sandro

For under $1000 I remember the Nikon D5300 wasn't that bad at high ISO.

Bringing this back to life, this time with a picture :

I mean... Better?... Hard to say, IMO. I still have both, and can't bear to part with either. The range on the S lens is definitely more preferable than the sigma, being wider and longer, and the stabilization is pretty stellar (combine it with DIS and lateral handheld movements of the camera can look like a straight-up slider shot) and of course it's a wonderful lens for stills, but the main thing that keeps me using the sigma for video is that buttery smooth focus ring (and the constant f/1.8 of course).
I do think it's really cool you can electronically change the S lens's focus throw and sensitivity, but it's still just not the same as actual mechanical focussing, at least for me. 
But either way, gorgeous shot (as usual!!) @ricardo_sousa11

At this point the problem is not Canon but people that keep buying it.

Definitely not. First of all they're only designed to cover a cropped sensor circle, so even if it were possible they'd vignette like crazy, but that's  besides the point anyway seeing as they're specifically designed for the mirrorless NX mount and flange distance, meaning there's no way you could shove a piece of glass in there and expect it to be focuseable. 

after week long extensive tests, I finally come to conclusion that I'd use Gamma DR standard with -15 sharpness and MB15 for a uniform and flat skintone look, this look is good when the actor has no makeup but for more gritty look I use gamma C which gives more color depth especially on cheeks are more red than the rest of the face however I recommend makeup to smooth the face "BB CREAM" works nicely.
I didn't like -4 sat and -3 contrast nor -4 contrast and 0 sat because no matter what you do you can't return the pure black back on, if you adjust black level or contrast it affects the entire image, that's why GammaC is very good for darker tones, like horror, thriller, mystery but Gamma DR is good for comedy, romance. 
For nature, outdoor, buildings I prefer Gamma C, this is because it has much less macroblocking in the blue channels "sky basically" unless your sky is cloudy maybe you want Gamma DR. 
with Gamma C you want to expose to 0 this is because its blacks are darker, for Gamma DR I underexpose to -3. 
remember we are using 8bit color, professionals use 16bit color for flat profile because they have the headroom to do the grading, our cameras have to be adjusted as close as possible to your final look otherwise it will start breaking up especially walls, skys and flat surfaces where repetition of pixels occur. 
I also ordered a lens filter glass "Tiffen Black Satin 1" this is so I can smooth out the face's blemishes, because the camera is too sharp in order to reduce macroblockings which occur when there is too much details in sky, flat surfaces ect..you cant fix this in post it has to be fixed before the image hits the censor. 
Also thanks to this forum for my research, I tried all your settings, without them I wouldn't have come to my personal conclusion

This is great news finally 10bit rec
it be nice to have slowmo lets say 240fps in 1080p since its 2016(gredytalk) 
nice 4k downsampled from 6
ibis that works with metabones
i can alredy imagine this baby with my sigma art collections ☺️
Panny TAKE MY MONEY!!!
 

At this point the problem is not Canon but people that keep buying it.

At this point the problem is not Canon but people that keep buying it.

Where have I heard all this before....?
Oh that's right, after every single camera Canon has released. Same complaints. And all the prior times cameras that where so so hated like the 5Dmkiii, C300, C100, 1DC and XC10 all ended up being loved in the end.
Why is that, what was it that made all the hate go away....?
Oh that's right, people actually used it instead of looking at numbers and charts.
No I'm not a fanboy, don't own a canon and won't buy the 5Div. But I know the story.
Same thing with the XC10. It was almost only the fact that it got so much hate that interested me enough to buy it. I was the first to give it a positive review, since I had actually used it. And man did I had to sit through pissed of comments.
The reason I think history will repeat itself is that its Canon. People always glance at a spec paper and think they automatically have the whole picture. They think a huge company and market leader like Canon would just put something together and not think it through very very very very very veeeery thoroughly. 
My money is on they knowing exactly what they are doing. And I don't think we are going to see thread after thread about bad color, fpn, over heating, etc.
Personally I might get an mkiii again when they drop.
I prepared a bit by buying an even older member of their top prosumer line. So yes, by tomorrow I own a Canon and therefore by forum law I will be a Fanboy-sheep-idiot-uneducated-noob. Basically anything accept someone who likes the camera, because the specs makes that impossible...

Here is the crop in 1080P.

4k crop mode aimed at the sky.

At this point the problem is not Canon but people that keep buying it.

Pretty childish of them if you ask me.

Great work and I really like the song!

Here's one way to get the camera close to a realistic skin tone.
 

wouldn't be nice to have the nx1 tech inside a d750 nice body with a ff sensor at hearth? just saying.

I just wanted to share a fun passion project I just finished for an artist named "Fleurie". We shot all this in my living room and I did all the VFX in Apple Motion 5. Shot 4k with a7SII but delivered HD (my computer wouldn't handle 4k 3d graphics well). Just thought I'd share! Let me know if you have any questions about it. I had fun making it
 

That's why movies are so popular. It's an escape from the norms of life.

We die..

The biggest issue with life is that there is no structures, no resolution, no ending.
There is no order.
It's a mass of complete randomness, where being good or bad does not matter.  Some times you get caught, some times you don't.  
Just an endless mess, floating in space, a turtle's hallucination.
Vs film - a good film - it takes you on an emotional complex journey - a window into characters that are interconnected and with emotions and ideas that matter.
It all matters in there.
A good film can be better than life itself, just like a good book, a good video game - an experience that elevates you to another place.
With the scam chapter on this camera nerd site not closed - it will never be closed.
It will continue forever.  There will never be a resolution.  The scam artist will not learn his lesson and become a good human being.
Life is strangly unwritten and messy and frustrating and we're all just floating around in it.  Never to know what we should have done better.

I have the NX1, mainly I shoot weddings, corporate stuff, and small commercials. The Sigma 18-35 lives on my camera, absolutely stellar lens. When I need wider, the Rokinon 12mm f/2 is very small, very light, and very sharp. Mid range, I'm in love with the Zeiss/Contax 50mm f1.7, which has a certain je ne sais quoi that renders things so, so beautifully. Long end, the Rokinon 85mm T1.5 gives that jaw-dropping, ultra-shallow look, awesome for narrative stuff too.

As far as vintage lenses go, I'm not sure why some posters above have said the NX1 has a "problem" with them. 95% of the time I use the lenses mentioned above, but once I get my hands on one of those new dream-come-true NX-L speedboosters Lucubutera has been cooking up, I'll be using my full frame vintage glass much more. I own the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, gorgeous, extremely sharp lens. Minolta Rokkor 40mm f2 looks great, Zeiss Jena 35mm f/2.4 is on point, Canon FD 50mm 1.4 looks great, Tokina 24-70 f/2.6-2.8 has a very distinct, vintage glow to it with the NX sensor... let's see, what else... Ah yes, the above-mentioned Helios-44 is awesome, 58mm is kind of interesting focal length to play around with, and that signature swirly bokeh is super cool.  

I can go all day, I've got way too many lenses, I'm afraid it's a bit of an addiction at this point. But the take-away is, there is an absolute wealth of great, affordable glass to be had for the NX1 (or any mirrorless camera for that matter) that can fit a wide variety of looks you might be after, whether it be the ultra-contrasty/ultra-sharp modern look, low-con vintage haze and dreaminess, vintage swirly bokeh... There's not really any "right or wrong" answers, it just comes down to the look you're after, and how much you're willing to spend to get it. 

I think the mythical "motion cadence", separated from rolling shutter, is down to how different codecs and cameras compress motion and how that affects motion blur. Pretty much without exception people pick RAW cameras as ones that have best motion cadence - because there's no compression or artifacting affecting the motion. Then after that come the cameras that do Prores or other flavours of high bitrate codecs, and dead last are the ones that compress the image to ludicrous degrees with interframe codecs such as Sony cameras or GH4.
The best motion comes from a camera with a fast sensor readout and high bitrate compression or RAW. Imho that's all the magic there is to it.

You guys are extraordinaire. GH4 a bad Motion look ingé fake and electronic. Not it does not make sense. Pure BS, and I bet 1000$ I can find you multiple GH4 videos that look way more filmic than any video you have ever made on any of your canons. 
 
Anyway, canon is releasing a XC15 in September. Curious to see what will evolve...
Such a shame that they crippled so much the 5D. What I don't understand though is why Nikon who does not have an EOS Cinema line to protect does not push great video features. Imagine a D750 with full video capability (FF 4K with Nikon flat profile,...)