kye

Me too. I did street photography for a while as training for holiday snaps (as both are improvisational) but it's a lot of work to put yourself out there, especially when people hassle you in the street. "You can't take my photo - I know my rights!" "Isn't that a security camera in that shop over there pointing at the street?" "uh, I guess" "It's taking photos constantly, all the shops have them. If it was illegal then all those shop owners would go to jail" "Uh, errr,... you can't take my photo - I know my rights!"

@jonpais cool video, with AF much improved! Out of interest, you seem to film quite a bit in public and it looks like no one minds. Is there a technique you use? Do you ask permission beforehand? Does no one really care?

I run Resolve on my 13" MBP and it works pretty well with proxy media. What part of the performance isn't working for you?

Huge props to everyone for all the drone jokes ?

I was being sarcastic actually.. thus the crazy emoticon. Sorry if it didn't translate. Not sure if this is directed at me? Anyway, I tried to be truthful but also helpful - I've seen BTS videos of weddings shot in very unusual styles and the couple were completely cool with it, so it can definitely work, but it needs to fit with the situation and expectations of the couple and the guests. That is an excellent idea. If I ever need a more powerful light (unlikely considering I don't really use lights much) I'll consider just buying a second one. Thanks

I like them too. I have the smaller one of those and also bought two cheap eBay LED ones that also charge off USB. The Aputure one has a high CRI and the others are a bit blue in comparison so they make nice kicker / hair / background lights with a bit of colour contrast. Also, they all fit into the little pocket-camera sized case that the Aputure comes in, so I have a (low power) three point lighting setup that fits in a pocket! It's what I used to take this photo: A good addition to those is the smallest Gorillapod and then you can easily mount them places like doorframes, backs of chairs, etc.

Art vs Engineering. When the purpose of something is to please the senses, then Engineering can help to achieve that, but often Engineering runs away with itself and forgets the end-goal. I believe that every decision about a concrete aspect of film-making (the way a sensor responds to light, DR, shutter speed, colour balance, frame rate, audio frequency response, music pace and style, the words in the script, the costumes, the hair / makeup, the objects on set, etc etc etc) has a subjective impression associated with it. The 'art' of a film (or how good it is) is down to how well each of those decisions were aligned with the overall goal of the film. For example, if you were shooting a futuristic sci-fi, using 8mm film, poor audio frequency response, period costumes, classical music, etc would be a terrible choice as these are all aligned with a period piece. Similarly, having loud heavy metal music, desaturated cold colours, overall low-key high contrast lighting, aggressive characters, etc would make a terrible rom-com, but is a good starting point for a horror film. Those who understand the aesthetic associations of their tangible decisions made throughout the creation process will do well in creating a finished product where the elements contribute to a coherent and powerful final experience for the audience. Engineering is providing us with options to control aspects of the process, Art is choosing from those options.

They can also be a good place to network. Film-making is a team sport after all

I know!! Just think what it would be like if it was shot on a GH5.. the shots would be stable, with nice colours and no clipped highlights.. of course, the people would still be out of focus, but nothing is perfect! ?

Congrats

Actually, it's more likely to be the one in the camera... if you compare the original images to his edited ones they're not much different!

Maybe that should be your marketing slogan.. "On everyones team!"

There was a great story about the early days of audio when a loudspeaker designer was claiming he could hear the difference between two loudspeakers and the measurement-focused people were saying that the two measured the same and therefore he couldn't hear any difference. Later on they devised some additional measurements (that weren't possible with the technology of the time) that showed differences in-line with what the designer had claimed. His response was priceless - Was I supposed to have not heard the difference until you worked out how to measure it? At least in film-making the argument is limited to what looks best. In audio the people who are obsessed with measurements claim that any differences or preferences not measurable don't even exist!

As they say in real estate... location location location!! You're right about what can be done with a little equipment and a big dollop of knowing what you're doing

Thanks @IronFilm @Kisaha Are you perhaps talking about delivering audio with parts at -0dB vs capture of audio with clipping? My point was that if you clip a very small part of the signal (ie, just the extreme peaks) and you do it on capture (and then process it to be ok in post before delivery) that you're probably ok. Otherwise we'd have huge problems with signal-to-noise while capturing the entire dynamic range of uncompressed audio sources (assuming we didn't have a limiter before the capture device). I'm simply trying to be practical. We tend to recommend that the thing we're recording (a voice perhaps) doesn't go above, say, -12dB, and that we have a safety track at perhaps 20dB less than that again, which would give us 32dB headroom over the peaks in our target audio. If we were recording on-set sound of a narrative in a kitchen, perhaps, and someone puts the saucepan on the stove down a bit harder than they intended then we'd be screwed if our mantra was "no clipping under any circumstances ever". Even more if we're recording in public where transients can be significant. In reality, we accept that the transient clipped, it only did it for a few ms, the associated distortion (THD and IMD in this case) probably wasn't audible, and we just fix that moment in post and move on with our lives. We don't go to the lengths of recording in 24-bit and having a -60dB safety track to ensure that no transient never ever clips I guess in summary, the OP was talking about clipping and audibility, and my point was that you can have clipping without it being audible, and that's probably ok. In terms of your audio credentials, good stuff. One day we can talk about high quality audio reproduction

Agreed. It's the same in the "hifi" equipment that big box retailers push - they're great at the things that are easy to measure and explain to customers, but music is sorely lacking.

The review by Ken Rockwell is pretty amazing - he's not afraid to say what he thinks and doesn't pull punches but that is basically a rave review. Any those images!! What a spectacular looking lens ???? Thanks Robert - that's interesting feedback. I've heard that IBIS and OIS (and gimbals) can sometimes work against each other so it seems like it's a bit of a mine-field in a way. What camera body are you using? Having a combination that works really well would be fantastic for me

Yes and no. Technically, when it clips it clips, so you're right about that. However, if your audio looks like this: and you up the gain by just a tiny bit then it will clip, but only at one point and on only one transient. Will it be audible? Very very very unlikely. Let's understand what is happening when you clip a signal like this: The unclipped signal on the left appears to be a Sin wave, and assuming that it is, it will be a single audio frequency. The clipped signal on the right is approaching a Square wave, which has a base frequency but also has a series of odd harmonics - the difference in tone between an acoustic guitar and the kind of distortion that Metallica might use. So, here's the "quite a bit" part.. If you push a Sine wave into clipping by a very small amount then what you end up with is a base frequency at full volume and a series of odd harmonics that are very quiet in comparison. The harder you clip the signal the louder these odd harmonics will be. This is why a "little bit" of clipping only gives you a "little bit" of distortion and "quite a bit" of clipping gives you "quite a bit" of audible distortion. ie, there is a huge difference between these two: I hope this helps to explain. Audio is hugely complicated and it's easy to make simple statements but as with most things there's usually more to it.

Absolutely! I think I've also got a similar split between different uses - cameras for narrative vs run-and-gun vs hybrid all have different combinations of strengths and weaknesses but I'm looking for a non-standard combination I probably mis-spoke about RAW - I said "approaching RAW" but what I meant was nice 1080p - ie more than Canon currently delivers. Something like the C100 1080 would be fine I'm not waiting. I have lots of cameras presently and they get used My most recent purchase was a 12Tb HDD because I had run out of space on my Backup drive from all the footage I record It's definitely looking like that's the best option. I didn't think about speed boosters - good point. I also got the impression it was more of a MF camera than anything and speed boosters and the vagaries of camera-to-lens communication. When I think of it I imagine people just coming out of film school who have a basic lighting kit, a basic audio setup, and who would have been shooting with a T2i or a 5D back in the day but now can get a Pocket 2 and stop dreaming about owning a Red and just make spectacular films. Yes, there will be people who put a single prime on it and hand-hold it throughout their holiday and create magic, but I don't think it's going to be replacing the A6500 in that many setups. I have half-a-mind to teach myself to manually focus and then re-evaluate things by taking Autofocus off my list of requirements, but it adds another thing that can go wrong to the list. LOL about 400mm - you're right about that not being stealthy!! Of course, you're talking to someone who yesterday took my 700D with EF-S 55-250 lens to my kids football game, and using crop mode on ML was shooting at 1200mm equivalent, hand-held! Of course, that lens is almost a whole universe away from a white lens a foot and a half long hanging off the end of a camera!!

What did you find? I have a vague memory of reading something about the 24-70 being better, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly. 24-105 is a very flexible range, especially with the crop/zoom functions also available.

Thanks for mentioning those lenses, I hadn't come across them when I went through DPReview and B&H looking for stabilised fast zooms - I'll have to do a bit of research on them @andrgl @SR I know it looks like it's a utopian fantasy, but you'd be surprised. The XC10 and my iPhone8 each have 7 out of the 9 criteria, a 70D / ML / 18-35 combo would have 7 or 8, an A7III / 24-70 looks like it gets 8 and maybe 9 if the overheating isn't too bad, the GH5 gets 8 but misses AF... If Canon has a genuine attempt at good video IQ on their FF mirrorless camera then it might hit all of the criteria. If this list actually looks exhaustive to you then I'd encourage you to write your own list and compare - most people aren't aware of all their criteria.

This link (https://petapixel.com/2016/10/22/iphone-7s-camera-parts-cost-26-9-5-phone/) says that the iPhone 7 camera cost about 10% of the cost of the phone, and this teardown of the iPhone X (http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-x-teardown/) says that the camera / image parts are about 11% of the cost of the phone. I'm not sure what that means considering that the iPhone 7 has two cameras and the iPhone X has three plus some other bits and pieces like the DOT projector but the iPhone X isn't that much more in terms of a percentage, but if we pessimistically assume that things will scale, it wouldn't be a far stretch to put a fourth camera with a longer lens in one, giving ~25mm, ~50mm, and maybe 100mm (or 150mm) equivalents. The one common application that's missing is the 'take pictures at my kids sports game', so although as film-makers we're picky about often obscure things, having a third longer lens is something that would be very useful on a weekly basis to most people on the planet. It would probably mean they'd have to turn the camera sideways and put a 45 degree mirror in there to get the length of the lens in, and it might require a bigger assembly to incorporate the IS requirements of a longer lens in there too, but longer focal lengths are typically used in better lighting conditions, meaning that the lens could be slower and the sensor smaller, so there's some ability to compromise there I think.

Currently the Canon APS-C cameras are probably eliminated due to no IS in wider aperture lenses, the Pocket 2 lacks AF-C, the GH5 can't focus well enough, the XH-1 battery life and AF issues, the C100 and Canon FF I believe only have AF points in the middle of the sensor. The remaining candidates are the A7III, but I'm waiting until the magical Canon FF camera and all the other 'just in time for xmas' cameras are revealed before moving forwards. The Pocket 4K looks like it will be a spectacular camera and I really wanted to want it, but it's just not aimed at me. If you're shooting in a situation where you can pause long enough to change lenses or you can tailor your shots to one focal length (eg, like street photographers often do with a single prime) then it would be just wonderful, but I want cameras to fit in to my style of shooting not the other way around. I shoot my home videos sometimes without even stopping walking etc, so things are often in motion because that's how life is and that's what I'm capturing. TBH it would be great if I could end up with a camera where lots of people use it and there's lots of support in terms of products and online discussions etc. I do have half-a-mind to pick up a second-hand Pocket 1 (are we calling it that now?) and get a single prime, like maybe a 35mm equivalent, and kind of have it as an 'art' setup to compliment whatever I get for my 'documenting' setup, but without IS, good low-light, zoom, or AF, it would only ever be an experimental camera. The Pocket 2 will suffer from the same compromise that the GH5 and all other cropped sensor cameras suffer from, you can get zooms and you can get shallow DOF but not both. The fastest zooms you get are F2.8 but that isn't as shallow as f2.8 on FF, so you're forced to choose between fast and flexible.

Currently I have two setups - 700D running ML and Sigma 18-35 f1.8, and XC10. The 700D takes lovely stills and nice shallow DOF but lacks image stabilisation and reliability, and the XC10 has great IQ, reliability, better low light, etc but the AF isn't great and it lacks shallow DOF. The XC10 is almost perfect but just doesn't give the look I've now come to realise that I want. My list of criteria is: Shallow DOF (equivalent to FF at F4) Looks nice at ISO 6400+ Walk-around lens available (at least 24-70) Reliable auto-focus with face detection Codec giving approaching-RAW 1080 or 4K Stabilisation good enough for hand-held work Overheating not an issue Low RS Reliable

Have you tried a different SD card? It looks like it might be a video file on the edge of being corrupt. Other things to try: unplug any external accessories that are attached if you have access to a second setup, try different lenses, different batteries, etc re-load firmware for camera, lenses, and batteries (not sure if these batteries have firmware but some do) Good luck!