Nikkor

Wait for andy lee, he will tell you.

85 and 50mm are focal length were you don't have to spend a lot to get good images. The samyang 85 1.4 is the best performance/price wise, and for 50mm there are billions of cheap options.
Of course you can also go out and buy a summilux-m 75 1.4 but...

Here's my latest film shot on the Samsung NX1 - let me know your thoughts:  
 
Less jello.  shooting in 3840 x 2160 seems to my eyes to have less jello. 
Very minor grade.
Contrast -10
Saturation -3
Used Wondershare to convert at -35 contrast.
brought into Resolve and did some minor tweaking.

If you look at the measurements they made the 1Dx wins in all of them, except dynamic range below iso 400. Nothing strange when comparing between a high end Full Frame camera and a low level entry crop camera.

I want to see some night-time shots with the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 in the Berliner U-Bahn

Damn it. This means my mom has 4k before I do

I can see the point if you want to use it in tests, but for 5000 pounds a medium format back like the p45 would add so much more to your gear bag and blow your mind, even if it's only for stills. I hope you can resell  it again without much loss after spring.

I can see the point if you want to use it in tests, but for 5000 pounds a medium format back like the p45 would add so much more to your gear bag and blow your mind, even if it's only for stills. I hope you can resell  it again without much loss after spring.

Andrews reviews are so personal and so far away from that kind of product advertisment type of reviewing that if he gets anything from manufacturers you would have to congratulate him.
If you ever see him talking in a review about how stressful his week has been flying from LA to Bejing and back to London after a short stop in Vancouver to shoot some super secret VIP stuff, and that he has made this review about the new overpriced follow focus in the airport hotel room, and make you feel like that if you buy that shit it will make you suck less, maybe then it will time to ask questions or stop giving a shit.

24,50,105
most flexible setup for me.

+1 Nightcrawler +1 Grand Budapest

Another curious thing is the danger of doing more or a better job than what was asked for. When I was a student I used to make renders for some terrible Architects who had no Idea about what's important in Architectural representation. Everytime I did a better job than the shit they were asking for ,they acted like they were paying for something they hadn't ask for, even with the price agreed before the actual job (which was way too much if you compare it with today, but at that time the working generation had no idea about renders)
 
Obviously there are people who know what they are doing, so try to figure out what case it is.

The a5100 has a better codec.
 
Btw, it's called product placement.

Nobody is going to see the prores file :p

I am forced to blow my own trumpet again - and with my back ache, I need to limit how much I do this! :)
 
I am absolutely certain that there is a difference between rendering of imagery between smaller and larger sensors.  I see a difference, and obviously professionals who spend £80k on a medium format digital back see it as well - otherwise they'd just shoot 36x24 and pocket the difference.
 
 
 
What you are disregarding is that dof isnt just about the ratio between the in focus and out of focus blur.  It's about the intimate step between the two.  Generally when comparing a longer and a shorter focal length (both of the same quality), the longer focal length will be higher resolution with less aberrations, distortion, and less vignette wide open.  This is known as a rule which is rarely broken.  a fast 50 will always be better than the same quality fast 35mm.
 
when you add these apparent strengths of a longer focal length and then obtain a wider fov by increasing the format size you maintain the quality of the longer focal length while gaining the same fov as the wider lens delivers on the smaller format.  This is what makes the difference - the ratio between in focus resolution and the amount of blur is contributing to the clear difference between how different formats render the same fov's.
 
The reason fast zeisses lenses are known to have their 'zeiss 3d pop' is because they are able to deliver large amounts of defocus blur while also delivering very sharp in focus subjects.  A 50mm 2.8 hasselblad distagon on 6x6 format 50iso will out perform a 25mm f1.4 (if there was such a thing worth mentioning!) on s35mm at 50iso when we consider both will render similar fov and dof ratio but the 50 f2.8 distagon is razor sharp at f2.8 and the 25mm f1.4 will be nasty and need to be closed to f2.8-f4 before it comes close to the resolution of the 50.
 
the 25mm will be 'in focus' on the subject,  but in comparison to the 50mm lens the in focus area won't look sharp.  

It's not about shallower dof.

This sounds reasonable, but only if you don't have another canon that takes video because they are all the same (or almost).
 
Any canon aps-c camera gives image quality on the level of 2008, they are outdated, any actual sensor design is a lot better.

Thanks Zach. I am pretty happy about it!

From working in computer graphics for the last 14 years I can tell you that this is absolutely correct. With a pinhole camera changing the focal length is identical to cropping in on an image. Changing the focal length doesn't alter perspective only moving the camera can do that. In real life they are not necessarily identical due to different depth of field characteristics and lens distortion, etc... but for all practical purposes zooming and cropping are identical - hence digital zoom.
 
I find this to be a common misconception about speed boosters to, all they do is brighten the image and "un-crop" the image to a larger image but do not alter the perspective or DOF in anyway. Focal length only affects depth of field, the FOV is the result of the relation ship between the focal length and imaging size but the image itself is identical for all sensor sizes the only difference is how much of the image you see. Perspective is purely defined by the physical location of the camera.

The NX1 is not a SLR because it has no mirror ;)

B doesn't have compression artifacts, but you should return your gh4 for a full refund anyway :p

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a86l8cq9vzio1gn/AACpiLt-1sPRWSie1nWFR9zRa?dl=0
 
6 shots.  just jpg's.  full frame 36mpx.  
 
first 3 images show centre performance at:-
f1.4, f2. and f2.8
 
the final 3 images also show f1.4, f2 and f2.8
 
chart was approximately 2.5mtrs away.  No focus adjustment between the centre and the corner sharpness shots
 
flare isnt aligned since I had to tape the cinelux to the planar due to not having a suitable step ring to hand.  

Richg101, could you post some 36mp samples with a 85 1.4?

I knew a screenwriting teacher at UCLA that told me confidentially he wished he'd gone to USC as an undergrad, not because it was better than where he studied, but because he would have had better contacts. One catch, you need to be rich!

What a bummer...