kye

You've got to be on top of your game to make predictions that stand up over time.. Just rebrand and shoot with iPhone 15... if you want to get serious then you can get fancy and rig with handle, SSD, NDs and USB power bank, but it's only weddings so no need to go nuts.

Prores is a constant bitrate per pixel, so 4K is 4x the bitrate of 2K. This is a good reference: https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/compare-50-intermediate-codecs/

To be fair, basically anything freaks out the MFT users at this point.

This is what I would do too. The next level in matching is to go through the Hue vs Hue, Hue vs Sat, and Hue vs Luma curves and tweak things to match there, paying particular attention to the Hue vs Hue of the skin tones. I'd be gentle with these, so if the curves looked too drastic I'd back them off to minimise the risk of breaking the image (although with cameras like these that's unlikely). Then I'd just save that as a power-grade and apply it if/when required in future. You do it once and have it forever basically. Even this is potentially unnecessary, as once you put on a global look over the whole project it will often obscure differences between cameras to the point they're not visible in context.

I'll start making popcorn.

People don't want to know that they're basically full of BS. That's why people don't go looking for new information unless it's to reinforce their existing views, will argue their position regardless of how ridiculous it makes them look, and why they get so emotional when challenged.

I thought internet fixing was illegal?

Good luck, and happy shooting!

The sticking point is that people don't want "filmic" looking images anymore. Everyone uses and abuses the word "cinematic" and it no longer has anything to do with what is being projected in cinemas, but rather it has come to mean overly sharp images with very shallow DoF and a heavy grade in FilmConvert or Dehancer where the mood of the grade has no connection to the story of the video (if there even is a story at all).

Sure, but I don't see this done on YT basically at all. Everyone chasing high-end images, and no-one willing to learn the basics.

In terms of the quality of the frame grabs, it will be down to the codec with more bitrate being better. I don't know if h264 or h265 or Prores would be better, but it would likely come down to the way that they render the very flat areas of the frame. All the codecs will prioritise the sharp and contrasty areas of the frame at the cost of the flatter areas, which potentially have huge macro-blocking issues. From this perspective, uncompressed or lightly-compressed RAW video would be highly preferable. Depending on what standards you have for your use-case, you might want uncompressed RAW only.

How lenses should be discussed (not really a review at all, at least in the current context).... It would be amazing if cameras could be talked about like this too.

What a great way of putting it. When the image is lesser, it's like a switch flips in my head and I'm able to move on to more important aspects. Shooting becomes so much more fun too.

I thought it was funny.... If this whole YT thing has managed to remove peoples sense of humour then I think some lightening up needs to be done 🙂 I mean, if you want to be pissed at someone, I'd be starting with billionaires getting rich off slave labour in third-world countries, but you know, you do you!

Meanwhile, not all reviews are the same.....

Still loved.

Ouch! I think there's also a difference in approach of what you shoot. One on end of the spectrum there's this idea that you have a camera with many limitations and you either create the shots you want or you look for the shots that work. This is the idea of shooting with only a prime lens. A lot of people who use cameras that are limited have this mentality. You either get what you get but you get enough good shots that it's worth it (like a photography walk) or you change what is there to make sure you get the shots you want (directing a scene). The other end of the spectrum is you shoot what is there. This means the camera has to capture what is there, like wedding shooters have to get certain shots, ENG crews have to capture whatever is happening, etc. For me, my priority is capturing what happens, so I want the camera to fit the scene, rather than the other way around. This aligns very much with the cinema vs video camera priorities, but it's a different way of looking at it. Either way is fine, but the differences are a big source of why people from the first camp give really dismissive and condescending advice to the people in the second camp, like "just use a phone" or "who cares if your image looks like crap".

Here's my manifesto for the humble zoom lens. In my tests the expensive lenses looked vibrant and clean and sharp, which is to be expected. The Helios looked high-resolution but not sharp, and had a softer rendering which people love, and the 14-42mm kit lens looked somewhere in the middle... From my post: "Then, the mighty 14-42 kit lens. It has some of that vintage look going on. It's kind of like somewhere between the Helios and the other two. It raises the shadows a bit, but isn't uncontrollable in direct sun, and the edges are a little softer. A happy medium perhaps? It's also a zoom, has OIS, and if you break it you can just go get another one from a friend or on eBay or for $5 at a market somewhere with a GF2 with a dead battery." ... and yet, the expensive lenses and the Helios are ultra desirable, but I'm probably the only person to ever live that thinks the kit zoom might offer the best of both worlds.

Yeah, size is a consideration for sure. You have to be careful about what constitutes a bad reputation and make sure that 1) the people saying such things aren't idiots, 2) that the weaknesses of whatever it is are things you actually care about, and 3) that you actually understand what you like. High-end cinema lenses are often in demand because they're far from optically perfect, and yet forum fools will gush over the latest movie shot on vintage primes and then in the same breath go back to talking about how 6K RAW is mandatory and that Sigma Art lenses aren't sharp enough. AF might not be the best, but how would it impact you and how you shoot? Maybe the AF isn't so quiet and can be heard with the on-board mics, but is this important to you? and should you be using the in-built mics anyway? Maybe they're not weather sealed, but how many times do you actually need that? and if you buy one that is weather sealed, are you going to pay more than simply being willing to break and re-buy the cheap lens in the very unlikely event it dies. etc..

Yeah, it really does need that 18-40mm lens. That 28-60 Sony lens is so much smaller than practically any other zoom in their lineup. The gap I don't think they'll potentially ever close is a super-zoom. For MFT, you have the 12-35mm F2.8, 12-60mm F2.8-4 and the 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 which are all roughly the same size. This makes sense, as the 12-60mm gets extra reach without getting larger by having a slower aperture, and the 14-140mm does the same trick again. Unfortunately, the FF systems can only get this kind of size by starting with a short AND slow zoom, so there's nothing to trade-off, and so the existing super-zooms don't trade anything off and are just enormous by comparison. Unless they trade off the same amount of aperture on top of an already slow lens and make something like a 24-240mm F5.6-11, but I can't see anyone being willing to admit such a lens would even deserve to exist, let alone be desirable. This is the gap that I don't think will get closed between MFT and FF.

Sooooo... Does it have a 2X crop mode, and can you adapt MFT lenses to it? 😉

Yeah. I have spent time in tech startups, app design, user experience circles, and "proper" cameras are basically dinosaurs, and the thinking from the manufacturers is pre-historic as well. It's not getting better that quickly either, because there's this background mentality that "it works for the pros". In practically any camera forum you see it with discussions that go like this: Hi, I'd like a small and convenient camera with great image quality.. what do you recommend? Use your phone Actually, I'd like great image quality too, that's important to me Oh well then, you'll need this 5kg rig that is manual everything and needs lighting and external audio Actually, I need it to be small and convenient too Use your phone ........ Actually BOTH are really what I need <mumble mumble...> so you know better than the pros do you? well.... hey everyone, this guy is shitting on Deakins!! It totally is!!!

Yeah, I really think of it in terms of the priority. Cinema cameras are divas - the things in front of the camera are changed to suit the camera. You need lighting to suit native ISO, you have to wait for the camera to be ready, you have to start/stop if there's an issue with focus etc, they need external stabilisation. Hybrid / mirrorless / video cameras aren't divas - they adapt to the things in front of the camera. They are designed to operate at non-native ISOs and often have dual-native ISOs, they turn on quickly, they try to keep up with the scene with AF and AE etc, and they often have stabilisation built-in to reduce need for external rigging or tripods etc. Obviously this isn't a perfect description, but in general terms I feel like these are the "stereotypes" of each genre perhaps. Over the last 10 years both camps have started integrating the features and benefits of the other camp, with cinema cameras getting better ISO performance and now AF and IBIS, and video cameras basically getting a nicer image. If you shoot in relatively controlled environments I think it's easy to think that everything is mixed up now, but I shoot my friends and family during travel in available light with no direction and no retakes. Often I will see a moment about to occur and I have 2s to start recording and by the 4s mark the moment is over. I miss lots of these because the camera is in my hand by my waist and I can't get it turned on and in focus in 2s. Lots of my clips have the first 5 frames of the clip being the nice moment and then the smiles fade as people turn away etc. My situation is obviously extreme, and I'm 100% aware of this and that almost no-one is operating like this, however it throws the situation into very clear focus for me, because: 1) my iPhone can operate under these situations just fine and can turn on and do AF and AE before I've composed the frame properly, and apart from delays in getting the camera app started from the Lock Screen, it's basically faster than I am 2) my GX85 is almost as fast as my iPhone, being easier to turn on, but AF and AE are a tiny bit slower 3) BMPCC / BMMCC..... good freaking luck with that!! By the time you turn them on (and the monitor of the BMMCC), get the ND adjusted, get focus, start rolling, then frame, the moment is all but a memory. and these don't have a 60s turn on time! Yes, I could walk around with the camera turned on, but I remember the day my wife and I went to Pompeii - we walked around looking at this and that for 3 hours, had lunch, then went for another few hours again. Carrying a cinema camera around with batteries large enough to last that long simply wouldn't have worked. I carried the GH5, F0.95 prime, and Rode Videomic Pro in one hand that day, and my arm was sore for a couple of days afterwards. From this perspective, a C70 might be a camera I could work with, but a Komodo would simply not be anywhere near flexible enough for me. Thus, I am very aware of the differences in general approach, and thus thus, these "I just bought a RED!!!!" and then "Why I'm selling my RED" aren't surprising at all 🙂

Good summary and thanks for re-evaluating. People who are able to fact-check or re-evaluate their position, by keeping an open mind and updating their previous conclusions, are in my most respected category. My impressions of the 5D with ML setup is that it stands in the current market like many other cameras: as having significant weak points but also significant strengths. Rather than being an all-rounder like many other offerings, I feel it has a very strong image if that's the kind of look you're going for, but also strong negatives, like people have mentioned. This is in contrast to most other cameras from that time that have aged significantly and are mostly negatives compared with the current crop. This setup is definitely not for everyone, but neither is any other camera and it's up to each of us to match the strengths and weaknesses of each product against our own individual highest and lowest priorities.

I don't know about the Komodo-X, so maybe some of these considerations are different, but the sorts of things I was thinking about were: Long startup times Poor non-native ISO performance Lower resolution outputs crop into the sensor, so if you want to shoot in anything less than 871K then all of a sudden your whole lens collection has shifted FOVs, and your 6K RAW files are ridiculous if you're shooting for socials which are 1080p max and people are watching on their phones Higher frame rates are only available in lower resolutions, so a FPS change is now a lens change, which is a DOF change, and might be an exposure change, which combined with poor-non-native ISO performance is a lighting change...... These probably aren't a big deal for anyone who already use cinema cameras, but lots of these folks saving up for years to finally buy a RED came from the high-end cameras of the time like GH5, C70, 1DXii, etc, which are completely different beasts to use. So it's really a cinema-camera vs video-camera type of thing, and lots of people aren't shooting in controlled situations either so the struggle is real.