Camera rumors for 2016?
- Thread starter Giriki
- Start date
Canon is going big this IBC, others not so much. M43 is a dead format in the camcorder sector. LS300 went nowhere (even thought it has a S35 chip but a weird M43 mount; and the DVX200 sold poorly). I doubt you'd see a new m43 camcorder anytime soon from any manufacturer, unless they need a loss-leader.
Pana is moving to 1-inchers for their cheap handheld fixed lens camcorders UX series. So is Sony they have Z150 and NX100.
There's only 1-inch or S35 that makes sense now for sensor size for low- to mid-tier, all others are either 2/3 broadcast (big money, specialty ENG) or 1/3 for lower end consumer stuff.
Hmmm... We've had one camera with an interchangeable lens mount ( JVC LS300 ) which had poor dynamic range until they eventually added a LOG profile. I think it would have been a different story had Panasonic made this camera with a LOG profile right from the get-go. If JVC eventually ships a new version of this camera with a better sensor it might do really well, as they got almost everything else right.
As for the DVX200, this is not the camera that many of us M43 users have been asking for. What we wanted was an upgraded AF100 with a new sensor and high bit-rate 4K LOG shooting formats. I don't know if we will ever see this from either Panasonic or JVC, but I would not write off the M43 format after only two cameras have been brought to market.
IMO, the photo-video companies basically come to believe that an MFT shoulder mounted camera is an overkill and that, if someone wants an MFT product for narratives, then he might as well rig up GH4. And, considering how many models Sony has, it's pretty difficult to find room for even a GH5, what with A6300 shooting 4K with the APS-C sensor for $1,000.
Of course, there are still gaps in pretty much every 4K line but I doubt that a $4,000-$6,000 MFT pro camera is in the offing. Panasonic wants to push affordable 4K at the consumer/enthusiast tier. Sony set full frame 8K as a target everywhere up off that. The high end pro seems to have settled on s35 and the Ultra High End seems to be going toward the medium format.
Of course, there are still gaps in pretty much every 4K line but I doubt that a $4,000-$6,000 MFT pro camera is in the offing. Panasonic wants to push affordable 4K at the consumer/enthusiast tier. Sony set full frame 8K as a target everywhere up off that. The high end pro seems to have settled on s35 and the Ultra High End seems to be going toward the medium format.
I hear ya mate, seriously I do. And as an ex-AF101 owner, it was a cracking little camera for its day. But times have moved on - everyone wants a S35 camcorder today, manufacturers know that. The GH5 will be I guess the closest we;d ever get to a true AF101 replacement. But it wont be a camcorder, it will still be a compact photographic camera with video features.
As much as I'd want to see a "AF101 4K" , the M43 4K Camcorder debate is becoming a bit nostalgic - the AF101 was the first true, but that was 5-6 years ago; since then S35 has overtaken almost all aspects of mid tier and 110% high end productions. Maybe I am totally wrong, but I'd be very surprised to see new M43 camcorders with interchangeable lenses at IBC or after. Time will tell, we'll have to wait and see, but Panasonic are guarding their Varicam LT right now very well as it's the one pro camera they sell the most of and the competition in the lower tier is just too much for them to even be competitive - you have the FS5, FS7, C300 II, and the 2 new Canon's whatever they end up being. Well one of them is an LT/Amira competitor, but you get the point - all of them are S35 chips.
combatentropy
Veteran
Totally agree. On the outside the LS300 is almost perfect. The inside is a different story.
I do not want a shoulder-mounted camcorder. I want a handicam body, like the LS300 --- a critical body style between DSLR and shoulder. And judging by the number and length of threads about dreamcorders, many others do too. It may seem almost the same as a DSLR, but these features make a big difference: built-in XLRs and one battery to power everything.
But it has to be well executed. The super-cheap DSLRs are pulling people away from botched attempts like the LS300, because they would rather spend $1,000 on something non-ideal than $5,000 on something non-ideal.
Last edited:
In the last year I have made three documentaries, all broadcast either state wide or nationally, as well as a dozen Regional TV spots (all for colleges and a university) with the LS300. I have seamlessly intercut with material shot raw with my Pocket Cameras.
It's clear to me that those critiquing the LS300 have never actually used one.
As for MFT - I also have a Digital Bolex, and am incredibly sad that that camera has gone the way of the lonely independent... I think MFT is the best starting point for a cinema camera because of the lens options it gives you, and I've always loved the S16 size... But the S35 fad has left us with badly thought out EF mount cameras from Canon (I had a C100, sold it for the much better JVC), or E mount Sony.
JVC alone tried (unsuccessfully) to offer the best of both worlds.
It's clear to me that those critiquing the LS300 have never actually used one.
As for MFT - I also have a Digital Bolex, and am incredibly sad that that camera has gone the way of the lonely independent... I think MFT is the best starting point for a cinema camera because of the lens options it gives you, and I've always loved the S16 size... But the S35 fad has left us with badly thought out EF mount cameras from Canon (I had a C100, sold it for the much better JVC), or E mount Sony.
JVC alone tried (unsuccessfully) to offer the best of both worlds.
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
And to me, it is clear to me that
'one man's trash....is another man's treasure'.
In the last year I personally have shot 2 films which have aired on PBS as well
as a series of videos for a university which won a national award.....and I
used a 'Super 35 fad' camera which was one of Sony's 'badly thought out
E mount' cameras.......and I much preferred using it to using any of the
MFT cameras, including the JVC. People have different preferences and
what one person likes isn't what someone else likes. I've had people
seriously tell me they don't like cinema cameras 'with all those confusing
buttons and switches on them.' I on the other hand, can't stand touch
screens or 'menu diving' and hugely prefer physical buttons and switches.
Then there is the lens issues, as some cameras can't use some lenses.
So I don't think it's as much
'anyone who critiques the LS300 has obviously never used it'
as much as it is
'people prefer different things in their cameras.'
It's more like, "10 people who love it vs. 90 people that go "meh" vs. "90 people that go, "Uh, OK" vs. 10 people that go, "meh". In other words, a camera manufacturer has to hit a sweet spot in acceptance. One person may not like "X", the other "Y" but, if a product reasonably checks a number of boxes, then it could become very popular. If it appeals only to a few, then it delves into a unique product category akin to a DeLorean.
The Ls300 is currently at B&H for $2995.
[/QUOTE]And to me, it is clear to me that
'one man's trash....is another man's treasure'.
In the last year I personally have shot 2 films which have aired on PBS as well
as a series of videos for a university which won a national award.....and I
used a 'Super 35 fad' camera which was one of Sony's 'badly thought out
E mount' cameras.......and I much preferred using it to using any of the
MFT cameras, including the JVC. People have different preferences and
what one person likes isn't what someone else likes. I've had people
seriously tell me they don't like cinema cameras 'with all those confusing
buttons and switches on them.' I on the other hand, can't stand touch
screens or 'menu diving' and hugely prefer physical buttons and switches.
Then there is the lens issues, as some cameras can't use some lenses.
So I don't think it's as much
'anyone who critiques the LS300 has obviously never used it'
as much as it is
'people prefer different things in their cameras.'[/QUOTE]
I agree with you in principle, but the principle ceases to be relevant when the other choices are eliminated. I've never owned a JVC, although in the past I've owned 3 Sonys, 5 Panasonics, 7 Canons, 2 Aatons, 5 Eclairs ACLs, 1 CP16R, 1 Eclair NPR and 3 Bolexes - so I can hardly be characterized as a JVC advocate.
But I do prefer the ability to use the smaller, lighter MFT lenses, and my legacy S16 zooms that I've accumulated over the years. But, except for the GH4, Pocket, Micro and the now extinct D16, there aren't many choices. For a documentary filmmaker those aren't great cameras for long days handheld recording on-board audio, and needing to move quickly from an interior to and exterior. I'm just disappointed that I'm so in the minority that a camera like the LS300, or an improved AF100, isn't viable.
As for the "S35 fad" you've got to admit that at least 50% of the stuff you see - with follow focus shots through flowers, or the extreme to be distracting selective focus that is permeating everything - usually unnecessarily - that it is a fad, and isn't always good filmmaking. (BTW - I bought an FS5 and really didn't like it at all so returned it - I preferred the C100, but it's just too awkward to work handheld with a side mounted EVF - thus my admittedly personal comment about poor design).
'one man's trash....is another man's treasure'.
In the last year I personally have shot 2 films which have aired on PBS as well
as a series of videos for a university which won a national award.....and I
used a 'Super 35 fad' camera which was one of Sony's 'badly thought out
E mount' cameras.......and I much preferred using it to using any of the
MFT cameras, including the JVC. People have different preferences and
what one person likes isn't what someone else likes. I've had people
seriously tell me they don't like cinema cameras 'with all those confusing
buttons and switches on them.' I on the other hand, can't stand touch
screens or 'menu diving' and hugely prefer physical buttons and switches.
Then there is the lens issues, as some cameras can't use some lenses.
So I don't think it's as much
'anyone who critiques the LS300 has obviously never used it'
as much as it is
'people prefer different things in their cameras.'[/QUOTE]
I agree with you in principle, but the principle ceases to be relevant when the other choices are eliminated. I've never owned a JVC, although in the past I've owned 3 Sonys, 5 Panasonics, 7 Canons, 2 Aatons, 5 Eclairs ACLs, 1 CP16R, 1 Eclair NPR and 3 Bolexes - so I can hardly be characterized as a JVC advocate.
But I do prefer the ability to use the smaller, lighter MFT lenses, and my legacy S16 zooms that I've accumulated over the years. But, except for the GH4, Pocket, Micro and the now extinct D16, there aren't many choices. For a documentary filmmaker those aren't great cameras for long days handheld recording on-board audio, and needing to move quickly from an interior to and exterior. I'm just disappointed that I'm so in the minority that a camera like the LS300, or an improved AF100, isn't viable.
As for the "S35 fad" you've got to admit that at least 50% of the stuff you see - with follow focus shots through flowers, or the extreme to be distracting selective focus that is permeating everything - usually unnecessarily - that it is a fad, and isn't always good filmmaking. (BTW - I bought an FS5 and really didn't like it at all so returned it - I preferred the C100, but it's just too awkward to work handheld with a side mounted EVF - thus my admittedly personal comment about poor design).
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I have to laugh when I see "Super-35 fad". Many people have been working to get this look for quite some time. The P+S Technik Pro35 adapter came out in the early 2000s (trying to remember -- I think it was 2002?), which was the first commercially-available device to create the Super-35 FOV & DOF on video cameras with smaller sensors (in that case 2/3"). The Mini35 for 1/3" & 1/2" cameras followed, and then came an onslaught of startup companies making their own versions. Companies like Redrock Micro and Letus exist today because they first started out by making these devices (the history behind Redrock Micro is particularly interesting). Thousands of these widgets were sold, some of rather dubious quality, because there was a huge demand.
Then came the RED One. For many people the lure was not 4K or RAW, in fact they didn't utilize either of these features. What was the key selling point was a Super-35 sensor camera at an affordable price. No need for a Panavision Genesis, Sony F35 or Dalsa Origin here. Under $20K got you a video camera with a S-35 look and it could spit it out over SDI or HDMI.
This "Super-35 fad" has been going on for about 15 years now, and there really is little sign of it slowing down. Ask camera & lens manufacturers how the sale of 2/3" gear is going -- it's mostly just sports. News used to to be 16mm and then 2/3", but as budgets have dropped and technology improved, most of that market has shifted to either S-35 or 1/3" sensor cameras.
I'm one of those guys who does not think that the Full Frame sensor will become the new standard. I still believe in Super-35. Full Frame places tough limits on the ability to control focus and it also means that professional zoom lenses with a certain range, build quality and aperture must by necessity become outlandishly large and heavy. For general use the S-35 sensor size is far more practical and there's a ton of great glass built around it. There are also issues of diffraction limits, sensor yield, microns displacement and other technical reasons why S-35 can be seen as more attractive. It looks like RED may agree, as it recently introduced an 8K S-35 camera.
Super-35 is a look, just like 24p is a look. It is not inherently "better" than another format, but it is where people tend to want to go. And they're going to continue to want to go there for quite some time.
Then came the RED One. For many people the lure was not 4K or RAW, in fact they didn't utilize either of these features. What was the key selling point was a Super-35 sensor camera at an affordable price. No need for a Panavision Genesis, Sony F35 or Dalsa Origin here. Under $20K got you a video camera with a S-35 look and it could spit it out over SDI or HDMI.
This "Super-35 fad" has been going on for about 15 years now, and there really is little sign of it slowing down. Ask camera & lens manufacturers how the sale of 2/3" gear is going -- it's mostly just sports. News used to to be 16mm and then 2/3", but as budgets have dropped and technology improved, most of that market has shifted to either S-35 or 1/3" sensor cameras.
I'm one of those guys who does not think that the Full Frame sensor will become the new standard. I still believe in Super-35. Full Frame places tough limits on the ability to control focus and it also means that professional zoom lenses with a certain range, build quality and aperture must by necessity become outlandishly large and heavy. For general use the S-35 sensor size is far more practical and there's a ton of great glass built around it. There are also issues of diffraction limits, sensor yield, microns displacement and other technical reasons why S-35 can be seen as more attractive. It looks like RED may agree, as it recently introduced an 8K S-35 camera.
Super-35 is a look, just like 24p is a look. It is not inherently "better" than another format, but it is where people tend to want to go. And they're going to continue to want to go there for quite some time.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Well said, as usual Mitch.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Ever since I discovered what a full-frame camera was (5D Mark II), I fell in love with the look, but 90% of any movement that I shot was out-of-focus without really stopping down a lot. I always hoped advanced auto-focus computer technology would be implemented into full-frame cameras that would analyze the scene (like Terminator vision or something), and would be able to lock in on items (via touch-screen) and keep them in focus.
So not like any contrast/phase detection, etc...but an actual computer system that knows what objects are and can lock in and track people and items perfectly.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
I agree with everything you wrote, except this one bit. I realize it's entirely subjective, but to me, 24p simply looks better, more professional, and more "high production value" than other framerates. 60p might look more "realistic" but I feel it cheapens the final product significantly vs 24p, regardless of the content.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
And I would say that this is a subconscious association coming from a lifetime of motion pictures being produced at 24fps and lower cost TV soaps and news being produced at 60i. If for whatever reason the only way Edison, the Lumiere Brothers and others could have made motion pictures function properly was at 60fps and the only way Sarnoff and Philo Farnsworth could get video over the airwaves was at 24fps then your associations would be different.I agree with everything you wrote, except this one bit. I realize it's entirely subjective, but to me, 24p simply looks better, more professional, and more "high production value" than other framerates. 60p might look more "realistic" but I feel it cheapens the final product significantly vs 24p, regardless of the content.
Silent movies were shot around 16-18fps because with a double shutter the flicker and strobing was reduced just enough to give the illusion of motion while using the least amount of film, thereby keeping down costs. This was later upped to 24fps when sound came along in order to get good enough fidelity. Video frame rates were based on the electrical power system (50hz or 60hz) and the decay rate of the phosphor used on television tubes. 25p/30p would mean that the top of the screen would dim before the bottom could be scanned with the electron beam, causing flicker, so interlacing was used to scan every other line and create 50i/60i.
All of our preferences and perceptions of quality are formed from antiquated technical limitations of what are now defunct technologies. But we still cling to these perceptions of what is "better" based on what types of content we are used to associating with specific presentations.
Peter Jackson tried and failed with the 48p look but Ang Lee has succeeded with the 120p. For news and sports, the next technological goal is 8K at 120p. That'll probably make anyone watching 4K at 60p seem like he is at the premier of the Lumiere Bros "La Sortie de l'Usine Lumière à Lyon" .
BTW, the new Olympus OMD MKII should have 4K. The model has already been registered in the Far East.
BTW, the new Olympus OMD MKII should have 4K. The model has already been registered in the Far East.
combatentropy
Veteran
I mostly agree. Large-sensor cameras will stick around. In the old days, those of us on a budget could afford mostly 1/4" and 1/3" camcorders, which gave us a choice between deep focus and really deep focus. Large sensors let us choose shallow focus or, by stopping down, deep focus. Maybe it's not quite as deep as 1/3" at f/11, but we feel freer.
However, I would like to take this chance to bring up a question I have for those that make a distinction among the larger formats. I think I would be fine with anything between Super 16 and Full Frame, for several reasons:
- Many wouldn't call Super 16 large, but for someone used to 1/4 or 1/3", it's large, and at f/2 or f/2.8 there is a noticeable blur of the background. One drawback of S16 is that 4K is hard. So okay, if you insist on 4K then let's say I would be fine with anything between 4/3 and full frame.
- Some people's fatigue with shallow focus is from the extreme examples, like full frame at 1.4. But all that most of us wanted was reasonable background blur --- say, f/4 or f/5.6 on S35, which was the usual setting in Hollywood. Maybe a few shots sprinkled in with deeper or shallower focus, but something like that.
- Based on what I've read, the difference in focus is equivalent to crop factor. For example, full frame is about 1.5 times bigger than S35. So to get the same look, you not only multiply the focal length by 1.5 but also the f-stop. For example, a 50mm lens at f/5.6 on full frame should have about the same angle of view and depth of field as a 35mm lens at f/4 on S35.
It is for that last reason that I don't understand why some people insist on S35, and not full frame, or say that 4/3, S35, and full frame represent three tiers in a company's product line. Between each is just one f-stop, to make up the difference in depth of field. Is full frame too shallow, and S35 is perfect? Click. Close down the iris by one f-stop.
Last edited:
It's also human biology. Anything under 30fps feels dream-like, surreal, fictional. Anything over 30fps feels "real". Films are like dreams. They tap into your subconscious. When you dream, it feels like you are really there, but then you wake up and realize it was just a dream - your reflection in the mirror was blurry, the time on the clock was jumping all over the place every time you looked and you could only run really slowly. Still, you felt fear and happiness and joy and despair. You laughed and you cried. It's the same for cinema.
That's also why 12K, 600fps, HDR, supersharp image is great for sports, nature documentaries, news, porn and stuff like that, but not so much for movies.