MarcTGFG

I just found an a7SII for 1300$, not risking though.

Amazing how you guys have improved on the original firmware. That made me buy a used NX1 with 16-50 PZ lens through Amazon market place today for 460 €. Too good to be true? I am a little bit anxious whether this is a scam or I got really lucky...

Keep up the good work and thank you for putting so much energy in this project!!!

Amazing how you guys have improved on the original firmware. That made me buy a used NX1 with 16-50 PZ lens through Amazon market place today for 460 €. Too good to be true? I am a little bit anxious whether this is a scam or I got really lucky...

Keep up the good work and thank you for putting so much energy in this project!!!

Amazing how you guys have improved on the original firmware. That made me buy a used NX1 with 16-50 PZ lens through Amazon market place today for 460 €. Too good to be true? I am a little bit anxious whether this is a scam or I got really lucky...

Keep up the good work and thank you for putting so much energy in this project!!!

Very interesting tugela. 
Now let's come back to reality. When using a speedbooster you are in the case where you have a lens that has an image circle larger than the one needed to fill the sensor. The speedbooster "takes that circle and compresses it", this means the aberrations will also be scaled and you end up with more resolution. It will not be as good as using a bigger sensor, but it will be sharper than using the lens without the speedbooster.
http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf
check fig 21 for a real world sample
You don't have to thank me, just say something coherent.

A speed booster in front of an APS-C sensor allows the sensor to utilize almost the entire image circle of full frame lens -- that means you are getting the full resolving power from that lens, plus you are getting shallow DOF on wider views, plus you are gaining about one stop in exposure!  If you use full frame lenses on smaller sensors without some kind of speed booster or focal reducer, you are just throwing away resolving power of the lens.
 
Also, as many have stated in different ways, shallower mounts on the camera allow a lot more versatility.

Yes.  That's right!  Professionals never use speedboosters/focal-reducers!
 
Likewise, professionals would not care to have a mount that takes tilt-swing/tilt-shift adapters nor adapters that allow behind-the-lens filtration.
 
Furthermore, a professional would never want a camera that can be adapted to Canon EF, Nikkor and PL (and almost anything else).  I mean, think of all the pros who own Canon and/or Nikkor glass -- why would such pros ever want to be able to go to a rental house to use high-end PL lenses?   .../s

mercer, so you disagree with the facts?

Nikon can include the adapter in the basic package, not asking for extra money. Basically treat it as part of the camera and have it preinstalled and exchangeable for NX lens owners.

 

They wouldnt "drop" anything by using NX mount with an included smart adapter for their Nikon lenses. Thats the point you don't seem to get. Repeating again and again that they would "drop" or "disappoint" their user base is simply not based on facts and logic.

 

mercer, so you disagree with the facts?

Nikon can include the adapter in the basic package, not asking for extra money. Basically treat it as part of the camera and have it preinstalled and exchangeable for NX lens owners.

 

Ok so for you it's better a thicker, possibly heavier camera, able to take ONLY F lenses? Where are most of the advantages of being mirrorless then? ;-) 

I wrote this several times but many ppl seem to ignore that... Nx to F is possible, vice versa isn't. So no problem with compatibility with F lenses if using nx mount. Plus...with F you use only F lenses. With NX you use a lot of legacy lenses. Including F.
Just pros no cons. Smaller bodies, small lenses already available at launch, lots of bigger Nikkor lenses via intelligent adapters, loads of legacy lebses via manual adapters.
 

Again, it would NOT abandon anything, by going with nx mount. Nx to F dumb adapters already exist, and if they join forces they could easily build intelligent ones.
 
I see several reasons for going nx mount. First, as already said, more versatility due to shorter flange (a lot of legacy lenses could be adapted, something impossible with F). Second, arriving on the market with a nice lineup of lenses designed for a mirrorless system. Third, the nice i-Function. Fourth, the size of cameras. Fifth, the possibility of having pancake designs.
 
They could just rebrand the existing lenses, perhaps releasing a faster focusing 30mm pancake.

Keeping the nx mount would be the wisest move. Compatibility with great s lenses (small for what they are) and small pancakes, with many mf legacy lenses, thin body. So a big range of existing and great native and legacy lenses.
 
A nx to F intelligent adapter would make things just perfect. A huge range of bigger but good lenses.
 
The best of both worlds.

Speed to market, an instant range of well rated, fast lenses with a good AF system (compared to their current mirrorless lens range, which is dreadful). They would also have the benefit of being instantly popular with anyone invested in the NX system.
I guess it depends on whether Nikon have any interest in FF mirrorless?

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hot-rumor-nikon-bought-samsung-nx-mirrorless-tech/
I just hope they will keep NX mount, but to be honest - why would Nikon do that (?)

Just for fun, I'm gonna guess he's keeping the:
A7S II because it's the hottest camera right now and it is the leader in low light capabilities.
GH4 because of its reliability and how it has become a standard in the industry.
NX1 because you never know what update may come that changes the game
5D3 because of Canon lenses and EOSHD heritage.

If directors want to go to HFR I think they have to be extremely disciplined how they move their camera in this visual space.  
I feel HFR can be exploited, but in order to do so you have to appreciate how humans utilize their own eyesight.  Even though our eyesight has a biological "shutter speed" well above 48fps, we also FOCUS our attention on specific objects in our personal field of view.  All else, according to our brain, falls out of focus, so to speak.  I really think that we're evolutionarily wired to appreciate a motion picture frame with a strong focusable center of interest.  Take that away and you're asking for trouble.  AKA: This Hobbit nonsense.  Ultimately it's just poorly directed.  The sensational motion and hyper-kinetictivity is so incredibly abnormal it's a visual liability.  Again, any director going this route better be extremely wary of the technology they wield.  Jackson just went for it all as he had that capability at his disposal...and it bit him in the ass. 
Here's something to think about, do the very limitations of 24fps cinema supports our visual experience?  
It may be counterintuitive to think so, but consider how a film camera has to stay below a certain pan speed to avoid judder.  Couldn't that visual constraint actually reinforce our biological expectations?  Obviously our sight shifts much quicker than a slow 24fps pan, right?  But, we also "defocus" our perception as we rapidly shift our field of view.  Perhaps when you DON'T do that in cinema it's an uncomfortable assault on our senses.
Longer takes, slower camera movement, no rapid editing, and a bit of shallow DOF.   This combined with HFR might make a more tolerable experience.  The whole biological and psychological human visuality needs to be more considered.  It's going to take a serious re-think of the cinematography approach, I believe.
That said, I think maybe a good compromise would be to shoot 48fps with a 0º shutter.  You'd get the benefit of object motion blur combined with a high frame rate.  Also, you'd create a source file that would be easily down converted into the traditional medium for those that prefer it.
I'd encourage any of you PAL shooters to give that set-up a go with 50fps and a 50 shutter.  Then convert to 25fps and see how it plays.  

Last night I watched the much anticipated conclusion of the Hobbit trilogy. And sadly I have to concur with all the people who said, that 3D HFR looks absolutely dreadful.
Look, I have been a huge fan of "Lord of the Rings", I love fantasy, I love the feeling to be swept into another world, taken to another time and led to magical illusionary places.
The Hobbit fails on all counts, at least in 3D HFR.

For the whole movie I was so distracted by the technical aspects that I couldn't build any "relationship" with the protagonists. Whereas in LOR I would tend to empathize and even cry, many scenes in the Hobbit are rather cringeworthy, even those that were probably meant otherwise.

The look reminded me of computer games which might be the reason, why younger movie goers I spoke to, showed a distinctly different response. But the overly photorealistic, plasticky impression makes me concentrate on the tons of make up instead of the facial expressions, on the visibly artificial scene and furnishings instead of the grand (?) tale, on the sheer plethora of detail and resolution instead of the plot.

The 3D distracts from the main things happening in the movie, instead leading viewers to get lost in the multiple planes of view.

The HFR destroys the filmic impression, by taking away 24p motion blur, which really lends itself to fantasy and accentuates its magic potency.

Besides that, The Hobbit is also a rather mediocre motion picture IMHO. Flat, almost comical dialogues, very few unexpected turns and a main actor thats simply not as likable and convincing as in LOR. And of course, the trilogy could and should have been conflated into one movie.

Now, why am I posting this? Just to vent? No, because, as many camera nerds around here, I was so excited to read all information about the new 4K cameras (especially the NX1) and got all worked up about getting more resolution. But after watching The Hobbit I have concluded that more resolution and sharpness is mostly not needed (at least not for fantasy, drama, comedy, maybe for documentaries, news and porn) and that it can actually subtract from the viewing experience.

Insofar the Hobbit has been an epiphany for me: I will now concentrate more on color science, dynamic range, lowlight abilities, stabilization, handling and highlight roll off among other things.

4K is certainly not dead, it has many uses, especially as an aquisition format (in-post stabilization, zoom, downscaling, green screen work), but I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of cameras.

End of rant.


 
 

Last night I watched the much anticipated conclusion of the Hobbit trilogy. And sadly I have to concur with all the people who said, that 3D HFR looks absolutely dreadful.
Look, I have been a huge fan of "Lord of the Rings", I love fantasy, I love the feeling to be swept into another world, taken to another time and led to magical illusionary places.
The Hobbit fails on all counts, at least in 3D HFR.

For the whole movie I was so distracted by the technical aspects that I couldn't build any "relationship" with the protagonists. Whereas in LOR I would tend to empathize and even cry, many scenes in the Hobbit are rather cringeworthy, even those that were probably meant otherwise.

The look reminded me of computer games which might be the reason, why younger movie goers I spoke to, showed a distinctly different response. But the overly photorealistic, plasticky impression makes me concentrate on the tons of make up instead of the facial expressions, on the visibly artificial scene and furnishings instead of the grand (?) tale, on the sheer plethora of detail and resolution instead of the plot.

The 3D distracts from the main things happening in the movie, instead leading viewers to get lost in the multiple planes of view.

The HFR destroys the filmic impression, by taking away 24p motion blur, which really lends itself to fantasy and accentuates its magic potency.

Besides that, The Hobbit is also a rather mediocre motion picture IMHO. Flat, almost comical dialogues, very few unexpected turns and a main actor thats simply not as likable and convincing as in LOR. And of course, the trilogy could and should have been conflated into one movie.

Now, why am I posting this? Just to vent? No, because, as many camera nerds around here, I was so excited to read all information about the new 4K cameras (especially the NX1) and got all worked up about getting more resolution. But after watching The Hobbit I have concluded that more resolution and sharpness is mostly not needed (at least not for fantasy, drama, comedy, maybe for documentaries, news and porn) and that it can actually subtract from the viewing experience.

Insofar the Hobbit has been an epiphany for me: I will now concentrate more on color science, dynamic range, lowlight abilities, stabilization, handling and highlight roll off among other things.

4K is certainly not dead, it has many uses, especially as an aquisition format (in-post stabilization, zoom, downscaling, green screen work), but I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of cameras.

End of rant.


 
 

Here is a good test video showing different ISO uses. 
 

Am I missing something? All those YT vids above have 720p resolution. How am I supposed to judge the quality of the original video?

Furthermore, those seem to be converted by Handbrake, which Andrew noted has inferior conversion quality, no?

So basically, what we see here I re-re-converted video downsampled to about 16% percent of its original resolution.

Can't those in possession of a NX1 post 1:1 stills from the original H265 material?

Am I missing something? All those YT vids above have 720p resolution. How am I supposed to judge the quality of the original video?

Furthermore, those seem to be converted by Handbrake, which Andrew noted has inferior conversion quality, no?

So basically, what we see here I re-re-converted video downsampled to about 16% percent of its original resolution.

Can't those in possession of a NX1 post 1:1 stills from the original H265 material?

They clearly do: In the intro it says: "Lens Used :- Panasonic GX Vario 12-35mm 2.8 (on both cameras)"