bcooter
New member
Welcome!
Thanks for the replies.
There is a lot of things I want from a camera, obviously image quality is important, but that is a moving scale depending on what and how any of us work.
We do a lot with HMI's we use to do with flash, so 800 is important. Anything over that I have 35mm cameras that do the job and I like them, but don't love them.
The phase back is intriguing, but the two issues I have about it is the samples I've seen at 800 iso (at full resolution) seem limited, I don't dislike the DF camera, (don't love it) and to add a new back to my contax' really isn't an option.
The contax' works well, but they're old. I take great care of them and under lighter, editorial production they're great, but they focus slower than the newer mfd cameras, the connections at times can be iffy when shooting 1,000 frames a day and maybe I'm just a little bored with them.
I have had amazing reliability from my phase backs. Actually no equipment other than C-stands has lasted as well as the P+ backs, so I do have hesitation in changing brands . . . except . . .
Everybody says looks don't matter, but on set working I want the equipment to look more specialized and different. I'm not saying that's right for everyone, but that's what I want and one of the reasons I like the H4d Stainless and the H5d.
Actually if the DF+ looked more like this
I'd be more open to accepting it, but I've inquired and it's not possible to change the color to a matte white that is durable.
I know it's more about the quality of the file and the operation of the camera than the looks of a camera, but when I spend this kind of money, I want the camera to look less 35mm and more "wow what is that".
I know that statement on some forums would get me blasted about the photograph only matters, clients can't tell the difference, etc. etc., but in my experience, everything matters. Crew, catering, glitch free production, obviously budget and equipment that doesn't look like what a client can find at their local store.
(I'm not knocking anyone's camera, btw).
The Pentax interests me because it does a clean 800 iso from every sample I've seen. I know the buffer is slow, though I have our Canons cranked down to as slow as they can go and still shoot way to many images. Two weeks ago we produced a lifestyle fashion project on location and shot 7,000 files for the week, and except for a quick burst of the talent walking, everything was shot at click, focus, click, focus, so a Pentax wouldn't slow me up that much.
The only thing is except for the Red limited edition 645d, the pentax does look a little 35ish.
. . . and I'm not going to bring up the 35mm vs. mfd debate. I pray I never have to have that discussion again, because it's been rehashed 100000000 times, mostly by people that don't use both systems and even if they do, the result is it always becomes hurtful.
Nothing is worse than to see someone save and buy a camera they like and have a few people jump on them saying they F'uped and should have bought a blah, blah. blah. Why throw cold water on someone who likes what they use?
It's like going to a dp and saying why did you rent an Arri when a red rent's for 1/2 price? The DP doesn't care, they like what they use and use what they like.
And this is really the reason for this. I want to use a camera I like, even love, a camera that is different, not one that just does the job.*
Once again, thanks.
BC