Pro camcorders? They're pointless creatively.

[Andrew Reid]

Work tools are boring. I've always found mirrorless cameras way more fun to actually shoot with.

In his day job John Brawley has an Alexa. Why on earth would he shoot 'for fun' creatively, with an Olympus E-M1 II? But he does.

There are a lot of talented DPs who shoot with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras once they down their RED and Arri cameras at the end of the day.

Yet I find in the mid-range market for video pros (wedding videographers for example) there's an aspirational value attached to the higher-end pro cameras, that is stupid and pointless. Aspirations should be creative.

Owning a Sony FS5 or Canon C500 doesn't make you more creative, it makes you more efficient at work by a slight bit, and you appear more professional because of the big nobs and bells & whistles. Sadly, it doesn't necessarily make for "better" work because I have yet to see a clear distinction between work shot on mirrorless cameras and on stuff like the C300.

In fact often the small camera stuff looks better and more inspired. The legendary Anthony Dod Mantle is known for his rough and ready work with digital, but when he went Canon C-series on Oliver Stone's recent series of Putin interviews, the look they achieved was slap dash and lazy to my eye... Could have been so much better. He used DSLRs as well on this shoot (between 2015-2017) and those shots actually came out more interesting!

Too many pro videographers seem to dream of cameras like an Alexa and RED, why shows to me how important the professional label and look is to people, but creatively, they are no better and actually worse than the small cameras.

I hated shooting with my Sony FS5. A fiddly pain in the ass, for my music video work in Berlin, it needed an OIS lens and rig for handheld - limiting the choice of looks from the lens. With a GH5 you can put any lens on there and it is instantly stable for handheld work, with a tiny form factor that gets out of the way.

The FS5's image was worse than an A7S II but double the price. Aside from high frame rates it didn't offer anything creatively over a DSLR or mirrorless camera and now I have 120fps full frame on two of my small cameras along with 240fps 1080p on the pocket RX100 IV - So why bother getting a more expensive camera if it doesn't power you along creatively as much as the cheaper stuff!?

These pro cameras aren't cheap... Sometimes I got lucky and I bought a Canon C500 for a very good price used, but do you know how many times I have felt compelled to take it out and use it for artistic work? Zero times.

Kendy Ty is another example of a pro who downs his workhorse RED and shoots with a DSLR... The camera gets out of the way to such an extent he can shoot short films in public and direct the actors at the same time as being the main cinematographer. His work sticks in the mind as some of the most creative and spontaneous I've seen and there's not a C200 in sight... zero need for one!

I think pros have by-and-large completely forgotten and lost the spirit of the DSLR movement back from 2010-2012 as they sought efficiency. XLRs, built in NDs, yadda yadda. Blackmagic as well, when they ditched the small cameras and went all-out URSA on us. Canon too... Oh wait, they never got it in the first place, and they invented it!

Cameras should not just be about making money. That's how an art-form gets boring. That's how it dies.

They are not just about doing a job.

They're about creatively enabling artists and they're about democratising the art form so that price doesn't act as a road block to new talent.

Of course Canon only care about profit, they are not interested in that.

The Olympus E-M1 II's stabilisation isn't seen on any of the pro cinema cameras. It's unique. It offers something creatively to the result that a bigger, more complex shooting rig simply does not.

On the audio side, so important creatively, small mirrorless cameras used to have limitations and some still do - but with XLR boxes with phantom power that fit in a hot-shoe, you can't really complain. Audio is not a big limiting factor on the Panasonic GH5.

I still know that pros have their professional reasons for going Cinema EOS or Sony FS or RED or even Arri... Workflows, codecs, ergonomics, power, performance, looking-the-part... I'm not denying their reasons for one second, it would be so naive to suggest they drop the workhorse cameras and use a mirrorless camera for paid work.

But the creative side of the small cameras is what matters to me and I think it is being overlooked as specs in the $6000-$10,000 pro market hot up.

Sure, you can shoot all day on a big battery to a small broadcast ready codec with the C200, very practical... But can you put a 1970's Super 16 lens on there? Can you increase the character of your images by a factor of 10? Does it have an anamorphic mode? Nope.

If I ever buy a C200... Shoot me. It's over.

[tugela]

Bloom has shot footage with a Barbie doll and still did a decent job with it. If someone is creative they can shoot pretty much with anything because for them it is the content that is telling the story, not the camera.

Less creative shooters need the big spec cameras because they can hide their lack of creativity behind technical details. That is the main reason why people drool over the super-spec cameras, because they know that their footage would be lacking without it. If you can't make interesting footage that people will watch no matter what, then you need to have the image as perfect as possible to compensate. There is a reason for that. If your content does not draw the viewer in, then they are far more likely to notice IQ defects in the footage. Which means that if your content is uninspired and boring, you better be damned sure that there are no IQ defects in the footage. And for that you need the super camera.

 

[aldolega]

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?

Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.

There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.

I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.

The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, tugela said:

Bloom has shot footage with a Barbie doll and still did a decent job with it. If someone is creative they can shoot pretty much with anything because for them it is the content that is telling the story, not the camera.

That's not what I'm saying, really.

Gap creatively in cinema aesthetics between an A7S II and barbie camera is HUGE enough to make a difference.

Gap between A7S II and C200 is not.

1 hour ago, aldolega said:

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?

I didn't say that either.

Some people are creative at work. A lot aren't, but the point is, a C200 does not make you more creative.

Quote

Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs.

Yes, that's what I said too... Did you read it?!

Quote

The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.

Oddly enough though in the 70's people dicked-around a LOT more than today but it didn't harm the output creatively, one could say it even benefited it.

I think part of the easiness of modern camera gear makes people actually less creative.

In terms of jobs where you have to perform under time pressure, of course efficient workflows are important, I'm not denying that.

Quote

There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow...

They don't have a slower, fiddlier workflow.

I found the FS5 did.

You can't say the NX1 is anything other than fast. You pick it up, hold it, and press a button.

And if you need an ND filter put one on the lens and keep it on! It's not THAT DIFFICULT!

There's even the ND throttle adapter on E-mount and Micro Four Thirds, which is practically the same as having a built in camera ND wheel.

Quote

Smaller price gap

Don't pros realise that it is price alone that determines why we shoot mirrorless and DSLR?

Have they forgotten the grass roots of the industry?

Heads in the clouds.

Quote

The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

So much handheld camera work on TV these days looks like absolute shit.

On the news, even worse.

At least before C300-type rigs, ENG cameras were heavier and more steady and actually god-damn in focus.

[BTM_Pix]

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.

I see a lot of parallels here too.

The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.

It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.

In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.

Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.

After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.

So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?

Yes.

Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?

Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.

 

[Andrew Reid]

10 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.

What a good analogy, I always enjoy the parallels between music and filmmaking / video.

They nearly always hold up.

I have rarely seen a higher-end shoot that didn't have a lot of complexity and setup, unnecessary in some cases. Overkill is common too, in pro video industry... guys doing interviews with an EPIC. What's all that about?

Are they doing lip sync at 240fps?

Quote

I see a lot of parallels here too.

The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.

It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.

Haha.

This is exactly how I feel about my C500... It has sat on the shelf, mainly due to needing the beastly external recorder to get a decent picture out of it.

Workflow for my GH5 -

Hold it, press 1 button.

The end.

Workflow for my C500 -

Plug in SDI cable, make sure battery is charged for external monitor, turn on camera, turn on screen, wait quite a bit, oh you forgot the audio, silly me, grab an XLR mic, attach a module, attach the mic, check the levels, plugin headphones, dive into the menus a bit... And now my arm hurts, because it's all rather heavy. And what's that icon, oh dear my 256GB SSD just filled up in 5 minutes with 4K RAW at 120fps. Stop shooting, down tools, put the SSD into laptop, wait 30 mins for it to offload, wipe, reformat in the Odyssey, re-initialise, repeat every so often.

And with the FS5, the sheer amount of buttons really pissed me off as did the fact that when I took it on a shoot in public, people stared. Some of them robbers.

Quote

In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.

Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.

After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.

So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?

Yes.

Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?

Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.

Indeed, the end result is so close, between even a RED and a £400 consumer camera these days, that just like in the audio world, the diminishing returns up-high just aren't often worth the hassle.

[Oliver Daniel]

Andrew, I'm with you on this as I'm having a similarly "off" experience shooting on my FS5. 

It has everything I need in a very versatile package and shoots some great stuff for me, but.....

I much, much prefer shooting on small mirrorless, certainly at a creativity angle. I do t own a GH5, but on yesterday's FS5/Inferno heavy pop music video shoot - I held the BYS guys GH5 w/ Speedbooster Ultra and my Sigma 18-35mm. It felt really cool, very exciting in fact. 

Today I got some pickups shots, and ditched the FS5 in favour of the A6500. The 4K XAVC-S (minus RS), is just fantastic. It felt very good.

The bigger cameras are there for covering all bells and whistles, and being a reliable workhorse. To get creative with them, you need a team around the camera to pull off the shots (grip / lights etc) as they are much more stationary. 

The FS5 / Inferno covers this heavy production need, but for smaller projects, it wouldn't be my first choice.

In the pro world, clients do get very excited about seeing the Kit being used, and do feel more value is being attained by a bigger camera, even if that bigger camera is actually shit. 

I've had weird thoughts about selling it all and just going GH5, as this method is just fun. At the same time, I could sacrifice the "expectation" I've built by selling up, or it could be a case of finding a new lease of life by using what I find most fun and enjoyable (small powerful mirrorless). 

I guess you could relate to that? 

[BTM_Pix]

21 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

What a good analogy, I always enjoy the parallels between music and filmmaking / video.

They nearly always hold up.

I have rarely seen a higher-end shoot that didn't have a lot of complexity and setup, unnecessary in some cases. Overkill is common too, in pro video industry... guys doing interviews with an EPIC. What's all that about?

 

I think it just effects your whole vibe as well to be honest.

All this stuff I'm doing with hardware controllers and stuff is a laugh and it fires you up creatively to make these cameras do more because its trying to bridge these gaps and get more out of less.

And do it for the benefit of everyone.

If I was developing stuff to control REDs etc I'd be far more po faced about it and undoubtedly looking to make money off it.

You and I haven't actually met but the first time I came across you - and then in turn discovered this blog - was at the Convergence event in London about six years ago. You were there, Bloom was there (and already seemed to me to be interested in commercially riding the wave of what was happening if you know what I mean) and I remember you had a Teradek hdmi transmitter that could do the at the time magical feat of streaming live to an iPad. At that point you were already eschewing the 5DMKII in favour of the GH2 as it was more interesting and more versatile and cheaper etc for young film makers whereas the vibe even then was heading towards the 5DMKII being the entry point and wanting to go up in price from there. 

So, whilst I understood where people were coming from on that C200 thread, in terms of how people view this stuff now compared to then where a C200 is now almost like a base point then it really felt like a shark jumping moment reading it.

It felt like punk then. 

It feels like prog rock now.

[Andrew Reid]

18 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

The bigger cameras are there for covering all bells and whistles, and being a reliable workhorse. To get creative with them, you need a team around the camera to pull off the shots (grip / lights etc) as they are much more stationary.

Yes very stationary.

I could set up my C500 + Odyssey on a big heavy tripod and be happy to leave it in one place, but as soon as it comes to running around with something like that, it's a ball-ache and it gets in the way.

Balance is also very important and I never feel comfortable with the balance of an external recorder, no matter how it's rigged.

I hate complex rigs.

What is the point of all these pros who moan about work-arounds and fiddly things on the simple mirrorless cameras rigging up their pro cams to the hilt, which are supposed to be LESS fiddly and MORE direct... Some of their rigs resemble an Alexa on a VFX heavy film set which needs a crew of 9 people just to turn it on

The amount of shit I've seen added to a C300!

18 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

The FS5 / Inferno covers this heavy production need, but for smaller projects, it wouldn't be my first choice.

In the pro world, clients do get very excited about seeing the Kit being used, and do feel more value is being attained by a bigger camera, even if that bigger camera is actually shit. 

I've had weird thoughts about selling it all and just going GH5, as this method is just fun. At the same time, I could sacrifice the "expectation" I've built by selling up, or it could be a case of finding a new lease of life by using what I find most fun and enjoyable (small powerful mirrorless). 

I guess you could relate to that? 

That's always how I've done it.

Mainly because I would have missed every single shot in this, had it not been for a small, fast camera with instant-boot-up...

And this one wouldn't have even got made -

Big shotgun mics were simply not allowed in the temple and video cameras would draw attention, impact on privacy too much -

The sound in there was amazing and the next day I tried going back with a big mic and got turned away.

Stills were fine... So GH2 blended in and I was able to get creative.

Also I didn't have to worry about running out of battery, because I could just turn it off in-between waiting for some magic moment to happen...

With a cinema camera I would have had to keep it turned on for 5 hours straight, or risk missing a moment.

[mercer]

Man, was Panny color just better back then? Those GH1/GH2 videos look so good. I'm unsure, even with all the bells and whistles, if the G7/GH4/GX85/G85... even in some ways the GH5 look as good as some of these beautiful old videos I have been watching lately from the GH2.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Cameras should not just be about making money. That's how an art-form gets boring. That's how it dies.

Yeah, but I'm a business person first, artist second. 
I need to pay rent, eat, have a family one day, and build up savings for the future. 
Which isn't easy when filmmaking can be a very expensive business with fluctuating work!

[HockeyFan12]

I agree with your first post 100%! Except for the Canon-bashing (my favorite video camera may be the t2i, not for its technical merits) and the comments about audio I disagree with, too (use dual system sound or just don't worry about it for b roll).

But yes, the idea that "pro" gear is better is so misguided. I even see directors ask editors to cut on Avid thinking the edit will be better... somehow.

Pros want the cheapest good enough image, amateurs want the best cheap enough image.

Similar priorities, but 1 and 2 are flipped.  Pros pay more up front to get just what amateurs dont want. AVCHD on the C100? Great! I'm saving money on storage for my wedding videos... says the pro. ProRes on the Alexa instead of raw! Great! Says the tv show post sup that can save server space. Many pro photographers shoot JPEG! What's funny is I really love the C300's ergonomics butI worked with a pro who AC hated them when he used a C300 on a super bowl ad. After trying to run around operating an Alexa or an Epic on my own a few times I was like... why would you prefer something that clunky? But I like those cameras because it's easy for a single owner/op to use a C300 because it's just like a dSLR mixed with a video camera (still bigger than I'd like). But he hated it because it was such a pain to rig up like an Alexa (with gold mount batteries, monitors, a clunky shoulder rig, etc.). A large pro crew is more efficient with those ergonomics. A one man band sure isn't; it's badly hobbled by them. (And I find most non-union ACs and camera ops don't handle them great either.)

Truth is, the 5D Mk III raw has very comparable image quality (at 1080p, which is what 99% of deliverables are) to a Red Epic MX, and it's easier to get the colors to look good and it's much better in low light and tungsten so you don't need a big G&E crew on top of not needing two-and-a-half ACs. The AS7II is not that much worse than the F55 (well, its skew and chroma clipping are worse). These b cams are used all the time professionally, too, it's just rarely publicized because, like, it's not really a big deal.

What makes the biggest difference in image quality isn't the camera. It's that on an expensive set you have great talent and big lights and big support gear. What you don't have is time and flexibility. What's nice about dSLRs is that they're so light sensitive you can skimp on the huge HMIs and use LEDs. Or you an use a Ronin M instead of a steadicam. Or a slider dolly or small moco system or car rig. You can wait for good light because each hour isn't costing $20k.

Look at the difference between a 1DX and the SL1. Under good light, the stills are not that different at all. Like... really similar. What you're paying for are the ergonomics with the 1DX. That is, a massive, heavy camera, that's difficult to use for extended periods of time, but which excels in certain circumstances where you're getting paid. "Pro" ergonomics. Just because it's "better" doesn't mean it's better for you. I would hate to have to bring one with me. It's more reliable under pressure, sure. But I prefer my hobbies without extra pressure. That I leave for work. So I usually just use my iPhone and take it out when there's good light. And I'm taking better photos than I did with my 5D.

But this is the elephant in the room, isn't it? Not a lot of great content is coming from amateur photographers or Red owners (nor will it come from amateur C200 owners, but hey I like Canon ergonomics). They're too difficult to use well, especially when the rest of the gear and talent isn't there. If amateurs could afford to use Alexas and MFDBs there would be a lot of Alexa and MFDB trash, too. And pros are turning out enough trash of their town with those.

Meanwhile there's a lot of good content on YouTube shot by vloggers. If that's your thing. On Vimeo, Watchtower of Turkey was amazing, and it used consumer gear–to its very best advantage. 

Nothing against pros, but being one sucks. You're answering to your client, to your budget, to your crew's limitations, to the clock, to the director, to the brand, to the malfunctioning and expensive and heavy gear. Yeesh. Why aspire to that life when you can, you know, have fun and tell the stories you want to tell? If you're a pro, I get why you do why you do. You're paid to. If you're not one, stop living in the worst of both worlds. Go hack a 5D or grab a go pro. Shoot something cool. No one is stopping you but your own insecurities about your gear.

(On the other hand, shooting 16mm film is cool as shit and looks amazing.)

[Shirozina]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

But can you put a 1970's Super 16 lens on there? Can you increase the character of your images by a factor of 10? Does it have an anamorphic mode? Nope. 

 

Such choices could be argued are more about style and fashion than creativity. 

[Jimmy]

Has anyone actually ever said production cameras are more creative? They are just better for production. Though NDs, better handling and better audio can be very creative features.

If I'm climbing a glacier... Then carrying up all the shit needed for a production camera is gonna hinder me.. (c300 is about as big as I'd want to go)

Horses for courses... As ever

[ntblowz]

But the the people drooling over your gear is priceless!

 

 

 

Yeah I feel you, FS5 quality is not up to par the price you paid, except the slowmo and ergonomics and look pro to clients. (Even then I still have people thinking I am shooting photo, probably because of the lens?)

I use C100 II almost everyday, I still shoot MF cause I have seen the camera focus shifting/hunting with it during events when I use AF. I just don't get the praise about Canon AF to be honest, consider if there is many face/crowds on screen the camera have no idea who to follow.

[Kisaha]

@HockeyFan12

"Nothing against pros, but being one sucks. You're answering to your client, to your budget, to your crew's limitations, to the clock, to the director, to the brand, to the malfunctioning and expensive and heavy gear. Yeesh. Why aspire to that life when you can, you know, have fun and tell the stories you want to tell? If you're a pro, I get why you do why you do. You're paid to. If you're not one, stop living in the worst of both worlds. Go hack a 5D or grab a go pro. Shoot something cool. No one is stopping you but your own insecurities about your gear."

I know what you mean, but every little, silly, ordinary job can be something creative, something not a lot of people working in banks, insurance or in offices can claim.

I have travelled extensively to my home country, and elsewhere, gathering condensed "wisdom" of the people and the places around (staying in a small village for 3-4 days and after 15-20 interviews you know everything about the people there and their history).

In every job you have to give similar answers. If you are a car mechanic, you have clients, you have a budget for your shop/rent/insurance/tools/how much you charge/assistant(s)/etc, and if you do a mistake you can kill someone on the road, at least our mistakes aren't that dangerous.

What you suggest is go back to our caves, palm painting and eat roots, because it is too much to be a pilot, or a doctor.

Better pray to the Spirits of the forests for good health and not eaten by a bear!

It is a job with a huge array of specialization, you can be a grip, a director, a writer, a sound man (my favorite!), and you can work in advertisement, movies, weddings, documentaries (my favorite!), you have to have, artistic, technical, communication skills and mix and match different people, equipment, techniques.

It is a stressful industry, but I am ok I never followed the Engineering career I started in University; I would be richer, for sure, but I wouldn't be me.

@ntblowz It is the most reliable AF system on video right now. It is a tool, you don't use it 24/7, but in some specific situations it can save you some time. AF systems aren't 100% reliable yet, but I would say Canon's is around 79%, in a few years that will go above 90%, but I do not see 99% to be possible any time soon, there are just too many variables. C100mk II is my favorite camera.

[Oliver Daniel]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes very stationary.

I could set up my C500 + Odyssey on a big heavy tripod and be happy to leave it in one place, but as soon as it comes to running around with something like that, it's a ball-ache and it gets in the way.

Balance is also very important and I never feel comfortable with the balance of an external recorder, no matter how it's rigged.

I hate complex rigs.

What is the point of all these pros who moan about work-arounds and fiddly things on the simple mirrorless cameras rigging up their pro cams to the hilt, which are supposed to be LESS fiddly and MORE direct... Some of their rigs resemble an Alexa on a VFX heavy film set which needs a crew of 9 people just to turn it on 

The amount of shit I've seen added to a C300!

Nice vids from the archive!

I'm the same, I don't like rigging up my cameras. I want them as bare bones a possible. Some of the FS5/7Q rigs I've seen are like houses, not my kettle of fish. 

Yes, I have an Inferno but I can't find an ergonomic way of mounting it on the camera. So I just run it off the SDI and let the other guy hold it for monitoring. 

Recently, I shot a music video on the A6500 with this criteria, to see what would happen:

• Completely handheld. 
• Only A6500, 18-105mm gear used. No lights, No grip. Nothing. 
• Autofocus only. 
• Mostly 4k, and some 100fps. 

At the time, I had an FS5 in the bag too with a bunch of Sigma lenses. Didn't use them. 

A6500's dim screen and rolling shutter was annoying, but I got round it. 

 

 

[Jimmy]

How do you define creativity though?

Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.

If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5

If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro

If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo

If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii

and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

[Oliver Daniel]

50 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

How do you define creativity though?

Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.

If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5

If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro

If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo

If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii

and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

 

Spot on..... I've filmed entire paid music videos on a GoPro because that was the vibe, attaching a small camera to everything POV style. 

In a studio, I've used the FS7 only because it was a tripod and I need chromakey slow motion at an affordable rate. 

I filmed my biggest ever project... on an A7S II. There was no chance to do lighting, we had to run around all sorts of locations and grab shots on the spot. 

I used the old C300, even though I had three other Sony cameras. The interviewer was adamant about "natural, organic, really good looking skin" in the interview. 

The video above, I used the A6500 with one lens to stay very discreet on the streets and still get a high IQ with a minimum fuss. 

Yesterday I used the FS5 and Inferno in ProRes as we set up 4 scenes in a very controlled space and needed very high resolution, high bit rate compositions as the colour management was very difficult with all the multi-colour neon signs knocking around. 

That said, the EOSHD vibe is certainly favoured to small mirrorless, and most of the work we show here is very "street", minimal kit and run n gun. I find it a much more enjoyable experience shooting like this, because it's very liberating. 

Creativity is the quality of the idea. Choose the best way to get the best out of the idea. In Hollywood, it's a huge crew behind 3 Arri Alexas. For a lot of us, it's a GH5 with a Zhiyun Crane and a GoPro with no permits. Whatever works best given the material. 

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Jimmy said:

How do you define creativity though?

Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.

If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5

If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro

If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo

If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii

and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

These are some good points. For me it 80% furthers the case of the small cameras over the big ones for creative purposes.

GoPro, Osmo, A7S, GH5, all small.

Only one of these examples involves one of the larger pro cameras, the C200 and I am not even convinced of what it gives to a music video shoot exactly...