mercer

Does the NX500 have a native ISO?

Really, most people I know record the entire party. They move throughout the party and hide behind the camera, people wave to the camera and wish the kid happy birthday. They record the entire gift process, the birthday cake, of course you need it on record that the guests are eating the food you shelled out money for or the wife made. If he is lying, then they are analyzing the market, why spend the money on r&d, if the lack of 4K has zero affect on their sales... or why throw a lot of resources at it?

Sometimes I wish there was a "dislike" button.

The more I am reading about this camera, the more I think I made a good choice slapping down the $350 for it. I just love these summer deals. Two years ago, I picked up my EOS-M for $197, on the 4th of July this year, I picked up my a5100 for $245, and now this little beast at $350... I better go order some adapters, so I have a lens to shoot with. How's the battery life? Also, I have a couple Transcend 64gb cards... I think it's the UHS-3 95mbps card... is that good enough for the cinema 4K?

I read that as an honest answer. This has been said over and over on this forum... Canon cameras just work. If you have 4K and it's overheating within 5 minutes, then it's not working, and since Canon's Rebel line is for enthusiasts, who will film their kid's birthday parties or baseball games, and it starts overheating before Susie blows out her candles, or before Billy gets up to the plate, that becomes a problem and in the end would hurt their brand more than not having it in the first place.

Andrew, how well does EditReady handle the transcode? I just bought it for my a5100 and it's awesome with the xavc-s. Are you going to prores 422? Staying in 4K, or downsampling to 1080P?

But in 24p, it is cinema 4K... does that change the crop factor? I am not too worried about the shallow dof... as long as you frame your shots, with that in mind, you will definitely get some. I have a Tokina 17mm and a Canon FD 17mm... with the crop, it will give me about a 47mm lens, at 3.5... it won't be swirly bokeh, or anything, but I'll definitely get a little background blur.

yeah, that sucks. I just went into debt and bought one. At that price, I have to give it a go.

What is the 4K crop again... 2.7x?

I have never used higher end Sony or Canon cameras, so I can only base my experience with the t2i/eos-m vs NEX 3N/a5100. And from that experience I think the Canon colors require much less work to get true to life colors. Even a simple FCPX preset will grade the Canon nicely with one click, and the Sony is not as easy, but I really like Sony colors, it's just not as simple to get true to life.

I use neutral, everything turned down but saturation... Which is two clicks to the left... I think. I used Stu's Prolost Flat settings.

I have the a5100 and shoot only in the x-avc s codec. My other camera is the eos-m. From my limited experience using the a5100, I've only had it a few weeks, I have found that the image is much flatter using the portrait profile -3, 0, -3 on the Sony than it is using prolost flat profile on my eos-m. But it is much easier grading the Canon footage for real world color.

Video when not handled properly looks bad, even on a great camera. Film when not handled properly still at least looks like film. I think in some ways we are all talking about the same thing and btw, I am no one to talk because most of my stuff looks bad too.

Good points I recently saw Rear Window in the theater and it was amazing to see. Everything from the title card to Hitchcock's master of shadow was a sight to see in the theater. I, honestly, like the aesthetic of video with a filmic look and appreciate the skill set involved in working with both mediums. I don't like to be put down for thinking film looks better or trying to obtain the most cinematic look, especially since the dawn of digital video, every camera innovation was made in a quest to achieve the filmic holy grail. So, if the OP likes modern video, in essence, it is because the development of the technology has been reaching to emulate film as close as possible, since it's invention.

But all of the things you are describing are inherently organic to film. I don't think anyone is saying video is bad, it's just not yet as good as film. But one thing it does have, which I am grateful for... It's a helluva a lot cheaper and affords me the possibility to make movies... For that, and that alone... Video trumps film.

I don't think it's the "past" when a good portion, if not the majority of Hollywood films are still shot on film. I think it's cool you like the look of digital video more than film, that is very convenient for the times, but video does not look better than film... especially if sharpness is your only reason. There are ways to manipulate digital to look more filmic, but it doesn't look better. I really like filmic video, it's a different but similar compromise, and of course the future. I do find it sad, though. We always talk about the technological advancement with resolution or processing, but rarely do people speak about how film has advanced through the years and how there will probably be no major, further advances in film stock.

I think this is where the problem lies... that footage does look filmic. I can see why you like it.

that's a test i want to see I think, tech wise, we can obtain a look, with video, akin to older film stocks, or aged movies, pretty well, but modern stocks are still out of our reach. Of course, I like the "filmic" aesthetic that is possible with modern cameras. It's not the same, but it's similar. But I couldn't agree more with Mattias, the closest I have seen is from Raw footage, either from the Digital Bolex, or the Pocket Cam, or some ML Raw footage. Or maybe it's possible to achieve a filmic look, but not a cinematic look?

great info, thanks I'll check it out. I will probably never use it... When I was younger, I spent a few nights loading 16mm film into an old Bolex inside a changing bag... That was basically my only job, other than a little acting, but it was a bit tedious. Am not sure if I'll ever really shoot film with it, so the gate change could be a smart move to get me closer to my Pocket Cam.

never thought of that, does s16 only have sprockets on one side?

Nice, I just picked up a nos Miranda 28mm 2.8. Haven't gotten it delivered yet though. I, also, have a Krasnogorsk, it was in a photography lot I bought off eBay years ago for 25 bucks. I didn't even know it was part of the lot until it came in the mail... Imagine my surprise. Of course it didn't come with the Meteor lens, but is the M42 version. I need to buy some 16mm film one of these days and test it out... Or sell it. Btw, did you ever sell that Pocket Cam?

Also, is that a krasnogorsk?

25mm? What brand?

Smart move. Everybody swears by Schott Glass on the B+W, but if it's on a sub $50 variable filter, all of a sudden it's cheap? Well, I hope you like it. I love mine.

I think it's even simpler than that... When you go to a store, Canon has more camera models displayed and on the shelves than other brands do. Also, the Canon and Nikon names are synonymous with photography. Panasonic and Sony and Samsung have products in so many different electronic arenas that it confuses your average consumer. If your average, everyday consumer decides to buy a camera, they go to the store and look at all of the cameras. They see Sony and think... I have a Sony TV and headphones. Then they see a Panasonic and think... I have a Panasonic electric razor or I have a Panasonic microwave... Then they move down the aisle and see a Canon or a Nikon and they think... My Dad had a Canon or... my Grandpa had a Nikon...