Specs aside -which cameras do you like the look of?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
As the title says, specs aside (or any general problems) which cameras do you really like the look of and which ones do you feel are overrated?

I've been paying more and more attention lately to just the overall look of an image a camera produces, even if it has issues with moire or other functional problems.
 
I really like pretty much everything I see from the BMPCC. I know it has issues with battery life and I've heard the mic jack is not great. I'm also not a big fan of the smaller sensor due to difficulty in obtaining wide angle lenses, plus I know it has moire issus, but I do think the image just looks great. Very cinematic looking compared to most cameras in its price range.
 
roxics said:
As the title says, specs aside (or any general problems) which cameras do you really like the look of and which ones do you feel are overrated?

I've been paying more and more attention lately to just the overall look of an image a camera produces, even if it has issues with moire or other functional problems.
Click to expand...

Honestly, unless you are a pixel peeper, if you know what you're doing they all look great. The features I think that are more important are built in XLR, viewfinder, and ND filters. Those features make your life much easier and you spend less time trying to work around not having them, or getting a solution for these items if the camera doesn't already have them.
 
I agree that it's nice to have a camera with those features. But personally I'm pretty sensitive to the look of a movie. There are a lot of lower budget movies shot on DSLRs that just turn me off because the suspension of disbelief is lost when I see the image and the way that objects on the screen move. It comes off looking too much like home video. Even though I know it was shot at 24fps and they did a good job on the color/lighting/framing. Certain cameras just render an image more believable than others. All else being equal. There is an organic quality to the BMPCC that reminds me of super16 a bit. So despite its other faults, I like the quality of the image.
 
F35
Alexa
BMC/BMPCC with SB/BM4K well graded
RED Dragon well graded
Canon C
Waiting for Marco Polo on Netflix to make a final judgement about the F55
 
A lot of people don't use DSLRs correctly. They compensate for exposure with shutter as if they are shooting stills, rather than leaving it at 1/50. They don't turn down the sharpness setting.

Gillvane and Mcbob are right. A lot of people are too worried about their camera looking like a certain other camera, or even looking like film. I get that, I like the looks on those, we are programmed to associate that with professional movies.

BUT...

As time goes on, the more I appreciate the look of older "limited" cameras like my AF100. It produces a very distinct image, that, when not compared to a Red or 35mm film, looks gorgeous. I'm not saying there aren't better cameras or even with arguably "better" looks, etc. But like the others said.. what IS a good image? A lot of cameras out there produce some very beautiful images even if they do not look like film.

We've sort of seen this in video games as an example, where for a long time people were chasing photo-realistic graphics, and then at a certain point everyone realized you can have gorgeous looking visuals that don't look photo realistic but are still beautiful, just different, and to be appreciated for the art that they are. In fact, I almost wonder if once EVERYTHING looks like film if people are going to start wanting images that look more distinct and diverse. In fact, I think I've almost had that impact with AF100 footage... now that EVERYTHING out there looks DSLR-ish, people get stoked when they see something that is shot very well but just looks different (assuming it still looks "GOOD").

At the end of the day, I just like the look of good cinematography, regardless of the camera. The GH4, the Red Epic, the AF100, the BM cameras, the Sony A7s... they all look great...

as far as which I prefer the look of, I'm not sure. I like them all for different reasons. I tend to have to pick based on workflow issues and price first now.

Also of note... post production techniques can dramatically change the look of any camera. Sharpening, softening, adding noise, cleaning noise, changing contrast, etc. There are a lot of variables that can make my AF100 or BMC footage look very different than yours. And lenses, of course.

Well, point is, it's a very difficult question to answer, really!
 
Yep, pretty much my thoughts.

I've seen fantastic footage out of everything that's currently available, from iPhones and GoPros to Dragons, Phantoms, Ursas, and other beasts that sound like D&D Monster Manual entries and cost more than a house. At the same time, I see plenty of half-assed crap from every example of those very same cameras. I've seen complaints about footage that I thought looked perfectly fine and have been underwhelmed by footage that others gushed voluminously over. It's now just in the realm of subjective. All cameras available now are capable of excellence when used properly. The value of cameras are now the extras they can provide to make the rest of the production easier (whether codec, or I/O, or size, what have you). So in that sense, I like the look of all cameras, and all cameras are overrated.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much agree with both the above posts. I still love the image from the HVX, especially outdoors where the poor lowlight performance isn't an issue. I held out against 1080p as long as I could but I eventually just felt the images I was getting could only compete with what I seeing here in when scaled to lower resolutions and the problems of getting enough light, constantly worried about tripping breakers in every location I shot at were starting to take their toll. But I held out for the longest time because I just ultimately didn't find anything else I could love even though the images of many cameras were objectively better.

I tried the GH2 but just couldn't get excited enough about it to even learn it, too fiddly, too many menus and buttons I had no use for. I've seen some amazing footage out of it, especially with hacks but I knew I would never put the effort in to achieve that level myself. I just use it for happy snaps now really. Almost upgraeded to the HPX170 in the absence of an alternative but felt it wasn't enough of an upgrade and would only need replacing soon enough. Was considering the AF100 but wasn't sure about CMOS as I am sure CCD was a big factor in what I loved about the HVX. BMPCC was the first camera to come along that I could get excited about. I bought it on a whim during the sale and it has been a steep learning curve from the p2 workflow but it really is the perfect introduction to raw, it is optimised for 1080p (which is perfect because I don't want to buy all the hard drives and wait out the render times for anything bigger).

Unlike a cobbled together DSLR rig, even though it needs rigging in the same exact fashion it makes more sense to do so in a sense I can't explain. Something to do with it just being a sensor and intended for the task at hand, I guess. The idea it is a replacement for not just the sensor size but also the historical role and workflow to a degree of 16mm film is quite synergistic with my goals and place in the filmmaking spectrum. And to address the topic at hand, the image I just love. I didn't think I would be able to see past the aliasing, moire and other CMOS issues but so far it hasn't been a major problem, primarily because you are compensated with gorgeous colour and almost infinite post manipulation. And the render out of resolve looks way better than the preview in resolve which has been a bit concerning at times but the final output almost always puts those fears to rest.

Ultimately I can't divorce image quality from other aspects such as ergonomics and workflow. A decision can't be made on image alone. And an image that costs your sanity and soul to acquire is difficult to love. But on the other hand, it is easy to work a little harder for a better image as long as the ergonomics are there. I love the simplicity of the blackmagic menus, the fight isn't so much on the day but rather later in post. All this said there pretty much isn't a camera that gets discussion on these boards that I haven't seen an example of gorgeous work on so I think all that is needed is for the camera to be aligned with the subjective preferences of the operator to get the best out of it.
 
How many people in your audience will notice that you used a Black Magic instead of an AF100 or vice a versa, if both cameras are used properly?
 
If it's a camera that shoots raw then your grading is going to make or break the "look". If we're talking baked in looks, then put me in the Canon C camp over Sony or Panny.
 
I'm kind of partial to my stable, C300 and VariCam's. OF course the Alexa is up there, but I don't own one and have never spent time with or shot it, so I can't speak authoritatively on it. I just see the end products that are shot with it on TV and at the movies. Even though it's a dinosaur now, I always loved the image of the F900. And although I have yet to spend any quality time with the production version of the new s35 VariCam, I'm hearing great things about the picture. I keep hearing Alexa quality image from those that I personally know that have seen it/used it and those that have posted about it.

And while I love the versatility and capabilities of the F5/55, the image can be a let-down, at times… I've seen it render white skin tones purplish, especially around the lips, when lit with HMI's, render blues as purple and at times(while watching a major theatrically released movie, no less) just look like "video".
 
I won't speak on the really high end stuff because I've never really shot with it and it's hard to tell in high end Hollywood flicks where so many factors go into the imagery.

- I really like most of the stuff from entire black magic line. Really nice mojo.

- Recently started shooting with the C100 and I love the image straight out of the camera. the WDR mode grades really well. Also a joy to use, ergonomically.

- Although there's elements that are really dated, I still like the look of my HMC150. Really nice color science + good skin tones.

- I like the 7D, 5D, t2i stuff despite the flaws

- I own a GH2 and while I like it for some shots, it's definitely very hit or miss with me. The color science just never *quite* did it for me and I vow to never buy a camera that I don't like the look of again. You can not always fix it in post.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
If it's a camera that shoots raw then your grading is going to make or break the "look". If we're talking baked in looks, then put me in the Canon C camp over Sony or Panny.
Click to expand...

I agree. I like what I see from the Canon C more than Sony or Panny. Plus the Canon C ticks all the boxes for extra features like built in xlr, etc.
 
DBP;1986502492tones. - I like the 7D said:
I go to a film festival now and then and see a lot of stuff shot on these cameras. If it's done well it looks great and works really well on the big screen for a festival showing.
Click to expand...
 
I've been doing sound editing for many years, and honestly, if a film or TV series is shot well, it is very hard for me to say which camera it was shot with. And if I am sent graded material than it is virtually impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top