Which Camera? $3,000 or $80,000?
Sep 26, 2017 08:32:50 #
Want to shoot nice video? You can do that with your cell phone, a P&S, a DSLR, or an $80,000 Arri Alexa.
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/3360720718/80-000-vs-3-000-arri-alexa-vs-canon-80d-video-shootout
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/3360720718/80-000-vs-3-000-arri-alexa-vs-canon-80d-video-shootout
Sep 26, 2017 17:13:08 #
Sep 26, 2017 17:36:52 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Why did he pay $3000 for a $1600 camera?!
I wondered that myself.
Sep 27, 2017 05:58:55 #
This is all BS. No serious videographer uses video SOOC. The point is to capture it all in a compressed log gamut that looks absolutely flat, underexposed and muddy (in 10 bit minimum 4:2:2) but that allows tremendous flexibility in grading. The Alexa blows those other cameras away totally in a professional situation.
Sep 27, 2017 10:29:28 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Why did he pay $3000 for a $1600 camera?!
jerryc41 wrote:
I wondered that myself.
Although he went through it quickly in the video, he said the camera cost $1,199 but with extras it came to $3,018.
This was in the video but went by very fast. If you blinked you may have missed it.
Sep 27, 2017 18:51:22 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Want to shoot nice video? You can do that with your cell phone, a P&S, a DSLR, or an $80,000 Arri Alexa.
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/3360720718/80-000-vs-3-000-arri-alexa-vs-canon-80d-video-shootout
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/3360720718/80-000-vs-3-000-arri-alexa-vs-canon-80d-video-shootout
A much better comparison would have been with a Panasonic Lumix GH5. At least it records 10-bit 4:2:2 video with vLog-L gamma AND does true anamorphic with the right lenses (among other things). The body is $2000; lenses extra.
The Arri Alexa will, of course, be much better, according to the pros who use it on a regular basis. But if your needs are a little more spartan... "Better" can be defined as "cost efficient."
Sep 28, 2017 18:29:41 #
EdJ0307 wrote:
Although he went through it quickly in the video, he said the camera cost $1,199 but with extras it came to $3,018.
The article says a $80,000 camera vs a $3000 camera, not a $1600 camera with $1400 in accessories. It is still a $1600 camera, not a $3000 camera. The camera body and the 18-135 lens and a memory card should have cost no more than $1600. He may have bought peripheral accessories for the camera at the same time he bought the camera but they don't count towards the value of the camera. That is like me saying I bought a truck for $50,000 then I had a $500 trailer hitch installed and I got a $14,500 trailer to attach to the hitch. I have a $65,000 truck. No, the truck cost $50,000, the truck, hitch and trailer cost $65,000.
Why would anyone realistically compare a high end professional video camera to a prosumer DSLR anyway?!
Sep 28, 2017 22:40:30 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
The article says a $80,000 camera vs a $3000 camer... (show quote)
Um, because he can?
That doesn’t excuse this senseless, ridiculous fake “comparison”. Who cares?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.