Leaderboard

Dear friends, just coming back to the title of this thread.. I have both, Sony A7s II and Samsung NX1, and I know very well both. Yesterday I have tried for first time the Zeiss Distagon 28 f/2 Zf.2 on NX1, and my friends, in the screen of my laptop I've seen God. Great 3D, amazing colors, incredibly alive images, an interstellar trip. Never seen something like that on my Sony A7s II. And the world still ignores this prodigious camera called NX1. I know, I should get over it, but I cannot.

Click bait

It is an interesting article about mirrorless cameras, and a confirmation of my view that one of the major strengths of the NX system were the -not so many, but most quite good- lenses. "Sony — NEX is history. But so, it appears, is the A5xxx. Really? The crop sensor Sony line is now a series of three cameras each of which is a "stick more sensor tech in it" version of the former? I fail to see how this is a useful strategy. Things that were wrong with the A6000 are still wrong with the A6500 (and A6300 in between). And when all is said and done these cameras seem a lot more GameBoy than anything else on the market. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but... Note to Sony executives: You're making the same mistake Nikon made with DX, and Canon made with EF-S and is making with EF-M. Samsung made lenses for their NEX-clone that clearly bettered what you put out. You can put all the tech you want at the sensor, but it's the optics out front that are hurting your image quality, not the sensor. What I'd give for Samsung's 16mm f/2.4, 20mm f/2.8, 30mm f/2, 45mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, and 85mm f/1.4 in a Sony E-mount. And no, your Sony 16mm, 20mm, 30mm don't even come close." http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-latest-state-of-mirrorl.html unfortunately, even someone mentioning the NX system is news for us! It would be interesting if anyone could make a similar evaluation for the NX system in the end of 2017, almost 2018. I see the system being used from some of us until 2020 at least.

Rather yet... are the photography elements so much better than what the G80/G81/G85 offers (which supposedly will continue to be its own line-up)? Currently body price of a G80: around 700 EUR. The G9 comes in at 1700! 1000 bucks for... a gorgeous (by the looks of it) EVF and uh... a top LCD? Ok, maybe a bit better photography performance, but again 1000 bucks worth of improvements? I think not. And a 200mm f/2.8 lens that's like 3000,- bucks? When you can have the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO with 1.4x TC with more flexbility for half? Not sure what they've been smoking. If they want to take the battle to the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and their own G80/81/85 and GH5, they should've come up with a gamechanger. I get the need for a more professional flagship for the stills shooters that have no interest in paying a premium for advanced filmmaking features. But this lack those and is up there in price range!? Actually, effectively the deal I managed to get on my GH5 turned out to be 400 bucks cheaper than that! Maybe they thought 'well, to those who can afford a 3000,- bucks lens, they're probably willing to shell out another 1700 for a camera = profit'. And on the other hand it's also a bit of a 'fuck you' to people heavily invested in the MFT system, it's like 'we know you're more or less stuck in the system, so we're going to drive the prices up and you'll still buy 'em!'. Anyways. At the end of the day this is their photography flagship now. So... don't be too surprised about the disappointing video specs.

I like the way the iPhone processing handles highdyanmic range scenes without HDR. I wish my Nikon could spit out jpgs/video the way the iPhone does, it actually renders similar to the way your eye sees it, but the small sensor just can't deliver such DR so it looks desaturated and noisy/noise-reduction. The big cameras really need to catch up on the software side, and even the raw processors are falling behind (adobe camera raw,etc)

new short video of my visit at the Zaanse Schans. Now with the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 and speedbooster NXL paired with my NX1, Bolex 16/32/1.5x and HCDNA.... a lot of lenses. Not sure if I wil continue this setup...

I have done extensive documentary editing using 4K XAVC-S and GH5 files using FCPX on 2015 and 2017 iMac 27 and 2014, 2015 and 2016 MacBook Pro 15. I used Premiere extensively from CS4 through CS6 and have a Premiere CC subscription but mainly use it for testing. Obtaining smooth editing performance on 4K K264 is difficult on almost any hardware or software. Unlike Premiere, FCPX uses Intel's Quick Sync acceleration for H264 and is much faster on the same Mac hardware -- yet even FCPX can be sluggish without proxies. Using 1080p proxies, FCPX is lightning fast at 4K on any recent Mac, even a 2013 MacBook Air. However compute-intensive effects such as Neat Video or Imagenomic Portraiture can slow down anything, no matter what the hardware or editing software. Editing 4K H264 using Premiere on a Mac tends to be CPU-bound, not I/O or GPU bound. You can see this yourself by watching the CPU and I/O with Activity Monitor. iStat Menus ver. 6 also allows monitoring the GPU. The I/O data rate for 4K H264 is not very high, and using proxies it's even lower. Using I/O optimizations like SSD, RAID, etc, tends to not help because you're already bottlenecked on the CPU. This is a generalization -- if you are editing four-angle multicam off a 5400 rpm USB bus-powered portable drive, then you could be I/O bound. I have done a lot of back-to-back testing of a 2014 vs 2016 top-spec MBP when editing 4K H264 XAVC-S and GH5 material using FCPX. The 2016 is much faster, although I'm not sure how representative this would be for Premiere. On FCPX my 2017 iMac 27 is about 2x faster than the 2015 iMac (both top spec) when transcoding or exporting H264 from FCPX. I think this is due to the improved Kaby Lake Quick Sync, but am not sure. A top-spec 2017 MBP might be considerably faster than your 2014 but this depends a lot on the software. Comparing top-spec configurations, the GPU is about 2x faster but the CPU only modestly faster. It might be enough to compensate while staying on Premiere, especially if your problem was GPU. But I'm suspicious why it's so slow if using 720p proxies. In my testing Premiere was very fast on 4K H264 if using proxies. This makes me think it's Warp stabilizer or some effect slowing it down. Can you reproduce the slowdown without any effects? Without effects does the extreme sluggishness only diminish or does it go away entirely? Resolve performance has been greatly improved in the latest version and in some benchmarks it's as fast as FCPX. You might want to consider that. FCPX is very good but it's a bigger transition from a conceptual standpoint, whereas Resolve is track-oriented like Premiere is.

I have had the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for a while. As a shooter who prefer prime lenses its simply amazing. Very happy. So... naturally I started thinking if I maybe made a mistake buying the Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 over the Sigma 50-100/1.8. The Tamrom is awesome, highly recommend it. Truly great. Still... I knew I could get every single penny back on the Tamron since I found it with a major discount. And the local store had a used Sigma. So I went to check it out. And I don't know if it was faith or if the seller knew that dogs are a big part of my photography (both at home and professionally). But all of a sudden this little guy was sitting in the store in front of me. Nedless to say, after reviewing the files I went back and bought it. So now I have 18mm all the way to 100mm f1.8 with only two lenses.

I tested the 2016 13" and 15" extensively with 4K Sony XAVC-S files. I ended up staying with the 13" with an eGPU solution: With Resolve an eGPU makes a BIG difference, but with FCPX you can do without. The 2017 allows for hardware decoding of 10bit H265 files but the current version of FCPX does not. For the smoothest editing you will still want to transcode, but it definitely works fine even with the original XAVC-S files. I am very happy with the performance, and you should be fine with 2017 15" as long as you stay away from Premiere

Here lays the misunderstanding. "A little better", "top display looks pro", "a little faster", etc. For a full time stills shooter these are huge features. Flat out deal breakers. Remember, your needs aren't rarely everyone else's.

The iPhone WILL Do commercial (Bentley?) work because photographers and videographers are fallible and corruptible. And Apple has in a new offshore in Jersey stashed hundreds of biliions of dollars from US tax authorities, which it is willing to pay judges, photographers and videographers, and various other individuals. The V30 followed this when it had a face-off with a RED. Though the level of shamelessly is nowhere near the limit iPhone indulges in.

I'd buy a GH5 regardless. I haven't seen much that suggests this will be so much better than the GH5 I'd rather pay the extra US$200 and get the GH5's extra video features. Of course if reviews suggest so I might be more inclined to it. Not at US$3k though, that is an insane price for a 200/2.8.

FWIW I think you should try Andrew's Pro Log S. There's a certain "depth" that it has which SL3 just doesn't have. I'm seeing the same thing in your vids, @kidzrevil: in the SL3 shots there's less separation between people and background as with SL2. If anything, shoot how you want with SL3 to preserve code values in the shadows and then use a conversion LUT to transform it to SL2 and regrade and I'd be interested in seeing you share the results. I want to see if it's the increased contrast of the curve or if maybe the extra shadow codes are actually too much... not sure what it is. (I have a comparison video I made for Andrew at https://www.eoshd.com/2017/09/user-reviews-test-films-eoshd-pro-color-pro-log/)

I wanted to delete this (my) post. I wish the OP would tell us something we don't already know about current smartphones in general. Or say something like "iPhone X is Better than GH5" so we could try to run him out of town What I'd say is the iPhone X shows that these phones will NEVER do commercial work. All improvements are mostly in computational photography, multi image synthesis, etc. They simply don't have the sensor size or horsepower to keep up with today's expectations. Think about it, there still isn't RAW video on any consumer camera. I'm actually surprised. The only reason to buy an iPhone X is to impress your friends. There, you can flame me now

Yeah WTF is this? $1700 and it doesn’t even have the 200mbps 1080p?!?! The pricing of their camera lines make no sense. This is a $1200 camera at best.

Good to know! And thats $1500 Canadian, which is still really steep imho. I could buy another 5D MKIII for that price! Actually all-in I could've bought a 1DX MKII at this point!!!

The specs actually do look to be pretty solid, but it's priced far too high. Unless you really need the higher photo burst speed (and can live with the loss of V-Log and, presumably, unlimited recording times), I can't see much reason to go with this over the GH5.

Yeah for DSLR's etc i kinda agree. But when you look at cinema cameras. And you want to do some handheld walking shots, and dont have the time or the right equipment. This might come in handy. Like running around with a Alexa (+-9kg), you would need to have a good vest + arm + steadycam. It weights alot + takes quite some time to set up + you need a experienced operator. So sometimes you go handheld instead to save time and your back. And this might be a handy addon (not sure until I have seen some raging reviews on it). I am not saying you should do this over a glidecam/gimbal, it will never be as good. But for those times that you need to shoot handheld (but I would surely account for the crop, and shoot a bit wider).

for some reason that reminded me of Ghost Dad. Anyways, I would pull a reversed green screen skydiver effect (should be plenty of tuts and examples), where the talent isn't lying down on a green block (if you can't have them dangling down) on their belly, but rather with their back (unless of course they're sleeping on their belly). It just has more flair to it with the arms dangeling backwards and downwards... (at least for the leaving the body sequence, you can make it more superman-flying-around-like thereafter... or even like the 'shooting stars meme' xD) more or less like that typical illusion where the magician makes his assistance 'float'. Then composite that footage into your scene.

Everything that you love about GH5 and hate about the EVA1 ...

MKE600 is probably the best mic of its category (it is for me). Sennheiser MKE440, got the right price, good build quality, stereo - but directional, much wider than just a shotgun but not too wide. I would rather put something like this on a camera than any shotgun mic, even if it was a 8060 or a Schoeps, shotgun mics are not supposed to be mounted on cameras.

I wouldn't hold your breath on 10bit

We had the same topic on the GH5...

Shot in 4k in V-Log L, just fixed it roughly with FilmConvert and some tweaking... but I shot in Aperture priority because I forgot my NDs and that was just the export for IG in super low bitrate (Instagram always turns it into mush anyway). I think the Voigtländer lenses are plenty sharp enough, even though everyone and his dog says they're soft when wide open.

I don't have any experience with outer bodies.. but here is how I would go about it: Green screen + opacity blend for the translucent body moving around. Another long blend between the ceiling and a starry sky + the previous layer of the translucent body. If you don't have the budget for hanging the actor then he/she can lye down on the floor mimicking the upwards motion. Does that make any sense? I can recall several translucent bodies moving around but none up in space.

Thanks again. I will look into that link. I appreciate all the help.

new shirt film of an afternoon in Amsterdam

if I had known the Shwedagon Pagoda would give such an incredible array of colour in sky and location when I happened to be there whilst magical twilight descended, I would have brought a tripod to stabilise my NX1 with 16 -50, never the less incredible colour and the VIDEO viewed on an 8000 series Samsung 4K is UNREAL I mean almost 3D REAL unreal . Untouched Jpeg