Info about camera price range with those characteristics

[Dan Wake]

Hi, I'm still shooting with my old Canon 7D, and I'm looking for a new buy.

Does exist a camera with those features under 1k euros?

feature list: the camera don't overheat; at least "apsc size" sensor; the video is stabilized, zero colored moiré effect; compatible with vintage lenses; having a good codec able to recover darker areas in post producion (good for color grading).

 

which is it the price for such a camera?

thx for your attention 

[webrunner5]

I think a lot depends what lenses you have. If you have a bunch of decent Canon EF, EF-S lenses I guess you just about have to go Canon body. Could buy a Canon RS or sell a lens or two and get the original Canon R. R is not stabilized with IBIS, just electronic, but it seems to get the job done. 

I guess Canon has just come out with some APSC cameras, but I don't know much about them. The 7 and the 10.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, Dan Wake said:

feature list: the camera don't overheat; at least "apsc size" sensor; the video is stabilized, zero colored moiré effect; compatible with vintage lenses; having a good codec able to recover darker areas in post producion (good for color grading).

If you included MFT sized sensors (which are really only barely smaller than APS-C) then this question is easy to answer:

Secondhand Panasonic GH5 / G9! (you might even include the Panasonic G85 if you a "good" 8bit codec you feel is sufficient, as you'd still find it to be better than your 70D codec. But of course nowhere at the level of the GH5 / G9 10bit codec)

Otherwise, you're completely out of luck!

If you're going to ignore MFT, but want a camera which won't overheat, with IBIS & 10bit then you'll have to spend more to go with:

Panasonic S5 or Fujifilm X-T4 (or say the X-S10 which is sub  US$1K, but is 8bit 422 but you could pair it with an external recorder to get 10bit 422)

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I guess Canon has just come out with some APSC cameras, but I don't know much about them. The 7 and the 10.

Only the Canon R10 is with their budget, but both the R7 and R10 overheat. (although it seems maybe they're harder to overheat than some other Canons in the past, but they still overheat! BTW, with the Fujifilm X-T4 you might get overheating issues with the X-T4 when recording 4K 60fps which you'll need to work around, but if you're doing 4K 30fps then the X-T4 will never overheat on you. The Panasonic S5 though is rock solid for recording at any resolution/framerate)

[FHDcrew]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

If you included MFT sized sensors (which are really only barely smaller than APS-C) then this question is easy to answer:

Secondhand Panasonic GH5 / G9! (you might even include the Panasonic G85 if you a "good" 8bit codec you feel is sufficient, as you'd still find it to be better than your 70D codec. But of course nowhere at the level of the GH5 / G9 10bit codec)

Otherwise, you're completely out of luck!

If you're going to ignore MFT, but want a camera which won't overheat, with IBIS & 10bit then you'll have to spend more to go with:

Panasonic S5 or Fujifilm X-T4 (or say the X-S10 which is sub  US$1K, but is 8bit 422 but you could pair it with an external recorder to get 10bit 422)

 

I will play devils advocate here and suggest what no one suggests. 
 

Buy a used Nikon Z6. Then buy a Ninja V. If you only need 1080p get an older, cheap Atomos recorder. Atomos Ninja Star is quite cheap and tiny, and you could also go with a ninja 2.  These all go less than $300 on the used market. Bam. No overheating, stabilized, excellent codec, great DR, very respectable video autofocus. Downfall is to get the nice, high dynamic range you have to use an external recorder at all times. So MAKE SURE you either like working with external recorders, or, as is my case, am begrudgingly willing to put up with them for the sake of the better image. 
 

It’s not under $1000, though can be quite cheap  

https://www.adorama.com/us1543931.html

 

https://www.adorama.com/us1549069.html

[IronFilm]

3 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

Downfall is to get the nice, high dynamic range you have to use an external recorder at all times.

The other downside is that the Ninja Star is only 1080, so you'd need to use a bigger/heavier/expensive recorder to get 4K. 

But then again @Dan Wake didn't mention wanting 4K??

[FHDcrew]

Exactly, and you also lose any slow motion with the ninja star. But with the correct settings the camera can send a 6k>1080p oversampled image, instead of the stock pixel binned 1080p readout. So the 1080p is nice and detailed, like a C100. I shoot in this mode so often, it’s perfect especially for online use. Even looks good on a 4k monitor. So I don’t think the lack of 4k is a huge issue. The difference is there, but since the 1080 is oversampled, it’s only a small difference. Now why does this setup work for me?  I always deliver to 1080p, I’m not one to fuss over detail, and this 1080p mode already has very nice detail. I rarely use slow motion as well, so the ninja star “solved” my problem with the camera. The problem was the heavy weight with the Ninja V, along with the poor battery life. Ninja Star is light and lasts forever off a small NPF550 battery. Ninja V needs multiple larger NPF750 batteries to have good battery life, and so the weight really adds up. 
 

I think a big reason many say 4k looks so much better than 1080 is because most cameras just don’t do a good job actually resolving 1080p. Most cameras just line skip or pixel bin in the 1080 mode, so you aren’t getting true 1080p. Recording Oversampled 1080 directly is a severely underrated workflow in my opinion. 

[hyalinejim]

3 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Oversampled 1080 directly is a severely underrated workflow in my opinion.

There are at least two other users here, @kye and I, who agree with you.

[FHDcrew]

I know, it’s just insanely convenient. And scales right up to 4k looking great. 

[kye]

10 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

I think a big reason many say 4k looks so much better than 1080 is because most cameras just don’t do a good job actually resolving 1080p. Most cameras just line skip or pixel bin in the 1080 mode, so you aren’t getting true 1080p. Recording Oversampled 1080 directly is a severely underrated workflow in my opinion. 

The think the other reason is that YT in 4K is far superior to YT in 1080p, but what people don't realise is that it has nothing to do with the resolution and is simply a factor of the bitrate instead.

Mix 1080p footage with 4K on a 4K timeline and upload to YT in 4K and it's really quite difficult to be able to spot which clips are which resolution.

[FHDcrew]

Yeah, agreed @kye  

Do you think the same holds true when viewing an uncompressed, high quality local export from an NLE?  Comparing 4k and downrezzed 1080?

[kye]

18 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

Yeah, agreed @kye  

Do you think the same holds true when viewing an uncompressed, high quality local export from an NLE?  Comparing 4k and downrezzed 1080?

The big fat answer is... it depends.

One of the most significant factors is sharpening.  All the A/B tests that people do leave the 1080p as-is and don't sharpen it to match the extra perceived sharpness of the higher resolution clip.  I highly highly highly encourage everyone to do this comparison for themselves so they understand what it actually happening.

Now, a better question is, can anyone tell when it's not a comparison and it's just what your film is shot on?  I'd say no, considering that the lust for 4K cameras was quickly followed by a lust for diffusion filters to soften the "digital" look they created.

.....and the best question is, does it matter to someone who is just watching and enjoying your content?  To this I think the answer is quite obviously, no.

Of course, the above is a "all else being equal" type of discussion, but all else isn't equal.  When you're shooting or editing 1080p then you potentially have less hassles on-set with changing of memory cards, overheating of cameras, etc, meaning you can use the time you have to get one more take of a performance, or work in a way that's less interrupted.  In post it either means you can use a cheaper editing setup or a highly spec'd setup will edit in a snappier way, making the tools nicer to use and you will literally create a better edit, and can have more layers of colour grading and more trackers etc so you can colour a bit nicer too.
Not having to store such large files (camera media or SSD editing etc) means you can have more money to put into your film, which if you spend it on adding haze or renting a better lighting package or nicer production design will absolutely add to the quality of your output.

There's no way in hell that the difference between appropriately sharpened 1080p and 4K can make anything like the improvement that will be made if you:

• get more/better takes
• have better production design
• make a nicer edit with nicer colour grading

Resolution is hugely important if all you do is pixel-pee, but if you're interested in creativity it is a very low priority in making an enjoyable end product.

(Standard disclaimer - resolution can matter more if your clients care about the spec, if you're doing VFX work like zoom in post by more than 40%, green screening, compositing, doing VR or AR, etc)

[FHDcrew]

I completely agree with everything you mention. And so many things are much more noticeable than the resolution. Your choice of lens, the dynamic range, color, lighting conditions, etc. I think are much more noticeable. 
 

That’s why any day of the week I prefer the oversampled 1080p footage from my Z6 recorded to the Atomos Ninja Star. It to me looks much better than the internal 8 bit 4k files; the extra dynamic range and smooth highlight rolloff are noticeable in nearly any situation, and matter much more than resolution. 

[webrunner5]

Some cameras benefit for using an external recorder some don't. There have been tons of tests when the Canon C100 came out using a Ninja and honestly it was a waste of time and effort. It might have made you look more pro with it hanging off the handle but that was about all it did.

Canon just had some kind of magic Codec that on paper should have just sucked.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Some cameras benefit for using an external recorder some don't. There have been tons of tests when the Canon C100 came out using a Ninja and honestly it was a waste of time and effort. It might have made you look more pro with it hanging off the handle but that was about all it did.

That's because the C100 still output 8bit over HDMI! (might have been 422, but could have still been 420, I forget)

Not much surprise that the HDMI recording from the C100 wasn't greatly better. 

[webrunner5]

Internal Recording

Bit Depth8-bit

Colour Space4:2:0

Output Recording

Bit Depth8-bit

Colour Space4:2:2

[webrunner5]

Trouble is there is 1080p and there is 1080p. The Canon C100 1080p had great colors and really good sharpness for the time and a tiny codec. It was one of the few cameras you could just set it to Wide DR and you were good to go. I think we have complicated our lives with all these LuTs and so on.

One battery, on small SD card and you were good and off to the races. Smartphone connivence for a Cine Camera back in the day 8 bit or not.

[webrunner5]

Also you make 8bit sound dirty. What about a Canon 1DC. Might be one of the best 4k cameras ever made in the right hands. A camera with a Huge codec and the C100 with a tiny codec and they were still both great at what they did, Maybe Canon is a genius at Codecs.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Smartphone connivence for a Cine Camera back in the day

ha! An apt analogy 🙂

 

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Maybe Canon is a genius at Codecs.

Nah, not really, and if so.... only for their cine cameras!

[FHDcrew]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

ha! An apt analogy 🙂

 

Nah, not really, and if so.... only for their cine cameras!

It definitely wasn’t for 99% of canon cameras. For years their h264 compression was so trash, people thought the line skipping was what made everything in the canon rebel/5d cameras look out of focus. Then magic lantern raw came and proved us wrong. They simply had awful codec compression. Who knows…it might’ve been deliberate!