kye

Well, if I can't talk about cameras I haven't used, don't get to join the discussion even if I bring facts, and can't talk about the ones I do have, I guess you're banning me from having any involvement at all? I mean, you are the internet police, right?

After my own experience learning video after being a stills shooter, and reading many threads on photography sites talking about learning video, I'm not surprised that there hasn't been a huge migration from stills to doing both. ...and considering the level of skill and speed required at weddings, I would imagine that would make such a transition even more daunting for those contemplating such a thing! TBH though, the biggest challenge that I saw online from stills photogs was that they simply weren't willing to try. Even when someone who had developed some video skills gave simple advice about how to start, most wouldn't even do it, despite how simple the assignment was. Combined with the mass layoffs of photogs from newspapers and magazines that was occurring at that time, I got the sense that most had just given up on trying to adapt and stay relevant.

Do you have trouble comparing objects in photographs? I would have thought it was pretty straight forwards, but maybe not for everyone. ......but maybe those photos are somehow lying! Let's see, the C100 is ~1020g, and: Approx 135 x 170 x 129mm (thumbrest attached); => this is about 3L in volume Approx 182 x 170 x 129mm (grip attached); => this is about 4L in volume My 700D is ~580g, and: 133.1 x 99.8 x 78.8 mm => this is about 1L in volume So, the C100 with thumb rest is: Almost identical in width 1.7x taller 1.63x deeper about 3x as large in volume (however the C100 is quite curved, so this is much more subjective than the other measures) In terms of my 700D, I shot with it for years, and it is quite similar in size to my GH5 and XC10 once setup. I have shot many thousands of clips and tens of thousands of photographs across dozens of countries across many continents with those setups. Those cameras are not small. and yet, I am expected to believe that a camera 1.7x taller and 1.63x deeper is somehow TINY. Please.... Well said, however you have perhaps underestimated the attention that you get when you have a camera even the size of a GH5. Remember that a 5D is universally recognised practically the world over as being as professional a camera as you can get, and it's not so much larger than a GH5. Of course, the discussion wasn't about what was palatable in public, it was on camera size, and when I made a simple remark about an absolute statement, for some reason instead of clarifying, our friend just doubled down on an absolute statement, and then tried to make it personal.

No. I looked at a bunch of pictures online that showed both the C100 as well as various other DSLR bodies and saw that the C100 was around the same size as other cameras that I knew to be large through my own experience. I know everything is relative, but if someone says "I drive a large sedan and I'm looking at the Tesla truck" replying with "the Tesla truck is tiny!" because the Tesla truck is a truck and you're now comparing it to a triple road train then it's still not really in context.

That vlog life tho...

I've seen this a lot on camera comparisons. Two images look like they have a different WB, but when you compare them the neutral greys are both neutral but there will be different tints with the highlights/shadows or on hues that are beyond a certain level of saturation. It makes looking and comparing images very confusing - they look different but sensible adjustments don't seem to be effective in making them match. The good thing with the FP is (I assume) you can CST back to a neutral point and then apply whatever colour science you want, side-stepping any oddities from a particular colour science or other.

Hey - you've got to be careful saying crazy things like that around here... I'm reliably informed that the C100 is practically microscopic!

Wow, that's definitely a neat setup!

All I'm seeing is that it won't be that expensive to get into!

Ah, that makes more sense. For some reason I was imagining the little electronic EVF accessory (EVF-11) and wondering how that worked! Yes, that is quite a neat package if that suits your shooting style 🙂

Are you able to share a photo of the rig with the SD on top of the EVF? I'm curious as rig size is important for me.

You have proven my point - they're huge cameras!! The C100 is tiny.... for a cinema camera... but it's not tiny... as a camera. If someone says "what cameras would you say are tiny?" your answer is much more likely to include GoPro or GX85 or maybe a 360 camera, but you'd be crazy to say "the C100!". The context of the conversation is Nikon Z6 - and the C100 isn't remotely tiny in that context.

Kids these days.... they can barely spell! In that case, let me talk about if you should buy a GH5 instead of an FX30...... don't.

If you're concerned about breathing then it's worth mentioning that Sony have lens breathing compensation built into some of their newer bodies. The lenses still breathe, but the camera knows their 'profile' and crops into the image a small amount and as the lens changes focus the camera adjusts the digital zoom to keep a perfect frame and eliminate the focus breathing. In the tests I've seen the results are absolutely perfect and it's one of those things that I didn't think I cared about much until I saw images where it was eliminated and you see how much of an improvement it is to have it gone. I think that unless you have a huge amount of money to spend on lenses then you'd be better off going for a system like this that adjusts digitally rather than paying a lot for a lens without much breathing, as I'd imagine those are likely to be more expensive cine lenses. Happy to be proven wrong, but the Sony compensation seem to do a great job. Sony AF is also very impressive so you wouldn't be compromising there either.

Umm... I'm sorry, what now? Only if you compare it to larger cameras. It's still huge if you're used to modern mirrorless bodies.

I subscribe to many YT channels across an extremely broad range of topics, and I can say an emphatic YES that there is bizarre pedantry in virtually any hobby on earth. Artists get hate comments about their paintings based on if they use natural or artificial bristles in their paint brushes, woodworking channels get hate comments if they take a large piece of wood and cut it up into smaller pieces, people who make outdoor off-roading videos get hate comments on how they choose to drive around corners, people who talk about coffee and coffee-making equipment get hate comments if they put milk in their coffee (and don't get anyone started on milk-alternatives).... If anyone out there can find a hobby that has more than two people interested in it where there aren't people arguing about some minute aspect like the fate of the world depends on it then I'd be curious to see it because I haven't found one yet. PS:

When I (eventually) get around to grading these, any objections to me posting the graded images in the thread?

Good to hear you're learning more about the issue and might have found a fix. One of the things that I think really dominates our discussions and how we use cameras and how the manufacturers design and build their products is that combinations of features really matter and everyone is different and the manufacturers are pushing the tech on many fronts at once and need to make decisions on what they sacrifice and what they don't. So one manufacturer might try to offer the highest resolution and frame rates but sacrifice bit-depth to do it, and another would keep the bit-depth and limit something else instead. Manufacturers try to give us lots of options (especially regarding resolution / frame rate / bit-depth) but there are other things in there that they're not giving us the options to choose, like which modes (if any) give availability of things like colour profiles, exposure guides, sharpening and image processing, etc. These options are essentially hidden from the user by most manufacturers. Of course, if they gave access to all the functions then not only would the firmware be incredibly difficult to program, but using it would be like trying to fly the space shuttle! The other thing that dominates many discussions is that people don't understand that other people shoot in different situations for different style projects and with different aesthetic preferences, so rather than just acknowledging that we're all different there are these "well, you should just be more like me..." style comments which don't do much except show that the poster doesn't really understand life, business, people, or many other things 🙂

Not many direct comparisons likely to be out there, so I'd say just watch a bunch of C100ii and C300 videos and see what you think. If you watch videos / footage that is more targeted to interviews and documentaries then you're more likely to see what the cameras are capable of if used properly and not screwed up in post - watching music videos / camera bro footage / etc is more likely to have bad technique and crappy grading. If you watch enough test footage you can get a feel for what a camera is capable of. Those cameras are both pretty large though - are you looking to change to a professionally sized cinema camera type setup?

Are you asking why there isn't an RF to RF adapter with a vND in it? That would be a bit of a challenge, because either it has no glass in it and therefore has to be zero thickness and can't fit an ND, or it isn't zero thickness and therefore needs glass in it to keep infinity focus and can't fit an ND as the glass would be in the way. The EF-RF adapter works because the adapter must have some thickness to align with the right distances for those mounts.

I think it's literally just been added in the last day or two. Obviously that video only showed a few different scenarios, but how well do you think this compares to other third-party options? I'm not that familiar with the professional audio processing tools, but when I first got Resolve I remember some of the features were equivalent to separate packages costing many times what Resolve cost (eg. Twixtor which used optical flow for interpolated slow-motion) etc, so maybe it's right up there with the alternatives, or maybe not. I think this feature would be really useful for the occasional shot that I might have with someone talking in a loud environment, so it's caught my attention.

The latest Resolve has a few AI audio cleanup tools including Voice Isolation and (from the examples in this video) it seems to be witchcraft or something.... Maybe this could help you clean up some of your dialogue? @IronFilm - keen to hear your thoughts on this too.

Here's a video of a colourist grading some A7Rv footage - it looks like it held up pretty well including when he pulled a key on the skin at 12:45. Other Sony cameras have been a mess when pulling keys, so this is seems like a good outcome.

Absolutely. One of the privacy challenges of data is when you are able to combine different types of data. Almost every useful (and private) thing that can be known about a person depends on being able to combine different types of data. Knowing if someone is rich or poor only tells you about their wealth. Knowing if someone buys lots of camera equipment only tells you about their interest in cameras. BUT, if you know both, then you can find the people who are poor and also buy lots of camera equipment, and now you can now know that not only are they poor and interested in cameras, but you can also deduce that they're probably mentally challenged in some way 😉 The more you know about a person the more that you can exploit their psychological weak points, which is why governments and big business love this stuff, because it gives them more power over us.

You're excused for not knowing about WeChat - it's not really known much outside China. Calling WeChat a "messaging app" is kind of like calling a smartphone a "portable telephone" - it's not technically incorrect and that's what it was at the start but it's so far from the truth as to be so misleading that it's worse than useless as a description. Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia: It also does a bunch of other things too, like payments, booking restaurants / movie tickets, calling taxis, ordering food, etc. Workplaces use it to communicate with staff. It's used in China as the official vaccine passport. WeChat is kind of like Twitter + Facebook + Instagram + SMS + Apple Messages + Skype + YT + ApplePay / your credit card / cash + Uber + Uber Eats + lots of things that are done manually (aren't apps) outside China. The Chinese government loves it because it's highly censored and a valuable piece of their massive surveillance apparatus. I read a long article about it some years ago now that a foreigner living in China wrote about their life before and after getting their WeChat account. The account is hard to get I think because it has to link to bank accounts and other offical things, so they'd been living there without one for some time. Essentially they'd struggled to do day-to-day things in China without a WeChat account, and when they got it they tried doing everything with it and found that they could do almost everything they wanted to do just in the single app. Apparently lots of users kind of use WeChat like it's the operating system on their phone - they use their phones just like we do only they do everything inside WeChat rather than from lots of apps all written by different companies. If Musk can make Twitter into anything that even remotely compares to WeChat then $44B will look like the money spent buying a winning lottery ticket compared to collecting the prize. Assuming he doesn't screw it up of course. But either way he's guaranteed to piss off the people who like the status quo, which is what we're seeing. Silicone Valley types like to go fast and break stuff, and while they mostly get things wrong, they've also built almost all the cool stuff too, so we'll see.