SaintQuest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Interesting list! Curious why the Nikon 7100 was left out? Thanks. Cfreak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Vilhena Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Missed the FS700 with the 4k raw external recorder. Certainly would be in group 1, above RED MX maybe? Cfreak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 How about Nikon D800 with ext. recorder (Ninja or HyperDeck) ? Cfreak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Naylor Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I've shot virtually all of your Level cameras except the F5 and C500. I still think Epic color science was much to be desired. Range is great but skin tones are not there. If it was pure IQ/grade ability I'd put the F65 on top. 16 bit color / 8 k down sample is hard to beat. Just rarely used it because it's ergonomics stink and initially its work flow was cumbersome. I also think the F55 deserves a higher slot. If you shoot in 4k raw it delivers an incredibly gradeable image with global shutter and 16 bit color. 16 bit epecially with 4k cameras is a big deal as Epic tends to spread its butter thin so speak. The time I've wasted trying to get skin to look just right. I had a GH3 and ditched it for a 5d3 because I found its DR too limited as well as its noise threshold. Sure it's sharper but the image, fleshtones, general color are no match for 5d3 IMO. Eitherway, it's a cool list and definitely puts things in perspective when you see DSLR's knocking at the door of Level 1. maxotics, Cfreak and Julian 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GallaFilms Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What I really like about the list is that it is not a top 10 and its not a price oriented grouping. There were a couple cameras I was looking at and they appear in the same league which is nice. Its also interesting that consumer/prosumer camcorders don't really appear on the list. I'm assuming it is mostly do to the lack of interchangable lens and the small chip size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarCoreFilms Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I don't understand how the Red Dragon ranked so low. The dynamic range surpasses film for the first time natively, has new and improved color science, great highlight roll off, great low light, etc. I'd take Red Dragon over absolutely everything for the DR alone, considering that everything else about it is lovely as well. I'm an Alexa and BMCC fan, but that 16.5+ stops is amazing and opens up ability to shoot in natural lighting scenarios that are even too challenging for the Alexa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunleik Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Hi. Newb here, but still... A bit curious as to how you made up thi list. I took part in the CML/UWE camera-test where we tested most RAW cinema-cameras, including most on your list + Phantom Flex 4k, KineRAW, SineCam and then some. I have started to publish some complimentary results here. How did you come up with this ranking and what exactly does it mean? Best: Gunleik Groven --- My Blog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunleik Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Also curious as to what your thoughts on the DxO test would be. (This test focuses on all still cameras, including Phase One and stuff like the Nikon D800) Gunleik --- My Blog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> Interesting to see how these lists compare a year later. Resolution isn't everything- I would put the Alexa on top for overall image quality. They designed their sensor after learning from years of experience building film scanners. We used to argue about whether digital effects for audio would ever match or surpass analog gear. Finally a few years ago, even the most stalwart musician friend finally agreed digital matched analog with the Axe Fx: http://www.fractalaudio.com I just watched MiB II again and was blown away with some of the shots in terms of skin tone and color (Eastman EXR 100T 5248). Is it possible to convert my 5D3 (RAW) or FS700 (RAW) to look like that with something like FilmConvert (two cameras I use)? No, not yet, as I don't think anyone has accurately modeled the film process well enough yet to emulate what film does with light. Initial ADCs and DACs sounded harsh and brittle when CD's were first released (folks still dig records and tapes). Now digital audio is fantastic (and most folks listen to highly compressed audio on iPod/Phone/Droid or cheap computer speakers!). Digital cameras are still very much like early digital audio. Matching the pleasing look of film has not yet been achieved with digital; so far ARRI has gotten the closest, and FilmConvert has made a good start. Accurately modeling and simulating film with digital cameras will happen someday. Why bother? Because it looks better, especially for narrative (where unreality and dreaminess are helpful in storytelling). Dynamic range, resolution, lack of aliasing, and accurate color processing are all very important. The last piece of the puzzle is (optionally) being able to get highlights and skin tones etc. to look like film. etidona and odie 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> Interesting to see how these lists compare a year later. Resolution isn't everything- I would put the Alexa on top for overall image quality. They designed their sensor after learning from years of experience building film scanners. We used to argue about whether digital effects for audio would ever match or surpass analog gear. Finally a few years ago, even the most stalwart musician friend finally agreed digital matched analog with the Axe Fx: http://www.fractalaudio.com I just watched MiB II again and was blown away with some of the shots in terms of skin tone and color (Eastman EXR 100T 5248). Is it possible to convert my 5D3 (RAW) or FS700 (RAW) to look like that with something like FilmConvert (two cameras I use)? No, not yet, as I don't think anyone has accurately modeled the film process well enough yet to emulate what film does with light. Initial ADCs and DACs sounded harsh and brittle when CD's were first released (folks still dig records and tapes). Now digital audio is fantastic (and most folks listen to highly compressed audio on iPod/Phone/Droid or cheap computer speakers!). Digital cameras are still very much like early digital audio. Matching the pleasing look of film has not yet been achieved with digital; so far ARRI has gotten the closest, and FilmConvert has made a good start. Accurately modeling and simulating film with digital cameras will happen someday. Why bother? Because it looks better, especially for narrative (where unreality and dreaminess are helpful in storytelling). Dynamic range, resolution, lack of aliasing, and accurate color processing are all very important. The last piece of the puzzle is (optionally) being able to get highlights and skin tones etc. to look like film. +1 from my own personal experience(advertising) working with kodak film…alexa…dragon…5dm3raw nothing compares to the quality of kodak film…(excellent skin tones ..highlights..etc..and no worries for deliverables to client..35mm and super 16mm saves on post) arri alexa next.. dragon.. 5d m3raw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noone Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Now I am curious as to where the GX7 and A6000 slot in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest d5f8611fa423d0e628c016f9d5c93b47 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Now I am curious as to where the GX7 and A6000 slot in. The GX7 would be with or just above the GM1 (same image, more features). The A6000 would probably be just below the D5300/D5200 (similar but inferior image quality) or perhaps equal (easier to use than the Nikons). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Time for an update Andrew!!! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letchhausen Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Yes, and this time you need to go to http://www.logmar.dk/ and get one of those beta Super 8 cameras for $3500 and uh, put that one in the mix. Now that's it almost ready to ship it's gonna blow that Alexa away! Seriously though, I love film and am on the fence about either buying or renting a Bolex 16mm for an upcoming project even if my Pocket makes it to me in time since I'm interested in shooting with both as a sort of work flow/cost test. I thought Pro8mm's Anniversary Beaulieu in Candy Red at $2500 was....niche but a interesting stance of sorts. I've even thought about sending in my Canon 814 to those guys for the $495 rebuild/upgrade. But the idea of putting out a Super 8 camera in 2014 with a list of $5500 and offering the beta testing units for $3500 is....well, seems to me even beyond Impossible Project territory. Good for them though. When I first heard about I was even mildly interested but not at that price point. For that kind of money I could rig up a Black Magic camera with accessories and a nice lens...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 The GX7 would be with or just above the GM1 (same image, more features). The A6000 would probably be just below the D5300/D5200 (similar but inferior image quality) or perhaps equal (easier to use than the Nikons). From what I've seen I'm not that sure that the A6000 in terms of details is worse than the D5300. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 From what I've seen I'm not that sure that the A6000 in terms of details is worse than the D5300. No not in terms of detail, but moire, aliasing, low light and motion artefacts are all noticeably worse. sandro 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Blue Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Are u planning on doing an update of the ranking soon? thank you. 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.