kye

Nah, stick around and you'll realise he's way to grumpy to be a believer in almost anything!! Welcome to the forums.. home of nice people, good advice, and a bit of snark and hip-and-shoulder too Awesome - what lens is that? 12mm and crazy fast? Shallow DoF simulations in VIDEO will come, it's just about processing power. My understanding is that they do it by having two cameras where one of them senses depth (could be wrong here) but basically they take two images and then do math to work out which bits they should blur. With computing power going up steadily it's just a matter of time, and Apple has already demonstrated it's something people want that is worthwhile investing the tech into. It might be something they do in post - if they record both streams and then "develop" it later in non-realtime even. I understand your POV and agree, but also see @webrunner5 perspective too. I look at it from a few perspectives: Image quality - smartphones are getting better so fast that they'll soon be 'good enough' except in difficult lighting conditions (the 2012 Zacuto camera shootout was interesting and we've come a long way since the iPhone 4s which was used in that shootout) Flexibility - more DR and function buttons and all that stuff really matters because it makes it a lot easier to get the results you want - lower DR, a touchscreen and lightening/USB port is a million miles from a C300 and that really matters on set Connectivity - SDI ports, timecode, external power options really matter and phones are basically nowhere on this Convenience - phones are always with you, always on, and don't attract a lot of attention, which means that much more content is available to film, either from the perspective that a dedicated camera would prevent you from getting the shot or that it would just make it more difficult We evaluate phones on image quality and convenience alone because they lack the other practical things that "real" cameras have. It depends on what you shoot and your priorities I think. Arguments start when people have different priorities and don't fully explain themselves. Please everyone be nice - in person most of us would agree and calmly explain ourselves It depends on what you're shooting. If you're in good light, and are looking for a wide angle deep DoF shot and don't need timecode and external monitoring then a phone can be almost as good as an Alexa. I take shots on my phone when I travel quite a bit because that combination is great for scenic landscapes and such, even though I have an XC10 that has decent DR, C-Log, 305Mbps codec, timecode, and ergonomics that most DSLRs can only dream of. I've seen a lovely wedding video shot with an iPhone. It was an experiment, the couple agreed ahead of time, and they probably didn't pay full price, but it worked. Film-making is all about compromises, we don't have cameras that can meet how well we see so capturing things is always choosing which things the human eye can see that we don't capture, and phones are no different, they're just more of a compromise. So, you CAN shoot a wedding, but at least for now you probably SHOULDN'T Every thread is mostly the same conversation - convergence. More specifically the convergence of Hollywood, the movie theatre, broadcast television, cinema cameras, home movie cameras, film-splicing editing machines, recording studios, typewriters and telephones. Fast forward far enough and these will all be included into a tiny device mounted somewhere near our eye. This convergence is difficult for many people to come to terms with because these things never touched. Not even the Bell Labs think tank where they predicted the mobile phone thought that it would include a camera inside it. Everyone is struggling with the fact the tech isn't there yet in terms of what we see in our heads, but we're still interested in it enough to thrash it out in forums because every few iterations take us a meaningful step forwards in being able to achieve that vision. It's too rubbish to be happy with, but is improving too fast to ignore. It's actually the creative drive that powers much of these conversations. I don't want 4K60 10-bit with IBIS because I like letters and numbers and spending money - I want it because 4K 422 allows 1080 4444 (I output in 1080), 60p enables slow-motion which suits the aesthetic of the home videos I shoot because time seems to slow in the magical moments that I want to capture, 10-bit because I shoot outside in high DR with a log profile and I want to have the flexibility in post and get rich colours, and IBIS because shake distracts from the smooth magic I want to create and draws attention to the fact it's a film rather than a memory. Do I need all these things - no, do they support my creative vision - yes

Finally watched this, and...... I'm in trouble! I watched it blind like they said, and my picks fell into into three tiers, the top included the F3, the Epic, and the Alexa. The mid tier was the F65, C300, FS100, and the 7D. The last was the GH2 and the iPhone. I swear I watched it blind!!

oh man... that made me laugh!! ironically, I might actually be able to work that out. Find the internal mics and trace to their buffers, splice in a new cable, mount the socket somewhere, probably with a couple of resistors and diodes to prevent nasty things from happening and get the right levels... I've modded enough hifi equipment in my life

Thanks @mercer and @webrunner5 Posting your creativity online is always a bit nerve wracking, especially around people that do this stuff for a living! I've worked out that IBIS is the way forward for me. I thought fast primes were always big and heavy (I was extrapolating upwards from my Sigma 18-35 F1.8!) but after seeing a bunch of lovely MFT suitable lenses like the Hellios and the Voitlanders I now realise that they're not heavy enough to stabilise the camera the way a Fujinon Cine 18-55 would, and I couldn't carry that weight all day anyway. And because primes don't have IS, I need IBIS for hand-holding. I suspect there's a GH5 in my future, but we'll wait and see. So I picked up a few cheap m42 lenses to try with my GF3 and see how I go (Hellios 44M, Yashica Yashikor 28mm f2.8). Assuming I like them I'll work out if a G85 or GH5 or whatever is the right fit and fill in the gaps, the Voitlander 10.5mm and 17.5mm 0.95 lenses look absolutely stunning! If Panasonics FF camera is 8K then the price of a used GH5 will plummet and my lens budget will be huge!! ???

and...... where are the rest of the steps?

No external audio input..... bummer!

Shot and edited this today with the setup I pictured above. GF3 + 14mm F2.5 + Manfrotto pocket tripod. Shot in full auto with manual focus (because there are no settings available in video mode except focus mode, and autofocus is sloooow and hunts a bit), editing and colour in Resolve. The setup was a PITA really, the tripod either obscures the screen or the MF ring on the lens, which is focus by wire, the screen is fixed so good angles are almost blind, there's no focus assists during recording apart from a slider showing you where in the focus range you are (when you stop recording it shows a small 1:1 crop so if the focus distance isn't changing then it's ok) and it's so small it's hard to hold steady although the tripod actually helps as a bit of a handle. Not bad for a metal body camera that came with two lenses, memory card, battery, charger, UV filter, screen protector, air blower, and many other things for under $450 about a decade ago. Of course, we're now in 2018 and I'd rather a setup that was nicer to hold, use, and could be configured in any way at all It takes great photos though, and has full manual controls as well as RAW in stills mode. Pity about video mode.

That would be awesome. I generally just hold the camera a set distance from my head and then just say "back of the camera" "90 degrees" and "facing straight on" as I turn the camera around and that's enough to get an idea of what kind of rejection quality and handling noise there is. I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum on this camera - if I get one it would be as minimal a setup as possible. Potentially just the camera and one lens. Thanks!!

Could you possibly test the quality, directionality and if there's camera handling noise from the internal mics please? I've got a suspicion they've done something very clever with them..

@mercer Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure it's the lens that makes magic in that case, but it's still wonderful. That was one of the videos I analysed when I was trying to work out how people shoot travel videos without IS, and I did note the tripod-like shots, which work for the tranquil style and pace of the video. And so, I now extend my travel kit to the 14mm F2.5, Panny GF3 camera body, and Manfrotto tiny tripod! If I also use my 256Gb SD card, with the ~20Mbps codec it will give me enough space to shoot however much I want, so no pressure to download footage each day That may be one of the smallest ILC with tripod setups ever! @BTM_Pix I'm also one of these crazy film-makers that don't use every special effect in the book to try and jazz up dull footage with no storyline One of the reasons I chose Resolve was that it was a basic editor but advanced in colour processing and things like stabilisation. This is because my edits to date have only involved straight cuts and the odd dissolve (which I use as a scene change queue). However, colour being so important it's great to have the tools really available - the colour performance of the other "all in one" packages is laughable, and stabilisation and other things like that to compensate for my shooting style and lack of skill I don't own a drone either, and I'm not looking to buy one.

That's what I think too - it's a pity the manufacturers don't seem to share this view!

It also does that for images too - just paste the URL. I discovered that by accident yesterday, it's very handy indeed!

I considered the Osmo camera some years ago - it definitely doesn't get the respect it deserves. Cameras that don't shoot shallow DoF are almost automatically scorned online unfortunately. However, after @mercer suggested I take a G85 to India and I was looking at lenses, I realised that I have an old Panasonic GF3 and 14mm F2.5 lens in the back of the cupboard that would be perfect. The lens is a flexible focal length, and its F5 equivalent is close to the FF F4 Iook that I believe I want. The GF3 isn't a camera to write home about (for video anyway - it takes lovely stills), but it's tiny and will do the job of letting me test my one camera / one lens theory. Basically my theory is that having one camera and one lens with IQ that has magic will be better than a more flexible setup that is super flexible and can shoot almost anything but has no soul. I don't think either the 14mm F2.5 or GF3 have magic, but at least this will be a real test of the concept of having a less flexible setup and see if it works for how I shoot.

What lens would you choose to use for the rest of your life? What is your favourite lens? What is the lens you would most like to own? With the announcement of various new lens mounts what lenses would tempt you to change systems? I'm increasingly realising that it's the lens that makes the magic rather than the codec or colour science, and my desire for shallower DoF than my XC10 can provide means I'll be changing systems. What are the lenses I should be lusting after, and then trying to find a camera body for? If you want to make a recommendation, I do home, event and travel videos for fun, so the results don't have to be saleable, but the lens should be relatively well-rounded. Zooms are ok if they are magical.

You thought of me? That may be a sign you should seek professional help! ??? That monopod did look interesting though, and I've contemplated a steadicam too. I've never owned a monopod and I'm tempted to buy a super-cheap aluminium one just to 'understand' it. I analysed a couple of my finished videos and looked at every shot and thought about how I got the shot and if I could have used a tripod, and the short answer was that very few shots were tripod-compatible in the sense that either I couldn't get the tripod into the location (art galleries, museums, events, etc), the shot was taken faster than I would have had time to setup for, the shot required the camera to move, or the subject was moving too fast or too much during the shot for it to work. There are some shots where a tripod would be great however, like pans of a nice scenic lookout, and these are the shots where I miss that next level of stabilisation. In this sense a monopod would be great, especially if it was really light. I really do struggle with equipment, and my next scenic trip is to India, which is with a humanitarian organisation to go and see the work they're doing as well as see a bit of the country. As I'm not a professional I think I'd feel awkward showing up to see people who live in poverty with a huge camera and no reason for it other than it's a hobby. I'm tempted to use it as a film-making development opportunity and just use my iPhone or perhaps something like the new GoPro because of the stabilisation. I'm also a little bit concerned for the security aspects, and I'm also a bit concerned because whenever I do a tour of some kind the guide always sees my camera and thinks I'm a pro and asks me to send my finished video to them so they can use it for marketing - too much pressure!! One of the reasons I like photography is there's no pressure.. If I only take my phone then I can use that as an excuse to limit expectations In a sense, this thread is completely opposite to that - a modular cinema camera + cine lens + screen is a more professional setup, but once you have a camera bigger than a pocket camera I think everyone thinks you're a pro and the size doesn't matter much beyond that point

I also use those padded camera insert bags. I put one at the bottom of my backpack, so that I can put things on top of it. This has a few advantages: the bag doesn't look like a camera bag, so is potentially less attractive to thieves you can use different bags depending on the task (eg, a day bag vs a carry-on) by putting things on top of the insert (eg, a jumper) then it's not entirely obvious you have equipment in there, even if the bag is open you can open your backpack and put it on your chest and putting your hands in from the sides there's room to change a lens in there without it being directly exposed to rain / wind / dust or even being very visible that you're doing it, and you can do that while standing or walking too so it's really handy At home I just put things in drawers from Ikea. Drawers keep things from gathering dust unlike shelves or lid-less containers.

In a sense, it is a whole new camera. A camera is really a sensor + lens + controller + post processing, and if the sensor is new, if the FOV is wider (it might be the same lens though), if the controller makes different decisions, and if the post processing is also significantly altered then that would represent a relatively significant change. Marketing does tend to over-do everything, but it's not like they tweaked the settings a bit and called it a day. The article is interesting in the sense that Apple has basically departed from the traditional approach to photography. The traditional approach to photography is that you expose once, and apart from your "colour science" the rest is about using the purist and highest performing elements - the best sensors lenses filters and everything else. Computational photography says "screw that" and basically reverse-engineers the whole process of arriving at a nice image and ends up having taken a completely different route. If you do traditional analysis on a device that uses computational photography then it won't apply, it's just different. Computational photography is just getting started, so it's a bit early to judge. In terms of your question - "HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it" the answer is that Apple took a ~$30 camera module, put it in a phone, made it the most popular camera on earth, and made zillions of dollars on it. Go ahead and tell me they're wrong, but show me your world famous camera and fat bank account while you're at it, or I might not believe that you know better than they do.... ???

I should also say that I've contemplated buying a monopod, as this could be used as a counterbalance when hand-holding the camera, but would also take the weight and give me completely stable shots, which even though I hand-hold, is still the goal for maybe half the shots I shoot.

Those Olympus zooms are interesting, although they are only F4 equivalent. I didn't know about the Tokina 14-20 F2 - that's an interesting lens although the zoom range seems very short! The Sigma zooms are great for APSC because they're the direct equivalent of the 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 pro lenses. In stills photography they're referred to as The Holy Trinity which is made up of the 14-24 F2.8, the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8. But that's my point, there doesn't seem to be a direct equivalent for m43 of those lenses, which would be 7-11 F1.4, 12-35 F1.4 and 35-100 f1.4

Please do! Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately for us!

I sympathise. In a sense I'm at the next "tier" down from you in weight, but was wondering what a heavier setup looked like and how much heavier it can be without it becoming an issue. In a way it's a compounding weight problem. Adding 1-2kg to a camera might mean getting a larger rig, which will add a huge amount of weight to the setup, and also size, which means you need larger cases to carry everything around.. etc etc etc. I think I might have thighs like that! Whilst out shooting one day I contemplated if I should buy some of those weights you strap around your wrists as a kind of training regimen! That would help, but I suspect it's the rotational inertia (weight at distance) of the setups, or that these cameras are normally mounted to something that makes the most difference.

Yes, I feared as much. I just got back from a trip where my rig was the XC10 and Rode VMP+ and all I took was a wrist strap and I kind of regret not taking a shoulder strap as carrying around the camera while not using it got a bit tiring on the hand, and that rig isn't that heavy compared to what we're talking about here! An easy rig is way beyond where I'm willing to go, personally.

That's interesting, thanks. I just started a new thread partially inspired by your suggestion Have you recorded video with it? I don't think I've seen any from this lens - only stills. I guess it depends on what you're filming and how good it is at focus-peaking and other assists. If, like me, you're just capturing what happens, then keeping the composition and focus right can be enough, although I'll definitely agree that brighter would be better!

I shoot hand-held, but because camera shake isn't my aesthetic I naturally assumed that OIS and IBIS were the only solutions, but I'm now wondering if the weight of some of the cine lenses will be as good as OIS. With rigs that have heavier cine lenses do you need OIS? I was inspired by this video which has great looking output and looks (relatively) compact. That setup looks like an XT-3 with Ninja V and MKX 18-55 cine lens. There are lots of other options too, for example a C100 or Pocket4K with appropriate cine glass. I am a little bit apprehensive of the weight too, considering that I carry my rig for hours at a time, although if it was something special I'm sure I could get some comfy straps.

Even in a full rig with monitor and power? That would be interesting to see, but still no IBIS I think! That lens is famous in street photography circles. It is really wide, which is desirable. There's a saying "if your photos aren't good enough then you're not close enough" so wide and close was the combo to have. It is MF and has a mechanical control that your muscle memory can learn and then rely on. It is F8 which is about right for the genre, anything shallower and you don't have time to take the shot, and anything deeper is probably too slow and doesn't have enough separation. I don't know about eye-focus or anything with the latest cameras, but people with all types of camera would "zone focus" because acquiring focus took too long, not too long on certain cameras/lenses, but too long in any case. This gives you MF that can be adjusted, which is kind of the best of both worlds. It is soft, which is desirable because in combination with a bit of ISO noise, makes everything look like film, which is the right aesthetic. It is cheap cheap cheap!! I have been half tempted to get a Pocket2 with a fixed lens as a 'special projects' camera, in addition to the setup that I've been pursuing with a flexible zoom lens. My thoughts were that the fixed lens would have to be a walk-around lens and would have to be special in some way, otherwise a zoom would be better because of the flexibility. A Pocket2 with one of these on it might be a fascinating thing to see the output of.