noa

One thing needs to be said about Samsung, they sure seem to listen to usercomplaints and provide fixes fast, they probably have learned from Blackmagic how not to do it.

​Ray Roman charges 9K + for a wedding and still prefers to shoot with a soft looking 5DIII and his main camera, a 1Dc and he still shoots everything in 1080p, he had a c300 but didn't like to use it and returned it, for wedding work the c300II is overkill, even for very high end ones.

No-one has even shot anything with the camera but you already know the IQ it's going to be better then "a" Alexa?

No-one has even shot anything with the camera but you already know the IQ it's going to be better then "a" Alexa?

​This particular video has nothing to do with weddings, it's a preplanned production set, everything you see in that film is staged, you can make any camera look good in such a situation. Don't know if you ever have shot a wedding, their is no-one that says "action!" , there are no second takes and if you have to shoot from inside a venue directly into the sunlight during a ceremony that's just bad luck.

I have shot 6400 iso on the gh4 in 4k and it looks fine when downscaled into a 1080p project, that's why low light is not a issue for those camera's, ofcourse a c100 or a7s will shoot cleaner and can go higher in iso but why would you, if I can show a candlelit venue the way I can see it with my eyes when using a gh4 I don't need a a7s to turn night into day, I just need to show it like it was and then 3200 iso and a f2.0 lens are already sufficient.
Also remember, we are not talking high end commercial productions here for corporations, these weddingsfilms are for regular people that can't tell the difference between a image from a sony a6000 and a canon 1dc, as long as you manage to get the content right and have sufficient skill and talent to use your camera's at their best and edit it into a compelling piece then the gear doesn't matter. Almost all current camera offerings below 1500 dollar are suitable camera's to cover weddings, even high end, with.

I would, I just would use a tripod and make a static shot, that will work fine, sure any pixel peepers will notice that those parts, like very small roof tiles don't have any real detail in them but at least you won't get any dancing lines across your screen when you pan. You can be sure that any person, that is not a enthusiastic videographer, will ever notice this "problem", it's only us videonerds that see the artifacts.

With Sony you never know, they breed like rabbits but in the end you can't wait forever, if you are planning to get the a7s tomorrow and it does what you expect from it just start using it and don't visit the internet anymore so you won't be disappointed if the a7sII is announced in 2 days.

With Sony you never know, they breed like rabbits but in the end you can't wait forever, if you are planning to get the a7s tomorrow and it does what you expect from it just start using it and don't visit the internet anymore so you won't be disappointed if the a7sII is announced in 2 days.

With Sony you never know, they breed like rabbits but in the end you can't wait forever, if you are planning to get the a7s tomorrow and it does what you expect from it just start using it and don't visit the internet anymore so you won't be disappointed if the a7sII is announced in 2 days.

With Sony you never know, they breed like rabbits but in the end you can't wait forever, if you are planning to get the a7s tomorrow and it does what you expect from it just start using it and don't visit the internet anymore so you won't be disappointed if the a7sII is announced in 2 days.

​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. 

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...

​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.

​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.
 

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.
 

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.

​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.

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.

I don't disagree with the order of your top 5 but I do with the price you continue to mention of a second hand 1Dc and using that as an argument to have it on the top of your list as well, that's not a 5K camera, it still is a 12000 dollar camera. That's the same like waiting a few years and to buy a used gh4 for 500 dollar and comparing it against 200 dollar camera's and then saying it's the best camera money can buy or buying a old Alexa camera and saying it's better then a new 1DC.
The 1Dc is on top of your list just because you where able to buy it second hand, if that was not the case the a7s would be on top of your list and you still would be trashing the 1DC and adding points to your top 25 list why the a7s is a better camera. It now looks more you are trying to justify your purchase.
As I see it "new" price should be taken into consideration as well when comparing camera's and then the 1DC doesn't even belong on that list and should be compared to camera's in the same price range.
 

I don't disagree with the order of your top 5 but I do with the price you continue to mention of a second hand 1Dc and using that as an argument to have it on the top of your list as well, that's not a 5K camera, it still is a 12000 dollar camera. That's the same like waiting a few years and to buy a used gh4 for 500 dollar and comparing it against 200 dollar camera's and then saying it's the best camera money can buy or buying a old Alexa camera and saying it's better then a new 1DC.
The 1Dc is on top of your list just because you where able to buy it second hand, if that was not the case the a7s would be on top of your list and you still would be trashing the 1DC and adding points to your top 25 list why the a7s is a better camera. It now looks more you are trying to justify your purchase.
As I see it "new" price should be taken into consideration as well when comparing camera's and then the 1DC doesn't even belong on that list and should be compared to camera's in the same price range.
 

Well this blog IS heavily opinion based, just look at the 1DC dynamic range discussion vs the A7s, everyone has a different opinion about which camera has more DR. Andrew would be better off just to go outside and shoot something pretty with his 1DC so we can stop pixelpeeping.