Digital photography

It is pricey, but nicey. Like Rapha in that respect.

I may take the plunge into the world of owning a DSLR with it. The headphone jack is a small addition but a big deal for me. And the Digic 5 is exciting. Slightly disappointing that there's no 60p video at 1080 but I assume there's every chance they'll push that out with a firmware update, right? They did a similar thing with the MkII from memory. Think I'm most excited about the alleged image quality - if they can knock things like moire/other artefacts on the head, then that's a big leap forward for my money.

Also, weather sealed and dual memory cards. Double the video length and instead of stopping and you recording when it reaches the limit, now it just starts a new file automatically...

People are bitching on the video forums, but it's a DSLR, what the fuck where they expecting? XLR slots and free Zeiss rental? >>>>>>

there doesn't seem to be any gps ?

People are bitching on the video forums, but it's a DSLR, what the fuck where they expecting? XLR slots and free Zeiss rental? >>>>>>

I know a couple of filmographers who resort to DSLRs in some situations. The limitations are numerous, but I reckon that by the next 2 model generations, most of the smaller problems will be dealt with.

The idea that a DSLR could be used for anything like pro filmography is a very powerful one, that everyone wants to work. I suppose that's why people are so vocal about its current limitations.

Well the last EP of last seasons House was filmed on a Canon 5d mk2 (at least parts). Mainly becuase it was in a collapsed building and the size of the canon worked. After post-processing it was impossible to tell what was shot with what

Feature film with biggish cinema release out last week was shot on one (MK2):

Act Of Valor Official Movie Trailer [HD] - YouTube

Shit film apparently. But still.

(I quite like the scene at 01'00")

I know a couple of filmographers who resort to DSLRs in some situations. The limitations are numerous, but I reckon that by the next 2 model generations, most of the smaller problems will be dealt with.

The idea that a DSLR could be used for anything like pro filmography is a very powerful one, that everyone wants to work. I suppose that's why people are so vocal about its current limitations.
For the kind of stuff I tinker with they've been perfect so far, decent quality image for a real budget. At the ratio of cost vs quality I'm happy to work around any glitches. The MK3 seems to be working on those glitches. For that reason alan sugar - hired

Feature film with biggish cinema release out last week was shot on one (MK2):

Act Of Valor Official Movie Trailer [HD] - YouTube

Shit film apparently. But still.

(I quite like the scene at 01'00")

I'll be watching that, I have a soft spot for war movies

Starring actual Navy SEALS.

yeah, spot on. I think the main issues are to do with production rather than quality. There are a lot of situations where it's just not as practical still to shoot with a DSLR, but they're really getting there.

It'll be interesting to see if the 5Dmk3 addresses the really nasty downconversion artifacts....it's those alone that would make me buy an af-100 for video over a DSLR....

I've been saying for ages, when 5d3 comes out, I'll pick one up straight away on finance, and balls to the cost.

But, I was hoping the difference between mk2 and mk3 was going to be a massive one, but its not.
Nikon D800 looks like a better buy to me, esp when price comes into account.

I'm sure it'll be amazing, but I'm not so excited that I'm willing to shove £2800 on credit at drop of a hat. iamdissapoint.

Any-one here used a 7d?

Nikon all day < caps

Got myself a D7000 a few months ago, best camera I've ever owned

Hotel, February 2012 by Ande Murdoch, on Flickr

St Andrews street/Newgate Street, February 2012 by Ande Murdoch, on Flickr

Pilgrim Street, February 2012 by Ande Murdoch, on Flickr

Is it worth me paying the extra for the GX1 or would a secondhand GF1 be equally good?

Just ordered an X100..... oops. :)

Is it worth me paying the extra for the GX1 or would a secondhand GF1 be equally good?

I'd go for a GX1. Link below gives comparison between the two.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-GX1-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GF1

Feature film with biggish cinema release out last week was shot on one (MK2):

Act Of Valor Official Movie Trailer [HD] - YouTube

Shit film apparently. But still.

(I quite like the scene at 01'00")

looks like an awesome moviefilm, but according to imdb:

[INDENT]Camera
Arriflex 235, Panavision Primo Lenses
Arriflex 435 Xtreme, Panavision Primo Lenses
Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Panavision Primo, Canon L-Series and Zeiss ZF Lenses
Canon EOS 7D, Panavision Primo, Canon L-Series and Zeiss ZF Lenses
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, Panavision Primo, Canon L-Series and Zeiss ZF Lenses

Laboratory
Company 3, Los Angeles (CA), USA (digital intermediate)

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 50D 5201, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)
Video (HDTV)

Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
HDTV (1080p/24) (source format)
Super 35 (also 3-perf) (source format)

Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic) (Fuji)
D-Cinema

Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1
[/INDENT]

Then you can add "big marketing budget stressing the DSLR aspect"

I'd like to know what the ratio of digi to kodak was

Is it worth me paying the extra for the GX1 or would a secondhand GF1 be equally good?

Unless you're thinking of shooting a LOT of low-light, the GF1 is still an excellent camera.

I'd look into E-PL2/E-PL3 if I were in the market for a camera right now. Same system as GF1/GX1, but seems to have slightly better performance.

Bleh. Want/need 5d Mkii. Cannot afford. Have Mamiya 7, but that's not worth enough for a straight swap.

60D or 7D?