Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The camera handles like crap, it's really heavy and even with the handles didn't feel great. Rent one and check it out, but make sure you try to edit some of the footage, even 60 seconds of footage and you'll see really quick what a pain it is. Believe me I was as pumped about this camera as anyone and mine actually came in last week but I passed on it. Might get the MFT in the future but there are just too many issues with the EF.
And some of the posters are giving excellent feedback on the camera itself, but I'm looking at the camera AND what you'll be using it for (which is arguably more important). You're not doing occasional studio shoots, you're doing real estate videos, which means you'll be shooting a lot and very frequently. Battery life would also be a big issue in your case, since the internal battery lasts maybe an hour. Also consider that you won't be shooting real estate videos in 2.5K RAW, it's just going to slow you down way too much, so try and take that spec out of the equation and look at it as just 1080p ProRes.
Fair points, all. I don't find raw as cumbersome as you seemed to. Perhaps my two-year-old machine is faster than the one you had available. The dynamic range of this camera still shows in the 10-bit 4:2:2 encoded files. Again, ProRes or DNxHD puts little extra burden on the workflow than the C100. Perhaps a bit more storage space, but with a benefit.
You point about the camera handling different than a proper video cam or a DSLR is also fair. It is clunky. A shoulder rig, slider, or tripod are a must. Whether Cgdillan uses these anyway is something he must consider.
Curious as to what issues the MFT version overcomes for you, given the issues you claim of the camera? None of those issues are changed in the MFT version. Is it just that the extra benefits of the MFT lenses (e.g., wider and/or faster) helps to further justify putting up with the costs you cite? I can understand that. Otherwise, you seemed very negative on the camera for certain reasons, only then to say that you might get one again in the future when none of those issues will be addressed.
In the end, I agree with you Axilrod. For a day-in, day-out workhorse (perhaps closer to run'n'gun), these issues might outweigh the image. A camera must be practical for its purpose. That's why my initial reaction to the OP was quite negative on the issue. Until I saw what I saw on my monitor. I'm just in love with the image this camera produces.
I just received my BMCC earlier this week (thanks, Adorama!). I thought I'd revisit this thread with some thoughts after playing around with the camera and its files a little. These are still quite initial impressions - so it is FWIW, as always.
First, I am blown away at the dynamic range. Just playing around with the camera, I was taking a few shots of my wife in our kitchen during midday. The kitchen had no lights on - just what was coming in through the windows. I exposed to for the highlights (out the window) and indoor details were still discernible. Not well-exposed, mind you. But, discernible. Far better than I'd ever get with the 5D3. So, I think this might accomplish what the OP intended with regard to having both out-the-window detail and (some) indoor detail. Cgdillan - if there are any specific shots you'd like me to try, I can do so (I learn more every time I use the camera).
Second, the color is just amazing. Colors are so spot on compared to what I'm used to with Canon DSLRs. Not that I hate the colors of the DSLRs. It is just that the skin tones and colors are more natural on this camera. Add to that the flexibility of the color grading using raw, and it really is great if you can stomach/afford the workflow.
Finally, the camera is heavy and bulky compared to even the 5D3. The "bulky" statement comes from the feeling that the camera is just not as balanced as I'm used to with the 5D3. But, it isn't meant to be. It is a cinema camera.
For the OP's question, my suggestion would be to rent one and try it. I know that Lensrentals carries it.
Love it !
because of housewall and the beach umbrella on right side (Background right Center side of Image) it does not look for me like a night shot...
Georg
I really enjoy this shot. The sunbeams, the shadows, all very interesting and cool. But I agree that it just doesn't look like night... I think part of it, for me, at least, is the white balance. Any chance of a cooler edit, or maybe a B+W? You're probably swamped with wedding stuff, but I think this is a great image, and worth some time to tweak in post, if you have time to spare...
Gorgeous shot, well exposed
Addressing only the DR issue I would think that you may be expecting a bit much from the BMCC. While I am sure the file quality is excellent you may find that the DR is still insufficient to hold detail in windows.
We usually gelled windows with ND and lit the interiors to get that naturalistic look with film and that is still done with video today in productions that will pay for it.
We do still HDR because we want a fast and inexpensive solution to the problem of DR challenged scenes but a few good lights and some time and testing will get better results. However I know that time is money and our clients are not to lavish with either.
The dynamic range of the BMCC is what I'm really excited about. I have a BMCC on order since the fall. However, axilrod brings up the key issues that I would be concerned with for real estate. Also, the wait with the BMCC is becoming quite frustrating. What has become clear to me is that they simply are not producing the BMCC in large quantities. Unless their production increases significantly over what it has been over the last 4 months, it seems that it might be a long-long time before people who order today receive their cameras.
You said that you are mainly concerned about the high DR shots in which you have plenty of time to set it up. Here's an off-the-wall idea. Get a slider (you probably have one already) with a very good motion control unit. Shoot the same shot at two exposures with your 5D3. Edit the footage together to have the "out the window" shot from the lower exposure and the interior from the higher exposure. HDR video.
I had the BMCC for 4 days a couple weeks ago. Yeah the image quality is great, but there were plenty of negatives and after using it for the weekend I was a lot less excited than I was when I saw the specs. Shooting RAW is a huge pain. My iMac with SSD/32GB RAM/Thunderbolt hard drives would barely play the files, not to mention they are absolutely massive. Shoot 10 minutes of footage you have 14400 individual stills to deal with, it's kinda overwhelming. Also, I tried shooting with a 120GB Samsung 840 SSD, only to find out later it wasn't fast enough. Only the higher capacity hard drives are fast enough it (500GB in Samsung's case), minimum 256GB. They are getting cheaper, but shooting RAW 1 256GB SSD will only get you about 30-40 minutes worth of footage. And if you're doing this for multiple houses that's going to be a lot of files.
Aside from that, the thing is alot heavier than it looks and the ergonomics suck. Even with the BMCC handles it just feels awkward, and if you're using the handles how are you supposed to pull focus? On my Redrock rig it was lopsided, since I had to use a riser so I could look directly at the back of the screen (No HDMI, only 3G-HDSDI, even my $1000 Marshall wont work with it). When you push the iris button it automatically tries to adjust the aperture, and you have to hold it down and press the forward/backward keys and it just feels weird and you have to use both hands to pull it off. And it's not like a DSLR in terms of low-light, so you may need to light dimmer spaces.
And then there is the sensor size. The 2.4x crop feels kinda limiting and for me would immediately make it out of the question for real estate photography. You want to get ultra-wide in some spaces, but with the BMCC you have to settle for a Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-f/5.6 to get as wide as you can (the equivalent of 19mm on full frame). But 10mm=24mm so it feels really weird. On the flipside a 135 f/2 becomes a 325mm f/2 or something like that, so that's cool.
More or less, I felt like the Prores footage looked great too, but RAW is what is so attractive about the camera. But I wouldn't shoot RAW on this thing unless I was trying to make some serious award-winning type stuff. You would just need a ridiculously fast computer to edit this stuff smoothly and tons of storage space for the flies. That, coupled with the sensor/shipping issues with them and now people are saying their lenses won't focus at infinity, it's just really turned me off towards it. If you're absolutely set on getting it I'd wait for the MFT version, with the Metabones Speed Booster the crop will be reduced to closer to 1.5x-1.6x.
I think the C100 is great though and have heard nothing but praise from friends that are using it. But I think the BMCC is overkill for what you are doing, honestly I would think your 5D3 would do the job, have you thought about maybe adding something to your setup to improve the quality? All I know is your average Joe probably can't tell a difference between the BMCC and 5D3, and if they can it's not big enough to make or break a sale.
Nicely done...5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = Gift from heaven.
Except for the fact that he has a version I of the 70-200.(Still nice combo - no flames please.)
With all the police I thought a foreign army was invading.
Shots look good, but oh what a difference anti-shake filtering would make.
| Deputy Shooting Leucadia, Encinitas, San Diego, California | Small | Large |
It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture. If nothing else,....
WOW!
1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum. At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way. How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.
At lease that's how we roll where I'm from.
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.
The OP thanked me for my criticism. I certainly expect harsh criticism whenever I post anything (although I haven't received any yet, that I know of.)
The whole point of posting images in a gallery here, is for people to look, to comment, to enjoy. Corey, I think you might be in need of a chill pill the size of the meteor over Russia...But at least a couple users thought my edit was better. I do apologize if I offended anyone for altering the image! And I apologize for not getting permission first. However, he did post it here in a public forum...the original posted image itself is not a full resolution image...and thus could never be printed even postcard size at high quality. I made no effort to remove the copyright tag, nor would I. If it had been a full resolution image...I would not have even attempted to copy and edit it.
I simply like the bridge and the picture, and wanted to show what I remember the color looking like, when I visited what must be almost the exact same location...also at night, back in 2005.
Cgdillan, I didn't mean to imply you were getting paid to do this shot, but I see where you would like to sell prints of it. I hope you do.
It's also nice to see that you are admitting you like a warmer color balance. That's fine, I even said it certainly is open to interpretation. I just didn't like what the color did to the bridge itself. It's an American Icon! If it were just the city or something else that wasn't painted orange, where the amber city lights would give a nice urban feel or something, then I wouldn't have thought as much about it.
Also, what I posted was not a reduced resolution picture...it is only barely smaller than his original post, due to the barrel correction edit that I did...unless of course someone else altered what I reposted and made that image smaller.
And the exif didn't show whether it was the f/2.8 or the new f/4 lens...or rather which f/2.8 it is (old or new). If that's the old f/2.8, then that appears to be quite a bit sharper than the one my cousin uses on his 5D3. I can only guess, but the corner sharpness is quite decent, and middle 2/3 is very sharp.