gorgeous yet rubbish. I did an interview with a 5D3 and the client loved it but I hated it and they called it the best interview they've seen from a 5D. Client was happy but me personally I were far from satisfied and it was all due to the limitations within the video coming out of the camera.
Exactly the point. As professionals, we tut and shake our heads at poor line resolution, dismal audio, pixel counts yada yada yada and tell everyone that the camera we've chosen is best because it has x and y and z over the others. But the clients? They don't care. The haven't seen Reverie, haven't even heard of it - but they have seen any number of travel ads or McDonalds ads which look lovely and, invariably, have some tracking shots through long grass looking at people against a flaring sun; and they love it. They think it stands out from the rest and they don't care what camera or lens was used to achieve it. The agencies and the marketing departments are pretty sure it was a 5D, so that's what they ask for. I've had my AF101 on sale for 2 moths at an insultingly cheap price, and it's toxic. No-one in the UK wants to touch it, even 2nd hand, because however good it is, it doesn't deliver what the market demands. It's stuck between 2 stools - yes it's easier to nail focus, and yes it still gives good shallow depth of field, but it doesn't give the 'gorgeous yet rubbish' look of the 5D, even with my cine-modded 0.95 and CP2s.