utsira

me too. 

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here...
I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see.
As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. 
But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

Hey Andrew
clearly this bothers you
the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out.
 
Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed.  
There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour.
If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. 
Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. 
The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. 
 
so there are my thoughts.  
if you miss the show watch the movie version.  It's more believable. "fast and the furious"  

I'm not offended by your post, but I do find it a load of tub thumping nonsense.
1) If a lead star on a production punched a producer, there would be consequences, even if it were Tom Cruise.
2) You seem to conveniently paper over the fact that he was caught saying nigger on camera and also called an asian guy a "slant'. Two of numerous offences that went unpunished and led to his final warning.
If you want to move into this sort of editorial you need to put down both sides of the story, especially when your followers are not all UK based.
This isn't bending over to political correctness, it is very lightly punishing someone for a constant stream of problems. Most other presenters would have been kicked in to touch long ago. You cannot let someone go unpunished, time and again, just because he is a creative asset and pulls in big bucks.
I don't mind Clarkson, he can be funny, entertaining, no nonsense and clearly knows his cars. But that isn't a green light to do absolutely anything.

The Sony A6000 and a5100 have very nice AF for video (I have the A6000). You need a system lens of course. You can set how long the camera holds the subject for, how quickly it changes focus, and you can assign custom buttons to lock focus with. It's the only hybrid system I'd consider using AF in video. The video image itself is pretty nice for close ups or shallow depth-of-field, but can be disappointing with detailed wide angle landscapes, where you start to see aliasing. I would say it's an issue with the way the sensor is sampled rather than a codec problem (though the codec could be better on the A6000, and is better on the A5100).

Here's a short vacation video I shot on my a6000.  Lenses used were the Zeiss 24mm 1.8, Sony 50mm 1.8, and Sony 10-18mm F4.  Coming from the NEX-6 I appreciated the a6000's autofocus speed and accuracy quite a bit.  I also used the face detection focus tracking a couple times and it worked pretty well.  Still wishing we could record in XAVC / slog2 though like the A7s.
 

Nothing wrong with being a bastard. We should embrace its bastard-ness!
 
Besides, there were all sorts of film gauges besides 16 and 35, 17.5, 18, 21 etc

Too long, didn't read.. I did however read the post you wrote and are referring too.

I am not intimidated by amateurs having the same gear as me, nor am I worried about sharing my knowledge with people who want to learn.

Sharing is caring.

I watched a lot of things on planes this year. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was great, and also enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow more than I thought I would (in Japan they stuck to the original, and way better title, All You Need is Kill).
 
I missed A Most Wanted Man, I really wanted to see that.
 
I enjoyed just how imperfect and photographic Interstellar looked when most films of that ilk are super sharp CG. There was some serious blurriness at the edge of the image (in IMAX anyway), even in the ensemble, medium-long dialogue shots, so that Casey Affleck is delivering a line, and his head is a blurry blob. Take that, corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!

Oh, just wait a few minutes...

I watched a lot of things on planes this year. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was great, and also enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow more than I thought I would (in Japan they stuck to the original, and way better title, All You Need is Kill).
 
I missed A Most Wanted Man, I really wanted to see that.
 
I enjoyed just how imperfect and photographic Interstellar looked when most films of that ilk are super sharp CG. There was some serious blurriness at the edge of the image (in IMAX anyway), even in the ensemble, medium-long dialogue shots, so that Casey Affleck is delivering a line, and his head is a blurry blob. Take that, corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!

It also has XAVC-S and S-LOG2!  http://www.sony.jp/ichigan/products/ILCE-7M2/speclist.html
 
I guess this is the EM1 update that I was waiting for. 

Haven't had time to test yet but will do soon, image has a nice feel to it so far though.
 
Using Handbrake as a replacement for the Samsung transcoding app. Works great. Giving me 200Mbit/s H.264.

Here are some tests shots I did to see how stable I can be with the help of the internal stabilization in the LX100.

Sorry to bring up a dead thread but didn't really want to make a new one. I had my GX7 fixed a couple weeks ago after the shutter just randomly locked up and wouldn't open again. Something to do with a circuity malfunction. It was out of warranty and cost me about £150 to fix. However it also fixed the dead pixels I had on the sensor :)

A few shots from Abu Dhabi.   I really like the way this camera handles nighttime and sunset shots, but I'm having trouble getting satisfying colors in daylight.  Would appreciate any feedback:
 
Graded in FCP X with native CC tool, Pixel Studios ProHDR, and Impulz LUTs
 

I haven't had the A6000 for that long, so I still haven't made up my mind about it. I'm keeping both cameras for now.
 
On the one hand, my pixel peeper eyes tell me that the G6 (in fact, I'd say all M43 cameras, including Olympus) have a more detailed image. I like the native lenses for M43 too (the Panny 20 1.7 in particular).
 
But there's just something about APSC that I'm really drawn to. I'm not really sure I can pin it down to any one characteristic, such as dynamic range or depth of field (not a very helpful comment I know). The A6000 is certainly better in low light than the G6 (although as others have pointed out the GX7/ GM1 etc generation of Lumix cameras are much improved on this front). I've not had to use Neat Video noise reduction on my A6000 shots yet, whereas it was fairly routine on the G6. The A6000 image is not quite as detailed as a G6, but it's still very good. It isn't quite a mirrorless D5200/5300 but it's not too far off. I like how full frame lenses look on APSC, and I like being able to attach them without a speedbooster (and M-mount lenses of course can't be used with a focal reducer).
 
Regarding moire, so far with the A6000, I've discarded one shot out of 180 because of moire. The shot in question had proper strobing zebras on the roof of a temple, but I could see the moire in the EVF as I was shooting it, so it wasn't exactly an unexpected shock (the situation is much better than the NEX 6). The G6 has really tiny amounts of moire here and there (according to Andrew even 1-to-1 4K on the GH4 has moire "traces"). It is something that you need to be more aware of on the A6000 but generally I don't consider it a problem.
 
The Sonys are catching up with Panasonic in terms of handling and user interface too. It's nice to see the A6000 inheriting features from the A7 series (such as being able to do a focus punch-in whilst recording, something Andrew was praising in part 2 of his A7S review), and the zebras (although as Andrew said in the A7S review, the zebras can be unpredictable at times. I haven't worked out the relation between the zebras and the Sony's tendency to record into the superwhites).
 
I would call the G6 the best "rebel cam" at the moment (ie inexpensive but very fully featured, mic port etc), particularly if you get a deal on it. Mine was 24000 yen ($240) second hand body only. (I'm definitely an advocate of "spend less on the body than on the lens". Spend less than on the focal reducer if you can!)
 
The A6000 is, for my needs, a great compromise camera. I know that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement, but sometimes you need a compromise! (ie almost D5300 quality, but with mirrorless convenience, very good video, but excellent stills too etc). I'm very happy with it so far. Best APSC mirrorless at the moment. 
 
Not at all a side-by-side comparison, but on this G6 video there's one or two similar-ish shots to the A6000 video above:
 

This is one of my favourite things shot with the Blackmagic

Lenses used included a Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 which seems to be his main lens of choice.

Great work man! keep going!

Here's a short (2 min) vacation video I shot on the A6000 in Jasper, Alberta.  Lenses used were the Sony 24mm 1.8, Sony 10-18mm f/4, and Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS.
 
I found the quality pretty decent for most 'normal' scenes with a central subject against a DOF-blurred background, but the codec showed a fair bit of compression artifacts when there was a lot of high frequency detail on screen that was moving rapidly, like forest scenes.  Looking forward to either upgrading to the A7s or a future APS-C e-mount camera with XAVC @ 50Mbps.
 

Two journeys, a plane into Macau, and the ferry to Kowloon, as the storm clouds come in. 
 

 
Panasonic G6, 20mm 1.7, neat video NR, ImpulZ LUTs
 
Unfortunately the noise reduction means that banding is evident in the vimeo stream. It's a bit better if you download it.
 
It got a nice review on Coconuts Hong Kong, which has never happened to me before. If you'll forgive me quoting my own good press!
 
http://hongkong.coconuts.co/2014/08/08/video-fall-love-hong-kongs-typhoon-season-romanticised-wet-weather-treat
 

BTW lafilm, what lenses do they use for porn?

Here's what I think is interesting about this camera. Panasonic is reducing the number of interchangeable lens lines that it has. The GF has gone, there won't be a successor to the G6 or GX7 (if we can believe anything on 43rumors....), so in future it will just be GH and GM. 
 
And this cam, the LX100, is the missing midrange cam, which inherits many of the exciting features from the flagship. This is where the GX8 or whatever should have been. And Panasonic is saying to us, how much do you really need to swap lenses around? Do you really enjoy messing around with adaptors, carrying heavy glass around etc etc? Because we're going to offer you the camera and the lens, for the same amount as you would have paid just for the lens, and in a package that is somehow pocketable. It's a kind of test. Is the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system so important to you that you would pass up a deal like this?
 
I was weighing up buying a GH4 and the 12-35 2.8. Now I think I'll just get this.

Yes the ring around the lens is the manual focus ring. Zooming is done by a switch like the Sony NEX 16-50 kit lens.

Judging by the amount of interest on this forum alone, I might have to get my preorder in soon :p

Here's what I think is interesting about this camera. Panasonic is reducing the number of interchangeable lens lines that it has. The GF has gone, there won't be a successor to the G6 or GX7 (if we can believe anything on 43rumors....), so in future it will just be GH and GM. 
 
And this cam, the LX100, is the missing midrange cam, which inherits many of the exciting features from the flagship. This is where the GX8 or whatever should have been. And Panasonic is saying to us, how much do you really need to swap lenses around? Do you really enjoy messing around with adaptors, carrying heavy glass around etc etc? Because we're going to offer you the camera and the lens, for the same amount as you would have paid just for the lens, and in a package that is somehow pocketable. It's a kind of test. Is the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system so important to you that you would pass up a deal like this?
 
I was weighing up buying a GH4 and the 12-35 2.8. Now I think I'll just get this.