Inferior ? Shooter

[fuzzynormal]

Disclaimer:  I'm an old.  Also, this rant is completely contextual to two concurrent projects I'm doing.  I'm gonna blow some steam here.

So, been making a no-budget passion project documentary with my wife and have found myself grabbing my (2017) EM10iii more than half the time to capture our 24p footage.  We have a FUJI XT5 --as well as our (also long in the tooth) GH5 that specs wise does a lot better, but here we are running around with a device that is technically inferior.  The issue is that it's not technically inferior by much when you get right down to it.  For what we're doing, the divide between 8bit video and 10bit video isn't such a big deal.  We're on manual lenses, and, honestly, the image from the EM10iii+our lenses is dang good. 

Paid $300 for this camera.  Seems hard to imagine a cheap cam would be what's used over more advanced gear, but we are certainly doing so.

Funny thing is, I can't rely on the XT5 (and it's admittedly gorgeous colors) because it overheats(!), and while I like the GH5 results, I don't like using the camera as much as I like handling the Oly.  Perhaps it's a mix of things.  Size, ergos, what we DON'T need from the feature set, knowing what'll ultimately work for our particular production, and a weird little feature of the Oly has (2x punch in) that the GH5 does not.

Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough and not really chasing new tech anymore? 

I'll testify without irony that we've achieved better footage with this little camera than another million dollar + doc film I'm working on which used an ARRI.  Why?  Because subjects in a doc don't really give a shit when it's a single unassuming shmo running around with a small modest camera like the EM10.  People DO give a shit when they're in front of a giant rigged out ARRI and a crew of 9 self-important shmos flitting around with their serious demeanors and a gaggle of mobile video-village gear in tow.  And people  in a doc behave correspondingly:  Not naturally.  They're performative.  I'm left editing a bunch of dry useless footage from the ARRI shoot.  Additionally not much actual quantity of footage because they were so damn immobile.  Lame.

That's a hill I'll die on regarding doc film making.  When filmmakers put their gear fetish above good content acquisition.  Sometimes that requires big sophisticated gear, sometimes not.  Gotta be honest with yourself about that.  Anyway...

Finally, the doc we're working on will be mastered in 1080.  If anyone can successfully convince me that's not good enough for a doc screener, I'll entertain the argument, but 1080 24p is fine to my eyes.

/rant.

[ac6000cw]

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

The issue is that it's not technically inferior by much when you get right down to it.  For what we're doing, the divide between 8bit video and 10bit video isn't such a big deal.  We're on manual lenses, and, honestly, the image from the EM10iii+our lenses is dang good. 

Capturing in 4k or 1080?

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough

I still have and occasionally use a GX80.

I recently had a serious clear-out of my most of my older cameras - G6, GX800, E-M1 ii, LX7, LX100 - but did hesitate over the LX7, to the point where I did some video test shots. In the end the amount of jaggies/aliasing and no 4k weighed more heavily than the small size and reasonably 'premium' feel, so it went...

[fuzzynormal]

41 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

Capturing in 4k or 1080?

4k acquisition, 1080 delivery.

Save for a few slowmo 240fps shots that require 1080 resolution, it's all 4k 24p. 

BTW, I had the GX85 for a stretch.  Liked it okay.  However, my favorite LUMIX camera is/was the GX7.

[ac6000cw]

21 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

4k acquisition, 1080 delivery.

A very good strategy for getting the best out of older 8-bit cameras - I think Kye does the same (with a GX85).

At the end of the day, unless you tell them, anyone who watches the final movie won't know (or care for the most part) what was used to make it - they'll judge it primarily on the story it tells, be it fictional or documentary, and whether it it's enjoyable/interesting/absorbing. If an old camera does the job and is enjoyable to work with, why not use it?

Inanimate tools like cameras, lights and filters can help or hinder the art, but they can't create it...that needs imagination.

[kye]

@fuzzynormal I couldn't agree more!

Disclaimer:  I'm also an old.

I have moved from shooting GH5 and manual F0.95 primes to GX85 and variable aperture zoom as my default setup, despite owning complete setups for GH5, OG BMPCC, OG BMMCC, XC10, and Canon 700D with ML, etc.

I much prefer the GX85 to the GH5, but for some reason I cannot fathom, I am drawn to the GF3 whenever I get close to my equipment.

I also edit in 1080p (but upres this to 4K for upload to YT).  I prefer to downsample in-camera if it's not a significant quality bottleneck.

I focus my time and energy on colour grading, editing, sound design and composition, as is evidenced by my many threads on these subjects.

[Clark Nikolai]

12 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough

Yeah, it makes total sense. Cameras got really good over ten years ago so anything made in the past decade will be fine for most things. The differences will be subtle and to do with ergonomics and convenience of shooting.

I have a ten year old Sony HD camcorder that works great! I could've upgraded to the 4K version of it but there's never been a reason for that (and the 4K version is bigger.) It's not the only camera I have but the idea of letting go of it never crosses my mind. It's too useful mostly because you just flip the screen open and roll.

I think anything goes nowadays.