Inazuma

Yeh I am foaming at the mouth a little :D I'm not saying the a6k is outright inferior, because clearly it produces great pictures. I really have no affinity to any camera or manufacturer; I've been through four different cameras in the past year. I just want people to be fair to their equipment (ie. give it a chance). Also, I guess I am a little miffed at some people disregarding my tests because Philip Bloom took some videos of his cat and pronounced it as one of the best video images in a mirrorless camera ever. I'm not even sure if iag has made proper use of his current camera? I've used all mine in various settings (from nightclub promos to amateur mountain shots) and so have a pretty good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each one. PS. Why is "foaming a the mouth" offensive? Its a common phrase,. At least where I come from.

@WDHX: Again, my comments weren't aimed at you (people who already have expensive canon lenses who are looking to get into mirrorless cameras). They're more aimed at people who already have very capable mirrorless cameras but are still looking for something "better" (ie. iag with his gx7). Tbh i'm not sure why i have become invested in this thread. It really shouldnt matter this much. I think I just don't want people to do what I have done for a long time, which is "upgrade" to the next "better" thing constantly. Anyway, here are some RAW shots from when I had the the a6000. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1094036/a6000/raw/raw.zip They're side by side comparissons with the GX7. Some at ISO400, 1600 and 3200. If you put them in lightroom, you will see how their dynamic range and noise levels are almost exactly the same. In fact I prefer the GX7 at high ISO because the noise is less chroma and you don't get purple casting when lifting the shadows.

Arrived at my office today was a Kamerar QV-1 M. I have very jittery hands, but this piece of kit has completely eliminated it :) Bought for £60 from ebay.

Please dont misunderstand me. Im not saying Canons are better for video. Far from it.

The a6000 produces a lovely overall image, yes. But you really need to stop kidding yourself about the moire-lessness and the "clean" low-light. When he zooms in to the ISO 1600 image at 1:56 you can clearly see how dancy the noise is. And as far as im concerned, you can take DXO ratings with a pinch of salt because when you look on dpreview at the Canon 6d vs other sony sensor'd full frames, you can clearly see the Canon produces less noise. And yet it's rated lower.

This is one of the reasons why I went MFT over APS-C. With a speedbooter attached, you can use APS-C lenses and get the same DOF but with one extra stop of light.

One of the first things I noticed when I compared the two camera was moire. Just look at the roof tiles on the left (top is a6000). As for RAW photos, the only difference I noticed was that the a6000 has a purple cast in the shadows when you lift them up.

Thanks. Your site seems very nice and straight forward! Just for kicks I looked up the camera I have (GX7) and saw you noted it as having some of the best auto whitebalance of any camera - which I have also found to be case, though I've never seen anyone else mention this before :) In general, how do you feel about the GH3's colour response and general IQ compared to the GH4/GX7? Reason I ask is because I want a body that's more rugged and can record higher bitrates, but don't want to sacrifice my GX7's IQ.

Tbh I think you have 'the grass is always greener' syndrome. I bought the a6000 thinking it might be better than my gx7 (the same camera you have?), but my >testing proved me wrong. I would really recommend you investing in glass or other video gear than switching systems again.

Lol iag, all your posts in this topic seems like youre foaming from the mouth with joy :lol:

But producing a f2.8 aperture for an m43 system is a lot cheaper than doing it for full frame. The material cost is way lower. In fact the barrel distortion that the 12-35 has in proper raw files shows just how much they are saving on quality and quantity of materials. Those full frame lenses are expensive, but they also feel expensive. Even the price of the new Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 is ludicrous. It's the same price as the Canon 50mm f1.2L! and the Fuji 56mm f1.2 is also about a third cheaper

I went a couple times as a child but haven't been back since. It was quite a strange experience really! No, after my d5200, I got an Olympus E-P5 but quickly exchanged it for a GX7. In April I bought an a6000 briefly just to try out but I didn't like the picture or handling compared to my GX7. The Monocam CF is the one Im planning to buy :) Did you have to pay customs/tax when it got to the UK?

It's the same concept as lighting something with magnifying glass. The magnifying glass captures light from a wide area and condenses it into a much smaller spot, thereby increasing the aomunt of light and heat that spot receives.

Thanks guys! jcs. Good points. I have bought the book now upon your recommendation :) Matt, I used to have a D5200 like you. Image was great but found it hard to control highlights (

Still can't believe Northup put up this video. The only thing I really agree with him on is that these MFT lenses are fricking expensive and that they should really make faster zooms.

I agree this thread should be a sticky rather than another subforum. Ported over from the thread I posted last night:

There's some flaws in his arguments. Yes the bigger sensor the more surface area there is to catch light. But that light is being used to cover a wider area of view. Therefore an f1.8 native APS-C lens gives the same amount of light to an APS-C sensor as a f1.8 native FF lens would give to a full frame sensor.. So although optically/mechanically the two lenses don't have the same aperture, the light given to the sensors is still the same. IE. If you put an f1.8 lens designed for a crop sensor on to a full frame sensor, the exposure would be the same as an f1.8 FF lens, but there would be a black circle because the light from this crop lens doesn't cover the full frame sensor. Also I don't know why he singles out the mirrorless camera makers of not marking their lenses "correctly" when Canon and Nikon do exactly the same thing for their crop camera lenses. Honestly, I think noise levels come down to design quality. If you look at the dpreview studio comparison shots, you can see there's a large variation in noise level even between different full frame cameras.

I switch between a Wacom tablet and a mouse. A few people at my office use a sideways mouse

Some of you may have noticed I've made quite a few opinionated posts on this forum. But the truth is that I am very new to videography. I have a background in art and animation but the whole filming and editing thing has been a gradually increasing hobby of mine for the past year or so. My plan is to write and shoot a short story by the end of the summer. So far most of my attention has been focused on gear acquisition. But I now have a fairly substantial rig (will edit post with a picture later on). Anyway, over the weekend I went out with some friends to grab footage of an abandoned theme park and mental asylum. It was a very sunny day. I shot flatly and exposed for the highlights (meaning most of the shots were at f11 or even more closed). Grading was done with Film Convert in Premiere. I think you will be impressed with the dynamic range because I managed to expose for shadowed areas whilst not blowing out outside (eg.1 minute in). So.. yeh. That's it really. I was hoping to hear some feedback off you guys if anyone has time :)

One thing you can do is to stop reading gear sites and use that time to instead do writing or reading film making sites. No film school has a good mix of gear and film making articles.

Where did you hear this? I can't see anything about that anywhere. But yes sounds like a great camera. Tempted to buy when the price drops to current R100 MkII levels.

One of my favourite independent directors has started testing the GH4 against his RED. http://danieljohnpeters.com/2014/05/14/gh4-2/

I think the fact that there's so much colour tone in the shadows at 3 secs makes it look great and remarkably un-video-like. But whatever, I'm so done with the repeated talk of "video" and "film" talk in this forum.

Why is XAVC-S so essential?

Very nice :) What lenses did you use? And I'm guessing you used Twixtor for the slomo?