Why you shouldn't look at camera specs to choose a DSLR type camera

DPStewart

DPStewart

Veteran
I've done it. We've all done it. But in the end - it did NOT really matter.

Here's what I mean:

For those who do not have access to all the cameras to do multiple test shoots of your own -

Ignore camera specs and watch at least 10 videos made on any camera you are considering - something like 2-each from 5 different shooters. Ignore anything that is heavily graded obviously - but keep them in mind for when you want to see how far a camera's files can be pushed without going into distortion and breakup.

Now you have a relatively decent idea of what the camera can reasonably be expected to produce.
You may be quite surprised at the decisions you come to. But most importantly: Don't be biased. Let yourself like it if you really like it - even if it's from a camera you might not have been expecting.
Trust yourself.

For me personally I was indeed surprised.
It turned out that I really did not like the look of the Nikon D810 or D750 all that much after all.
I also came to the conclusion that I personally would probably never want anything I'm producing to be shot on a Sony A7s.

Surprisingly I found that among DSLRs I preferred the good old 5D3 almost every time DESPITE being an older design, despite being regarded as "soft", despite everything. And to me, the 5D3 in Magic Lantern RAW was hands-down the best image of any of them.
And surprisingly AGAIN - the Samsung NX1 made it to the top of a very short list. Wow...where'd THEY come from, right?

Now this is just how I felt at the end of it - your conclusions will be your own.
The point is that I made some very different decisions after I did this and I am much wiser for having done so.

I concluded that a DSLR was not for my shooting needs at all (barring the 5D3 in RAW of course) and I opted for a Black Magic Cinema Camera instead. Had I not done this I probably would be putting some DSLR up for sale right about now.

What have you got to lose, right?
Except maybe some preconceived notions.

~Cheers!
 
Well said, and very good advice! I would just add to think carefully about what kinds of projects you plan to shoot, and then consider various aspects of any camera for how they would affect your projects in the real world. Examples: lens selection, frame size, audio capabilities, size and weight, battery life, etc. A holistic approach definitely helps in making this kind of decision.
 
Thanks Shenan,

Yeah, a holistic approach is wise, and it's frequently not applied to the actual image quality in many of these posts.

Specs, specs, specs......."Yeah, but how does it LOOK?"

The Nikons have far greater DR and detail than my hacked GH2, but the highlights clip so nasty it screams "2003 video camera!" and I just can't see myself restricting myself to shoots that contain no bright highlights.
The overall end image just has problems.

The Sony A7s has all this DR and ISO capabilities, but nearly every single time I see any video from it with a human being in the shot the colors just look off. I just don't like what I'm seeing no matter who graded it. To me it's just not "pleasant" and something about it looks artificial despite the detail.
The overall end image just has problems.

I probably would not buy a Canon 5D3 but the images that come out of it WORK. Sure, they're softer than many cameras, sure the color isn't technically accurate, but most people just LIKE the look of the final image. The image gels - it works with itself and feels natural for what it is. Pleasant to look at with no aspect of the image jumping out as not working with the other aspects. How many times have we heard shooters complain that they went all-out with some more sophisticated camera setup....but the client opted for the stuff from the 5D3? That matters. There's a reason for that. The client isn't "stupid". They've seen a trillion hours of video in their lives just like everyone else, and if they LIKE the look of something....well then that's pretty much the end of it if you ask me.
 
Nice article! Couldn't agree more, I've always liked the look of the hacked gh2. It just looks great in my opinion. I still use it often along side of the g6 and gh4. They all seem to cut together fairly well when set up properly in 1080.

A while back I showed a bunch of people with no production experience some different images from different cams. Everyone picked the canon dslr as their fav. Kind of funny considering.
 
This kind of thread just goes to show that 'image quality' is pretty subjective. I was just hired to
do a multicamera shoot for an international ad agency. They supplied a 5D (MIII) and I also used
my Sony FS700. The image wasn't even close and suffice it to say the superior image was not from
the 5D......and it wasn't just me saying this, but their colorist, editor, and in house cinematographers.
The 5D was their B camera to a Red Epic, mostly because of the 'client buzz' around the 5D, but there
were some minds that were changed after seeing multicam stuff side by side. But I know there are
plenty of people who do like the 5D look, so yeah, it's all just opinion.

That being said, I'd add, that it may not be best to just evaluate videos that are online when evaluating
camera's images. For all the reasons anyone who has seriously done video compression can tell you.....
 
Like wise DP, Great to see you around the boards!! How have you been? I'm anxious to get your feedback on that Samsung. Let us know when you pull the trigger, It's nice to get a valued members input on gear. Are you going to Nab This year? Looking to connect up with some dvxuser's if possible out there. Flying out of Beantown.
 
Great posts, completely agree. This approach is what led me to viewing about 20 C100 videos, and listening closely to those here who own the C100 and finding out it is a great camera. It just looks good in a variety of situations with many different shooting styles. It's true it doesn't wow in the spec dept, but it has become a favorite of a whole lot of people. Agree about the GH series as well
 
Eh, specs do matter - 5D MK III Raw looks far superior to the same camera in AVCHD and A7s looks far superior in 4K ProRes HQ via Shogun than in 1080P XAVC. Bit rates matter and they are "specs" - albeit one of many -too.

And, as alaskacameradude - I meant, alaskacamerasir - said above, looks are subjective anyway. I am not, as an example, enthused by the FS7 images but the camera is flying off the shelves. Obviously, much like C300 in the last three years, it has ticked off all the right boxes.
 
DLD said:
Eh, specs do matter - 5D MK III Raw looks far superior to the same camera in AVCHD and A7s looks far superior in 4K ProRes HQ via Shogun than in 1080P XAVC. Bit rates matter and they are "specs" - albeit one of many -too.

And, as alaskacameradude - I meant, alaskacamerasir - said above, looks are subjective anyway. I am not, as an example, enthused by the FS7 images but the camera is flying off the shelves. Obviously, much like C300 in the last three years, it has ticked off all the right boxes.
Click to expand...

Well sure they matter for camera sellers - that's why I was addressing the other end - the people who buy them.
I think you've missed the point.
One individual camera at 2 different bit rates or resolutions still looks like THAT individual camera overall.

And that's why I said in the first post that everyone should follow their own subjective opinion.
And to try to avoid where this sidetrack has gone I even put the word "DSLR" right in the title of the thread.
 
maranfilms said:
Like wise DP, Great to see you around the boards!! How have you been? I'm anxious to get your feedback on that Samsung. Let us know when you pull the trigger, It's nice to get a valued members input on gear. Are you going to Nab This year? Looking to connect up with some dvxuser's if possible out there. Flying out of Beantown.
Click to expand...

Hey man,
ive got a shoot that week - and honestly that's probably a GOOD thing since i can just drive right up. As if Las Vegas doesn't already have enough things going on to separate me from my money!
I'd be walking around NAB thoroughly OVER STIMULATED! Writing checks for thing I don't even know the purpose of!
if I get finished early I may indeed head up. I'll let folks know if I can.
 
DPStewart said:
Well sure they matter for camera sellers - that's why I was addressing the other end - the people who buy them.
I think you've missed the point.
One individual camera at 2 different bit rates or resolutions still looks like THAT individual camera overall.

And that's why I said in the first post that everyone should follow their own subjective opinion.
And to try to avoid where this sidetrack has gone I even put the word "DSLR" right in the title of the thread.
Click to expand...

I mean, I agree, of course a person should judge for them self what image
they like (although it is tricky doing this by online, compressed videos, which
are shot, lit, and graded by individuals with widely varying abilities in one or
all of these disciplines.)

But you kind of make it sound (perhaps unintentionally) that clients almost
always prefer the 'look' of the 5D. And perhaps this is your experience.
However, this is not a universal experience, so I was just pointing out that preferences
are very individual things and in fact I have had the opposite experience where
clients did not prefer the 5D image. Or as a wise person once said:
"You feel your own experiences, much more vividly than you feel other people's."
 
Yes, there are camera tests and clip viewing, but it's not until someone handles the camera and takes it through the ropes, one can really assess the camera. I had an opportunity to test the FS7 and BMPCC. I thought 12 bit RAW would edge out 10 bit S-log and was surprised how well S-log 3 performed against RAW files. You need to see this for yourself and play with the files. Also, the a7S does reasonably well and can stay up close to the FS7 many times. I can't imagine the 5D being able to be flexible enough to be match a FS7.
 
goodgoings said:
Yes, there are camera tests and clip viewing, but it's not until someone handles the camera and takes it through the ropes, one can really assess the camera. I had an opportunity to test the FS7 and BMPCC. I thought 12 bit RAW would edge out 10 bit S-log and was surprised how well S-log 3 performed against RAW files. You need to see this for yourself and play with the files. Also, the a7S does reasonably well and can stay up close to the FS7 many times. I can't imagine the 5D being able to be flexible enough to be match a FS7.
Click to expand...

I'll just pretend you didn't just bring an EIGHT THOUSAND dollar camera into a thread about DSLRs.
 
goodgoings said:
Yes, I did in reference to two affordable cameras. Why don't you just buy something instead of debating forever which camera you will get?
Click to expand...

Already bought. Twice. Suspect you didn't read the post you're commenting on.
Was offering suggestions on how to approach camera analysis - got agreement from pros.
what is this - Facebook?
 
DPStewart said:
I think you've missed the point. One individual camera at 2 different bit rates or resolutions still looks like THAT individual camera overall.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I have to disagree again. 5D MK III shooters were dancing in celebration when Magic Lantern enabled raw recording on the camera. The sensor remained the same but the bit rate was upped and thus so was the image quality. And the same was applicable to the GH2 or Nikon hacks.

External recorders with ProRes capability in 1080 or 4K - once again, your higher bit rate effect - also played a big part in the improvements, which were all technical and quantifiable and thus part of the "spec" nomenclature.

Now, if you say something like, "Model X says it has a certain DR, resolution, color science but I still dislike how it handle highlights, shadows, colors, moire or whatever else", then you'd, of course, be correct. Specs aren't end all, be all. A shooter's subjective opinion trumps everything else.

PS. I was in the consumer electronics biz for a long time and have seen countless amplifiers or receivers - from the entry level to high end - "beat" others on specs but lose on actual sound. And I also heard/read Hi Fi geeks say stuff like, "That Krell amp is too harsh sounding. I wouldn't pay a dime for it", despite the product being priced at $40,000+.
 
Of course, specs are unlikely to tell you much nowadays. Both the a7S and the T2i shoot 1080p, but one is sharp and clean and has a lot of DR and the other one is soft and full of aliasing/moire and has just average DR; the spec list on bhphotovideo doesn't talk about any of this.

My opinion on the larger issue right now is: to each their own.

Long version: there are so many great cameras in the market today that talented people can shoot great stuff with any of a dozen different models from at least six different brands. Given that, it's your personal taste that will determine which camera you think is the best for a given project. Some people are obsessed about resolution and will go for a GH4 or NX1 or a7S+Shogun, others are obsessed with DR and will go for a BlackMagic Pocket or an a7S, others are obsessed with color and will go for... well, it depends, some will go for Canon (usually for the 5D3+RAW), others actually prefer the Nikon colors that you found you dislike. Then again, it's not just the person shooting, the project can dictate a camera as well: some will call for a particularly small camera+lens package, or for one with a lot of DR for a particular shot, or with great resolution for a greenscreen shot. There are lots of great cameras at affordable prices in the market right now, and it would be surprising if we could all aggree on which one is the best buy.

For me, the best camera right now is the a7S, and that's the one I own. But the most high-end stuff I work on is always shot on BlackMagic cameras (lately, a lowly pocket) because the directors/producers of that project prefer that image over the a7S one. They happily provide the camera, I happily shoot with it. No point on trying to decide which is "best".

Now, on the a7S in particular... You say you never liked the skin tones. Care to have a look at this video I shot? I'd be interested to hear your opinion about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Wuo8NAa54
 
Ignore camera specs and price: Sony A5100 is the best

Ignore camera specs and price: Sony A5100 is the best

DPStewart said:
Ignore camera specs and watch at least 10 videos made on any camera you are considering...Now you have a relatively decent idea of what the camera can reasonably be expected to produce. You may be quite surprised at the decisions you come to. But most importantly: Don't be biased. Let yourself like it if you really like it - even if it's from a camera you might not have been expecting.
Trust yourself. For me personally I was indeed surprised.
Click to expand...
Excellent! Exactly what I did, and I found the best image quality is coming from the $500 Sony A5100, it was amazing. The A5100 can record better quality (especially low light) than the four or ten times more expensive cameras, including 4K cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top