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

[DPStewart]

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+.

We shouldn't get side tracked by focusing on the 5D3, I just mentioned it as part of illustrating the idea.
I also think it sort of "doesn't count" because of all the multitudes of video capable DSLRs ever made from all the brands, it is the only one that ever had such a radical improvement made by an option - specifically Magic Lantern RAW - which isn't even an authorized extension of the product. There are really no other DSLRs that have such a image altering option.

I have a hacked GH2 and while to a video professional's eye it looks a little better than stock, the image is still 95% the same. It doesn't change the dynamic range, it doesn't change the color science - certainly not enough for a typical viewer to say anything other than "this looks the same only a little clearer" The same with the Nikon bit-rate hacks.
Even the Sony A7s doesn't change it's color science, its "look", just because you switch from 2k to 4k. It still looks like the same image with a little bit better detail resolution and color depth. It doesn't suddenly look like a Lomo, or a Canon, or a Nikon, or an Arri Alexa even though that A7s is shooting a much higher "spec" 4k instead of the Alexa's 2.8k.

Which brings me to the part where you bring that great reference from the audio world and what you said about camera specs in general Because my 2 main posts in this thread said exactly what you said in a different way: "Specs aren't end all, be all. A shooter's subjective opinion trumps everything else." That is exactly the idea I was trying to get across with this thread all along.

Also- let's not get all English-Class hung up on the definition of the word "specs".... I think it's clear what we're talking about here. One of the Arri Alexa's specs is that it's an $80,000 cinema camera. And one of the Canon Digital Elpf's specs is that it's a $100 point and shoot pocket camera. That's not the kind of definition of the word we mean. That should be obvious.

 

[DPStewart]

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

Yeah man, to each their own. Tht's exactly what I was saying in the first post :I said I had my opinions, you'll have your own.
And to let your own eyes be the judge of whether or not you yourself like what you're seeing.

Tha A7s is the best for you- based on what you want to see out of your shots. I think you'd agree that it has a very different look from the black magic cameras. That's why I feel there is no best camera. They are like colors - which one do you want to see right now.

Ok...as for your video: dude those skin tones are messed up. The guy with the pointy ears licking his teeth - his skin has a really blue cast to it. What's up with that? Sony sensor? Bad LED lights?
Ha! That video is awesome man! That guy was my favorite!
But let's be honest, there weren't a lot of skin tones of the Human variety in that! Was that a trick question?!?
Man, you have FUN at your job!

 

[Samuel H]

Haha, well, I know there's a lot of non-human skin there, but there are humans too!! And yes, it's a lot of fun, but it's not my job, I'm just an amateur who spends too much time and money on his hobby ^___^

That blue guy is pure gold. Check him out as Rob Stark from Game of Thrones... then as Esmeralda from Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame XDDD

 

[OldCorpse]

Well, I couldn't agree more - use your own eyes and ears and taste, judge the gear by the results, and don't worry about what people say or what the specs are. For example, everyone raves about the GH2, but I personally HATE the green cast I see come out of it, including to all the skin tones that come out of that POS. I don't care if it's the greatest camera in the world according to Joe Sh|t The Ragman, or whoever - those colors are BARF. So the GH2 is right out for me - throw it against the wall. I don't care about the hack or about the whack. I care about what I can see with my eyes. Someone has a great tag line in their sig on another site audio forum " 'I don't care if you've got ninety tracks... what does it sound like, baby'. - Ray Charles". Same here - don't tell me all about the hack and smack and this and that - how does it look?

 

[DPStewart]

Well, I couldn't agree more - use your own eyes and ears and taste, judge the gear by the results, and don't worry about what people say or what the specs are. For example, everyone raves about the GH2, but I personally HATE the green cast I see come out of it, including to all the skin tones that come out of that POS. I don't care if it's the greatest camera in the world according to Joe Sh|t The Ragman, or whoever - those colors are BARF. So the GH2 is right out for me - throw it against the wall. I don't care about the hack or about the whack. I care about what I can see with my eyes. Someone has a great tag line in their sig on another site audio forum " 'I don't care if you've got ninety tracks... what does it sound like, baby'. - Ray Charles". Same here - don't tell me all about the hack and smack and this and that - how does it look?

Ha! THANK YOU!

Yer killin' me man!
Lord... the GREEN. Exactly!
I got stuck in the GH2 environment because it was one of the only choices in its field back than and I ended up with 2 of them and lenses and adapters and everything.
even up through the GH4 - I really don't like Panny greens. I have a whole bunch of correction steps I take - almost automatically - with GH2 footage, and sometimes it just gets tiring.
i think the hoolabaloo about the GH2 is really nothing more than it was pretty good for the price - at the time it came out.
the hack allows you to get the awful green in much greater detail. Lol! ....sometimes I'm not sure that's a good thing.

To a great extent my experience with the gh2 is why I wrote this post. Everyone raved about its "specs" so I got onboard.
But in retrospect I would have been better off with a Canon T2i way back then like my friends all got. Sure it has many problems, but the OVERALL image was just more pleasing to more clients in the low-budget stuff we all did 5 years ago. In fact no one ever preferred the look of the GH2 over the T2i - it was just accepted as workable.

Then I almost got burned by the Nikon D750 the exact same way.
DPReview.com and all these other reviewers were raving about how it had better DR and detail over the 5d3, which for whatever reason was the camera they all seemed to think it needed to be compared to. Now, I've shot Nikon for stills my whole life so I figured this was going to be a fantastic video camera. I would have already bought one had it not been for the recall taking them off the shelves. Then once I had a chance to see a proper amount of serious video shot on the D750 I could see that it also has a major green cast and handles highlights terribly. How did everyone miss this? I think they missed it by focusing too much on specs.
Finally with my Black Magic Cinema camera I have a tool that I like the look of and my clients like the look of. I ignored specs and focused on image output and ended up happier with the tool.

And here comes NAB and everyone is going to go all spec crazy all over again.


Edit: I think this was the first time I got to use the word "hoolabaloo" in public. Pretty satisfying.

 

[DLD]

Which brings me to the part where you bring that great reference from the audio world and what you said about camera specs in general Because my 2 main posts in this thread said exactly what you said in a different way: "Specs aren't end all, be all. A shooter's subjective opinion trumps everything else." That is exactly the idea I was trying to get across with this thread all along...

FWIW, the best example from the audio world is tube vs. solid state (and now Class D) debate. Most solid state amps win on specs but a good tube amp - especially for acoustic, classical or jazz music - sounds so much sweeter ... to my ears.

(PS. And, I will deny this under examination ... but I must be one the last few people in the universe who has an analog rear projection TV ... it's getting up there in age but I like the tube color a lot more than I (used to) like the ones off flat screens)

 

[DPStewart]

FWIW, the best example from the audio world is tube vs. solid state (and now Class D) debate. Most solid state amps win on specs but a good tube amp - especially for acoustic, classical or jazz music - sounds so much sweeter ... to my ears.

(PS. And, I will deny this under examination ... but I must be one the last few people in the universe who has an analog rear projection TV ... it's getting up there in age but I like the tube color a lot more than I (used to) like the ones off flat screens)

I totally agree on both counts!

 

[mcbob]

Maybe it's just my aging back and feet, but I choose my camera gear primarily based on weight nowadays (so long as it fits minimum specs). They all look pretty darned good when used right.

 

[Joshua_G]

FWIW, the best example from the audio world is tube vs. solid state (and now Class D) debate. Most solid state amps win on specs but a good tube amp - especially for acoustic, classical or jazz music - sounds so much sweeter ... to my ears.
...

Being an ardent audiophile I couldn't agree more. There are marked audible differences even between various solid state gear and between various tube gear, while the technical specs are utterly meaningless concerning the subjective SQ (Sound Quality).
Being also an electronics engineer I know that academic electronics has no explanation for it.

The same may apply to subjective IQ (Image Quality).

 

[Joshua_G]

P.S.,
In the light of the recent price drop of Canon C cameras, the C100 may be a better option than any DSLR.
What's your opinion?

 

[Samuel H]

If I worked shooting weddings, or on any other market where having a pro-looking camera can bring you more clients, I would have just ordered a C100. It's a very fine camera, finally at the right price. Though I still prefer the image from the a7S or the pocket because of the better DR.

 

[DLD]

Being an ardent audiophile I couldn't agree more. There are marked audible differences even between various solid state gear and between various tube gear, while the technical specs are utterly meaningless concerning the subjective SQ (Sound Quality).

Being also an electronics engineer I know that academic electronics has no explanation for it.

The same may apply to subjective IQ (Image Quality).

It does. What's funny on tube vs. SS and D-Class is that the last decade has seen a bunch of SS and Class D amps with a tube rectifier or integrated amps with a tube pre-amplification stage.

And there's actually a similar movement - though not a major one by any stretch - in the image acquisition business where people shoot on digital and then make a master copy off it on 35mm film. That way, they get a more "cinematic/filmic" look for the final product, with all the workflow benefits of the modern tech. So, you can shoot on Vista Vision Red Weapon and then scan the digital master back onto a Vista Vision film - the best of both worlds.

Of course, then they have to scan the film back onto digital anyway.

PS. As Samuel said above, C100 surely looks like a great buy now ... but I'd still wait for the NAB announcements just to verify what's on the horizon.

 

[Joshua_G]

…
PS. As Samuel said above, C100 surely looks like a great buy now ... but I'd still wait for the NAB announcements just to verify what's on the horizon.

Wouldn't you say that right now, prior to whatever NAB may unfold, C100 is better choice than any DSLR?
If not, which would consider a better choice?

 

[DLD]

Wouldn't you say that right now, prior to whatever NAB may unfold, C100 is better choice than any DSLR?

If not, which would consider a better choice?

Sorry. Too many variables to weigh. To quote Samuel again, bringing a C100 to a shoot can make you look like a pro while D7100 might not ... and it has nothing to do with the tech specs!

For me, the best value for budget shooters is A6000 but you have to see if the Sony lens offerings suit your needs (or whether you can work with the adapters). The best value in the middle-class is NX1, unless you don't need audio, but Samsung has a small lens selection as well and the (minor?) HEVC conversion problems. Then there are new camcorders, priced anywhere from $1,000 for consumer quality to $4,000 for JVC s35 model.

From a comparison point of view, JVC looks nice with a nice lens and it does 4K. C100 has more run&gun ability and not everyone has the need for 4K. Then again, not everyone has Canon glass either.

My take on a $4,000 budget for the body only prior to the NAB -

1) JVC LS 300 because I like 4K and it gives some future proof archiving. Once Blu-Ray 4K comes out, a lot of folks will want to watch their stuff in 4K on those players.

2) C300 MK I with Dual-Pixel Auto Focus for an instant use doctrine.

Pure image - NX1, though you probably will have to grade it, or A7s + Shogun, which run closer to $5,000 as a combo.

But what if Panasonic brings out the AF-200 for $4,000 with 4K and most of C100 features in two weeks? I'd wait till then.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Wouldn't you say that right now, prior to whatever NAB may unfold, C100 is better choice than any DSLR?
If not, which would consider a better choice?

XLR, built in ND, real video camera features, beautiful picture straight out of camera? Yeah, C100 is a better choice than any of the DSLRs in real world use (vs pixel peeping spec sheet obsessing).

 

[Samuel H]

I still prefer the image from the a7S or the pocket, but as a fast turnaround tool that looks definitely pro and is no longer clearly overpriced, the C100 has a lot of appeal.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Copied & pasted:

(a7s kind of camera vs C100, important topic now after c100 being at DSLR price bracket)

A7s advantages:
-Full frame look + S35 + s16
-4K option with external recorder
-Better low light performance above 12800 ISO
-E-mount, adaptable to everything, and vintage glass lovers
-Slowmotion ability
-Much Better EVF
-Stills capability
-Wifi capability
-Smaller size, weight and cheaper price

C100 mk I advantages:
-In-camera audio, with XLRs, great preamps, phantom power, full control knobs/dials
-Much more buttons (15 all customizable)
-Much Less Rolling shutter
-Built-in NDs
-Included top handle and side grip, both detachable
-Log Gamma can go under 3200 ISO (with the same DR of a7s S-Log)
-More extensive control over picture profile parameters
-Better LCD, with a waveform monitor, vectorscope, better peaking, better focus/exposure assist tools overall (from my own usage)
-Larger size and heavier weight for those who like that vs Smart-phone shapes, steadier handholding without gear
-Native EF mount, with full support as in fluid 1/8s stops aperture control, IS, distortion/vignette corrections
-Full HDMI, proper timecode,
-Perfectly usable Autofocus (in the center)
-Dual Media recording two SD slots
-MUCH better battery life
-Higher build quality
-Last one is a bit unjust but sadly true: C100 has a better reputation as a professional camcorder, for example it's broadcast-approved and loved by broadcasters (externally recorded) and the larger Canon Pro Camcorder will please/attract more clients, it just has a better reputation. It's a factor to put in for many.


These are the facts parts, other objective ones are like Colour science and overall image look, that's to be determined by the user. Personally, I disagree with Andrew on A7s having better IQ is APS-C mode, to my eyes the C100 image is vastly better than the a7s. Grading C100 C-log images with skintones vs S-log2 shows how far these images are.

I think they're different cameras as in C100 suited for fast reliable production while a7s more suited for tinkering & "creativity".

 

[Samuel H]

I haven't done a side-by-side test, but from memory I think FS700 has better DR than C100, and a7S has better DR than FS700. Or maybe it was F3? Not sure, but it's transitive like that.

(in any case, this was based on side-by-side tests, those "XX stops of DR" claims are almost useless and definitely not comparable)

 

[DBP]

Great thread, and I totally agree that relying to heavily on specs is a mistake.

It's fun to analyze what makes a good image so good, and color science / mojo is a big part of it. I've been using the GH2 for a few years now and definitely have a bit of a love-hate relationship with it. At times, it's amazing. Other times.... meh. In fact, my old dusty relic of an HMC150 often produces more pleasing colors despite being inferior in every other way (resolution, noise, dynamic range etc...).

I remember laughing at the C300/100 specs, but after using a C100, I get it. Pleasant camera to use and really nice image straight from the camera. In fact, I think Canon generally does the best color. Even the old 7D, 5D cameras look great despite their other flaws. It's hard to have the perfect camera. It's not black and white either, I've noticed that one camera can be better under X lighting conditions, but worse under Y conditions.

Recently had the chance to shoot with a GH2 and 7D for a wedding. I was quite surprised how much crappier the 7D looked a lot of the time. However, under the mixed fluorescent crap lighting conditions of the reception, it fared much better. Both were white balanced properly.

I've noticed the the GH2 does well with daylight sources, but I never get pleasing color/skin tones with mixed sources.

Then you have the blackmagic line which presents a whole new set of problems for evaluating. Since so much of the look is left to the user... there's a ton of crap out there and it's hard not be soured on it. But when it hits, it looks fantastic.