Camera advice. Best image, ignore rest. $3000

[webrunner5]

I am sure the GH5 will not be all we hope for. Not going to be that much different than a pumped up GH4. But unless most of us win the Lotto I would say it will have as good as specs as most people could ever afford. It will be as up to date as any camera for less than 5000 bucks used that I can think of.

James Miller is sure showing it can produce some damn nice output if you have the skill. The specs are just about impossible to turn down,

[Kisaha]

GH4 was groundbreaking back in the day, GH5 will be tomorrow, definitely a workhorse camera with no overheating problems, good ergonomics, amazing battery life (for a mirrorless), great and various workflow options.

I was just waiting for a better APS-C back then (NX1), and I am sure a better S35 (or close to that) will appear soon enough.

Ideally, even though I haven't own a Canon camera since the film days, I would like this time next year to own a C100markIII and a Canon M (just add a number) with good video capabilities as a B camera, carry around photo camera, etc.

I am getting boring, I know - sorry for that, but I can't stress enough how important is for my professional life a C100, but in 2017 I can't invest on a non 4K camera. Last year in the production company I work we invested on a JVC LS300, and even now I am trying to avoid that, in favor of the C100markII! Obviously a C300markII would be better, but it is out of our budget (and market) range.

Sony is nearing though, they aren't out of the question yet, just haven't been impressive so far (I mean, overall - all around - impressive, because the spec sheets are), but their next cameras (FSx, AxS) have to be great, but I am not so sure, I am more confident than Panasonic will deliver, they always deliver, just should have put that variably sensor of the LS300 on the GH5, jack of all trades, master of some!! 

P.S don't take me wrong, JVC is a great all around performer but it is closer to old viceo camcorders (and not only in the form factor) than a Canon C camera, which in my opinion, they have completely nailed the design and ergonomics. Also the JVC slow motion is extremely cropped, so no use, we usually go with my NX1, or rent a FS700 cheaply with Zeiss lenses that we own for that.

[HockeyFan12]

On 2/21/2017 at 8:44 AM, sam said:

By that logic, how long before products like Unity can compete "pretty well" with todays productions and commercial advertising $$$ gives current means of image aquisition a slow painful death like it did with film?   Appreciate your insight!  

Unity engine? I have no idea (except that many people I know getting started in the industry are jumping ship and learning Unity instead). To me, it's a completely separate medium. But Marvel movies are already full of CGI action and ads are loaded with invisible vfx. Contemporary films already feel a lot like video games, my hope is that Unity and VR (which are their own thing, and incredibly awesome) allow film to get back to what it does well, which is record an event in a more physical and emotional way. I think film feels too much like video games already, and I see the two media diverging in the future (with VR becoming the dominant medium eventually).

[webrunner5]

Well I know I will be burned at the stake here, but shooting real film in this day and age I think is, well a waste of good money, if you ask me. With so many high end and low end cameras that have raw I see no need to go that route anymore. Most people alive don't care about film anyways. The film look maybe, film nah. And heck a BMPCC can get that look.

I am sure as hell not buying a film movie camera, or film photo camera if they give me one. Those days are done. Give me a 8k Red Weapon, not a Bolex!

 

[webrunner5]

But I guess if I was a very famous director that is as old or older than I am, well they are probably dead , it would be hard to change over to digital if you have been shooting film all your career. I can see not wanting to do that.

[noone]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I know I will be burned at the stake here, but shooting real film in this day and age I think is, well a waste of good money, if you ask me. With so many high end and low end cameras that have raw I see no need to go that route anymore. Most people alive don't care about film anyways. The film look maybe, film nah. And heck a BMPCC can get that look.

I am sure as hell not buying a film movie camera, or film photo camera if they give me one. Those days are done. Give me a 8k Red Weapon, not a Bolex!

 

I will be spending $10 (Australian) on an old super 16 (I think) movie camera tomorrow just because it has a roil of (long expired) film with it.

 

After that I guess it will sit in a large box with all the other old toys.

[webrunner5]

3 hours ago, noone said:

I will be spending $10 (Australian) on an old super 16 (I think) movie camera tomorrow just because it has a roil of (long expired) film with it.

 

After that I guess it will sit in a large box with all the other old toys.

Well Super 16, now that is different!  I guess I will take that Bolex then. 

[Mattias Burling]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I know I will be burned at the stake here, but shooting real film in this day and age I think is, well a waste of good money, if you ask me. With so many high end and low end cameras that have raw I see no need to go that route anymore. Most people alive don't care about film anyways. The film look maybe, film nah. And heck a BMPCC can get that look.

I am sure as hell not buying a film movie camera, or film photo camera if they give me one. Those days are done. Give me a 8k Red Weapon, not a Bolex!

 

At least where I live shooting on film is way cheaper than a Red Weapon. And looks better as well imo.

Same with stills. I have to shoot alot of film before I reach the cost of a top end DSLR. And for street shooting with for example a Ricoh GR its only APS-C despite being larger than the smaller full frame film model.

[sam]

6 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Unity engine? I have no idea (except that many people I know getting started in the industry are jumping ship and learning Unity instead). To me, it's a completely separate medium. But Marvel movies are already full of CGI action and ads are loaded with invisible vfx. Contemporary films already feel a lot like video games, my hope is that Unity and VR (which are their own thing, and incredibly awesome) allow film to get back to what it does well, which is record an event in a more physical and emotional way. I think film feels too much like video games already, and I see the two media diverging in the future (with VR becoming the dominant medium eventually).

Love this post. It echoes my sentiment exactly.   Hope the divergence comes quickly! If not, at the very least,  maybe Steve Yedlin could share his supposed proprietary scientific techniques for turning 1's and 0's into film!  So far, all thats been accomplished is the exact opposite. 

[jonpais]

12 minutes ago, sam said:

Love this post. It echoes my sentiment exactly.   Hope the divergence comes quickly! If not, at the very least,  maybe Steve Yedlin could share his supposed proprietary scientific techniques for turning 1's and 0's into film!  So far, all thats been accomplished is the exact opposite. 

convergence?

[sam]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

At least where I live shooting on film is way cheaper than a Red Weapon. And looks better as well imo.

Same with stills. I have to shoot alot of film before I reach the cost of a top end DSLR. And for street shooting with for example a Ricoh GR its only APS-C despite being larger than the smaller full frame film model.

But what do you know?  You've only tested like 3 cameras ( 2 if you dont count your iphone)!

 

35 minutes ago, jonpais said:

convergence?

I was referring to "I think film feels like video games too much already, and I see the two media diverging in the future"  

Since you are here, and have a moment, maybe you could kindly share your viewing setup?

[jonpais]

5 minutes ago, sam said:

But what do know?  You've only tested like 3 cameras ( 2 if you dont count your iphone)!

 

I was referring to "I think film feels like video games too much already, and I see the two media diverging in the future"  

Since you are here, and have moment, maybe you could kindly share your viewing setup?

What is it with you and your viewing setups?  Just have a look at some of the videos I've posted all over here, and if the color is terrible, you can guess I graded them on my iPod.

And by divergence, you mean film and video games will go their separate ways in the future, or come together as one? Just clarifying.

[jonpais]

36 minutes ago, sam said:

But what do you know?  You've only tested like 3 cameras ( 2 if you dont count your iphone)!

If Mattias only tested three cameras, those reviews must have been damn good, because he's got over 28,000 subscribers over at YouTube impatiently waiting for the fourth one!

[sam]

3 minutes ago, jonpais said:

If Mattias only tested three cameras, those reviews must have been damn good, because he's got over 28,000 subscribers over at YouTube waiting for the fourth one!

No. People just love that little Frenchie! Also, for those who cant see the difference between 16mm film and video in his "guess the camera" comparison from a couple years ago, just know that even his dog can tell the difference, but unlike Mattias seems to prefer video. 

[jonpais]

6 minutes ago, sam said:

No. People just love that little Frenchie! Also, for those who cant see the difference between 16mm film and video in his "guess the camera" comparison from a couple years ago, just know that even his dog can tell the difference, but unlike Mattias seems to prefer video. 

You crack me up!

[zerocool22]

11 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I would have to go for a Sony FS5 for that money. The Ursa is a great camera also, but it seems a little too fragile, to flaky to depend on. The size on the FS5 is nice, can use them on a Glidecam, smaller Gimbal, and they seem to be bullet proof from what I have heard. Heck the Variable ND filter is nearly worth the price of admission alone. Some people are not thrilled about their color science though.

Heck there was a Sony F35 on ebay a couple months ago for 4500 bucks. but I am not sure about stuff that old. Not uncommon for a Red Epic X brain to come up for 4500 either, but damn cost you 4500 more to equip one. Unless you hate Sony, you would not be alone, I like them, I would have to go with the FS5 myself.

 

Yeah too bad the fs5 is only raw externally. The c500 is kind of the same dilemma. Internal raw would be great. Which makes Red or blackmagic appealling to me. The 5d iii raw is my favorite image beneath 3k, if only it would do 4k, more DR, less noise and some more slowmotion RAW options. But it does not seem to be happening anytime soon.

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, sam said:

No. People just love that little Frenchie! Also, for those who cant see the difference between 16mm film and video in his "guess the camera" comparison from a couple years ago, just know that even his dog can tell the difference, but unlike Mattias seems to prefer video. 

Sounds to me like you might be one of those that couldn't tell the difference and is a bit upset about it...

Open question to all,
If film was so bad why do many of the best film makers still use it?

And no no no, don't give me the old "they don't know better" or "they are idiots", "just nostalgic"
Anyone wanting to make such a claim must first present us with evidence to the multiple Oscar statues they have won.

I sometimes cant believe that there have been people from this very forum stating that a guy like Stephen Spielberg would have used the Samsung NX1 because of its technical superiority instead of film, but choose not to because he is a "hack" or because he doesn't know the NX1 exist...
Give me a fu..ing break!

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Sounds to me like you might be one of those that couldn't tell the difference and is a bit upset about it...

Open question to all,
If film was so bad why do many of the best film makers still use it?

And no no no, don't give me the old "they don't know better" or "they are idiots", "just nostalgic"
Anyone wanting to make such a claim must first present us with evidence to the multiple Oscar statues they have won.

I sometimes cant believe that there have been people from this very forum stating that a guy like Stephen Spielberg would have used the Samsung NX1 because of its technical superiority instead of film, but choose not to because he is a "hack" or because he doesn't know the NX1 exist...
Give me a fu..ing break!

And platinum prints are better than silver prints, so what? Irving Penn's stuff is phenomenal, so is Richard Avedon's. We never said one was better than the other because one used a historical printing process. The history of cinema isn't going to get caught up in whether directors chose to shoot digital or film, they're going to look at their body of work. Emmanuel Lubezki's work will reign supreme, not because he shot film or digital, but solely because he is a gifted cinematographer. As a stills photographer, it may or may not cost you less to shoot film (I really doubt that anyhow), but for most of us, who shoot video, film would be prohibitively expensive. If you're shooting digital stills, are you using a $300 scanner or a $100,000 scanner? If you shoot film, are you using a cheap Bogen enlarger and a $50 lens or a Durst enlarger and the best lens available? Even the easel you use is important. Debating which is better is really a waste of time anyway, since they both have their own advantages and disadvantages.

[Stanley]

11 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

But I guess if I was a very famous director that is as old or older than I am, well they are probably dead , it would be hard to change over to digital if you have been shooting film all your career. I can see not wanting to do that.

John Seale did a good job of doing that with Mad Max Fury Road. Think he was about 70 when George Miller enticed him out of retirement. Pretty sure it was the first time John ever shot digital.

EDIT: How lucky is that kid bottom of frame.

[sam]

4 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Sounds to me like you might be one of those that couldn't tell the difference and is a bit upset about it...

Open question to all,
If film was so bad why do many of the best film makers still use it?

And no no no, don't give me the old "they don't know better" or "they are idiots", "just nostalgic"
Anyone wanting to make such a claim must first present us with evidence to the multiple Oscar statues they have won.

I sometimes cant believe that there have been people from this very forum stating that a guy like Stephen Spielberg would have used the Samsung NX1 because of its technical superiority instead of film, but choose not to because he is a "hack" or because he doesn't know the NX1 exist...
Give me a fu..ing break!

 I went to the house they used in E.T.  two weeks ago and shot a quick clip with a 1Dc as its what I had with me.  Did it just to play back to back next to the film.  1dc honestly looks like an iphone in comparison.  I'm with ya!  But again, you've only tested like 2 cameras, with minimal time and expense, so what do you know:)