See the top rated post in this thread. Click here
Results 11 to 20 of 220
05-16-2012 07:34 AM
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Los Angeles
I've been researching like crazy the last month or so as I've been trying to decide between the Sony FS 700 or the Canon 5D3. After watching about 1000 vimeo videos (and yes, you can get a good sense of the how the camera looks from Vimeo contrary to what many people say), I like the look of the FS and find it equally cinematic as the Canons. Plus, the increased resolution.... on wide landscape type shots, the FS cameras are MILES ahead of the 5D3. You can easily tell this even from Vimeo videos, so I can't image how much sharper the actual footage is. The only edge I can spot to the 5D3 is on close-ups of people due to full frame, and even that is subjective.
This guy's (Cody Cha) FS100 films really sold me on the FS over the 5D3. He gets a really great, cinematic look out of the FS100. He's obviously good at grading. The thing is, he's an FS100 shooter and also a Canon shooter.
Cody wrote: "Though I also prefer Canon colors, it hasn't been too much of issue since I grade all of my footage. Also, FS100 footage holds up much better, and I never felt like I couldn't get the colors I wanted in the post.."
I think out of the box, the Canon footage might look better, but I'm a crazy grader and no footage goes un-graded, so for me, I'm probably going with the FS700 when it comes out. I was really hoping to like the Canon 5D3 better since I have mostly Canon lenses and I like the small DSLR form factor, so I was really biased towards Canon at the start, but after all this research and watching tons of footage, I've reluctantly changed my mind.
05-16-2012 07:37 AM
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Bristol, UK
Honestly off vimeo and viewing prores - and I have been editing both together today - all day - the Canons (5d2 in this case) are pretty unusably soft in comparison to the Sony..
05-16-2012 08:35 AM
Full disclosure: I've worked with Shane, & at different times we each held the position as Gaffer for Herb Ritts.
05-16-2012 08:36 AM
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
05-16-2012 09:00 AM
I cannot believe there's a market for 5D3s, D800s and D4s et al with the FS100 on the market and the FS700 soon to be available. By the time you've tricked out a DSLR to make almost usable you've still only got a camera that shoots SD for a similar price to the FS100. IMHO, Canon signalled the end of the DSLR revolution with the very disappointing 5D3, the C300 must not have its toes stepped on, 'cuz who wants to sharpen footage in post to make it just about usable? Not me.
There are some people who are convinced that buying a particular camera will make them a "Cinematographer or DP" without the necessary investment in time learning the skills. These people are generally very receptive to marketing and the ease at which social media connects them with industry "names" and gurus only prey on their susceptibility. You can even see little peer pressure groups forming on Twitter where a particular brand is either singled out for praise or rejection and fools just follow the herd.
I would have more faith in the internet gurus who endlessly review cameras if just once they turned round and said, just forget DSLRs buy a real video camera like the AF100 or FS100/FS700. Why don't they ever say that? That is after all, one of the most obvious conclusions to make about current DSLRs.
You can give anyone a F65 and it won't make them a competent cinematographer. Cinematography is about the total art of image capture from choice of lens, framing, DoF, focus, camera moves and lighting etc etc and cannot be just bought off the shelf. The "video look" comes from the bloke holding the camera not the camera.
I've seen on here when a great bit of FS100 video gets posted you can bet your house someone will ask what picture profile was used as if it was the profile that made all the difference! No it was the bloke holding the camera that made the difference and how s/he chose to light the scene, or more correctly, how s/he controlled the light entering the lens. No quick fix I'm afraid.
What the FS100 represents is a cost effective way to begin learning the art. It's a camera that combined with an external recorder that can compete with HDCams from a few years ago at a fraction of the cost. It can give much more expensive contemporary cameras a run for its money too. I don't think there is a better way into learning the art and I don't think there is a bigger bang for buck for professional work either which is why I bought one and not a Scarlet or C300.
We've seen in other threads that the camera gets the blame for the lack of talent of the person holding the camera. It's easy to blame the camera for sensor reflections and the fact that it's 8 bit and doesn't grade as well as RAW or real log footage. I have no doubt that these same people would be looking for excuses even if they had 10 F65s and $60,000 lenses too.
Sorry that turned into a bit of a rant and I didn't mean it too.
Last edited by Nirv; 05-16-2012 at 09:04 AM.
05-16-2012 09:18 AM
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
I am really looking forward to the new Zacuto shootout. I love the premise that no one camera is perfect and its through knowledge and experience that you learn how to get the best image out of each. The fact that the GH2 was a surprise to many on the blind test just goes to show that it isn't the camera that limits our creativity anymore.
Full disclosure: I'm a post guy (producer editor 10yrs) getting into shooting/generating my own content (it really is freeing). It is just a hobby for me at this point so I will always defer to the 90% here who have more knowledge and experience.
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
05-16-2012 10:26 AM
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
I'm waiting on a render so I thought I'd jump in.
In my humble opinion, the answer to your question 'is it the camera or the operator' is that it's both.
You can get a filmic quality out of just about any camera--it just takes more work with some than others. Every camera has a set of weaknesses and you have to decide what you're willing to work around and what are deal-breakers. Much of this has to do with your idea of a "filmic quality". I shoot a ton on film, so I'm hyper critical. Others are are looking for little more than shallow depth of field.
Here's an example: in college I worked at a hardware store and I'd help people load the stuff into their trucks. Some people would load fifty 2x4s into the back of their F250 Super Duty like it was nothing. Then there were the guys with the little Mazda pickups. In order to open the tail gate you'd have to kick the bumper. We'd load fifty 2x4s in the back and spend another 20 minutes tying them down so they didn't fall out. The driver had to drive slowly and be sure to avoid bumps. My point: both drivers got the job done; one just took more work than the other.