rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This may depend on what the photographer intended and what you felt s/he had intended. For example, some photos are mediocre art, but they were never intended to be art; they document the would as it actually was at some monent in time - not how someone wished it would have been.

For example, I took the following photo at the entrance to a city park about a month ago. It intentionally has little or no brokah because I used an f-stop of F/16. I was intrigued at how the railroad had sawed out part of the crossing, laid down a rail, then stuffed in some asphalt so the crossing was still usable. Presumably some time that rail will replace the one currently in place. I suppose this is documentary; it certainly isn't art.

pieces of sawed-out concrete taken from crossing are just to the right of the rail in its temporary position

netsailer Loc: Tampa, FL

Topaz video does a pretty good job of smoothing out videos.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

That ‘photo Op’ was available for less than two months; today I drove - or tried to drive - to the park; the entrance was closed because they were laying the rail.

tripsy76 Loc: Northshore, MA

As someone who works in video and features for a living, I can tell you that most of those cheaper cameras that you’re seeing are not as capable or can deliver the quality that you get from some of these modern stills cameras.

With a hybrid camera that most of us use for photography, they do still require a good amount of work to get that “cinematic” feeling. And many stills cameras and nearly all phones can’t shoot with constant frame rates, or they are 8bit 4:2:0, or have poor readout speeds, bad rolling shutter, etc.

We use stills cameras for vfx work and then sometimes c-cameras when the space is too small for one of our cinema cameras, or you need to shoot some quick plates, or pickups. The three smallest cameras that I own are the Sony a1, Sony a7rv, and FX30. All are Great cameras capable of producing professional looking content. But You don’t have the video features that you get with cinema cameras in 2 of those. My main cameras are RED’s which can handle long shoot times, and have other features that work better for video and heavy post production.

And the other reason is price to get the foot in. The a1 is my most expensive photo or hybrid camera at $6500 and you can get a Panasonic S5ii, or a Sony a7iv for a fraction of that price. Get a lens, and a shotgun mic, and you’re kind of good to start playing. For my 3 RED Raptors which are in no way the best of the best, those (not including any of the ancillary components or lenses that you need to start using it) were $24,000 each just for the body. So actual cinema cameras are VERY expensive and can run you well over $100k. For most video needs, a solid hybrid camera combined with good working knowledge of audio, light, and post-processing you probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference to be honest.

There have been people winning awards and making full features with cell phones, so those cheap cameras that you’re seeing are more than capable of making a movie, but you won’t have the best looking image quality.

One of the big things in deciding is based on what you are delivering. Frame rates, but depths, color Chanel’s, and video size all are impacted by that. Cheaper cameras are limited in what they can deliver from a specs side. Just right tools for the right jobs that’s all. They all do the same thing and most people if you put them side by side wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. As a compositor I see prof of that every day! Lol!

gwilliams6

I also do video with my Sony A1, A7SIII and A7RIV.

Cheers and best to you.

tripsy76 Loc: Northshore, MA

My small Sony’s have saved more shoots than I’d like to admit. Plus if I don’t have to set up the RED’s that’s all the better! Lol!

Out of my 3 small ones. My a1 is the most used and my favorite of the 3.

gwilliams6