Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 4K video on Nikon D850?  (Read 1410 times)

spotmeter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
    • http://www.photographica.us
4K video on Nikon D850?
« on: March 03, 2018, 01:37:57 PM »

Has anyone shot 4K landscape videos with the new Nikon D850?

I have been shooting landscape videos in HD, but it doesn't really have enough resolution for all the fine details (leaves, grasses, etc.) in landscapes.

I have been shooting landscape photos with Nikon for several years and am able to print 3x5 foot photos with superb detail.

Not interested in skin tones, low light or autofocus since I work from tripod and only shoot landscapes.  If you have samples of landscape videos, would love to see them.  Thanks.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2018, 06:14:29 PM »

In what motion imagery is concerned,....

thank you,
Very nice to hear a detailed opinion from somebody that really is into video, unlike me.
As a photographer using the d850 i noticed that shooting 4k delivers at least very good HD-quality. ( when brought back to HD)
It all looks much better than the things on my HDTV that are heavely compressed.
But yes, for me the dslr is a photocamera that can do some video if necessary.
Can imagine the gh5(s) et all is the better tool of choice for video.
But then; what do you think of the Sony7 video quality? Sony has like Panasonic enough expertise in video.

Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1359
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2018, 06:39:00 PM »

thank you,
Very nice to hear a detailed opinion from somebody that really is into video, unlike me.
As a photographer using the d850 i noticed that shooting 4k delivers at least very good HD-quality. ( when brought back to HD)
It all looks much better than the things on my HDTV that are heavely compressed.
But yes, for me the dslr is a photocamera that can do some video if necessary.
Can imagine the gh5(s) et all is the better tool of choice for video.
But then; what do you think of the Sony7 video quality? Sony has like Panasonic enough expertise in video.
Pieter, I agree with you on HD. I quite like the downsized to HD Nikon delivers and if for people, I even like the old D610 full HD look as it because it's unpretencious and not marketing oriented but output a more
Humanized imagery (let's say that a limited resolution that does not look videoish appears better to my eyes than
The surgical unatural imagery we have now, much more suitable for medical purposes. If I see the skin pores of a model,
Then it's not about photography or cinema any longuer. Only the shooter care about that.
Not the audience.
The real fashion lover/consummer could not care less about bloody megapixels,
Flat curves DR and so on...it's all about desire, elegance, the mood, the light,
Just as the real cine lover does not care about details but the story, the light, the mood.
Only freakies like us (gear manipulators) are concerned, and rarely women.


Just look at the great masters of photography compared to
The imagery prduced nowdays and you'll have hard time to find
Such quality now. Details are great if you shoot scientific, arquitecture,
Nature, products...they are unnecesary for people and drama.)
On the Sony, I have worked with the A6300/6500 4k. I don't like S.log,
I was unimpressed also by the video and found the look too videoish and
Completly unorganic. But have no other experience with newer and possibly better Sony products.
I absoltly hate to shoot on external recorders because they are always
Gadgets to connect, carry and not part of the block itself.
The gain in quality is noticiable but not "wao".
The flexibility in post in noticiable, but not raw either. So in the end,
Compromises and more compromises and everything is non profesional,
Becomes an hassle and never give optimum results.

I honestly think that for someone who does not have to
Deliver motion imagery for the high/very high-end (cinema,
Big brands campaign) the model to follow is Chris Sanderson.
To get to higher specs would require then a lot more investment.
There is an enormous marketing on video because the companies
Want people to buy theit stuff and create desires and needs that
Are completly surrealistic and gone with the wind in 6 months.
That maintain the crowd busy.
Shoot Sony A7, or GH5 or 1DS and no spectator will ever notice the differences
And I beleive even directors on a blind test.

In fact, the real big advantage of 4k and above resides in reframing and the
Hability to get a false multicam in the same shot.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 06:58:22 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1359
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2018, 07:04:26 PM »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWs75BLCAA

Interesting to watch.

I like one of Lula member works and I think he did big steps in motion in order to deliver
Profesional imagery coherent with his stills.
BUT, and that's the interesting point,
The best unbeaten video for me as a viewer was done with a Canon dslr and
Little medium that I know. It was inspired. Pure inspiration.
If I was an art director, I'd ask him to leave the big artillery at home
And work on purpose with a 1Ds so he can really be free to move,
Express viceraly his art like he'd do in still and I know I'd have a more
Organic product because big medium tend to freeze too much the dynamic.
Too much thinking, too much roadies.

What happens is that art directors are for the most part arrogant freakies
Overpaied and generally there because they aren't good enough to be artists
(With some exceptions), and the shooter needs to provide certain mediums
That are not necesary just to get the contract. It's a vicious circle.
So don't worry too much with gear until Ferrari asks you to shoot their next bolid campaign.

If you have 4000 euros budget, get a GH5/G9. If you have 40000, get a Red.
Between 4000 and 40000, you'll notice a difference in IQ.
Between 1000 and 8000, you'll notice nothing in IQ.
But between a proper cine/video camera and dslr, you' ll notice a lot
In usability.

See those dudes who packed their dslrs with numerous gadets
To make it work like in cinema? Don't they look absurd in a way?
It reminds me the guys who tune their chevy to look like they are car racers.
Everybody know they are amateurs.
But a real race team does not use their cars. Motion is the same.
All that is the product of marketing depts.
And it works.

Here is a video example that could have been shot by you and me
With a simple camera with one tripod and zero extras. And it's a great ww recognized artist.
But she knows how to fill the frame.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJE40OBt48
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 08:22:42 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2018, 05:37:04 AM »

PJ Harvey is a fine artist indeed ( saw her perform a few times) that always has had a good eye for photography and video...
i agree completely that we shoud focus on the content and the story and less on the technical matter.
I am technical minded but understand that my images have to look very good small. ( but get an extra dimension when seen large and i like that)

In video/film i also think sound is as important as image...
in relation to PJ harvey here a film you probably like as much as i do;
An insane story; the beautiful BW, the special glass used and the way the camera is handled; the music.. everything  and all on a fair budget.
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2326554/
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1359
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2018, 09:58:45 AM »

PJ Harvey is a fine artist indeed ( saw her perform a few times) that always has had a good eye for photography and video...
i agree completely that we shoud focus on the content and the story and less on the technical matter.
I am technical minded but understand that my images have to look very good small. ( but get an extra dimension when seen large and i like that)

In video/film i also think sound is as important as image...
in relation to PJ harvey here a film you probably like as much as i do;
An insane story; the beautiful BW, the special glass used and the way the camera is handled; the music.. everything  and all on a fair budget.
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2326554/
Ah yeah, good link. Thanks for sharing.
PJ is great.

But to keep going with the OP thread on if shooting Nikon 850 would provide good results for landscapes, it could be resumed this way:

Are we able to shoot convincing landscape videos with a Nikon FX? Absolutly!
Will the videos quality look close to what the FX line deliver in stills? Absolutly not.
To fill that gap in motion, we'd have to jump to much higher resolutions than 4k and much pricier equipment.

What is ridiculously insane is that instead of outputting cheap 4k video specs in their pro line dslrs, the camera makers would better implement a top quality 2k based on raw, and we'd have something much solid to work with, and pleasing to watch
Even viewed on theater.

But... stellar 2k does not sell, instead a crappy 4k sells like donuts because people's minds have been manipulated
By marketing depts and think that 4 is better than 2.
4 is better than 2 if specs are on par only.
And from the viewer experience you can find many examples on line where a top quality 2k old tech Arri still looks better, and noticiably better, than a 4k dslr downsampled to hd. You just have to dig a bit and you'll find out.

As we are in a photographer's forum, it is logical that most people want to try to keep going with the tools they know best to perform a task they were not designed for: video, and, that still are not completly well designed today in terms of usability and performances.
And the paradox of this situation is that
In post, instead of having a workflow style they are familiar with, they will have to relearn everything from scratch; while a system like Red might appear intimidating but brings a workflow that
Is very similar to still imagery in essence.
So on one side, the photographer stays in a comfort zone with a dslr on the shooting aspect, but has to learn a complete different way of post-producing with log profiles.
And many people will get tired when they start to cumulate the dslr accesories to make them work smoothly for movie mode.
What looks like cheap solutions can easily become expensive in fact.
A proper video camera will always be much better in terms of shooting experience and I think a better investment too.

I pointed above towards Chris Sanderson for a reason. Chris does not want hassles and he is not a poser. Because he knows what the black hole of time means in motion imagery. If you look carefully, he managed to build an efficient, light and coherent workflow within the boundaries of a certain budget, starting as tou pointed with good audio. He is not overspeced nor underpowered. Just the right balance for the job. For many people, Chris' business model is just what they will ever need, included post-production.
If one really needs more power, then it means that you are talking assignements for relatively important clients and in that case you would only shoot dslrs/mirrorless if you needed a weired extreme angle of a scene...horse for course.
Is the image quality of Lula video crap? It is not right? The audio is very good.
Do people will care about the fine details in the background leaves when Lula
Interviews the Leica CEO and so? Nope! Will people complain on the color grading,
If it looks like film or not? You'd have to have the same sequence side by side to compare. So
Nobody cares. Do I want to see Kevin's skin spots on a 8k monitor at 100% magnification? No way!
So what matters?

It starts to be hilarious when you see Arri mateboxes, fujinon cine lenses and O Connor tripods coupled with mirrorless consumer cameras. That is non sense.

I totally agree with Shaw on HDR. It is going to complicate a lot of things,
Beyond the range of many and is a gimmick like 3D has been.
But you'll see: people will bite. It's going to go nowhere except fresh money
For electronic companies.
Then they'll find another marketing buzz after that.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 10:21:19 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • me
    • working
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2018, 05:51:07 PM »

If you have 4000 euros budget, get a GH5/G9. If you have 40000, get a Red.
Between 4000 and 40000, you'll notice a difference in IQ.
Between 1000 and 8000, you'll notice nothing in IQ.
But between a proper cine/video camera and dslr, you' ll notice a lot
In usability.

See those dudes who packed their dslrs with numerous gadets
To make it work like in cinema?


When we bought a 5d2, we outfitted it with over $5,000 of accessories, did a test, looked ok in sunlight and artificial light, looked great at night with limited supplemental lighting.

I stood back and thought this is silly for an A cam, knowing Iíd step up in two weeks for the upcoming project and bought 1, 2 then a third MX camera.

Had the Alexa classic not been 3 times the price I would have gone that direction, but that was a lot of cheese for one camera and I knew cinema cameras would go the way of stills with constantly higher pixel count, which we see with 8k REDs, so I thought over 4k would last a while.

But I think Arri got it right at the start with the 2.7 because A. they have the best color science, B. itís an Arri so itís going to be made for heavy production and C. You knew that Arri put a lot of work in deciding the pixel count and 2.5 to 2.7 is about the minimum to stop alaizing, moire and a lot of other things that come up in motion.

The Alexa became the standard, mostly because most DPís weíre use to Arriís and trusted them.   Roger Deakins, Anthony Dod Mantle, John Seale (who shot his first and only feature digitally on Fury Road with pretty much 1 zoom) all went with the Alexa.   If you want to see beautiful landscape imagery, look at Mr. Deakins work in Sicario. 

Actually on Fury Road the director George Miller rarely cut a scene above 15 fps, had no script that he shared, tiny, tiny thumbnails that no one could visualize and the movie is as more a multimedia piece than a large hollywood tent pole movie.

I've posted this before but . . .


Anyway, prior to purchase I heard a lot about the problems with the R1ís but Iíve never had an issue, except on clip and I love them and will use them until they just die .    If they do go to the grave, then I might go Arri, but since they keep cooking Iíll keep using them.

Fred, I slightly disagree with 1 grand to 8 grand youíll see a difference.  A c200II or c300II (Used), or a bm ursa mini there will be a difference, especially in deep color grading as long as you have the computer power to run it.

A used Arri Classic minus lenses is 9 grand, so there are options, though the Arri and REDs are heavy and draw a lot of attention and then there are lenses.  Unless you go Chinese youíll drop on the low end 9 grand for a set of RED lenses, 100 grand if you go Leica (but who buys Leica other than rental houses).

In fact if you outfit a 1dxII with a couple of constant zooms, cards accessories and batteries youíll be right at $8,900 and even though 8 bits of depth it shoots a nice file with great color at 800 mbs per second.

The thing is still photographers tend to look at each frame to see sharpness and detail like they do in a still file and thatís just not the way motion imagery is usually viewed. 

The issue we run across now is not the camera, itís how the cameras affect the cost of permits and locations.   

You  pull out two large long cinema cameras and the permits skyrocket.    We are into a project now that is still and motion of equal value.   My R1ís will work well with it, but Iíll be stopped in ten minutes in LA asking for paperwork for a film permit.  If I use the 1dxII theyíll just ask for a still permit and we keep working, unless we clapboard, yell out rolling, speed, action, because everyone I know is working from a bottom line.

Even though the OP doesnít care about skin tones, or autofocus, one thing to be clear of is if shooting closer in subjects additional lighting makes a world of difference and of course all the other aspects of motion capture. Bit Depth/rate, codec, lenses it's a long list.

And in motion don't be afraid of used if you buy from a dealer with a return contract.  Remember there are movies shot on film today that are on 50 to 20 year old cameras and Arri has always said their classic camera will upres to 4k cinema just fine. 

This was shot with a Canon 1dx mark I, 2k with two hand held 1ft light panels running on v-lock, about 1/2 power, but the difference between fill light and no fill light is the difference between this image or a silloutte.


But personally, I like flat cameras vs. long cameras for this type of work.  Theyíre fast, throwing on an ND doesnít bother me and honestly they draw much less attention. 

As far as 4k, 6k, 8k with the heavy post work and delivery I donít get it, but hey as you said people will buy what theyíre told is the right camera and the only way to know is to test them in the style you work.


IMO

BC
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 06:10:18 PM by bcooter »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1359
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2018, 06:09:44 AM »


When we bought a 5d2, we outfitted it with over $5,000 of accessories, did a test, looked ok in sunlight and artificial light, looked great at night with limited supplemental lighting.

I stood back and thought this is silly for an A cam, knowing Iíd step up in two weeks for the upcoming project and bought 1, 2 then a third MX camera.

Had the Alexa classic not been 3 times the price I would have gone that direction, but that was a lot of cheese for one camera and I knew cinema cameras would go the way of stills with constantly higher pixel count, which we see with 8k REDs, so I thought over 4k would last a while.

But I think Arri got it right at the start with the 2.7 because A. they have the best color science, B. itís an Arri so itís going to be made for heavy production and C. You knew that Arri put a lot of work in deciding the pixel count and 2.5 to 2.7 is about the minimum to stop alaizing, moire and a lot of other things that come up in motion.

The Alexa became the standard, mostly because most DPís weíre use to Arriís and trusted them.   Roger Deakins, Anthony Dod Mantle, John Seale (who shot his first and only feature digitally on Fury Road with pretty much 1 zoom) all went with the Alexa.   If you want to see beautiful landscape imagery, look at Mr. Deakins work in Sicario. 

Actually on Fury Road the director George Miller rarely cut a scene above 15 fps, had no script that he shared, tiny, tiny thumbnails that no one could visualize and the movie is as more a multimedia piece than a large hollywood tent pole movie.

I've posted this before but . . .


Anyway, prior to purchase I heard a lot about the problems with the R1ís but Iíve never had an issue, except on clip and I love them and will use them until they just die .    If they do go to the grave, then I might go Arri, but since they keep cooking Iíll keep using them.

Fred, I slightly disagree with 1 grand to 8 grand youíll see a difference.  A c200II or c300II (Used), or a bm ursa mini there will be a difference, especially in deep color grading as long as you have the computer power to run it.

A used Arri Classic minus lenses is 9 grand, so there are options, though the Arri and REDs are heavy and draw a lot of attention and then there are lenses.  Unless you go Chinese youíll drop on the low end 9 grand for a set of RED lenses, 100 grand if you go Leica (but who buys Leica other than rental houses).

In fact if you outfit a 1dxII with a couple of constant zooms, cards accessories and batteries youíll be right at $8,900 and even though 8 bits of depth it shoots a nice file with great color at 800 mbs per second.

The thing is still photographers tend to look at each frame to see sharpness and detail like they do in a still file and thatís just not the way motion imagery is usually viewed. 

The issue we run across now is not the camera, itís how the cameras affect the cost of permits and locations.   

You  pull out two large long cinema cameras and the permits skyrocket.    We are into a project now that is still and motion of equal value.   My R1ís will work well with it, but Iíll be stopped in ten minutes in LA asking for paperwork for a film permit.  If I use the 1dxII theyíll just ask for a still permit and we keep working, unless we clapboard, yell out rolling, speed, action, because everyone I know is working from a bottom line.

Even though the OP doesnít care about skin tones, or autofocus, one thing to be clear of is if shooting closer in subjects additional lighting makes a world of difference and of course all the other aspects of motion capture. Bit Depth/rate, codec, lenses it's a long list.

And in motion don't be afraid of used if you buy from a dealer with a return contract.  Remember there are movies shot on film today that are on 50 to 20 year old cameras and Arri has always said their classic camera will upres to 4k cinema just fine. 

This was shot with a Canon 1dx mark I, 2k with two hand held 1ft light panels running on v-lock, about 1/2 power, but the difference between fill light and no fill light is the difference between this image or a silloutte.


But personally, I like flat cameras vs. long cameras for this type of work.  Theyíre fast, throwing on an ND doesnít bother me and honestly they draw much less attention. 

As far as 4k, 6k, 8k with the heavy post work and delivery I donít get it, but hey as you said people will buy what theyíre told is the right camera and the only way to know is to test them in the style you work.


IMO

BC
I like the Canon image!
I agree with you James. There are those options you mentionned for less than 10 grands with better motion performance in both usability and files quality.

I was writing in the context of dslrs/mirrorless still cameras as it is linked to the O.P question but should have precised it. My point was to underline that video quality from a 5D, a 1D, a D850, a D5 etc...is more or less similar. I don't think it's possible to distinguish significant differences, I can't honestly. And in post the limitations are more or less the same.
However there is a price differences between them; a 6000 euros D5 (8000 with accessories) and a 2500 euros GH5/G9.
That are better implemented/usable for motion in those product's line.
The thing is that Nikon video is not aimed to the serious videographer. It's designed to be used on the fly by the photojournalist. Quick reportage on field, send the files to the edito from the hotel room and voilŗ.
Or for the wedding photographer that sells first stils and eventually gifts video in the package to get the job.
But yes, if one instead goes to the specialized video cameras you mentionned, there will be noticiable differences. Totally agree.
But they are not dslrs/mirrorless any more.

Don't get me wrong on dslr/mirrorless. I don't think they are crap. In fact sometimes in action they can be fast (you also pointed towards legal issues in the streets which is important too) and allow a dynamic style and shoot in extreme angles. It's quite amazing to see the progresses that have been done in that field for such small packages. I like them.

BUT...you know this forum...
photographers, and many landscape photographers!
Many techs minded, colours, big megapixels, Lightroom, often
Obssessed with fine details at 100%, used to view static prints, and there you pointed a very important fact: their minds are conditionned to qualify the image frame by frame, which is different in motion. It moves.
The OP is a landscape photographer apparently. So maybe very demanding in terms of details and colours.
This is why I pointed that I fear if they are expecting motion imagery to deliver the quality closed to what they are used to with their prints...
Or even want to extract stills from motion,
Well, I'm affraid they will have to jump to the top cine systems like Arriraw / Red and above 4k for sure.
And that is not 9000 euros any longuer.
Just the Nikkor mount for Red costs more than 2000...that hurts!

This low cost 4k is not really what people think it is. Like everything low cost we can expect compromises. It is used mainly for reframing and gain a bit of "quality" in 2k or hd delivery
Or watch the family barbecue on 4k TV with pop corns and the wife's rouleaux.


And on dslr/mirrorless it is mostly a marketing call to help them sell cameras that were not designed for this task.

If people are reasonably humble with their expectations, it will be fine.
But if they are seeking ultimate IQ in motion with photographic tools, as they do for still imagery,
They will highly be disappointed.

Now...we are in deep s...t with the pixel race that contaminated motion and the HDR new saga. That is already a problem/chalenge as Bruce pointed in another thread. I don't know how we're going to pick-up with this but it sounds frankly like an enormous hassle.

 :o
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 01:52:28 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • me
    • working
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2018, 06:43:30 PM »

Ah ah! I finaly could get 1dx2 in the edit megasuite Mistika  8) and yep, I agree with you,
It's a damn good footage.

No camera is perfect and every camera serves a purpose.

I mainly use the 1dxII  for lifestyle advertising, or smaller areas.   The upside is Canon color, especially skin tones are very easy to grade.    In Resolve I can match them down very close to my RED MXís but if you want smooth, beautiful color this is a good camera.

The only real downside is it goes through a lot of storage at 800 mbs and though I nearly always use three zooms 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.     The 2.8 lenses in the smaller range do not have IS, so you have to go to f4s.

If handholding, a lighter weight camera IS is a must. 

The  comparison between my RED MX cameras and the 1dx file is the REDís have about 7 to 10% more latitude.   The funny thing is if the REDís are set at 800 iso, the Canon must be set at 1250 to match.

With Cfast 2 cards, lenses, newer batteries  it comes in at a hair under $9,000.   You can find demo or used for less  and save $1,500.

If Iím shooting both stills and motion, I rarely use the 2 for stills, as itís a 1.4 crop for motion which is slightly larger than  super 35, so Iíll use the 1dx1 for stills.   Due to time  on set itís much faster to have both cameras set up and ready so there is no stopping for changes and much less chance of a mistake.

Though it is heresy in the film world, the Canons dual pixel auto focus is crazy good, almost foolproof. 

If you're working quickly the focus is amazing.

IMO

BC

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1359
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2018, 12:05:00 PM »

No camera is perfect and every camera serves a purpose.

I mainly use the 1dxII  for lifestyle advertising, or smaller areas.   The upside is Canon color, especially skin tones are very easy to grade.    In Resolve I can match them down very close to my RED MXís but if you want smooth, beautiful color this is a good camera.

The only real downside is it goes through a lot of storage at 800 mbs and though I nearly always use three zooms 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.     The 2.8 lenses in the smaller range do not have IS, so you have to go to f4s.

If handholding, a lighter weight camera IS is a must. 

The  comparison between my RED MX cameras and the 1dx file is the REDís have about 7 to 10% more latitude.   The funny thing is if the REDís are set at 800 iso, the Canon must be set at 1250 to match.

With Cfast 2 cards, lenses, newer batteries  it comes in at a hair under $9,000.   You can find demo or used for less  and save $1,500.

If Iím shooting both stills and motion, I rarely use the 2 for stills, as itís a 1.4 crop for motion which is slightly larger than  super 35, so Iíll use the 1dx1 for stills.   Due to time  on set itís much faster to have both cameras set up and ready so there is no stopping for changes and much less chance of a mistake.

Though it is heresy in the film world, the Canons dual pixel auto focus is crazy good, almost foolproof. 

If you're working quickly the focus is amazing.

IMO

BC
Well James, I think that the Canon is the best current camera for the active professional who is looking for a top photographic tool but capable to deliver very convincing results in video.
I see the GH5 stronger in video aspect, but the GH5 is not near a professional still camera.
Also as you underline, the Canon AF works and maybe the only one that I know suitable for video? Maybe there are others I ignore.

And I think that above the specs, the feel is important. I love built like tanks cameras. They inspired one and made for work. One of the things that irritates me always are cables, screws, extra/external accessories, small buttons and menus and cheap plastic boxes that feels unreliable. I don't like battery grips but integrated. I hate menus and user manuals. It has to work or I get crazy. The 1d is a beast of camera. We can say, yes but for less you got the 5d...true...but it's not the same in hands. The feel is an abstract volatile concept but important. Not everything belongs to rationalism.
The only obstacle between me and Canon is that the D1 line is too big for my hands and Nikon D2,3,4,5 work best.
But heavy means stability and the experience of shooting the top Canikon line is unique.
I really think that when one feels that he drived a tool and not that much a toy, the work experience is different.

True that the Canon files are big cause it does not use a cutting edge compression codec bit old school. But then we gain
In post causr what's heavily compressed has to be decompressed.
Imo, there is little need to do Prores copies. Just ingest and good to go.

I think your Canon is the best this company ever made. Everything is balanced and right.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 03:58:00 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • me
    • working
Re: 4K video on Nikon D850?
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2018, 07:50:59 PM »


I think your Canon is the best this company ever made. Everything is balanced and right.

Fred,

If anything hurts Canon it's the price and the protecting of territory.   The C200 is an example of what a camera is vs. what it can be.

For people shooting a combination of stills and motion, Canon's autofocus really is a game changer if your running a still sized vs. movie sized crew and time is limited.

Personally I think Canon could up their sales by double if they'd had made the c200 as a replacement for the c300 and offered higher bit depth, the ability to go to at least 100 fps without losing image quality, but Canon has their way and they don't seem to want to change it.

I guess it makes sense not to get into a price war against Sony, but it's obvious that people are looking at specs more than real world use and the C200 looks like it's limited on specs, though in testing it holds up well and the 1dxII at 8 bit can make the spec sheet reader hold off, though my 1dxII holds up well in the real world.

The thing is whether you are going for price like the gh5 or into the higher range of Arri, if you know your equipment, realise that every camera today has to be learned for it's limitations and it's positives, put your money in front of the lens, anyone with study and talent can make almost any camera work well today. 

It's interesting, a few years ago I viewed a short run 30 second lifestyle spot for a jeans wear maker.   Really nice work that made sense and was interesting.  Shot with a 5d2.  Nobody on a tech forum would think that way, but the story, the look and knowing what the camera and digital film would do, the artist did an amazing job.

IMO

BC





Pages: [1]   Go Up