If I could only have ONE CAMERA

[zlfan]

personally, i think that 5d3ml makes amateurs on the same ground as hollywood pro dps, even they use alexa ev, f35, varicam 35, etc. 10 years ago, this was the highest standard in videography in terms of cameras. nowadays, there is not much revolution in the camera world. maybe more convenience, cheaper and easier to operate, more portable, something like this. this is why tech savvy people are not interested in camera talk like they were 10 or 15 years ago.

to me, now the bottle neck is how to generate content, how to fully utilize my video cams, just like 10 years ago, i had the same feeling when i saw my collections of still cameras and mf lenses. i kind of losing the interest to keep update with the latest video cams and still cams of course. 

[zlfan]

7 minutes ago, kye said:

Do you think that any cinematographer in their right-mind would use a 5D with a hacked firmware on a shoot that's $100,000 a day?

Hollywood gets nervous if the camera is anything except an Alexa.  If they get nervous about using RED, then you're dreaming that they'd even contemplate using a hacked firmware for anything.

You talk as if you're familiar with the industry, but.....

yeh, i understand your point. this is why hollywood pros only use several top brands and never explore (there are exceptions, like shane hulburts). 

my point is, an amateur who wants to get into the video world, may start an indie short film with 5d3ml, and the camera limitation is almost gone, even facing the big boys like f35 and alexa ev. this is thrilling, even now, not to say in 2015. 

[kye]

29 minutes ago, zlfan said:

yeh, i understand your point. this is why hollywood pros only use several top brands and never explore (there are exceptions, like shane hulburts). 

my point is, an amateur who wants to get into the video world, may start an indie short film with 5d3ml, and the camera limitation is almost gone, even facing the big boys like f35 and alexa ev. this is thrilling, even now, not to say in 2015. 

The image from the 5D3 and ML is simply incredible.  @mercer swears by it and the images speak for themselves, there is an organic magic to them that is seldom seen regardless of price or form-factor.  Apparently it's pretty stable too, no crashes etc.

The 5D camera body is excellent but is ageing, and the sensor isn't the best in terms of modern specs, but prices are also very reasonable due to these things.  EF glass is also plentiful, cheap, and optically excellent.  The lack of stabilisation and the lower DR really suggest that it's a good camera for controlled conditions where DR and lighting ratios are within a manageable range.  

If you shoot controlled scenes then the 5D with ML certainly would be a good choice for having one camera.  

[KnightsFan]

As someone who shot exclusively on a 5D3 with magic lantern for ~1.5 years during which I was shooting every week, it is far inferior to most of today's prosumer offerings in every way, including plain image quality.

If it's what you have, then yes, a 5D3 with ML produces beautiful images and it will continue to do so. However there is no situation in which I would recommend it as a purchase.

[KnightsFan]

2 hours ago, zlfan said:

hollywood pros use large format as a differentiator. if they really care so much about the sensor size, in 2015, 5d3ml 1080p full frame was already mature, yet many video pros bashed 5d3ml as unstable, amateur. yet, once alexa showed its lf and alexa65, the american cinematographer journal started to publish a series articles on how wonderful large format is.  

Trends come and go. Vista vision film peaked and declined before digital was invented, and now as a size format it's returning. Anamorphic comes and goes and comes back. It's possible that 10 years from now we'll have another super 16 craze, and Arri will build an Alexa with a tiny sensor to fit that need.

[QuickHitRecord]

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

As someone who shot exclusively on a 5D3 with magic lantern for ~1.5 years during which I was shooting every week, it is far inferior to most of today's prosumer offerings in every way, including plain image quality.

If it's what you have, then yes, a 5D3 with ML produces beautiful images and it will continue to do so. However there is no situation in which I would recommend it as a purchase.

I have to agree with this. 5Diii raw was revolutionary at the time but it does not stack up against modern cameras. I did a comparison about a year ago with my current cameras and it displayed so much striated and blocky magenta noise in the shadows that I can't imagine reaching for it for video ever again. I still takes wonderful photos though.

Something I've been pondering lately is usability. I just wrapped a fast-paced short film shoot at a local bar using two C70s and a set of Sirui Jupiter anamorphics. I chose those cameras despite owning two older Reds. The C70s are not cameras that have much appeal to the cinema purist side of me, but I'm glad that I did choose them because I don't think we would have made it through our shot list if I'd been using a camera that was even slightly slower. I still think that my ancient R1MX produces an image that just puts me in a light trance and pulls me into the film more than any other digital camera that I know of. But it's hard to imagine a film that would be the right fit for that camera, so I think that it's days with me may be numbered.

So, yeah, unless I was working with larger crews and bigger budgets, I guess my answer to the original question would be the Canon C70. It may be the Honda Civic of cinema cameras, but it will get you where you need to go, without adding additional stress.

[kye]

I suspect it differs by what you're trying to achieve.

To me, the images have an effortless organic and analog quality to them, very much like the early Alexa models, without doing much grading - it's how the image is to begin with.  You can get into that ballpark with the modern mirrorless cameras, but it takes a lot of work in post, and I'm not sure you'd get there completely.

When I look at the test images from CineD and Slashcam all these modern cameras all look pretty similar, and even the ones that don't match the rest seem to be different in ways that are relatively easy to overcome in post.  However, I've graded images from quite a few of these modern cameras and they all start out looking modern but regardless of what I tried (and I'm a better colourist than most folks around here) I couldn't get them to have any of that early organic magic that the OG BMPCC, Digital Bolex, 5D+ML, and the high-end 2K-3K cinema cameras all had.

Maybe if you have FilmConvert or Dehancer and you really know what you're doing you can get them there, but I don't think people want that anymore.  The look of high-end 2K workflows and of S35mm just isn't desirable to people anymore.

I've said this before, but whenever I go to the cinema I get a massive confirmation that almost all the online camera discussions are about video and not cinema.  Certainly almost all the images I see from 'camera people' look like they were shot with the worlds best interchangeable lens high-bitrate video camera, and look almost nothing like cinema.  Even when people don't want something that looks super-digital, they apply a heavy film-look that makes things vintage.  

There was a high-end look that existed between 1985 and 2019, but I seem to be one of the last few outside the industry who want this look.

[eatstoomuchjam]

4 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

So, yeah, unless I was working with larger crews and bigger budgets, I guess my answer to the original question would be the Canon C70. It may be the Honda Civic of cinema cameras, but it will get you where you need to go, without adding additional stress.

Ha!  I never thought of it as a Civic, but that's great.  I'm going to remember that.

I recently got a Komodo-X and even though any number of specs from the K-X are better on paper than the C70, I fully intend to keep using my C70 for a lot of stuff.  Having built-in ND filters and a ton of buttons to assign things to and an articulating internal screen, the C70 is just faster to use.  Plus the DR is great and the image looks nice SOOC.

I kind of think of it as a camera used by people who want to get it done.  It's not flashy - and when you show up on set and tell people you're using a C70, nobody's all excited...  but when you show the results, people are happy with them.

[eatstoomuchjam]

11 hours ago, zlfan said:

saying 135 full frame is not significant better than aps-c, whereas, a lot of still photog will be unhappy about this. even in video world, there is difference. i remember that i watched many 5d2 videos on vimeo in 2008-2010, and 7d videos. somehow, 5d2 just feels better than 7d. you have to watch many to get the feeling. 

Keep in mind that in 2009 (when the 7d was released), the number of consumer lenses designed for APS-C was even less than now - and there weren't a ton of people adapting vintage Cooke lenses to the 7d.  Plus, 15 years ago, sensor technology was not what it is now.  

 

11 hours ago, zlfan said:

lens compatibility is a valid point here. but they are exceptions, like sigma 18-35 f1.8, canon efs 17-55 f2.8, etc.

Personally, I don't care a lot for Sigma lenses.  Every time I put one on my camera, I feel like I'm putting on something designed by a robot - all technical perfection, no soul.  But yes, the 18-35 is quite popular.  The EF-S 17-55/2.8 is one of the standout lenses for Canon APS-C, but it's one of only a small number.  Fast primes?  Not many.  I HAVE considered picking up the 18-135 USM for a walkaround lens for C70 + Komodo-X since it's decent enough quality and a big zoom range, but while I'd use that for personal stuff, I'd be really unlikely to take it out of the bag when on set.

 

11 hours ago, zlfan said:

in the still world, there are more choices on sensors in addition to sensor size, like ccd vs cmos, kodak vs canikon, etc. even canon 1 series vs lower tiers. in the video world, such differences are not there. to my opinion, video world has fewer options in terms of sensor. video world spends a lot of time on codec, whereas, still world cares about only uncompressed raw, uncompressed jpeg, tiff, etc.

probably, the major difference that the video world cares that the still world does not pay any attention is the rolling shutter. 

Who is making CCD in the still world nowadays?  The sensor options in the still world are about the same as in the video world at this point.  Still world has Foveon, but video world has the 17:9 sensors included in many cinema cameras - and most mirrorless cameras (excepting GR1 and Hasselblad medium format) support a video mode which effectively means that most modern still camera sensors are also video sensors...  but most dedicated cinema cameras don't feature a still photo mode.

10 hours ago, zlfan said:

personally, i think that 5d3ml makes amateurs on the same ground as hollywood pro dps, even they use alexa ev, f35, varicam 35, etc. 10 years ago, this was the highest standard in videography in terms of cameras. nowadays, there is not much revolution in the camera world. maybe more convenience, cheaper and easier to operate, more portable, something like this. this is why tech savvy people are not interested in camera talk like they were 10 or 15 years ago.

The main thing to differentiate a pro DP from an amateur, IMO, is knowing how to light.  Choice of cameras like the Alexa tends to be due to a feature set designed for a large crew, reliability, and having the most flexible image to hand off to professional colorists who also spend 80%+ of their time working on footage from the Alexa.  This is one of the reasons that a lot of stuff was still being shot on 2.8k Alexa when RED had 4, 5, 6, and 8k sensors available in their cameras. 

As people here have repeatedly pointed out, a lot of the best DP's aren't making choices for the sharpest possible image - if you want the image to look a little soft, using a Speed Panchro on a 2.8k sensor to upsize to 4k is going to get you there.  Will any Internet camera/lens reviewer give a glowing review to that combo?  Doubtful.  Will an audience watching the film walk out talking about how beautiful the film was?  Yup.

As a perfect example, I just watched Dune 2 last night since it's finally free on Max.  Lots of people have been talking about how beautiful it was.  As I watched, some of the scenes were really pretty sharp-looking and they were the ones that seemed mostly CG.  When humans were on screen, I repeatedly noticed how unsharp the images were.  Googled a bit and found this bit from the DP

> "Texturizing the image was the name of the game. The larger ALEXA sensors are so extraordinary that I felt we needed to dirty the image up a bit."

Shot on large format sensors, but too much perfection/sharpness felt soulless.

Also:

> We had a 57 mm LOOK lens with Petzval glass where you can dial in your effect with a third lens ring

Dude shot parts of Dune 2 with a $400 Lomography lens.

https://shop.lomography.com/us/new-petzval-55-f-1-7-mkii-art-lens

 

And:

> Ultimately Fraser and his team decided to use spherical optics and he worked with a diverse range from ARRI Rental including re-housed 1980s Moviecams and re-housed Soviet-era glass provided by IronGlass, along with some lenses from his collection.

Dude shot parts of Dune 2 with Helios 44-2 and Jupiter-9 and lenses like that.  Can't afford the IronGlass rehoused versions?  Go buy 'em for like $200-300 on ebay.

[KnightsFan]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I suspect it differs by what you're trying to achieve.

To me, the images have an effortless organic and analog quality to them, very much like the early Alexa models, without doing much grading - it's how the image is to begin with.  You can get into that ballpark with the modern mirrorless cameras, but it takes a lot of work in post, and I'm not sure you'd get there completely.

Have you used 5D3 ML? I disagree completely. I find the color to be average, the noise and particularly the chroma noise is particularly ugly, and the dynamic range is really bad. Complete opposite of the Alexa classic. The one thing it has is no compression artifacts, which at the time was unique in the consumer space with a large sensor.

[mercer]

Somebody should tell Pete Ohs, who is getting his films in major film festivals and distributed, that the 5D3 with ML Raw is outdated.

Obviously, anyone who has read my posts here over the past 7 years would guess that MY choice would be the 5D3/ML Raw. I have used a handful of "modern" cameras since then and none of them has held up against it. I've been using the Sigma FP for the past year, hoping it would be the upgrade I thought I needed, but it just isn't. Weirdly I find the 8bit 4K mode on the FP to be one of the more interesting features. That said, it's actually a fine camera and if I hadn't had the 5D3, I probably would be more than happy with it. As is, it's just like most other higher resolution cameras... it looks sharper and tricks your eye that the image is better because it looks sharper. If anyone is looking to buy an FP, I am looking to sell mine.

Currently, I am in the possession of an S5iiX and it's fine, but it lacks the overall IQ that just drips from the 5Diii. Frankly I find the image kinda boring. But the camera itself is awesome and an absolute workhorse. I love the ProRes workflow.

[KnightsFan]

35 minutes ago, mercer said:

Somebody should tell Pete Ohs, who is getting his films in major film festivals and distributed, that the 5D3 with ML Raw is outdated.

People use iphones and super 8 film cameras and get their work in festivals. Doesn't mean I'd recommend those as general purpose cameras either. And I'm also not saying that anyone using ML should switch anything up. I've personally not found the image to be particularly better than any modern cameras, and the on-set workflow in particular is pretty bad on sets with any size crew (the original post about ML was comparing it to Alexa's on professional shoots). Now certainly back in 2015, ML was amazing. At that time, I shot a bit with early BM cameras like the OG pocket, the 2.5k and later the Ursa 4k. And I was on shoots with Red Ones and Epics. So ML was truly an outlier as a large sensor, affordable camera with quality recording.

Btw I've seen lots of the images you've posted using ML @mercer and I love them.

[QuickHitRecord]

39 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Btw I've seen lots of the images you've posted using ML @mercer and I love them.

Yeah, @mercer's screen grabs look great. It's some of the best looking stuff that we've seen around these boards; there's nothing lacking there!

I continue to experiment with ML on the EOS-M. The temptation of using c-mount lenses in 1:1 crop is too great. That is a fun little camera and I am totally enamored with the look that I can easily achieve. Would I ever choose it for my own passion project? Absolutely. Someone else's passion project? Only if they understood the limitations and risks. That being said, for the right short or music video, I would totally pitch it as an option if the c-mount aesthetic could add something.

[mercer]

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

People use iphones and super 8 film cameras and get their work in festivals. Doesn't mean I'd recommend those as general purpose cameras either. And I'm also not saying that anyone using ML should switch anything up. I've personally not found the image to be particularly better than any modern cameras, and the on-set workflow in particular is pretty bad on sets with any size crew (the original post about ML was comparing it to Alexa's on professional shoots). Now certainly back in 2015, ML was amazing. At that time, I shot a bit with early BM cameras like the OG pocket, the 2.5k and later the Ursa 4k. And I was on shoots with Red Ones and Epics. So ML was truly an outlier as a large sensor, affordable camera with quality recording.

Btw I've seen lots of the images you've posted using ML @mercer and I love them.

Of course, people have different use cases and I haven't been following this thread too closely, but from the title, I thought it was a desert island choice... not if the desert island had a thriving film market. That said, you aren't necessarily wrong about the 5D3, although I have found it to have close to 12 stops of usable DR when you expose for the highlights. It's actually pretty insane how much information exists in the highlights on this camera. That said, it's definitely not a camera I would recommend to someone who was working on a production for pay. I believe Pete Ohs used the camera because that's what he owns, so it was probably a pragmatic choice more than anything else, but since he has had multiple films shot on the 5D3 and ML Raw over the past few years at SXSW, Sundance, Slamdance, etc... it should be proof enough that the image is more than good enough for narrative filmmaking. I use it because I love the image and the ergonomics and haven't found a better one for what I want to capture.

To change the subject slightly, I have been impressed with what these new, prosumer cams can do. Even the Sigma FP... which is more similar to the 5D3 and ML Raw than anything else... in a lot of ways... except it doesn't have the highlight retention that the Canon has. But between Blackmagic, Sony, Canon and Panasonic and even Fuji... there are so many options that it's pretty insane and the gap between them and an Alexa is narrowing.

But...

Someone posted in another thread a video of pretty young woman shot with the FF BM 6K camera that's currently on sale and I must say it looks gorgeous, but there really is something I am noticing.... all of these cameras look the same and it's this weird nod to YouTube "filmmakers" ... think about how weird that is... people are starting to consider what is considered cinematic by what videos on YouTube look like.

I have no interest in that. I'd rather shoot a film on a camcorder in night shot mode if I'm being honest.

[kye]

9 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Have you used 5D3 ML? I disagree completely. I find the color to be average, the noise and particularly the chroma noise is particularly ugly, and the dynamic range is really bad. Complete opposite of the Alexa classic. The one thing it has is no compression artifacts, which at the time was unique in the consumer space with a large sensor.

I've used it on my 700D and yeah, it's not winning any UI awards that's for sure.  Then again, I hear that the Sony menus give people nightmares so who knows.

But when it comes to the image, it's like I said, different people wanting different things.

All the professional colourists are taking the high-end Alexa footage and doing NR, softening / blurring, adding grain, and sometimes adding halation and diffusion - even on top of the vintage primes many movies were shot on.  

Then on the forums everyone is like "Dune looked AMAZING, I wish my films looked like that...  anyway, who wants a 16K camera with no noise at ISO 100,000 and sharper Sigma Art lenses?"

3 hours ago, mercer said:

Someone posted in another thread a video of pretty young woman shot with the FF BM 6K camera that's currently on sale and I must say it looks gorgeous, but there really is something I am noticing.... all of these cameras look the same and it's this weird nod to YouTube "filmmakers" ... think about how weird that is... people are starting to consider what is considered cinematic by what videos on YouTube look like.

Yeah.  People are even converting 24p movie clips to 4K 60p using AI and uploading those to YT.  I suppose that's in-keeping with our current phase of revisionist history 😂😂😂

[QuickHitRecord]

20 hours ago, mercer said:

I believe Pete Ohs used the camera because that's what he owns, so it was probably a pragmatic choice more than anything else, but since he has had multiple films shot on the 5D3 and ML Raw over the past few years at SXSW, Sundance, Slamdance, etc... it should be proof enough that the image is more than good enough for narrative filmmaking. I use it because I love the image and the ergonomics and haven't found a better one for what I want to capture.

Thanks for turning me on to this guy. I just listened to a great podcast with him and his crew on NFS. He embodies a filmmaking philosophy that I definitely strive for.

[mercer]

2 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

Thanks for turning me on to this guy. I just listened to a great podcast with him and his crew on NFS. He embodies a filmmaking philosophy that I definitely strive for.

He's been on Noam Kroll's podcast as well and he mentioned an ingenious thing he does when he slates a shot. He basically claps and then instead of calling it Take One, take two, etc... he uses the file name on his zoom recorder in place of scene/take name/numbers... if that makes sense 

[KnightsFan]

58 minutes ago, mercer said:

He's been on Noam Kroll's podcast as well and he mentioned an ingenious thing he does when he slates a shot. He basically claps and then instead of calling it Take One, take two, etc... he uses the file name on his zoom recorder in place of scene/take name/numbers... if that makes sense 

^ I do the same thing. We write the filename in the script notes so we know what it contains. And when I copy footage off cards, I rename all the files so that corresponding files always have the same name.

[QuickHitRecord]

On 5/22/2024 at 11:12 PM, QuickHitRecord said:

I have to agree with this. 5Diii raw was revolutionary at the time but it does not stack up against modern cameras. I did a comparison about a year ago with my current cameras and it displayed so much striated and blocky magenta noise in the shadows that I can't imagine reaching for it for video ever again. I still takes wonderful photos though.

I may have spoken too soon. I went back to play around with the image and it turns out that the noise is easily dealt with in MLV App. I think the 5Diii creates a more characterful and interesting image than the C70 (and maybe even the Scarlet-X). Even if the image was exactly the same, it's smaller than a cinema camera, comfortable in the hand, weather-sealed, shoots full frame 14bit raw video, won't overheat, won't attract as much attention, and can be easily replaced at a low cost if necessary. What other camera has those characteristics? The only thing it doesn't do is shoot 4K with full real-time preview. So maybe it still represents a pretty unique value proposition 12 years on!

[kye]

2 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

I may have spoken too soon. I went back to play around with the image and it turns out that the noise is easily dealt with in MLV App. I think the 5Diii creates a more characterful and interesting image than the C70 (and maybe even the Scarlet-X). Even if the image was exactly the same, it's smaller than a cinema camera, comfortable in the hand, weather-sealed, shoots full frame 14bit raw video, won't overheat, won't attract as much attention, and can be easily replaced at a low cost if necessary. What other camera has those characteristics? The only thing it doesn't do is shoot 4K with full real-time preview. So maybe it still represents a pretty unique value proposition 12 years on!

Good summary and thanks for re-evaluating.  People who are able to fact-check or re-evaluate their position, by keeping an open mind and updating their previous conclusions, are in my most respected category.

My impressions of the 5D with ML setup is that it stands in the current market like many other cameras: as having significant weak points but also significant strengths.  Rather than being an all-rounder like many other offerings, I feel it has a very strong image if that's the kind of look you're going for, but also strong negatives, like people have mentioned.

This is in contrast to most other cameras from that time that have aged significantly and are mostly negatives compared with the current crop.

This setup is definitely not for everyone, but neither is any other camera and it's up to each of us to match the strengths and weaknesses of each product against our own individual highest and lowest priorities.