Edited by Brian Drysdale, 29 July 2011 - 01:37 AM.
Jump to content
Great Camera Shootout 2011 Ep. 2
6 replies to this topic
Posted 29 July 2011 - 02:07 AM
I guess these kinds of tests were more relevant in the recent past to some people, but I couldn't be more bored by them. They are also outdated by the time they get edited. Testing DSLR's among real, practical cinema cameras is a joke and mostly done to keep the accessories selling to the 100,000+ weekend video-makers that keep buying it all up.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 02:23 AM
The comments by the audience members are worth listening to, but there does generally seem to be a drop off below the F3. Regarding the DSLRs, people do need a chance to compare when say deciding between a DSLR and say the AF100 or a F3 (the FS100 wasn't in the test). The tests doesn't really do the DSLRs any favours, although it really depends on what you want to use the cameras for. I guess the DSLRs were included because a lot of people use them or forced to use them in some cases.
Edited by Brian Drysdale, 29 July 2011 - 02:24 AM.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 04:14 AM
I just assumed the DSLR thing had died already. I'd not allow them on anything I was producing, but have had to use one before when someone else was stamping their name on something. They just aren't practical to compare to something that actually functions as a movie camera (low budget or not) like an F3, Arri, red, etc.. These tests always seem to ignore the real world issues that kill the toy cameras off in the first hour of a paid shoot, and focus on all the chart and controlled scene scenarios that bore me to death. Again, it's really just Zacuto being clever in finding a way to promote themselves I think. I hope the crew was paid decently.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 04:35 AM
I suspect the tests do reveal the issues because they also filmed test shots as well as charts. I'm rather surprised that the wedding guys are going for the DSLRs given how one dress moires like crazy in one test shot.
As for the commercial aspect of the tests, I suppose it might be a mixed bag regarding crew payments. However, sponsors tend to put themselves in and around the title on anything they support.
Edited by Brian Drysdale, 29 July 2011 - 04:39 AM.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 05:13 AM
Hasn't all of this sort of plateaued now? If people don't know the general limits of film, SLRs, RED's etc. there is something seriously lacking, as in paying the most basic attention to movie-making tech. What you need to know beyond that, you'd find on your own and this kind of testing would mean nothing at all.
The rest from now on is a game of marketing and detail features between these guys. RED had 4K and low prices, but now needs 5K to stay relevant and raises prices because they want to be "professional" now like Arri. Sony had the best in HD, then made cheap HD 35mm (F3) but now needs 8K to stay relevant, and so on. It never ends but the differences are becoming as subtle as Kodak vs. Fuji.
I'd be more interested in the different looks overall, with different sensors. When you see an SI2K, it is very different than red's stuff or a 950. Just like Aaton's 6K CCD should be pretty different than the other's CMOS chips, and the Sony 8K is bound to have a unique look as well. Compare this stuff rather than trying to show me how film can't shoot as well in 1000asa set-ups or how a DSLR can almost be good enough to shoot something on, etc.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:32 AM
You do get some impression that there are different looks involved with the cameras. Although, perhaps looking at these tests on-line isn't the best way to make subtle judgements, however, even then you can still make large changes in post to the look. In the end, you do have to make your own selection decisions.