A practical approach to camera ownership...

[Duke M.]

Where did you get that spec from? Nigel Cooper said he measured 800 lines, but what you're saying sounds pretty definitive; has that been published somewhere?

The way Nigel described it, it sounded like he eyeballed the chart. Then he said it was breaking up around a 1000, which is the way he described the EX1.

I prefer to take the human interpretation out of it and do an imatest, especially since we have imatests for other cameras and know the settings. Imatest runs a little high, but is comparable from camera to camera.

 

[mjmcneese]

The Sony F3. Does not exist. Let's chat later.

The F3 exists almost as much as the AF, at this point. Shipping date is only tracking two months behind. I am not busting balls, or defending the F3, but I do think it's quite viable to own.

It's been said that you would only have to make $200/month to pay for an AF...I love this...very true! Using the same logic, you should be able to own an F3 for $650 (lower, after we learn the street price). If you aren't banking $650/month, wrong business, Yada yada. I'm not comparing the "theoretical monthly cost of ownership." Just that the F3 could be a very viable option to own.

I've been working in the industry since "way back"...when a 60i-only BetaSP camera with decent lens would set you back $50k. And you'd need $80k worth of Avid gear to edit.

ANY large sensor VIDEO camera for under $5k is just an insane deal. And, at $16k, IMHO, a serious professional should have no problem owning an F3.

Now the EPIC...THAT we WILL chat about later.

 

[G.P.]

The F3 exists almost as much as the AF, at this point. Shipping date is only tracking two months behind. I am not busting balls, or defending the F3, but I do think it's quite viable to own.

It's been said that you would only have to make $200/month to pay for an AF...I love this...very true! Using the same logic, you should be able to own an F3 for $650 (lower, after we learn the street price). If you aren't banking $650/month, wrong business, Yada yada. I'm not comparing the "theoretical monthly cost of ownership." Just that the F3 could be a very viable option to own.

I've been working in the industry since "way back"...when a 60i-only BetaSP camera with decent lens would set you back $50k. And you'd need $80k worth of Avid gear to edit.

ANY large sensor VIDEO camera for under $5k is just an insane deal. And, at $16k, IMHO, a serious professional should have no problem owning an F3.

Now the EPIC...THAT we WILL chat about later.

Just to add to that, $650 a month is paying off the camera within a year, that goes to $325 a month with a realistic ownership time of 2 years considering not many people buy a new camera every year. The average owner time for this new market is about 3 years maybe a little more. About every 3 years I buy into a new digital system. Just buy the best you can afford at the time. If you skimp out early, you'll have to re-buy a better model faster and your return on selling will not be as great.

 

[RyanDeFranco]

Leo,

I've enjoyed your posts here and on RedUser immensely--as someone who reads but doesn't have time to write (full time student, two part time jobs and a weekend production company), it's always nice to read the concise wisdom your posts always contain. I'd like to add on to your list of practical cameras.

The Panasonic AF100. I've got one on order. Why? Because some jobs are better suited to a light weight small camera. Not every client can afford the rate for our Red. And it's so cheap it's really an obvious choice. Plus, you can probably use the heck out of it for a year or so and sell it at a pretty good price. Cost of ownership is low, low, low.

Yes. And every point you've made here is true of the GH-1 and hacked "GH13."

The Canon 5D (and 7D). Ugg. I do hate it so. Yeah, it's tiny. Yeah it's cheap. Well, not really; to make it work, you need a lot of ungainly stuff and it's still ergonomically a train-wreck. Any camera that heats up and shuts down in normal use is a time-bomb. An even more deadly time-bomb when you realize that some of your shots may well be useless because of moire or other image problems.

I'm leaving out the Panasonic 4/3 stills cameras. Probably a good choice for a B-camera to the AF100, but it's a still camera first; video is still a kludge.

I shoot with a hacked GH-1. It never heats up. Never. One battery runs all day. It shoots at up to twice the mbit/sec bitrate of the 5D/7D, with smarter compression and gorgeous fine detail: hair in the wind, leaves, wood, waves etc. The hack replaces the old codec's "mud" with stunning images.

Speaking of detail, I shoot twice a week, and I've seen moire only on striped shirts. Never in wood, sediment, etc; I've stress tested it next to a 5D and watched as the 5D produced unusable junk while the Panasonic put out clear, crisp, moire-free footage. No line skipping artifacts; GH-1 uses a vastly superior algorithm (pixel binning? who knows). Rolling shutter artifacts on par with the Red--plus I don't shoot helicopter blades that often. (For fashion work, it's easy to make the "flash" frame completely white.) Very detailed in-camera color adjustment. Doesn't have the 5D low light capabilities but ISO 100 is fast enough for 9/10 shots. I wish it had live HDMI out, but if I have a camera on a crane or a client who's used to live monitoring, I'm renting a Red with their money anyway. Playback monitoring works fine.

Yes, it's smaller. Its mirrorless construction (and outstanding EVF) resulted in a small size; it's why the 5D and 7D are industry "standard" names while the GH-1 requires whiny apologists like me. Upsides: on the Camera Motion Research Blackbird, the GH-1 with even my Zeiss tanks is practically weightless--I can shoot "Steadicam" all day. The m4/3 flange distance allows one to mount a rented Master Prime or Cooke 5i, plus own and rent out Kubrick's anamorphic lenses and some amazing Zeiss glass. Which cinematographer was it who dismantled an Arri 535, threw all the pieces on a table, held up the filmgate and said,

"Everything else is just parts. This records what's put in front of it. That's all it does. It records. Only the lens makes images appear."

The AF-100 is a GH-1 with a video-optimized sensor and codec, higher ISOs, and the Zoom H4n built-in. Oh, and 1080p for 60 fps, but no 60-80 mbits/second fine detail. Once the Scarlet is released, I'll make a decision, plus have a B-camera for a few more years. Until then, I will be very happy to continue paying the bills with my hacked GH-1. I highly recommend the same for anyone else who wants to spend $800 on e-Bay while waiting to compare the Sony/Canon offerings, AF-100, and S35 Scarlet.

 

[swanny]

It's been said that you would only have to make $200/month to pay for an AF...I love this...very true! Using the same logic, you should be able to own an F3 for $650 (lower, after we learn the street price). If you aren't banking $650/month, wrong business, Yada yada. I'm not comparing the "theoretical monthly cost of ownership." Just that the F3 could be a very viable option to own.

There a dozen different ways to look at this though. If the Sony is FAR superior, than the money is justified. If not, I could buy 2 or more AF100's with accessories for the price of ONE Sony. Or ONE AF100 and a steadicam Flyer to up my production value. I'm all about getting more for my dollar. Could I afford the Sony? Sure, but could my money be better used traveling a different avenue? I think so. Time will surely tell. But for what I do, I think the AF100 will work just fine, and I know I will grow as a business using this tool, as it is a step ahead of my XHA1. This new camera will surely push me to achieve better images.

 

[dcloud]

The AF-100 is a GH-1 with a video-optimized sensor, better high ISO, and the Zoom H4n built-in. Oh, and 1080p for 60 fps, but no 60-80 mbits/second fine detail.

no its not the same sensor, its more than just xlr inputs and 24mbps with proper codec implementation can be as good as a 50mb hacked one. and its more reliable without relying on really fast cards.
80mbps on an sd card is pretty risky too.

 

[Razz16mm]

Leo,

I've enjoyed your posts here and on RedUser immensely--as someone who reads but doesn't have time to write (full time student, two part time jobs and a weekend production company), it's always nice to read the concise wisdom your posts always contain. I'd like to add on to your list of practical cameras.


Yes. And every point you've made here is true of the GH-1 and hacked "GH13."



I shoot with a hacked GH-1. It never heats up. Never. One battery runs all day. It shoots at up to twice the mbit/sec bitrate of the Canon, rivaling and exceeding even the Redcode bitrate--no 4k obviously, but smart compression and gorgeous fine detail: hair in the wind, leaves, wood, waves etc. The hack replaces the old codec's "mud" with stunning images.

Redcode data rates are in listed in Mega BYTES per second, not Mega bits. A the highest compression ratio/ lowest data rate, Redcode 28, the data rate is up to 225 Megabits per second.

 

[RyanDeFranco]

Razz and dcloud, thank you, these are very important points, I was misinformed. I will be very excited if the AF-100 offers more than an improved sensor--and I have to admit, watching every sample clip, there's something about it that makes me feel if my GH-1 shot the same fish market / Japanese driver reading, it wouldn't look the same. I would guess that this is the result of "proper codec implementation." As far as SD cards go, an arsenal of class 10 cards (thank you ebay) and backup firmware loaded on two of em prevents any issues. I've only had to bump down the codec once: dozens of trees in fall, no wind.

It was foolish to seriously compare the GH-1 with the Red--one is a $20,000 camera attempting to produce "digital cinema," one is a $900 consumer product that happens to record decent video.

And yet. On set for a fashion print campaign, I showed this Red/5D/Gh-1 comparison on a color corrected cinema display. An executive, the photographer, and the photographer's colorist could not tell the difference in the un-subtitled version. Upon screening this one, two people said they preferred the "Lumix" footage to everything else.

Tests like this mean nothing, because they should've shot the same thing side by side, and the results are compressed exports on a small screen. Project this into a cinema and the consumer quality video would be revealed. Unfortunately, at least for me, the cinema is a long way off . My point is I think the GH-1 remains an excellent "in between camera" for people like me: excited about future possibilities but not quite willing to throw down $5,000 before seeing the competition. I have $8,000 saved up for my next camera, but I'm terrified of buying the wrong one.

 

[dcloud]

Tests like this mean nothing, because they should've shot the same thing side by side, and the results are compressed exports on a small screen. Project this into a cinema and the consumer quality video would be revealed. Unfortunately, I'm still 21, and the cinema is a long way off . My point is I think the GH-1 remains an excellent "in between camera" for people like me: excited about future possibilities but not quite willing to throw down $5,000 before seeing the competition. I have $8,000 saved up for my next camera, but I'm terrified of buying the wrong one.

you definitely dont need to buy a new camera since as you said, you're still earning from your gh1. Just save enough money when the day comes to buy your next professional cam.

but it will just be an endless cycle.
so right now, you should invest more on your craft and the next thing you'll know, you'll be picking between an epic or an alexa

 

[Ian-T]

no its not the same sensor, its more than just xlr inputs and 24mbps with proper codec implementation can be as good as a 50mb hacked one. and its more reliable without relying on really fast cards.
80mbps on an sd card is pretty risky too.

Though I agree with you I think what Ryan stated was slightly exagerated only to make a point. I believe folks know they (AF100 and GH1(3)) are not the same sensor (minus xlr etc.). In the end however, when using some care, I think one could get a similar image out of both (when it comes to shoting 24p). It's just that with a cam like the AF100 you can get there much more easily and conveniently. With that said I think the fact that the image from the AF100's HDMI out vs its AVHD being almost indistinguishable says a lot about how good the hacked GH-1(3) is.

EDIT: Dang...posted late...didn't see the other posts in between.

 

[dcloud]

im not putting down the gh1 at all. in fact im secretly glad it has better resolution than the 5dmkII
id buy a gh1 if i didnt like the gh2

 

[RyanDeFranco]

hah, yes, slight exaggeration to make a point indeed... just got back from pickups at dusk, saw noise I didn't like, re-read my post, felt a bit sheepish for getting all upity. that long post is the vent after 10 months of hearing people say "what camera?" and having to explain it in terms of the 7D