noa

​25p on the EM1 and EM5, how hard can that be...

You said it's your friends first camera and he is a 100% novice but at the same time you ask if a certain camera is right for cinema, I think he first needs to learn the basics of shooting video and the cheapest camera he can find will be more then fine for that purpose, you can shoot "cinema" with a second hand 550d and one 35mm lens if you want, he first needs to learn how to tell a story. 

Thanks all for the info so far, I know a 8mm might sound crazy wide for some of you but the 12mm f2.0 Olympus lens I"m using now has been too narrow in some cases in the GH4 4K mode, I use that lens on a steadicam (a blackbird) in venues at weddings, during the first dance I want to be able to get the couple on entirely on screen and often that's not possible because I"m too close towards them and can't move back. The 12mm is actually not so wide in such a case.

I also need a lens that is at least f2.0, anything slower is useless because I have to work with available light which is often candles, so unless I would get a a7s and spend a lot of money getting it with a fast zoom lens as well I'd like to try a alternative which is why these small c-mount lenses came to my attention, the problem is there is hardly any testfootage available and just getting it to see if it's ok could be a expensive try if it doesn't work out.

About that Olympus 8mm f1.8, now that sounds much more interesting, didn't hear about that, thx for the tip! In that case I"ll wait a bit longer to see how much it will be priced.

Thx for your explanation, the manufacturer gave me this link: http://www.mengelengineering.dk/shop/index.php/imaging-optics/machine-vision-optics/5-megapixel-resolution-lenses/vs-technology-h1-series-1-4-8-megapixel-machine-vision-lens.html

They said they where going to test a batch of modified M43 adapters in the near future which would be posted when they where done so that might be very interesting, the only concern based from your comment would then be the infinity focus. 

In my search for a wide and fast lens for my GH4 I came across a video of a user that tested a Navitar 8mm f1.4 lens on his GH4 which looked surprisingly good, I do have a 12mm f2.0 lens which is fine for most occasions but often wished I had a wider lens that was at least f2.0 to be able to shoot in dark venues.

The supplier of these lenses, Mengel Engineering, is working on a m4/3 adapter as their c-mount doesn't seem to fit regular c-mount to m4/3 adapters and need to be adjusted by the user, the supplier recommended their "VS Technology H1-series 1" 4-8 Megapixel Machine Vision Lens" as they are higher spec then the Navitar lenses and they seem to fit c-mount to m4/3 adapter with just some minor machining.

Is there anyone that has experience with these lenses in combination with a GH4, like is there much vignetting and does it retain sharpness across the frame? Is it a lot of work to adjust the adapters to make the lenses fit? The 8mm f1.4 is not exactly cheap (778 euro excl taxes) and since there is hardly any information online or any way to test these I was hoping to find some users that could share their experience.

​Is it known when Olympus could announce new or updated models?

It's weird and it almost looks to me "doug gerber" is someone advertising for Ray Romans workshop or just trying to bring it to our attention, Doug posted the exact same question on dvinfo.net which I answered but right after that the entire message was deleted from the board which is very unusual since only someone with a admin status can do that, also there he was a first time poster. It might be a coincidence but Ray has a new workshop about to start and he is advertising for that on dvinfo.

Maybe I"m just being paranoia...

4K on the em1 was also rumored on this site in an article published September last year, as long as there is no official announcement it still is a rumor and not worth talking about. 

​

Was there a official announcement from Olympus or is this a rumor?

​do you shoot a lot of wildlife? Just asking if you would consider being able to shoot with telelenses important.

I will believe it when I see it, Samsung needs a group of hackers to provide extra features on a camera? Taking Canon as an example it looks more to me that the features are already there at the start but it's the manufacturer who decides which features will be unlocked and it's the ML team that has unlocked doors that Canon did not want to be opened.

Still motion, who don't shoot weddings anymore but also other high end wedding videographers have a monopod as a standard tool for run and gun and most shoot with unstabilized primes. If you shoot handheld with a unstabilized 50mm or 100mm macro that's piratically impossible to keep steady, your footage will be full of small jitters, a monopod takes most of that away but there still will be small vibrations visible just from holding the camera or supporting the lens with your hands, if you use a stabilized lens on a monopod the result will even be better. Only when you shoot on a tripod you shot turn of the IS. 

​You sound a lot like those many old school photographers I encounter at weddings that have their origin in analog photography, back in a time where photography was considered a specialty only to be executed by those few that had the knowledge to handle a camera having to carefully select which and how many photo's to take, not knowing what to expect until the photo's where developed which again was a specialty of it's own, at least over here you needed a license to even be allowed to develop photos if you where planning on selling them. It was also a profession mainly executed by men, maybe because they where living in a time when woman where expected to work in the kitchen.

But then came digital photography and along a new young generation of male and female photogs with equal rights and suddenly where one village usually had one wedding photog now in every house there could be a potential photographer selling their services.

The problem I see with the old school photog's is that they don't adapt, they stick with what they know, their photography is often dated, looks the same as 20 years ago, they use the same poses, the same techniques, never try something new and still expect people to continue to pay big money for it, they often have a small store where they sell photogear or take some studio portraits but they forget there is a big store out there called the internet. They constantly complain on a wedding day how the new generation of young photogs are ruining their profession and how in the old days it all was better, basically they are just dinosaurs not realizing the comet already has hit .

The new and young generation of photogs are mixed male and female, they experiment, think outside the box and they are technically very skilled, they live on the internet, have facebook pages, share knowledge with other photogs and are able to reach a very wide audience. Ofcourse you have those cheap ones as well that undercut you by selling real cheap but you do have that in videography as well, they are no threat, they serve an audience as well, one that would never spend much on video or photo anyway. 

Photography is very much alive, at least where I live where it's easy to charge much more then what a equally skilled videographer is getting.

A static shot should not flicker like that, period. This has nothing to do if he used a nd or high shutter or just closed down the iris  to compensate, that flicker is not normal IF all settings in the camera are manual and if they are not changed during the shot, none of my camera's I ever had display this issue and I have shot at the beach right into the sun as well.

At 30 sec where that surfer walks across the screen there is a obvious flicker, I"m baffled that the guy who shot the film doesn't even notice. It looks like it only happens on quite extreme contrasts.

Seriously? Not being able to move a camera is the shooters problem? Does that mean you would have to buy a second camera if you want to introduce movement?  If you want to tell a story you don't need a 2K+ nx1 either then, just grab the cheapest camera you can get, preferably one that doesn't change exposure all by itself. 

The NX1 looks like a great camera but a shifting exposure in manual mode, based on the examples I have seen, is something that cannot be accepted if you are serious about shooting any type of film, hopefully Samsung will be able to fix it though but it is not something anyone should accept as being normal or even try to find ways to work around it.

​Just look at the second video Ed posted on the first page of this thread, there it is very obvious. For Ed this was just blooming and "normal" but it isn't, the camera is compensating, just like in Agolex example. I didn't even need to see another example to know this wasn't normal behavior of a camera in full manual mode.

Ofcourse it's not, I have been saying this from the beginning, the example Digital Ed posted looked exactly the same, that's why I asked if he could do the same test with another camera but he didn't and he keeps repeating it's bloom, it's not. It's good that you did a clear comparison that shows the issue to finally make it clear there is a problem. 

I think the confusing part is not all owners see it as an issue and tell they don't have a problem. Maybe it it's less of a problem in combination with certain lenses which might also explain why some don't have the issue or maybe it happens in specific circumstances some people have not been shooting in. Lot's of variables but all I have seen so far in user vids is a drifting exposure. That should be Samsungs first priority before even adding any new features.

I also bought his seminar for 100 dollar, there was a temporary price reduction ending last year, now it's back to 129 dollar: https://www.creativelive.com/courses/wedding-cinematography-crash-course-ray-roman

Buying and downloading is much cheaper then attending his workshops, that's for sure

I only have watched about 1/3th so far, from what I have seen he doesn't hide anything, also not his asking prices (9K is his basic price and wait untill you see his option list.) and there is certainly something to learn for everyone.

I think it's not so much about the skill and tools he uses, don't get me wrong, he is skilled and he uses Andrew's favorite camera, but he knows how to sell himself, he has created a name, much like Still-motion was able to do. Technically I find Joe Simon and also Still-Motion (who don't shoot weddings anymore) better then Ray but all have one thing in common, they are brilliant at selling themselves, in establishing a recognizable brand. Their tools they use and the way they interact with their couples during the day is often not so much different then what most of us wedding videographers already do. Only most of us only get a fraction of what Ray makes

​you keep saying that while the example video you showed proves otherwise, everyone is seeing the problem except you  For me it's clear, there is something going on with this camera that is not supposed to happen.

Digitaled, do you have another camera you could use to perform the same tests?

Just look at that bottle at 01:40 how the exposure changes everytime you tilt up and down, the exposure on the bottle doesn't stay the same, it gets darker and lighter and I see that in every scene, never seen this kind of behavior on my camera's with manual exposure. Your first video showed much worse exposure shifts but after your fix it still is not completely gone from what I can see.

They are brand new and empty? If that is the case I wouldn't worry to much, if you want to be on the safe side though you would use one HD to mirror the data from the other disc so you have a backup. Having 2 drives failing on you at the same time is like winning the lottery.

I only watched the first minute and saw that this definitely looks like a exposure compensation made by your camera, it was most clear at that door around 00:30. That " light blooming" you are referring to is that exposure shift. That is absolutely not normal behavior for a camera in manual mode. Weird thing is the camera overexposes once it hits a brighter area, if it was in automode I would expect the opposite.