A cabinet full of radioactive vintage lenses is an appropriately eccentric starting point for a camera review built around interchangeable glass. Markiplier quickly turns that enthusiasm into the central argument for GoPro’s Mission 1 ILS: a remarkably small $699 camera that can accept Micro Four Thirds lenses and, in his view, produce footage credible enough for serious filmmaking. His fascination with lenses gives the presentation a personal angle rather than making it feel like a conventional specification rundown.
The headline comparison pits the ILS against a RED Komodo-X, but the actual cost discussion is more nuanced than a simple $700-versus-$7,000 contest. Markiplier notes that the RED body starts around $7,000 and that a working cinema configuration with lens and accessories costs substantially more, while his GoPro setup reaches roughly $1,500 once a lens, monitor, and audio accessory are included. His incredulity that a RED handle alone costs about as much as the GoPro provides a memorable illustration of how dramatically different these equipment ecosystems can be.
More useful than the price shock is the attempt to compare images using vintage Minolta lenses from the same family and era, with slightly different focal lengths selected to approximate similar fields of view. Markiplier says the GoPro sometimes looks better to him and emphasizes its 4K 240 fps capability against the RED’s lower maximum frame rate at that resolution. The footage-driven approach gives viewers something tangible to judge, but this is not a controlled technical test. Different cameras, somewhat different lenses, largely straight-out-of-camera impressions, and the presenter’s admission that he is not a colorist make claims that the ILS “beats” or matches the RED better understood as his visual assessment under these conditions than a comprehensive finding about camera performance.
To his credit, the limitations of the cheaper system are not completely ignored. The RED records RAW, while the GoPro records high-bitrate 10-bit compressed video and offers GP-Log 2 for additional grading flexibility. Markiplier correctly frames RAW here as an advantage in post-production flexibility rather than automatically treating the recording format as proof of superior imagery. His explanation of log capture is deliberately simplified, but it communicates why filmmakers might want more latitude without burying newcomers in technical terminology.
Size is where the ILS makes its clearest practical case. Markiplier repeatedly contrasts the heavy RED rig with a GoPro body so small that even a compact lens appears large beside it, then connects that difference to actual production problems he encountered while making Iron Lung. He describes situations involving blood, crawl spaces, difficult camera placement, cleanup, and VFX removal where additional tiny cameras could have provided useful angles with considerably less logistical trouble. Those production examples are much more persuasive than declaring the camera “cinema quality,” because they demonstrate a specific role that a compact interchangeable-lens camera could fill regardless of whether it replaces a conventional cinema body.
Accessibility becomes the broader theme as the review moves toward students and aspiring filmmakers. Markiplier argues that a film class, AV club, or beginning filmmaker could acquire multiple inexpensive rugged cameras for the cost of a single cinema body, allowing learners to experiment more freely and accept the possibility of damaged equipment. His enthusiasm is infectious, and his own intention to incorporate the ILS into future productions gives the endorsement practical weight. Still, statements that an entire film could be made with it or that it will become a “no-brainer” for studio productions are predictions and personal judgments, not conclusions established by the comparison shown here.
The largest qualification is commercial rather than technical: GoPro sponsors the presentation, and viewers are directed to purchase through Markiplier’s link or code. He explicitly says he is not being paid to make his favorable comparative judgment, but the broader presentation remains sponsored and overwhelmingly enthusiastic. There is little examination of potential disadvantages such as workflow limitations, battery behavior, heat, low-light performance, dynamic range under demanding conditions, audio workflow, rolling shutter, reliability over extended takes, or other factors that could matter in production. As an enthusiastic filmmaker’s demonstration of an unusually compact tool, it is engaging and informative; as a definitive $700-versus-$7,000 camera test, it needs substantially more controlled testing and critical scrutiny.
Pros
- Connects the camera’s small size to specific filmmaking problems encountered during Iron Lung, making the practical argument unusually concrete.
- Provides real comparative footage and attempts to keep the lens characteristics reasonably similar with vintage Minolta glass.
- Clearly acknowledges important recording differences between the GoPro’s compressed 10-bit footage and the RED’s RAW capabilities.
- Explains log recording and post-production flexibility in approachable terms for newcomers.
- Makes a persuasive case for inexpensive, compact cameras as educational and experimental filmmaking tools.
- Markiplier’s experience using RED cameras and making a theatrical film gives useful context to why he values a tiny secondary production camera.
Cons
- The sponsored relationship and purchase link create an obvious commercial context around an exceptionally positive assessment.
- Claims that the GoPro matches or sometimes beats the RED are based primarily on visual impressions rather than controlled measurements or a comprehensive production test.
- The $700-versus-$7,000 framing compares body prices even though the demonstrated GoPro configuration is later estimated at roughly $1,500.
- Important areas such as dynamic range, low-light performance, overheating, battery life, rolling shutter, extended recording, and production reliability receive little or no evaluation.
- Predictions about widespread studio adoption and the camera’s suitability for shooting an entire film go beyond what the demonstration establishes.
Markiplier makes an unusually compelling case for the ILS by focusing on what a tiny interchangeable-lens camera could enable rather than pretending specifications alone determine filmmaking value. His production experience and comparative footage make the enthusiasm meaningful, but the sponsorship, limited testing, and lack of sustained attention to weaknesses prevent the RED comparison from functioning as a definitive technical verdict. As a demonstration of an accessible filmmaking tool, however, it is energetic, specific, and genuinely persuasive.
