yabokkie: it's not a very good idea to use a lens on a format it was not designed for. but for 4/3" users they don't have other choices at the moment. 4/3" makers have been refusing to make large aperture lenses because they want to cheat with small ones.
I don't mean to disagree or be difficult, but in my experience using both, I don't see a disadvantage to it in most cases. Granted, a design that uses glass has more complications than a transparent one (like the passive EF to M43 adapters with no aperture control, etc.)
Are you speaking more about image quality or control? On the image quality side, I use everything from compacts to phones, camcorders, mirrorless cameras and DSLRs and find no image quality disadvantage to using DSLR lenses on M43 systems - they just have an entirely different crop. :)
makofoto: And it only does up to 30 fps. It needs 1080/60 in order to minimize jello. So it's not a replacement for an action cam like the GoPro
If the camera has a rolling shutter, then the read speed determines the percentage/angle of the rolling shutter effect.
If the camera has a global shutter, then there is no rolling shutter effect.
So what mpgxsvcd said is accurate, assuming that a rolling shutter is used (as it is on the models discussed but not on the related 4K BlackMagic camera).
Nikonworks: Doesn't work for me.
Your 'collages' are like serving good coffee in a Mickey Mouse shaped cup.
The cup distracts you from the taste of the coffee in the cup.
The best for regular panos is ICE.
One of its best features is the ability to even out exposures from frame to frame,unlike your exposures which have adjoining frames with significant exposure variations which make for even more distractions for viewers of your collages.
My first thought upon viewing your collages was "This is the work of a very lazy shooter".
I think that some people are forgetting that with a program like Microsoft ICE, you can export the result as a layered PSD. In other words, you can start your collage in that fashion and then continue by applying more of the TLC that is described in the article. It doesn't have to be one or the other and it doesn't have to be program exclusive.
jl123: I must say I get "it" but I also don't get "it". Of course that "it" is the same statement that so many leica fans utter: 'the camera makes me think harder, and therefore I can compose a better/more well thought out shot' or something similar.
My reply: Maybe people should try to think a little harder with whatever camera they have, not just if its a lieca.
I guess the question is what you are thinking about the most. When I was shooting with a Panasonic TZ5 travel zoom, I had not filters, no lens changes and no accessories of any kind to think about. The closest the camera got to manual mode was program mode and anything above the lower ISOs was unusable. So I had very few choices to make in terms of shooting the picture.
So what did I worry about? Framing. The framing in many of my best TZ5 photos still holds up as some of the best I've done, even though I've shot lots of photos with cameras where a single accessory costs more than the whole TZ5.
Now that said, there are lots of things I could not do with the TZ5 that I can do with my current cameras and the image quality is much, much higher with the other ones.
I guess my point is that whatever helps you to focus, to screen out superfluous concerns, can be helpful. Whether that means spending a lot of money or a little depends on your specific needs.
tkbslc: This kind of body makes a lot more sense for the intended market than the newly announced 1D C.
The C500 is trying to compete with the F65, Arri Alexa and RED Epic. In that market, the price speculated undercuts the competition - it is just plain a different market. Only the Cinema 1D suffers from odd pricing.
And despite the price, the C300 appears to be selling better than most of use would expect. Personally, I would be more likely to spend the money on a Scarlet, but to each their own.
AllanZ: I wonder if it has a fast enough refresh rate like the red scarlet so that the jello effect isnt visible or minimally visible when panning fast action?
I agree that the Canon Cinema 1D, RED Scarlet and Sony FS 700 (potentially) are all much cheaper than the F65. But if the external recorder options for the FS 700 end up being attractive, it could come in it a lower price point than the Cinema 1D while including more color information and higher frame rates.
That would leave the Cinema 1D with the selling points of (very likely) superior high ISO performance, a larger sensor size (though with some odd crop compromises for video due to its 1D X legacy) and in camera 4K recording (though without a RAW workflow) vs. the FS 700. The FS700 would win in terms of framerate options, however.
Against the RED Scarlet, that list limits to high ISO performance.
But in both cases I could see people buying it because of a brand preference, and I respect that. I just don't think it is winning many categories in the features game so far, outside ISO performance (where it would really be winning if they unlocked the ISOs above 25,600).
Edmond Leung: No way to consider this camera for heavy invested movie productions.
Will you take the risk by not using Arri or Panavision?
Incidentally, there are things about the Alexa, Panavision and RED offerings that would make each the most attractive choice for me on particular projects. In the case of Panavision, the top of that list would be their 300x optical zoom for 2/3 inch cameras.
Also, hope you don't feel singled out - you are just addressing some of the more interesting points so far, so I keep feeling compelled to respond to your observations. Hopefully you feel flattered, not frustrated. :)
Okay, now I am back to being confused again after reading your other response.
EDIT: Okay, I see you posted this before you posted "There is no doubt that RED is doing a good business recently.What I'm talking is the mainstream of the movie productions are still in favor of Arri and Panavision."
So in that context I am inferring that your above quote means "high-budget productions but not necessarily the highest budget productions" given the list of blockbusters shooting with RED I mentioned below. Sorry to read your posts out of order. :)
plasnu: This is something that Nikon has to follow.
Ah, that is different. I misunderstood what you meant by "If you have sufficient budget, will you use RED? Everyone would tell you the right choice is Panavision, Arri or Sony." I got the impression that you meant the higher the budget, the more likely that those brands would be used, as opposed to that those brands were very popular in professional production.
In that case I have no disagreement - Arri and Panavision are very popular, especially in the TV market where RED cameras have had much lower market penetration.
bradleyg5: What's chroma sub sampling?
Briarwoodsman, I have no intention of getting into an argument about it nor do I consider myself an expert on it. I am only saying that the language of the link you present is not the only way of looking at the topic. Here is another one from a technical officer at Panavision that influenced the wording of my original post.http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
Note the display image used in the presentation for 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 sampling.
I must respectfully differ with you, Edmond Leung. 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros and even Sony all have blockbusters in production using RED cameras, and Disney already released one. Their cameras were picked (or at least employed) by Rob Marshall, Bryan Singer, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson and Marc Webb.
In the case of Sony, not only did they have the budget to use another camera, there were initial suggestions by the company to use something from the in-house line-up (at least based on comments Marc Webb made). He chose RED.
Am I saying that the RED cameras are better than the competitors you mentioned? No, I am not addressing that. But they have clearly become a viable choice when a quick survey of the upcoming blockbusters sees more films with them than without them, an area where we usually see the largest budgets.
Canon is rapidly making inroads into the cinema camera market, much more so than most expected based on the technical specs of the C300. It is difficult to predict how the studios will react, but they embraced RED more quickly than expected (and RED was a far more unknown quantity).
Anastigmat: Few people realize this, but this is probably the beginning of end of cameras like the 1DX. The 1DX is a sports model that can shoot 11 fps, IIRC, but this beast can shoot 24 frames per second at 18mp resolutoin, twice the number of shots per second. There is a much bigger chance of getting the shot from 24 frames instead of 11! It actually makes more sense for a sports photographer to use this camera instead of the 1DX!
I saw the comparison you mentioned, RedFox88, (at least based on the description) and the point they were trying to make was that the downscaling algorithm and coded were resulting in much lower performance on the video side than expected. If you look at other cameras like the GH2, the image quality delta between stills and video is much smaller because of the combination of codec and downscaling algorithm.
In the case of this camera, the reason it does not do full 18MP is because the full 18MP sensor extends beyond 4k and is not using a 16x9 aspect ratio. So the pixels in the video are 1:1 with those in the stills side, there are just fewer of them. We have already seen this on the RED Epic, where Vincent Laforet praised the image quality and used it for stills.
But the RED Epic used a RAW format for video and this camera does not. So it remains to be seen how the video side will fare without it.
Actually, slightly less than 18MP (only 4K horizontal resolution, not the full sensor except when scaling down to 1080P) but I see where you are going with that.
There are still a lot of reasons why someone would use the stills mode (wider range of shutter speeds available, superior auto-focus systems, skipping the edit and extract stage to get your picture, etc.) but I think 4K cameras give people better options than they had before if they do not want to use stills mode (but still want stills).
Whether they are using a 4K camera from Sony, RED, Canon, the rumored upcoming offering from Panasonic or somewhere else, there are definitely more options about to appear for those with a shutter-button phobia. :)
Vegasus: I think Canon should make a new DIVISION, e.g. MOVIE-SLR or CINEMA-SLR. This type of camera will target for those movie maker for lower cost yet high quality pictures. Why bother using big bulky video camera?
Or... This is like the new " thinking " for younger generations who are in the movie business.
I just wish that Canon make a bigger CMOS sensor like HASSELBLAD, with all the high tech functions and extras.
I am guessing you already read about the C300 and C500 that were designed for that very market? They may be "video cameras" but they are not big and bulky and seem an awful lot like what you describe.
rb59020: $13,185.57 USD?
I bought two '79 Corvette's at Mecum's Kansas City auction last December for that.
That's not the price they are quoting. It's $15,000.
That is enough to buy a GH2 with 65 batteries and 65 maximum performance 64GB memory cards. You could shoot over 58 hours of footage with some of the more demanding settings on a hacked GH2 and power your camera for around 100 hours without a recharge or off-load.
Perfect for safari filming - but no 4k. :)
Pasadena Perspective: According to the press release on Canon's site, some of this information is inaccurate.
Most notably, 4:2:2 is only available for 4K, not for Full HD (which is only 4:2:0). In other words, the C300 can do 4:2:2 in Full HD but this one can only do 4:2:0 like the current lower cost DSLRs from Canon.
Please confirm which of the two press releases is accurate and update if necessary. I am looking forward to seeing the high ISO performance on this one.
Thanks R Butler for quickly addressing that. I did not read carefully enough: I got caught up in how in-camera recording was limited to 4:2:0 for 1080 and missed the 1080 HDMI output you had already mentioned.
I still think that the ability to do it in camera is a rather odd omission, but you definitely did not make a mistake. :)
Just to clarify, 4:4:4 blows 4:2:0 away.
Phil: Amazed by the low price, the 4K RED ONE camera system is starts at $17,500.00, and Caon is targeting $4K below them. I expect this is the pay off for shooting that season finally of HOUSE with the 5DMKII.
Personally the 1DX might be a better fit for me.
I don't know about "low-cost" but it is in the realm of competitive. The 1080P market is much more hotly contested than the 4K market at this point.
In many ways, this is more of a competitor to the RED Scarlet, which cheaper than either of the other models mentioned (depending on the package, typically $1,000 less than the Cinema 1D).
The Sony FS700 has been announced with an expected street below $10,000 but that will require an external recorder for 4K and the pricing has not yet been determined.
The competition looks set to be fierce.