Lintelfilm

I've written another article for DesktopDocumentaries.com (as has young Master Ebrahim Saadawi recently - a great breakdown for beginners of what technical features make a camera's video image "good": http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/10-elements-of-a-high-quality-image.html). Mine is an appraisal of the current line-up of "affordable" video cameras on offer, looking specifically in the $2500 region this time (as requested by the site owner) and narrowing it down to a personal choice of the GH4 and XC10: http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/best-documentary-video-camera-2500.html It's a long one. Would love to hear your thoughts on any of it ... Note: A certain member didn't like it when I posted a link to my last article for DD.com. As a previously active member of this forum I'm here to get feedback from my peers and betters - out of personal interest only. No ulterior motives. Please go ahead and tear my article apart as you wish - I expect and even invite that. I will however not respond to personal attacks or comments made by anyone who has clearly not bothered to actually read the article. It's easy enough to ignore this thread if you don't like it so please do so. Thank you.

The 18-35mm used to only work well with Dual Pixel AF at f/1.8, but Sigma have now updated the firmware so it works at all apertures (reportedly very well). So make sure you buy a unit with a later serial number - otherwise you'll have to update it manually with a dock or by sending it back to Sigma. The 18-35mm is undoubtedly the more "cinematic" lens. It really is like owning three cinema primes in one (in terms of image quality), and yes, even at 18mm you can get nice shallow DOF with moderately close subjects. If you're doing run&gun there's no denying IS is a big benefit - but the difference between f4 and f1.8 is significant. What about the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a compromise? A lot of professional C100 owners have sworn by that lens as "the one" for a while now. It's not as sexy as the Canon "L" or the Sigma Art, but it's a damn good lens. Also interesting might be to consider one of Canons newish image-stabilised, wide primes - I think they do a 24mm 2.8 IS, a 28mm 2.8 IS and a 35mm 2.0 IS. The 35mm I know is superb.

Ah cool. The Cinema5D review said 205 in 25p. You should absolutely start your own blog Ebrahim. You've got the knowledge and experience, access to kit, good writing style. Or offer articles to Newshooter or some other blog like that. Seriously - I think you should consider it!

It's a nice image. Never know what to make of JP - does he actually think he's Al Pacino or is it ironic? He looks like a Fabulous Furry Freak Brother. Mattias - because you're in Europe do you shoot 25p on the XC10? I just noticed the bitrate for 25p is 205mbps, rather than the 305mbps for 24p and 30p (can't imagine why!). I normally shoot 25p (I'm in the UK) but not sure what I'd do here. Are they all long GOP? Do you notice any difference?

Are you liking the 35mm 1.4 Ebrahim?

Sounds like I'm wrong! I blame YouTube adding macroblocking to the XC10

Blind test: 1: G7 2: Phone 3: XC10 Dynamic range and rolloff on the phone is horrid but otherwise it's impressive. G7 and XC10 aren't that far apart. You can see a lot more macroblocking in the first clip and highlights seemed worse, which is why I went for the G7. XC10 is a nice camera.

In the price range it's appealing regardless of the quality of the monitor - it records 10bit @ 60p and downscales 4K, neither of which can be done by any of the Ninjas. I prefer the idea of SD cards and already have the appropriate fast ones for my BMPCC. I can't believe the screen will be completely useless considering its on the URSA Mini. If it has good peaking and histogram that would make screen quality a moot point for me anyway (and I'm 100% convinced it will have these - you can't really call it a video assist if it doesn't have peaking!). Besides I'd be using it with V-Log on the GH4 - so if it doesn't have LUT support, judging the image by eye alone would be a bit pointless anyway.

Anyone in the UK waiting for a Video Assist? I think I'm going to pick one up for my GH4. Can't decide whether to pre-order now or wait for a few reviews...

So does this mean you've created a standard LUT that can now be applied to all v-log footage to help with this issue? ... and if so can we have it!

Thanks man. Yes I know exactly where you're coming from. I can't really answer your question because I still don't really know myself! There isn't any ND on MUSE - I think it's just that it's hard to see the wood for the trees so nobody knows how to sum it up. Personally I think if you're making short docs of corporate videos (as I am), then MUSE will be useful as a way of focusing all those theories of "story" onto that specific, real-world discipline. For anything else I can't imagine it telling you anything you don't already know.

Hey EOSHD'ers, In case anyone's interested, I've just written an article about Stillmotion's MUSE program (which I've been a member of for a couple of months now). It contains a Q&A with Patrick Moreau, and details a lot of the misgivings I have about the program. You can read it here: http://lintelfilm.uk/blog/muse-vs-muser Would be great to hear your thoughts. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have too. BTW is anyone else here a MUSE member?

Argh. F**king Canon. Now I want one. I just did a quick grade of your footage and the image is just great. I'd happily replace my BMPCC for one of these I think. Just that lens though ...

To be fair I have no idea what the options are like for EOS-M. And I haven't picked up an XC10 so I have no idea what the loupe is like! It just looks a bit goofy but if it works then great. Is it sturdy when the screen is flipped up and you're looking down into the loupe? BTW, how is audio? Is it easy to adjust levels while shooting? What are the preamps like?

With a 1-inch sensor, what lenses would you put on it? It would start getting complicated and frustrating, which begins to defeat the appeal of the camera I think. Perhaps one day we'll se an XC10 Mark II (or more likely Mark VII) with a more exciting fixed lens. I'd like to see an EVF too personally ...

Sounds like you want an FS5

IBIS. In-body stabilisation that works in video mode is a must if they want the GH5 to compete at all. Plus it's a feature that would sell the camera alone I think. They could practically just release a GH4 with ibis. What I'd really like to see is an MFT version of the A7S: a low-megapixel sensor optimised for 4k video (using the full width of the sensor) that has decent low light performance and better dynamic range. I'd LIKE to see 10bit internal recording. I doubt it'll happen, but if they keep making a big fuss about log profiles on the GH line and want it to be taken seriously, they have to implement it eventually. Ultimately the whole point of MFT cameras is small size, so selling them on a feature that requires a large external recorder surely can't last. If the BMPCC can do it a GH camera can. Another jump in colour quality would be great too. Not much to ask eh?!

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong - I was just reporting the DVX conversation. I have no hands on experience of either and as I say I've seen some nice stuff from the f/2.0 myself. I think the problem arises from the fact that so many of those AI lenses were (and still are) really excellent!

Don't Your footage is among the the best I've seen in V-Log. I'm wondering if the super-sharp, super contrasty (& digitally compensated) Lumix lenses (like the 12-35 you used) help with v-log. The BMPCC certainly does best with MFT lenses for this reason IMO. Any other evidence of this out there? I'm not going to purchase the official code until I buy a recorder.

Yeah there was a thread about this on DVX user. Sounds like the info is chopped from the highlights ... so the choice is between noisy shadows or crappy highlights. Have to say I'm very glad I didn't pay for V-Log seeing as I don't have a recorder.

Thats pretty damning evidence. SO many nasty colour artefacts in the 8bit pic. Not to mention the banding ...

Thanks Ebrahim very generous of you. It's one of those bits of gear that if I was shooting just for myself it would be on the camera all the time, but for pro work it's less useful. Particularly as I rely on zooms mostly now. As much as I'd love to own it I need to put every spare penny into my "30 items I need that all cost around $200" piggy bank (the latest of which is a BM Video Assist to make V-Log a viable option for work). Having said that, I remember a thread on DVXuser where Brian Caldwell (designer of Metabones' Speed Boosters) was talking to someone about issues with their Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AI-s with a speed booster. As I recall Caldwell actually went out and bought a few copies of the 35 2.0 to test. His conclusion was that it's just an awful lens and this was soon confirmed by several other people. Apparently it's pretty much the worst lens (technically speaking) of Nikon's whole AI era - including a lot of their consumer-oriented "E-series" lenses. Though I have seen a few people get nice 'characterful' results with it (including Ed David with his NX1). Regardless, the 35mm f/1.4 is said to be the best 35mm of that era (sharpness etc) once it's stopped down a bit, so if nothing else you have a great, reasonably fast (f2 I'd guess is where it gets really good?) "normal" prime. It'll be interesting to hear how you like it.

Bjorn Rorstlett is the go-to guy for old Nikkors. The 35 1.4 is on this page: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. His website is a mess but links to his lens reviews can be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating http://www.verwoerd.info/nikon/short.html is also a good site for old Nikkor appraisals. I've bought a lot of AI Nikkors and found these two sites to be the most reliable and accurate (though not always). I lusted after the 35mm 1.4 AIS for a long time but after much research decided it wasn't worth the high price tag due to being softish wide open. $300 is a good price though and those AI lenses are worth owning for video for the focus ring alone (and aperture ring and lovely coatings). I bought the Nikkor AF-D f/2.0 instead but that one has serious CA problems wide open. I sold it when I bought the Sigma 18-35. If you want a fast, reasonably priced 35mm prime to use wide open and don't need full frame, your best option is the current 35mm f/1.8 DX. It's as sharp as the Sigma 18-35 wide open. Focus ring is a bit rubbish but useable. Also there's the Sigma 30mm 1.4 Art, but again not great wide open. Appealing if you'd like something just a bit wider though ... Holy sh*t that's an amazing price. If you don't like it you'll be able to sell it for twice that on ebay I'm sure.

This CSTV review made me want a G7 and I already have a GH4!

Yeah the 8-bit 100mbps codec is no match.