G
Guest
Guest
2) Nolan
3) QT
4) Ryan Gosling (yeah he directs now too)
5) occasionally me for stills, and hopefully in the near future for motion
6) Chayse Irvin, CSC
Plus i meet multiple people that still shoot or are interested in shooting film. Even on documentaries. Something awesome about physical celluloid on a documentary, it is so tangible and a real physical medium.
G
Guest
Guest
This little film was shot as a oner, with hidden cuts for reel changes. Shot on film:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8l3WC4wl-SY
So, 7) Norm Li
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8l3WC4wl-SY
So, 7) Norm Li
combatentropy
Veteran
I thought for the different picture quality. What is the difference in picture quality between a DSLR and mirrorless?
I don't know if it's one Single thing
G
Guest
Guest
I don't know if it's one Single thing
Oh no you didn’t! Haha
...however, in this case, i do believe it is pretty much one thing: optical view
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
Yeah, you may be right. The optical viewfinder was the only reason I could think of.
G
Guest
Guest
To be honest, i liked having an OVF on the 1DC. It’s like having an always on VF. Or VF. Haha. But the integration was bad for video. That mirror lock up slap ruined it.
Mirrorless vs. DSLR was mostly a question of marketing. When the DSLR's were appealing to the pros and the enthusiasts, the mirrorless occupied the point-and-shoot niche. It was cheaper, it was more compact, it was a convenient substitute for people who didn't have a smartphone. Even Sony decided to stick with Minolta's A-mount and a translucent mirror approach for their high end line. And DSLR's kept up quality wise with the mirrorless until the most recent Sony and Fuji releases. Which proved that, in the case of equal performance, the legacy ecosystem wins. Then there's a question of the brand loyalty on top of that.
Move the clock to 2018 and the old DSLR stalwarts Canon and Nikon begin to realize that, the North American market aside, fairly compact but equal or superior in quality mirrorless are getting more and more popular and taking over the amateur and the enthusiast segment and have the capability to outperform DSLR's on the pro level as well. And so the pilgrimage begins.
And, probably coincidentally, this happens just as the smartphones are pretty much destroying the entire industry.
Side story - a couple of months ago, I engaged in two Facebook conversations about the photo gear.
One with a long time friend from California. He wanted a "compact vacation" camera. Another friend recommended a Nikon DSLR. I privately told him the DSLR's are not compact and the F-mount is being abandoned by Nikon anyway. I thought that A7R II was a great deal for $1,500 in December but he told me that he checked out the Best Buy photo section, wasn't impressed by the required investment and decided to stick with his iPhone.
The other conversation was with a female "friend of a friend" from Eastern Europe. To her, mirrorless was a cheap toy and the DSLR's were quality and prestige. I told her that was a decade ago but the news apparently doesn't travel fast to that part of the world and she was a bit aggrieved that I contradicted her.
PS. In the post-Soviet but still Russian speaking part of the world, the nickname for a P&S is "soap dispenser" due to its resemblance to the old Soviet bathroom appliance. Here's a whole article I just found (in Russian)
https://womanadvice.ru/fotoapparat-mylnica-kak-vybrat-luchshuyu
Move the clock to 2018 and the old DSLR stalwarts Canon and Nikon begin to realize that, the North American market aside, fairly compact but equal or superior in quality mirrorless are getting more and more popular and taking over the amateur and the enthusiast segment and have the capability to outperform DSLR's on the pro level as well. And so the pilgrimage begins.
And, probably coincidentally, this happens just as the smartphones are pretty much destroying the entire industry.
Side story - a couple of months ago, I engaged in two Facebook conversations about the photo gear.
One with a long time friend from California. He wanted a "compact vacation" camera. Another friend recommended a Nikon DSLR. I privately told him the DSLR's are not compact and the F-mount is being abandoned by Nikon anyway. I thought that A7R II was a great deal for $1,500 in December but he told me that he checked out the Best Buy photo section, wasn't impressed by the required investment and decided to stick with his iPhone.
The other conversation was with a female "friend of a friend" from Eastern Europe. To her, mirrorless was a cheap toy and the DSLR's were quality and prestige. I told her that was a decade ago but the news apparently doesn't travel fast to that part of the world and she was a bit aggrieved that I contradicted her.
PS. In the post-Soviet but still Russian speaking part of the world, the nickname for a P&S is "soap dispenser" due to its resemblance to the old Soviet bathroom appliance. Here's a whole article I just found (in Russian)
https://womanadvice.ru/fotoapparat-mylnica-kak-vybrat-luchshuyu
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
GG viewer changes its brightness with the brightness of the scene. On a sunny day an EVF can be not bright enough - or too bright in the dark - as your eye irises up and down with the ambient light the EVF does not.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I love film. Always have, always will. I had a Canon Scoopic, a CP 16, a K3 and an Arri SR2.
If I could land the financing today, I would shoot a lot of different type projects on film.
It's simple, people still shoot on film because film offers an image that digital can only just barely, sort of, but not really emulate.
To me the Arri Digital Cinema cameras come pretty close but they still don't REALLY look like film usually.
Once upon a Time In Hollywood was shot on film and I though it looked wonderful. Lots of other projects the past two years
have been shot at least partially on film according to my ICG600 magazine.
Run&Gun
Veteran
A good EVF shows you what the camera/sensor is actually seeing, an OVF does not. And if your eye is in the EVF, it’s adjusted to that image, not the ambient. I’ve NEVER in my career been in ambient lighting conditions that overpowered a real EVF with my eye in it properly. An EVF tells me way more than an optical and is thus way more valuable and accurate.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Plus, at iso6400 lighting situations, the OVF starts to become a nuisance.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Some stills photographers - espectially sports people - (buyers of the 1dx series)- like to shoot with both eyes open as they find the ability to look around a good thing and having one eye closed for 90 mins painful.
You particualarly need to look around when on a prime 400 2.8 -you cant zoom out when you are lost te reorientat to the action.
I used to do Plymouth Argyle - Ive been whacked by a soccar ball which is a bad thing luckily on the shoulder not a nose and teeth breaker where the ball hits the camera - I became a both eyes open guy after that.
--
As for brightness in the dark... yep my GH4 and 1.2 can see what I cannot.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
I’ve been shooting sports since the 90’s, too. Most of us that shoot sports shoot with both eyes open. I will also open both eyes anytime I’m moving. Ours eyes and brain adjust. It’s never really been an issue for me or others I know. People have their preferences and that’s fine, but to me a good EVF is better. The image is much larger(never shot motion film, so can’t comment on an optical VF there), you see the actual exposure & the actual white balance(the majority of what I shoot is not log) and there’s no mirror flapping up or spinning blocking your view during the moment of exposure.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Everything you say is true ... but try telling the pro stills guys that, my AFP mate just gave away his Z6. I still think looking towards the sun the eye opens iris when in the EFV - comes out and gets a blast of sun at F2, painful
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Why do I never see cameramen wearing eye patches with EVFs? I've only done it on rare occasions, but there have been some occasions where the sun is blaring in my shut eye, while my other eye is in the darkness of the viewfinder, and it can be a bit painful, so I'd find myself putting my left hand up to my left eye to shield it from the sun, as the eyelid was not enough of a shield. And then comes in the eye patch, which frees up my left hand so my left eye can stay shielded. Rare case and I typically don't use an eye patch, well, it's been years and I only did it on perhaps one or two shoots, but my point is it seemed useful for those situations. I get that it looks silly. But useful is useful.
combatentropy
Veteran
Because video piracy is generally frowned upon.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Ding, ding, ding!