A7 mk 2

>>3140854
yes, if scenes from the avengers was shot on the 5D2, the A72 is more than what you'll need to achieve a simple scene like that.

>>3140854
your camera certainly has the capacity to capture images that look cinematic, but you have to learn cinematography first (i don't mean to sound sassy but it really is that simple)
learn about lighting and composition and practice practice practice

>>3140854
I would say yes, to an extent. It will take you a LOOONG time to get to that point. And the difference with the cameras they use is that there is so much data flowing through there in a RAW video format that they can do a lot more with the footage. In the screenshot you provided, for example, in the original footage I can bet you the footage is actually brightly lit, you can clearly see the actors faces, but when they color the footage, they darken it, color it very heavily etc. That kind of coloring isn't really possible with an a72, so you'd have to shoot your footage to look very similar to how you want the final product to look in terms of exposure.

If you really want to learn to shoot, just grab a friend and do a little day trip each weekend out somewhere, film the trip, and make a little 30 second video to some good music to practice shooting with a purpose, editing, and learn to do basic coloring. That will make you learn really fast.

>>3140855
Come on man, don't believe that meme. Yeah, maybe a scene or two, but it was a minor pick up shot for something small. It's just not possible, simply because those movie are output at 4k res, a 5dmk2 video will look like complete ass on a big screen. One of my friends actually made a movie that was put in theaters, and they filmed some shots that required a small camera because of confined spaces, and when I watched the movie at the theatre it was painfully obvious which scenes used it.

>>3140854
in terms of importance when trying to achive a ~*Look*~

lighting and color grading > camera or lens specs

File: 20120509_hiRes_avengers_9.jpg (106KB, 660x438px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 660x438px

>>3140855
>>3140953

>Yeah, maybe a scene or two, but it was a minor pick up shot for something small

Want to correct this statement. I just looked it up. They were literally just cameras that were cheap enough to blow up and not give a shit about damaging for a half second clip

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2012:05:08 14:57:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	660
Image Height	438

Wow good stuff guys thanks!!

File: AEFE2F6E-3C56-4D7E-AB2D-FAC219428649.jpg (93KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x428px

Also, what is the best lens for the mk2? Running a sony 1.8 50mm right now and kinda not impressed so far...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	ILCE-7M2 v3.30
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:28 19:45:06
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	4.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	428
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3140854
More importantly than a massive gear phallus syndrome, you'll need understanding of light and colour.

>>3141778
zeiss 55 1.8