Administrators Andrew Reid Posted December 23, 2015 Administrators Share Posted December 23, 2015 We head into 2016 with a treasure chest of great cameras but how exactly do the mirrorless and DSLR cameras rank for video?View the charts here benymypony, shanebrutal, Cinegain and 5 others 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrgl Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Got a chance to play with an A7SII. Dayum. Kids these days. It's such a monster camera:good auto-focusadaptable mountpivoting monitorDSLR body (small, low weight, easy to rig)outrageous low-lightgood dynamic rangecheap mediain body stabilizationIt's the real deal for any indie and shit, if the codec didn't suck and gurgle it'd be a hell of a production camera. You have to be ballsy to want to shoot log with 8-bit. Unless you're some sort of Johannes Vermeer-esque maestro of grading, it's not worth the risk of getting it wrong.Shame Sony has to protect it's FS line, otherwise they could ape the GH4 and give us 10-bit output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jara Moravec Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I would only add that Canon 5D3 adds very cool 720p 50/60P RAW which does not look bad at all - not sharp but the colours are just as beautiful as with slower framerates. Still waiting for a camera to replace mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Carter Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Just a note on the max ISO listings - with the latest firmware, I shot a no-lights-allowed project with the NX1, and much of it was shot from 1600-2200 iso. I'm just not seeing any noise to speak of - the footage is amazingly clean. I blasted the ISO until I was just under highlights blowing at f3.5, F4 or 2.8 with some lenses. It's freaking clean as hell.I assumed I'd be running it all through NeatVideo, but no need. Really kind of shocked. IronFilm, Marco Tecno and kidzrevil 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Carter Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I didn't record my settings at the shoot, but playing with the camera yesterday - this is ISO 2000. I see a tiny bit of noise in the shadows near the ear, but very fine. For web delivery I wouldn't mess with it at all - if the project were going to be projected large? Maybe. But in years of Nikon and Canon shooting, this looks to me like ISO 400-800 noise. Liam and Marco Tecno 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joaomoutinho Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Hi guys!! I shoot with a 50D in h264, iso 400 and 800 top. Is not a camera for low light, but well feed with light, and it renders sunlight beautifuly, the grain is like film! I should post some screenshots or a little of the documentary iam making. I had the oportunity to use the panasonic g7 and after some tests, it was pretty clear that, for this project, the caracteristics of the 50D were the best... I am amazed!! There are the issues with overheating and no sound what so ever. It fails some times but i would buy a "pro" version of this camera just to be stable. Would really use it a lot more! If some one can "hack" the hardware to get it more stable, i would go for that without blinking!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rak_heri Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I used to have the 5D mark III, which I sold after 2 of my lenses got stolen.Indeed the image can amazing. So much latitude in resolve compared to Sony files. Ergonomically though, I never could get sound working on it -- which means you produce silent movies or need to have a team with an audio guy at it. Which really lowers its usability and ergonomics. Occasional missed frames and clunky magic lantern UI also makes you very nervous when using the camera for "serious" productions.For the Digital Bolex - we're lucky to have at least one manufacturer offer a CCD sensor. CCD sensors have blooming characteristics where color can "bleed" to adjacent pixels, a technical default for a few but can be leveraged into a really nice artistic effect. This doesn't exist on the more clinical CMOS sensors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shield3 Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Don't know why you listed "slow" as a con with the Sony FS-700 (or hard to shoot with). With the grip, built in ND I can "one-hand" this camera and it's a breeze.Also, no dings for the transcoding or EVF/LCD only choice (after you hit record) for the NX1? Or the fact they're going out of business / being bought by Nikon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Don't know why you listed "slow" as a con with the Sony FS-700 (or hard to shoot with). With the grip, built in ND I can "one-hand" this camera and it's a breeze.Also, no dings for the transcoding or EVF/LCD only choice (after you hit record) for the NX1? Or the fact they're going out of business / being bought by Nikon?FS-700 menus are fast. FS7 menus are slow- perhaps that's what he meant? Shield3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gethin Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 character - yes . I was thinking about this the last couple of days when I stumbled on some old gh2 footage. it has something that the gh4 does not. Shield3, samuel.cabral, Cinegain and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleb Genheimer Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I'm with you on the NX1, Andrew! It has captured striking imagery with an astonishing success rate for me compared to any other camera. It might not sit atop any specific quantifiable ranking of cameras, but what it's capable of is just short of miraculous. On the Ronin, that AF system is a dream come true, and paired together in the right hands, most any shot is possible. It handles extremely well, is reliable as heck, and it has good tech specs where it counts. kidzrevil, samuel.cabral, iamoui and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam_Weinberg Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 This list inspired me to revisit Sony's A6000 as I noticed it not only gained XAVC-S with a recent firmware update but also just dropped significantly in price - a $400 24MP camera with XAVC-S that can become full frame with a speed booster has perked my interest.Looking into this camera now I noticed something interesting: Andrew, your first A6000 post with footage (http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/) has a downloadable AVCHD clip straight from the card that you were initially impressed with .. this short clip looks infinitely better than any other clip i've seen shot with this camera (resolution / color / codec), INCLUDING future A6000 footage you posted when you became less happy with the camera's image.. I can't seem to figure out why.Did you have a pre-production camera that was somehow higher quality? I'm baffled. When I initially saw the footage in the above link I was sold on the A6000 for $400 thinking it could be a great B-cam to my A7S.. and then I saw every other clip out there shot with it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff CB Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 This list inspired me to revisit Sony's A6000 as I noticed it not only gained XAVC-S with a recent firmware update but also just dropped significantly in price - a $400 24MP camera with XAVC-S that can become full frame with a speed booster has perked my interest.Looking into this camera now I noticed something interesting: Andrew, your first A6000 post with footage (http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/) has a downloadable AVCHD clip straight from the card that you were initially impressed with .. this short clip looks infinitely better than any other clip i've seen shot with this camera (resolution / color / codec), INCLUDING future A6000 footage you posted when you became less happy with the camera's image.. I can't seem to figure out why.Did you have a pre-production camera that was somehow higher quality? I'm baffled. When I initially saw the footage in the above link I was sold on the A6000 for $400 thinking it could be a great B-cam to my A7S.. and then I saw every other clip out there shot with it.....I had a A6000 for a long while and I was tempted to pick it up again after the codec upgrade. Still might. It actually had a great image, minimal rolling shutter, good detail, and I'm sure will be even better with the new codec. If only it had a microphone input on it, I probably would not have sold it. https://vimeo.com/99999579 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagnje Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I really reall wanted to like the a6000, because of the adaptable mount, features...but the image, welk I could never never get it right. I shot the same scene with the a6000 and the 550d, tried really hard to grade the a6000 footage to my liking but I just could not. These is just something very "digital" in the image I could not get rid of. The best way to describe it was as if rhe footage is wraped in plastic...has some weir glow to it. Can't really explain. I ended up selling it and doing what I never wanted to do-get a nikon. It was not that I have something against the brand but I had to get a complete new set of lenses. Once I got the hang of living without ML I am happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trafficarte Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 I really reall wanted to like the a6000, because of the adaptable mount, features...but the image, welk I could never never get it right. I shot the same scene with the a6000 and the 550d, tried really hard to grade the a6000 footage to my liking but I just could not. These is just something very "digital" in the image I could not get rid of. The best way to describe it was as if rhe footage is wraped in plastic...has some weir glow to it. Can't really explain. I ended up selling it and doing what I never wanted to do-get a nikon. It was not that I have something against the brand but I had to get a complete new set of lenses. Once I got the hang of living without ML I am happy. Exactly the opposite for me: I own a 550D with ML on it and the a5100 with its XAVC S codec always selected: the latter wins hands down in every aspect... IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagnje Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Diferent strokes for diferent folks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Pity the Sony F3 didn't get a mention in the value for money section For me it is the stand out model in that segment in (end of) 2016! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted December 25, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted December 25, 2015 F3 is a cinema camera not a mirrorless / DSLR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBJr Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 Andrew & friends,1. Which is the most stable ML build for 5DMkII, and where might I find it? (Specifically for 5D2 reliability, not necessarily the latest/greatest build.)2. How stable is it?3. Recommendations/guidelines for ML processing? (I've got Cinema DNG down pretty well from my Digital Bolex, but have no idea how to work with ML files or best practices getting into Resolve DNGs or ultimately ProRes or CineForm.4. Does this build reliably record audio?Many, many thanks Andrew for the fun and thought provoking post; I've wanted to try ML Raw for years but have been daunted by the questions above specific to 5D2. Best, JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squig Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 No need to transcode Magic Lantern MLV files on a Mac with Resolve, just use MLVS http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13152.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.