Danyyyel

In the Cinema5D video interview I heard full down sample to HD and they mentioned because of that no antialiasing, etc.

No pros are people like me  who have to spend 4 to 12 hours holding a camera. Believe me it can get quite painful if you don't have a good grip to hold your camera, more so that you will at least have a 24-70 most of the time on your camera. Secondly is we are actual human beings and muscle memory is going to be always faster than looking into endless menus, until someday we have brain controlled cameras.

How do people on here think this camera will affect others, I mean a 2k full frame camera with that set of features will surely impact the gh5/fuji xt1 etc. You will really really need the 10 bit, 4k 60 fps of the Gh5 to buy a camera with a minuscule sensor compared to this one. More so that in some case even in video it will be better like DR, auto focus and low light.

How do people on here think this camera will affect others, I mean a 2k full frame camera with that set of features will surely impact the gh5/fuji xt1 etc. You will really really need the 10 bit, 4k 60 fps of the Gh5 to buy a camera with a minuscule sensor compared to this one. More so that in some case even in video it will be better like DR, auto focus and low light.

The socionext( fujitsu) processor that Nikon normally uses in its expeed processor is said to do 4k 60 fps, h.265 and even 10 bit. I hope they implement all of it. Nikon problem is that they don't cater for the geek who live and die by the spec sheet. For example why do they call low contrast mode Flat ???? call it log and everybody will boast about it. While Sony's LOG are barely usable if you don't have a phd, Nikon flat!!!! is at least 12 stop and some say 13 stops in the D750 and so easy to grade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QnyKZSUcL8

People here should see this camera for what it is, a $ 500 interchangeable camera with a Kit lens that will cost $ 400 in 6 month, which is not meant for enthusiast and pro filmakers. Yeah the marketing sucks like all those 4k cellphone that barely reach this level of resolution because of their sensor and lens. If you follow Nikon product cycle you will know that the main advancement come in two ways. Once every four years with the releases of its flagship D3/D4 and D800 type camera, which themselves get a mid term update evolution in between and some test bed tech that they implement in entry level camera like the moire/alias free, very good lowlight D5200 camera that first used pixel binning. This camera has it purpose, can you imagine that it has a better processor than the top of the line D4s and D810 camera!!!! The latest D810 and D750 already have some of the best 1080p out of any dslr. This indicates that you will have at least 4k in the next update of the D4/d800 and all future Nikon bodies in the next two years.
Their update might be incremental but they are getting their, contrary to the A7s and Nx1 their camera don't have big flaws like rolling shutter, or lack of DR and low light in the NX1 or crappy colour science that needs an expert colourist with the Sony cameras. I see the same analogy made about Canon on internet board where the geeks can only comprehend resolution. But yet when you see pro usage or more artistic usage like film festival, the Canon is everywhere because the C100/C300 line are balanced cameras with no big flaws like appalling rolling shutter or colour science.

I did order a D750 should be here tomorrow. This will update my two older D700 cameras and replace the Samsung NX1 for any photo shooting as the NX1 kinda sucks for photography in any low light at all my older 6 year old D700 takes better photos at any iso then the NX1. The NX1 photo quality is more like my even older Nikon D40 6MP camera.
Will do some NX1 D750 HD video tests and want to see how the D750 video compares the NX1 4k all mixed together to see if the 750 can be used as a B camera and the main camera for low light video shooting.
As for the Nikon 24-120 F4 lens the one i have is very sharp i got it when the lens just come out one of the very first batch maybe that is why. I also had the 24-70 2.8 and my 24-120 is every bit as sharp so i sold the 24-70 and the 24-120 f4 almost never is off one of my D700 cams. It also takes very sharp video with my NX1.
 

For that low, camera like the Nikon D5300 would be very good compared to the Canon 5d2 because of no moire aliasing and better resolution. It will have a big advantages compared to gh3 (and most low cost m43 and Sony cameras) in low light. You will be getting 5d mark 3 low light quality out of it and that is very very important for Doc work. Super DR and colour is also two other advantages. It does have two drawback like absence of peaking and you will have exit video to change aperture. Those can be mitigated with a good viewfinder loupe for about $ 60 and buying older Nikon lens with aperture ring. You have 50 years of lens to chose from and it will be a lasting investment because they will mount on about every camera brand. One thing not to forget about when doing doc is investing in at least some good microphone and recorder.

The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing the C100 against 4 other camera. Compared to all these cameras that have one or more down side the C100 mark 2 is good to very good in every domain. factor in that it has features like internal ND and MIC/xlr imput that would need addons like external sound recorders and ND screw on or Variable (less quality) or even matte box.
 
I am a Nikon shooter so I have no bias toward Canon cameras. But this is a solid product with the added 60p which was the main problem in the mark1. There are non in the cameras you listed that have as good Low light, resolution, DR, rolling shutter, colour science in one body. As for full frames lens being a waste on Apsc camera it is the exact contrary as it uses the center which is the best part of the lens.
 
This camera will be huge success and I am sure that it will be a mainstay for many years and will have a huge following in the used market. I can see it selling tons to people in the documentary, Tv, wedding, corporate market. As is already seen the C line has become one of the most used camera for the indie filmmakers in festivals and has been used in many awarded feature films.
 
As for the C7 I sincerely hope that Sony has made some progress into their colour science, because all spec in the world won't matter if skin tones look more like corps dead low CRI fluorescent colours (If I can describe it in words I see it used in horror movie). Working with Nikon, I just can't understand how a company like Sony cannot at least produce some good even if not great skin tone. I mean its a given for me, when I see all those threat where people discussing continually to get just decent result, I just can't understand. For me it is just saturation/contrast adjustment and voila great skin tone.

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

At least some sense on this resolution and spec upset forum. I have been saying more or less the same thing for the last few weeks. This green/magenta bias on skin tone is really bad. If I would rank camera I would put Nikon higher than Canon and add the blackmagic cinema camera up there in the list of very good looking skin tone/colour science. When I say Nikon higher, I mean it is very close with a more golden/orange look to the Nikon but still the Canon is very very nice and would be easy to grade them very close.
 
Now what I have seen of the Sony is perhaps the worst about skin tone. Even with the kholi settings on dvxuser his first example with the girl has still a lot of the green magenta colour. What is strange is what I would call solarisation effect like on her cheek where you have the magenta that makes a brutal change as if sunburn. If it was not the a7s I would say bad makeup but I have seen the same thing in the little girl video shot in slog. People are saying this is because the person did not shoot XYZ setting but until now I did not see one nice video with some natural skin tone and not graded like orange and teal.
 
What is funny is that people are dismissing the C100 mark2 on another threat, because it does not have XYZ spec, but that is the same camera that shot film like Adele blue is the warmest colour that won the Cannes film festival and that looks very very good with a naturalistic colours. When people will understand that colour is by far more important, more so when shooting people, than 4k for example, it will be a big advancement for shooters here. We human beings are much more prone to colour than for example resolution. How many time when you are discussing about an image be it video or photo with somebody will he be saying how crisp it was... or will you hear most of the time how the colours were beautiful.
 
A last thing about grading. I just made the experience lately shooting with some tiffen ND. Guest what with the green bias it becoming really tedious to correct all those shot. Even if I was able to get the green cast out in post the hassle is too much. I am going to buy some 82 mm Hoya pro ND filters. The cost in this case will far outweigh the time spend correcting every shot in the sun.

maxotics, here's a an early test with 5D3 RAW shooting very high contrast in bright sunlight (inside shooting outside to the street):

 
At the time of the test I didn't have all the tools to preserve skintones at the same time as taming the background (via masking, etc.)). Even so, as a beginning user of RAW we liked how filmic it turned out. For the interior, natural lighting was used and no makeup was applied to the manager. Skintones for both turned out well for the conditions. For the inside to outside shot, the A7S would likely do better (more DR). I'm curious how much as 14-bit RAW with ACR has a lot of gradations for shadow/highlight manipulation (16384 vs 256): as long as highlights and shadows aren't clipped, it would be able to match or exceed what is possible with the A7S.
 
I purchased a Sony FS700 right after the SpeedBooster came out and have been grading Sony footage for a while now.  Whereas I can match cameras and color fairly well in tests with the 5D3, skintones were a whole different matter. With careful exposure and WB, the FS700 can do decent color, however it's fragile for skintones: typically magenta/green 'instability'. In some lighting conditions, the FS700 is quite a challenge for skintones (in the shade at sunset is one example).
 
Here's an example with 5D3 RAW at sunset/golden hour, then the rest is FS700 (interior).

While the FS700 skintones aren't bad, the 5D3 RAW skintones are much better (golden hour light also helped).
 
Reviewing this old footage while studying movies shot on film reminds me how much more filmic 5D3 footage looks compared to newer cameras (including the Canon Cx00 series). It makes sense why the 5D was used on so many feature films.
 
When using the A7S or GH4, having the 5D3 around to take shots for color reference is also helpful. Models and clients always love how the 5D3 makes them look: it's helpful to understand how to make other cameras look similar.

You cannot compare video to photo. Many people do that same error, yes they are images but how they are perceived (I don't find a proper word for that in my english) is very different. They are very different art form.
 
A photograph is eternity, a fraction of a second capture for eternity. It is like a painting, you can watch a photo at least for a minutes, your eyes wander through the scene, it is like a book it can convey many stories, have many actors etc. Like let say a scene at a market with a seller and woman discussing price. In a photo you could have those two into a heated discussing with lots of emotion, on one side or on her back the child of the buyer completely disinterested or bored about the discussion with a very candid face and a toy in her hand, some buy standers in the background amused by the scene with some interesting impression on there face, etc etc.. It could take you easily a minutes or more looking at this image if it is well done in terms of framing composition colour or black and white etc
 
In a video scene of the same scene you would never look at the same scene for more than 5/10 seconds. For it to be interesting you would need this scene as an establishing shot, the you would do closer shots to capture the different people to tell the same story. At no time would you do a shot more than 5/10 second if else it will start to be boring.
 
This is why the discussion about resolution in photo and video are two very different films. In a photo in a book or a bg gallery wall you can move toward the photo or put the paper closer and your eyes and mind can wander through it. You can watch a photo for minutes but can you tell me how many static video scene can you watch for more than 10/20 second. Video is about motion within the frame and outside of the frame (editing). As such your eyes(brain) cannot settle at any point for enough time to render the same resolution as in prints and this without facturing motion blur.
 
Another thing myth about using 4k images for photography. When I do a wedding, I am easily shoot about 2000 photos. The work of sorting out these photos and doing selection is easily between half a day and a days work. Why, again photo can be scrutinise much more, if it is out of focus, it is out of focus..... while if in a video scene of 5 sec 5/10 frames are out of focus in a moving scene it will still be good, because again your brain will just skip it as it is not permanent, the half a second it is on the scene it is already replaced less than a second after that by other images. Then lets say you have 4 hours of footage and you have to search for lets say 800 to 1500 good one as photos as good one before choosing those that will be processed. And those photos will generally be on the lower quality jpeg compression (If you are shooting raw it is some gigantic file size). The last thing would be shutter speed, most photos will have motion blur which will equate to blurry photos at 1/50 sec!!!!!!!!!!!! For sure in some occasion it can save some shot, but 90% of the time it would be just spray and pray photography, the worst form of what is an art form.
 
I have a D800 and I have shot with most Nikon cameras except the D3/D4 line and I pride myself of being able to capture that sense of eternity in a fraction of a second of what photography is about. On many website I see mostly videographers talking about using 4k for photo etc, and this tells me how much these two art form are very different and that they don't understand that the mindset is very different because video is about continuity.

Geeks calling them DP/film-makers/Cinematographers will tell you that 4k is a big difference with all sort of mathematical formula etc...    But artist and true cinematographers like the ones above will tell that there is so much more like colour to make a beautiful image. And how 4k is becoming detrimental as too much resolution start to impact the image and how they have to use filtration to soften the image.
 
By the way the bayer filter is more like 2/3 resolution that is why Red Camera the most vocal camera manufacturer about 4k objective was to have 6k for true 4k. But in the end WTF, do people see it? even if it is 2k, 4k or 8k, motion blur and viewing distance will kill 99% of its advantage. You would need to be like 2 feet/50cm from a 65 inch screen to notice any difference and only static scene where motion blur won't take out any advantage in resolution. In this case you would have to move your eyes or head to be able to see all the scene. Its like a ping pong or tennis match if you have two actors talking to each other when they are on two side of the scene.
 
The perception of true 1080p has been ruined by camera like the Canon dslr which even if it is written 1080p are less than 720p in resolution and SD in terms of details with the low 8 bit codec. You should take more the example of the 2.7K down-res Alexa for a proper 1080p image in terms of resolution and detail. Many films like the latest James bond have been shot with the Alexa and up-rez to 4k with no one complaining and DPs (Roger Deakins) have said how it up scaled well.
 
In the end buy Tiffen stocks as when in 2/3 years, when every camera will be 4k and more, everybody on these geeky website will be asking what filter to use to soften the look so that there image look film-like and that the wedding couples, corporate clients, talking heads interviews, film actors to their family members won't be complaining about the highly digital look and crispness of the image.

Andrew or anyone else shooting with this camera, do your initial impressions hold up? 
 
I'm shooting with the A7s for video and the A7r for stills. Very happy with the A7s, but autofocus on the A7r is abysmal. I've already got a lot of nikkor lenses and was thinking of picking this up as a B-camera 

Thats terrible, 40 minutes discussion and what !!!!!!!!! 1 minutes about 4k and high resolution............. all the rest of the 39 minutes about lighting, composition, framing, colours, styling.... Pffff bunch of amateurs, didn't they here about the latest Panasonic 4k wonders that you can put in your pocket or Sony cameras that don't any more lighting because you can shoot at 100 000 ISO.

Thats terrible, 40 minutes discussion and what !!!!!!!!! 1 minutes about 4k and high resolution............. all the rest of the 39 minutes about lighting, composition, framing, colours, styling.... Pffff bunch of amateurs, didn't they here about the latest Panasonic 4k wonders that you can put in your pocket or Sony cameras that don't any more lighting because you can shoot at 100 000 ISO.

I don't know for people here, but for me I prefer Nikon putting its money in actual film makers than a flurry of techno geek bloggers that don't even have some short movie to their credit. I am actually talking about real short movies, with a story line, actors, props etc not just some random street shot assembled with some copyrighted music. The story style or plot might not appeal to many here but it is a mammoth task compared to some random shots.
 
Nikon Europe also have the Nikon film festival where the winner gets a d810 and a trip to Cannes short film festival. For me I prefer that they put their money in actual film makers like in this film. It might not be to the taste of many, but it is ten time more constructive and creative than flying a bunch of bloggers to some exotic location to shoot some random flicks.

I don't know for people here, but for me I prefer Nikon putting its money in actual film makers than a flurry of techno geek bloggers that don't even have some short movie to their credit. I am actually talking about real short movies, with a story line, actors, props etc not just some random street shot assembled with some copyrighted music. The story style or plot might not appeal to many here but it is a mammoth task compared to some random shots.
 
Nikon Europe also have the Nikon film festival where the winner gets a d810 and a trip to Cannes short film festival. For me I prefer that they put their money in actual film makers like in this film. It might not be to the taste of many, but it is ten time more constructive and creative than flying a bunch of bloggers to some exotic location to shoot some random flicks.

I don't know for people here, but for me I prefer Nikon putting its money in actual film makers than a flurry of techno geek bloggers that don't even have some short movie to their credit. I am actually talking about real short movies, with a story line, actors, props etc not just some random street shot assembled with some copyrighted music. The story style or plot might not appeal to many here but it is a mammoth task compared to some random shots.
 
Nikon Europe also have the Nikon film festival where the winner gets a d810 and a trip to Cannes short film festival. For me I prefer that they put their money in actual film makers like in this film. It might not be to the taste of many, but it is ten time more constructive and creative than flying a bunch of bloggers to some exotic location to shoot some random flicks.

I don't know for people here, but for me I prefer Nikon putting its money in actual film makers than a flurry of techno geek bloggers that don't even have some short movie to their credit. I am actually talking about real short movies, with a story line, actors, props etc not just some random street shot assembled with some copyrighted music. The story style or plot might not appeal to many here but it is a mammoth task compared to some random shots.
 
Nikon Europe also have the Nikon film festival where the winner gets a d810 and a trip to Cannes short film festival. For me I prefer that they put their money in actual film makers like in this film. It might not be to the taste of many, but it is ten time more constructive and creative than flying a bunch of bloggers to some exotic location to shoot some random flicks.

Yup. Art is created from limitations, not endless possibilities. Film is a medium used to speak a language, not a replicator of reality. Film and photography are the most confusing art form though, because unlike writing, painting, music, etc, cameras produce an 'indexical' image (like a footprint or fingerprint, a photo has a direct, physical connection to reality). But as soon as you frame something, edit it, grade it, choose a different lens, use a different camera, smile at your subject, ask a question of your subject, point a camera at someone who can see you are filming them, live in a society where cameras are omnipresent, live in a society where we act out our lives massively influenced by the videos we see on TV/online/in cinemas - subjectivity enters the equation. And where you have subjectivity, you have language, and where you have language, you have art. The lie that is photographic "truth" (e.g. Cinema Verite) has been exposed, denounced and thrown to the dogs. Video is not a footprint, it's a paintbrush. See Barthes (Camera Lucida), Mulvey (Death 24X a Second), Pierce, Tom Gunning, David Campany, etc, etc, for more ...

4k is another marketing strategy to increase price, it won't bring anything to the movie experience. With motion blur, 99% of the time you won't see any difference, if it is even possib to see. What it will do is show all the flaw of set, props etc. 

I am far from a Canon fan, but really how come some people just resume a camera by it spec. When they go and market their job to their client, do they bring the spec sheet of their camera, or do their client care about the spec sheet. I see perhaps 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 10 videos of the A7s that is good. The rest the colours, more so with Slog is just ok to horrible. Just look at the amount of thread about how to .... try to get good colours out of the Sony's. For sure some can because they are good colourist but most are mediocre. Being a colourist is an art of its own. When you are more or less a one man band indie or freelance shooter, you have to be a shooter, an editor and now with Sony a good colourist. While Canon (I am a Nikon user) will provide you with a good image out of the box, just add a little contrast and saturation and you are good to go. No need to be an expert to at least get a good image to start with. 
 
For me since I got my D7100 (hopefully D750 in not too long), I thought that its the cameramen the limiting factor and no more the camera. If I cannot do beautiful image out of it, I won't with more expensive camera. The reasoning is simple if lesser camera like the gh2 have seen theatrical release, how can people devalue camera like the C100/C300 which are already much better. As shown here the C300 has been used in award winning Festival. One won the fucking biggest film festival in the world. So show us your masterpiece shot on your Sony A7s.

I know what it is from a discussion a long time ago about the camera that we share and very good job showing how good it is.