mercer

I really liked the e-m5 Mark ii. And have seen some great stuff shot with it. The IBIS is better than the Panasonic's version and the 1080p is decent. So if you don't need 4K, it's a solid choice with a good Flat Profile for some post work. Another benefit, if you decide to shoot dual sound later on, the em5m2 will send a tone signal to the Olympus LS100 Field Recorder for ease of synching the audio and video in post. Plus it has a really nice organic look with good color. The D5500 or D7200 are good choices with clean 1080p and good DR. For 4K and your budget, the GX85 or G85 are good. The internal audio isn't going to be great but none of the cameras at this price point will be. Maybe a GH4.., I've heard it's internal audio is decent, probably better with a preamp. Oh yeah, if you don't mind smaller sensors, both the RX10ii and the FZ2500 are good cameras and they both have headphone inputs. The RX10ii audio sounded pretty good with the Rode Video Micro plugged directly into the camera.

I haven't used a GH5, but from the samples that were out, at the time, I chose the 5D3 because of this video. I have yet to see anything from the GH5 that looks as cinematic as this... Or this... However, I have seen some fine videos since and I am sure good narratives could be made with a GH5.

Nice job.

Pretty smart if you can make it work. I assume you can just finance another Epic and then constantly use newer equipment without using a major upfront investment. I imagine if you shoot with the Epic, the GH5 sees little use these days? What's the upgrade path after an Epic... could you be sustainable and profitable with an Alexa?

With the 3K/4K Raw... is it a module or a nightly experimental build?

I think the more interesting question is... did you get an Alexa Mini?

Yeah you are right about that. I've been trying to decide between a 4K camera, but then I look at footage from my film on the 5D3 and I forget about 4K. If you're happy with the G85, then why bother changing? But the a6500 does make for some seriously good 4K downscaled. For 4K, I am thinking about saving up for a 1DC next year. If I decide to get an interim camera, I may get another a6500, or an X-T20, or a D7500... haha too many choices. Hell, I'm still pretty happy with the 1080p from my D5500... so as a hobbyist, I am probably set. Hmm, a6500 or G85 is a tough call. Like you said, most of these cameras look pretty damn good downscaled. The a6500 has better DR and a bigger sensor, but the G85 won't overheat. But if you're not running 5 or 10 minute takes, the a6500 probably won't overheat either. I liked the the look of the a6500 better than the GX85, but that's subjective. sLog3 is pretty insane, it's probably the closest I have found to Raw on an 8bit camera, but I shoot outside, in the woods or wide open spaces, so the possibility/probability of banding was of real concern... unsure if it would be a problem in the city or if there are settings deep down in the menus to deter the banding. And the sagamut3cinema... or whatever it's called, is gorgeous. Idk, tough call... if I could get an open box for less than a thousand, I would probably buy another one, it would cure my desire for 4K and IBIS, but for my needs... at 1300, it's a little much. BH has a great return policy, so you could always buy and try for a week or two. If you don't like it, return it and continue with the G85, or upgrade to a GH5.

I've been starting to notice some better GH5 footage showing up in the wild. It should be a solid set up for a doc... is it a personal project or a paid gig?

Looks real nice, Jonesy. So, are you only using the GH5 now? Or do you still have the Ursa?

That looks like a great product, Tim? How customizeable is it? I assume you can set tools to the different buttons but can you also set up the F commands and full screen play? I often turn the scopes on and off and enter the color board, the keyboard shortcuts are fairly intuitive, but a one button push on a mouse would be great.

BTM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this discovery is based upon turning on existing code within the camera and not hacking the code. Since the GX85 only shoots in MP4 and AVCHD without any MOV codec, I would think it's unlikely to up the bitrate. But I also vaguely remember seeing the high bitrate MOV codec in the original command list, but I think VLog was there as well and that wasn't possible. It would be great if someone from the NX1 hack could take a look at BTM's work and maybe together, they could come up with some more options, if it's even possible. If it is possible, someone should do it soon, because I have a feeling Panasonic will turn off all of these options in an upcoming firmware update.

With that being said, a GH4 will almost get you to the 120fps and they are pretty inexpensive now. And the G85 is a fine camera if you want the IBIS and can be happy with 1080 60p AVCHD.

The RX100iv or v are very cool little cameras, but they really are little, like itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie little. I liked the RX10ii better than the RX100 but they're not that cheap either and being used to an aps-c sensor, I think you'd be underwhelmed. Unfortunately, if you really want 120fps, there aren't a lot of options in your price range. If I hadn't decided to go with the 5D3, I am pretty certain I would have bought a D7500 by now. The 4K looks brilliant, even with the crop, but then when 4K is overkill, I would have some of the cleanest, leanest, gradeable 1080p around up to 60p.

Well here are some facts for you @Michal Gajdoš ... of your last 14 comments on eosHD, spanning over a year, 13 of them were a negative response to a positive or negative review, article or comment about Canon. In most of these responses you were either 1. sophomoric 2. rude or 3. outright insulting. So I believe you are the definition of a troll. To the matter at hand, your entire argument is based on two things that you reiterate over and over and over and over again. If someone shows you proof against those two things, you declare it is old data or ignore it completely. Just so I am not lumped into the 3 other arguments you've created in this post, let's break down our discussion... 1. You claim that cell phone cameras will kill the entire camera market. ~ I agreed it is having an effect on the consumer market. ~ I also stated that you aren't taking into consideration how much middle aged enthusiasts will spend on a hobby. ~ I furthered my point that cell phones cannot completely destroy the entire camera market because of the professional photographer. Are you following the progression of events, or should I make my argument simpler for you? 2. Your biggest "evidence" for the future demise of Canon is Kodak and Nokia ~ This argument has been repeated and refuted over the years, ad nauseum, and I'm unsure how many times Kodak and Nokia can illogically be used in this discussion? ~ Kodak and Nokia made one product... film/film services and cell phones, respectively ~ Canon is a multi-national conglomerate with divisions that span cameras, lenses, medical imaging, medical leasing, printing... they have money to lose and money to spend, so your Kodak and Nokia analogy is not an accurate analogy. That was our discussion and I am unsure why you decided to get so hostile and insulting? I'm unsure how many times I need to say that I don't completely disagree with this article. In fact... ~ I have agreed on multiple occasions that Canon needs more innovation. ~ But I refuse to say that Canon hasn't innovated at all in the past 10 years or even 5 years because that would either be a lie or an ignorant statement. ~ I would like to see Canon do more with video in the DSLR/DSLM form factor. It is absolutely ridiculous that the 6D2, a $2000 camera, doesn't have better video. I don't understand it... but I bet you Canon does. ~ Do I agree with their strategy? NO. ~ Has their strategy been working for them? YES. So what does that tell you? Please I would love to know your market analysis on why Canon, the laziest, least innovative company in the world, still is the top earner in camera and lens sales? While you're at it, could you explain to me why in their home market does Canon beat Sony, Panasonic, Nikon and Fuji in mirrorless sales and are only second to Olympus? How is that possible? I mean... they have horrible 1080p video? And you are correct, I am not a professional, but I have never claimed to be... hell some may say I am a pretty mediocre amateur. And you are also correct that I do have too much time on my hands, but I choose to spend my free time attempting to learn, yet you solely come here to bash Canon and insult any person who disagrees with you. So let me ask you one more question... is that really a productive use of your spare time? I mean, did Canon steal your girlfriend from you? Did they bully you on the playground and take your lunch money? Did Canon get drunk and smack around you and your mom when you were a kid? No...? Then why are you so angry at Canon and anyone who disagrees with you about Canon? In conclusion, I really don't care about this topic. I made a few comments throughout, but I didn't realize we were following some kind of sanctioned, debate rules. If you want to believe that Canon will go out of business because Kodak and Nokia did... I really don't care. If you want to believe the camera market will be destroyed by the cell phone market... okay whatever. Have fun.

Sorry, I meant creatively bad, not technically bad.

I meant two well shot films but yes I agree with you.

Sorry if I change the subject, not my intention. These discussions become ever evolving and a lot of times I skip pages and respond to specific posts. As a whole, I agree that Canon's progress has been slow and I also agree they're missing out on a market but I wouldn't be so hyperbolic to say they don't innovate at all or will go out of business because they haven't included 4K in enthusiast and consumer lines of cameras. But to address your specific points... okay it was $12,000 and it was in 2012 but it was still 2 years before another company offered 4K in a DSLR form and arguably still has a better 4K image than its competitors. DPAF is a pretty substantial development and probably ate up a lot of their R&D budget over the past few years. Your other points I agree with, in fact, I agree with most specifics of every argument and point you made in your post. I just disagree that the lack of 4K in their consumer line will have lasting effects on their sales. They are a frustrating company because I love a lot about their cameras, or what was pulled from their cameras, but I also want some modern conveniences like peaking, zebras, IBIS, etc... especially since when Canon gets around to implementing these features, there's no doubt in my mind, they'll work better than their competitors variants. For example, focus peaking on the XC10 and the EOS-M models is the best peaking I've used. Out of curiosity, when you were asked to review the 5D4, was it inferred they were looking for a fluff piece? Or were they genuinely interested on your take of its video? Did they seem open to suggestions, or just looking for online coverage?

The real problem is, that no matter what argument I, or others, bring... you will not accept it. In your mind, cell phones will ruin all camera sales, so what's the difference? The problem is professionals purchase cameras based on lenses and until Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and Olympus build their lens line up, Canon and Nikon will be selling to the professional and cater to the professional stills camera shooter. And if a professional needs video, they hire a camera suitable to the job. And your irrelevant references to Kodak, Nokia, etc... will not change the facts. Mirrorless still only accounts for 25% of sales and I am sure Canon is aware of trending markets. The idea that some guys on an Internet forum knows better than the leaders of a billion dollar company that has been in the lead with sales for decades is quite frankly laughable.

Yeah for the most part I agree with you. Content and creativity will always beat tech specs, but there is something to be said of perception. An AF100 will be taken more seriously on a set by actors (many who are working for free or next to nothing) than a GH1 will. Of course, the creatives won't really care about perception. I think the difference in consumer equipment versus professional equipment is where the divide is. A bad movie shot on an Alexa will still look better than a good movie shot on a GH1 or a t2i or a D5500. And sometimes the look can make all the difference to an audience in its perception of quality. But we do live in exciting times, and the fact that a talented kid with a GH2 or t3i can go and make a movie the masses could watch... that pretty effing awesome.

I sing it from the rooftops so you may have read... I've been shooting with the 5D3 and ML Raw for the past two months. While I've been shooting my film, I've realized how much storage I need, so I've been deleting a lot of old test footage from my hard drives. Of course, I get nostalgic, so I've been watching a lot of the footage before I delete it. The only stuff I feel remotely attached to is the footage from my D5500. So much so, I'll probably end up buying a D7500 for some Nikon Flat 4K. Or if I really want to save some money, I'll sell my D5500 and make the small upgrade to a D5600 for the video timelapse. The IBIS is nice with the GX85, but with a simple monopod or shoulder stock, I can get just as good stabilization with a more organic feel to the video than I have ever gotten with a Panasonic. Also, adapters are annoying and the affordable micro 4/3 glass feels like they may break just by looking at them cross and the expensive glass, like the Voigtlanders, are awesome but they're a lot of money for a micro 4/3 system, IMO. Of course, that's just me. The GX85 is a fine camera that has proven to be a reliable tool. I just like the Nikon image better.

Remember... there's a reason why high end, professional photographers use Canon or Nikon. It's the glass. So base your decision from that. I personally wouldn't risk relying upon electronic adapters for the work you're describing. If you need Canon glass, use a Canon. If you need Nikon glass, use a Nikon. Since this is a hybrid photo/video job, Canon seems like the logical choice. If you hate the idea of using either, then make sure your choice has the native glass you need to do the job.

Wish there were more posts like these. With all of the arguing over specs and brands, I think we can learn a lot from this post. With a humble AF100, which can be bought for less than $700 on the used market, a great looking film can be made. With a couple grand more, an amazing looking film can be made. In the end, I didn't care what camera those movies were shot with. I was engaged with the story. I want to see both finished films now.

The problem with this rationale is the false notion that 4K video will save Canon. And that is simply not true. And this false narrative that Canon hasn't innovated in the past ten years, with video, is absurd. I could easily argue they've been more innovative than every other company... • 1st camera to offer manual video • 1st camera to offer 4K video • 1st camera with a LOG Profile. • 1st camera(s) to offer usable Touch/Tracking AF • 1st camera to offer 4K 60p In this arena, Canon will always cater to their stills customers. The 6D2 is a stills camera with plenty of upgrades for a stills shooter. Look at their promotional videos that highlight their cameras video capabilities... they hire stills shooters to video them.

C100ii and a 1DXii. Great workhorse video set up and a workhorse stills/video hybrid if you need 4K at 60p for some things. Hire out the drone when needed. Get a 24-70mm, a 70-210mm, and a couple primes.

Will do but I probably won't get around to it until early next week.