IronFilm

I was messing around with 720p raw on the eos-m a few months back, but it just wasn't stable enough for me. For very short work, it is usable but the audio issues are a pain. To use .mlv raw, you would basically get one take with audio and then the camera would freeze up. Very frustrating. I loved the image, but the workflow is tedious especially the pink dots. I believe the 50D has stable full 1080p raw, which is amazing. So, if you can get a work around with audio, then I would go for it. I don't know how well the image matches up with the BMPCC, but the 50d could be a perfect b cam. 

nx1 could do that imo, if hacked.

I just bought a Sony PXW-X70 as my main video camera.  DSLRs become too bulky and unwieldy for flexible video work.  I've tried for a long time to make them work, can't do it.  Without moving my hands I now have instance access to record, focus peaking, iris, shutter, gain (ISO), AF/MF, zoom.  Better audio controls.  Aggressive image stabilization if I need it.  10-bit CODEC.  So whatever you get for a main cam, I recommend a C100 or something like it.  You can use your other cameras on tripods for long-shots, or other POVs.  I too, love a great image (especially RAW-based video), but any image out of focus, with shakes, or at a bad angle, or with bad audio is unusable.  In short, what worked for me having fun, standing around, with my DSLR or mirror-less, didn't work when I needed move around.

The Zoom H1's size is awesome!!
I too started out with the H1 a few years ago. But even when I got the Tascam DR-60D (for its XLR inputs, and general awesomeness) I still found the Zoom H1 to be very handy for a number of uses: slipping it into the groom's pocket with a lav running into it (as a "wireless" one on the cheap! ha :-P ), or just generally carrying it around with me everywhere as a back up (as I'm mainly a cameraman, but you never know.... especially on these ultra low budget shoots. Soundie might be lacking. Or I might be filming an event and I will pop the H1 downstairs closer to the stage, than where I'm filming from). It has lots of uses!

The DR-22 is kinda tempting for its wireless feature, but it seems it is mostly a bit gimmicky for now?! I've pondered buying it sometimes. 
DR-40 is too bulky for my tastes, plus the more its prices creep up....  the more I'm tempted to say skip this and go straight to a Tascam DR-60D for only a little bit more. 
So in the end I reckon it is clear: get the Zoom H1! :-D

DXO mark on the NX1 isnt updated, the NX500 has a higher score, which is quite sad, considering theire recognition, they should update their values.

One thing that others haven't picked up here is music videos. How many do you do? 
The 240fps 10bit on the FS5 is a huge feature that music video clients LOVE. Huge selling point. Plus the 10 bit is super useful for Chroma Key. 
The FS5 partners well to the A7S II for multi-cam. Canon doesn't really have an answer for a C-series b-cam, apart from the limited but lovely picture of the XC10. 
I've not used the C100, only the C300. That camera is the best camera I've used for docu-style by an absolute mile. 

You guys know the "brenzier" panorama thing, take a look at the images and see the difference very clearly. A 30 shot is something like a 4x5", this speedbooster is more like a 4 shot.

I enjoy this website because I'm a gear oriented guy.  Even better because I'm a CHEAP gear oriented guy.  I like consumer stuff.  But gear is only one aspect of making films.  The slant of user conversations on this site might imply to a neophyte reader that camera gear is the primary consideration of the film making process.  That's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is. 
I certainly think gear should only be a secondary consideration.  I'd even argue that these days it could almost be an afterthought, depending on what one is trying to accomplish.  As in, "Well, we have a t3i already, let's just use that."
But, really, those creatives that are going to be successful at this motion picture stuff will be able to figure that out for themselves.  Those that don't, well, there's a lot of us around to write words on the internet.

If Andrew is moving back to London - that's a Zeiss every other week for a 1 bedroom flat lol - yes Europe we are mad!

Just purchased my Atomos Samurai Blade and SSD from B&H this morning. (even worse... I'm an overseas buyer! Who is using a reshipping service! OMG)

Usually I tend to use Amazon a bit more than I use B&H, but this time I intentionally went for B&H over Amazon specifically because of this recent Union/SJW/AlJazeera beat up. Felt like I might as well do a bit of good in going a small way to balancing out some of the many orders I'm sure they've unfortunately lost due to this.

I’ve been struggling this year to understand color.  I come from a strictly digital-upbringing.  I have shot some film, but I never understood color timing or even learned how to look critically at color – at skintones, at greens, blues, and red.
And I wondered why I would spend so much time trying to understand it, when I could be spending time practicing lighting and finding angles and watching inspiring films.
But now I kind of get it – since the 90’s – one shoots film, then one digitizes it in (Digital Intermediate) then you would color it in CINEON colorspace (which is flat like log, very similar to the flatness of Arri log-C) and then send it off to film print.  Right now it’s Kodak 5283 or 5293 which respond to blacks, dynamic range, all that differently.
So you would choose a stock to shoot on, digitize it, color it, then send off to a film print.
So colorists have been involved digitally since the 90’s on all major motion pictures shot on film.  They would have LUTs – or look up tables – to emulate the film prints, so they could see what it will look like before they print it.
And also, to keep it consistent when it would go off to DVD or VOD or Blu Ray – so the film looks the same everywhere, with tweaking.
So I started to use Filmconvert to grade my footage that I would shoot as flat as I can with my cameras.  First, it was the Sony F3 and now mostly the Sony F35 and Red One and sometimes the Alexa.  Filmconvert keeps it in REC 709 colorspace, which is the standard for TVs and online. Filmconvert was great, but the curves were aggresive and I found using Alexa dci-p3 worked best with slog1, not just slog2.  Anyway, I found out later to lessen the film curve, raise highlights, etc.
Then Visioncolor came along with their luts that got highly popular – especially the M.31 lut.  I liked it, but it was a little too stylized.  This is when I started to learn resolve.  Before I just used Final Cut Pro 7 and the three-way color corrector.
Resolve I didn’t get for a long time, but read a tutorial by Hunter Hampton and started to understand it.  I also started to mess with DSLRs more fully and learned how to play in RAW there.  All helping out with shooting on Red and understanding its own RAW and why to use Redlog over their Redgammas, to have the most info to play with, out the bat.
And I learned that Red Cine-X was just a simple program that existed before Resolve was made free, and it was good, but Resolve is a lot more customizable.
Then Visioncolor Impulz Luts came out.  And Hunter said it was as close to film as you could get.  I messed with it, didn’t understand it.  But now I do.  You take your footage, and if you are working quick, add a FC (film contrast lut) or a VS (visionspace) lut that has less contrast or can mess with a FPE (film print emulation) lut – that I think brings down the highlights too much.
I would learn to go slog to cineon, then start coloring with the filmstock I like (I like 250d and 200t and 500t a lot – 50d is a little too wild in the blues) – and then once that is good, go off to a Film Print – 2383, 2393, or their custom Film Contrast 1 or Visioncolor or even Fuji print.  And that gets you a good look.
Anyway why is this important?  Because now I can shoot on a log or raw camera, and build a lut, and make sure that the lut looks good and that the final image is going to look good.  No more guessing with shooting flat and finding out later there is too much noise in the shadows or the skintone, how it reacts to light and color looks odd and off.
In essence, it’s What you see, what you get, which is in some ways an improvement over film.  You know for sure, pretty much, if the image is good or not.  With film, the mystery and magic of course is there and it looks the best – how it handles skin and highlights and light, and those dancing frames and how unpredictable, but hey, I can’t afford to shoot film.  No matter what people say, shooting digital is cheaper and you have less chance of screwing it up. Especially if you own the gear already and shoot pro res 4444 vs some insanely uncompressed codec.
The world of digital doesn’t look as nice as film, usually.  But sometimes, if you have the right colorist, it can.  Watching the trailer for San Andreas, I thought it was shot on film.  Same with the Age of Adeline.  Adding power windows, using lenses that have pop and circular rendering of faces.  Using cameras that have nice motion.  It gets you there, kind of close.  It’s not always perfect, but I still think the DP and the Colorist can make a film shot digitally look better than a film shot and colored poorly on film.
I still wish for more and more advances in digital camera technology that can have the randomness of film – the highlight smooth-roll-off – the sharpness and how it renders faces – I don’t want companies to give up and call it a day.  But, hey I’m not an engineer.  I’m just a guy trying to figure things out.
Here’s a clip of how they digitally graded “Oh Brother Where are Thou” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg

This test looks amazing.  If I had my money for best professional sub-10k camera for 2016, the red raven trumps over the Ursa 4.6k.
But that is just based on one test video, that looks better than the music videos shot on the Red Weapon.
The only way to really tell if a camera is better than another is to see boring test videos - comparisons between cameras.  Highlight handling.  Low light handling.  Skin tone test.  Mixed lighting tests. Resolution test.
Boring boring stuff.
Until then, I still have my red one mx - which is great, not good at highlight handling, but I would be curious to do a side by side.  See the motion.  See how it all feels next to each other.
Here's a short film I shot on the Red One MX.  This is with lighting.  At night. Will the Red Raven look better?  What are the strengths of the Raven over the Red One MX?  The weaknesses?  Are there going to be fan noise problems like the Red Epic dragon?  Cabling issues - only one hd-sdi port?  Hard to get to timecode port and weird audio ports?
These are all things to know before drolling over something.
https://vimeo.com/127683476
 
 

It's unlikely I know, but I suspect this was shot by a time-traveling music video director from the eighties.

I seem to remember that it was Nikon that started off the video function in DSLRs, so it would be nice if they had the last word with this Samsung tech.

Would be easier to just make some sort of NX-Nikon active mount, or even create some speedbooster.

I am agonizing over which thread to reply to "why we should use color charts" or "why we should always use color charts" - you make things so hard!!!
 

And to think of all the Sci fi films of the past portraying a future where monitor screens with scan lines and distortion covered the walls of space ships and futuristic cities. They made the future look so much more interesting. Although now it seems, the future won't be like that at all. With 8k becoming a reality, I'm sad that those visual displays of the future will most likely not be covered in scan lines and distortion as they were in all those classic films.
Instead, we'll be looking at screens so detailed, every strand of hair growing from someone's nose will be clearly visible with smooth edges and no aliasing.

Not with H.265
PS - if Panasonic froze sensor R&D since 2011 that would explain why Sony made the GH3 sensor, but who made the GH4 sensor and what about the new Varicam S35?!

Folks, I had a chance to cover a stage event last Sat and used NX1 and NX500 for a two-camera shoot. Both were at DCI 24p, with NX1/Samsung 16-50 covering the whole stage and NX500/Canon 70-200 the center. Thought you might be interested in how these two gems capture the image and how much flexibility 4K gives in reframing when outputting in 1080p. Comments/critiques welcome.
 

Right dude?
I get a camera with a 5" 1080 folding monitor, 4.6k sensor able to capture 15 stops of light, slo-mo, and an internal 10-bit or RAW recorder. It doesn't use proprietary media and the accessories are reasonably price. All for less than $5000.
 
Oh wait, hold on, I get the lack of enthusiasm: it doesn't shoot over ISO 9000, hasn't got triple-pixel laser auto focus, no 8-axis stabilization, and, it doesn't even make my bed for me!
I mean, shit, Red Raven has TWO fans, Ursa doesn't even have one. Blackmagic, Grant Petty, epic fail.

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've rented a Blackmagic Pocket Cam for the next 10 days which *should* mean the Micro will ship any day now -- because that's how these things work.

Panasonic G7 is 599$ by now at B&H with a Rode Videomic for free on the package. It's 4k for cheap with a 100mbps codec and a good mic for run n gun. Black Friday deals ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thanks for that. I guess for my purposes I wouldn't miss those features. Also, the G7 cannot be switched PAL/NTSC.
I'm not too bothered about headphone/input jacks as I bought a used Shure lenshopper with the built-in recorder to get around these audio limitations (noisy em5II preamps, no input on LX100). As long as there is a hotshoe, I'm good.
I got a body-only G7 from Amazon for £249 after rebate. Too good a deal.  You could get 4 of the G7 for less than a GH4.
I am now debating getting the Olympus 7-14/2.8 for my wide angle or adapting the Tokina 11-16/2.8 with the metabones.

I was all set to get choose between an LX100 or RX100 but swaying towards the G7 now! I previously had a G3 and this looks like a big step up.
@Cinegain I thought you typed kittens and was like Lumix Kittens

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/11/official-statement-samsung-withdraws-from-camera-market-in-germany/
Andrew suggested Samsung should make a cinema camera, and thought that is such a great idea it deserves its own thread. (waves to Samsung reps! Hopes they're reading....  one can but hope!)
I don't think it would take much more to get there (well.... it would be a significant sized project for Samsung for sure, but easily well within their grasp to pull off). 

All they need to do is increase the size of the NX1 body the minimum amount needed so it can do this (perhaps C100/C300 shape/size? Although, I'd much much rather have the ergonomics of an FS5/FS7! But even if, g-d forbid, it has the shape of an FS100/FS700 then I'd still be "ok" with that that!):
Make space for dual mSATA slots, perhaps mSATA already in their own simple plastic casing like what Atomos does with SSDs (I think Sound Devices made a good choice going mSATA on their small PIX-E5 recorder, and in a small camera it makes even more sense over the large SSDs). Dual slots are needed so you can write a proxy to the 2nd slot, or just simply if you need the extra bandwidth when doing 6.5K raw at high speed. Can't stick with SD cards, as they won't handle 4K ProRes HQ, which leads me onto my next point.... Add DNxHR / ProRes, whichever licensing of DNxHR or ProRes is easiest for them to get. Though having ProRes HQ would be preferable I suspect over DNxHR (just because ProRes is more commonly recognised by the market, thanks to BMD and others widely using them), plus ProRes 444 or even raw would be dreamy! (but maybe a little unrealistic in a $3k camera?!) Add two XLR inputs.  Make its HDMI port a full sized HDMI port.  Add two SDI outputs (important to have two, what happens if one breaks? You'll have a nearly useless camera for many people, as SDI is for them *essential*. Plus is very common to run more than one monitor in a production environment, thus got to have two) I think if Samsung did this (and nothing else, just the five points listed above: mSATA + DNxHR/ProRes + XLR + full HDMI + SDI inputs) for US$3,000 then they'd have a huge huge indy cinema camera hit on their hands! The next DVX100 or 5Dmk2 of our generation??
Even if it came out at US$5k I reckon it could maybe still be rather successful, although it would be up against the URSA Mini 4.6K, Sony FS5, and Canon C100 mk2, all at a similar price point. (plus whatever else comes out in the next 6 months) 
For bonus points Samsung could do:
Camera mount: just before, I'm assuming they're sticking with the Samsung NX mount that the NX1 has, and only making the body a little bit bigger. As Andrew mentioned perhaps their mount held back sales of the NX1, maybe this cinema camera should have a different mount? Ideally I'd like to see them use the Sony FZ mount (as this would mark it out as a true cinema camera, able to be used with the best of the best cinema lenses, yet also allowing tremendous flexibility with this mount!), next best choice would be using the Sony E mount, 3rd best is Micro Four Thirds (like the JVC LS300). Branding/marketing/licensing issues mean I expect sadly all of these are out of the question. Thus I feel the best Samsung can realistically do is create their own open cinema mount, which has similar features to the Sony FZ mount. But make it completely open and easy for anybody else to adapt. Thus Samsung will start off by selling their Samsung Cinema Camera with the high prestige PL Mount, but in a blink of an eye we'll see third party manufacturers offering adapters for everything you can possibly imagine (like they do now for the Sony FZ mount!). High Speed Options: apparently their engineers managed 6.5K 240fps in testing, maybe we could at least get this cinema camera to give us 1080p 240fps or 4K 60fps? High than 4K resolutions: give us all 6.5K resolution from the sensor!! :-o Raw: need I say any more? This could hit it out of the park!
What are your thoughts? Remember, it should be based on the existing underlying NX1 technology (so not too much more R&D is needed for Samsung to get it to market), or using commonplace readily available tech (such as mSATA, or SDI connections) and hit a US$3k price point or at least not more than a couple thousand over that.