EVA1: New EVA1 footage is here

I will say after looking at Carl's comparison that the AF on the C200 is nothing shy of amazing...I don't use AF so never pay much attention to it, but I can completely see how for run and gun people would choose the C200, because they get the shot...at least in the shot Carl posted it was instant!
 
Yes, hard to understand how a camera so obviously designed to fit well in a Movi or Ronin would not have a continuous AF option? Perhaps as a future firmware update???
 
Per Carl in the Comparison ........"When only adjusting Contrast and Saturation, the Ursa Mini Pro looks really nice!" Wish he would have added the Ursa Mini Pro to the Over Exposure Test (test only compared FS7II, C200 and EVA1).........Blackmagic has done a really good job with that camera!
 
Last edited:
FWIW, the DPAF with the cinema cameras vs. DSLRs is day and night.

I don't have an explanation why, but the stills cameras just do it so much better. My theory is because they are basically built to auto-focus, ha, and probably have some kind of software/hardware connection that the cinema cameras don't.

(5D Mark IV and 1DX Mark II are very good.)
 
J.Brown and NorBro, could you expand on your experience here with the AF on the C200 vs the DSLR's? Any more details would be greatly appreciated. For example, how often does the AF fail on the C200? Are certain situations / setups particularly troublesome?

I'm trying to decide what to buy exactly around these issues. I want the C200's raw, but if the AF isn't reliable, I'd consider the 5D IV. Thanks!

(I just realized this is pretty off topic. Sorry. But would still love to get some answers!)
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
I don't believe so, Varicam LT has no autofocus too.
Click to expand...

Autofocus comment was purely within the context of the fact that the EVA1 seems otherwise an excellent choice (and in many ways designed) for use in a flexibly light gimbal mount. One of the original demo films for the camera seemed like it was shot primarily using gimbal and drone mounts. I personally don't think of the Varicam LT as a go-to lightweight gimbal camera.
 
Looking at some grades from other people, and looking at what I come up with myself, it's plain to see why there will never be a consensus as to what camera "looks better". It's obvious we all have different sensibilities, or strive for different ideals. I see grades that go in the same direction as I would go, while other efforts are pretty far from what I'd feel comfortable handing out.

It's just a reminder that even some very basic concepts that we might feel are common ground, might actually not be that common at all! It's pretty cool actually, and not a question of right or wrong. But I can see how it's important to find a good match between client and content creator.

Thanks to Carl for contributing!

Two versions scaled back to 1920x1080:

EVA1_Man.jpg


EVA1_WomanBaby.jpg
 
As far as the C200 and AF I would look upon it as not to be trusted. It reminds me a bit of the issues I've experienced with numerous cameras from Panasonic and AF. It hunts now and then. In fact I much prefer the smooth and slower AF on some Sony cameras. Took my FS5 today and went around the house to try out AF a bit more and it actually appears to be more consistent in what it can do. It's not fast but it doesn't go bananas either.
 
hoju said:
J.Brown and NorBro, could you expand on your experience here with the AF on the C200 vs the DSLR's? Any more details would be greatly appreciated. For example, how often does the AF fail on the C200? Are certain situations / setups particularly troublesome?

I'm trying to decide what to buy exactly around these issues. I want the C200's raw, but if the AF isn't reliable, I'd consider the 5D IV. Thanks!

(I just realized this is pretty off topic. Sorry. But would still love to get some answers!)
Click to expand...

So I only rented the C200 once to check it out, but I have more experience with the C100 Mark II and C300 Mark II.

My overall conclusion about AF on the cinema cameras is it is slower and "clunkier". The touchscreens on the DSLRs are super responsive and the AF is instant (if you need it to be). All modes work really well, including tracking which is a commanding process (not face-tracking/detection but object tracking). I haven't used the C100/C300 in over a year so maybe firmware made it better, I'm not sure.

Maybe some of my opinion is also psychologically biased because the touchscreens on the DSLRs are right behind the sensor so close to the lens and just feel very right in practice...it's like you're playing a video game, ha.
 
Thanks for the input and insights, friends! Greatly appreciated.

My instinct is to go for the C200, but if I find a good deal on the 5D IV or the 1DX II, maybe I'll go that route instead.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Looking at some grades from other people, and looking at what I come up with myself, it's plain to see why there will never be a consensus as to what camera "looks better". It's obvious we all have different sensibilities, or strive for different ideals. I see grades that go in the same direction as I would go, while other efforts are pretty far from what I'd feel comfortable handing out.

It's just a reminder that even some very basic concepts that we might feel are common ground, might actually not be that common at all! It's pretty cool actually, and not a question of right or wrong. But I can see how it's important to find a good match between client and content creator.

Thanks to Carl for contributing!

Two versions scaled back to 1920x1080:

EVA1_Man.jpg


EVA1_WomanBaby.jpg
Click to expand...

Must say I rather like these grades. Sumptuous is the word that comes to mind.
 
I'm on the fence with C200 and EVA1. Just waiting till the EVA1 actually ships to hear more input from forum members. And yes, need to get one in my hands to test. As Andree stated, it will be very difficult to get a consensus on these cameras, but I'll soon buy one or the other (or two). Good to have competition!!!
 
Last edited:
AndreeOnline said:
Looking at some grades from other people, and looking at what I come up with myself, it's plain to see why there will never be a consensus as to what camera "looks better". It's obvious we all have different sensibilities, or strive for different ideals. I see grades that go in the same direction as I would go, while other efforts are pretty far from what I'd feel comfortable handing out.

It's just a reminder that even some very basic concepts that we might feel are common ground, might actually not be that common at all! It's pretty cool actually, and not a question of right or wrong. But I can see how it's important to find a good match between client and content creator.

Thanks to Carl for contributing!
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. Both with your thoughts (and your grades). And for me, I do a lot of color work for behind the scenes pieces cut for the studios. The last I did was a combination of Alexa Mini for interviews with B-Roll shot on FS7, A7S II, C300. Some grade easier than others. And after spending an hour with Carl's footage, I would put the EVA1 high on the list of cameras that are a pleasure to work with.
 
+1

nice natural skin on mother and child, nice sharpness on eyeball of the the sitting guy. in the end its a concert of production and postproduction hitting their marks.


William said:
+1
Yeah, this particular grade accommodates my aesthetic sensibilities as well. Nice job AndreeOnline!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top