Tim Fraser

I got mine today (I wanted to use it on a specific project very soon). First impressions are that Andrew is being a bit hard on the image quality but I am far from finishing my tests.
That said, here are a few things that do bother me -
- no way to adjust exposure or ISO when shooting video
- no way to do custom white balance in movie mode ( you have to go to stills mode to do this)
- no enlarged view when manually focusing in movie mode
- apparently no way to refocus using auto focus while shooting movies
- there is an INCREDIBLE crop when in movie mode. More than on the GH4 in 4K. I think this is what bothers me most of all. Totally unexpected.
But...
- build quality is beautiful
- peaking seems to work better than on my GH4
- a quick test combining shutter priority exposure, stabilisation and continuous autofocus was really good (and will be good for quick, steady walk-through shots)
My reasoning getting this was that it would (more or less) do the job of a gimbal. For what I do I just don't have time to mess around with rigging and it's not practical to have multiple cameras set up on different stabilisation devices. Despite all the drawbacks listed above, I think it might still serve the intended purpose.

If you want a Video Camera then your expectations are way too High within this price range. Go for a Canon C300 or FS700 or even the BMCC. Like the Lumix GH4 this is a fantastic little camera for impromptu shoots, pick up shots or B roll. In my case most, if not all of the content ends compressed for the web or even MPG files for playback on screens at corporations, I can assure you that 98% of the people that views the content never sees any difference (2K or 4K) much less they will be pixel peeking or moire peeking. Its all in your head. My suggestion is Spend less time jumping from one technology to another and more time creating content even better MAKING money for you. Six years ago I bought a Canon 7D when it came out and that thing shot over 90K through the years (not counting stills) However, the last 2 years it almost sat idle replaced by a FS700 that became the workhorse. For ENG, Spots and even Conventions, the reason was ergonomics and time. The Olympus is an amazing camera for its size and Price, just like the pocket cinema, It has moire? put a filter on it or tweak the settings, No Global shutter? DON'T Pan too fast.  I have shot with 75K sony Cameras that had Moire galore, not one person cared. Just my five cents.

You're both taking Olympus' poor video performance as proof of the entire m4/3 system sucking. Ever tried the GH4? BlackMagic Pocket?

I don't know Andrew, I just got one today. Connects to my Atomos, no problem, shoots pretty clean video 422 clean HDMI out. So far the picture is lovely, takes fantastic stills (which is mostly what I got it for) Replaced my clunky 7D which served me well for 5 years. Its solid (metal solid) ,Yes its 1080, but 100% of my clients and shoots still in that area and where I make my money.  Won't replace my FS700 but Its a B camera with a Gimbal included for 999 USD, I believe its a winner. 

One of my favorite 35mm (film) rangefinders is the Olympus 35SP which is a fixed lens Zuiko 42mm 1.7, which has a Super 35 cine equivalent of 28mm. So if you want to take some Super 35 @ 28mm "cine" film photos for reference, get an Olympus 35SP and buy some hand rolled ECN-2 film.

As someone else said, you'd be better off getting an a6000 or even a Nikon d5500. They both are cheaper and have better video quality. And the d5500 is really good for stills. The noise level is pretty similar to the a7r (less than a stop of difference) and the detail in the shadows is great (better than the A7 II). Not to mention the better lens selection. 

​The GH4 sensor is larger, but also higher resolution. The difference in actual pixel size isn't that extreme, the GH4 is maybe 20% larger pixels. And yes, the GH4 records to cheaper media with much smaller files. But it's also an inferior codec to record to. The XC100 is 8bit 422 internal at 305mbps. GH4 is 420 100mbps. That's a MASSIVE dump in compression.
$2500 for the XC10, or $1500 for the GH4 and another $1000 for a decent lens. Call it "oversimplifying" if you want, but it's the truth. At $2500, the GH4 has options for better lenses and a (marginally) larger sensor, but the XC10 has a substantially better codec.
In regards to the FZ1000, it may have a leica named lens, it might even be leica designed, but at that price point not a snowballs chance in hell it's leica manufactured. The FZ1000 also has smaller pixels and yet again, another inferior codec. It might get "close" to the XC10 if you have a very loose definition of the word close.

I am sorry you missed the point, and mistake questioning for hostility and competition. You invited people to try out the crop. I had done that (please read your original post). I shot with an NX500 (same camera as the OP - you) but without reducing sharpness, and it's of birds at the long end of a telephoto. So one can compare  it to a purposefully softened shot of birds that was posted. Indeed, you can download my original 4K video and blow it up to a FullHD video if you are really interested to get the 1000m equivalent (I share my videos) that does not lose detail due to artificial softness. Why do you think posting a comparable clip is a competition?
I "shared" a comparable video that was not purposely dulled. What I expected was someone to say "See, look at how artificial your video is compared to the softened one." Or, "You are right, it is interesting to see feather detail, and I do not understand why one would want to lose that and the NX500 4K crop clearly does not lose detail."   I asked why one would want a soft video. Neither the NX1 nor the NX500 produce artifact-ridden falsely sharpened video at default settings; so I ask again, what is the point of softening to lose real detail? Calling a soft video soft is not hostility since it was clearly not done mistakenly, it is an observation. Feel free to call mine falsely detailed, if you think so.
I love the idea of exploiting the crop to get up close that is the topic of this thread, and the well-exposed parrot clip is a great example, if it were not deliberately mushed up. It thus confuses how well the NX500 cropping works, the point of this thread, because of the radical softening choice. And the issue of how well NX1 and NX500 video meld together is also an interesting question, but was not the OP. In any case I do not see how either calls for eliminating detail. Look at the OP and the thread title; it is about the advantage of the NX500 crop. And then the example given is some very soft video where the softening has nothing to do with the crop. I provided an example not softened artificially so no one thinks the crop is what caused the mush.

The CX00 line has the best image rendering available short of the Alexa (worse highlight rendering than the Dragon, but much better noise pattern and low light and color) and this is a STEAL. But the C300 Mark II has some features that are really disruptive (and oddly forward-thinking) so investing now might not be the best choice, especially among the IQ-centric audience that populates enthusiast sites.
Canon (and Arri) are after the "pro" market. Which is all about "good enough" out of the box, because when you're "pro" you get paid and so hiring a crew and post team costs money. The focus isn't image quality. A low bitrate is desirable, as is an image that doesn't need (or have) much flexibility for grading... It's decent 1080p that has small file sizes in an easy-to-ingest format that attract the pros. Not because they're better or more talented (clearly they aren't judging by the quality of reality tv) but because they care about money first and a camera with small file sizes, amazing ergonomics, and a great image out of the box gets you the most for you money. For enthusiasts who enjoy grading and 4k and want the best IQ (if you like raw, don't get Canon–I can't stand raw because it wastes my time, so I love Canon)... go with something that's more techie and more fun. For wedding videographers and professional shooters on the low end, get what your clients prefer (Canon or Alexa more toward the high end).
That said, I like to judge images based on images and not specs. Canon's 1080p is sharper than anyone else's (not sharper than others' 4k, though, but 99% of the world is delivering to 1080p) and their colors are better than anyone other than maybe Arri. Sony's images have been garbage until SLOG 3 started to fix saturation clamping and color matrices but it's still nowhere near Canon level. Dragon Color is quite good, however, on the Red side. But the saturation clamping, skin tones, etc from Canon... brilliant. WideDR is a fantastic color space and Canon Log is sort of functional for what it is. 
The C300 isn't an enthusiast product, it's for pros (who care about money they can make back over image quality and about ergonomics; this is why the 1DX is 18MP to the enthusiast's 5DSR's 50+ MP but the 1DX has killer AF and durability) and so it is hard to recommend Canon to most people on this forum.
Especially when the C300 Mark II outclasses the Alexa. But it won't come cheap.

With everything being pretty dang equal IQ wise these days, I don't really agree with that.  But that's me.  I think I'd rather work on story, style, directing, etc.  I believe those are the things that really matter and impress viewers if one is trying to establish a creative film career.
However, if you're trying to impress colleagues that specialize as camera technicians I suppose it's a different story.
I just don't think that the path to being an accomplished filmmaker follows the technical side of things as much as many assume it does.  You got to walk down that road, sure, but it's not where you should do the most of your traveling.
So say I.  (aka: not an accomplished filmmaker)

I am very much against recommending a Blackmagic when you first start out. The sheer volume of support gear you need to make it work is a gigantic hurdle. I think at this point it's actually better to buy a used Hacked GH2/GH3 and buy a couple lights and lenses with your money.

Few days ago I saw this video on Richard's Vimeo channel and I must say that this FF58 Quasi 1.5 ultra low contrast looks beautiful on A7S. The image has enough detail but still has that very soft and organic feel. The other great thing is that this is a rare occasion when even if the image looks almost washed out, to me it feels great just like it is and I wouldn't change it much in post. Great job Richard is all I can say, both filming and enginering.
 

As a really old Eoshd reader, i'm excited about the possibilities that we have with the Samsung cameras using the Tizen O.S.
If Vitaly, Magic Lantern or somebody else decides to mess with this system giving us RAW, Prores, diferents aspect ratios, higher bit rates... Nx1/nx500 would be the gh2/gh3 of 2015.

It's perhaps more fair to say the FS700 at $8600 (with lens) was a compelling rival to the C300 ($15k no lens). The C300 wins in absolute detail (slightly), better skin tones out of camera, better usability, and a smaller package. The FS700 wins in slomo (up to 240fps 1080p-ish (up to 480 and 960fps at lower resolutions/cropping)), full frame support and superb low light with a Speedbooster. For fast turn-around, the C300's colors were (and still are) a major selling point. The FS700 can look great, but takes more work in post.
 If we add an Odyssey 7Q to the FS700 (bringing the price up to around $11K), this combo provides superior 10-bit ProRes, continuous 2K 240fps 12-bit raw, 120fps 4K (including raw bursts), 4K ProRes, and along with Slog2 puts it well past the C300 in terms of final image quality possible (including skin tones with post work).
The new FS7 brings 4K 10-bit 422, up to 180fps 1080p  internally, and along with improved color science, isn't just a rival for the C300, it far surpasses it. The FS7 is even doing well matched up with the ARRI Alexa/Amira! I'd hold off on the FS7 until Sony does at least one firmware update, however Sony is on the right track- giving us what we're asking for (as they have with the A7S). Samsung (NX1), Panasonic (GH4), and Sony are eager for our business- let's keep giving it to them.
The most challenging aspect of a modern digital camera is skin tones: we notice right away when they aren't good. Resolution, moire, dynamic range, highlights/shadows- most people don't notice so much. When skin tones are off, everyone notices. When skin tones look great- everyone loves the image. That's why the 5D3, even with H.264 is still popular with a relatively soft image.
I can understand there's a lot more work for camera tests shooting models/actors, however a camera test without skin tones, the most important test for the viewing public, doesn't really show how most people, both pros and consumers, will use the cameras (cats & dogs not included). To minimize the workload, setting the cameras to the best in-camera settings possible (or even selecting the best stock options- no tweaks), setting correct WB and exposure, and shooting in the same conditions makes a great camera test when comparing two or more cameras (no color work in post other than matching levels on the scopes, and converting all cameras to Rec709).

I've re-written the review based on ScreensPro's suggestion:
 
***
 
The undoubted highlight of the camera is the Baby Photo Mode which produces optimised, colourful JPEGs of your children for uploading to Facebook, though one major downside of the camera is the inability to make calls on it and upload directly to Facebook, it does include WiFi. Of less interest is 1080/60p, which is good for that 'smooth home movie look' but is really designed for slow-mo. Unfortunately slow-mo requires very expensive and complicated editing software like Adobe Premiere. The D5300 benefits from not having 10bit 4:2:2 or ProRes because you can store a year's worth of heavily compressed footage on mum's iMac from 2008 with a 120GB hard disk.
 
*12 pages of in-depth scene mode coverage*
 
Conclusion...
 
The D5300 is perfectly suited to making shitty home movies with because it lacks any kind of innovation whatsoever.
 
The Super 35mm Toshiba sensor is completely wasted on a low-end camera, but it shouldn't bother THE FAMILY MARKET, the main target of this camera, and therefore top marks 10/10.

Panasonic G6 (with 14-45 kit lens, or the 14mm f2.5), Metabones Nikon to MFT Speedbooster, Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AI-S (or a 35mm f2) and an SLR Gorrillapod. 
 
You won't outgrow that setup quickly. The G6 is basically an improved version of the GH2 and cheap as chips. It is in my opinion the perfect camera for beginners to learn video on. Get the kit lens too for those times you need a wide lens. The Speedbooster is expensive but it will retain its value for years (unlike any camera you buy). The 50mm 1.8 is beautiful and cheap and perfect for video. The Gorillapod will function as a stabiliser, shoulder brace and tripod.
 
If you do start getting into it, you can spend your money on good Nikon mount lenses that will be an investment.

Surely if he got this "AMAZING" and very expensive Nikon camera, he must have lots and lots of very nice Nikon lenses? (well.... he should, but I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't?)

Thus logically a good camera to get is the Nikon D5200, it will be a huge leap up in quality (can match stills from full frame from only a few years ago, while matching 5DmkIII for video) while still being very cheap.
Or more likely, the D7100 as I bet his lenses don't have an AF motor built into many of them.
 
Another option is go mirrorless, and he can keep on using his lenses with that. Such as the Sony A7, which can be found for under US$1k on special.
 
If you want to go down the path of a fixed lens camera (rather than an intechangeable lens one, which I reckon is a way better idea), this article lays out good reasons to go for the RX10:
http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/four-great-still-shooting-feats-my-sub-1k-mirrorless-can-do-that-my-3k-dslr-cant/


I'm curious as to what camera he got back in 2003, I would guess a Nikon D100? (which isn't so terribly terrible is it? I started out on D50, which is much newer but only marginally better if that)

I have been shooting with the Panasonic GX7 for the last 11 months . Having used a variety of mirrorless and DSLR cameras in this price range, I can say I've found the usability and video quality of this one to be superior in most respects.
 
The colours and tonality felt like they popped, but there was always something about them that I felt was strange.  This didn't bother me really until about two months ago when I tested the camera against the Nikon d5300 and when I started looking at a lot of Blackmagic footage soon afterwards.
 
What I've found is that the colours on the GX7 (and other Panasonic cameras) lack a certain harmony. It's as if each is vying for our attention. I believe this is what contributes to the "video" look that people keep going on about.
 
Colours don't desaturate evenly when you dial the picture profiles flat. The main issue being that colourful objects in the midtones stay colourful whilst everything else goes comparatively grey. This applies particularly to greens, reds and oranges. The green of trees and plants don't quite have a natural hue to them in relation to other coloured objects in the scene. I still struggle to quantify why. The best I can do is to say they look somewhat neon. Reds often dip into orange territory. It's subtle but it's there and can be distracting to trained eyes. Yellow is probably the worst offender here. It becomes very prominent when you add LUTs.  
I would not say these things are reasons not to get a Panasonic camera. They are just characteristics of the camera and don't necessarily equate to it being better or worse than others. You just need to understand and take the differences into account when shooting and grading. Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
So having observed the differences, I took to Adobe SpeedGrade again to see what I could do. I called the resultant LUT, the "Balancer". Click the image below to enlarge it.
 

 
Please note that the Sigma lens used on the d5300 is naturally less contrasty than the Olympus lens used on the GX7, which may account for why the girl's face is a more washed out there.
As you can see, the changes might look rather subtle at first, but it makes a huge difference when applying other LUTs afterwards. The changes I made pretty much "fix" all the issues mentioned above.
 
Skin tone connoisseurs might especially love this LUT as it pushes oranges more towards red territory and reduces the contrast there too. The download includes two LUTs. One is marked as "Less Red" meaning that it doesn't push skin tones into the red as much.

Download Here
 
More examples can be seen on the original blog post here: http://sebcastilho.com/journal/2014/10/19/a-study-on-panasonic-colours-and-a-lut-to-balance-them/

Hello,
 
Steve Huff (more of a stills photographer) certainly raved about the Olympus EM1.  You can see his review here.
 
On this forum another user >posted a topic called "Still like my EM1"   It's this video of skin tones that really got me wondering...if my own next camera purchase was really off.   Most people seem to find it a joy to use the EM1 filming handheld with it's excellent built in stabilisation, also hugely useful for stills and being in New York that frame rate of 30p might well be liveable with?
 
For portraits your partner might like the forthcoming LX100 you mentioned.  It's 4K "photo mode" while recording video, means he could extract 8Mp stills from any frame of video(this link illustrates process and a try out with professional still photographers using video stream from a 1DC).  Everything I've read describes "photo mode" on the LX100 as a feature you perform in camera.... hoping there may be post processing option on that too!
 
You'ill want to hear about the still quality of the A6000 from the point of view you mentioned, ie coming from full frame, from someone who has both cameras.  
 
A portrait photographer could potentially stand further away from their subjects using the longer zoom range of the FZ1000, perhaps making them feel more comfortable but it does have a smaller sensor...and doesn't go near as wide in video as the LX100.  Check if the LX100 can go long enough for your partner.
 
If m4/3 is too small a sensor, I found this video tutorial most interesting;  this tichy wee camera reportedly has the same sensor as Canon 7D and with adapter can take all canon lenses as well as the excellent native EOS-M fit 22mm f2 which is reckoned pretty sharp. Even the native kit lens is better quality than Canon's Dslr kit lens as the distance from rear element to sensor is less.  The video was a great demo for me personally as to one way to rig for audio monitoring and capturing high quality audio.   Bear in mind the EOS-M (with focus magnify feature of ML loaded and working DURING record) camera can record decent audio but it's preamps are not up to professional grade, but by feeding a properly amplified signal in, there is no post syncing.  A pretty decent tutorial I thought and well worth a watch perhaps.
 
How about this for a new EOS-M body and f2 lens :-) 

From what grant petty has said recently it seems very likely there is no bmpcc2 on the immediate horizon. They are putting their resources into their higher end stuff. That's why they had the summer sale - to clear their production line.

The bmpcc with EF speed booster would be a superb combo for fiction shorts. If you want the speed booster to be an investment,consider buying the gh4 version. You'll have a narrower fov but you can use it on any mft mount camera.

let your work do the talking man.  if you show up with a small camera and deliver a result the client likes, you'll get booked again.  if you're not getting the bookings you want, use the money you;d waste on a heavy cumbersome show piece, and spend it instead on a nice personal showreel piece.  for example £2500 goes a long way in travel expenses to shoot something impressive.  or could be spent on living expenses while working on a no fee passion project for a good client, that boosts your showreel credibility. 

£2500 also goes a long way when buying a matching set of contax zeiss.  A red t* on the front of a lens says a lot, and image looks like cinema too.  a red ring around your lens conversely oozes guy who went to argos and bought the most expensive canon lens they had on offer, and also makes footage look like the rest of these types:)  L stands for 'lack lusture' when used in moving picture IMO 

Thanks for sharing this.  I truly love the way your camera handles skin tones and handheld with a 90mm eq lens is amazing.
 
I like to ask how you were holding your camera?  Were you using the "optical" viewfinder against your face?
 
I'm considering getting the new LX100 for it's 4K photomode, and this camera is about the same price for the body and I already have the 45mm lens and it does render people beautifully.  So I hope I'm not going to miss out on something special here.
 
I learn much more about a camera from seeing this kind of footage over dark streets or green vegetation.

Matt,
 
It's because for whatever tech reason, the GH4 doesn't process colors the way 5 years of 5D2 have spoiled us. 10 bit isn't going to help that out of the GH4. The G series are very sharp, but have the video/bad skin tones out of the gate. You can post it, but it still doesn't look great (to my eyes and many others). Main reason (besides sensor size) you read ad nauseum about people returning their GH4's to B&H in droves.
 
Go and search examples for yourself.
 
The new Nikon D750/D810 process colors beautifully..really gorgeous video with a nice cinematic look..much like a Canon EOS camera. The GH4 fails in this department miserably.
 
$25K and lower Canon and Nikon rule colors. Have tons of cash? Buy an Alexa/Amira and be done with it.

I agree with jcs's points on the benchmark, but Andrews counterpoints ring true for most who can't handle the workflow and HD space needed for raw.  I can't say I am ready to sacrifice image though.  I think the GH4 and a7s in particular match or best the 5d3 raw in some areas and this has yet to be seen with the brand new d750...like I said I would love for andrew to have static human subjects and compare the a7s, gh4, and d750, maybe even ML Raw for kicks.
 
That would truly give us a picture of which system is where.