Kisaha

1) YT!! Professionals are using it right mostly, like 95%, but there is a tense in the market of shallow depth of field. People born late 80's or 90's, which are 30 or more years old right now, consider very shallow depth of field the norm, so they change the whole perspective of the industry. I am not sure if it is going to stick, but top professionals and story tellers definitely do not overuse it. 2) The WD is disappointing for 3-4 seasons now (it may be even before, I just can't remember that back in time, maybe I have to watch the first 3 seasons again), and the last one was a complete mess. I could explain a few things, but it is already way off topic, but most characters and their actions are not believable or constistent, I did like the Eugene shenanigans in the last episode though! Rick and Michonne, worst couple ever, doesn't make sense, shouldn't have happened, lazy script writing. There is a new person in charge for next year, so I hope she will make things a little better. The last couple of years, the "real" WD is the Fear for me, it is the one I am waiting for. 3) I didn't say you hate it! I said I liked them both, preferred TWD, but I liked the artistic choice to create something different for the newer series.

1) it is overused. 2) Fear is better than TWD for the last couple of years (first and second season of Fear wasn't very good). 3) I do like the TWD look, but also like that they did something different for the spin off.

If you had the courage to watch everything of TWD, then spend some more time on the Fear, it is a much better series right now, with real characters, believable action and - almost - an interesting plot (still there are some wtf?! moments script wise, but the original is full of them, and only!). Shallow depth of field is another sentence of the filmic language. One of the latest jobs I did as a focus puller it was a nightmare to pull focus on a C300mkII, and in most movies I have worked, DoP were commonly using 5.6f, and working around there. After 5DmkII, anyone that could afford 30$ to rent a 5DmkII were making videos with a 50mm with the shallowest depth of field possible, and were calling that "art". Something similar is happening now with the "pseudo-bokeh", on mobile phones, which is a great selling point for most companies (I bought a mobile phone with a ultra wide lens as a second lens, instead of a fake bokeh effect, way more useful for me). As I said there are unlimited threads about it, and I am way off topic.

I have watched everything TWD related, and right now the Fear is 5 times better ,story/script wise, than the TWD. Maybe it is better to stay in Season 1 and do not go any further in TWD, while you can skip FearTWD season 2 and start watching from the seasob 2 double finale episode and on! Shallow DoF is, almost, a gimmick that happened just after the 5DmkII revolution. It wasn't really a thing before. This is heavily discussed for years on unlimited threads in every video forum. I am aesthitically and practically against razor thin DoF, and I am really happy with the one I can achieve on APS-C or S35 cameras.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s17.pdf XC10 Tier 1 HD and Tier 2 UHD with noise at Tier 1, better than most! If the XC10 was an ILC and had a 10 bit codec would be Tier 1 UHD eligible!

EBU is testing for high end television or cinema cameras, Alan Roberts does that for European Broadcasting Union (that exists since 1950), and used to work for BBC, 2 of the most accurate and respectful organizations in the whole world, and does that for a lot of decades, maybe more than your dads (some of you). This is not a camera review, or a vlog, is a technical paper that is important for some of us that we must follow some of these "findings" for specific projects, he is certainly not God (some will doubt that God, is God anyway, ) but I trust he is doing the best he can, or he is getting so old, he can't really comprehend new cameras (joke)! https://tech.ebu.ch/cameratests Alexa was tested as a 2K camera if I remember right, and he said in his newest reports that it is not certain that the full dynamic range is truly usable in the field. All in all, great findings for the GH5S, I believe it raises the camera near the top, at Tier 2! Seriously, excellent results for the GH5S, I believe is a truly remarkable camera, if it wasn't for the waiting game of the Pocket4K. The a6300 review was a specific project, not under EBU https://www.newsshooter.com/2016/03/31/newsshooter-sony-a6300-ebu-lab-test-by-alan-roberts-surprising-results-not-suitable-for-use-in-general-broadcasting/ Edit: He indeed, did the a6300 paper after all, sorry, I missed that one. Interesting that they have 5 places reserved (5 other cameras?) https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_tech3335

Friedkin, Anderson, Hertzog, Sod/erg could paint some film with their bloody (literally, like deep red) farts and still be on top of most lists. For some of that footage in that film, I wouldn't be able to find job ever again, but the director of the Exorcist filming the real exorcist, is more significant, than I, go and find An exorcist and do a doc (there are already some). I am not sure if these examples are indication of anything at all. The tools are becoming better and better, that is true since the first humans used a rock (or a bone, Thus spoken Zarathustra e.t.c!) to kill something for food or defense (or attack), it just happens that moving images are one of the most modern forms of art, and modern journalism (with all its forms), so it is the last to evolve. I was watching "Kurt and Courtney" the other day, it was terrible. Terrible image, terrible audio, no story whatsoever, and some editing and journalistic acrobatics. Even if it was shot with an Alexa and 5 piece crew, it would still be awful, but then again, one of the best documentaries I have ever seen shot on a camcorder, or actually, 5 of them. The story is king.

If someone needs the most minimalistic monitoring approach - like I do, the Focus is the best option, if anyone wants an HDMI external recorder - like I don't, then the Ninja V is a great choice, and a hell of a product, it will be an instant hit for Atomos. 800nits are not "only", 98% of the mobile phones are maxing at 600nits (mine too, and it is very bright), so everything above 600nits are good for most uses, and I live in a country with scorching sun at least 250 days per year. I do not necessarily like using adapters, not external recorders, if one of those two are needed, then I usually need a different tool (=camera) for the job, but a small and bright monitor is a necessity 9 out of 10.

or anyone to operate it?! Haha! It always amazes me how people underestimate sound. In 20 years of working experience and a degree in sound engineering (plus others in filmaking) I still can't tame sound as I want. Anyway, there are such mics, with long active cables and capsules on their end, and goose-neck type (but not strictly for podiums or just speech). DPA has a bunch of everything, Scoeps and even Rode has a few. But I guess, the DPA ones cost 1.3-2K of money, and I know most people wouldn't pay more than 200€ gor anything sound related! Proven again and again.

..plus a wrote a few hundrend words to explain how important is to have a 24mm equiv. for a do it all zoom, don't bring us back to the 28-29mm equiv. in the wide end! I could definitely could loose some of the tele end for 2.8f, but the 24mm equiv. are very important for me. @jonpais I understand, but there are other excellent optical lenses, and with a speedbooster this is an ultra wide zoom, and ultra wide lenses are considered specialized ones, I have never used one as a main lens in 20 years of working experience. Plus the speedbooster costs some extra more money, add some extra more size and weight (that is why this is NOT an excellent gimbal lens for m43). It is pretty obvious that I am pro native lenses(!), and this thread is all about native, workhorse zooms, which my personal opinion is that the Sigma is not. I do not say that it is not an excellent option (and relatively cheap), but not as a workhorse lens that you want to have on your camera on a difficult working day, and for anyone still forgoten on the NX mount, the 16-50S is by far a much better choice, and only 0.2f slower, so never had the need to buy one.

This is a great idea of a camera. If they put an APS-C sensor, Eos M mount and touch screen DPAF, I would pay 3.5K euros instantly, but not today when I can get a used C100mkII for similar money.

The 18-35mm is a great lens, definitely not the Holy Grail of lenses. As I mentioned above, plenty of reasons to search elsewhere for a more compmete solution. I mentioned already the S lens, which is a 16-50, 17 focal lengths more and wider (which is more important, more significant and more useful, than the longer end) 2f from wider, until almost the full range of the Sigma (until 32mm I believe, then it goes to 2.3f, 2.5fand 2.8f really fast), and equally sharp with very good stabilization and the fastest focusing on the system, while cost similar money when it was new. There are similar examples in most systems. I am not really sure why people (especially people with not much experience in working environments) consider the Sigma the one lens to rule them all. Far from it. There are plenty of m43 options from Olympus/Panasonic/Leica and others, they are litterally dozens of options and even Sony has the 16-70mm Zeiss which, not my favorite, but still a worthy do-it-all option (the 18-105 is very good for the cheap price and has amazing stabilization, if anyone do not want to spend top money).

Sure, the most important aspect for me are the 24mm in the wide end (a very significant reason I do not LOVE the Canon 18-135mm, Sigma 18-35mm, Sony 18-105mm, which otherwise I like for specific needs in specific systems and cameras), if it can reach 120mm, as you mention, it is great and perfectly usable, if it can be 2.8f. The Pana-Leica is good for some people too, I much prefer the Olympus, not only spec wise. Mildly bigger won't be an issue, because the GH5 cameras and the P4K are large cameras, and heavy. The 18-35mm is a very good lens, but very limited in focal lengths and using a speed booster increases the weight, total width, price ( @Cinegain already mentioned some of those, and mentioned the NX S, very accurate comment, in all!), not very impressed personally, and starts from 29mm in Canon-land, now for m43, it is like owning a couple of wide lenses, and that's it, not medium, not tele at all (obviously).

It is, indeed. Do not know about an offer, how much it cost now? I own the NX 16-50S which is 2-2.8f, so a 12-25mm 2f m43 isn't that amazing and unique, (2f-2.8f on an APS-C zoom lens that is 24-77mm equiv is truly unique, and happened 5 years ago). Using those classic workhorse lenses, you still need to go more Tele some times, while with the 12-100mm you have the full range for 95% of what a run and gun cameraman needs. 4f is not ideal of course, but with the dual ISO sensors won't be a big issue, and the lens is reasonably small and light as well.

I know that my favorite one for run and gunning is the Olympus 12-100mm 4f, hard to beat that, except in price.

How is the NX1 relevant to anything here? You do realize that it is the only camera of 2014 that still have some value in the used market, and many happy users, which you call "fanboi"s for no reason at all. The other options back then were the 7D and the GH4. Very unfair comment of a subject you do not know about.

Everybody likes big screens, but they are not comfortable for monitoring purposes on the field. Try to use one before buying, even the Video Assist is "significantly" bulkier and heavier than the Focus. 5" are just right. For big rigs and sets 7" could be fine I guess, but the last couple of jobs I used 7" IKAN and TV Logic monitors and I didn't like it!

I hope I wasn't that sound snob, but from all the Tascam's mentioned here, the 60 mk I is the worst of them all. Build quality, digital steps for input, battery consumption and issues if loosing power. The only Tascam from that series I used only once and never again, and the 70 costs 35 euros more, not 2000euros. Even the DR40 was more useful on a 20 years career.

Interesting, I have used the BM Video Assist, and then I went and bought the Focus.

@docmoore Thanks, he is alright, very simple and all, but just not very particular in his judgement, and he is doing a little bit of everything, so not highly specialized in sound. He used to have the AT, now he uses a 8050 Sennheiser. Real world (and work) circumstances a little bit different than those studio tests. This series is interesting, Manchester! @BTM_Pix You have 9-10 specific recorders there, and OTHERS take the 44% of the poll! It seems that a lot of people are using Tascam's!

A big part of Canon, Nikon and Fuji sales are based on their "color science", I am not even sure how this is not a thing anymore! ..and to continue with the Sony argument, they made a whole mkII camera in their "cinema" series, and the "only" difference is the improvement of their color science, so it must be a thing for Sony as well... and to take that further, GH5S is a lot improved in their color science department, and we discussed that in the appropriate thread. I am not sure how it is not an issue for Collins, Robert but every camera manufacturer make it such a big issue. Fuji? Eterna and the such. Black Magic? Just released their color improvement 4.0, if I am not mistaken, they did it a big deal too, so it must be a thing..

I have just accepted the fact that @Robert Collins is a master of everything, and my life has been better since. At least @kye accepts the opinion of others, and trying to learn something, he is too optimistic about things sometimes (and physics, and science as a whole), but I believe he is learning the basics, while Robert is trying to teach us everything on a short course. Yes.

Great! Do you have experience with other indoor mics? I "lost" my Audix, and I am considering other options, to be honest, it seems that the AT takes a lot of space, it may be that the Audix is more directional, but I am not sure, as I can't compare anymore. Are you happy with it? My impression is that mics are more important than recorders, 633 is an excellent choice, but maybe a F4 with a MKH50 would be an even better performer (and maybe that is why the 50 costs 1050 euros more than the AT here!), but a very good and capable recorder is a good base to start building your setup, and your sound in general.

You see how easy is to not work again on a main production?! Even though, Bale knows his name, so he must be good, when I say that the set is a Holy place, I mean it, and performers are first, because a light, you can fix, but if you spoil the take, and the actors and directors love it, then you are in a very bad place! That was the case when I was booming in features with actual film (film film) when a take cost-ed more money than a digital take these days.

This is unacceptable, if I was acting like this no one would hire me here.