Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 140
  1. Collapse Details
    #61
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    I think for sure for 'live' production a servo zoom is king of the hill - say a panel discussion and you widen off for a question and then push in on the answerer.
    Most definitely. Plus sports (where often you also need a big reach, but the flexibility of a long zoom is also neccessary as the frame of the shot can constantly change), any kind of theatrical or performance stage work, and certain types of news gathering.

    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    For 'to edit' productions, I dont know, RnG is my speciality and having a camera like the Z280 which is no good inside a car (vs a C200 and 10-24), or maybe both XF750 and Z280 which cannot go in the dark (vs a C200+50 1.8) and cant do an artistic interview then the freedom of lens changes vs a servo comes into play.
    You're perfectly right about this, and it's interesting because "documentary" often gets lumped into "run and gun," but I think that's one area that has changed dramatically over the last decade. That's largely due to the fact that 10 years ago dSLRs that shot video didn't exist, and the only realistic options for a lot of independent shooters were handheld video cameras. Of course film was a mainstay before even that, but the "DV revolution" had a massive impact on the ability to cheaply and easily create content on the go. I think we're in the middle of another big shift as tools which can replicate a cinematic look have become similarly affordable and ubiquitous, and in a sea of YouTube channels where anyone and everyone can produce their own content there's even more of a challenge to stand out. If you have the time to set up your interview shots and you're only shooting one thing at a time, I think something like the FS7 is a fantastic tool. I wouldn't use a camcorder like the XF705 or PXW-Z280 on a personal project like that. We all want to capture the best looking images we can using the best tools that are available to us. For a lot of documentary-type projects, I think interchangeable lens cameras are being used a lot to great success.

    There are times when that ENG-style camera still makes a lot of sense even in a documentary-type setting; the XF-705 promo video in the mountains (although not shot particularly well) is a great example. But I dont think you're wrong for questioning it. My gut says that in today's world, these cameras are being used for live event production more than anything else. By and large, they won't get you a cinematic look... they just won't. But Jimmy Fallon doesn't have a cinematic look either. "American Idol" doesn't have a cinematic look. The Oscars don't have a cinematic look. There are a bazillion high-budget, major network shows that aren't trying to be something they're not. Not everything needs half an inch of DoF. What it does sound like though is that in your situation you have the ability to make some creative choices that can be addressed in several different ways, and that's an absolutely wonderful freedom to have.
    you + are = you're.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post


    You're perfectly right about this, and it's interesting because "documentary" often gets lumped into "run and gun,"
    Im not sure of the difference ?

    My bottom line - as someone who rarely 'goes live' - is that I want a camera I can chuck into a shoulder bag, get a cab, on my bike, in a train, on a plane and go shoot (a cuttable sequence, made of wides, tights and mids, possibly of non repeatable actuality, maybe even a riot or fire, with some audio, in conditions from very dark to bright sun)

    My current feeling for me is that a C200 (300 /100?) plus a sh1tty photo zoom, and a couple of small fast sexy primes would serve me better than the 705

    On feeling the C200 and a XF305 in the same room I was suprised that I drew that conclusion... because really im in the market to replace my EX1, not my FS7.

    Mainly I felt the short form felt less fatiguing than the rear EVF of the 305 - a long camera not long enough to go on the shoulder, which is kind of the worst situation!

    The fact that the 200 can be further built for shoulder use or equipped with a super telephoto, or full cinema raw shoot setup for other jobs adds even more
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 09-28-2018 at 05:41 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    That's actually a great example for comparison. That lens costs more than half of the XF-705, is still the same slow f/4.5, and is only a 2.8x optical zoom. Yes, that's right. Now it's easy to see why a $7K camera with integrated 15x+ servo zoom - even at f/4.5 - isn't really THAT bad of a deal after all.

    Even that 20x S35mm lens, which seems like a dream, is a T/8.9!! If f/4.5 makes the dSLR kiddies cry, imagine what they would say about that. And it costs $70,000!
    When you consider the competition does 90% of what this camera does for half the price then one may start to ponder the cost...but maybe the extra 10% is worth it for some and maybe that's what you're paying for because you definitely aren't paying for modern image quality.

    As non-practical or as hated as they may be, DSLRs/mirrorless systems blow these kind of cameras away in terms of IQ.

    I'm not trying to be mean or say that these type of cameras don't have a purpose, but just sharing what I see. Year after year after year, I watch lots of sample footage from everyone's new releases hoping the quality has improved a lot, and it barely does. Baby steps every year no matter what the specs are on paper.

    I've convinced myself the difference is mainly because of the sensor resolution and glass (lens). You just cannot compare the quality of the motion pictures these kind of cameras produce to ones from a higher resolution stills camera that shoots video with a high-quality piece of glass (even a $500 one such as the Panasonic G7 with a similar-ish sensor size).

    The difference is extremely noticeable...always.
    Last edited by NorBro; 09-28-2018 at 08:45 AM. Reason: Grammar


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Id disagree that these camcorders cant have a competent image, even my EX1 eats most DSLRs for line resolution.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Default
    lol, no way...never.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,784
    Default
    I disagree with this as well. Compared to the C200, then yes. But general mirrorless, I do not think so. As a GH5 owner, it makes an awesome image but my PX270 1/3" camera from 2014 has more accurate colors thanks to its broadcast color matrix. If the PX270 was 4k and 2018 it would be even better. In the end, these "little" cameras are still cameras first with a growing video focus. But their video roots are still in consumer land. It is just 'consumer' has gotten way better than it used to be. This is of course with DOF aside.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Default
    With so many varying opinions about color science - and the interesting ways a human brain may analyze colors - and the different color grades out in the universe - and how people consume content (monitors vs. phones), colors are probably the last thing I am worried about...at least in camera (modern post-production is the concern).

    You may love Panasonic colors while I may love something else while someone else claims Canon is the best just as someone steps in to argue ARRI is the best...it never ends.

    I'm strictly speaking image IQ, which mostly entails resolution and fine detail, at least IMO.

    P.S. The GH5 has a white balance color matrix which helps a lot (if you haven't used it).


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,784
    Default
    Well, we see things differently (no pun inteneded!). In my view, color and dynamic range are more important than resolution or detail. I am not talking about pleasing color, I am talking about color accuracy. This varies in importance depending on what you are shooting. No doubt, at half the cost I paid for the PX270, the GH5 is stunning if you shoot in log with a good LUT. Just pointing out that right out of the camera, my PX270 is more accurate because of the tools it was given in-camera and its design. The largest issue with the GH5 for me is purple being recorded as more blue than true purple. I know narrative folks don't care so much about this stuff, but comparing camera to camera I notice it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Default
    I totally hear you and I get it...IQ for me may be resolution and IQ for you may be colors and dynamic range.

    Although I do think color accuracy has always been ironic in these kind of conversations...10 different major camera companies and they all somehow see colors differently.

    With resolution or DR, it's really either there or it's not, IMO.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #70
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    Im not sure of the difference?
    Well, documentaries can be completely produced in a studio and not "run and gun" at all, and "run and gun" could just as easily be applied to something else like news. It's more semantics than anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    My current feeling for me is that a C200 (300 /100?) plus a sh1tty photo zoom, and a couple of small fast sexy primes would serve me better than the 705.
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, and you know your needs better than anyone else! I was trying to agree with you, just saying that it's good to have options. I also noted that I am guessing the majority of people who buy a camera like the XF705, especially in today's world with so many other choices, are doing so to use it in live situations. Since that isn't you, it makes perfect sense that you would find something else preferable.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    When you consider the competition does 90% of what this camera does for half the price then one may start to ponder the cost...
    I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but the competition for this kind of camera is pretty limited. The Sony and Canon cameras both cost essentially the same, and while Panasonic's offering is a good bit less, it's also a far less capable camera. JVC just announced something and admittedly I haven't really looked into it much, but that's about all of the choices you have if you want 4K, 10-bit 4:2:2 color, and a minimum 15x servo lens.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    As non-practical or as hated as they may be, DSLRs/mirrorless systems blow these kind of cameras away in terms of IQ.

    I'm not trying to be mean or say that these type of cameras don't have a purpose, but just sharing what I see. Year after year after year, I watch lots of sample footage from everyone's new releases hoping the quality has improved a lot, and it barely does. Baby steps every year no matter what the specs are on paper.
    I don't think you're mean at all and I agree with you a hundred percent. I certainly don't "hate" mirrorless cameras; I own an a7RIII and while I use it mostly for still photography, there is no question that its video quality is heads and shoulders above any camcorder I've ever owned. That said, ergonomically it's a pain in the ass to use for video and as has been said many times now, you can't get a 15x+ zoom lens for it unless you want to pay $70,000 and deal with an 8.9 maximum aperture. That doesn't sound like a fun time to me. The quality is better in large part because the sensor is so much bigger, but that also restricts the kinds of glass you can put in front of it. Everything is a tradeoff, and you make purchasing decisions based on the needs of your productions.
    Last edited by Haakon; 09-28-2018 at 02:02 PM.
    you + are = you're.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •