Benjamin Hilton

I think the problem with some of these discussions is the fact that we argue about gear like we are using it for the same purposes. We are discussing the merits of specific trucks, only some of us are using the trucks for a country drive to church, and some of us are hauling loads cross country. This makes the conversations very frustrating. You can take a drive with an 8 stop DR GH1 and get some pretty shots of the trees at sunset and feel the wind in your hair. But have you ever tried to shoot a commercial project or a modern documentary with 8 stops of DR and be competitive in today's market?

Yeah my point exactly. I have very little doubt AI will take over huge swaths of the market, it's just I think there will always be room for human made products.

I think there is no doubt a lot of content will eventually be dominated by AI. That being said, I think the human craving for authenticity and reality will never be completely dead. Just look at the amount of photographers and cinematographers returning to analogue film. While it may become niche, I think there will always be space for movies filmed with "real people" on "real cameras."

This chart from Tiffen is really helpful for filter experimentation. Glimmer glass is the filter I reach for the most because it slightly softens the image just a touch, while also blooming practical lights a little bit too without touching the shadows or overall contrast. When pared with modern sensors it is a really pleasing look.

This partly true. Many pros will also come up with a lens/camera/filter combo that matches the look they want for a specific project, then stick with that combo all the way through. They then will add specific filters for specific shots. It's what I see done a lot anyway.

I don't think so.

This is true. The more experimental features of the mirrorless cameras will be the norm in cinema cameras.

Too true. Arri targets the feature film and commercial industry. Those industries have absolutely no incentive to use BM or anything cheaper. The rental cost of an Arri is one of the smallest line items in their budgets. Why would they experiment with something that saves a few bucks on the rental when they have years of experience, trust, rigging etc all geared around their usuals cameras of choice? You technically could shoot a movie with a BM camera or an FX30 or a bunch of other cameras, but why would you unless you need something small for a specific shot? It's like saying your such and such street car can go the same speed on a drag strip as an F1 car so they're going to dominate the F1 industry here pretty soon. Um, no. Why would they?

It depends on what you want to do with them of course. For me personally, the GH5 was kind of the 5d mkii of the photography world. It was the marker when image quality hit the "good enough" metric. For most work, shooting with the GH4 will still be a frustrating experience image wise. Not to say it can't produce good images, it's just very limited compared to modern alternatives. The GH5 was where cameras really hit a "I can get 75% of what a 2024 camera can get most of the time" kind of reality. That being said, if your standard is low and you are just looking for a sharp image and some basically decent color, the GH4 will be fine.

Glimmer Glass is my personal favorite. I also use the Tiffen Smoque for some interview setups when I have a practical source in the frame

I'm not addicted. I keep a casual eye on the industry purely out of interest. It's work for me, but also a hobby.

Makes sense to me

I think the color science that happens in camera is really important. I'm also a believer that the image nearly always needs to be "developed" in post, but that development is largely power or constricted by the color science out of camera. That being said, I think all the major camera companies have good color science these days. Any nuances between Canon, Sony, Lumix, or Nikon can be easily massaged out in post if the starting image is good.

And honestly f2.8 is about the shallowest depth of field you could want for most standard work

Yeah, like photographers, there is very little reason for companies to want to upgrade their gear anymore. It's pretty much a matter of waiting until cameras and such are hitting retirement physically, then choosing an "upgrade" that makes the most sense feature and budget wise. We have an FX6, A7IV, two FX30s, an R7, and a GH5 we use for various projects spread across several studios in two different countries. All those cameras have pros and cons, and work well for different things, but for the most part cut together when needed. At this point the only reason we would buy a new camera is when an old one bites the dust.

Interesting, does the dynamic range keep up with modern cameras?

I still slip GH5s into my work when needed and nobody notices...

Honestly as someone who works in the Youtube sphere doing quality content every day, the specs on new cameras cease to interest me. We plateaued a couple of years ago in that regard. I can pick up nearly any camera from the last few years and get quality results from it when run through my image pipeline and such. Now when I'm given footage shot by someone else, that is a completely different story. Skill really does matter. What vastly interests me though, are the little things added to cameras every year that make my life easier. I would trade a whole stop of dynamic range and a bunch of pixels for quality built in NDs on mirrorless cameras.

As a 12 year professional editor and content creator who's used all FCPX, Davinci, and Premiere extensively, I would highly recommend putting in the time to learn Davinci Resolve. The only reason to lean the direction of Final Cut would be if you only plan on a simple editing workflow and will be limited on computing power.

I really don't get the hype about phone cameras for cinema. No matter how you slice it, they are really expensive hard to use cameras for what they do. Like Kye broke down, the iPhone 15 can do an okay image at a basically fixed focal length and depth of field in bright light. Even with that, the image looks over sharp, and just weird in many cases. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the latest phone camera tech for personal use. The ability to pull my phone out of my pocket and get great photos and videos of my kids whenever I want is really nice. For that purpose, the quality looks great. But when it comes to shooting anything more serious, I could think of half a dozen cameras that are way cheaper, and would land you with much better looking, easier to capture, and more reliable results than a phone camera would. With an iPhone, how do you do a heavy handheld look? What do you do when the battery dies? How about overheating? Lowlight? Shallow depth of field? ND filters? Timecode? Audio? The list goes on and on... It's basically the wrong tool for the job. It's like the latest hatchback advertising how much lumber you can stuff in the trunk for your latest construction project. It's great if you need it every once and a while, but if you do construction seriously, any old cheap pickup truck from the 1980s will do a much much better/easier job.

Totally an FX6 for me. I'd love for it to be an Alexa 35, but I know with the crazy amounts of content I have to produce on a daily basis it would be more of a hinderance than a help.

I really do think there is something non-subjective to our current state of frame rates. This is coming from someone who likes to push the norms and who would have no problem filming in higher frame rates if I thought they looked good. As someone said earlier, I really think the motion blur of 24p emulates the dream state, it puts us into a state of believing the world we are immersed in as fake as it actually is. 30p is smoother and more realistic, but realistic has its downsides. If I wanted my films to look realistic there are a heck of a lot of things I would do differently other than frame rate. To me, content shot in 60-120p look nauseating and fake, I can't stand the look personally. I know this is somewhat subjective, but there are quite a few film goers that experience this. 30p looks realistic, but watchable. I run a fairly successful YouTube channel with news commentary studio style and we opt to shoot 30p for most of that content. 24p just looks magical, dream like, immersive. I shoot all of my cinematic documentaries and more dramatized emotional content this way. At the end of the day this isn't about conserving or progressing. The looks are different, they do different things to the viewers. People keep saying that we need to leave the old ways behind and "progress" to higher frame rates. Progression is fine, but when you want to change something that has been working for generations, the burden of proof falls on you to prove the progression is actually better. Many successful directors have tried this with the examples others have mentioned, and overall it seems like people have not appreciated the experiment.

Still been rocking the S1 and GH5s for a lot of content this year. Finally mixed it with some Canon R7 which I'm really liking. Lower dynamic range and noisier image than the S1, but the autofocus and a lens adapter ND filter has made me reach for it more and more. Just hating in front of the lens NDs more and more these days. Our S1 finally just quit on us, so looking at hopefully re-doing our whole system, really been needing to for a while. Just bought a Sony a7 IV and lens, hoping to eventually pair that with another one and a FX6, along with a couple more e-mount lenses. That should set us up for a while I think. We have to work really fast, so practical considerations are starting to matter more and more these days. Hence the FX6 idea.

Yeah, test test test. I don't have a lot of experience with the original a7s, but I'd imagine nailing your white balance and exposure will help you out a lot. Seems to go a really long way with the older mirrorless cameras.

Yeah I had the same concern watching YT reviews before I bought an R7, I think it's mainly the users though, not the camera. I have both the R7 and the Lumix S1 plus som GH5s. Definitely a bit lower DR on the Canon compared to the S1, but not a big deal overall. Watching where you put your exposure and doing a good rolloff curve in post is much more important than actual numbers in my opinion when it comes to DR though. Seems pretty close to the GH5s IMO