kye

In addition to the useful (and immature / tasteless) contributions above, another thing would be to shoot a huge amount. Faster cuts means more shots. Think about it like this, if shots are held for 1s instead of 4s each and every one of those 1s shots are the 'right' moment (framing smile etc) and are in a different location then that means you need 4 times as many shots. TBH you're either a genius or you're crazy to try and apply this to a wedding scenario, and I really hope that the couple (and guests) really understand what it involves. If you've got a couple who are having a simple outdoor ceremony and are willing to do lots of location changes and poses etc for an hour or two (or four!) then that's totally cool, but if you're going to try and apply this type of film-making to a traditional wedding then you're either going to get normal shots and not create something like this or you're going to interrupt their wedding day a huge amount, and potentially both. Good luck - it's a beautiful style, although I would have thought that IS of some kind would have kept the hand-held look but cut out the sharper jitters making a nicer final product.

Your budget is very modest for getting a whole film-making kit that will do weddings, or any multi-camera setups. However if you start off renting cameras and lenses when you need them then I'd imagine it is probably sufficient for everything else. Renting will also give you the advantage of trying different cameras and seeing how you like them - I've seen pros and cons in the wedding and corporate space - one of the significant ones being the Canon Dual-Pixel AF. Then when you start making money from the work you can buy the right cameras and lenses that you know will work for your style. If you haven't already seen it the Wedding Film School YT channel is a goldmine of useful information on everything about weddings - commercials, business, tech, logistics, etc.

Early last year I decided to "go 4K" buying a new MBP laptop, Dell 32" UHD display, XC10, and later on also upgraded my iPhone 6 Plus to iPhone 8. (happy Christmas to me!) I chose a 32" 16:9 display because after reviewing the THX and SMPTE standards for cinema displays (I think it was SMPTE, there were two standards anyway) they suggested that from my viewing position it was the right viewing angle. I contemplated a 42" display, which would have been near the outside range of the two specs, and I also contemplated one of those 21:9 displays but they aren't full UHD so you can't see the full resolution on them. What I realised was that the difference between 4K and 2K (or UHD and 1080) is that the higher resolution has 2x2 pixels for every single pixel on the lower res. This may sound obvious, but think about it this way. Unless you can see the individual pixels on your 2K / 1080 display from the viewing position, you won't be able to see any more resolution or detail in 4K / UHD. Of course, as others have said 4K gets less YT compression (which I personally verified here if you're curious) but it also has some interesting benefits as a capture format even when you are exporting to a lower resolution. One of these benefits is that in theory it turns an 8-bit colour space into up to an 10-bit colour space, but this is a complicated concept depending on many things, so it's probably better to think of it as potentially being better but not necessarily.

Any predictions? All the usual suspects appear to be there..

I expect that it's a common problem, but how do you get over the 'hump' of starting editing a new project? My most recent project is a family holiday during which I shot 1100+ clips over about a 10 day period, and I'm now procrastinating on editing it. My process is normally: review each clip and pull any good moments onto a timeline to create an assembly if the chronological order I pulled them in isn't quite right I'll group sections together and arrange them in chunks then I review the clips rating them into a few groups - normally "great people shots" "good people shots" "great non-people shots" "good misc" and "didn't make the cut" then cull all the "didn't make the cut" ones and start assembling little stories (sequences within locations) then I find music then I start to edit to the music and iteratively cut more and more out until I've got a tight end result The challenge I have is that step 1 takes forever and it's often quite demotivating finding that I missed shots, camera wouldn't focus, things I thought I had I don't, mistakes, etc. Once I get the music in place it becomes enjoyable, but before that it's just a chore. I've read that instead of the above where you touch every clip, some multiple times, that you just pull in the great clips and go from there, but I've found that often clips that aren't great are needed to complete sequences etc, and constantly playing "where was that clip I saw yesterday" doesn't sound like much fun either. I don't know what the answer is, but maybe there's a way to think about it that helps? I suspect my process is OK, I just need to change my perspective to make the process more enjoyable, such that I'll actually do it. I love to shoot way more than editing, so I have dozens of projects sitting unedited on HDD.. thanks

That's not a bad combo. It means that you'll use the 12-40 as a "wide but slower" lens for landscapes, establishing shots, and groups of people, all of which don't require razor thin DOF. Couple that with a fast prime that's somewhere in the 35-100 range (70-200 equivalent), and you can use that for portraits, detailed shots, and extra reach, which would all benefit from shallow DOF and add that bokeh sheen to your final projects. I guess it could be either overlapping with the 12-40 as a more generalist lens or a bit longer to give more reach and variety. A lot of the time a combination of using your feet and cropping in post can give you enough focal length variety, but it depends on your style and the situations you're in.

To add to what @IronFilm says, having two bodies is the killer combo for stills event shooters, and it's normally it's the 24-70 f2.8 on one camera and 70-200 f2.8 on the other. In a setup like that you have to pay for the two lenses anyway, and buying an extra body for backup is good business sense, so you may as well put it to good use while you're at it. Some photogs would have a "lesser" body as their backup, which if that meant it was a little cropped then you might have it on the 70-200 and that would mean you get a little extra reach on the zoom. It means there's a hole in your zoom range, but it's not that large and photos can always be cropped, although your mileage might vary with video depending on capture format, codec quality and output formats. I know it's not cheap, but it's a good use for your "old" camera when you upgrade. Edit: a lot of pros just use two normal camera straps crossed over their chest, so no need to go spend a lot on fancy straps (although they are comfy!)

I'd suggest working backwards from what you're trying to do. 1) Work out what types of shots you are likely to want for your style of film-making - it can be useful to look at your previous work and look at what ended up in the final cut 2) Work out what you need to get those shots - there's no point having all the primes in the world if the situation requires being able to quickly change between a wide and tele shot to capture a moment, but also if your look is more important than getting every shot then a slow/bad lens may never make the final cut 3) Then work out what is the nicest / lightest / sharpest / fastest lenses you can afford You might have the nicest lens in the world but if you miss the shot then the lens is worth less than a bad kit zoom that would have at least framed it right.

Yeah, it really is about your frame of reference. I used to think of my 700D as my "big camera" because I'd come from P&S and then m43 mirrorless before picking up the 700D! I've been into hifi (another horribly expensive hobby - I don't recommend it for your wallet!) and I remember the first time I had a reality check about the amounts of money involved. I was regularly listening to systems in the $80-250K range, and would think of a pre-amplifier as a budget model if it cost less than $20k. You can buy brand new cars for less!! You're probably right. My wife keeps saying this to me, well, that I worry about the size of the camera too much. I've done enough street photography to know that when it comes to members of the general public it's as much about how you act in public as anything else. I've shot with the XC10 on two trips now, the most recent one with the Rode Video Mic Pro Plus on top, and it now feels pretty close to "normal" now, so the 700D feels comfortable. I guess my worry is that going bigger is like a blind auction. You can go bigger and bigger and then with no warning you'll hit trouble of some kind. It would suck to be refused entry to a venue because you had the camera with you, or were forced to hand it over for 'safe-keeping' while you're out supposedly having fun (I'd just be worrying about the camera because these places will never take responsibility if something is 'lost'). I actually lost a Gorillapod SLR (a ~20cm tall bendy tripod) in the Vatican while on a package holiday. The rules they have in security is "no tripods" and because it had three legs, they flagged it. They were good about it and would have put it in a locker and returned it to me, but the tour was going in one entry and out another on the other side of the place, with no time before the bus left for me to go back and get it. Game over. I want better images but not enough to start having people ping me whenever I'm going into controlled situations. The kids school gets a bit funny with photography because of posting photos of other peoples kids onto social media, plus they also record things themselves and sell the DVDs (eg, school plays). The XC10 got some serious looks from the AV staff the last time I used it to record bits of a graduation ceremony. It's just a hassle I guess. It will be interesting. I should go read up on the rumours. Do we know if it will be focusing on video quality? @Mokara wrote a great post explaining that the DIGIC 1080 processing is likely thermally limited, which makes sense as all the Canon video models have fans. It might be another great camera with the same soft 1080 encoding. Sorry mate - I should have said. It's actually a lot better than you'd think because the XC10 is a proper grip you can get your fingers around. I have largish hands and find that with DSLRs now I notice that the ends of my fingers are mashing against the front part of the hand-grip, but almost not at all with the XC10. Here's the top-down view of XC10 vs 1DXii: and just for amusement and a subtle attempt to get back on track, here's the XC10 vs M50 - much smaller again:

Only lol - the 1DX is HUGE!! I think we live in different universes!!

It does, I suspect almost as many as the XC10. It was the interchangeable lenses to give me f2.8 on FF (or F4 in a pinch) that is missing, and then with that the AF system to match. Beyond those things the XC10 is just great.. Getting half-decent 1080 on a Canon DSLR was a big compromise of many aspects to try and get the depth and separation that larger apertures give. Thanks for trying though!

Thanks @Mokara that makes total sense. I realise I'm having the same conversation in multiple threads now but I guess I'm more concerned about the size rather than the form factor. The XC10 has lovely image processing (1080 included), has a fan included, and is still a lot smaller than the smallest of the Cinema cameras. Canon would absolutely kill it by taking a DSLR body (perhaps something like the 80D) and then: removing the mirror to make it mirrorless and using that space for a continuously variable ND filter this would allow a mode where you could set shutter speed and aperture and then by controlling the ND and the ISO it would manage exposure in all situations using a really nice sensor that did fast read-outs and had lots of DPAF points if they put in a high-speed buffer chip they could have very low RS too putting in both a DIGIC and a DV chip to enable full quality processing yes, this would mean the body would have to be a bit bigger and include a thermal solution, and hopefully would offer 4k60 and 1080p120 adding a CFast card slot for high-bitrate files I realise this could be CF or high speed SD but I already own CFast cards for my XC10 and this is my fantasy so... adding an extra dial and one or two extra custom buttons the XC10 only has one dial and three custom buttons and they're not quite enough and while we're at it, include a crop mode for ~3x zoom but with the same image processing This would create a camera that would be a high performance hybrid (as it should retain all the stills functionality too) and perhaps a new line. This sounds like a big ask but the XC line was brand new, and was aiming at people that wanted video on the go with the ability to pull still images from that video, so in a way Canon already has a hybrid line. So then, if you're going to have a hybrid line then why not have a high-end model in that hybrid line? Yes, charge for it. But it doesn't have to be so large. The logic makes sense because: It won't do video as well as the dedicated video cameras with heaps of buttons and SDI connections and all that pro stuff (if that stuff didn't matter then why were there other cameras in the range above the C100 mk I?) It doesn't do stills as well as the dedicated stills cameras like the 5DR or 1DXmkII (or, I could put it another way - start with an iPhone and .....) These cameras can be radically smaller. I'm just suggesting the next logical step in convergence.

For me it's a case of starting with what is best for the subject matter of the material, and what the film conventions are, and then working back from there with the minimum equipment. I agree with you completely - just because IS means you can get gimbal-like smoothness doesn't mean every shot should be a gimbal shot. I think I use the IS to be able to get the same kind of shots that those with tripods typically tend to do, but just not needing the setup time and hassle. Ie, static shots, pans (if there's a landscape or something larger than fits in the frame), or to follow an object (a person or animal). It's interesting that the C100mkII is smaller, it doesn't look that much smaller unfortunately although it's hard to find a good picture. I guess that what I'm asking for is somewhere between the XC10 and the C100. In terms of adding features, it's more likely to be a reduction from the C100 - a C50 perhaps? - although I'm not convinced that the increased size of the C100 sensor must mean that the camera has to be as large as the C100. The argument that a C100 isn't too large because larger cameras exist is just silly. It's like saying that the truck that is too large to fit in your garage does fit because road trains exist. I'm right there with you!

But..... BOKEH!!! (Yes, you're right...)

Yes, time will tell. and I agree with you about the body size of the A6X00 cameras, they're crazy small. I guess my beef with Canon is not that they're protecting their more expensive cameras, it's that more expensive also means much larger. I'm literally in a position where I can't buy the camera I want for any price. I mean, look at the XC10 (which is on the large side for blending in with the amateurs) next to the smallest Canon cinema camera... I'd love to be in the position of at least having a perfect option, but alas... If they took the XC10 and added ILC mount and DPAF it would be great - they could even make it a bit bigger, but just not three times the size like the C100.

How is the weight limit on the Moza? IIRC it doesn't have AF-C so you might want to put rods and follow-focus on there, which obviously would add weight, and not only that it would add weight at the front.

I've had fast internet for years and YT works most of the time but Vimeo has never worked. It's like it loads a bit, gets 1 second before the buffer runs out and then says "oh, shit, I better start trying to load some more...... damn!"

It would be great, because the A7III looks like it might be the perfect camera for me (that eye-detect AF!) but this thread talks about overheating. https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/27258-a7iii-overheating-and-oem-vs-aftermarket-sony-np-fz100/ The overheating doesn't look like it's a major major hassle, but going from XC10 which has fans to something that doesn't makes me a little nervous..

You should be able to. The trick is finding the right converter. The issue is that XLR actually works slightly differently so most often when people want to sell you a converter they actually convert the signal, which is a more than just a couple of connectors, however you don't need to convert it, so it can be done very cheaply. I've done it but I ended up soldering up a converter cable myself because I couldn't find what I was wanting available to purchase from anywhere.

The Rode mic should have come with a dead cat - I haven't tested it extensively but Rode probably made it relatively well? In terms of micing an acoustic guitar the closer you get the more 'body' (low frequencies) you will get so if you can do a few tests beforehand and see how it sounds. The people who run recording studios often take a long time to carefully position the microphone for the best sound. Not all aspects of the sound coming from an instrument radiate equally in all directions so by moving the microphone around you can kind of 'mix' the different sounds that make up the total sound. Micing up a piano can take hours. For your purposes though, closer is probably better considering your microphone options

Sorry Andrew - somehow I didn't see your post. Thanks for the link, I didn't realise that they included video compare function now, that's very useful. If only the XC10 had interchangeable lenses - even in 1080 it still has the edge over the 5DS.

Addendum: even if you're right, why does ML RAW processed and encoded into H264 via Resolve look so much better than Canon encoding H264 in camera? This means that the sensor can at least read out fast enough, so maybe it's the DIGIC processor... If this a limitation in the DIGIC processor then why doesn't the 700D with DIGIC 5 have drastically better video than the 600D/60D/5dmkII which have the DIGIC 4 when "Canon claims the new DIGIC 5 processor is six times faster than the DIGIC 4 processor" (from wikipedia). The DIGIC 5+ in the 5DmkIII and 70D "is an enhancement to the DIGIC 5 and DIGIC 4. The performance is said to be 17x the performance of the DIGIC 4" (almost three times the power of the DIGIC 5) The DIGIC 6 appears to be almost a doubling in processing power, although who knows why it would be slower than the DIGIC 5+ but anyway. "Further advancements attributed to DIGIC 6 can be experienced in movie mode, which records in MP4 format and doubles the frame-rate to 60 fps at 1080p". And if those doesn't have enough horsepower then why not go all the way to the M50 with the DIGIC 8 (surely the 8 would be better - it can process 4K at 25fps!) and get decent 1080 performance? I get that Canon want to protect their more expensive cameras, but regardless of how much money I pay I don't want a physically larger camera. And the XC10 can process UHD at 30fps compressing it to 305Mbit files, and that's in a smaller form-factor too.

So, are you saying that the 18MP sensor is actually only 18 million photo sites? ie, for two of the colours it only has 4.5 million pixels and the other has 9 million pixels? If so, then how does that fit in with the 3x3 pixel binning? and what about the chroma subsampling (I think it's 422 or 420 anyway) so maybe it would be enough pixels for 422 or 420? I think I'm right in saying that 2x2 binning would be enough for full 1080 4:4:4, but 3x3 wouldn't be, but who knows - this stuff is quite confusing

I'd think of it as allowing you to record extra channels. One thing that can come in handy is safety channels, which is where you record the same signal but at a lower volume in case there's a loud bit that overloads the louder signal, so in post you can use the quieter track (turned up to match of course) for that little bit. Alternatively, you could buy a second 10 pound lav and record a third track. When recording a guitar people often record it with two microphones, one on the body and the other closer to the strings, which can be panned a little left and right in the mix giving a nice stereo spread, or mixed in mono to get a nice balance of body and string sound. Alternatively alternatively you could record the crowd with the extra channel and mix that in to taste as well. In audio extra channels give you flexibility if you use them right

Assuming that @jonpais is correct about the pixel issue being fixed, and acknowledging that the overheating issue exists, what other issues / limitations are there with the A7III?