought into the Canon EF lens system as the best bet for long term system-agnostic compatibility. In the last few years I've used Canon lenses on Sony, Panasonic and Blackmagic cameras with adaptors. Recently a put a few more grand into the Canon system but I'm starting to have second thoughts. Auto focus is starting to be a realistic workflow enhancement these days but only with native lenses, and my primary cameras aren't Canon. I also shoot more stills these days and have to muddle through with manual focus when native lenses would save me time and stress. so my issue is this - do I drop my Canon lenses and buy into Sony, therefore committing to a system that to b honest I'm not 100% sold on, or do I move to Canon cameras? neither of those options seem perfect to me. The reason I've tried to use 'transferable' lenses like EF is because I've never found the one perfect camera system. I currently use Sony and Blackmagic but have my eye on a GH5. I also dislike Sony lenses for the way they manual focus and also the price. On the other hand there is the Canon system of cameras. God I want to like them but they make it so hard. I sold my 1DC because I wanted higher frame rates, but now the 1DX Mkii has 4k60fps I find myself disliking the dynamic range and the quality of the 1080p image. It really looks like they've made no progress since the 5d mkii apart from in resolution. The 1dx mkii would fit my needs as a rugged all terrain outdoor camera, but I don't know if I could swallow the drop in image quality and cinematic quality from my current set up. There must be others considering similar dilemas... What are you doing? Anyone else selling up their Canon lenses and buying into other systems?

The colours from this camera are blowing my mind. Unbelievable skin tones. Even though the dynamic range is obviously limited they've found a way to make the highlight roll-off very pleasing too. Compare that to how Canon camera's just blow out with a harsh edge. If only the Fuji had IBIS and smart adaptors for Canon glass..

It sounds like you've made up your mind, and good luck it's a very exciting purchase that will certainly hold a significant portion of it's value for years to come, by which time everything will be 8k 10 bit I guess. I'm considering the camera for the reasons I've already stated - it's a rugged outdoor one-stop-shop for video and photos and it's weather sealed for when I get splashed by water or caught in rain, which happens to me often and prevents me from using my Ursa Mini in some situations. My main concern then is this - will the GH5 blow it out of the water? I'm worried I may end up with a 1DX mk2, A7rii, Ursa Mini 4.6k, AND a GH5. What were we talking about earlier - GAS? :-/

I'm not actually a big fan of the colour in that video, seems like a Miller-esque / Bloom-esque grade with raised blacks and washed out colours, but I will agree they handled the dynamic range and highlights quite well with maybe the possible exception of the opening shot. I would argue that the strength of the 1DX m2 is not its image, but it's ergonomics and convenience if you need to shoot outdoors, quickly, and shoot stills at the same time. If you're shooting with a crew or in controlled conditions where you can grade the image after I would expect the FS5 or even a A7Sii to deliver a more cinematic and commercially current look. I'm just kind of playing Devil's advocate here as you seem to be somebody who cares about dynamic range and a cinematic look, which you might lose out on a bit with the 1DX as opposed to the gear you've been used to using. That's my opinion.

I've previously owned the 1DC and sold it for a A7Rii and now I'm working outside and with water a lot I'm thinking about moving back to a 1DC mkii. I also own an Ursa Mini 4.6k and here are my (long) thoughts. Despite not having any video assist tools like peaking, zebras etc I always find shooting with Canon quite easy, maybe it's a purer shooting experience - expose for what you see and go. The build and feel is also exceptional compared to Sony and Panasonic. I also shoot stills and the professional level Canon cameras are the best tool I've used. The only thing I wish I could take from the Sonys is silent shooting for more intimate moments. The issue I had with Canon is purely image quality, and that's what holds me back from going back. First up their 1080p is STILL an embarrassment. It looks like poor quality 720p uprezzed, blurred, and then sharpened. Seeing it when these days we're used to beautiful full hd gives me the feeling of nails down a chalk board. The second issue I have, which is also key for me is the lack of dynamic range. Those harsh burnt highlights and crushed noisy shadows just give it away and haven't progressed much since the 5d mkii. The Fuji X-t2 looks to have similar dynamic range but deals with it much more pleasantly. Much as good content shot on the 1dx2 looks fantastic, it all has that harsh look to it which works great for sports but less well for anything else. A lot of the best 1dx2 clips have been shot in carefully controlled or restricted dynamic range environments I feel. The clip 'My Son' is fantastic but the pure white clipped highlights bother me and give it away as shot on a DSLR. For me the modern high end aesthetic is about great colour (which canon has) and soft organic dynamic range (which they do not in their DSLR cameras). Even the 1DC I found to be slightly harsh. I'm pretty sure there's some quite aggressive sharpening going on in all Canon image processors within their still cameras and it really turns me off the image. I would love to be wrong on this if somebody could show me how to get Alexa or Sony type creaminess from a Canon. I know I'm asking a lot, but when you're talking about a camera the price of the 1dx2 I think you're entitled to be picky. I know it's not a fair comparison but in terms of creating a 'cinematic' image the Ursa Mini blows it out of the water with no effort at all. But then it's not something I can carry out on the water with me and shoot still with.. I'm not trying to moan or criticise, it's obviously a fantastic camera and different tools for different usages, but I wanted to articulate my own internal struggle with Canon cameras right now. If this camera had decent 1080p and better dynamic range I'd be on it like a shot, as would many of you I bet. Thanks for reading.

The colour on this camera really is great. Nice video.

Ok then to make my contribution constructive, does anyone have any opinions on the difference between cine1 vs cine4? I've used both on my A7rii. I first started using cine2 with Kholi's profile but noticed it was clipping my highlights. Cine4, I found, protected the highlights far better, although they needed taking down in post. I've since read that Cine1 is even forget flatter than cine4, and certainly it is in the shadows. I found it retained the highlights just as well as cine4, and kept more detail in the shadows. Strangely, cine1 also handled the saturation being pushed in post more, while cine4 went weird. I have a feeling that cine1 captures more natural colour than cine4, although I don't know why that would be the case. Anyone else encountered that?

I have no doubt that with the millions of possible permutations if you dig into the Sony picture profile settings you can come up with any look you want, but the reality is that nobody has the time or knowledge to really understand how to do that. Basically I feel like Sony should do a better job on their default profiles instead of abdicating responsibility and expecting people to go through all those esoteric menus and settings.

I don't have my 1DC anymore - I moved to a A7Rii for the weight, convenience and video features. But the other day I was working with some of my old 1DC footage and wow - there's so much information in the codec. It feels real, tangible. For me the codec is the key. It has such an influence over the feel of an image, it's robustness and 'crunchiness'. I feel like Sony's codecs smooth out the image somehow, making it technically great but somehow lacking a bit of soul. It feels like it's been denoised, with some of the reality taken out of it somehow. On the upside though the A7Rii colour is much improved from my A7s, and it's great for the one-man-band corporate work I do. I do like the image. I just don't LOVE it.

I agree with Andrew's points. I've been thinking about writing about my experience of going from an A7s to 1DC and then back to the A7rii actually. It's been a slightly confusing but very illuminating journey in the development of my skills and tastes. In my experience I'm yet to find a 'bulletproof' consistent workflow for s-log. It's maddeningly different depending on the light and color temperature. Having said that I haven't used S-log3, just S-log2. If you're running and gunning then I'm not sure s-log is ever going to be easy. But I am finding the Sony (with the right post work) to produce a more modern look, if that's what you're after. By modern I mean more on trend with adverts and music videos thesedays, but not necessarily a 'better' image per se.

Hey Nate, did you ever make any progress on this? Still very interested.

Saw it last night and was blown away by the scale and brutality, although I have to say it left me a little cold emotionally. Did remind me in that sense of a Kubrick movie as one of the posters has already mentioned. One thing that I did find distracting was the rather obvious use of power windows all over the place to highlight faces in particular. It sometimes seemed a little over done and un-natural in the natural light aesthetic. I know that it's widespread practice but in the otherwise beautifully naturalistic visual style it broke the immersion for me. It's probably just a case of me being too aware of it though. I haven't heard anyone else mentioning it. I don't mind peoples faces being in shadow someone if it fits the scene and the style.

interested to see you you're selling out of the F35s that you've been championing for a while. What prompted the decision, besides clearing out room? You more into the Red MX image now? What's going to be your main cam in place of the Sonys? Don't mean to pry, just interested in the decision from a tech and artistic standpoint.

this is my best tip too. Learning to do secondary colour correction on skin is one of he best things you can do, then you can push the skin tones where you want them. I frequently rescue and improve shots like this. of course you need to start with well exposed and white balanced skin in the first place. if you're editing in Premiere you can use the three-way colour corrector to do secondary correction without having to get into Resolve or Speedgrade. Find a video tutorial and give it a go.

I would pay good money for an in camera Sony S-Log2 profile to match the 1DC C-Log, which allowed using Canon Luts. I know Andrew has released a custom profile for the A7Rii with a Lut, but I haven't had time to check it out yet. I wonder how close it is to C-Log.

I've had very limited attempts at using this, but not delved very deeply at all. I'm currently trying to work out the colour of the A7Rii. The 1DC has spoiled me, although I'm still getting better with that and have made some breakthroughs lately. One thing I've always wondered - what is the theoretical advantage of S-Gamut in a compressed 8 bit space? I have an impression that it gives a more cinematic and subtle look than using Pro or Still, but I can't back that up with any objective evidence, it's just my impression from limited S-log use and watching other people's work. For a long time I used a Kholi's picture profile on the A7s but found Pro to be unnaturally saturated at times, particularly when it came to reds. I've also been experimenting with Cine4 and S-Gamut as the colour profile, then creating a S-Gamut to Redcolour4 lut in Lutcalc, and manually grading the luma with curves. Seems to give a really nice result with rich colours. Anyone else care to give it a try?

I think this proves just what a one-off the 1DC has been. Canon and Nikon obviously don't want to make a high-quality 4k DSLR, going by their releases since the 1DC and also Canon's refusal to support that camera in any way with firmware updates or even a proper LUT. Surely they could do better if they tried, but they choose not to. Why? Market segmentation? Internal politics?

Just had a look at your comparison. I'm surprised to see how soft the 1DC is on that screen grab. It looks to me like we're seeing motion blur from the shaking of the 1DC while the Sony is much better stabilised. I wouldn't expect the image to be that different in sharpness otherwise. so did you shoot the Sony in Andrew's picture profile? Looks incredibly close to the 1DC in colour. Very impressive.