mercer

Interesting question. I’ve thought about the same thing a few times. And I would go with as big of a sensor I could afford. I would think for static shots something like the a7iii would be a good camera, or a D850... 4K does make sense though, so I’m sure the GH5 would work great for it as well. I imagine anything would be fine though. I think someone recently said, maybe @Damphousse that he still sells some stock shots from his t3i, so maybe test the waters with something you already own?

Hah, I work with a burly carpenter and he uses a pink lighter... eventually someone will bust his chops and his reply is... nobody steals his lighter on the job site.

Super aids... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. hahahahahahaha

It is my understanding that professional photographers purchase cameras based upon the native lens system. All reported rumors claim that Canon is working their hardest to make the EF system to work with a FF mirrorless. If they succeed and Nikon releases a different mount with an adapter... Well... I think it will be safe to say that Canon will pick up a bunch of new customers.

Yeah, something small like that is perfect... I’d much rather use a direct plug drive than a cord based. A simple piece of bent aluminum or sheet metal, as a shroud, can protect it from accidental knocks.

I think it depends who will be a Nikon mirrorless customer. If it’s established pros with thousands of dollars of lenses, an adapter is a potential weak link in the chain. If they’re in the field and that adapter breaks or malfunctions... they have zero alternatives... imo with the history of F lenses, the F mount or some kind of interchangeable mount is their only option and an adapter alone is just too much of a risk. With over 50 years of Nikkor lenses, if you can’t find a useable Nikkor lens for your videography needs... shrug.

Yes. I can. I still have some on my hard drive. Now I don’t know if I have any 60p, but it will give me an idea. On another note, with USB-C, do they sell storage sticks like flash drives? If so, with a locking cage, I could also make a shroud that covers all of the ports, to lessen the risk of bumping into it. Most likely there will be some threads on the cage to screw it to with wing nuts.

I did see that. With the Micro, 60p ProRes HQ could record to Sandisk Pro cards... surely CFast 1.0 has better write speeds than that SD card?

Well, I haven’t heard that the DPAF on the EOS-M is better than their DSLR counterparts... so I can’t really say if mirrorless AF has already surpassed DSLR.

Yup, this camera is already big enough and it already has all the guts anyone should really need. When smallrig releases a cage for this camera, a couple extra points, should be more than enough for basic accessories. But locking cable ports should be included for those that want to rig out the Pocket 2. Of course, I’m only interested in the 1080p ProRes frame rates, so a fast SD card or even a CFast 1.0 (if they work) should be more than enough.

Idk if mirrorless sales will ever surpass DSLRs for Canon and Nikon. I foresee an environment where their mirrorless offerings will be 2nd cameras in serious photographer’s bags and not their go to camera. For beginners, until there is a mature, inexpensive system, I don’t see people buying mirrorless over DSLRs. Since I switched back to a DSLR, Idk if I can go back to a small mirrorless... especially now that I shoot FF. With the added weight and size of the FF DSLR, I’m able to go handheld with a non stabilized lens up to a 35mm focal length. With a mirrorless, without IBIS, it would be shake city... of course I’m still looking for a small rig or chest pod... so if anybody can recommend a good, small chest/shoulder pod or support, I’d appreciate it.

Why in God’s name would a vlogger use the Pocket 2?

Looks so cool!!! Great job!!!! How is the 3K to work with? What’s the crop at 3K and what lens did you use?

It’s my understanding these phrases such as “ultra low budget” equates to something like this... $0-$1000 = zero budget $1000-$10,000 = no budget $10,000-$50,000 = micro budget $50,000-$500,000 = low budget Either way, it’s all just semantics, and probably irrelevant to this post. But I will add... I don’t know if I really understand why somebody would spend the time and money, with the state of indie film distribution being the way it is, on anything over $50,000... unless you have some kind of name attached to the project?

Man, if I had a family, I would make an epic John Hughes-esque family comedy/thriller at Great Adventure. Everybody would just think I was an overexuberant Dad shooting my kids for family videos. Now that would be guerrilla shooting... but NO I would not use an Amira, or an Alexa... maybe a Siri though. Even better, I’d take the whole family on a cruise and make a found footage film. Give each member an iPhone and create some kind of silly found footage plot... and then I could write off the vacation as a business expense.

Idk, I think we need to define (or redefine) ultra low budget feature if an Amira is being used to shoot it.

I think it’s the middle of the night in Vietnam, so we should be safe for a few hours... just don’t mention the word model...??? And I completely agree with you about these one inch cameras. It is more likely some 17 year old kid will pick up one of these cams, shoot crazy shots with the camera duct taped to their car, finish the movie over Christmas break and it be a smash hit at SXSW way before I even finish principal photography on my thoughtful 5D3 Raw film. Oh... I’m so tech impaired... I didn’t know there was a way to upload footage via card on the iPad.

Hmm... interesting. I’ve always enjoyed editing with the iPad mini with iMovie. It’s very intuitive and almost feels like you’re cutting actual film with the touch interface. Of course, I never really tried much more than some silly stuff I shot on my phone. I guess with other footage, you import into the cloud through WiFi? And I suppose you can save renderings in the cloud as well? Thanks for the LumaFusion tip, I’ll check that out. Honestly, this is the stuff that excites me. Shoot video... pre-game footage or a short film on a cheap, small camera or even an iPhone with a Moondog Anamorphic adapter. Save the footage to the cloud. Edit in iPad. And upload to Vimeo or YouTube. I think that sounds like next gen filmmaking to me.

Like most people, I watch 99% of online videos on my phone... which may be why I am always fighting for the cheapest of camera options. But on my phone, I could practically tell zero difference in quality between the Canon and the GH5 other than FOV differences and perhaps a hair more detail in the wide shots on the GH5. The color looked better on the Canon, though... so it’s really a toss up. Imo there is definitely a place for bridge cameras and even camcorders for low budget event or even narrative work. In a lot of ways they make more sense. Look at the Sony RX10... even the original one... that camera can be had for less than $400 now. If Sony/Zeiss even made a lens like that f/2.8 24-200mm, it would cost at least $1000 but probably closer to $1500. Now add in the built in NDs, the mic input (which is pretty damn good) and the headphone input and for less than $500 one can shoot a feature film on it. Will it be as good as a $2000 camera? No. Or even a $1000 camera? Probably not. But it should be better than what Friedkin used for this documentary and definitely better than what Soderbergh used for Unsane... so for the right project... these cheap bridge cams like the RX10 Mark I or II, or the FZ1000 or FZ2500, or the XC10 now that they’re coming down in price seems like the perfect choice for nano budget filmmaking and event work.

It was really just a camera test, but yes... no actors were harmed in the making of this video... I can get one new for around $1000, maybe $850 for gray market. But you’re right, it is a self contained digital S16 cinema camera for run and gun filmmaking. But for a grand... there’s other options. That’s true but I also already have lenses and NDs for my 5D3. So it’s a toss up really.

Yeah that camera is a blast... Definitely my favorite Panasonic I ever owned. And weirdly enough, other than my first ML Raw video, the slow motion video, from the FZ2500 of my friend walking and getting shot probably is my most liked video. But compared to the RX10ii, I don’t know if it’s worth the price increase. And to be honest, if I end up looking for small event jobs, I think I’d rather have a Canon for its AF. An 80D seems like it would be a workhorse for little Billy’s 5th birthday party.

Yeah it’s going to be tough in another few years. I’m in the trade show industry and a recent trend I’ve been noticing is the exhibitors shooting their own booths with small point and shoots, iPhones or even GoPro cameras. I’ll hate to see what it’s like when millenials are in charge of budgets. For the most part, I’m a hobbyist, but shooting narratives, even on a shoestring budget, is getting to become an expensive endeavor. So, I was contemplating getting small event gigs... birthday parties, family reunions... low budget kind of stuff just to fund my short films. But when I hear about what’s happening out there, I wonder if it’s worth it... and I am kind of oblivious as to where to start to be honest. With that being said, films like this, shot like this, I find really liberating. It reminds me more of 2010 than what the DSLR Revolution unfortunately turned into. The idea that one can buy a Sony a5100, RX10, Canon 80D or G7Xii or Panasonic P&S and shoot something acceptable is pretty exciting to me. And good or bad, or cashing in on his legacy or not, it’s films like this and Soderbergh’s Unsane and that The Break In movie that will make these $300 cameras or phones acceptable in coming years. Will they ever look as good as an Alexa or a Red... nope... but what camera under 5 grand comes close anyway? For those that eat at the low budget, I understand the distress this idea may cause.

1) Where exactly is it overused? If you’re referring to YT videos, then you’re probably right. But can you name specific films where it is overused and not a convention of the storytelling? 2) FTWD is only in the beginning of its 4th season... so you liked the last season of FTWD better than the last season of TWD? 3) I don’t hate the look of FTWD, I just think TWD looks better. This season of FTWD looks pretty bad though... in last night’s episode, I think they just threw an M31 LUT on the footage. But I do like the desaturated shots they do for the time jump sequences.

Shallow depth of field is a storytelling tool. Some people went overboard with it and most were do to lens tests on YT but for filmmaking... the reasons discussed here have missed the best argument for it for the low budget filmmaker. The beauty of the 5D2, t2i, and other larger sensor cameras that started the DSLR Revolution, wasn’t only that more people had access to inexpensive cameras, it’s that low to no budget filmmakers could shoot with shallow DOF and blur the background. It hid the flaws in amateur sets, and hid the public during guerrilla shooting. For the first time, a no budget filmmaker could take a camera into a restaurant and look like a tourist while they shot a dialogue scene. Sorry... but to say it’s overused, is like saying you don’t like a two shot because most dialogue scenes open with them. And sorry again, but how can anyone find FTWD better than TWD? I like both for different reasons but there really isn’t a comparison in filmmaking, acting and story. Saying one is more ridiculous than the other is an argument that isn’t allowed in a story about the zombie apocalypse. And finally, I agree about the digital look of FTWD compared to TWD... especially when they are on back to back. I love the Alexa, it is the best digital image on the planet... and in my opinion nothing comes close to it. But the S16 on TWD is just in a different league. I was actually curious why? S16 has always looked kinda meh to me, even when done right... but TWD cinematography looks like an epic.

I think you missed my point or, in my haste, I didn’t explain it properly. So let me try again... Regardless of this film or its IQ... or its lack thereof... what I see in this movie is the liberty to grab a $300 camera, plug a mic into that camera, and shoot a film. With the distribution landscape changing every day, the appreciation for classical film theories and practices becoming obsolete by this changing landscape, and the growing need for content... the future of low budget media distribution will fall to the extreme low end, there will be little need for the prosumer videographer. There will be high end and low end. More average, everyday people will become “content creators” and they won’t spend $2000 on a camera. They will use their iPhone, their GoPro, a point and shoot or a cheap DSLR. The idea of investing thousands of dollars into a short film will be a thought of the past. Now this won’t happen tomorrow but in another ten years... maybe. I think the question is... will the quality of the lower end image acquisition become better or will the taste of the viewer become more ambivalent? And if famous Hollywood film directors see a way to make money on a shoestring budget, how long will it take before band managers realize they can shoot music videos on an iPhone or an LX100 or a t7i? How long will it take for a bride and groom to ask their future brother in law or guests to shoot their wedding on their iPhones? In a lot of ways this is depressing but in some ways, this is liberating... cream will always rise to the top. So, if you are talented, you’ll have nothing to worry about. A talented filmmaker with good ideas will make any camera look good. But also a normal person with a great idea, will get their 15 minutes.