Well Michael, I've already shot an entire feature film on a Canon t3i. One case in which I just grabbed the camera and went for it! However I noticed lots of issues with the compressed 8 bit codec on that shoot and would like to avoid such issues this time around.
My other option would be to purchase a GH5, I have the money to purchase this camera however if the C100 image holds up I don't think it will be worth the extra investment.
Thanks for your input, however with an 8 bit codec will gradients be an issue regardless of color profile?
Sathya, thanks for including the link. I have seen the video before and it includes a lot of great info. Renting lenses and trying them out is something I am considering doing and will check out both of those sites.
So in your opinion the main difference between a good photo vs cine lens is the physical aspects of the lens such as focus marks, hard stops, etc., not necessarily the quality of image and glass itself? Where with proper composition and lighting one could make an image shot on a sub $1,000 photo prime lens look as good or nearly as good as footage shot on a cine lens costing several thousand dollars? Granted the hypothetical shot would be a static shot because once you start moving the camera or racking focus cheaper photo lenses will breath and be difficult to pull focus where the cine lenses will not.
Thanks for your thoughts and straight forward answer! By the way how do you like the Rokinon Cine DS? That is the other lens I was considering if I was to go more of a budget route.
I must say I'm a bit surprised that there has not been more opinion from the community about this topic. Whenever reading various blog posts regarding cameras most people will bring up the fact that lens/lighting is more important than camera body. However now that two lenses are pitted against each other in two different form factors and price brackets there isn't much of an opinion. Also the fact that I've been advised to stick with the significantly cheaper photo lens was not expected. If lens is more important than camera body how is it that a $2,500 cinema lens will not significantly improve an image over a $500 photo lens?