Arikhan

It's all about content and striking the right note: A very successful German viral video (poor filmmaking quality but very emotional yet...): 5,6 Mllion views (for German language only and NON-advert, quite impressive), 46.978 likes,1.240 comments, 179.495 shares...The camera? I'm pretty sure, it wasn't an Arri or RED... ;-) I think, if you are an artist or an ambitious filmmaker, you want people to watch your work. If you want this, you must provide some beautiful,interesting, informative or emotional content. And therefore, you mostly don't need a perfect or even very expensive camera. For people wanting to sell their filmmaker capabilities for paid work, it might be fine to present a maximum of technical capabilities (though mostly useless for potential customers...) - but it has nothing to do with filmmaking, but just selfmarketing of technical skills. As said, I am 17 years old, scholar and shoot with Canon, NX1 and some Pana gear. In the last 2 years I assisted some filmmaker people shooting with RED, Sony, Canon C100/C300...85% of the work of these firms was for web, 15% for German film theater or trade show films. By far the most part of the work was from technical point of view well done...but abortive for the target audience. No views on internet, people just disapproving after watching. The filmmakers didn't struck the right cord with their film...People simply didn't understand the message or disagreed...and leaved without spreading...They didn't even say, it was beautiful...

The tools of videomakers (Smartphone, Camcorder, DSLR, Arri, Sony, etc.) are not crucial. Essential is content / information / emotionality and acceptance within your targeted audience. For technical and specification reviews, OK, quality of content is decisive. But - as Andrew said - this is all about just a small audience of freaks or enthusiasts. The "big audience" doesn't care at all about technical aspects of the films. As media consumption becomes more and more mobile (between 45 and 75%), videos/films published for internet audience and smartphones/tablets will never care about resolution, color grading or the last detail of color science. As long as viewable screens are quite "mini", as in case of smartphones and tablets, there will be no need for "extraterrestrial" 4K-8K filmmaking (from technical point of view). BUT there is a need for good/funny/informative/narrative/entertaining content. Completely indepent of the degree of technical implementation/excellence. In RL nobody cares about "smooth/mushy" 1080p out of a Canon-DSLR or the 10%-debade on color display/differences of Canon vs. Sony/Pana. Just my 2 cents... And even discussing about display on bigger screens than mobile ones: Take a look at surveys and serious statistics on media consumption. Current screen resolution of PC-Screens, laptop screens or consumer TVs (US, Southamerica, Europe, Westaisa) will make you laugh when debating on 4K...For most of display devices, 1080p is more than OK. Why then pixel peep about the "last 5%" difference and 300% percent crop within 4K footage? In my eyes this is absurd and narcisstic - without any significance for audience. It's only significant if you want to make good sales by telling your future customer, that a RED and 4k/8K production are decisive for the success of the coming film. If this is not a multimillion production, this is not decisive. It's just a marketing lie. A profitable one from the point of view of providers, but still a lie...

@kidzrevil Another interesting question is, if most consumers care about information, artistic aspects or quality of images (4K? Cinematic look? On smartphone displays? :-)) ). I doubt it. For most people, films are content. Taking a look, (probably) sharing and then hunting the next piece of video content. "Speed consuming" at it's best. As filmmaker you have to impress/shock them/beg their attention nowadays your audience for more than 30 minutes - but...I think Andrew is right. Good times for serious/talented filmmakers with good concepts and ideas - and a nice INCOME from another industry than photo&film... ;-)

@kidzrevil As said in this thread, in my eyes you need much more marketing skills (nowadays social media, YT- / Vimeo marketing, etc.) than filmmaking skills to be successful as filmmaker. It's all about hype and publicity, not all about quality or artistic aspects...Mostly...Though sometimes, there are serious filmmakers expressing emotion,, beauty, joy, sadness or even some interesting information in their films. The age of (low budget) artistic filmmaking is - in my eyes - over. Exceptions prove the rule... There are many "iPhone Tarantinos" nowadays and some of them spread very successful their "content" - aka films. Millions of clicks and views in Social Media, sometimes some weeks or months of fame...These guys are the new sheriffs in the town...Quick and dirty - and sometimes very successful....

@kepache Premiere or Davinci Resolve? Though I see problems in archiving the footage...OK, that's not a problem: You just have to buy enough storage media, if you shoot hours of footage... ;-)

@DPC The main asset of these "professionals" is sales: saling their clients their style to shoot, compose, color science, etc. Look @DPC and @Richard Bugg, there are tons of PAID bullshit videos/films out there. Because the film companies found someone to pay for it, these are not necessarly good films. First point....second point, could you define "good filmic work"? I think there are thousands of opinions on this... Let me give you an example: The so called "cinematic look" (Grading, shallow DOF, etc.) is not a big point in the eyes of many GERMAN clients. Many clients simply don't care about it. Many German corporate clients care about SHARPNESS and contrast - the same they care about when watching TV....OK, there might be some, who can be "convinced" to move to a Hollywood look. But generally they don't care... So, filming companies who do much paid work are good sales people. There are so many independent (and in my eyes talented) filmmakers all over the world, who never sale a piece of their work...Economical success is not the same as successful filmic work... Now on the 1DX II: I like this camera, but it's not affordable for me. It's a perfect still camera for almost all purposes (excepting highest resolution needs), unbeaten in sports photography, top notch in low light, well build, usable, rugged, top ergonomics. I know many journalists / documentary and narrative workers who use it. One of them is a good friend of mine and he is editing the Canon 4K footage on a i7 1.900,- Euro PC. So what? If you are talking about professionalism, you should consider, that working with this kind of files is normal (RAW eg). The fact, that this workflow might not be affordable for many enthusiasts like me, does not mean, that this is a bad codec. You just need some computing power for editing, but this is absolutely normal for people working on higher level or with RAW... The DPAF is amazing. Even if some "professionals" claim, in professional work there is "no need" for a excellent AF. There is one. And some professionals use it excessively. Not everyone shooting films has a brigade of focus pullers or can shoot a scene over days ad ultimo...The excellent DPAF of the 1DX II is just a very useful tool, helping shooters to save money...

@ all XC10 enthusiasts: There is a very interesting comparison on IQ of the XC10 compared to the Sony AX100 (aka PXW X70). The Sonys are cameras nobody (addressing pros & enthusiasts) is talking about...But I think the comparison is without any doubt: In my eyes detail, contrast, etc. is in Sony much more better. Looking at clouds definition in the sky, there is a considerable difference in dynamic range too. Other opinions?

@jasonmillard81 I don't have any demo for this. That said, there are many many samples for high low-light capabilities of the D750, A7R II, 5Dm2...These 3 cameras (OK + Canon 1DXm2 + Nikon D3S + D4, etc.). Furthermore the fantastic focusing skills of the D750 in very low light are proven in real world conditions by many photographers. Even the A7R II is in low-light focusing questionable...So this is not only all about IQ but focusing capabilities too...And herein I don't have ANY proof for the Fuji. Furthermore, don't forget TCO. As said, the X-T2 is all in all not very affordable for me...

@jasonmillard81 Yes, I've seen it. But I must act from a realistic and practical point of view. As said, buying in the Fuji ecosystem means investing in a for me new ecosystem (lenses, filter, etc., etc.) and that's expensive. As I am not a pro making money with photography and filming, I have to administrate my tight budget. And the Nikon ecosystem is - for my use - much more cheaper than the Fuji. Point 1. Point 2: The X-t2 is till now NOT known as low-light monster. So the stunning video IQ of this camera under ideal lightning conditions is useless for my purposes...There are so many cameras with stunning IQ, but only a handful competing in extreme low light and afordability concerning total cost of ownership. I work hard for photography and filming during holidays (earning money), but that said, please consider that I can not buy cameras + needed equipment pros can buy. So I have to be very realistic when buying equipment. I am more than happy with the NX1 (stills AND video), it's a fantastic and robust hybrid camera. The IQ is in my eyes mindblowing, AF and usability too. But it rapidly falls apart in low light conditions. I get in some conditions unusable STILLS with ISO 6.400. Very decent light, low contrast, tungsten and yellow-brownish light are not the strongest points of the NX1. In such conditions the Samsung is as bad as my old 7D, despite 50mm 1.8 lens...The NX1 looses almost any detail, contrast and IQ. There are the limits of this device.... So I have to compensate this point with another camera competing in these poor light conditions.

@jasonmillard81 For the x-t2 I have to buy Fujinon lenses...It's a ecosystem for it's own and not quite cheap. And the x-t2 is NOT the same 20+ megapixel "low-light monster" as a D750, A7R II, 5Dm4, etc. For ergonomics, build and solidity (dual slot cards, building quality, etc.) I still believe, that the D750 is the best offer. Addtionally, good prime lenses for the Nikon are not so expensive as Fujinon or even Sony lenses...It's not all about the price of a camera only, lens prices, ergonomics, etc. are for me important too...I have to consider the total cost of ownership, as my budget is limited. I need the camera for solid work and beautiful images, not for award winning photography. I still believe, it's not only the camera, but me too as photographer or filmer.

@Geoff CB Thanks Geoff! The STILL-IQ, the VIDEO-IQ or both? BTW: You guys are incredible! So much experience and good advice....After your advice i've took a look at some D750 samples (video + stills) and the DPReview full review and nearly ALL experienced shooters/reviewers love this Nikon: http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review and https://***URL removed***/reviews/nikon-d750 In addition this camera + 3 prime lenses (35mm, 50mm and 85mm) is much more cheaper than the a7r II + the same Sony native prime lenses...round about 2.500,- Euro here in Germany. BTW: My "dream" solution would be a 1DX m2, but first I am still a scholar and second that would mean some additional costs in a new editing PC hardware...Out of reach for me... ;-)

@DPC Thans for your realistic and experienced advice! VIDEO is not the prime intent here, it's all about the low-light stills quality beeing compared. I need the camera for some kind of documentary/journalistic work and have to take stills in low lightning environments without the possibility to lighten. After testing in real world circumstances with the NX1 (45mm 1.8, 1/200, ISO 3200) and with the old 7D, it must be said, that these two cameras (APSC) aren't by far not good enough for my purposes. The result was in both cases a ugly pixel stodge, lacking any quality or detail. OK, but what about low-light stills capabilities, in very decent light conditions and moving targets (people)? I guess these are typical situations for full frame devices or cams capable to process in low-light conditions with low contrast very good. Any idea? I am not a fanboy of a special brand, though i am very pleased with the Canon look. But for this special purpose I need a cam with 16+ Megapixel, excellent low-light capabilities and finally with good 1080p IQ.

@Viet Bach Bui Thank you! Are the low light capabilities - for stills - of the 5D4 comparable with the A7R II? I ask because there are photographers saying, that the A7R II is much more better in low light... Reliability is something I have to consider as well...

As I consider to buy a new hybrid camera (stills and video) in some weeks, I need some advice from experienced people. After looking at many reviews and charts, I'd like to buy a Sony A7R II or a Canon 5d mark IV. I need a camera for stills performing very well in low light and low contrast situations with minimum 20 megapixel (if not I would immediately buy the a7s ii, but the 12 MP are not enough for what I need...). The camera should be a very decent video device too. Are here people experienced with both cameras, who could give advice? I shoot Canon for stills a few years now and have a decent amount of good lenses, but I can not estimate The low-light still capabilities of the 5d m4 compared to the a7r ii The hardware requirements for a Win PC to edit the huge 4K MJPEG files of the 5dm4 on Premiere CC (my PC: 16 GB RAM, GTX 970, CPU: AMD FX 8350, SSD harddrives - just OK for editing "common" 4K files at about 100 MB/s) Changing to the Sony ecosystem means for me - as I love native lenses - a quite dramatic change of my lens collection. At least additional costs for buying new (Sony) lenses. On video side, the Sony (excepting color science) should be by far superior to the new 5d...It's really hard to not make the wrong decision. As I am a scholar, my budget is quite restricted and I can not afford to buy the "wrong" camera and equipment...My NX1 shoots excellent stills, but in low-light and low contrast (real world situations, where I can not use flash/lightning), the camera falls dramatically apart...

@Mattias Burling I think, you are right...Because the DSLR/DSLM filming enthusiasts like many people in this forum are a MINORITY. But all of us think, filming features are the most important for camera manufacturers. I am convinced, this is NOT. It's only the most important thing for dedicated film camera manufacturers. For hybrid/still devices manufacturers, there are much more (economical and strategic) aspects to consider than the expectations of a minority. How many normal Joes have the knowledge and hardware possibilities for 4K editing and post production? How many enthusiasts have the budget to handle and store huge RAW or 1DXmk2 files? I think, we underestimate the real existing world out there. Rock solid 1080p with a nice codec and a moderate bitrate (= for "normal" PCs / Mac, round about 50 MB/s) could be better for the future of filming enthusiasts than a handful "freaks" not representing the bright consumer world at all...And that's mass business, big manufacturers like Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc. are interested in...

@Mattias Burling I think all of us here in this forum misunderstand the perception of normal Joe about "filming" in context with DSLR / mirrorless devices. For most people "filming" means a camcorder or a film camera in "classical" shape. For more than 99,9 percent of people a DSLR / photo camera is a device for STILLS. Not one of my friends or relatives associates that form of device with filming activities...

Not the worst idea...What about the 1DC? I asked about the AF quality in this thread . As used 1DCs in good condition are available at 3,5 to 4 K Euro...

@mkabi Thanks for your suggestions. As i like the Canon color science and i have a nice amount of EF lenses, i assumed, i could use only a camera for stills AND video. Though i don't want to spend more than about 3.500 Euro on this. As i see - and talking about the Canon ecosystem - i should save money and spend it on a 1DXm2, as then this camera could be the best canon solution for stills AND video. I hoped, the 80D could be good enough, but video IQ ist still very soft without real 1080p resolution...

@experienced users So, you could say, as "sharp" / detailed as the 5Diii...This would mean, the only way to get sharp, usable IQ out of it, is filming in 4K and editing on a 1080p timeline? BTW: There are people saying, that the 80D would be quite sharp in 1080p. Is there someone, who can tell me something about this aspect? The 80D vs 5Dm3 sharpness/detail comparison in 1080p? Thank you!

Hi guys, What about the quality of original 1080p footage (NOT downscaled from 4K) of the new 5D mIV? Someone experienced with this?

@experienced users of the 1DC What about the AF of the 1DC for shooting sports stills (fast and precise enough?) shooting video - I know, it can NOT be compared with the fantastic DPAF, but in comparison with other currently used cameras,,, What about accuracy of 1080p-shoots? As "mushy" and soft as usual 1080p-Canon-footage, or comparable with accuracy of C100-footage in 1080p? Thank you for advice!

In my eyes this is pimping up a luxury gadget (overheating, no ergonomics for serious work, etc.)...Great new features that would be needed in a a7r m3 / a7s m3. If Sony would implement these features (specially a reliable AF and a TC with a much more simple and better menu usability) in serious production cameras, this would be great. But Sony prefers to pimp luxury gadgets - overpriced "toys" seem to be more profitable than production/serious cameras...

@jpfilmz Thank you very much for advice and for sharing this clip. On weekend I will visit a pro broadcaster and equipment seller and get a chance to compare a little bit the Sony and the XC10 in same decent light conditions. BTW: My (1" sensor amateurish) FZ1000 produces in low light conditons (4K, 25p) better footage than my NX1 with Canon constant 2.8 aperture lens - compared after edited in a 1080p timeline. This is very dissapointing for me, as it demonstrates that sensor size is not the most important factor. One of my friends has a Pana GX85 and a Canon 80D. The 80D produces lovely colors, BUT the GX85 makes far better footage in low light (4K, downscaled to 1080p). Far less noise and artifacts...This is something I can not understand. Panasonic processes the information from little sensors (1" / 4/3) as it seems much more better than Canon or Samsung from bigger sensors. Thanks again for your advice, next monday I will post about my comparison test (XC10 vs PXW X70) in decent/low light conditions.

Is here someone who could give me some some practical advice about the low light behaviour of the XC10? I am 16 years old and till now I shoot interviews, political events and sometimes corporate events. Till now I use a NX1 with Canon lenses (70-200/2.8 eg.) and the Samsung 45mm/1.8. For ENG and "quick to edit events" I use a Panasonic AG-AC8, but the AVCHD is not my dream cam. I will sell the camera within the next weeks... Now I would like to buy a run & gun cam. From practical points of view and corresponding to my needs, I would like to buy a Sony PWX X70. 4:2:2-10 and a acceptable compression make this cam very interesting for me. But...I am a fan of Canon colour science. So, a XC10 could be a serious alternative and could be my first Canon film camera. C-Log is very nice (PXW X70 does NOT have a S-Log, but very nice images out of the box). The Sony is very usable in uncontrolled low light situations (I do NOT film in the dark) as unpredictable events, meetings, etc. (journalistic work). As I am scholar, my budget is quite tight, so I don't want to buy many cameras for testing (and reselling, if not acceptable for me). Is the XC10 (with its 1" sensor, similar to the PXW) the same quality in questionable/low light situations? BTW: I am a "long time" guy wanting to invest in practicable solutions and consistent post workflows.... Thank you for advice!