Which camera can do this? Is A7s the only option?

TheDingo said:
...You mean a show like FX's highly rated dark comedy "Wilfred" starring Elijah Wood, that was entirely shot on Nikon D800 cameras for four seasons ?

Wilfred: A Sitcom Shot Entirely on DSLRs
Click to expand...

Never heard of it, but like I said above: Once in a while somebody's going to make it with bad equipment - and we know these stories because they are exceptions.

That fact is reflected in the article you link to: "The show is also unusual in that it is shot entirely with DSLR cameras..."
 
TheDingo said:
...You mean a show like FX's highly rated dark comedy "Wilfred" starring Elijah Wood, that was entirely shot on Nikon D800 cameras for four seasons ? ...
Click to expand...
Also, of what episodes I did see, the show looked really good. Unlike, let's say, the "Office" which looked like crap (albeit on purpose). IIRC, they used the external recorders on D800 too. Now, replace D800 with C300 MKII and you can shoot F/2 and still get the important parts in focus without the puller (a majority of the time).
 
stoppingby said:
Never heard of it, but like I said above: Once in a while somebody's going to make it with bad equipment - and we know these stories because they are exceptions.
Click to expand...

Do not take any of this personally, but you are showing that you are badly misinformed. The FX "Wilfred" series was a popular US remake of a popular Australian show, and generally looked absolutely great. It was definitely NOT made with bad equipment, but rather with a DOP who knew how to get the most out of the Nikon D800. If "Wilfred" was made today they would probably use Sony A7S cameras instead of the Nikon D800, but at the time the Nikon D800 was selected as the best camera for the show they were producing.

stoppingby said:
"The show is also unusual in that it is shot entirely with DSLR cameras..."
Click to expand...

What this article highlighted is the general common ignorance when it comes to the capability of the equipment we use. I've seen over paid "hack" photographers use expensive Hasselblad cameras/lenses to shoot fashion layouts and the results were absolute sh*t because they couldn't light a shot to save their life, and I've seen what a crappy $5 plastic Diana camera can do in the hands of someone truly talented and the results were amazing. Talent and skill are about 90 percent of the equation, with the actual gear we use making up the remaining 10 percent.
 
stoppingby said:
I can't use specs for anything.
Click to expand...

Then you've got a serious handicap. DXO are one of the best testing labs and have built a long reputation in the testing world.

If you can't show me results that refute what the DXO tests are saying, then I think you've got nothing to add to the conversation.
 
stoppingby said:
You may trust specs - I trust my eyes, and they serve me well...
Click to expand...

I generally don't trust manufacturer's specs, but I will trust test results from well known testing labs that test with the actual gear. DXO also sell their testing software and equipment so that other people can replicate the same results.

The only bone I have to pick with DXO is that sometimes they test lenses on fairly old cameras and the results will be limited by the camera they chose to test with. In the case of the OTUS lens they tested with a pretty wide range of Nikon bodies and you can see that the results are very different when this lens is paired with a high resolution camera.
 
stoppingby said:
You may trust specs - I trust my eyes, and they serve me well...
Click to expand...

The most common thing I hear from my clients about the visual quality of my work is wow, its so sharp! They say this about SD preview of DSLR footage. They say it because they unknowingly equate selective focus (shallow DOF) as sharpness. We see things a certain way but fail to understand what we are actually seeing. I'm not arguing that an otus is sharper than a 50 1.8 or that an alexa is sharper than a 5D II but when people say wow something looks amazing clean and sharp, it's rarley because of technical sharpeness and has a lot more to do with the lighting contrast, color contrast and even the audio!

Your not the first person to ask a question like this, many have done it before on this forum and the experts with decades of experience will all tell you the same thing. It's more convenient to say equipment is the weakest link when 99% of the time its technique. The sooner you accept the writing on the wall the sooner your work will improve since you will be focusing your energies, and sometimes money, towards things that actually matter at the end of the day.
 
Perception is everything and often audio is a way to pull a viewer into a story a make them see things differently. There is a reason there is the saying that audio 90% of video. Sharpness is not very important in video, period. If you can have it fine, its preffered but it doesn't really matter.

Why do you want skin detail anyway at worst your viewer isn't even going to notice because of viewing distance, youtube compression, etc. at best you have more work cut out for your makeup artist to hide imperfections. Many on this forum hated HD when it first came out for this reason, it's a lot less forgiving.
 
Answer these questions:
What types of videos do you make?
Who is your audiance?
How are they seen (web, DVD, blu-ray, television, film out)?

This will help us get a better understanding of your needs, how sharpness plays a role, and where you money is best spent.
 
Last edited:
egproductions said:
Answer these questions:
What types of videos do you make?
Who is your audiance?
How are they seen (web, DVD, blu-ray, television, film out)?

This will help us get a better understanding of your needs, how sharpness plays a role, and where you money is best spent.
Click to expand...

Listen, you may be here for the sake of conversation. And that's just cool.

But I'm here to find the answer to a specific question. So could we please get back on topic?
 
stoppingby said:
Let me add those two crucial words you forgot: "...to me"
Click to expand...

Actually I meant that it's not important to the viewer. It's not about me or you. If it were then i'd have an easier time convincing my wife that I should buy more equipment.

I'm giving it a fair shot to help you out but you seem to be insistant on your preconceived ideas of what a high quality image is comprised of. You asked for "documentation" I provided you with a multi camera shootout to which I get no response. You ask for advice but you fail to mention what type of work you are doing. I joined this forum over 10 years ago to learn and now i'm here to help others not to debate.
 
As requested, back on topic

stoppingby said:
Which camera can match these video stills - especially regarding the skin details on her right cheek, and the way her skin tones gradually fade from light to dark?
Click to expand...

The cameras that can match both the skin detail and gredation of skin tones are:
iPhone 6s
GoPro 4 Black
FS5
FS7
C300 II
C500
1Dc
FS700
F55
F65
URSA
BMPC 4K
Any Red Camera

Camera that Cannot match both:
Arri Alexa
5D II, III
BMPCC
C300
Any Nikon DSLR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top