Xavier Plagaro Mussard Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 5/1/2016 at 5:52 PM, richg101 said: TBH, it might be that correct use of diffusers and netting might make canon L series more appealing to my eye, but the fact remains is that the lenses have been used extensively in non cinematic environments to the point where they impart a non cinematic look. It's like the opposite of panavision lenses. if you take stills with a panavision c-series lens the still looks like a frame from a movie. when you shoot a movie with an L series lens it's like a series of still images taken by a newspaper photographer. We probably have developed an optical memory. It's like a shot with a Tilt-Shift lens that looks like a miniature. kidzrevil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 As well as the aforementioned comically giant 8-bit files, every film I've watched so far seems to have clipped flat highlight areas knocking around. It's not the end of the world but it's not that nice when even cheap cameras come with log now. What's the excuse? It costs 4 grand! Sony give you log in a pocket compact. Why make you use an ancient 800mbit codec at 8-bit with no log? Because this doesn't have a "C" on it, so you aren't allowed nice things. I do start to cringe when the "well it doesn't need it" defensive arguments come out, it reminds me of Mac fanboys who tried to defend the Mac laptop with only one USB slot that doubled as charger. "Well... I DONT NEED IT! I LIKE NOT HAVING IT! ITS A GOOD THING" Yes you do, no you don't and no it's not. You're trying to feel better about being stiffed there's no prizes for It. And also it has no peaking right, or so I hear?! and I suppose no one needs that either? So a 550D with magic lantern still has a bunch more video features than this?! I'm a canon fan, I have three video cams of theirs. But I'm not a fanboy, and won't cuck it up and pretend that cheaping out on features is somehow generous. It's not, they've really held back on video here quite obviously because it's not C series. maybe if you're a still+video guy this is a good option. Weddings etc. Shoot stills, roll baked-in 8-bit video. But It all seems a bit ropey for video only use. I can see no reason to drop that kinda cash on it TBH and in hiring terms the C300 mk ii has it beat. still, each to their own. It's not a bad camera obviously, but as far as I can see it's just more proof that they're determined to separate stills and video. Phil A 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, jgharding said: As well as the aforementioned comically giant 8-bit files, every film I've watched so far seems to have clipped flat highlight areas knocking around. It's not the end of the world but it's not that nice when even cheap cameras come with log now. What's the excuse? It costs 4 grand! Sony give you log in a pocket compact. Why make you use an ancient 800mbit codec at 8-bit with no log? Because this doesn't have a "C" on it, so you aren't allowed nice things. I do start to cringe when the "well it doesn't need it" defensive arguments come out, it reminds me of Mac fanboys who tried to defend the Mac laptop with only one USB slot that doubled as charger. "Well... I DONT NEED IT! I LIKE NOT HAVING IT! ITS A GOOD THING" Yes you do, no you don't and no it's not. You're trying to feel better about being stiffed there's no prizes for It. And also it has no peaking right, or so I hear?! and I suppose no one needs that either? So a 550D with magic lantern still has a bunch more video features than this?! I'm a canon fan, I have three video cams of theirs. But I'm not a fanboy, and won't cuck it up and pretend that cheaping out on features is somehow generous. It's not, they've really held back on video here quite obviously because it's not C series. maybe if you're a still+video guy this is a good option. Weddings etc. Shoot stills, roll baked-in 8-bit video. But It all seems a bit ropey for video only use. I can see no reason to drop that kinda cash on it TBH and in hiring terms the C300 mk ii has it beat. still, each to their own. It's not a bad camera obviously, but as far as I can see it's just more proof that they're determined to separate stills and video. I'd be the first to admit that canon should have included a Log profile on this camera. Especially at a street price of $6k and $6300 list. Not sure where you saw it for $4 grand... but I'm willing to bet that was not a MkII. In any case I'm certain if this is not good enough to get the job done, we'll don't make plans to quit that day job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 I'm impressed with the look of this camera. Can't wait to get my hands on a rental Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Ashcraft Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 One day, when Canon finally releases a 4K shooting camera with Canon Log and an ideal codec, I'll be able to make a film. Until then... Liam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 5/1/2016 at 10:23 AM, richg101 said: I assumed correctly they shot this on L series. and it looks like also the L series 'cine' versions. It's not the camera that makes this feel the polar opposite of the look of No Country for Old Men. It's the glass. If they'd had cooke s4's on the front of the 1dxmk2 i imagine the image would look like a real movie. The fact that they can be in just about the most filmic location I can imagine and it still feel like a dslr shoot is because of the lenses. Canon glass = photo journalist snapping a criminal after his day in court Cooke glass = Hollywood. Shame Canon stick with their EF mount and stop people using real lenses. If you want it to look filmic you need filmic glass. An Alexa mini with an EF mount and L lenses looks just as non filmic agreed. Lenses from Canon and even Nikon have a look to em. Beautiful but they look like stills until you throw something like a tiffen pro mist filter on them. Really liked vintage lenses cause even though they were meant for stills they still have a quality to them that feels very cinematic like the helios 44 and super takumar 50mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share Posted May 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, kidzrevil said: agreed. Lenses from Canon and even Nikon have a look to em. Beautiful but they look like stills until you throw something like a tiffen pro mist filter on them. Really liked vintage lenses cause even though they were meant for stills they still have a quality to them that feels very cinematic like the helios 44 and super takumar 50mm Here, problem solved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, DBounce said: Here, problem solved Are you shure? Last time I checked there was still a mirror box and mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share Posted May 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Nikkor said: Are you shure? Last time I checked there was still a mirror box and mirror. Well, it says that it's designed to adapt PL glass to Canon EF, so I'm guessing that's what it does. TheRenaissanceMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf33d Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 1 May 2016 at 0:45 PM, DBounce said: This looks to sharp for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 13 hours ago, DBounce said: Well, it says that it's designed to adapt PL glass to Canon EF, so I'm guessing that's what it does. Nope. It will adapt 'some' pl mount lenses to eos. sadly very few PL lenses people actually wanna use will adapt to eos. a few zooms, that's about it. Nikkor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 17 hours ago, jgharding said: What's the excuse? It costs 4 grand! Sony give you log in a pocket compact. After using the RX10ii and it's horrible LOG mode, I'd say "who cares?". I mean, the RX10 ii has horrible colors and even slog2 clips and the shadow noise is horrid. Even when I owned the A7s, I had better results with CINE4 than the slog profiles. And I'm not alone. FS7 has a good implementation of SLOG but cheaper variants have all kinds of issues. A7s had better highlights (didnt clip nearly as soon) than the RX10ii so the implementations are different between Sony cams too. Peaking on the RX10 ii / a7s is very hit & miss, mostly miss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, hmcindie said: After using the RX10ii and it's horrible LOG mode, I'd say "who cares?". I mean, the RX10 ii has horrible colors and even slog2 clips and the shadow noise is horrid. A bad workman always blames his tools... inproper wb settings and poor exposure. get them right and you wouldn;t have had a problem kidzrevil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted May 3, 2016 Author Share Posted May 3, 2016 29 minutes ago, richg101 said: A bad workman always blames his tools... inproper wb settings and poor exposure. get them right and you wouldn;t have had a problem To be fare is that not exactly what so many are doing in this thread... Blaming the tool (1DX Mkii) for some reason or another. As far as I can tell it should be killer. Can't wait to get my hot little hands on mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 51 minutes ago, richg101 said: A bad workman always blames his tools... inproper wb settings and poor exposure. get them right and you wouldn;t have had a problem Aaahahaha! Because I ain't drinking the Sony coolaid? This is coming from the guy who blamed the promo on a 20k edit budget. Learn to edit bro. Also you've seemed to use a lot of CINE4 on your A7 videos. What happened to the all powerful slog?? Are you a bad workman because you can't work the slog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 34 minutes ago, hmcindie said: After using the RX10ii and it's horrible LOG mode, I'd say "who cares?". I mean, the RX10 ii has horrible colors and even slog2 clips and the shadow noise is horrid. Even when I owned the A7s, I had better results with CINE4 than the slog profiles. And I'm not alone. FS7 has a good implementation of SLOG but cheaper variants have all kinds of issues. A7s had better highlights (didnt clip nearly as soon) than the RX10ii so the implementations are different between Sony cams too. Peaking on the RX10 ii / a7s is very hit & miss, mostly miss. I'm with you on the RX10 II - the video is very hard to deal with and get right. Sony over-promised on this one. However, I find Slog2 occasionally brilliant on the A7S II. I filmed a promo for an event last week, and I wouldn't of got the clarity and detail I achieved without it. In terms of the Canon 1DX II not needing a LOG mode, it comes down to a matter of taste. I'm personally confident enough to grade the footage how I want it to look, and Log gives me a nice rolloff from shadows to highlights, plus more dynamic range. If you are prepared for the lighting, exposure, white balance and grading challenges - LOG is great to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hughes Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 2 hours ago, richg101 said: A bad workman always blames his tools... inproper wb settings and poor exposure. get them right and you wouldn;t have had a problem So should we refrain from criticizing tools with flaws? kidzrevil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Any craftsman or tradesman will tell you that you use certain tools for certain jobs... I, personally, love the look of the 4K mjpeg coming from this camera.... Even in a measly 8-bit. I hope this codec trickles down into their cheaper models. kidzrevil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Throw out a few conflicting opinions and watch people on forums get ready for an all out deathmatch lollllll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenEricson Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 23 hours ago, jgharding said: maybe if you're a still+video guy this is a good option. Weddings etc. Shoot stills, roll baked-in 8-bit video. But It all seems a bit ropey for video only use. I can see no reason to drop that kinda cash on it TBH and in hiring terms the C300 mk ii has it beat. Well, it's one third the price of the C300ii, it also does 4k/60p, and the camera is tiny in comparison. We use the C300ii at work, would love to own one, but this is the closest image you can get without dropping 16k. Having a small hybrid camera is always a good thing. The 5D3 is still being used in productions and this is a very upgraded version of that. I imagine the 1DCii will be really popular. 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.