What camera would you choose in 2013?

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
I wasn't sure where this thread would go.. so this seemed like the closest place.

It's not really specific to any one camera.

I own and have shot a feature film with a Panasonic GH2, and I'm gearing up for #3 this summer.

I've been out of the loop for a while, and I have a few questions to ask....

1. How would my GH2 (if installed with PL mount) compare to say a RED Scarlet? Would it be able to carry its own? Theatrical showings? Cinematically could I achieve similar look and feel?

2. If you were shooting a low budget indie feature (that you wanted to make look as big budget as possible) what would your camera op be using? Would if be worth the price vs. other things that could be invested in like lighting, sound, etc?

3. When talking about the big boys like RED, Alexa, F35 etc. What makes them so much more superior over say the 5D mark 3, GH2/GH3 etc? When do the differences become obvious, and does shooting on one of the latter cameras eliminate your film from playing in the big leagues?

4. I want the most cinematic image possible for my budget. I'm not wanting to blow my whole budget on cameras, but I do want to balance it out so that I have the best I can get without skimping on sound/lighting etc. My first idea was to outfit my GH2 with either Canon L series primes, or grab a PL mount and rent cinema lenses.. how much better is my footage going to look compared to the old vintage primes I've been using with it? Is that going to provide enough of an boost to go that route vs. renting a RED (which is going to be infinitely more expensive) Are there any other cameras you'd recommend for feature films? I'm wanting to bridge the gap, and my ultimate goal is to look as close to hollywood film level as possible.
 
Azmyth said:
3. When talking about the big boys like RED, Alexa, F35 etc. What makes them so much more superior over say the 5D mark 3, GH2/GH3 etc? When do the differences become obvious, and does shooting on one of the latter cameras eliminate your film from playing in the big leagues?
Click to expand...

From what I've read of those 'big boys' the most significant difference to me is how many bits of 'dynamic range', and color sampling such as 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, depending, even when limiting the discourse to 2K imagine. Obviously a 4K image will have higher spatial resolution than a 2K... well hopefully...

The DSLRs do not have the DR nor color sampling. This has to do with how one lights the scene and the set 'color' scheme. In post production there is just more data to work with, and so the image can be manipulated more. But the larger DR and better color sampling allows the set to be lit dramatically, and captured 'in camera', which can mean less time in post.

These parameters, DR and set dressing, to me are the most telling difference between 'cinematic look' and what comes straight out of most DSLR cameras.

What the PL mount will allow you to use are lenses which are better quality that the ordinary DSLR lens. The betterness ranges from accurate T-stops, better focus fixing if a zoom lens is move through the zoom, rectilinear correction, etc.

The problem with most nolo budget films the time most people spend on setting up for the shot. So better lensing won't really help.

Shoot 3 or 4 scenes on a 'weekend' rather than 10 or 15... I think there would be vast improvements just by doing that alone.
 
First thing is to know if you need 4k for post or not. If not, or you don't know why you would need it for post, then you don't need it.

Next is to know if you need Raw for post or not. If not, or you don't know what you will gain from it in post, then you don't need it.

So let's say you're looking at a 35mm based sensor and will stick with 2k/HD and you're fine with internal codec based options. That leaves some really amazing cameras for HD acquisition ranging from a GH2, 7D, 5D, C100, C300, FS100, FS700, F3... and any of these cameras can produce cinematic images - remember there are hundreds of posts on DVX that go a long way to show how usually its everything else on a production that goes into making something look "cinematic" and has less to do dwith the camera itself. ie. art directing, cinematography, lighting, location, acting, wardrobe, even sound. Also hire a DP as he will know how to make "cinematic" images even with limited dynamic range cameras.

As for RED, C500, F5/F55, etc.. these will give you 4k and Raw, but like I said if you don't know the benefit then how would you benefit? Stick with HD and take the time to evolve.. many are eager to jump from A to Z but don't need too and didn't take the time to go through all the steps in-between.

Now ask me what I would use for a feature film and why and I will tell you, but it will spark un-necessary debate so I'll leave it to what I said earlier: shoot on what you're comfortable with and where your personal skills are.
 
starcentral said:
First thing is to know if you need 4k for post or not. If not, or you don't know why you would need it for post, then you don't need it.

Next is to know if you need Raw for post or not. If not, or you don't know what you will gain from it in post, then you don't need it.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
You have made a feature with a GH2 - what did you hate about it?

Nothing?

Use the gh2

I can list most of the things I have hated about my cameras, and know the models that should 'cure' those issues

S
 
I think I might choose the Canon 1DC if it is anything like the C100/C300 IQ wise, which it seems to be, but there are very few samples of the video. The only major issue I have with it is that it doesn't have internal ND filters, but I understand why it doesn't, because there probably isn't room.

I read a review from the company stillmotion. http://stillmotionblog.com/2012/10/03/canon-1dc/

They seemed to love the camera.
 
If a new camera (renting or buying) is going to impact your production design or lighting/grip budget stay with whatever you have. What's in front of the camera is more important then the camera itself.

If you have to ask the particulars of why an Alexa, RED, F3 is superior to a DSLR - stick to the DSLR.
 
In general,
A better camera in worse hands is going to look worse than a worse camera in better hands.
Does that make sense? Someone who's really good can produce better images on a DSLR, than someone who's really bad shooting on an Alexa.
From there, you can say that a better camera in equal hands will look better. Given any DP, putting a better camera in their hands is going to give you a better picture (wide generalization that's mosly true).

Is it worth the price? That's something you're going to have to ask your DP. If they don't know, then no. Do they feel they can use the higher functions of the more expensive cameras to their full extent?
There's no law that says shooting on a DSLR takes you out of the running for the major leagues. In fact, Like Crazy did pretty well and I believe it was shot all on a 7D (possibly a 5D). But that's pretty rare... it's probably safe to say that your chances of getting a big distribution deal are very, very slim when shooting on a DSLR.
Of course, there are plenty of stories of big budget movies using DSLR's-- Black Swan, The Avengers, etc. so the cameras are capable of producing high quality images. It's just a lot harder to make a whole MOVIE out of what the camera can give you, rather than just a few great-looking shots.
And in general, that's what the higher-priced cameras give you: more options to create better images in varied situations. I can look at plenty of movies and say "I can get that exact same shot on my DSLR, but they used a Scarlet." But, I couldn't get the shots preceding and following it.

In the end, only you (and your DP) can best decide where to put your money, based on your needs and wants and particular challenges-- hope you got a good DP.
(I will say it's a lot harder to get *bad* looking images from higher priced cameras. Most of the time, all you need to do is hit the record button and you'll come out with something decent, so long as you don't screw it up with bad lighting or inappropriate camera settings)
 
Yeah, I shot a feature on my GH2..

here's the teaser trailer. It's on its last leg of post production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFTQR5eGDs8

I love it, and I've gotten really accustomed to it, but I still think I have a lot more to learn.

I've got distribution offers already for this one, but I'm running it through the festival circuit a bit before jumping on anything.

I Just want to improve the quality of my films with each one, in some area. I don't want people to watch my films and go "omg this looks low budget" like I do when I see films that are obviously low budget. "Like Crazy" never felt "low budget" to me or looked it. But I also recognized the actor in it etc. I was in line to buy a black magic cinema camera, but alas.. who knows when that will ever happen. I knew RED etc. shot in higher resolution and had more DR etc.. but I just wasn't sure how much more in comparison, and how that effects real world things like showing the finished product on a 30 foot screen. I mean there are plenty of other things I can't afford that Hollywood has.. like state of the art sound mixing/mastering, etc. I've learned through out the years of doing this how important lighting, production design, and such is. I think we have a pretty good product this time around, that is far superior to my first attempt, but I want to keep raising the bar.

I'm in preproduction for movie #3 right now, this will be my third feature since 2010. I just want to get bigger and bigger each time.

Sherwood pictures is close to me, and although I'm not a fan of their movies.. I like how they went from a Canon GL camera to shooting on two RED ONE's and getting theatrical releases. They started out with just volunteers on the crew. I definitely understand that the camera is probably the least prominent part of what creates a cinematic image.
 
Which camera?

For me, it's looking like a very Epic 2013, with a sprinkle of Alexa, and a chance of F55. We'll see.

I'm currently on a production shooting 35mm film. So you never know what camera you're going to use! Just get the one that is best for what you want to do and run with it.
 
Azmyth said:
Sherwood pictures is close to me, and although I'm not a fan of their movies.. I like how they went from a Canon GL camera to shooting on two RED ONE's and getting theatrical releases. They started out with just volunteers on the crew. I definitely understand that the camera is probably the least prominent part of what creates a cinematic image.
Click to expand...


I also live near Sherwood, and agree that even if you dislike their movies, they are a perfect example of how to thrive in the indie world. To my knowledge, even to this day they only use people from their church for crew except for the key positions which they obviously hire professionals. Everything is internal, they control everything, and they've obviously targeted a very specific audience and are thriving within it. Kudos to them for figuring it all out.
 
I'm one of the lucky fellows who has a BMC since a few months - probably gonna get a second one with MTF mount as soon it is available.
This camera is poaching in RED and Alexa territory for a DSLR price - can't beat that.
Once you played with uncompressed raw, it's almost impossible to go back.

Also gonna give the F55 a testride, one one or two projects, but not gonna own one.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
I'm one of the lucky fellows who has a BMC since a few months - probably gonna get a second one with MTF mount as soon it is available.
This camera is poaching in RED and Alexa territory for a DSLR price - can't beat that.
Once you played with uncompressed raw, it's almost impossible to go back.

Also gonna give the F55 a testride, one one or two projects, but not gonna own one.

Frank
Click to expand...

I'm very interested to know how rolling shutter artifacts and resolution hold up on that camera. Any insights?
 
Azmyth said:
How would my GH2 (if installed with PL mount) compare to say a RED Scarlet? Would it be able to carry its own? Theatrical showings? Cinematically could I achieve similar look and feel?

If you were shooting a low budget indie feature (that you wanted to make look as big budget as possible) what would your camera op be using? Would if be worth the price vs. other things that could be invested in like lighting, sound, etc?

I want the most cinematic image possible for my budget. I'm not wanting to blow my whole budget on cameras, but I do want to balance it out so that I have the best I can get without skimping on sound/lighting etc..
Click to expand...

My thoughts.... #1: Are you and your crew at a point in your careers where your knowledge and technical abilities are not the stopping point, but rather the camera is?

#2: Budget! This will play a big role in the camera you choose to use. You mention low budget indie feature, but low budget means different things to different people. Whether you are working with $25,000 or $2.5 million, always do budgetary breakdowns with line items for camera. Once you do your budget you will know whether you can purchase a used Red One MX package, rent an Arri Alexa, or still have to shoot with your GH2.

Good luck with your film!

Dave
 
to me the most important thing is proper production design and lighting/grip. I would rather shoot on a FS100/700 with a full 5 Ton truck than with the alexa and just the gear in my car.
 
In my personal opinion, the best all-around camera at this point is the GH3. I say this because you can get great quality from a non-hacked camera, and you have 1080p60 option for slo-mo. Next up in price would be the AG-AF100A, mostly due to 10-bit SDI output and magnified focus assist in addition to 1080p60. Up from that is a FS700, because of its slo-mo capabilities, but only if you need it. After that is the BMCC, which is between the GH3 and AG-AF100A in price, but arguably the best image, bar none, for less than $10,000 (yes, the Red One and Scarlet can give better, but try shooting with either for less).

It depends on what you want. I think the GH3 still edges out the AF-100 in picture quality (barring any OLPF tweaks that probably didn't happen with the new model), but the AF-100A (I would hold out for that because magnified focus assist is nothing to sneeze at) will be best for solo shooters given its built-in audio capabilities and ND filters. The FS700 has all of that, and the best slo-mo capabilities below $10k, but is nearly twice as much as the AF-100A, and I think 1080p60 is fine enough slo-mo for most purposes.

The BMCC gives the best image, but no slo-mo options at all, and no ND filters, making it a more difficult choice for solo shooters who may not care about CinemaDNG video or ProRes HQ.

For me, the 60p option is all the slo-mo I need on a regular basis, so I'll end up owning a GH3 at some point. I have a music video idea that I want to do all at 120p, but that's a single project so I'll just rent a FS700 for that (and raid Frank's picture profiles when I do!). I'll either end up pairing it with a C100 for slo-mo use, or with a BMCC whenever that becomes more available (or if they announce a powered m4/3 mount before the passive m4/3 become available I'll just wait).

That's my personal 2 cents for all it's worth.
 
I've done a feature this year on the GH2 (mainly tokina 11-16, voightlander 25, and rokinon 35), another on the GH2 but with a hotrod PL adapter and Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes, one on the C300 with ZE Zeiss glass, and another on RED MX with Ultra Primes. I've also done work with the Scarlet and Epic, all of the other prominent DSLRs, and the FS100.


The GH2 has the following downsides, in my opinion:


1. Terrible ergonomics.
This body is just too small and flimsy, with very cramped button positioning.

2. The LCD.
The LCD is garbage (expected from a consumer camera), but the HDMI is flimsy and disables exTele and 60p.

3. Flex without a cage.
The only time I've had a lens solidly on the camera, which doesn't flex if used with a follow focus is with the PL adapter. I'm just not very confident with the lens mount/canon adapter on this thing.

4. NOISE.
This camera is noisy. Anything that falls in the lower half of the histogram is noisy, starting at ISO 640 (I've even had issues at 400). Most of the noise is pretty grain-like, but there's quite a bit of nasty chroma noise present as well. It takes to noise reduction well, but that's another step in the post workflow.

5. Rolling shutter.
Rolling shutter is about as bad as it gets on this camera.

6. Electronic Shutter.
There's something funky going on with the shutter on the GH2. It looks good at 1/40, but small differences seem to be more noticeable on the GH2 than any other camera I've worked with.

7. There's a nasty green shift SOC.

8. 8-bit, 4:2:0 color space.
You really can't push your colors too far in post without banding and artifacts.

9. The Frankenrig.
You can get away with a naked camera some of the time, but for a string of long production days in a professional environment you're going to have to kit that sucker out. Big-time.

10. Sensor size.
I'm really torn here. There are major upsides to the smaller sensor, and I think that this is where some of the GH2's pleasing "texture" (for lack of a better word) comes from. That said, it's also a disadvantage when it comes to crop factor, low-light, and (arguably) the look.

11. No in-body OIS.
With such a small, lightweight camera, even locked off shots at longer focal lengths are prone to tiny shakes and vibrations. OIS is probably the single thing I want most in a future GH camera.

12. The (need for a) hack.
I want reliable spanning, in-camera playback, problem-free playback on my computer (everything is dandy in a NLE, but WMP, VLC, etc. struggle to play the files), and none of the little issues that the hack can introduce. For example, the last patch I was using would corrupt the entire take if the HDMI signal was lost while recording.

13. Dynamic range.
Plan on less than 8-stops of useable range. Daytime exteriors or interiors near windows are problematic here unless you have a crew and the necessary modifiers to cut down the range of your location. Try to keep everything within about 4-stops and you'll be just fine.

14. The codec.
The codec sucks compared to more expensive cameras (duh). It does better than the Canons (with the hack), but it's hard to go back to this after virtually any prosumer or professional camera.


The GH2 has a bunch of upsides as well:


1. The image.
This camera shouldn't put out an image that looks this good, but it does. Tons of resolution, decent color (once you correct the green spike), and nice motion cadence with an all-I patch. At times I think that the GH2 comes about as close to a digital 16mm look as you can get outside of the Ikonoskop. You still have to spend a lot more money to get a comparable image.

2. Small size.
The tiny body is perfect for stealing locations and getting into tight spaces. I've been able to pull off some scenes and locations that wouldn't have been possible with a bigger, more conspicuous camera.

3. The EVF.
The EVF is actually pretty decent. Because the GH2 doesn't have a mirror like true DSLRs, the evf is still active while shooting. This allows you to use the bare camera and get useable footage (not possible with the Canons unless you spring for a loupe or Z-finder, which only serves to highlight the limited resolution of their LCD screens) by using the EVF as a third point of contact to the camera body.

4. Decent battery life.
While an external battery solution is definitely the way to go for long production days with a rigged up camera, the internal battery lasts long enough to be useful for shooting incognito or keeping a small footprint.

5. Small file sizes and affordable media.
It's unsettling having an entire feature take up less than a terabyte of drive space, but it's really nice to be able to work with affordable SD cards and go a whole day without dumping footage if need be.

6. Lens compatibility.
You can fit almost anything on the GH2, including 16mm lenses if you use exTele mode.

7. The sensor size.
Pulling focus is much easier on the GH2 than any other camera in it's class simply because the smaller sensor gives you more DOF. Shooting at 2.0 on the GH2 is like shooting at 4.0 on a RED.


Personally, I'm getting very tired of shooting on DSLRs. I really like the added conveniences of a purpose-built cine camera, and if the money was there I'd never hesitate to go RED One MX, Scarlet, Epic, Alexa, C300, F3, BMC, etc. instead. The advantages of 4K and RAW (or a robust codec) are massive even if you are finishing in HD, and all of the little conveniences and benefits add up quickly.

But maybe the biggest reason to go with one of the bigger cameras on a low-budget production is dynamic range. If you don't have a decent crew and the money/time to completely control over the light at each of your locations, then something like a Scarlet or C300 is going to allow you to get good-looking footage in situations where the GH2 is going to give you a frame full of blown highlights or muddy shadows. Do you want to shoot exteriors with the sun backlighting your characters? Do you want to shoot against windows? Do you want to shoot in the shade with the background in full sun? How about silking just your leads and leaving the background bare? All of these situations are not options with the GH2 unless you're looking to clip have your frame.

Rentals are cheap, even if you like outside of a major market. You can get a scarlet package for 30 days for less than $4k at borrowlenses.com or lensrentals.com. Unless the cost will eat into your budget for more important things like talent, locations, art dept, etc., I'd definitely recommend going with a R1MX, Scarlet, C300, or BMC depending on your specific needs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top