animan

Same as any camera it depends what kind of video you shoot.. For some lack of audio / flip screen are dealbreakers, extra wide / lowlight arent.. 

Both great cameras for the price!

A problem when you need wide angle most of the time (like me).

 

Another significant difference is low-light perfomance: LX100 has bigger sensor, smaller crop in 4K, faster lens.. Dim (not too dark) indoor scene and FZ1000 fails.

2nd pic has saturation reduced but the colours seem to be the same..

Biggest downside of the FZ1000 is the lack of wideangle. It's 37-592mm equivalent in 4K movie mode.

 

It is kind of weird that the FZ1000 did get Cine Profiles etc and the LX100 doesn't. What is miss the most is a flip screen though...

true indeed yes, shooting 4k for 1080 you could switch to internal 1080 in a push though when you need the extra wide angle.. 

unless you really need to fit it in your pocket, FZ1000 looks like a much stronger choice, hope Andrews review is still on the way!

Thats a bit of a generalisation.. Shooting one man band documentary and using a mic on top gives much better quality natural sound in broll.. The LX100 is out for me for that reason but loving the look fo the FZ1000

BTW I would not base your camera decision on whether or not it has a mic input. If you want good sound, you always want the mic to be as close to the actors or subjects as possible, and you cant do that if the mic is attached to your camera. A mic on camera is only good for if you're say at a comic convention and getting interviews of randomers.

Panasonic LX100

Any reason people are suggestiong LX100 instead of FZ1000? For the same price you get audio in, flip screen and 5 way IBIS.. looking forward to a review!

And you are ignoring Canon's own advertising. 

Good idea to ignore any companies own advertising

Not shooting with an open lens or squashing the blue channel with white balance is pretty painful as far as workarounds go in fairness..

the lx100 has audio, just internal only i guess..

LX100 no audio in or out so for an all around cam definitely FZ1000..

Apart from being a little wider and faster and smaller does anybody know any reason why LX100 would be a better choice? I'm very interested in FZ1000.. Curious how the lenses compare but I really love the look of the FZ1000, amazing bokeh for a super zoom..

(Unless you believe your blog post can speed things up, in that case fair enough!)

Even if its true its not a reason to be frustrated imo.. I dont see a big difference for example having a frustrated or emotional reaction that McDonalds corporate profits were down because their recent happymeal campaign failed..

Plenty of manufacturers and technology will give us all our hearts desire within a year Id guess, for me i dont care which company brings it.. 

Why worry how much profit corporate CEOs and shareholders end up with?

camera definitely has a strange cool colour bias that looks a little flourescent in the greens with this profile, a great effort to fix it though

you may have more luck in a sony tv forum, if theres no issue with the footage

sorry to butt in, but I keep seeing people talking about problems with colour science, yellow tint and other garbage.  here's what i got with the a7s using awb: 

 

 

no grading.

 

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any colour issues here.

skintones are about 20 degrees off the 'skintone' line on the vectorscope, so possibly theres quite a strong pinkish tint, but hard to judge a camera based on using AWB

Hey Mvds, nothing wrong with the clip you posted, its simply the physics of how fast you can move the camera before seeing the image strobe..

I think if you made a scientific test next to the 650d you would see the same..

(NTSC = 29.97 fps not 24 btw)

its often a matter of taste, personally i would choose nikon skintones any day over canon, not a fan of the orange bias..

but I guess is not a question of quality here (cinema standard) it should be that if the timeline is at 48hz and I put one track at 44hz on it... it will sound faster or slower (one of the 2 not sure which).

 

Try to make a 96hz empty track in pro tools and then put one song recorded at 44hz without converting it at 96hz. it will sound very different (I guess really faster than normal speed).

 

so if this is correct and it should 48hz is a standard in the cinema not for a question of quality, but for a question of "speed". 

 

it should be like this difference (33 & 45) 

 

33

 

 

45 is a different speed

true but any modern NLE will know what sample rate the file youre importing is and adjust, 1 second will still equal 1 second..

44.1 khz is CD quality, 48 is a bit better, you should try and see if you think its noticeable or not, editing programmes shouldnt have a problem but with old fashioned ones like FCP 7 its better to convert to 48khz first.. 

If the a7s has a couple of stops of extra dynamic range (without looking too digital) then I'll be interested too.  I just wish it was aps-C.  With a speedbooster gives so many more options.

a7s is APSC or Fullframe, you can choose in camera, its I think one of the most exciting features, hopefully quality will be equal in both modes at least in 1080p

If you go to gearslutz.com, you can find posts about the H6 lasting a few hours with phantom power on. Of course, how long it lasts depends on the microphone. Most mics that are built for DSLR use should sip power at a reasonable rate.

Once phantom power is on, as soon as you put it in standby or record, its sending 48 volts through the output, no matter what is or isnt plugged in. (as far as I know)

The H4N has a stamina mode that is much easier on power but you can record only in 44.1khz

A vintage lens on a Panasonic looks fine and cinematic@24p, and that's without color grading.

I often use the same prime Nikon 24 and 50mm lenses on the gx7 and 5d. The images are both pretty cinematic to my eye.

I shot a concert film with a gh1 and a 5d; cut together fine.

Panasonics can look really good.. but sometimes when youre not trying too hard, and just using a regular sharp modern lens, maybe due to crop sensor difference or how the camera handles highlight rolloff or just something inexplicable, there is something a little clinical about them, compared to for example a A77/99 or D5200/5300

I think GH cameras can look beautiful, but it doesnt come as easily to them as to others.. Im thinking about A7S as a replacement for my GH3 and starting to believe that a cameras personality is as important as specs on paper. With Nikon and Sony alphas, even looking at video uploads by people without much skill, using cheap or kit lenses or bad lighting, they have something that just looks naturally pleasing to the eye out of the box, which I think comes harder for the GH's.. 

Totally unscientific and subjective comment of course!

not useful for video!

Why not? I find it very useful

Nice shots,  I would see if theres a way to colour correct the opening shots to change the pink lipstick to something a bit more natural looking though, I found it a little offputting