In depth test - 5D Mark III and 7D Raw vs Blackmagic Pocket vs GH3

[sugartown]

"Meanwhile, I moved on from ENG cameras to Canon DSLRs and finally Panasonics."

 

Not entirely buying this. The dream camera for anyone shooting documentary, broadcast, or events is essentially a lighter smaller ENG camera with the adaptability and guts of the cameras reviewed here. You would still want a low profile camera in your arsenal, but the current crop of cameras come with drastic limitations. It's only a good trade off if the image delivers above their pay grade. The only people I know shooting RAW for documentary have million dollar budgets, and dedicated techs to deal with the headaches. 

 

As for the GH3, flipping through on screen menus and an inability to control what you want in an instant is something you get used to but it's not an ideal. The lack of a real archiving system is not an ideal. You mentioned the GH3 for single system audio, but are you really going to pretend the GH3 is set up to record pro level audio? It takes great reference and backup sound though. The footage looks decent compressed, but again there are limitations. When you shoot unplanned content, you need a camera that is always flexible and doesn't get in the way.

 

As for logging, you should be logging real time. Otherwise you're not logging. That's what logging is. It's not simply finding in/out points, or  organizing wide shots from close ups. 

 

 

 

 

[Axel]

Transcoding? Who is transcoding AVCHD footage?! Are you one of those Final Cut fanboys who assumes everyone else is also using it?

Any *other* modern editor (Edius, Premiere, Vegas, etc) lets you drag clips right off the memory card into a timeline and start editing. AVCHD, even at higher bitrates, cut like butter on platforms designed to handle it properly. It couldn't be any easier! 

 

Indeed, it could be much easier. With FCP X. Just about every workflow you can think of is possible. And if your system is too old or too weak, you can transcode in the background (either as proxies or ProRes/lite/HQ/4444), you can then relink to original media for top quality renders (one click). Or you stay native during editing and export a high quality ProRes master. 

 

And there can be an easier way than dragging clips off the memory card: If the clips are no longer inside folders (>Private>asf), if they are not represented by a useless clip-icon, but by a thumbnail showing a frame from the clip, if you don't have to double-click to see the video, if you don't have to click at all, because the thumbnail is a mini timeline that you can "scratch through" (EDIT1:scratching is the wrong term, because it suggests dragging an old-fashioned playhead, EDIT2: It's wrong anyway, I mean "scrubbing") with your cursor (which becomes a skimmer spontaneously when over the tumbnail). If you can overview the content of all your clips without one click by diagonally skimming over all rows of clips (if this is to work directly from various cards, a Thunderbolt reader would come in handy, and it eats a lot of RAM, otherwise you can copy the card to an assigned harddrive, one likes to have a backup or two anyway), even before importing anything. Also before import, you can view and edit (multiple edits in one clip) to your needs. The differences to the old NLEs are in every detail, and this is just the first stage.

 

It's dangerous to write something like that, because though it is true, it is not accepted, and the threads tend to turn into 'warzones', as someone has put it. One can edit with every NLE, the results count. Full stop. Fanboys or haters out!

 

Now it looks there is a new party of fanboys setting up their manifest: The raws. They look down on ordinary AVCHD users. All of a sudden they were elevated to higher beings.

 

Let's nip this in the bud, right?

[Guest c2dd7b52878779b55f43cc8c269267c1]

Can somebody call me a fanboy please I'm feeling left out.

 

My camera of choice hasn't actually been invented yet but as long as western society continues to practice some form of democratic capitalism with a competitive marketplace at its core, it probably won't be the only camera in the world. So as long as I recognise it's limitations and yet for my particular needs am satisfied with its operation and image quality, I will doubtless at some point feel compelled to extol its virtues online (I'm that kind of guy). It therefore seems a given that you can call me a fanboy now and have done with it. Thanks.

 

EDIT: This was meant as a joke but I just re-read it and it isn't funny. Sorry.

[Axel]

Dear Matt, if you like to become a true fanboy, here are the guides (from Urban Dictionary):

 

A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture who lets his passion override social graces.

A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don't like whatever it is they like.

An arrogant person who goes into an outburst every time something he likes is questioned. Fanboys usually acuse others of being fanboys.

Another annoying feature of a fanboy is that if he is loyal to [something], he usually goes to rival forums and spams the place up with inults about how his [] is 'better'.

Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions.

Troll the internet to spread the gospel.

Insult/chastise others for using public forums to express an objective opinion, no matter how constructive or, respectful it may be.

Technocratic zealots; evangelicals of geekery. Characterized by irrational advocacy of a particular OS, console, company, or franchise.

 

 

 

 

[jgharding]

Indeed, it could be much easier. With FCP X. Just about every workflow you can think of is possible. And if your system is too old or too weak, you can transcode in the background (either as proxies or ProRes/lite/HQ/4444), you can then relink to original media for top quality renders (one click). Or you stay native during editing and export a high quality ProRes master. 

 

And there can be an easier way than dragging clips off the memory card: If the clips are no longer inside folders (>Private>asf), if they are not represented by a useless clip-icon, but by a thumbnail showing a frame from the clip, if you don't have to double-click to see the video, if you don't have to click at all, because the thumbnail is a mini timeline that you can scratch through with your cursor (which becomes a skimmer spontaneously when over the tumbnail). If you can overview the content of all your clips without one click by diagonally skimming over all rows of clips (if this is to work directly from various cards, a Thunderbolt reader would come in handy, and it eats a lot of RAM, otherwise you can copy the card to an assigned harddrive, one likes to have a backup or two anyway), even before importing anything. Also before import, you can view and edit (multiple edits in one clip) to your needs. The differences to the old NLEs are in every detail, and this is just the first stage.

 

It's dangerous to write something like that, because though it is true, it is not accepted, and the threads tend to turn into 'warzones', as someone has put it. One can edit with every NLE, the results count. Full stop. Fanboys or haters out!

 

Now it looks there is a new party of fanboys setting up their manifest: The raws. They look down on ordinary AVCHD users. All of a sudden they were elevated to higher beings.

 

Let's nip this in the bud, right?

 

Yes indeed, they all copy each other. Premiere CC now has thumbnails in Bridge or browser that scrub spontaneously exactly as you describe, it just gives you other options as well. Media Composer is pretty limiting however because of the plug-in structure, but it has benefits for those working in broadcast and similar. 

 

It is a bit silly as you say for there to be snobbery lines drawn between footage formats. Soon I have two shoots, one is using Red Epics in Redcode Raw, the other using Canon 550Ds! It's all about what's right for the job! I enjoy using both.

 

AVCHD 28/24mbps does need to die though. No one needs footage that small these days, it's a bit rate from another age, in Moore's Law terms.

[Axel]

You are right, and it's *scrubbing*, not *scratching*, I think Adobe calls it 'hover scrub' (well, it's not exactly the same and somewhat limited yet). I like Adobe for many reasons, and I think everybody has a reason to stay loyal to his choice. Like to my reliable GH2  :wub:

 

AVCHD 28/24mbps does need to die though. No one needs footage that small these days, it's a bit rate from another age, in Moore's Law terms.

 

 

On the long run. Meanwhile, all owners of AVCHD junk must not feel inferior, that was the point I was trying to make.

[Shaun Fontaine]

Where do i start!?

 

I started off using Sony cameras around 20years ago when I worked as a corporate shooter. Betacam, BetaSP, Digibeta....I suppose I was a Sony fanboy because they had the best cameras and formats back then. I then worked as a camera assistant (high budget) and operator (lower budget) on music videos and promos all shot on 35mm. The cameras we went for 90% of the time were Arri 435 & 535's. So I guess I was an Arri fanboy? Then the 5D came out and for my own personal use (and a lot of paid work) I used the 5DII so I guess I became a Canon fanboy? Nine months ago I used a GH3 on a shoot and was sold on one. Went out and bought one a week later. I guess that makes me a Panasonic fanboy now? Or, do I just choose the tool that I feel is right for the job regardless of brand? I am not a 'fanboy' here defending Panasonic to justify my purchase.

 

I good camera is more than just the end image. What if the camera you were using hindered your ability to capture that image in the first place?

The BM cameras may be great for narrative where you can do retake after retake but imagine shooting something that needed to be captured first time with no second chances and then your card being full because the camera gives no indication how much remaining time or space the card has? Your end image doesn't exist, no amount of DR or bit depth will get back that shot you missed. Going back 20years I can't remember a camera that didn't give the operator any visual indication of remaining media. You could, I suppose, ask the interviewee to re-say that last response to the question but how unprofessional does that make you look in front of them and your producer?

 

I find it amazing how new technology makes people forget their art. VFX aside, an 8bit camera can generate fantastic images if you know what your doing. All of a sudden everyone wants RAW so that they don't have to white balance, can get sloppy on exposure etc. Yes, RAW has it's place but many of the productions I work on don't want me to hand over RAW files.

 

The BMPCC is almost a fantastic camera, if BM can fix a few of its querks as well as reliability then it would be a cheap camera to complement the GH3.

 

What makes you think I was directing my comments at you, I said there are a lot of fan boy comments on here. I was directing that comment more towards people that currently now only use DSLR's and only ever use them.

 

 8 bit camera can generate fantastic images if you know what your doing

 

I'm not in dispute of that fact, but 10 or 12 or even 14 is better for advertisement work, or narrative work. Again a lot of what I do is VFX based which is where i'm coming from. You can't say VFX aside like it's not an important factor for some people,  when a lot of my work is VFX and Film making. A lot of our work mixes CGI with real live action, so yes RAW is great for that, as is higher bit depths. 

 

What if the camera you were using hindered your ability to capture that image in the first place?

 

 

I've never had that problem, I've always managed to get the image even if the camera I was getting it from wasn't easy to use, I guess that comes down to skill. Besides just because I find a camera a hindrance, doesn't mean I can't get the best image out of it.

 

Also did I not mention, I thought I would give another perspective, this is mine, I feel like your attacking my reasoning, even though I already stated, I use it for advertisement and narrative film making, I don't do corporate videos, or documentaries or wedding videos. Nothing wrong with doing those, I'm just stating what I do, what I use the cameras for. A lot of people in advertisement rely heavily on VFX work, so cameras that can shoot past 8 bit is important. From a technical point of view. If you don't understand that,you don't know what your talking about. I don't care if you have shot on 35mm or been in the business 20 years.  I hate it when people spout out that they have used 35mm like you owe them more respect or gives them more credentials for having used it. I've been on one shoot using 35mm and honestly, so what.

 

 

I know you OWN a GH3, you moved on from a 7D I read your post, I get it, you don't like anyone knocking your new toy, so your here to defend it's honour. Is it a better camera than the pocket camera, it probably is. Does it produce better images in the hands of someone who knows that they're doing, No it doesn't and that's just a fact. And yes the final image is very important, It's not the only thing, but at the end of the day, isn't that the whole point.

[Tone13]

Double post

[Tone13]

I don't care if you have shot on 35mm or been in the business 20 years.  I hate it when people spout out that they have used 35mm like you owe them more respect or gives them more credentials for having used it. I've been on one shoot using 35mm and honestly, so what.

 

I know you OWN a GH3, you moved on from a 7D I read your post, I get it, you don't like anyone knocking your new toy, so your here to defend it's honour. Is it a better camera than the pocket camera, it probably is. Does it produce better images in the hands of someone who knows that they're doing, No it doesn't and that's just a fact. And yes the final image is very important, It's not the only thing, but at the end of the day, isn't that the whole point.

 

Sorry if you felt threatened by me mentioning that I had shot on 35mm. I wasn't spouting it as a 'look at me' comment. In context to the rest of the sentence, I was mentioning that I had used many different camera brands and that I swap and change depending on my needs. Just because I think the GH3 is a good camera does not make me a 'fanboy'. I am not here defending it because I own one, I also own a 5DIII (yes I sold my 7D), I am defending it because it's an extremely versatile camera. And yes, you did call all those commenting in favor of the GH3 'Fanboys'.

 

I'll leave it there.

[tpr]

Steps to becoming a fanboy/girl (or any kind of ideologue):

1. Invest time, money or effort into something

2. Ignore all evidence that might subsequently call the wisdom of that investment into question so as to maintain faith in one's own judgement

 

This doesn't work for people who would rather weed out the mistakes in their beliefs than cling to an illusion of infallibility.

[Axel]

Steps to becoming a fanboy/girl (or any kind of ideologue):

1. Invest time, money or effort into something

2. Ignore all evidence that might subsequently call the wisdom of that investment into question so as to maintain faith in one's own judgement

 

This doesn't work for people who would rather weed out the mistakes in their beliefs than cling to an illusion of infallibility.

 

Platos line. There is opinion, and there is knowledge. Fighting over opinion is completely futile. As if discussing the 'true' meaning of the shadows on the wall (cave analogy). 

[Willian Aleman]

Andrew, thanks a lot for the detailed review. Brilliant!

[markm]

Sorry if you felt threatened by me mentioning that I had shot on 35mm. I wasn't spouting it as a 'look at me' comment. In context to the rest of the sentence, I was mentioning that I had used many different camera brands and that I swap and change depending on my needs. Just because I think the GH3 is a good camera does not make me a 'fanboy'. I am not here defending it because I own one, I also own a 5DIII (yes I sold my 7D), I am defending it because it's an extremely versatile camera. And yes, you did call all those commenting in favor of the GH3 'Fanboys'.
 
I'll leave it there.

I think the problem is getting the message through that an 8 bit 4.2.0 camera just cannot compete with 12 bit RAW and yet weirdly there are those who say not only that it can but that it is better. You either have to think those people are a bit thick or fanboys.
The best you can say about it is that if you work with the image by exposing and lighting correctly you could end up with an end product that can look as good for the end user. But so many times now fanboy arguments muddy the water.

[maxotics]

I don't believe anyone chooses to be a fan-boy, I think it borne out of frustration.  You want feel you have the right machine for your vision. 

 

Even if everyone on this thread owned all three cameras, they would be tortured if a friend said, let's go for a hike,  bring A camera (not 3 of them).  

 

For me, I would think, hm, I want to take some really great videos of the mountain ranges (5D3), and some photos!  No, I want to also take some nice high dynamic range shots of us walking through the woods (BMPCC), no, I want to document our trip with interviews, silly banter (GH3).  There is NO PERFECT camera for every situation.  There are only painful decisions (made worse if you don't OWN the camera you would pick for THAT particular event!)

 

Seriously, who among us wouldn't find the whole decision making processing completely torturous?  Who hasn't brought their RAW camera to an event that ran too long and the H.264 would have been better?  Or took their H.264 to an event where you ended up wanting a perfect 30 second clip.

 

(Finally, Matt, I didn't mean to suggest you didn't know your stuff!)

[dishe]

 

"Meanwhile, I moved on from ENG cameras to Canon DSLRs and finally Panasonics."

 

Not entirely buying this. The dream camera for anyone shooting documentary, broadcast, or events is essentially a lighter smaller ENG camera with the adaptability and guts of the cameras reviewed here. 

Sounds like more opinions, man.

 

I remember the first time I saw the team from BBC America covering the Dr. Who premiere in NY a couple of years ago... they wanted to get footage of the event for a promo spot, it was a 2-man team. One guy had a wind-screened boom mic and hip recorder, the other had what appeared to be a 5D on a light shoulder rig. Grabbed some footage and answers to questions, in and out with the crowd, and left. Since then, I've noticed less and less full-sized cameras at similar events, even weddings. I think it safe to say that perhaps YOU DO'T KNOW WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S DREAM CAMERA IS, so your opinions are just that- opinions. 

 

 

You would still want a low profile camera in your arsenal, but the current crop of cameras come with drastic limitations. 

 

 

 

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Are there some limitations? Sure. Are they drastic? Heck no, or else we wouldn't be using them, and looking for new ones to use as well! The workflow is different from my ENG days, that's for sure. But its not harder, just different. And I've been much happier with the picture quality, and have no intention of going back anytime soon.

 

It's only a good trade off if the image delivers above their pay grade. The only people I know shooting RAW for documentary have million dollar budgets, and dedicated techs to deal with the headaches. 

 

Ok, we agree! That's why I'm not looking at RAW cameras! Fact of the matter is, not everyone shooting with these hybrids are strictly using them for film making. Remember the DVX100? That camera was a smash hit for both film makers and documentarians. There's often more than one camp of users for a particular product, but here one side of this group is looking down on the other and saying this equipment isn't for us. Which, quite frankly, is weird. 

 

As for the GH3, flipping through on screen menus and an inability to control what you want in an instant is something you get used to but it's not an ideal.

Good thing I don't really find myself flipping through menus, then! I don't own a GH3, but on the GH2 I have shortcuts assigned to the function buttons, and manual aperture control on the lens. Only buttons I need to press is to change ISO, which really doesn't change much once the session begins. But sure, continue to tell me what works and what doesn't for me.   :)

 

The lack of a real archiving system is not an ideal. You mentioned the GH3 for single system audio, but are you really going to pretend the GH3 is set up to record pro level audio? It takes great reference and backup sound though.

The GH2's preamp shared the same specs and noise floor as the HMC-150. There have been some pretty interesting tests on that. They likely just used the same chip for mass-production, which means- yes, the GH2's audio is actually quite good. But you wouldn't know that, because most people just assume it isn't and don't bother trying it.
The problem is that there wasn't a way to monitor it, so even if the preamp quality and noise range is good, I wouldn't trust it for a production. That's why I generally have dual system audio. But if the GH3's is even close to the same specs, and offers a way to monitor on the body- yes, why not? 

 

Guilty admission: One of my first DSLR gigs was recording an interview for a talkshow on network television. There was a problem with my recorder, but Magic Lantern had just come out with audio monitoring for Canon DSLRs. In a pinch, I hooked it up and went with it. I turned the camera's preamps down to zero, and fed as hot of a pre-amplified audio into the camera as I could (using sennheiser wireless lav system and adjusting the AF out level) so it was just under red-lining and peaking, that way I could avoid the camera's weak amp as much as possible. I just hoped for the best. In-camera audio from a Canon DSLR (which has admittedly the lowest quality preamps of any video-enabled camera I've ever seen). I was really nervous it would come out like garbage. But you know what? It didn't. They accepted and aired the clip. 
Since that moment, I've been very skeptical about those who say what you can and can't do- what's good enough and what isn't. A lot of people like to be snobs about things they haven't actually tried doing. You just assume the audio can't be good enough because logically any small camera without XLR inputs MUST be subpar, right??
::rolls eyes::

 

As for logging, you should be logging real time. Otherwise you're not logging. That's what logging is. It's not simply finding in/out points, or  organizing wide shots from close ups. 

 

What I don't miss, is running the tape through a firewire deck and waiting for it to transfer in real time. Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to that as logging. My mistake. Either way, a DSLR workflow in post is FAR simpler than those days, but we didn't complain about the tedious steps back then- why start now? How spoiled are we?

 

 

Indeed, it could be much easier. With FCP X. Just about every workflow you can think of is possible. And if your system is too old or too weak, you can transcode in the background (either as proxies or ProRes/lite/HQ/4444), you can then relink to original media for top quality renders (one click). Or you stay native during editing and export a high quality ProRes master. 

 

Sorry- I didn't mean to start an NLE debate. Its just that I've never needed to transcode anything to anything on this job, and I've been doing it since before DV tapes were standard. That's something I regularly hear my colleagues working with FCP 7 complaining about, and it was an unfair assumption that everyone needs to transcode as part of their workflow. If people like FCPX and don't find that they need to perform extra steps, power to them! I'm a big fan of being platform agnostic- whatever works for you, go with it! 
If you find that you prefer to use a different camera because the footage out of your camera doesn't play nicely with your NLE, than I might consider switching to a more friendly NLE without such limitations. Otherwise, the more the merrier!

 

I think the problem is getting the message through that an 8 bit 4.2.0 camera just cannot compete with 12 bit RAW and yet weirdly there are those who say not only that it can but that it is better. You either have to think those people are a bit thick or fanboys.
The best you can say about it is that if you work with the image by exposing and lighting correctly you could end up with an end product that can look as good for the end user. But so many times now fanboy arguments muddy the water.

I hear you. I don't see many people saying the 8 bit 4:2:0 is BETTER- rather, I see people saying the RAW workflow isn't worth the extra effort. I think everyone agrees that if everything else was the same, 12 bit RAW has more color information and lattitude, I mean its just simple mathematics. But like that guy on the previous page who is the producer of a Discovery TV show, sometimes it isn't worth all that effort and work in post to get something that arguably may not look any different to the audience at the end of the day.

[rommex]

Andrew,

 

Thanks for the review. I'm curious about Canon 50D -- I remember you took some interest in ML implementation on that camera.

 

Some time ago I made a brief comparison in terms of DR between BMCC and Canon 50D (it was published at ML forum), and my wild guess was that 50D is 1-1.5 stop behind BMCC in terms of DR.

 

So what do you think of 50D? Don't you think it would be a more appropriate choice over 7D? Thanks for your opinion in advance!

 

PLEASE PLEASE notice this post buried in fan-boys' nice fights ))

[thedest]

I totally agree with this, Dtest and Andrew completely overstated my comments, I was not saying we have to create a movie and get actors, sets and entertainment, popcorn or whatever else...thats typical of forums, people misread and misunderstand one another all the time, then they post over the top reactions.

Like it or not, to a large degree image content is whats being posted here to show dynamic range, highlight rolloff smooth gradation of midtones and whatever else.

So these are content and image tests to a large degree, if you want to make it technical, then make it technical and scientific, otherwise people will judge the camera on the image (as I did) when I said thedtest's video looked totally boring, he also said the GH3 could never produce images like these.

But to my eye the video Sofoly Wedding Collection filmed on the GH3 looks far better, nice rolloff, the skintones are nice, lighting great, and lots of favorable comments... (and I'll bet if there was a blindfold test...most would pick the Wedding Collection)....so I rest my case.

If you are going to post images and say how great they look or great the camera is...then those images should look great...to say (in so many words) that images are simply tests and content does not really matter is contradictory, if thats the case then why not simply post a scientific test!

 

I think you're in the wrong forum. We are talking about technical data. If you want to see pretty stuff, go to another place.

 

The video posted from the GH3 was shot in a place with controlled lighting and had really low contrast. An iphone video could handle that situation. If you can be fooled by pretty girls doing a making of in a pretty place, you shouldnt be looking for technical data.

 

My video shows:

 

1. Landscape shot to evaluate the amount of detal the camera renders

2. Focus pull @ 150mm (50mm f1.4 lens) to show how easy it is to focus with the BMPCC

3. Panning shot in a brick wall to see artifacts

4. A lot of high contrast scenes, where most 8-bit cameras would start to struggle, and that includes the GH3, with no reflectors or lights to help

5. Before/After grading - without creating a "look". Real life colors/contrast

 

Most people can be fooled by pretty images made in controlled environments. Watch the zacuto shootouts and you will understand that. But thats not a forum for the average person. Thats a forum for enthusiasts, and we are not fools.

 

And how do you guys dare to complain about the test Andrew made? He does some of the best real life tests on the internet. I really apreciate test charts, but Andrews tests are more applicable. They give us a realistic difference between the cameras. He shares that without charging you and you have the guts to complain? Please...

[D.L. Watson]

I think you're in the wrong forum. We are talking about technical data. If you want to see pretty stuff, go to another place.

 

The video posted from the GH3 was shot in a place with controlled lighting and had really low contrast. An iphone video could handle that situation. If you can be fooled by pretty girls doing a making of in a pretty place, you shouldnt be looking for technical data.

 

My video shows:

 

1. Landscape shot to evaluate the amount of detal the camera renders

2. Focus pull @ 150mm (50mm f1.4 lens) to show how easy it is to focus with the BMPCC

3. Panning shot in a brick wall to see artifacts

4. A lot of high contrast scenes, where most 8-bit cameras would start to struggle, and that includes the GH3, with no reflectors or lights to help

 

Most people can be fooled by pretty images made in controlled environments. Watch the zacuto shootouts and you will understand that. But thats not a forum for the average person. Thats a forum for enthusiasts, and we are not fools.

 

And how do you guys dare to complain about the test Andrew made? He does some of the best real life tests on the internet. I really apreciate test charts, but Andrews tests are more applicable. They give us a realistic difference between the cameras. He shares that without charging you and you have the guts to complain? Please...

 

I could be wrong, but no one here is arguing Andrews tests. And just because someone shares their test freely doesn't mean that a person shouldn't 'dare' offer an alternative look. 

 

And shouldn't you always work in a controlled environment? That is the purpose of having a crew, is it not?

[thedest]

I could be wrong, but no one here is arguing Andrews tests. And just because someone shares their test freely doesn't mean that a person shouldn't 'dare' offer an alternative look. 

 

And shouldn't you always work in a controlled environment? That is the purpose of having a crew, is it not?

 

Yes they are. They are saying that he should work with charts or start doing only artistic videos. They say his tests are too in between.

 

Life would be perfect if you could always have a controlled environment, but unless you are James Cameron, you wont have that. We have lots of amateur shooters (like me). Actually, most of us are hobbyists. We dont work with lights and reflectors. We shoot trips, family stuff etc. When I go to the beach with my girlfriend I dont go with lights and reflectors in my back. Journalists dont shoot in controlled environments. Most of us dont have a crew. And please, if you have a crew, why are you shooting with a GH3? If you want to go pro, you should use a real pro camera.

[D.L. Watson]

Yes they are. They are saying that he should work with charts or start doing only artistic videos. They say his tests are too in between.

 

Life would be perfect if you could always have a controlled environment, but unless you are James Cameron, you wont have that. We have lots of amateur shooters (like me). Actually, most of us are hobbyists. We dont work with lights and reflectors. We shoot trips, family stuff etc. When I go to the beach with my girlfriend I dont go with lights and reflectors in my back. Journalists dont shoot in controlled environments. Most of us dont have a crew. And please, if you have a crew, why are you shooting with a GH3? If you want to go pro, you should use a real pro camera.

 

I understand more now what you are saying now. I agree, I don't care much about charts. And I totally understand that one doesn't always have reflectors and lights. And yes, Journalist do not shoot in controlled environments, but usually, journalists wont shoot with at least a portable light kit or some-kind of low-light solution.

I shoot with a crew of 8 for our show and we shoot with Canon 7D and 5D Mark II. I shoot with a GH3 because I find it superior to the canon cameras in many ways. We may shoot our fourth season with GH3 because according to myself and our colorist, it yields so much more information in the shadows we can work with. 

My shorts are just my own personal hobby thing. I'm totally indie with what I do, and for the price and features, the GH3 is a pro camera - but I still try and use lighting to enhance the image. You don't have to be James Cameron to set up three point lighting. James Cameron would rather just create the light digitally in a computer. :P

 

But again, I get your point and agree that Andrew's test is perfectly fine - but that is my opinion. If someone else likes charts, that's their preference and opinion and I'm sure someone will do a chart test to satisfy them. But considering this is an open forum, it's well within their rights to state their opinion - just as Andrew has with his blogs.