http://www.frederickfilms.com/Press%20Received/Panasonic%20Broadcast%20&%20Professional%20Video.htm
I cannot wait to get one of these cameras.
I don't get it, what's the point of having a camera when you can't change the lenses?
Changing lenses is great, if you can afford it. Lenses themselves cost tens of thousands of dollars -- and even something on the prosumer level, like the wide angle lens for the XL-1, cost about twelve hundred. If I'm going to shoot something where I need to change the lenses, I'll rent a camera, and if I rent a camera, it'll be for either film or HD. For more no-budget projects, I'll stick to something I could afford to own, and this camera fits the bill nicely. I've got an XL-1, but I'd much rather have this one -- I've seen the image quality, and it's fantastic. It's not so much the 24p feature that attracts me as the cinema functions like gamma correction -- you can really get a gorgeous looking picture with this thing.
Ahh. Fair enough.
So then, if you were going to shoot a feature that you really wanted to be class, but you had to shoot on digital, would you then use the xl-1 and rent a whole whack of lenses? Or would you still go with this camera?
Quote from: GhostboyChanging lenses is great, if you can afford it. Lenses themselves cost tens of thousands of dollars -- and even something on the prosumer level, like the wide angle lens for the XL-1, cost about twelve hundred. If I'm going to shoot something where I need to change the lenses, I'll rent a camera, and if I rent a camera, it'll be for either film or HD. For more no-budget projects, I'll stick to something I could afford to own, and this camera fits the bill nicely. I've got an XL-1, but I'd much rather have this one -- I've seen the image quality, and it's fantastic. It's not so much the 24p feature that attracts me as the cinema functions like gamma correction -- you can really get a gorgeous looking picture with this thing.
The image is quite nice. We're showing "Far from India" at this year's Dallas South Asian Film Festival, and I can't wait to see what it looks like on the big screen.
I mentioned this camera a little while back. It DOES have beautiful images. This is the one I'd go with. This camera with Final Cut 4 is all you need. Final Cut 4 has telecine tools so you can translate it from 24-30 fps and back again. And if your movie is picked up for distribution you're already in synch with the speed of celluloid. InDigEnt is already using them.
Quote from: SoNowThen
So then, if you were going to shoot a feature that you really wanted to be class, but you had to shoot on digital, would you then use the xl-1 and rent a whole whack of lenses? Or would you still go with this camera?
Hmmm. If I had the XL-1 with the mini35mm adaptor, I'd probably go with that. I'd like to do a test, since I've never actually used the mini35 adaptor. But if I had to shoot digital and had any choice of camera/lenses, I'd just jump all the way up to the Sony HDW-900. Hypothetically speaking.
Quote from: Ghostboyhe mini35 adaptor
I only played with it a few times...and honestly, it's not worth the price....the only advantages I could really see are the total extremes of focal length. Also depth of field. Extreme macro, or seeing to the moon. The XL-1 lenses themselves carry a huge range. I guess I could see using it if you had already invested in EOS lenses, but really...how many people have a Canon 600mm lens? Canon's tilt -shift lenses can make things interesting thou on here...maybe I am missin' something as I only had the chance to dabble with this thing, but really it's not as great as it sounds.
I think the one you're talking about is different. The EOS adaptor is pretty small, but the mini35 adaptor costs more than the camera itself and lets you use Panavision lenses and dope shit like that. I posted a picture of it in some other DV thread...don't remember which one exactly.
Sorry to get off topic and onto Canon, but that's why I bought the XL1-S, because over the years I'll keep adding lenses to it and adding all the other stuff, and I can somewhat keep up. It will be a good journeyman videocamera to use for multipurpose over the years...
Anyway, the guy I bought it from here I think is gonna let me test out this new camera you folks are talking about. I'll give my two cents on it if/when that happens. This tech guy seems pretty stoked about it...
Quote from: GhostboyI think the one you're talking about is different. The EOS adaptor is pretty small, but the mini35 adaptor costs more than the camera itself and lets you use Panavision lenses and dope shit like that. I posted a picture of it in some other DV thread...don't remember which one exactly.
oh, yeah...I was talkin' about the EOS thingy. I saw what you were talkin' about though....yeah, I can see that..never played with it thou. Is it really that great?...I mean to use panavision lenses or I think they make an Arri adapter too?? No matter what you are still shootin' DV. I mean in the never ending discussion of film versus DV...does something like this little tool come as close as you can get to reproducin' film?
It just gives you the latitude to get different looks, and at least use the different lens sizes. That's always been what I've hated about dv. It seemed like you were confined to only what was on the camera, now you can switch it up a little bit and it gives you more options as a director and DP...
Quote from: SoNowThena director and DP...
shhh...chill with shamelessly pluggin' us to the rest of the world. I say we go straight up their asses when they least expect it. Worse than a mad case of booze butt.
I suppose the effort is worth it if your ultimate goal is to be using mini-DV. Mine isn't. Shooting mini-DV, the lowest of the lows, I'd rather have a camera I don't have to mess with too much. If you have a good eye you'll know how to compose your shots correctly to maximize your use of zoom on the primary lens. I look at mini-DV as a means to an end. Not something to get too caught up in as an investment. There's a reason they're consumer models.