Sexiest camera ever?

You base a cameras performance on the LCD screen?

 

I guess he would also dismiss a Leica M9 because of the same reason hahah

 

Of course not. I just find it amusing they advertise the camera as having a high resolution screen when it doesn't.

Never did I say it was a $hit camera.

 

Looks alright and sounds like a nice camera, but wont be giving up my Canon 5dmkIII anytime soon for it.

And yes, I would probably rather have a DLSR that didn't perform quite as good than this. If I turned up to shoot a wedding with one of these I would not look very professional at all. People want a professional looking photographer when you turn up to a paid shoot, not someone with a point and shoot, it doesn't matter how the photos turn out (just because this may produce 'better' ones doesn't mean the DSLR ones are automatically rubbish or unusable).

Not sure what it has to do with comparing it to a phone though.

Still, as I said, its a nice camera for someone who wants to throw it in their bag and take it on their holidays to keep the weight down.

Just re-read the sales pitch and noticed it has 'Professional connectors'. What on earth does this mean lol?

 

I think it is in reference to the SDI output, so one may use it for on site video production @ 10 bit space - which is really what the camera is best for versus snapping raw stills.

 

Implying your mk3 looks more professional than this:




haha

 

Yeah, you try using that thing at a wedding. good luck.

 

That would produce an amazing wedding video though.

As for this camera, it is compact enough, but i actually prefer something larger for filming video.
I would also like to see some samples though, the screen res thing does make you consider they might be exaggerating about the rest of the specs though.

The Final Color Graded Shot does look pretty good if that is accurate.

 

You obviously know very little about photography.

My mkIII is a 'camera', this is a camera AND a lens.
You turn up to a wedding with this camera and a suitable lens for wedding photos then yes of course the mkIII looks more professional.

You REALLY think this looks professional? It reminds me of the photo of a mobile phone with a big lens stuck to it. A cheap plastic looking lens at that when you take away all of the rails, tripod and filter holder.

 

Jeez, you people need to lighten up. I guess by even posting " haha" you guys still can't take a hint.

Also your mk3 is a camera and lens too (or do you not get the fact that you attact a lens to it? jeez im laughing hard right now), and if you seriously worry about looking more professional rather than the quality of your work, you got problems man...

Thirdly, I know very little about photography? hah besides this camera is for videography, so I don't get why you bring up photography.

And like redemption said, this little blackmagic camera is amazing because not only is it small, it does better video than your mk3. maybe not
In lowlight with the ISO cranked up, but still, for it's size it's bloody amazing. not to mention it could easily replace a go pro in certain situations
with far better video than a go pro. which I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you cared to read. in the end I'm not saying this camera is the camera
To end all cameras. far from that, what I'm saying is that for it's size and what it can do, it's ****ing amazing.

Sorta like the Sigma DP2 Merril. small camera that matches prints of a D800 for like 1/3rd the price with amazing colors and DR. these kind of cameras
Aren't a solution to EVERYTHING, but for what they are, they are bloody brilliant and a bargain. at least I don't dismiss a good thing because I won't "look professional" with it, that whole premise is just hilarious haha.

 

By posting haha you were being insulting as if to suggest I don't know what I am talking about, hence laughing at me.

The 5dmkIII is a camera, and is sold as such, body only.
Of course you need a lens, the same as this camera needs a lens.
Without a lens my camera looks more professional than this one without a lens.
You were basing this looking more professional than a mkIII on one lens. Well look for a mkIII with a 400mm f2.8L lens on it and then tell me it still looks more professional.
In fact stick a 70-200L 2.8mm on mine and the equivalent on this and mine will still look more professional.
Are you implying that because I want to look professional the quality of my work may not be good? Why can't I look professional and produce professional work?
I know from doing many weddings, the same as eclap has, that people expect to see a professional looking set up and not some point and shoot (regardless how good it operates). I agree that as long as the finished work is of an acceptable level then that is the main thing, but being professional both in looks and the way you work is very high too, especially if you want to get extra work.

You state that this does better video than my mkIII, I will have to take your word for that as I have not seen the video that this does to compare it to the mkIII so if you can show me links to the comparisons or reviews that you have seen then that would be helpful.

Where did I dismiss it? It looks a great camera for the price and for an enthusiast.
If I was into videography I might be interested myself, but I am not.

 

Well you're the one who immediately thought I suggested that. I'd think that people would already know that you can't really tell sarcasm/jokes through written words on the internet sometimes.
Like a lot of users who get confused when someone uses this :wanker: which titled "wanker" and people think they're calling them wankers.
Like seriously? I've never been a dick to you, so why would I act like one just because of a random camera?


And what I meant was, what you're trying to say is looking professional>quality of work. since you're dismissing this camera just because it doesn't look pro at all.
Which is completely besides the point, because if you have a body of work that speaks for you, your equipment will never ever be questioned. ie Terry Richardson and his snapshots from a yashica t4.
And comparisons will do little, what makes this camera so great is the ability to shoot RAW video and have 13 stops of DR. currently the best camera DSLR style for videos is the GH3, simply because you can get it to shoot raw.
If I'm not mistaken, you can also do that with magic lantern for canon, but on full frame you're limited to what you can do and it only shoots RAW movies in crop mode.

 

Comparisons are everything.
You can read specs and statistics all day long but seeing actual photos/video is the TRUE way of seeing something's capabilities.
Don't forget sales speech will never show shortfalls or weaknesses (not saying there is any as I have not checked).
This might be all it's cracked up to be, but then again it may have awful bokeh or depth of field or bad vignetting or CA or sound or noise (like sound from the workings of the camera being recorded on the clips) or a soft picture due to the glass used. It's not all about HDR (which I love BTW).

You are correct though, it's difficult to see sarcasm in posts, so sorry for misreading that.

 

Lol, I don't read specs and statistics all day long. the main point of the camera is the ability to shot RAW. hooray, that's all I care about knowing.
Trust me, gearfagging is the last thing I do with my time. and yeah, remember when I said that the ISO performance of the mk3 is miles beyond of what this camera can do?
Again, I'm not trying to make this camera look like the best thing on earth, but for the price, it's pretty good.

Also, maybe you should have gotten this, so you can look more pro (also tis but a joke, in case you think I'm being a dick again)

 

Yes...

 

Yeah, you would look like a dick if you turned up to a wedding with one of those. Also, photographers are there to take photos, not videos.

 

Guys, it's not for wedding photographs, that's what the 1dx is for. If I were to take this to a wedding, it would be to give it to guests for video capture with like 50 spare batteries and a 50m lens. Every time they run out of power they bring it back and I'd switch out the battery and maybe the sd card.

It shoots raw video. That's what it's all about, not stills - although it can do that.

 

yeah, but why bring up how professional is, how it's sexy etc? when that's not the selling point? You don't need a 1dx for wedding photography btw, sure, it's dogs bollocks for things like that, but most of the enthusiast cameras will do a good job, I shot a wedding recently with a 40D and 60D with a few different lenses and they did a great job. Full frame is nice for weddings though, I'm actually looking at some 5Dmk2 that you can buy pretty cheap used online. Oh, PCthug are you selling your mk2?

 

PCThug was the one that brought up it doesn't look professional, I then joked and he took it seriously haha.

I never said it "looking professional" was a selling point haha.

 

mah, sarcasm never comes across well on the net. Also, if shooting HDR video is the forte of this thing, why is the topic "Sexiest camera ever?"

Have you ever seen any professional ever using one of these? Modelling, sports, landscape, you name it, they won't use this thing.