kye

Please go ahead and "show" me that "No camera with IBIS can do this". How will you show this? By posting every clip ever shot with an IBIS camera? What about the ones that were uploaded without providing camera model details? What about the ones that were uploaded privately? What about the clips that were shot but never uploaded at all? How on earth can you "show" that your claim about IBIS cameras is correct? Simple - you can't. This is a claim that is impossible to make, impossible to test, impossible to even know. Even if it is true now, it might not be true in 10 years time, so therefore it isn't true now because it will be invalidated in the future. Let me be honest with you here. You are receiving criticism here because you are talking outside of your knowledge, and criticising things that other people do. Had you said "Here, look at this footage, I think it's good" then no-one could criticise because that's your opinion. Had you said that "I think it works well for the kind of things I shoot" then that's your opinion too. Had you said "I think this would be useful for a number of other film-makers" then that's an opinion, but one that makes sense based on the fact that many other people shoot how you do. But, you also say things that cannot ever be known, like "No camera with IBIS can do this". And, you also criticise the way that other people use their cameras, like "Seriously, guys. Overheating? Do you take long, boring takes from one position? That's what you shoot?". If you want to have a real discussion about cameras, then you need to follow these general principles: Only speak definitively from your own perspective Don't speak about things that you don't know about Be open minded and humble about what you do and do not know The way you're currently posting makes you look like someone who loves their camera and doesn't want to hear any criticisms about it and will argue with people to try and invalidate their criticisms. If you want people to respect you, you have to know your own limits and stick within them. It is easy to make claims, like "No camera with IBIS can do this" for example, but to show that those aren't the type of claims that I like to make, here's a clip I shot with OIS only. This is the whole clip, SOOC. I just dragged it from my footage folder into YT. The Sony X3000 action camera has a super-wide angle lens (something like 15-17mm equivalent) that has OIS built in. This clip was shot with the OIS enabled, but without the in-camera EIS enabled. It's not the most stable clip I have shot, but it's not too bad. I also need more practice. Things to take into account: I uploaded this clip because it didn't feature my friends and family and I don't post personal clips publicly This is a very wide angle lens and this submarine is actually a lot more cramped than it appears, and you can see that the floor isn't completely even or flat either, so I was walking carefully and trying not to bump into things (I'm also above 6' tall, so might have been ducking too - I can't remember) I definitely need more practice holding the camera steady The X3000 weighs practically nothing, the whole rig of camera + monitor + grip totals only 162g / 0.36lb so doesn't have the weight advantage of the Sony, which is probably 10-20 times heavier and has a much firmer grip than this (which you literally grip with one finger) I really hope that you will consider my comments and try to change how you post. There are lots of people online, and on camera forums especially, who are posting for ego reasons, or trying to push some kind of agenda, and this always generates a negative response and arguments rather than genuine discussion where everyone comes away better off.

....and in todays episode of "the camera YT echo-chamber doesn't know shit about the real world", here's a real-world and very high-end studio shooting VFX background plates with a gazillion BGH1 units, or arrays of GH5S paired with 12-35mm f2.8 zooms. Their website indicates they've worked on Joker, Stranger Things, Mission Impossible, and dozens of other high-end productions. The thumbnail appears to show 17 BGH1 units: One shot from the Stranger Things rig detailed on their website shows "our standard nine camera array" is 9 x GH5S units - 5 at the back (with two facing sideways) and 3 on the front: To all those who suggest that the size/weight advantage from MFT is gone, their page says "The rig was still able to fly as luggage and efficiently attach to a rental car, all while being street legal." How much does a 24-70mm F2.8 weigh again? If you can't remember then the short answer is more than double the MFT equivalent. In the video he talks about how each BGH1 + lens is about 1lb, and keeping the weight down allows them to rig the car up in such a way that keeps them from needing increased permitting and things like escort cars (which for 360 cameras appear in the shot). So, the GH5S (2018) and BGH1 (2020 - 3 years old), which aren't FF, don't shoot RAW, don't have IBIS, and have been completely forgotten by the entire camera YT echo-chamber, are being actively used on some of the biggest and most VFX heavy films being made in Hollywood. They also just casually mention in the video (11:35 if you don't believe me) they've been involved in over 2000 productions, and that "these cameras are able to match perfectly with all your A-cameras".

If you say so. I've gotten shots that look almost that good from OIS alone.

VR is an obvious exception to the resolution question, and so is VFX. What never gets acknowledged though, is that these are specialist applications, like super-slow-motion is a specialist application which has specialist cameras that are rented purely for this purpose. I mean, take all the arguments on these forums - who here is using their DSLR/MILC cameras to shoot VR or VFX? Zero people that I'm aware of. From this perspective the VR/VFX argument is just a theoretical red-herring.

We all have features we'd like to see on the next round of cameras, even if that feature is "the same but cheaper", but what features do the more modern cameras have that you would give up? Some might question why we'd want to give anything up, but in general terms, every feature costs money to manufacture or design or do R&D, and many features require extra battery capacity, make the camera larger, make it less reliable, etc. This is likely to be controversial, so please remember that we all use our cameras differently! I'll go first, to set the stage / start the fight: Resolution I don't need 8K, or even 6K. I'd be happy with a 5K sensor because it allows downsampling to 1080p even with a 2x digital crop. All-else-being-equal, a 5K sensor would have better battery life, better rolling shutter, and better low-light performance than an 8K one. I'd also be happy to give up any output modes greater than 4K, or even 1080p. Dynamic range I don't need anything more than about 12 stops, in fact it creates issues in post when trying to "fit" the whole DR into a rec709 output file. Also, the less DR the sensor has, the less stretched the codecs bit-depth is - 14 stops of DR requires a 12-bit log file to match the quality of fitting 12 stops of DR in a 10-bit log file. This means that the 10-bit log profile on your 14 stop camera is only as good as a 12 stop camera was with a 8-bit log file, and I've had colour quantising issues with those in the past. External RAW An external recorder (plus the cables, extra batteries, extra chargers, etc) is too large and heavy for me to basically ever use. If no consumer cameras offered external RAW then they'd be forced to get off their a$$es and improve the internal codecs, offering things like All-I in all resolutions/framerates, as well as paying attention to things like how to change WB in post (there is no reason why compressed codecs can't be as flexible in post as RAW - it's only because they implemented crap codecs/profiles) - the Prores from the OG BMPCC is night-and-day better than the 10-bit log from other cameras. ....and show me a single consumer camera that supports a 12-bit compressed codec - I don't know of a single one, yet they're all falling over themselves to give external RAW at firehose bitrates. What would you prefer you weren't paying for / carrying around?

It definitely has the Sony FF look... and the ISO 12,800 shot looked pretty darn clean to me. I'd argue that in some ways it's too good for a travel camera. Although everyone films it differently, I think that travel is potentially the genre where the most amount of compromises need to be made, and manufacturers seem to make them in odd combinations that assume you do things in a certain way. Fortunately for you, you seem to be the kind of shooter that Sony assumes everyone is. For me, there are features that almost no-one offers that would be of huge value to me and would strongly influence my purchasing decisions. Then again, the entire consumer industry has been in full problem-reaction-solution mode for our entire lifetime, so it's hardly surprising.

Thanks, and actually, that doesn't sound too slow at all. When I've got a long tele setup on the camera then I'm not looking up or down that much normally, and if I needed to quickly rotate it a lot then I could just rotate the tripod legs as I'm mostly shooting on flat surfaces. I understand about having a balanced rig and that's probably something I should look at regardless, although I don't have any trouble getting my current setup to roughly the right direction, it's just the fine-tuning that is where I have difficulty because it sticks and then gives suddenly and makes adjustments that are too large. Obviously with the geared head this issue would be completely rectified. I'm assuming that one of those controls is the one that will enable you to level the horizon? It seems so, but the description only says that it can go "90° sideways for portrait orientation" but I'm not sure if it would go any amount the other way (ie, the opposite direction to turning the camera to portrait mode) if that's what was required to level the horizon?

We'll definitely look back at todays cameras as inferior, but the number of pixels will be one of the last things that we'll be looking at. Isn't it funny how when people talk about resolution they say more is better, but when they talk about images they put the Alexa at the top?

Even just thinking about 8K 60p makes my hard drives hurt!

Just to confirm for the eagle-eyed amongst you, yes, I have commenced shooting on a super-secret project to be shot on the P2K and M2K cameras. These are the current rigs, but are likely to evolve over the course of production, which is scheduled to last all winter...

Thanks all for your insights and links - lots of good info and much food for thought. I never thought about a geared head and the idea that I can put the camera on it and then adjust it while not touching the camera (and interfering with whatever sag there is) seems enticing. The reviews I read on the 410 were promising although the complaints were that it's stiff and that you need to convert it to Arca Swiss (which I have already standardised on) but these don't seem deal-breakers. I do wonder how slow it is to use though. If I see something happening and want to frame it up - how long do you think it would take to adjust? I know that's a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string style question, but I just don't want the thing I want to look at to have disappeared while I'm twirling knobs as fast as I can. Would you pair it with a bowl base to allow a degree of freedom prior to having to adjust with the gears? Also, considering how much these things all seem to cost I'm pondering more "creative" solutions, like making an extender that will allow me to balance the setup better so they're not front-heavy. The GH5 400mm combo is not very balanced, and the BMMCC setup isn't that much better....

I'm not across the details of the S5 vs S5ii, but as a general rule I think you should only upgrade equipment when the upgrade will fix an issue that you routinely have when using your existing equipment, or it would increase the quality of your output in some way that matters to you (e.g. can you charge more, or get the same result in less time, etc). This philosophy helps cut out the temptation to upgrade because the grass seems greener, the manufacturers marketing looked enticing, or you are playing 'what if', which are all normal human reactions and completely understandable, but don't actually help in being more effective/efficient.

https://petapixel.com/2023/06/06/ai-image-spotted-on-giant-billboard-and-the-hands-are-all-messed-up/

I've shot projects in prores where I've changed the WB in post, often significantly, and found it to be really easy to work with. So easy to work with that it made me quite angry with the entire rest of the camera industry for not implementing codecs and colour science that was easier to work with. If BM can do it with a Prores file in 2013 then WTF are the manufs doing in 2023 when the WB slider is just a slider to make footage look like crap... It's one of the things that made me realise that all the modern cameras are flawed crap and the reason we use them is that we have Stockholm'd ourselves into being ok with it.

You're a little late to the party... it's not the best quality copy of it on YT, but look at the upload date on this one 🙂

To further reinforce @bjohn s comment about Prores, my experience with it has been that it's as easy to grade as the RAW, and doesn't seem more processed, so if you haven't tried it then it's worth giving it a go and seeing what you think. I'm happy to shoot a few test clips if you're not able to.

You really think it'll replace staff? Despite free online courses, open source textbooks, etc, universities seem to me (an outsider) to be one of the least progressive workplaces in terms of structural changes. I've seen universities implement lots of cutting edge stuff (in 1995 one of my computer science lecturers wrote his own software to compare all assignments and flag who was copying from each other), but nothing that actually impacted the idea that people who've never seen the real world stand in front of students and try to explain the world by giving them a strictly theoretical understanding of things that mostly miss the point of the subject at hand 🙂

I occasionally use a tripod at home and have gotten fed up with the $100 ball-head Manfrotto I bought some years ago and am now pondering getting a better one. I typically use it for: Getting stable shots on very long lenses - for example with GH5 + 400mm + 2x digital zoom (1600mm equivalent) Getting shots of the moon/sun during eclipses or super-moons etc Getting more run-of-the-mill shots (which it works ok for now) The issues I have with the current tripod are: it doesn't pan or tilt smoothly, so when you push it just flexes and rebounds to the same position but if you push a bit harder it 'jumps' to a new position (it's probably plastic on plastic). I don't pan or tilt while recording, I just want to be able to aim it properly. it sags, so you unlock the head, frame the shot, lock the head, and it sags down because the lens is sticking out a long way, thus making you resort to the above. Obviously a $5000 tripod would be great, but I don't use it frequently enough to justify spending a serious amount of money on a high-quality one. I don't really care what it weighs as I don't take it anywhere. What is the minimum I'd have to spend to get something that would actually be functional to use at 800mm+ focal lengths?

Just search for the camera/brands that you're interested in and see what pops up... I will warn you though - the GH5+metabones+18-35+gimbal stereotype is real!!

Not me. My day job is in project management within a complex office environment. As much as people are saying that AI will eliminate vast sections of office workers, with the complexity of office politics and "human behaviour" involved in most projects there's no way it's ready...

I disagree. Creativity is about creating, plain and simple. While we can debate if making videos or films is "art" or not, and we can debate what is and isn't "art" forever (because that debate has been going for the entire history of mankind practically), I don't see that the level of creativity of a final edited video/film relies solely (or even that substantially) about if you hand-hold the camera and grab 10s clips or if you put it on a tripod and record 20 minute clips. I don't know you, and I don't know what work you have or haven't done, but you're not speaking like someone who understands the entirety of the creative process. Camera YouTube and the online camera ecosystem of forums and blogs gives a completely fictitious impression that the camera is the main item when it comes to creating moving images (moving in an emotional as well as literal way). I have come to understand that the following things are so much more important to the creative process that they eclipse the camera entirely: Whatever preparation you do prior to filming anything (writing, scripting, concept designing, location scouting, etc) What you put in front of the camera (casting, production design, lighting, directing, acting, etc) What you do with the footage you have captured (editing, vfx, story structure, music and sound design, etc) What you do with the final edit (audience selection, distribution, promotion, etc) If you can't understand how recording footage from a tripod could be used in a deeply creative way, then you don't understand film-making that well. A large proportion of TV/streaming content is made from long recordings of fixed cameras - reality TV, documentaries (that typically have hundreds or thousands of hours of interview footage), game shows, most talking-head YouTube content filmed in a fixed location, music videos, etc. Is there lots of content where the camera is taking short clips, preferably from a moving camera? Sure, but it's not the only type of content. Take this recent comment from the Godfather of vlogging: It's not until you really study how professional content is made that you start to understand what goes into things. Are you familiar with shooting ratios? Feature films can vary wildly: and documentaries are often a lot larger (as you may not know what the story is going to be until after it happens, so you tend to just shoot everything): Source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/06/07/how-much-data-do-you-need-like-documentary-film-making-research-requires-far-greater-coverage-than-the-final-cut/ So, you may think that capturing 30 minute clips from a static location makes for boring footage, and you're likely right, but that's literally what editing is for. This is one of the (many) reasons that film-making is hard work. Going back to our friend Casey Neistat for a second, during the time he did a daily vlog for something like 800 days in a row, he mentioned that most of his vlogs took between 5-9 hours to edit. That's somewhere between 15-60 minutes of editing time per minute of final footage. I don't know how much footage he actually shot, but when he's interviewing people he's often severely chopping the footage down. He recently mentioned one example where he cut down 25 minutes of interview (during which the camera was rolling the whole time) to 60-75 seconds in the final edit of the video he made. If Casey Neistat, who revolutionised vlogging, needs a camera that can roll for 25 minutes reliably, then making the claim that long locked-off shots aren't "creative" then you've eliminated vast vast sections of the content created. I understand why it overheats, and why Sony would make a camera that overheats. The thing I find bizarre is that customers have somehow come to accept that cameras overheating is somehow normal, and not a sign of an inferior product. It's pretty clear that professional environments require equipment that has rock-solid reliability, and so the high-end / professional cameras are built for reliability. Where I think there is a lack of understanding is when it comes to lower-budget environments. If you have a lower budget then you're probably shooting in situations where you are less in control of the environment. So not only does this mean that you're less able to control the situation that the camera is in (and ensure it's not exposed to adverse temperatures / conditions) but you're also likely to require longer record times because the likelihood of getting the shot you want is lower.

No straw man attacks here - I simply replied to your comment: by explaining why people might take long boring takes from one position. True, and I also enjoy this as well, but it's not always about pushing just for the fun of it, size can also be a significant factor. There are a significant number of reasons that someone might want to shoot using a camera/rig that's as physically small as possible. Unfortunately, almost the entire industry is based around the idea that if you want better video quality then you will be happy having a larger camera, which is an assumption that works in many use-cases, but not all. The critics of this perspective cite the reality of needing to have large enough batteries and to dissipate heat etc, but the factor that this doesn't take into consideration is resolution. 8K60 is 10 times the data-rate of 4K 24p and 40 times the data-rate of 2K 24p. Things like screens consume about the same amount of power regardless of the resolution of the camera, so you can't just reduce the battery by a factor of 10x, but even if it meant you could quarter the size, then you're also quartering the heat dissipation requirements. But no, manufacturers insist on increasing resolution and keeping the same sized bodies, or, as this thread has included, they put too much processing into a camera body and will let it fail to operate and then declare that this is a normal and acceptable product design. They have even managed to convince large numbers of people that this is something to be expected - I find this kind of thing to be bizarre. Every thread is that thread, including this one. I'm not sure why you thought it wasn't....

Absolutely! If we all only did what the manufacturer suggested we do then you might as well erase half of the footage online, across all streaming services and content hosting sites. Some notable mentions (that make using a ZV-E1 for film-making look completely normal) include: Using GoPros in major feature films, like the $66M Need For Speed - https://www.filmmakersacademy.com/gopro-hero3/ Filming feature films entirely using a smartphone, like Tangerine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_(film) Using the Magic Lantern firmware on Canon cameras etc etc In fact, using DSLRs to record professional video at all was not intended by the manufacturers. Had we followed their guidance we wouldn't have had the entire DSLR revolution, this blog, and an entirely new chapter of indy film-making which includes indy features but also all the forms of video social media around. Ironically, had we only followed the manufacturers guidance, the ZV-E1 probably wouldn't exist. So when @markr041 talks about how the ZV-E1 should only be used for travel and vlogging, it goes against the entire idea that created the camera, both travel film-making and vlogging genres, and also the existence and purpose of this whole site.

There's definitely a magic to that image! Nice work!! 🙂

One thing that is essentially invisible on these forums is relative cost of these devices. When I joined a bunch of Facebook groups related to MFT and GH5 etc a few years ago I realised a few very interesting things: There were pros shooting music videos on MFT cameras like the GX85 and G9 - fully booked working professionals There were people who didn't know anything technical at all doing real paid work... posts like "I've just bought a GH4 and a vintage 50mm lens, my first real camera setup. I've got 8 paid gigs scheduled starting in 5 days time - what does the mode knob do? and is 50mm a good lens to use?" There were people who were incredibly excited to get (what we would dismiss as being) old has-been cameras.. I saw many posts of people saying that they'd saved up enough money to buy a GH4 or GH5 as it was "their dream camera". These were often people in poorer countries / areas. Adding to this other factors such as: There are countries that still broadcast in SD, or 720p People do work for community media channels (which have no money) People do work for not-for-profits (which have less than no money) What this means is that working with cameras that are sub-optimal or lower budget is very much a consideration and reality for many or even most people out there. When you add to the situation that to shoot events with a multi-cam setup you have to spread your budget across multiple cameras, all this becomes amplified and there are people literally sleeping on the floor of their friends and family to be able to buy equipment. So, to you and me this $2K camera might seem like a "low-end" option, and for more "serious" work people should spend double or more for a better model, this is to many a completely ridiculous price for a camera (maybe more than a years salary) and so if this is a way to get into FF Sony then why not add fans and all manner of jerry-rigging to it. All of the above applies even more-so to people trying to film their first (or tenth) feature film, or filming documentaries (where long takes are required for interviews etc). The more I get exposed to the wider world, the more I realise that my home videos are often shot, edited, graded and delivered better than a lot of stuff that appears on commercial TV. So, is this camera the right choice for such works? Probably not. Will some people try to use it for these things by adding fans and all manner of other things? Absolutely. But let's ignore that and just assume that no-one would ever try to do anything that this camera isn't capable of doing. Should we just discuss cameras in a non-critical way? Should we just thank the manufacturers for giving us whatever half-crippled products they decide will keep their bottom line as rosy as possible? No. We should push against the manufacturers at all times to do better. We should explore the options provided by the manufacturers from whatever angles we think of, so that not only will the less wealthy lurkers who read the forums but don't post have ideas about what is and isn't possible with each camera but also so that the manufacturers can see what improvements make sense in the context of each model. Panasonic was greatly admired over the time when it released the GH1-GH5 line because.... *drum roll please* .... they improved each model from the last by basically doing what people requested. The reviews had consistent themes of "in our review of the last model we made a wish list and this new model ticks all those boxes".