Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 02:58:17 am

Title: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 02:58:17 am
My blog.. http://dslr4real.tv/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=96&Itemid=1

========
To me the 'DSLR' Dream has been to be able to produce a 'Stills and Motion' offer for the client while operating with the tiny footprint of the press photographer
 
From reading the Nikon D4 announcement that era appears to have arrived
 
If clients understand what this means it is a very exciting time
 
Lets recap the basic joys of a decent full frame DSLR
 
Full frame give the traditional photography perspective and DOF, a look we have seen and loved since 1930 in the images of Henri Cartier Bresson through to the hottest Agency photographers delivering news from around the world
 
Most image you see in World Press Photo have the full frame look
 
Digital cameras have moved stills photography forward in terms of low light ability and auto focus well beyond the best that film ever brought us
 
Having shot stills with the nikon D3 since it launch some three years ago I can assure that the D3 was a mind bendingly good stills camera
 
The fantastic dynamic range, creamy roll off to blown highlights and clean 1600 ISO made it a camera that worked with minimal or no lighting in almost any conditions
 
The D3 means I now have a truck of flash that is now virtually unused
 
The D3 was revolutionary to stills work
 
My only gripes with the D3 were the lack of 100ISO and a slight shortage of mega pixels - those gripes are gone with the D4 although Id still like 6 or 25 ISO
 
I have no doubts that the nikon D4 will be a superb stills camera
 
Video
The main revolution with video in the last decade is the ability for anyone to broadcast. Once upon a time the only way to broadcast was to buy a 30 second slot for $50k slot on TV
 
Shooting video was essentially a pointless activity for anyone but a tiny elite because they could not get it seen
 
Now anyone,indy filmmaker, kid, small company, large corporation can broadcast via the internet
 
Shooting video is no longer pointless
 
So we all want to shoot video - until that function was enabled on DLSR cameras shooting video was a horrible activity (in my opinion)
 
We had the choice of buying;
 
-A 2/3 BetaCam for $70K, adequate, but heavy and expensive
-A handy cam - cheap but horrid looking with a tiny chip and rubbish fixed glass
-A DOF adapter camera - a light hungry overweight technical nightmare
 
Video enabled DSLRs brought that era to an end matching a large sensor in a small package with cheap (compared to a $20k eng lens) stills glass
 
But DSLR video was an 'almost ran'
Well documented issues particularly the lack of monitor able sound caused huge issues to the video shooter using a DSLR - I see most of the other issues (Jello Moire etc) as fairly minimal in the bigger picture - the poor sound was the killer app that killed DSLR for me - driving my video acquisition towards the Sony FS100
 
Canon have crippled their fine D1x with the simple omission of a headphone jack - they thought this was clever.. it wasn't.. it ensured that they won't get my $6000 or buy any of their lenses for another $10k
 
By including a headphone jack nikon have scored a huge goal with the Nikon D4
 
So the Nikon D4 lets talk about why it could absolutely rock
One Bag
I am pretty sure that a nikon D4 kit being
D4, mic, laptop, cans, lavs,  24-70 and 80-200 and only of my rigs will fit in a hand luggage bag
The ultimate kit for the digital journalist or mobile corporate shooter
 
A client could commission a solo operator with this bag to cover the most remote news story or provide them with a top class corporate package of stills and motion
 
Not just cover the assignment but produce world class material
 
ENG shooting
To the ENG camera operator shooting for the Beeb or Sky DSLRs have always been a mild joke
-no control of sound
-no super zoom lens
Lets face it shooting actuality with fixed primes is a nightmare, changing lenses is just too slow for shooting actuality
The crop modes on the D4 give you a super zoom with no lens changes
 
Auto Focus
Focus is an issue with shooting video on any large chip
Most DSLR video footage is out of focus most of the time
Sorting focus properly has generally an extremely costly operation for serious productions, employing skilled technical crew and outrageous gadgtery
Auto focus on the Nikon D4 will bring a good level of focus to the solo operator
I am sure the D4 will be awesome on a steadicam giving a large chip look and pretty much escaping the need to radio focus
 
Sensor Crop modes
Changing lenses while trying to shoot video quickly is an utter pain. Its not the lens change but fiddling with filters and follow focus alignment
The Canon 24-105 (on a full frame 5d) has basically been the only usable zoom lens with DSLRs, beyond that DSLR shooting has always required a bag of glass to create an interesting and varied sequence of images
 
The Nikon D4 shoots at different crops, a lens like a 24-70 will have a huge range of fields of view
 
I think a D4 and a 24-70 will offer enough perspectives to shoot almost anything, add a 70-200 and that crop mode and you get amazing range of image perspectives from just two lenses
 
Sound
Im sorry sound men but the main requirement of location sound is to do an interview and stop the sound clipping and avoid wind noise
Im sure the D4 will have this basic functionality
The Heart of the Image
Lets not forget what the pictures look like. This is probably a no brainer for a top level Nikon, Nikons are the kings of skin and dynamic range, what more do you need
 
All in all
I think this camera can be a game changer, the most likely thing to hold it back is the imagination of the paying client and their prejudices
 
BUT
All is not perfect. I have some concerns about the D4.
 
It appears to have Mini HDMI - the worlds worst connection interface
 
One the sound side 3.5mini jack is far from ideal too - BeachTek may come back into fashion big style or of course my Sound Devices 702 recorder - a solution like the 702 that records a master to a CF card and feeds out to the camera is probably ideal
 
Focus check while rolling - without this we could need a monitor, batteries bla bla .. unless the AF is really really good
 
Skipping or binning - taking 16mp and chopping them to 1920-1080 can be painful - I guess nikon will have the power to do this pretty well but not perfectly - expect a little moire or a softness that does not actually resolve 1080 lines
 
Nikkor 24-70 - This lens at full frame is plenty wide, at 1080 crop it will be a serious telephoto. Trouble is the copy I tried while optically mind boggling is not that nice to manually focus - which will need super precision in 1080 crop mode, but AF will probably be good on simple to analyse tele photo shots
 
Its a lump. The Nikon D3s is not the finest camera on a small handheld rig with no counterweight, Its pretty horrible on a Steadicam Merlin
 
Its expensive. Will we get all this functionality in a D800 D4000 or whatever in six months?
 
Selecting Crop Mode. I want to do this fast - but will it be buried in the menues
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 06, 2012, 04:27:46 am
It's funny how Nikon has always been prudent and logical with megapixels. This has "just" 16 and seems a joke compared to the 20 ish of the Nex 7.

We still lack of a proper image sequence mode.

Will it have timelapse capabilities without requiring to an external gadget?

I'm not happy with the 720p for 60 fps, it reminds a lot the GH2 capabilities and it's outdated.

It's big, heavy and expensive. No raw.

About the focussing issues, wich I agree, I'm not sure the solutions are in big sensors but on the exact opposite. In fact, I think that the Nikon V1 is a good idea.
I discovered that 16mm cine lenses in C or S mount are quite efficient in order to focus in a one-man configuration. To use those lenses properly, we need small sensors.
It's usable on the GH2 because of the crop mode, but loosing wide angles.

On the GH2 you can access a crop mode setted on the upper dial, so let's say you shoot wide, turn the dial and you're on tele (without quality lost).
But cropping without downsampling has a downside: the downsampling processing helps a lot in noise control at higher isos. It means that you wouldn't use a crop mode in higher isos because it will be noticiable the difference in noise between the non-crop and the cropped.

Instead of needing bigger sensor, I'd need in fact smaller sensor as crazy as it sounds.


There are curently 2 tendecies: one is big, raw, and expensive, and the other is micro, HD and cheap, taking advantage of the electronics progress. This Nikon D falls in a no-where land IMO and I'm not sure the focussing accuracy be the grail on set (for video). It remains to be seen in real life.

It falls in a land of nowhere, excatly like the Canon, because we are reaching prices where one can almost consider a Red One. It's cheaper but the investment is already substancial. Then, strictly talking in terms of IQ, got the feeling that the NEX7 and GH2 (hacked or not) are still unbeatable in terms of price-performances.

Nikon has done a lot of video integration in its V1 models, but I find that D still very shy.




Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 04:50:58 am
Maybe but IMO the D3 - which is my primary camera - lovely colours, works every day, no client ever complains about 11mp
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 06, 2012, 06:27:18 am
I think that the D4 reso is more than enough. Nikon has always been very pragmatic in order to maintain high file quality and not filled sensors with too much pixels.

It will be a great photographic tool, no doubt. Probably a good motion tool as well. My point was that I'm not sure it would be a revolutionary combocam we'd all like to have. It's not there yet IMO.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 06, 2012, 07:14:35 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZZMIo7Zfys&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Sounds pretty amazing to my video ignorant eyes but is it any good?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 07:15:47 am
@fred

Well I think you can plop it in your bag with a couple of lenses cans and a mic go off, take some nice stills, shoot some nice video, do an interview, checking the levels and wind noise,  all images with a cinematic look

You can make all of the content for a company stills and motion with one tool and minimal lights/grip

That is to me a combo cam and basically new (hacks aside)

Is it an Epic Red beater ? no

S

 
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 06, 2012, 07:39:29 am
D4 footage is really good. Very pro looking files. Not as powerfull as the hacked GH2 but better in terms of DOF capabilities, DR and certainly much better in terms of stills.

This could be indeed a great 4X4 reportage camera for both still-motion. But how it differs from the Canon 1D then ? I mean, long time Nikon users will buy this camera, and long time Canon users will still buy the latest 1D. Same philosophy, similar specs etc...

I don't want to cut the buzz, I simply can't find where resides the "game changer" factor. It seems more to me in the continuity of the 1D, at the Nikon sauce.

But I see a 5D MK2 at 2000 euros...this costs almost 6. If I'm really really pragmatic, where are the 4000 I'd pay for ?
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 08:00:49 am
The $5 headphone jack is the $4k game changer

Missing from the 1Dx 'to protect their video market'

--
Not mention a bunch of other detailing

Have you used a 5dmk2 in a pressured paid environment - really its unusable, crappy monitoring (of focus) post cost inducing sound synch , black outs when you hit record, mental moire in the boss shirt, over heating bla bla bla

Go out maybe interview 10 people in a day, some of them celebs with 5minutes scheduled in and I think you will find the 5d is pretty horrid

Sitting back sweating hoping that Pluraleyes does its stuff bla bla

I can tell you as a stills guy 'stealing' the business of the videographer you do yourself no favours if the sound does not synch or whatever

Handing off footage to a third party editor who cannot understand two files per clip, and doesn't do the same workflow as you so you can't do it for them bla bla

Ive done enough paid video shoots to only use a DSLR for BRoll or fun now

Of course every one needs something different from their camera - but for me - lo budget corporate the D4 looks very very good

S
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 06, 2012, 09:35:31 am
That's why I stopped to use the 5D after the GH2. Yes, the Canon has all the issues you mentionned and the Panasonic is simply a better video camera in almost every aspects except extreme isos (but a worse still one).

It's possible to monitoring the sound (helmet) with the GH2 with a special cable and control levels. I have one, it works perfectly but in the end I still use a clapperboard and record sound separatly.

I have no doubt that this Nikon will feed your requierements and will be a more solid tool than the 5D. But price is high.

I'm seeing Sony, not the Nex 7 but their latest dslrs. They have superb video capabilities and it seems that still quality is now really good (if not pushing isos) at 1/3 the cost.

There is a tough competition. This Nikon is more than probably a superb camera, as Nikon knows how to do them in their top-gear. It will deliver pro stills and pro videos for sure, and with probably less hassles than what we know with Canon. But...6000 ?


mmm...I'd wait and see a few months before putting all that money because it seems that this market is moving fast.

But that's just me.

Ps: I've read all the specs, there are really good indeed. It's a muscled GH2. Very inspired. It might be a better tool than I thought first more I think about it. I got your points. But this price...
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 10:09:49 am
Well every tool has a place and appropriateness , personally the GH2 has never come on by radar as a 'serious' stills camera

Yep sony might do a nice DSLR sometime

I won't be buying any of them for a while, Im well kitted up and can wait a year to see how the market moves

Best

S

Title: Re: D4
Post by: RFPhotography on January 06, 2012, 11:09:32 am
Fred, several Nikons have a built in intervalometer for timelapse.  Have had for several years.  Timelapse with Nikon is a non-issue.  This new D4, apparently, has a new 'timelapse mode' that not only takes the still images at set intervals but also puts them into video output at a desired frame rate.  Not sure how useful that will be.  Doesn't matter as long as they haven't done away with the standard intervalometer.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 06, 2012, 12:52:37 pm
.... Basically I want less gear that allows me to do more. Canon isn't delivering that right now or in the foreseeable future.

Nice job Nikon!

I agree.

I also like more and more this Nikon proposal.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Tim Jones on January 06, 2012, 02:19:18 pm
 Has anyone looked at some of the frame grabs at 1080?  They  definitely  look useable as stills full screen on my 30" cinema display.
Awesome! Jaw dropping .
Title: Re: D4
Post by: bcooter on January 06, 2012, 02:35:07 pm

I'm trying to get a deposit placed on a D4 at our local pro shop. A full switch may only cost about $2K difference to unload all my Canon and other gear to have an equal Nikon set or at least a Nikon set of lenses and accessories of what I actually use now for stills and video. I don't really enjoy buying things anymore, but I do enjoy creating mental ease through simplified approaches. That's how I view a D4. I want fewer cases of gear and lighter cases, and use my head more to get to the end result instead of stuff.

The two biggest drawbacks on all of these dslr video cameras is 1. Sound.  They need real dedicated xlr's  and the ability to sample sound as you work.

I detest the separate sound recording, slate or not, good continuity or not, it's a pain in the ass for the editor, a pain in the ass for everyone.

Secondly these smaller cameras need autofocus for some applications.  

I don't mind hiring a focus puller for heavy production, but shooting B cam of atmosphere, or action, it's just silly to keep running around trying to hold focus on someone.  Nothing is really that sharp or should I say professionally sharp, which for video is much different than stills.

Regardless, I'm all for simplification, I just haven't found it yet.

Our LED's and florescent fixtures do not replace HMI's, we bought the Sony AF100 and it doesn't get close to replacing the RED's, we've shoved tons of stuff in multiple vans (around the world) and they never are as easy or simple as a full kitted grip truck.

In fact our next purchase will be a grip truck, that's dedicated to our needs, not something that we rent, pile stuff in and then rinse and repeat.

In fact, I even have my doubts that the Scarlet we ordered will be anything more than a b cam.

As far as this New Nikon I'd have to see the footage, but the Canon I'm more interested in.   I like the fact that it shoots at high iso, I like the Canon skin tones.   We have full sets of Nikon and Canon lenses, so that doesn't weight into the thought, for me it's the color and look of the files, but that's for stills, not video.

We'll take a hard look at this Nikon, but until it's out, who knows?

IMO

BC
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 06, 2012, 03:46:10 pm
The two biggest drawbacks on all of these dslr video cameras is 1. Sound.  They need real dedicated xlr's  and the ability to sample sound as you work.

Correct. I've been asking and hopping for those xlr in vain.

Secondly these smaller cameras need autofocus for some applications.  

I don't mind hiring a focus puller for heavy production, but shooting B cam of atmosphere, or action, it's just silly to keep running around trying to hold focus on someone.  Nothing is really that sharp or should I say professionally sharp, which for video is much different than stills.

And that's where the main downside is IMO. We don't really have reliable AF so far for motion on those cams.
I have a big doubt this Nikon is gona change this reality, I might be wrong but that remains to be seen.


... the Canon I'm more interested in.   I like the fact that it shoots at high iso, I like the Canon skin tones.   We have full sets of Nikon and Canon lenses, so that doesn't weight into the thought, for me it's the color and look of the files, but that's for stills, not video.


I haven't seen so far a more powerfull motion tool at extremes isos than the new Canon (not the 1D, the other cine beast the C something). It's to the point that it should affect drastically the sets. Nikon has a really good experience in high-isos quality, this D4 should be indeed strong there, but until we really can get more samples, it will be "should" and "maybe". But I've never been convinced by the skintones of the Nikons, all generations. They are more difficult to obtain than with the Canon and Nikon softwares aren't really nice (so far).
The video bitrate is way below the hacked GH2. The D4 shoots at 24mb/s max, the GH2 almost 200 and absolutly stable at 100.
The Canon is already hackable to a 100ish, let's see if this Nikon is sealed or they will manage to hack it.
It looks interesting, specs are coherent. But I think we're not there yet.


I don't mind hiring a focus puller for heavy production, but shooting B cam of atmosphere, or action, it's just silly to keep running around trying to hold focus on someone.  Nothing is really that sharp or should I say professionally sharp, which for video is much different than stills.

James, I don't want to complicate the thread, but there I'm following you half the way. Because on the motion works you displayed on internet for your studio, the ones that captured me really the most, the ones where I've entered and where I would say "I'd like to hire those guys" aren't necesarly the sharpest in-focus swiss watches precision. In fact it's all about emotions and message and you know well how to do it. I'm sure most of the footage I'm refering to has been shooted with the Canon. Not that I'm thinking that the red is not a tool, it bloody is, but we shouldn't underestimate those little cameras.

How to keep things fresh with 2 tons of equipment that require a cine crew to manouver?

That's the chalenge IMO.  I've seen people moving to Red, ultra motivated, but then their footage started to freeze and getting less exciting, less risky, less dynamic or creative. The weight of the equipment itself can be a trap or a burden for many. It's like everybody gets excited by Red but I'm not sure they all have a clear understanding of what does it mean to make all the machinery work properly.
Press the Red or Alexa button and it's all the rest of the chain that has to be boosted, and that, I hear it very little.

Things get more complicated as soon as you upgrade the motion equipment, and it gets even more chalenging to keep it fresh and dynamic. That requires a team totally involved and obedient as well very skilled.
If you can do with the Red what you where-are able to do with the Canon, chapeau*. (I'm sure you are-will)

*chapeau in french means hat, and the meaning for the non french speakers is "I applaude".
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 06, 2012, 05:04:37 pm
The D4 has sound both at a basic level to do a simple interview direct with the cameras functionality, a simple interview is the mainstay of 90% of broadcast material

I also think it will work well in conjunction with a sound recorder - I love the recorder I have - the Sound Devices 702

With that you can pump proper audio out into the camera while creating a safe recording too on the recorders own CF card

As for AF that remains to be seen, I doubt it will be good but who knows

Incedentally the sound recorder presents an interesting modularity in that it can hop from camera to camera - i.e. it worked with my 5d, my 7d and any other camera, the sound recorder(s) attached to my sony video cameras will die with them

S





Title: Re: D4
Post by: bcooter on January 07, 2012, 01:16:17 pm

All of this mirrors still photography.

I'm not saying a smaller camera can't produce great results, just the opposite, I think a smaller camera in stills and motion can free up the whole process.

The problem is in commerce what goes from a kewl, hand held jerky image, shot with a crew of 3 never flies when it comes to getting through the whole creative process.

I like the real world look  but usually slick, smooth, commercial, managed with some believability of reality is where the real money goes.

So whether I'm mounting a 3 lb camera on a tripod or dolly, or a 10 lb camera it makes little difference other than the 10lb camera shoots a raw file and can crop which gives more options in post.

When we want that free flowing movement, we usually bring on a stedicam operator, but even at that 90% of the imagery is shot from some kind of hard mount, moving or not.

Actually, when you view any motion advertising or entertainment you'll see nearly every technique employed. 

When we shoot we run three cameras when possible, because as you know you can never have too much footage.

But I'm not against these smaller cameras I just think at times they can make life difficult, especially in post and can be a false economy.

They have a place, I guess that's why RED made an Epic and a Scarlet.

This Nikon may be good, though they will have to up their video game to compete, even with Canon and maybe they have.     

Then again nothing is more hand held and grittier than Southland and that's shot hand (shoulder) mount on RED Ones along with dollies and every other mount, including a strong guy's arms.

http://www.tnt.tv/video/?cid=54227&oid=225389

As far as what's on our website, we haven't updated it in a year or so, we've been busy and we're in the process of changing the whole thing to reflect how we've changed our studios.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 07, 2012, 02:27:49 pm
Of course at the top end nothing really changes - a DLSR is a comedy crash cam, the D4 possibly a slightly better comedy crash cam

It doesn't have a mass or size advantage over Scarlet any more any way - so who cares.

You throw words like focus puller or steadicam op into the mix as if they are nothing

They are not nothing; each of these people and their toys are (I hope) at least $1000 a day

Now down at the bottom end thing do matter, things do change

A few years ago all cheap productions (think 2 person corporate crew) looked totally awful

DLSRs have radicalised how cheaper 'motion' can look and each incremental change makes it better or easier

Best

SMM







Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 07, 2012, 02:35:26 pm
I imagined the website wasn't updated yet to reflect your latests because the material was there before you moved to Red cameras I think.

Yes, those dslrs have issues in post and as you say, it could be a false economy in the end.
Generaly, cheaper equipment costs at first less but on the middle term in fact more. I've seen it in almost every aspect of life.
But being far from ideal, it's possible to do really good stuff with little cams.

The thing is there was a time I seriously considered moving to Red, but I realised quickly that it's not just about the camera and a bunch of lenses. All the chain is affected and numbers raise fast.
Structure is different etc...If it was just for the basic gear, I could have done the move but then I wouldn't have the budget to sustain properly the other aspects. I had to admit that I'm not in a position to work with the Red system comfortably. It's like this guy who buys a Ferrari but in the end can't change the tyres, something like that although the comparaison is maybe too simple. It was clear for me that the only way to access more solid equipment is simply to grow and generate money with the systems I can sustain today. Being really good with what I have and if that leads me to invest in heavier equipment and bigger team, it will be done naturaly from a smaller structure that works, produce good content and generate enough incomes to do so. In that context, dslrs or mirrorless cams are powerfull tools but of course not ideal.

And then, I thought: "Fred, if you start to complain about your equipment because it's not Raw, it's not ideal etc...bad thing, because (me talking to myself) then you're not on track, also you can't really access much more at the moment so it's pointless. Be happy with what you have and enjoy filming".
And that's what I did.


Commercially, I see the strong importance of the Red or Alexa systems. There are some contracts in the high-end you simply can't obtain with a dslr config. You need a serious structure and being equiped and renting is not always the best solution. It's important to own a strategical part of the equipment.

Here, it's been a wave of Red wanters, not a long time ago. I include myself into it. But the discourse was "I need Raw". Not really "can I really sustain that? or the impact with clients". It reminded me to some extend the MF dilemas. I think that the important factors to consider are if the Red or Alexas camera are a plus commercially and a plus in the workflow. The answers are quite easy, they are a plus. But not that much that it's not possible to produce top imagery-content with dslrs because there aren't really the "right" tools or too painfull.    

So I guess I'm still super enthousistic with Red but there's no rush to get there. Priority is produce good stuff with whatever. Then, the rest comes by itself.

Regards.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: bcooter on January 08, 2012, 02:25:13 am
snip........
Yes, those dslrs have issues in post and as you say, it could be a false economy in the end.
Generaly, cheaper equipment costs at first less but on the middle term in fact more. I've seen it in almost every aspect of life.
But being far from ideal, it's possible to do really good stuff with little cams.
..........snip

Fred I agree with everthing you say and I promise you we will test the Nikon.

We are also on the list for the Canon 1dx, but as a stills camera, not necessarily for motion, though it doesn't line skip anymore which should help with moire.

I also agree with everything you say about size, weight and heavy crews.  If I only shot for myself I'd probably have two cameras and be done with it.

Actually if I shot for myself I'd probably shoot everything with my standard RED One's and never think about buying anything else.

They're proven, now finally solid and a good price, especially on the second hand market.

Anyway, we're not in disagreement other than our business models, but great creative doesn't come from a camera or a light.

But you know that as well as anyone.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 08, 2012, 05:12:14 am
James,

my reflection on that subject , beside the different business models, leads me to this idea: if there is not in fact a deeper change happening.

I understand totally your business model and the choice you are making. IMO, they are logical, profitable and you are in position to take advantage of such a structure and grow.

You had a winning structure and a great reputation before all the motion irrupted into the scene, and it seems that you knew it already before it became a requierement from clients.
If I was in the same position, I'd probably have done the same kind of investments and more than probably choose to invest in Red more than in an Arri system.

But a part from low-middle or high-end realities, I'm sort of smelling that something is happening at every scale that will (or may) affect all the production pipeline regardless of the level.

It seems that the equipment industry is in fact leading and directing the way everybody's going to work with the technology. At first, we've seen that it was now possible for indy people and small structures to produce a visual content that would have cost hundred of thousands, and therefore would have been out of range for the most of us.
We thought that this was going to be truth only for the low-end and that the top market will stay immune, expensive, heavy and still out of range for most of us.
This is still true to date, but there are signs that it's changing.

At the same time we saw an explosion of home-made mini prods mixed with more serious content made with little cams and very low budgets that have educated the viewers "tastes". In other words, there is now a social and cultural acceptance and response on those kind of imagery.

We are seeing that the evolution of the technology is always leading us to smaller cams, each time more powerfull, each time cheaper, each time more capable. This was truth in stills and it seems that it's also coming in motion. The tech generaly has the effect to free us as well as it democratised everything. For ex, in still, an MF oblige to tether, light heavier... CaNikon came and put 100.000 exploitable isos on the table, with no tether dependance, reliable AF, more than enough resolution for most commercial apps and lighter, smaller, cheaper, faster, weather sealed, and a solid customer service worldwide.
Nobody would question now that a pro team can shoot absolutly stunning campaigns with a D3 or 1DMKxxx and the need for big MF stuff is not anymore a requirement, if not for the parade.

This, has marginalized heavier equipment like LF-MF, that are almost the same stuff since the lastest ice-age, evolve slow, are priced high and require also more infrastructure to make the thing works properly.

Well, I have the feeling that the small cameras in motion are and will do exactly the same. Red anticipated where all that goes and the growing need for small and contained prices with the Epic and I'm sure it's just a beginning.

I of course don't have a cristal ball, but maybe within 5-10 years max, the high-end plateaux will look very different that what we have now.

We see that in softwares. We don't have yet the softwares we need, but they will come. Once it's there, no more Da-Vinci export, no more conforming, no more requierement of 200 persons team b and c. I even think that this will also be clearly noticiable in Hollywood where what requires today a 20 person FX on Nuke will be done by 2 or 3 skilled people, faster, better and with lower costs.

Then comes a phone manufacturer and put a "steadycam" electronic system. It works. No, it's not the same as an experience steadycam operator, but they will refine this tech and sooner than later, a steadycam operator will have to recycle himself because nobody will hire them anymore. We will hear many complains at many levels because a lot of crafts and people will be affected.

In fact, the ones who are really leading the industry nowdays and literally impose what and how the industry will look like are the camera and software makers, and then the social networks like Vimeo are shapping the client's tastes.
There will be a resistance from the current pros involved in high-end motion, but the evolution seems unstopable.

When Nikon released the "1" system, I thought that they where crazy. Why the hell are they working on such a small sensor? significantly smaller than the m4/3 ? It didn't make sense to me. But then, I looked at the specs, I looked at the footage and I was blowed by the capability of this micro-system. Of course it's not Alexa, it's not Phase one imagery, but considering the size it's nothing less that impressive. Maybe Nikon wasn't as crazy as I thought. But it seems that those big electronic compagnies have the dev budgets and structures to change the game with micro-technology and not only in the low-end. I got the sensation that it's deeper and will affect all levels each time more.
 
  
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 08, 2012, 06:10:09 am
Fred it is interesting.. direction of the industry

This ad is for a shopping centre close to me.. NOT a national chain or anything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us4ujMlnQbo&feature=related
And check all the 'pointless' people on set
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9S3hR1D-A

But then you start thinking - the models - they are good, and need a hotel, and we have to close the street and we are hiring the VW for a day, and a driver etc

So the talent bill is going sky high

At that point its getting expensive to have delays, so better have a spare camera, and we don't want to mis focus so we will have a puller, etc etc

So half of my thinks I could have shot it on a DSLR with an assistant two lights and a reflector and half of me thinks - no the big production thing is right

On the other side this advert (of the boy waiting for christmas) cost millions.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSLOnR1s74o

But others seemed to make pretty good spoof versions of the same advert 6 hours !

One thing I can say is that it is quite hard to persuade people to do (commission) things differently from yesterday

In their shoes why would you change if what worked yesterday worked - to change is to risk and a lot of people don't do that while working (for someone)

Another side of me thingk it will change partly due to cultural shifts or something - I have been thinking of suggesting that I can shoot for people with Instagram or one of the other Polaroid App Ipone style cameras

I worry that if I don't offer this 'look'/service that some desiger will hire a 10year old who does because they are cooler than boring old me

Its like web design - 5 years ago if you couldn't afford a designer you linked to your blog - now having a static site looks so old, and a blog site is much cooler and more with it

S







Title: Re: D4
Post by: Rob C on January 08, 2012, 06:26:05 am

But a part from low-middle or high-end realities, I'm sort of smelling that something is happening at every scale that will (or may) affect all the production pipeline regardless of the level.

We are seeing that the evolution of the technology is always leading us to smaller cams, each time more powerfull, each time cheaper, each time more capable. This was truth in stills and it seems that it's also coming in motion. The tech generaly has the effect to free us as well as it democratised everything.

Then comes a phone manufacturer and put a "steadycam" electronic system. It works. No, it's not the same as an experience steadycam operator, but they will refine this tech and sooner than later, a steadycam operator will have to recycle himself because nobody will hire them anymore. We will hear many complains at many levels because a lot of crafts and people will be affected.
 
  


Couldn't resist, Fred. Saw this and thought of you. However, even wearing its winter woolies, like here, Riva can never democratise. It wouldn't be Riva, which is the whole point. The other point, I've shot more with this mobile in the past few weks than with any of the Nikons! Why? It's light; it's always around, and I don't have to carry a stupid bag or tripod. Just what the M9 should be, could be, if at a decent price. But then it's the Riva of cameras, isn't it?

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 08, 2012, 06:27:55 am
Fred it is interesting.. direction of the industry

This ad is for a shopping centre close to me.. NOT a national chain or anything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us4ujMlnQbo&feature=related
And check all the 'pointless' people on set
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9S3hR1D-A

But then you start thinking - the models - they are good, and need a hotel, and we have to close the street and we are hiring the VW for a day, and a driver etc

So the talent bill is going sky high

At that point its getting expensive to have delays, so better have a spare camera, and we don't want to mis focus so we will have a puller, etc etc

So half of my thinks I could have shot it on a DSLR with an assistant two lights and a reflector and half of me thinks - no the big production thing is right

On the other side this advert (of the boy waiting for christmas) cost millions.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSLOnR1s74o

But others seemed to make pretty good spoof versions of the same advert 6 hours !

One thing I can say is that it is quite hard to persuade people to do (commission) things differently from yesterday

In their shoes why would you change if what worked yesterday worked - to change is to risk and a lot of people don't do that while working (for someone)

Another side of me thingk it will change partly due to cultural shifts or something - I have been thinking of suggesting that I can shoot for people with Instagram or one of the other Polaroid App Ipone style cameras

I worry that if I don't offer this 'look'/service that some desiger will hire a 10year old who does because they are cooler than boring old me

Its like web design - 5 years ago if you couldn't afford a designer you linked to your blog - now having a static site looks so old, and a blog site is much cooler and more with it

S

Amazing Morgan! This is exactly the perfect example of what I don't want to do, set included. Even thinking high-end.

All the satelite people, specially the ultra-stressed prod girls with their bic pens  who's only function is to move air (for that I rather buy a fan)...it's unbearable. I can't stand it.

(I ignored that the Smith have been covered by a female singer).

Rob, thanks for the Riva. Now we need some girls there and shoot. Such a boat like that is too sad on winter time. I've seen that you are using your mobile, you also created a dedicated section in your website.
Maybe you should have a look here: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Nikon-1-Cameras/index.page
They gain clients among the pros.

Back on the topic, I think that habits will change when clients will start to realise that there are a bunch of wild guys arround the globe that are doing great stuff on a budget, without any orthodoxy and it works.
It reminds me of the WWII. German came with light manouverable combat tanks and took everybody by surprise. Other countries had outdated tactics and super heavy equipments. The Panzers gear and tactics where different, speed, manouverability, surprise effect etc...and they reduced to dust the arrogant outdated tactics and habits of the allies.
I was reading Julius Cesar military tactics, same philosophy. He had on reserve a very light and fast manouverable corp that was strictly under his personal command, always waiting. At one point on the battle, he would send them on the weakest point and they would literally change the issue of the battle.

Everybody who breaks the established rules is in a greater position. (Look at Apple, Red etc...)

It seems that something similar is happening in our industry.
"pirats" filmakers with very light equipment, DSLRs or Epics and low budget may win each time more contracts if they are really good.
The technology will allow more and more that. That's the key point, tech. I doubt the current panorama will stay as it for much longuer. If things are that good and cost 10 times less because instead of 20 people ultra specialized you have 3 multi-specialized who do the same and replaced the truck by a car they can park everywhere, helicopters by radio guided hexa or octocopters, clients won't be silly.

Check Testino web. He has motion campaigns, properly shooted with high budgets, and then he has a movie section of diaries. Look and compare. It's very interesting.

But I can be totally wrong.

  


Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 08, 2012, 07:41:13 am
Trouble is the girl with the biro is doing something

That road closed down shot - how do you keep the traffic out? you have to have the girl down the end of the road, to stop the traffic - maybe the rest of the day she does nothing - but at that moment she was needed

I think there is space for highly talented micro crew - thats my interest - hurlburt calls it 'elite team' (although his bunch look like interns to me most of them)

People who can stop the traffic, or hold a reflector or - and this is the talent - pull focus or maybe operate a steadicam

The last film (camera assistant) I was on sometimes I pulled focus - we had some complex shots - but many shots the DP was capable of doing it himself - then I could do something else

--

In terms of clients seeing good stuff that is difficult - look at James work - no disrespect - the reason  I cannot pitch at that level is 10% photography and 90% subject matter, track record reputation - its a difficult circle to break

Because clients don't really look at the photography - but the subject and the rep of the creative team..

S
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 08, 2012, 10:24:24 am
I'd rather hire a local homeless and give him the double of money for traffic control or any of the peripherical tasks. Those girls are there because there are into the system but their real role is close to zero, in fact no, most of the time they would put you on nerves because they are overstressed and jump from one side to another.
Each time I see one with a paper and a pen, I know she's going to stress me and everybody else. Even when they ask coffees for the crew it seems that the world is going to collapse and would stress the waiter.

Last time I was on a big set, there was 1/5 of the people that were doing absolutly nothing, but where "invited" by prod. Actually after a while the director fired everybody that was not usefull and set cleared-up like by magic, but as you imagine it wasn't a very friendly moment.  It's amazing.

Am I right when I say that there is an enormous amount of wastefulness and abuses in this industry (without the desire to generalize)? All very glam, very chic, very...formidable where orbite an incredible amount of satelites of all sort wich roles are...we don't really know.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: billy on January 08, 2012, 11:58:04 am
I'd rather hire a local homeless and give him the double of money for traffic control or any of the peripherical tasks. Those girls are there because there are into the system but their real role is close to zero, in fact no, most of the time they would put you on nerves because they are overstressed and jump from one side to another.
Each time I see one with a paper and a pen, I know she's going to stress me and everybody else. Even when they ask coffees for the crew it seems that the world is going to collapse and would stress the waiter.

Last time I was on a big set, there was 1/5 of the people that were doing absolutly nothing, but where "invited" by prod. Actually after a while the director fired everybody that was not usefull and set cleared-up like by magic, but as you imagine it wasn't a very friendly moment.  It's amazing.

Am I right when I say that there is an enormous amount of wastefulness and abuses in this industry (without the desire to generalize)? All very glam, very chic, very...formidable where orbite an incredible amount of satelites of all sort wich roles are...we don't really know.

Ahmen brother. Simply put this kinda set only saps creativity from the shoot.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BJL on January 08, 2012, 05:16:44 pm
Lets recap the basic joys of a decent full frame DSLR
 
Full frame give the traditional photography perspective and DOF, a look we have seen and loved since 1930 in the images of Henri Cartier Bresson ...
This is a little off-topic, but

1. Photographers like Henri Cartier Bresson used the relatively new 36x24mm format because this was smaller than the other formats in use then, and offered the advantages of smaller, lighter, more agile equipment than the alternatives. So it is a bit perverse and anachronistic to invoke that choice as an argument in favor of a larger format, and more so in reference to the Nikon D4, a camera which I suspect Cartier Bresson would have rejected as being far too big and heavy for his purposes.

2. Format size has no effect on perspective, which depends solely on camera position relative to the subject.

3. DOF differences only really arise near the extreme of using the minimum available f-stop, while for the great majority of photography that is done at smaller apertures (probably more so now than in Cartier Bresson's day, due to the ability to use far higher ISO speeds, and so to get adequate shutter speed at higher f-stops, making it easier to avoid blurring from both out-of-focus effects and subject and camera motion) the difference between formats is just that a given DOF is achieved with a higher f-stop in a larger format, and then equal shutter speed is achieved with a higher ISO speed.

My guess is that today's heirs to HCB are more likely to be choosing between Micro Four Thirds, Sony NEX, Samsung NX, and Nikon One options than to be deciding between Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 08, 2012, 05:33:48 pm
No more off topic than anything else !

its a fair point - would HCB use a .. compact camera .. or even a phone

As for the old DOF argument lets not go there !

Im used to shooting stills on an H1 or a D3 so the smaller chips don't give me the look I want personally which tends to be at the open end of the spectrum

Now shooting video I like to use zoom lenses and that gets hard on a smaller sensor - most only sharpen up a F4 so you could be shooting F4 on 'S35/APC' which really has a different look to F2.8 on a FF35

Lets not forget a lot of movies are shot with very very fast glass on the smaller sensor, so to replicate that look with affordable glass a larger sensor is IMO desirable

Of course with the nikon D4 (to return to the topic!) One gets three sensor sizes when shooting video which looks fantastic

I think my initial comments on the stills capabilities were more aimed at some video people who might read my blog - I was alluding to the fact the D4 is a professionally capable stills camera unlike (in my opinion) cameras like the GH2 which may offer similar LPI/Bitrates in their video functionality compared to the D4

S

Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 09, 2012, 03:30:27 am
Morgan,

The GH2, as you point, is not a pro-line still camera. It's a plastic toy compared to the Nikon.

But... things aren't that absolute in the real world as you know and the fact that we could or could not consider the GH2 as a suitable tool for commercial stills depends a lot in our condionning on photographic equipment.

The fact is that when I bought the GH2, I obviously didn't think that this camera would have been suitable for still imagery. Logical. But then, the files are exactly similar to the old 17MP 1D (don't know if you remember) that yes was a pro camera, used and abused in press and editos not a long time ago and it would be absolutly impossible in print magazines to bet wich's wich.

Then, the GH2 sensor is 18MP on wich it's been used 16. (it's a multi aspect-ratio camera). You are using the 12MP Nikon D3 if I understand well, and you were pointing that your clients have never complained about those 12MP reso. Well, I'd like to see a blind test of the same subject in still with the D3 and the GH2 downsampled to 12MP. I bet (but I can be wrong) that it would absolutly be impossible to make the differences between both cams, in terms of output except of course in extreme isos where the GH2 can't compeat with a FF sensor. But up to 800 I'm sure that the image quality you would obtain is exactly in the same league.
That sort of testings remain to be done and seen, but we'd have big surprises.

Big difference are in camera robustness and designed as a profesional tool. Here are the real differences IMO, but not that much in file quality up at "normal" isos.

O by the way: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
on the left side of the screen, choose Nikon D3x- on the right side choose Panasonic GH2.
Then choose the same picture for both, then click on each side image to display the picture at 100% and compare. Do that with different configurations...
That's very interesting.

Those big manufacturers have managed to evolve the tech to a point that they can deliver in their micro-cams an image quality that was unthinkable not a long time ago.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 09, 2012, 03:36:08 am
I absolutely agree about the lo iso file on the GH2 being of good quality

I have big publications with the 4mp nikon D1 !

I photograph everything from small hotel bathrooms (14mm ff) through to some sport 400 2.8

Needing good AF sometimes high burst - all the stuff that a pro DSLR gives in daily use

I cannot imagine the GH could compete on those items

Also its nice to look through IMO a large GG viewfinder

I note many of our little debates you are talking image quality I am talking robust tool

I have one friend who really rates the GH2 (mage wide) - but finds he cannot hit the buttons because it is too small!

S
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 09, 2012, 03:46:13 am
I absolutely agree about the lo iso file on the GH2 being of good quality

I have big publications with the 4mp nikon D1 !

I photograph everything from small hotel bathrooms (14mm ff) through to some sport 400 2.8

Needing good AF sometimes high burst - all the stuff that a pro DSLR gives in daily use

I cannot imagine the GH could compete on those items

Also its nice to look through IMO a large GG viewfinder

I note many of our little debates you are talking image quality I am talking robust tool

S
Exactly.
You point well where the real differences are. I didn't think you where blind on that, but I wrote that in general because I read so many time about IQ IQ IQ...you know, and the associated legends and false infos that circulate everywhere.
The point you mentionned are in fact the important points. Ergonomics, AF, reliability etc...

I tried the GH2 in the studio with stills, it works so so...it's not a pro tool by any means. It can be done but the painfull way.
But too many people tend to think that this wouldn't be suitable for commercial prints, well it is...

And the irony is that many many people think that they need big sensors, pro cameras of all sort to obtain good imagery and they will never walk into a pro set-up in their life but they have the mystic in mind. That's why we get all the time those absurd sensor pixel race etc...

I'm not far from thinking that it's a manouver from manufacturers that have literaly washed the collective brains with "megapixels and size sensor". Hoppefully this is changing.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 09, 2012, 06:14:30 pm
And the irony is that many many people think that they need big sensors, pro cameras of all sort to obtain good imagery and they will never walk into a pro set-up in their life but they have the mystic in mind. That's why we get all the time those absurd sensor pixel race etc...

This is very true. Compare any of the recent mirrorless cameras to the original Canon 1Ds... the new small guys offer similar DR and higher resolutions...

Back in the days, the 1ds was used to compete with medium format film (whether it really did compete or not is another debate).  :D

We have fewer excuses everyday not to be capturing amazing images.  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 09, 2012, 07:11:00 pm
This may interest some of you:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/09/pma-qa-with-nikon-today-on-the-d4-send-your-questions-in.aspx/

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Bern Caughey on January 09, 2012, 09:25:12 pm
For one simple reason I have zero interest in the D4 for motion. Lack of 24 fps.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 09, 2012, 10:21:56 pm
For one simple reason I have zero interest in the D4 for motion. Lack of 24 fps.

Have you double checked the specs? I thought it had 24 fps.

I just doubled checked my self, and it says 24, 25 and 30 fps in 1080p.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BJL on January 09, 2012, 10:29:45 pm
its a fair point - would HCB use a .. compact camera .. or even a phone

...

Lets not forget a lot of movies are shot with very very fast glass on the smaller sensor, so to replicate that look with affordable glass a larger sensor is IMO desirable
Morgan, that is a great point, and suddenly makes me think that, contrary to the trend with still cameras of a shift to smaller formats due in part to the greater cost difference for larger sensors, professional motion picture cameras might move towards larger formats than with film, because the biggest cost penalty of larger formats for movie making is probably film itself, and that is gone. And for example, Kubrick could have shot his notorious candle-lit scene with an off-the-shelf lens on a D4 or 1DX set to ISO infinity.

P.S. a nice coincidence that just after our HCB discussion, FujiFilm announces its very Leica-like X-Pro1 and prime lenses.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 10, 2012, 08:42:44 am
This morning in the corner of my street:
2 big Scania trucks + 1 van. At least 6 Satchlers out of the truck and many more inside. Each of those cost about 6000 bucks.
Couldn't see the cameras because I was in a hurry and couldn't stay.
1 huge climatized truck Mobile unit prod, at least 20 people on set, security guards from Prosegur etc...all the circus in its splendor.
And all that to film a silly comic guy doing a one-man show for a red-neck prod. This wasn't the Rolling-Stones.

The money and costs per hour displayed there are huge.

Big sensors ? 

Title: Re: D4
Post by: Streetshooter on January 10, 2012, 11:57:18 am
In a couple of years this is going to be a rare sight, because the way things are going there will be no need to use so much stuff. The end user will be viewing product on either tablets and mobile phones and nothing else. My mid twenties son only uses his phone now to surf the net and check his emails, he has no need to use his computer. He even uses a tablet to view movies too. Or if he want's a bigger screen he links it to the phone and has internet anywhere he wants.

Things are changing so fast that these tiny micro 4/3rd cameras are going to be the norm for much of the commercial stuff we see on the net, and the net is where it's at, maybe not completely yet but it will be in the future. Man the quality you can get out of a hacked GH2 is amazing.......truly astonishing out of such a cheap little camera. I'm so glad I hung on to all my old Nikon lenses.

Pete
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Bern Caughey on January 10, 2012, 08:12:12 pm
Have you double checked the specs?

Bernard,

Seems I got the wrong information. Thanks for the clarification!

Best,
B
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 13, 2012, 03:39:13 am
Talking about "photography factory" (someone posted a link to this site in another thread), there is a D4 evaluation here: http://www.photography-factory.co.uk/photographyreviews/posts/our-diary/ ...that seems quite honest.

It balance a little bit the overall enthusiasm and IMO the negative points are worth a consideration.

They think the same as I do: too expensive in 2012 for what it brings on the table.

I'd wait for a GH3 or a 5D3.

Ps: personal consideration, about the ergonomics, the Nikons pro bodies IMO suck. The F3 was the ultimate well designed camera. When student in Paris, I worked regularly with a F4, I hated it compared to the F3. Too heavy and always unbalanced, difficulty for small hands to reach controls while handling firmly the toy etc...I finaly bought myself a FM2 and it was like breathing again. Nikon always kept the same design for their digital top cameras, heavy, big, unfriendly ergo. If you got small hands, it will be a real pain. The 1D is about that big but controls are better implemented and weight is more equilibrate, at least for me.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2012, 05:55:18 am
Talking about "photography factory" (someone posted a link to this site in another thread), there is a D4 evaluation here: http://www.photography-factory.co.uk/photographyreviews/posts/our-diary/ ...that seems quite honest.

It balance a little bit the overall enthusiasm and IMO the negative points are worth a consideration.

They think the same as I do: too expensive in 2012 for what it brings on the table.

I'd wait for a GH3 or a 5D3.

Ps: personal consideration, about the ergonomics, the Nikons pro bodies IMO suck. The F3 was the ultimate well designed camera. When student in Paris, I worked regularly with a F4, I hated it compared to the F3. Too heavy and always unbalanced, difficulty for small hands to reach controls while handling firmly the toy etc...I finaly bought myself a FM2 and it was like breathing again. Nikon always kept the same design for their digital top cameras, heavy, big, unfriendly ergo. If you got small hands, it will be a real pain. The 1D is about that big but controls are better implemented and weight is more equilibrate, at least for me.


Fred –

I worked with the F, which I loved; bought the F2 as an alternative (and a security device allowing me two boss cameras for constantly alternating cameras just-in-case); I had an FM for the faster sun-synch. and then the FM2n(?) replaced that. Having had both the F and F2 repaired a couple of times because of the problems of salt and mildew from working and later living near the sea, I finally bought into the F4 system with an F4s. I hated it. It was very heavy, I could never get the auto-film loading to work, causing huge embarrassment in front of clients/models. I discovered that the F3 was then still in production! despite Nikon keeping it very quiet. That led to my step backwards and I got rid of the F4s immediately. I still have that F3, almost unused, since it coincided with the tail-off of my work.

My first digital was the D200 and then I added a D700, simply because I couldn’t get a reasonable offer for the D200. I love everything about the D700 except for one thing: it’s too bloody heavy!

So guess what? All I am currently playing with is my cellphone. (Cellpix sub-gallery in The Biscuit Tin on my website, for anyone interested.)

There’s something wrong with that equation: all the money goes on expensive gear yet the cheapest option takes pride of well, not place, but certainly of choice when confronted with the reality of need vs. comfort.

Rob C

Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on January 14, 2012, 08:12:24 am

Fred –

I worked with the F, which I loved; bought the F2 as an alternative (and a security device allowing me two boss cameras for constantly alternating cameras just-in-case); I had an FM for the faster sun-synch. and then the FM2n(?) replaced that. Having had both the F and F2 repaired a couple of times because of the problems of salt and mildew from working and later living near the sea, I finally bought into the F4 system with an F4s. I hated it. It was very heavy, I could never get the auto-film loading to work, causing huge embarrassment in front of clients/models. I discovered that the F3 was then still in production! despite Nikon keeping it very quiet. That led to my step backwards and I got rid of the F4s immediately. I still have that F3, almost unused, since it coincided with the tail-off of my work.

My first digital was the D200 and then I added a D700, simply because I couldn’t get a reasonable offer for the D200. I love everything about the D700 except for one thing: it’s too bloody heavy!

So guess what? All I am currently playing with is my cellphone. (Cellpix sub-gallery in The Biscuit Tin on my website, for anyone interested.)

There’s something wrong with that equation: all the money goes on expensive gear yet the cheapest option takes pride of well, not place, but certainly of choice when confronted with the reality of need vs. comfort.

Rob C



I agree Rob. You came to the same conclusion as mine about the F4. I hated it too. Really really too big and heavy. I remember walking in Paris at night with it and it was Hell and I was really young. The F3 was a much more friendly device and we could get rid-of the battery grip. In the end, the FM2 (my version was exactly a FE2 wich is electronic) did the same job, lighter, faster, and cooler. (but didn't look so pro and the "whao" factor you know...)
And look, Nikon still produces the FM2 today ! That's for a reason.

The D2,3,4... line has the same design as the F4. Even without touching the D4, I know already from the F4 experience that I will hate it too. Those camera are made for giants with big hands.

I can't help thinking of this D4 inside a metal cage with all the viewfinders, lcd screen, cablery mess, batteries and matte-box etc... and it will be as agile as an Arriflex.

I think that the Nikon V1 is much more exciting camera.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: KevinA on January 16, 2012, 08:38:02 am
It will all come down to the rolling shutter for me. Yes I am in the market for a video solution, wether that is a DSLR or a video cam will be decided by the amount of wobble I can expect.
Although I am  Canon shooter the D4 looks a better option. Canon need to take the breaks off and just build the best they can now and stop this drip feed of essential features, it will cost them future sales rather than protect them.

Kevin.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on January 18, 2012, 09:01:21 am
Just got a birthday present from my mates kids.. better than the real thing!

(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/d4.jpg)
Title: Re: D4
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 24, 2012, 05:58:46 pm
New D4 video sample + explanations:

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2012/01/23/nikon-d4-video-the-blues-in-his-shoes/

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on February 07, 2012, 02:39:48 am
Have you seen the D800 E at 3000 euros?

Specs are quite high.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on February 07, 2012, 12:11:42 pm
Yes it looks interesting

Rolling back in time (I can't remember when) there was a time when I used to shoot 2 nikon D100 cameras - I really could not see the point of the , was it, D1x, at twice the price

I think the same could be true of this combo

--

So far I am not that interested in the D4 - I don't think the video will match my FS100 and also the connections do not have the robustness for me to feel like it could be professional use (for video)

I'll probably stick with the FS100 and a stills camera for a while - having motion and video in one device is really only a big deal to those who shoot in the mountains and must minimise weight to the gram

The step up from the FS100 would be Scalet - Im not ready for that

Much more important is to continue developing the skill of telling stories with the camera..

My latest story ..
http://vimeo.com/36244144

if my D3 falls apart I don't know what I would buy

The 1:1 on the D4 is IMO a big deal that is missing from the 800

If you have ever tried shooting motion with a 400 2.8 you would appreciate shooting 1:1 with a 70-200 or suchlike

Best

SMM







Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on February 07, 2012, 12:35:22 pm
...

My latest story ..
http://vimeo.com/36244144

...

Yes!

Well done Morgan. Serious and continuous work is paying.

Congrats.
Title: Re: D4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on February 07, 2012, 01:16:21 pm
Yes!

Thanks. You understand this is no director, crew, etc - a TV news report could look like this

The shooting is not so special but I worked on.. a beginning - slowly revealing

1) she is good - GB top
2) she is very good - trying for the olympics
3) her sport

Also I managed an end - a hope for the future

It is the structure that I feel is the biggest challenge to the stills photographer - most of know which way to point the lens!

(and audio!)

S
Title: Re: D4
Post by: fredjeang on February 07, 2012, 02:44:09 pm
Thanks. You understand this is no director, crew, etc - a TV news report could look like this

The shooting is not so special but I worked on.. a beginning - slowly revealing

1) she is good - GB top
2) she is very good - trying for the olympics
3) her sport

Also I managed an end - a hope for the future

It is the structure that I feel is the biggest challenge to the stills photographer - most of know which way to point the lens!

(and audio!)

S

Yeah, I didn't say it just like the facebook's congrats. I think it is indeed a very consistent work, the structure as you described and so importantly, it connects emotionally and visually.

What's also very nice is to see your evolution from the beginning and it's each time better.

I like that.