What would you recommend if there were NO 4K?

[smuncy]

What if there were no 4K available in cameras today? Would you still recommend an A7something, GH4, NX-1, based on their other features? I like some of the high FPS slow motion coming out on new cameras, but not enough to be the sole buying point.

I need to record video for work - A few talking heads, how-to steps, finished product, QA testing, etc. It will never be at a theatre near you. I do not need 4K, just clear quality and pleasant colors. Used models are also fine.

Staying at 1080, what camera system would you recommend based on quality, features, workflow, codecs, etc. ?

[DBounce]

What would you recommend if there were no movies?

[Andrew Reid]

What would you recommend if there were no movies?

Hand puppets.

Staying at 1080, what camera system would you recommend based on quality, features, workflow, codecs, etc. ?

High end - Nikon D750 and Sony A7S (D750 is easier to get nice colour out of, the A7S is more feature packed), Sony FS100 (used price quite low now)

Mid range - Nikon D5550, Sony A6000, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, used 5D Mark II (raw is lovely if you can do the workflow justice)

Cheaper end - Panasonic G6, Nikon D5200, GH2

GH4 and NX1 are all about 4K, their 1080p is nothing special

[sanveer]

What would you recommend if there were no movies?

 

Hand puppets.

Hahahaahahahahaha

 

[Liam]

What would you recommend if there were no movies?

read a book.

 

you don't think you need to make the jump to 4k, or you can't handle 4k? Are you asking if, for instance, shooting 4k on the nx1 has advantages other than the 4k itself since it won't really matter in the final image? (e.g. would you turn down 4k if it really was the best setup considering everything everything else? - but not filming IN the 1080p option of the camera?) Not trying to wrap around to the argument you really do need 4k, just wondering if this is a philosophical question or a practical one . don't know if it's helpful to say 4k is sometimes more easy to grade, punching in advantages, and better image by using more of the sensor.

[DBounce]

read a book.

 

you don't think you need to make the jump to 4k, or you can't handle 4k? Are you asking if, for instance, shooting 4k on the nx1 has advantages other than the 4k itself since it won't really matter in the final image? (e.g. would you turn down 4k if it really was the best setup considering everything everything else? - but not filming IN the 1080p option of the camera?) Not trying to wrap around to the argument you really do need 4k, just wondering if this is a philosophical question or a practical one . don't know if it's helpful to say 4k is sometimes more easy to grade, punching in advantages, and better image by using more of the sensor.

It seems the op is trying to get us to consider the other qualities of a camera aside from 4k. But this is really a mute point, because there is 4k.

[Liam]

It seems the op is trying to get us to consider the other qualities of a camera aside from 4k. But this is really a mute point, because there is 4k.

there are aspects of a camera that might get left in the dust because everyone's chasing after 4k, so I get the question from that standpoint. also I personally cannot handle 4k video editing on my crappy pc, so

[richg101]

good 1080p is better than mediocre 4k.  Grab an A7S and shoot internal 1080p with a cheap 50mm prime like a contax 50/1.7.  nothing will come close for the money.  full frame for most stuff, aps-c crop for close punch ins.  

[smuncy]

I appreciate the suggestions.

I shoot a D200 (no video) which needs upgrading. I would like to start using video. I am not against changing systems/brands. 

This is a practical question. I watch many YouTube videos that look great, are well lit, and have clear sound. These are 1080 videos and I would be glad if mine matched this quality. My audience will be watching on an iPad. I am not a cinema person, so what may have been the camera of choice for many on this forum in 2013 or 2014 is probably still more than I need. 

[Andrew Reid]

If you're used to Nikon then get the D750, and don't forget the lenses are as important as the camera. What do you use with the D200?

If D750 is out of your price range get the D5300 or D5500.

[fuzzynormal]

You're on the right track.

Resolution is somewhat irrelevant if you don't know basic production skills such as lighting and audio. 

If if you shoot Nikon, best bet would be to upgrade your camera body, I think. 

In in the meantime think about how you want the mic and light your future productions. 

[IronFilm]

I'd recommend the Sony PMW-F3 for sure (I have one myself! And I'm using Nikon lenses with it).

They're an insanely good deal. Can easily pick one up for roughly two grand ish each on eBay or elsewhere. I even saw one go for a grand and a half earlier this week on eBay (I paid even less for mine!).

 

Only significant drawbacks about this AWESOME camera: weight, max 60fps, and only MF (except for rare FZ exceptions).

[jonpais]

From my own experience and from what I've read from others I respect, if you want to deliver in 1080p, acquisition should be 4K. And so forth... But I agree with Andrew, if you've already invested in Nikon lenses, for your purposes, maybe just a new body is all you need.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I understand you're a hybrid shooter, but I figure why not answer the question generally? Other people may have the same question or simply (God forbid) be interested in my opinion.

Hybrid (Interchangeable Lens): 

1. D750/D810 --best stills in the market, great 1080p with clean colors. uncompressed 4:2:2 out, great mix of strengths with very few weaknesses
2. D5500 --I don't like the D5300's inability to change aperture in video mode and lack of Flat profile, but the D5500 makes a good budget alternative to the 750/810

3. Panasonic GH4 (or G7/GX7) --smaller sensor, but still one of the best 1080p images around and a killer feature set for video

Hybrid (Fixed Lens):

1. RX10 II --even without 4K, it does a downsample of the whole sensor, LOG recording, peaking, zebras, mic/headphone jack, and that amazing lens

2. FZ1000 --most of the same advantages as the RX10 II, except the color is easier to handle and the lens has more reach. No log though

3. RX10 --the original keeps the XAVC-S codec, full sensor downsample, peaking, zebras, mic/headphone jack, and the lens, but no LOG 

Pure Video: 

1. Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K --a loophole, I know, but still the best image in the sub-$4000 market. After firmware updates, has tons of features and a killer look

2. Blackmagic Micro/Pocket Cinema Camera --almost the same image, much more convenient form factor. The Micro requires a monitor but gives you Global Shutter and 60p

3. Sony F3 --a true-blue production camera. All the video fixins, great audio connections, a nice 1080p image, good in low light, 10-bit recording

4. Canon C100 --Still the most expensive option on this list, even used, but it's a no-fuss image, great in low light, and ergonomically great


Hope that helps someone. 

[Don Kotlos]

Is this out of the question ? :

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/07/james-miller-adds-167-hardware-4k-scaler-box-sony-a7s-stunning-results/

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Is this out of the question ? :

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/07/james-miller-adds-167-hardware-4k-scaler-box-sony-a7s-stunning-results/

Can't you get the exact same results from a normal 1080p external recorder?

[Damphousse]

I'd recommend the Sony PMW-F3 for sure (I have one myself! And I'm using Nikon lenses with it).

They're an insanely good deal. Can easily pick one up for roughly two grand ish each on eBay or elsewhere. I even saw one go for a grand and a half earlier this week on eBay (I paid even less for mine!).

 

Only significant drawbacks about this AWESOME camera: weight, max 60fps, and only MF (except for rare FZ exceptions).

Lol!  M'man!  That F3 maneuver you pulled for $1,200 with 4:4:4 is classic!  Preach, brother! Preach!

What if there were no 4K available in cameras today? Would you still recommend an A7something, GH4, NX-1, based on their other features? I like some of the high FPS slow motion coming out on new cameras, but not enough to be the sole buying point.

I need to record video for work - A few talking heads, how-to steps, finished product, QA testing, etc. It will never be at a theatre near you. I do not need 4K, just clear quality and pleasant colors. Used models are also fine.

Staying at 1080, what camera system would you recommend based on quality, features, workflow, codecs, etc. ?

I think you missed the whole point of 4k for most of us.  We are working with bayer pattern sensors with various limitations.  For the majority of us the point of shooting "4k" is so we can down convert to decent 1080p!  You can't just read the side of the box and assume you have all the information.  Plenty of Canon DSLRs that say 1080p on the box are NOT 1080p.  With a bayer sensor you have to sample A LOT more than 1080p to get true 1080p.  The stuff that is claimed to be 4k at affordable prices isn't 4k.  Maybe the NX1 downsamples 6k to 4k?  I don't know.

As far as DETAIL the best way to get 1080p is to down sample 4k.  I am a BMPCC man myself.  The DETAIL is not up to downscale 4k standards but the robust raw and prores provide superior color.  It's all trade offs.

Your whole approach seems wrong.  Drawing a line at 4k is very arbitrary.  Depending on what you are going for some 4k outranks 1080p and some 1080p outranks 4k.  And really with the falling prices you can get multiple solid 4k cameras for less than $1,100... including the GH4 used.

Whether you get an F3 with external recorder or a GH4, with skill you will make a nice image.  Honestly I consider all this stuff in the same bucket and try and figure out the trade offs that work for me.

[Don Kotlos]

Can't you get the exact same results from a normal 1080p external recorder?

My understanding is that the external recorder cannot do a 4K-->1080p downsample. 

So the scaler-box offers a very nice 1080p signal that can be recorded with the ninja. 

Of course you could do the same (or even better) in your computer later, but that transcoding requires more time. Also you miss the 4:2:2 if it makes a difference. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

My understanding is that the external recorder cannot do a 4K-->1080p downsample. 

So the scaler-box offers a very nice 1080p signal that can be recorded with the ninja. 

Of course you could do the same (or even better) in your computer later, but that transcoding requires more time. Also you miss the 4:2:2 if it makes a difference. 

Huh. My understanding is that the camera is already downsampling the full sensor resolution, so outputting 4:2:2 straight into the 1080p recorder is just as good. Correct me if I'm wrong--I lost track of that conversation after I decided not to buy an A7S.

[Don Kotlos]

Huh. My understanding is that the camera is already downsampling the full sensor resolution, so outputting 4:2:2 straight into the 1080p recorder is just as good. Correct me if I'm wrong--I lost track of that conversation after I decided not to buy an A7S.

The A7s can downsample when recording internally in 1080p but from reading that article it seams that you can get even better quality if you downsample the 4K output. 

I haven't tried it myself so if anybody else wants to weigh in...