"Next Level" cameras image quality not justified by price increase? Am I da only one?

M

M1CEtro

Active member
"Next Level" cameras image quality not justified by price increase? Am I da only one?

I've been shooting music videos on 5d M3 and recently the gh4 for about 3 years. I have been saving and looking to upgrade to a bigger camera that I consider "next level" at 12 grand and below. Sony Fs7 was one of those cameras. There is one problem I have been having when looking for a camera to upgrade to. Given the situation where you have a knowledgeable DP and sufficient lighting for your shoots, I just don't see a big enough difference in the image quality between something like the Gh4/A7s vs Fs7 to justify the extra $6,000-8,000 that you would pay to upgrade. Yeah you got alot of cool extra convenience features, but at the end of the day its about the quality of the image you are getting. Yes the Fs7 is "better" but for all of that extra money, I would expect to see a HUGE difference between that and the gh4. And I just don't, and that really bothers me. Have you or anyone else had similar sentiments? I have been feeling this way about many of the cameras I am researching. And that is to the trained eye, I am not sure that the vast majority of people online watching these videos would notice much of a difference at all compared to the image I can get from a GH4. Sure I would be willing to pay a few extra grand for those improvements, but 8 GRAND? That just seems ridiculous to me. I can't be the only one that feels this way.
 
Nope. You're right.
There is a certain point at which you get "90%" of the way there, and the remaining 10% costs a massive amount of money (relatively).
It's certainly that way with audio too.

Venue and content matter.
I think we all tend to look at music videos with a different eye than we look at, say..a feature film. Also frames and scenes in music videos are generally framed in a way that is different and less demanding than feature narrative films.
Also - where are your videos MOST often viewed? On a computer over the Web? On TVs over cable? On the Big Screen? On mobile devices?
All that matters. if the majority of viewers are seeing it on a relatively smaller screen, then you may not be able to realize any benefit at all from a higher level camera.
It is also entirely possible that you could employ a much more sophisticated camera but still end up with a finished video that looks no different from what you've already done. This is mainly because the 2 cameras you've been using really output a pretty phenomenal image. Especially for something like music videos.

I strongly suggest you shoot your next one on a rented Fs7 or C300 or the like, and then when you've finished the product, you can look back at exactly what may have been different throughout the production workflow, and decide if it really made any important difference to you at any step of the way or in the final product.

....and was it worth it.


EDIT: Have you shot RAW with the 5D3? I know it's a more complicated workflow - but so is what you have to do with those higher-end cameras. I personally think it takes a ton of camera to beat the 5D3 RAW image quality.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply you made some great points. Especially the venue. Majority of viewers at this point are on the web. I planned on shooting my next video on a rented Fs7. This post came from the result of me shooting my last video on a RED One, and not seeing a big difference between that and my GH4 footage. I have not bothered at all with 5d Mark 3 RAW because I never wanted to mess with the extra workflow. But I might check it out.
 
Some of it is more than just image quality. It's workflow, ergonomics, and features. Compare a DSLR and a C100 for example. Built in ND filters, XLR cables, audio control dials, and all the video features like waveform and peaking that you forgot you even knew about. Just those features alone would be enough for most working pros to switch even if the image quality was identical. Add in the better IQ on the C100 and it's a night and day difference.
You'll hear people always say "A talented DP can make a VHS camcorder look good" but although that may be the case, would you want to do it? Would you be able to do better work with a better more functional camera? Would that same "talented DP" be able to do even better work with a full featured camera instead of the VHS camcorder?
Beyond that, it's really just a question of budget. I like to think that we can get 75% of the way there for 25% of the budget. It's that last little stretch to 100% that costs the most.
 
There's no reason for you to buy a new camera until your camera breaks. Congrats, you're set. And even then, you can buy one used.

The only feature I think is really missing from your camera is global shutter, but it's also still missing from most models. Until it's out, it's not worth it to buy the newest shiny object, at least if you're just shooting music videos.

As DPStewart said, music videos demand less ergonomics than other things. If you were shooting weddings, events, news, and other run-and-gun stuff full-time, then other things start to become worth it --- niceties like XLR jacks, ND filters, body shape, long-life batteries, and wider dynamic range. Even then, these are small things, and you could work around them. But when you're doing it full time, it starts to become death by a thousand paper cuts not to have them.

You're getting a great deal on your camera because it's a DSLR. The company sells many more of them than a high-end video camera, so it can sell each one cheaper, because certain fixed costs like R&D get spread among the whole bunch. As you climb the ladder to more and more specialized cameras, where fewer and fewer people buy them, then the prices skyrocket. The same thing happens with so-called "cinema" lenses. A $20,000 Cooke lens is not 100 times better than a used Nikon lens. In fact, the optical quality may be only two or three times as good, and to the average viewer, almost no difference at all. But things like standard focus ring sizes and a PL mount make the daily DP's life happier. And he's not buying them anyway. He's renting them, and even then it's with someone else's money. But again the very things that make it appealing to Hollywood DP's, like manual focus and PL mounts, make it appalling to the tens of thousands of everyday photographers in the world. So Cooke only sells like three of them a year (a slight exaggeration), so they have to charge $20,000 for each one.
 
Last edited:
M1CEtro - I found the Youtube page of a guy who does music videos on a 5D3 in Raw. INSANE improvement over just the H.264.
He has about a half dozen videos up as well as really good tutorials of exactly how to work the RAW files, keeping it pretty easy.

Longer shoots in RAW can be data KILLERS...but if you're doing mostly short takes for music videos it's way more manageable.

Check out his stuff here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/akpevbe/videos
 
Resolution is perhaps the most important aspect of image quality to the normal end viewer, when they see the gh4 images they look high quality, high rez, just like Red or C300. It's only us who pay attention to the other aspects of IQ like DR, noise pattern, aliasing, etc.

That's why I believe the GH4 was a major democratizing product bridging the gap between high end and low end cameras, before the gh4 the jump between soft 5D footage to tack sharp Red footage was major and worth the money, it quite noticeable to the audience, one is high rez/quality and one is low quality.


With the advent of high resolution budget cameras like the GH4, the nx1, the a7s, the difference between high-end and low-end cameras is becoming more about the ergonomics, audio, workflow, build, and most importantly the brand name and appeal to clients, the later is way more important than you might think...


Do you think your normal audience care about banding? Slight aliasing? A clipped highlight here or there? Do they care for the noise pattern? I promise you they don't. But what they do care about is whether you're shooting on a Red for them or for a small gh4, and they pay money, respect and evaluate your production success based on the camera price. It's harsh reality sorry, and it's not just in the video industry, come and see how the medical industry works, even more brutal and only looks for how expensive your devices are. If you want to compete in the market you'll have to follow thay trend and satisfy your clients, this is strictly business wise. But creative-wise, you probably don't need anything more than a gh4 to shoot a 4K DCI theatrical release without anybody commenting on IQ compared to if you'd shot it on a Red.


It happened to the stills industry and now video is following. 99% of even the world most demanding photography jobs would be 100% fine with the images out of a 400$ D3300, even for billboard prints and magazines, so the higher end cameras in the stills world are becoming more about speed, durability, size, and most impprtantly market appeal/name.

The difference between the Red image and 5D is huge, but put the GH4/nx1 image next to the red image and see how much they've come as close as it makes no visual difference to normal viewers.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
... The difference between the Red image and 5D is huge, but put the GH4/nx1 image next to the red image and see how much they've come as close as it makes no visual difference to normal viewers.
Click to expand...
Under the controlled circumstances and in the hands of a good shooter, LX 100 delivers stunning images for $800 (lens included). And, to reiterate what is said/written above, most people don't have the "pro" eyes and will notice the shot composition, then its resolution and only then pay any attention to the artifacts/noise/moire/color fringing.

As a silly side story, I was watching a fairly recent - mid-2014 - news/analysis type of an interview made by a Russian online TV program and the visiting guest was wearing a very small pattern checkered sport coat. The guy couldn't move his arm without the sea of moire doing its little dance. I personally found it amusing that the producers of the show didn't even tell the guy to either change or eliminate the sport coat entirely.
 
Well I have to respectfully disagree. Red and gh4 can look similar TO A POINT then they wildly break away from each other. Dragon has a TON of iq that is lacking in the gh4. Dynamic range being a big one, color fidelity, 16 bit vs 10, raw, high frame rates at high resolutions, HDRx, live coloring via iPad, in camera speed ramping, anamorphic, I could go on. I think even normal people would pick a higher fidelity image when they are sitting next to each other. There are clients and there are discerning clients. The second type are educated, can see the difference, and pay A LOT more. Those are the type we should all strive to procure. Once you do, it is pretty awesome. But they are hard to get.
 
txdp said:
Well I have to respectfully disagree. Red and gh4 can look similar TO A POINT then they wildly break away from each other. Dragon has a TON of iq that is lacking in the gh4. Dynamic range being a big one, color fidelity, 16 bit vs 10, raw, high frame rates at high resolutions, HDRx, live coloring via iPad, in camera speed ramping, anamorphic, I could go on. I think even normal people would pick a higher fidelity image when they are sitting next to each other. There are clients and there are discerning clients. The second type are educated, can see the difference, and pay A LOT more. Those are the type we should all strive to procure. Once you do, it is pretty awesome. But they are hard to get.
Click to expand...

Is DRAGON not their absolute top of the line?

A GH4 will compare to a RED ONE very favorably.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Resolution is perhaps the most important aspect of image quality to the normal end viewer, when they see the gh4 images they look high quality, high rez, just like Red or C300. It's only us who pay attention to the other aspects of IQ like DR, noise pattern, aliasing, etc.

That's why I believe the GH4 was a major democratizing product bridging the gap between high end and low end cameras, before the gh4 the jump between soft 5D footage to tack sharp Red footage was major and worth the money, it quite noticeable to the audience, one is high rez/quality and one is low quality.


With the advent of high resolution budget cameras like the GH4, the nx1, the a7s, the difference between high-end and low-end cameras is becoming more about the ergonomics, audio, workflow, build, and most importantly the brand name and appeal to clients, the later is way more important than you might think...


Do you think your normal audience care about banding? Slight aliasing? A clipped highlight here or there? Do they care for the noise pattern? I promise you they don't. But what they do care about is whether you're shooting on a Red for them or for a small gh4, and they pay money, respect and evaluate your production success based on the camera price. It's harsh reality sorry, and it's not just in the video industry, come and see how the medical industry works, even more brutal and only looks for how expensive your devices are. If you want to compete in the market you'll have to follow thay trend and satisfy your clients, this is strictly business wise. But creative-wise, you probably don't need anything more than a gh4 to shoot a 4K DCI theatrical release without anybody commenting on IQ compared to if you'd shot it on a Red.


It happened to the stills industry and now video is following. 99% of even the world most demanding photography jobs would be 100% fine with the images out of a 400$ D3300, even for billboard prints and magazines, so the higher end cameras in the stills world are becoming more about speed, durability, size, and most impprtantly market appeal/name.

The difference between the Red image and 5D is huge, but put the GH4/nx1 image next to the red image and see how much they've come as close as it makes no visual difference to normal viewers.
Click to expand...

I just started a thread on this very question....I own a red one mx which I'm thinking of selling....(if the gh4 is comparable image wise)..what do you think? Have you used both? (i've never used the gh4)
 
I'd almost say get out of your RED before NAB because its resale value may drop even more after all the insane new technology is revealed.

There is every reason to believe that 4K DSLR's with 12-stops of D.R., better codecs, and LOG-type profiles will be absolutely standard by the end of this year.

Unless you get paid enough to make camera cost irrelevant - I'd be super scared to get into any camera investment above $8,000 right now.
 
niki said:
I just started a thread on this very question....I own a red one mx which I'm thinking of selling....(if the gh4 is comparable image wise)..what do you think? Have you used both? (i've never used the gh4)
Click to expand...

Sell your RED One dude. I just shot my last music video on RED One, the one before that was on GH4. The quality difference in the end result was not very significant, especially not worth the price difference between the two cameras. I agree with DPStewart, sell before NAB
 
txdp said:
Well I have to respectfully disagree. Red and gh4 can look similar TO A POINT then they wildly break away from each other. Dragon has a TON of iq that is lacking in the gh4. Dynamic range being a big one, color fidelity, 16 bit vs 10, raw, high frame rates at high resolutions, HDRx, live coloring via iPad, in camera speed ramping, anamorphic, I could go on. I think even normal people would pick a higher fidelity image when they are sitting next to each other. There are clients and there are discerning clients. The second type are educated, can see the difference, and pay A LOT more. Those are the type we should all strive to procure. Once you do, it is pretty awesome. But they are hard to get.
Click to expand...

From the original post, I mentioned I was evaluating cameras around the $12,000 range and below. DRAGON is at least what? like 50k? I think its safe to assume thats going to be top dog. My point was the general concept that the majority of these next level cameras above DSLRs, bells and whistles aside, do not produce an image whos quality increase matches the price increase.
 
M1CEtro said:
Sell your RED One dude. I just shot my last music video on RED One, the one before that was on GH4. The quality difference in the end result was not very significant, especially not worth the price difference between the two cameras. I agree with DPStewart, sell before NAB
Click to expand...

I agree with you..if I hadn't put the red mx package together for so cheap (around 7000) it would have been up for sale by now...!
 
DPStewart said:
I'd almost say get out of your RED before NAB because its resale value may drop even more after all the insane new technology is revealed...
Click to expand...
You mean like a 120 MPX sensor?

Now, that would be crazy (if it wasn't true).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top