Zacuto Revenge Shootout Part 3

[Andrew Reid]

I do agree they need to sort the AF line out now. From that I hear the AF100 was not a sales success. In my opinion it needs to be a PL mount S35, no more Micro Four Thirds mount for that one. Also the new Vari Cam needs to be AVC Ultra and 4K. Then you can be more confident in Panasonic's pro offerings. Until now, just enjoy that the low end is so capable for the money, and much better than a 7D.

 

[Dino]

Just watched Revenge Part 3. I rather enjoyed it, which clearly makes me a Pixel Peeper! I found the differences between cameras to be quite pronounced and it's clear that the lowest cost cameras will require more G & E equipment and grading time to get similar imagery to the high end cameras in high DR scenes. Not a surprise.

It also tells me that even if the deliverable is web or DVD, the differences can be apparent amongst cameras. Again, no big surprise. Just as in the old days, a VHS tape sourced from SD video vs. 35mm film made for a big difference in quality. Didn't have to be a pixel peeper to see it.

It's most telling that the high end cameras require the least amount of relighting and post work. Time is money on most every production, and this can justify trying to use the most capable camera and lensing package possible, all else being equal.

 

[refocusedmedia]

I thought it was pretty clear from the get-go that "Revenge" had a different purpose than previous camera tests. A lot of you are maligning Zacuto for their "un-scientific" shootout and how they could've compared the cameras better, but it isn't like they were disingenuous about it. They clearly indicated that this was a documentary about the art of cinematography and the role the camera plays in that, the "shootouts" were simply a means to an end in that regard. Along that same line, I encourage anyone who feels slighted by this to watch the Prelude video half-way down this post: http://philipbloom.net/2012/06/14/rgcs/

 

[Art Adams]

How many parameters did they have here?

- Cameras
- Lighting
- Grading
- Cinematographers

The problem is that only one of those--the camera--is objectively quantifiable. The other three are artistic, and nearly impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.

The addition of the artistic parameters completely muddies the waters, because now we don't know whether we're seeing what a camera objectively does or how the DP artistically sees. Whether we like or dislike a camera depends on whether we also like or dislike their lighting style. It was interesting to see who liked the bright and punchy color cameras, like the GH2, or the dark and moody cameras, mostly the higher-end ones like Epic, Alexa and F65.

I'd say that the relative inexperience of the guys shooting the GH2 resulted in them lighting a bit more brightly than the established cinematographers, who were more into gritty and expressionistic than real and colorful. At least one person thought that the youngsters outshot the older, established DPs when what was really going on was simply a change in styles.

No matter what they say in the doc about the DP being more important than the camera, there's an awful lot of emphasis still put on the camera. During the debate people talk about whether they like the flesh tones in one shot or another, or whether they like the color saturation or not, but nobody says (at least on camera) "I really liked that floor bounce" or "That additional back light was really awesome."

Also, when they revealed what was what, they didn't list the letters next to DP names; they listed them next to camera names.

If your intent is to keep the focus on the people you need to limit the technology involved, so everything that happens can be seen to be the responsibility of a person. To emphasize artistry you have to dumb down and DE-emphasize the technology, preferably by making everyone use the same gear. When you mix up the technology it becomes about the technology, because that's the only aspect we can objectively judge.

 

[Art Adams]

A lot of you are maligning Zacuto for their "un-scientific" shootout and how they could've compared the cameras better, but it isn't like they were disingenuous about it. They clearly indicated that this was a documentary about the art of cinematography and the role the camera plays in that, the "shootouts" were simply a means to an end in that regard.

The problem is that if you want it to be about the art of cinematography then you need to remove technology from the equation and force the audience to look at what the PEOPLE do and not what the GEAR does. By changing up the gear, showing the results as a blind test and asking people to identify what they like, and then revealing -which camera each clip was shot on- instead of who the DP was, the emphasis ends up primarily on the gear.

By mixing artistry in with the technology and allowing DPs to relight their shots you now have a situation where you don't know whether you like--or dislike--a clip because of the camera or who shot it. Your impression of how a camera looks may be unfairly prejudiced by whether you like a DP's lighting style or not.

The other problem is that any time you set up a shootout you're going to entice an audience that really wants to see a camera shootout. Or a DP shootout, if you construct it that way (which Zacuto didn't by switching the cameras up). If this was really about cinematographer then they should have had nine DPs light a set from scratch and use the same camera each time, because then we're focused completely on the artistry of cinematography.

Even then, if you shoot it all on one camera like a GH2, there's going to be a run on GH2's afterward. It's just the way people work.

You can say it's not really a shootout, but if it contains a shootout, it's a shootout.

 

[Barry_Green]

And this is what's so frustrating about this whole thing to me. In the SCCE, they did it really well. Not perfect, but definitely the best I've ever seen it done. Absolutely objective testing, presented for the audience to judge. No agenda. No trying to show that one is better than another, no trying to convince the audience of any particular viewpoint.

In this Zacuto "shootout", it's all entirely subjective. And it's subjective in ways that the audience may not even appreciate! I love Art's statement of "if Colt Seaman had lit the F3, would we all be raving about the F3?"

I understand that Zacuto was trying to send a message, but did we want a message? As Samuel Goldwyn famously said about filmmaking, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

A camera test should be a test of what the camera can do. If Zacuto wants to do a cinematographer test, then call it that. Lay it out there. Say "in this corner, we have Den Lennie with an FS100; in this corner, Colt Seaman with a GH2. Fight!" But to pretend that what was done here was actually an informational camera test is just silly, and it's worse than what's been said before because it's absolutely counterproductive. Not for "crusty old DP's who are 'afraid' that they can't rent their gear out anymore", but it's just offensive to the actual honest truth.

Skip the whole shootout and just read these statements and you'll know everything you need to know: Great results are possible with just about any of today's modern cameras. But the more you skimp on the camera, the more work you'll have to do to make up for it. And a better shooter will get better results out of a lesser camera, than a lesser shooter will be able to accomplish from a better camera.

 

[refocusedmedia]

The problem is that if you want it to be about the art of cinematography then you need to remove technology from the equation and force the audience to look at what the PEOPLE do and not what the GEAR does. By changing up the gear, showing the results as a blind test and asking people to identify what they like, and then revealing -which camera each clip was shot on- instead of who the DP was, the emphasis ends up primarily on the gear.

By mixing artistry in with the technology and allowing DPs to relight their shots you now have a situation where you don't know whether you like--or dislike--a clip because of the camera or who shot it. Your impression of how a camera looks may be unfairly prejudiced by whether you like a DP's lighting style or not.

The other problem is that any time you set up a shootout you're going to entice an audience that really wants to see a camera shootout. Or a DP shootout, if you construct it that way (which Zacuto didn't by switching the cameras up). If this was really about cinematographer then they should have had nine DPs light a set from scratch and use the same camera each time, because then we're focused completely on the artistry of cinematography.

Even then, if you shoot it all on one camera like a GH2, there's going to be a run on GH2's afterward. It's just the way people work.

You can say it's not really a shootout, but if it contains a shootout, it's a shootout.

So, essentially, you're upset because Zacuto tried something new/unique and didn't quite pull it off to your 100% satisfaction? I'm sure they learned quite a bit about all this and -- should they choose to do a follow-up next year -- I'm sure many of the various complaints will be addressed in some form or another. Keep in mind, this may not have been "revolutionary" per se, but it was fairly new concept (or merging of concepts, I guess) in many regards. They clearly worked with and consulted professionals, and I'm sure they presented us with a product they were proud of and that many creative talents worked diligently on.

You're not the authority on what should or shouldn't have been done, anymore than they are. And if you disagree with their methodology, by all means I'd love to see your version (not sarcasm either, I truly would). I'm not saying you're not also entitled to your own opinion and perspective, of course you are, but it seems to me that you're being a bit unreasonable in your armchair critiquing, all things above considered.

 

[refocusedmedia]

In the SCCE, they did it really well. Not perfect, but definitely the best I've ever seen it done. Absolutely objective testing, presented for the audience to judge. No agenda. No trying to show that one is better than another, no trying to convince the audience of any particular viewpoint.

But that's the point I (and Zacuto) was trying to make. "Revenge" was not SCCE part 2, it was an entirely different approach with an entirely different purpose. I really thought they were pretty damn clear about it, so it's surprising to see all this uproar about how "last year's shootout was better" or whatever.

Personally, I found the message refreshing. After the past 3-5 years or so of intense sensor pissing contests, it was great to see a message that the gear matters less than the talent. Far too often, people are consumed with the minutia of gear-whoring and lose sight of the more important elements of visual storytelling. The irony of course being that Zacuto themselves is partially to blame for cultivating such a mindset with their previous shootouts.

I think the biggest mistake they probably made was in titling the documentary. They should've disassociated it completely from their previous shootouts and let it stand on it's own.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I understand that Zacuto was trying to send a message, but did we want a message? As Samuel Goldwyn famously said about filmmaking, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

Western Union no longer is in the message passing business...

I didn't mind the message of 'with some work, many cameras can yield superior results'... and sometimes I think that needs to be 'demonstrated' rather than just simply claimed.

I have an opinion that some people, tend to over buy for their 'actual' needs... and sometimes a demonstration is required to show what is truly needful and what can be attributed to 'brand hype'.

 

[Barry_Green]

Problem is, Zacuto was involved in making the doc for last year's SCCE. And that was (nearly) perfect. So they already did it basically exactly right. Why they veered 180 degrees off course into sensationalism and marketing, instead of information, is (I think) what's ticking off a lot of folks.

Last year, it was all about factual information and actual performance. This year it's all about obfuscation, variability, and demonstratable nonsense. It is obvious (especially with part III out) that the first two parts are just plain misleading, isn't it? That the message people are coming away with (the GH2 beat the F65!!!) is just nonsense. That's the part that's annoying. Represent the truth and tell the truth. If your goal is to say "camera is irrelevant, only the shooter matters" (which is, by the way, a defensible argument) then JUST SAY IT. Up front. Say "In this section, we are going to attempt to show that even though there are massive differences between these cameras, if you work hard enough and your skill set is up to the task, you can actually overcome those obstacles and get great footage from any of these cameras". State your objective.

But if that's your objective, don't call it a "camera test", and don't tease and market about how "oooh, you'll never guess which camera "won" the shootout" and all that, because that's just plain misleading.

Go back to the SCCE. Do it that way. That was facts, presented factually, in an unbiased way, that let everyone see exactly what was what, and let them all make up their own minds.

 

[refocusedmedia]

If your goal is to say "camera is irrelevant, only the shooter matters" (which is, by the way, a defensible argument) then JUST SAY IT. Up front. Say "In this section, we are going to attempt to show that even though there are massive differences between these cameras, if you work hard enough and your skill set is up to the task, you can actually overcome those obstacles and get great footage from any of these cameras". State your objective.

But if that's your objective, don't call it a "camera test", and don't tease and market about how "oooh, you'll never guess which camera "won" the shootout" and all that, because that's just plain misleading.

Completely agree. I think had they done this, and been more straightforward about it, much of the negative reactions would be culled.

 

[Barry_Green]

I think a change of title would probably have solved a lot of the frustration. Instead of calling it "the great camera shootout", just call it "a cameraman shootout" because, really, that's what Part I was. It was about what a person who knows the camera can do with that camera.

Look, I've been there. I've organized many "shootouts", and I've been reamed and killed for it, no matter what way I did it. I did a big six-way shootout with Adam Wilt years ago, where I basically tried to walk the middle ground here -- I had Adam conduct scientific tests, while I had an individual representative (the most-well-known rep I could find at the time) for each camera. People were furious. They always are, whenever their "chosen" camera doesn't "win". But at least in that test, as in the SCCE, it was pointing the cameras at clear objective tests and letting the results fall where they may.

If they hadn't done "Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3" the way they did, and instead said "Here's part 1, in which we attempt to prove that the camera is irrelevant and that it's only the shooter that matters", and "Here's part 3, in which we demonstrate what the real differences are between the cameras themselves" etc., and they released them all simultaneously, well, I don't think you'd see much complaining at all.

Just own up to it. That's all. But that's not what was done. It wasn't released as actual information, it was released as hype and marketing, it was drawn out, it was all tease, and the end conclusions that people are coming to are just not substantiatable by the truth.

I'm the guy who's been saying "the cameras are good enough, go pick one and shoot". I've been saying that for years. I understand and agree with that message. But I'm also the first guy to point out that "better is actually better", and that there are very good reasons why better cameras cost more and that yes, they can and do in fact do more.

 

[Art Adams]

If Zacuto wants to do a cinematographer test, then call it that. Lay it out there. Say "in this corner, we have Den Lennie with an FS100; in this corner, Colt Seaman with a GH2. Fight!"

I hate to be ornery... okay, I really love it ... If they're using different cameras it's going to become about the equipment. Give them both an FS100 or a GH2 and that's when you'll have a DP shootout.

 

[zacuto]

I want to say that I respect Steve and his entire team a great deal. And I respect that he is here discussing this on a public forum. I honestly believe that Steve, Jens, Bruce and everyone involved had the best of intentions. But I disagree with the concept and methodology both of the testing done and the presentation thereafter.

Before joining AbelCine I was a DP for nearly 20 years. Hundred of shorts, commercials, music videos, docs, industrials, etc. Twenty-four features. 16mm, 35mm, Hi-8, 3/4" Umatic, Beta, 2/3", HDCAM, RED, Phantom, lots of other stuff. I've dealt with post back in the day when I used a gang sync and a Moviola upright to a Steenbeck, a Kem (I loved the Kem), Edit Droid, D-Vision, Media Composer, Lightworks, RMB-450 (there's a memory!), Final Cut, Premiere, Video Vegas, Grass Valley, Rank Y-Fronts, Spirit, DaVinci, Hazeltine, IP & IN, neg. cut matchback, Scratch, Resolve, Harry, Inferno, Baselight, Codex, and okay I'll stop now. I've done a bunch of stuff high and low. Since joining AbelCine I've been lucky to have a seat in the forefront of some pretty exciting Digital Cinema advances. It was our company that helped Vision Research bring the Phantom cameras to market, which were among the earliest RAW cameras really available to the production world (the first were the Dalsa Origin and the ARRI D20). I was pretty involved in that and learned a lot from some damn smart people. Some people think I'm anti-RED but it's not true and I've done a lot with those cameras. I consulted with Sony on the feature set of the F3 and FS100. I was instrumental in involving AbelCine with the Alexa before it came to market (we're the only company besides ARRI who sells it). I also know lighting and lenses, and my dog's name is Lulu. Hope I have a bit of credibility with a few of you now.

Steve, I'm not going to get into a fight or a pissing match. Let's play a game of You Say/I Say, but the "You Says" encompasses both your statements and the statements of others that you chose to feature in your presentation. You say it's about telling a story. I say yes of course, but we know that already so let's move on. You say that a good DP can make any camera any camera sing. I say that a good DP will have to struggle to make some cameras work where others are more appropriate, and that an artist should choose his brush and a carpenter choose his hammer. You say that your presentation is really more for indy filmmakers not technical people (aka "pixel peepers"). I say that the presentation does not state this and that it is presented in a way that makes it appear to be authoritative on a technical level. You say here in this forum that of course there is a difference with the more expensive cameras but indy filmmakers must use the camera they can afford. I say that the presentation implies if not outright states that there is little to no difference between most of the cameras and that the indy filmmakers are actually given a disservice in that they will have to spend more on lighting or post with low cost cameras in order to achieve what the more expensive models do with minimal effort.

I could go on. The point is that the Shootout starts and ends with a premise that there is little to no difference between these cameras and what really matters is the talent of the DP and the skills of the crew. I do not negate the work of these people. I AM one of these people. But I also know it take a lot longer to write War & Peace with a quill than with a word processor. It can be done but does it really make the most sense to do it that way. And there are certain situations where one camera will outperform the others no matter what efforts the DP makes, so that camera is then the most appropriate to the task at hand. (BTW, in some cases that camera would be the iPhone). I feel that the choices made in the ways the tests were conducted and then the ways in which they were presented in your three-part series and accompanying support materials were - perhaps subconsciously or inadvertently - in support of this supposition that there is little difference between the cameras.

No matter who you intend the presentation to be for it will spread. I admire that you have taken this on year after year and you have received several awards and lots of viewership from it. But I know what the repurcussions have been in the past from such tests with my clients and many others. A producer will hear "there's not much difference between the cameras" and then dictate to the DP a cheap lower- grade camera than what the project may really need. I see this happen every day. I also see a lot of indy filmmakers come into the shop with bits of half-knowledge and tigbits culled from the internet but misinterpreted, and now the guy wants to shoot a complicated project on a camera that is really not up to the task at hand. I could go on with many examples but suffice to say that I see it every single day. This is not about sticking my nose up in a huff and stating that nothing but the best will do. My company deals in these lower level cameras every day and I'm incredibly impressed with what they are capable of capturing. But I also know that each and every camera has its strong points and its weak points. They are very much NOT the same, and to make it appear that they are in improper. At least in my book.

Respectfully,

Absolutely not. Part three shows that out of the box that there are incredibly strong differences between cameras. Anyone can see that. The iphone and GH2 are almost completely black and were unusable. If you look at the empirical results it clearly shows that most of the cameras DR, resolution and other qualities basically fell surprising within the price point of the camera. Technically, nobody is disputing that. But what does that prove, nobody uses a camera in that fashion!!! And if your producers say otherwise sit them down and show them part three. The part I don't understand is that don't almost 100% of the people on this forum own their own camera and rent it out on the jobs they do with them? Not sure the mix of people out here doing gainfully employed work or making shorts and features as an avocation. I'm stunned at the folks who have been around for a while being so shocked at having to fight for a camera with a producer. Or thinking that if I didn't make this program that the producers might not look on Vimeo and see "oh boy" some of those cameras, projects and talented individuals are doing amazing work with lower cost cameras. I'm I the guy the let the cat out of the bag???

We all did this in the 80's, 90's and so on. I had to fight for 35mm or 16mm, then Betacam over 3/4", then Betacam over Hi-8. Nothing new, man up, fight back and stop you winging. Producers heard that Betacam was beautiful and so they didn't want to give us the money to shoot on film. The differences there made the differences between the iPhone and the Alexa seem tiny. Nobody ever claimed that a GH2 is better then an Alexa as I've always stated AND THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT camera performance is based on ability. If you have an Alexa and don't know how to light your way out of a bag it will look like crap. Even if you do know how to illuminate it can still look like crap. Lighting is like painting, it's an artform and based on ability. I cannot take the greatest golf clubs in the world and shoot like Arnold Palmer, it's based on ability. Same in our business. All cameras performances are based on ability, I think the creative test showed that. The empirical test showed you what the tool was capable of. The commentary from the DP's taught us what are the elements that are necessary to develop the talent needed to make any camera shine. Lighting, framing, movement, knowing how to set color profiles and knowing how to shot for the timing session. The creative test allowed us see how some of these variables work in concert. The empirical test (where nothing was moved or changed) really only showed us the differences in DR and resolution. I repsect you Mitch but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you. I think that this was the best program we have done to date. It showed us what we have seen in all of our other tests. The empirical test. But it allowed us to see capability as well.

Nobody with any experience can say that one camera is better then another. You have to pick the right camera for the right job. I have most all cameras available to me in my rental department yet I choose to use a Varicam to shoot my interviews because I felt it was the right camera for the job. I know we are all trying to justify our purchase but in all reality when the market went from camera rental to camera purchase it got many of us using the wrong camera for a particular job. And you know it Mitch. In some respects it was good having low cost cameras available to people to learn their craft and in many respects it was bad because it's just plain cheaper to rent higher end cameras for shorts and features unless you are really able to rent your own cameras to the job. What I find happens is that when you are an owner operator often your gear gets thrown into the mix as a bonus for hiring you and it get's very hard to make your money out of your gear. So many DP's thought they were going to pay off their RED ONE cameras by renting them when not using them and what happened is that in LA the market got flooded with them and the day rate went down to nothing. So beware when buying gear. I've been doing it for 29 years and you need to master this process to know exactly when to get rid of it before it becomes a paper weight and worth $100 to hang on the wall at Zacuto for those who have been there.

Again we can talk about cameras all day long but the emphasis of the test was to show the differences between the actual out of box quality of the camera and what one can do with it if you know what you are doing. I understand that this is not giving people what they want to hear. That the Alexa is the right camera for every job and it simply is just not. Every job has to be analyzed to see what camera is best for that job. If you show is ending up on the internet you may just not need an EPIC or Alexa. You may choose to use one but you may get similar results with a lesser camera if that is what you can afford or choose.

There have been a lot of mistruths out there and I think since nobody is willing to read any of the documentation I have created a little chart to show how the cameras actually performed in the creative test. I will say two things that I think could have been improved on. When I gave people 90 minutes to light and 90 minutes to color time most people naturally use all of the time if it's made available to them. So we probably should have put greater pressure to get them done or given them less time. Agreed. Again many mistruths have been flying around and to be clear about the GH2. Someone in one of their rants claimed that the GH2 used some 46 layers which is entirely not true in fact it use the least amount of layers of any camera next to the F65. Also, I think people need to realize that the reason so many layers were needed is because the fact that the translight and sun coming in the window was so bright and the interior was so dark is what caused a lot of trouble for most as every DP explained if you listen to how they went about their shot.

time to light # add. lights time in Color T layers in Color time
iphone 32 min 6 90 min 21
GH2 52 4 90 13
7D 35 2 90 18
FS-100 27 1 90 26
C300 84 1 90 27
F3 36 4 75 15
RED 50 2 90 17
Alexa 33 1 60 18
F65 0 0 30 4

 

[Barry_Green]

I hate to be ornery... okay, I really love it ... If they're using different cameras it's going to become about the equipment. Give them both an FS100 or a GH2 and that's when you'll have a DP shootout.

Yes, minimizing variables would definitely be preferable. If you wanted to actually have a legitimate DP shootout, you should equip them with the same grip truck and the same camera equipment, and NOT TELL ANY OF US WHAT CAMERA IT WAS!

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

the message people are coming away with (the GH2 beat the F65!!!) is just nonsense.

No one with half a brain came away with the GH2 beating the F65. I think what surprised people is that with a ton of re-lighting and grading it was even mentioned as a camera people liked (especially because a lot of people love to belittle the GH2) when played back with the big boys.

I really think a lot of people are really overreacting to the effects this little documentary will have on the industry. It might have a far bigger effect on the low ends of production then on the high ends but I hear more complaining from those who dwell in the higher ends of production. Weird.

To me this Zacuto documentary is no different than the clammor after people find out a 5D was used in avengers (as a crash cam though) or Shane Hurlbut's work and then declare the 5D fit for blockbuster films. These are the people who forget the DP makes the camera in these cases not the camera making the DP. The hot air runs out and those with knowledge ignore. Those without just talk to sound like they know or troll controversy. I think that is what Zacuto wanted people to move away from although I guess it did end up happening anyway that people concentrated on the camera not the work. I just wish they were more obvious with the time and effort it took to make the cameras look similar. I find that part the most interesting anyway.

 

[Razz16mm]

What I find happens is that when you are an owner operator often your gear gets thrown into the mix as a bonus for hiring you and it get's very hard to make your money out of your gear. So many DP's thought they were going to pay off their RED ONE cameras by renting them when not using them and what happened is that in LA the market got flooded with them and the day rate went down to nothing. So beware when buying gear. I've been doing it for 29 years and you need to master this process to know exactly when to get rid of it before it becomes a paper weight and worth $100 to hang on the wall at Zacuto for those who have been there.

The primary reason to own a camera is that for your intended use it will be cheaper than renting for whatever variety of reasons. Whether it is just being able to pick it up and shoot on a moments notice, shooting your own creative work without restrictive time and cost constraints, distance from rental houses makes rental too expensive to compete, or you have enough work for the projects people pay you to do to pay for it when balanced against rental costs.
The balance of cost vs income vs perceived value is unique for each of us. I have rented cameras from time to time, but I have never rented my own out to anyone. They get used until they die or in most cases do get added to the museum collection. There value to me over the long haul has been greater than the cost.

 

[zacuto]

I think a change of title would probably have solved a lot of the frustration. Instead of calling it "the great camera shootout", just call it "a cameraman shootout" because, really, that's what Part I was. It was about what a person who knows the camera can do with that camera.

Look, I've been there. I've organized many "shootouts", and I've been reamed and killed for it, no matter what way I did it. I did a big six-way shootout with Adam Wilt years ago, where I basically tried to walk the middle ground here -- I had Adam conduct scientific tests, while I had an individual representative (the most-well-known rep I could find at the time) for each camera. People were furious. They always are, whenever their "chosen" camera doesn't "win". But at least in that test, as in the SCCE, it was pointing the cameras at clear objective tests and letting the results fall where they may.

If they hadn't done "Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3" the way they did, and instead said "Here's part 1, in which we attempt to prove that the camera is irrelevant and that it's only the shooter that matters", and "Here's part 3, in which we demonstrate what the real differences are between the cameras themselves" etc., and they released them all simultaneously, well, I don't think you'd see much complaining at all.

Just own up to it. That's all. But that's not what was done. It wasn't released as actual information, it was released as hype and marketing, it was drawn out, it was all tease, and the end conclusions that people are coming to are just not substantiatable by the truth.

I'm the guy who's been saying "the cameras are good enough, go pick one and shoot". I've been saying that for years. I understand and agree with that message. But I'm also the first guy to point out that "better is actually better", and that there are very good reasons why better cameras cost more and that yes, they can and do in fact do more.

I did change the title, it's called REVENGE of the great camera shootout. Meaning that it's REVENGING our previous shootouts by adding this new element.

 

[zacuto]

I hate to admit that all of us are babbling on and on about this, when the real message is about talent and getting experience. Might we all be better off spending our time getting out there and start shooting with what ever camera we have. That was the real message I was hoping people would get from the DP's who inspired us. I'm already off doing my next documentary completely non related to the film industry.

 

[zacuto]

The primary reason to own a camera is that for your intended use it will be cheaper than renting for whatever variety of reasons. Whether it is just being able to pick it up and shoot on a moments notice, shooting your own creative work without restrictive time and cost constraints, distance from rental houses makes rental too expensive to compete, or you have enough work for the projects people pay you to do to pay for it when balanced against rental costs.
The balance of cost vs income vs perceived value is unique for each of us. I have rented cameras from time to time, but I have never rented my own out to anyone. They get used until they die or in most cases do get added to the museum collection. There value to me over the long haul has been greater than the cost.

And I would agree with you and for that purpose I would get a camera that you can easily afford. If you need to do a huge project then the budget of that project should allow you to afford the higher end camera.