Cinegain

Yeah, Caleb actually just released part II of his filter setup shootout/tips. Some gd stuff there. ~ http://dslrvideoshooter.com/filters-video-part-filter-types-uses/ ~ http://dslrvideoshooter.com/filters-video-part-ii-matte-boxes-lens-accessories/ The option for the least amount of lollars actually looks pretty nifty with the magnetic pop-on and all.

I don't like riddles. ;)

True that! Like you and Ebrahim said, it's hard to imagine the need for such a filter, or UV filters in general, it's the evergoing debate, but I take your side in this matter. You throw on a filter if you're really cornered and need a quite drastic change made to your image in order to pull a shoot off. I doubt however that this 300 lollars filter will be as effective for what it's supposed to do as a ND or polarizer filter when you don't want to change shutterspeed/depth of field:(aperture)/ISO of lighting setup (if possible at all), but need to lower exposure or... you're shooting cars... or shooting through glass at the zoo. In these situations filters become more or less lifesavers that can save a shot... I doubt one cannot live without their fancy UV IR Digital filter by Heliopan. It's just not that essential, if you get a lousy Mediamarkt Hama one it might even degrade performance. So as long as you have no complaints, don't put schtuff in front of your lens! I do have to say though, I'm always delighted when someone sends me their old lens and it comes with the UV filter they've been using it with. Does show me they care about keeping the lens in premo nick. So I'm somewhat of a hypocrit. :P - Actually wanted to try that ND3/ND6 from the Kickstarter campaign, because there are quite a few people opposed to using variable ND's and it seems like a cool way to try out static ND filters, but they have regular filters too, should you want some lens protection and do not want a Hama filter, but also not spend 300 lollars.

Sure thing. Not really sure what's up with the 24mm. I was given the same tracking code for both, but only the 42.5mm was to be found. From the video impression on 'em earlier this topic the 24mm did have a nice look too, but sounded a bit quirky handling wise. Of course this range is already covered by the great companies, but the pre-order price was reason enough to get it over the others (Panaleica/Olympus, although I do have the SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 25mm T0.95 which I adore).

I think 'lol-lars' was the right way to address its price indeed. I might get something from here though: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/breakthrough/x-series-traction-filters .

You're so right! And I will certainly do so. ;) The mailman also just brought me the earlier discussed Zhongyi 42.5mm f/1.2. Just keeps on getting better. :P Makes for a nice little character shootout I'm sure. From tomorrow on 19km of christmas lights will light up each evening. There's punschstandln everywhere. Should be inviting enough to get some decent Vienna atmosphere on tape SD whilst having fun trying out these lenses.

Well, nobody is forcing you to buy one. But for someone not using a steadicam (all the time) and not wanting stationary shots (tripod/monopod), for handheld running around a cage could be a nice solution. Also, it can be modular, so when you would not only benefit from a cage alone, but a shoulder rig as well, you can throw some rods under there and have at it. Depends on your use really. If you have almost nothing to gain by owning one, then save yourself some bucks and leave it be. For others... it's a well worth investment. I thought Wooden Camera stuff looked great (and what else you got, Lanparte, Vocas etc), but like you said, I'd rather not be spending a fortune on this? So I managed to pick up one rather cheap myself (ABCRig by Ginirigs). For my silly needs just fine.

Thanks for the great suggestions, Andy. :lol: I'll be taking these puppies for a couple of spins next few weeks.

If you would've been reading through the thread, you would've come across... You can't expect the same performance as that out of a bigger sensor camera, but it's already significantly better than anything in the same category from Canon PowerShot, Nikon Coolpix, Sony Cybershot and what have you, what superzooms/bridge cameras concerned. So I wouldn't go and call it 'poor'. These kind of cameras have to compromise in some ways to enable for the crazy versatile focal range. Still though, if you know the limits and keep that in mind when shooting, you can certainly make it work and capture stunning imagery nontheless. MP4. Should be ok, although I haven't tried with the FZ1000 in particular. I worked with the 600D, in my opinion, it can get rather soft and mushy, not the easiest to key. My guess is, the somewhat cleaner cut FZ1000 footage should be easier to work with 'cause the edges are better defined, if that makes sense? Remember though, when green screening it is of outmost importance to light your background well and evenly. If you don't have that down, then any camera/footage will give you a hard time keying. Lighting doesn't have to be all that expensive. With green screen work you do not even need anything fancy either, you're planning to filter it out, not show it, anyways. And get your subject well away from the backdrop, light them separately. There are tons of good videos on this on the internet on this matter, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. But I'd say, do focus on lighting, else it's gonna be lost effort anyways, don't expect changing cameras to make much of a difference.

Eh. Just read the description from the Vimeo-video included in the initial threadpost...

Why contrast zero but then shadow/highlight +2/-5? Wouldn't you rather go for contrast -5 and shadow/highlight 0/0? I don't use the cinestyles that much on the GH4/FZ1000 anyways (unless demanded), I do like the toned down natural profile.

Testy test.. Also..

Or you could think of it as less challenging competition? :P Might even inspire some to pick up cinema? Although, who knows, maybe it's a hidden talent of him and he's actually pretty good at it.

Yeah, it's kept just under 30 mins, that has to do with this broadcast-tax thingamajig in the EU I believe. There are two cons of the FZ1000 and LX100 that kinda bug me... the SD-slot is co-located at the battery compartment and there's the lack of touchscreen. If they just would've included a touchscreen and put the SD-slot on the side, these cameras would've been much nicer than they already are. But I do love both of 'em for what they offer. What they offer is mobility and easiness. The LX100 won't take up any space in a bag or coat pocket and it does sport that 43rds sensor (although partly left unused) and lovely sharp and sensitive lens. You do kinda miss range with the LX100 (and a tiltable screen would've been nice too, there's no audio interface either, but I can live with that, either record externally or with your A-cam, or just put some music underneath), but again: mobility. The FZ1000 on the other hand has a really flexible range, but does have a bit less dynamic range (and you can dial everything to minus maximus and it's still nowhere near flat) and it's a bit harder to get a shallow dept of field. Of course you can step back and zoom in, still getting some creamy bokeh going on... but it will go back to f/4 pretty quickly and lowlight performance is not exactly worldclass. I do have to give props for upping the megapixel count. I know we tend to hate high megaxpixel count, because of the degradation in lowlight performance, but to be honest when I had it with me on vacation I used it mostly during daylight anyways. And as a hybrid shooter then the extra pixels do give you more detail and more real estate to work with. Handlingwise the FZ1000 is more like the GH4 than anything else. Except for the fact it has that 1" sensor and fixed zoomlens. It also is just as big as the GH4 with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 mounted. So it doesn't quite offer the mobility of the LX100. But although the size is comparable to the GH4 with lens, you're not stuck with a 12-40mm, so: 24-80mm range (versus 26-416mm of the FZ1000 in 1080p), or roughly 28-92mm 4K crop (versus 37-592mm of the FZ1000 in 4K). That means, you get full flexibility without having to carry around and swap out lenses. That makes it the ideal camera for vacation. Just put it in your bag or carry it around on a strap and when you need it, don't worry about picking a lens, just pick it up and shoot away, it's everything you need, hardly any setup required. That's what I like. Especially on vacation, I don't want to be taken out of the experience too much, but I do want those nice memories, and preferably something nicer than a smartphone selfie. To me, the LX100 is a nice everyday use camera that lets you take great stills and videos where your smartphone would've let you down. It also has a killer 4K mode with great looking video, so you can either use it as a great hybrid camera or for nice B-roll in addition to your GH4. If you want more flexibility, a nice all-in-one solution, really value mic-input and a flippy tilty screen... the FZ1000 is the camera of your choice. You're kind of a dedicated video shooter and rather shoot in a controlled environment, dim conditions at times? Like to handpick lenses, do a bit more rigorous editing? You might benefit from the features in a GH4 or BMPCC. If you don't mind spending the money, these cameras combined make a very interesting set, peaking in different situations individually and can be great when used together as well. If one had to be the best... well truelly though, different needs will result in different winners, so it's really up to you to decide.

Yeah, I do. Been a fan since the GH2-series almost three years ago. :D He's a great guy! What about a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (Nikon mount) with a focal reducer (that's what I use for wide angle)?

Does seem like it... e.g. http://kiwifotos.com/show_product.php?id=218&id1=129&id2=&id3= or check eBay. It's a matter of bigger design glass for a smaller sensor, so that won't be much of a problem... a problem would be adding a focal reducer, because of that flange focal distance. But a simple dumb adapter like the KIWI (JJC) one... sure.

Not really Samsung's fault, now is it. Been around a little longer already... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-illuminated_sensor

These ones might be interesting too... http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2014/11/17/the-zy-optics-mitakon-24mm-f1-7-and-42-5mm-f1-2-micro-four-thirds-mount-complete-review/ Also check how they compare to the Panasonic/Leica and Olympus M.Zuiko. Little dreamy: less contrast and a bit soft wide open. Some might call it 'character'. ;) I had ordered those myself when they were up for pre-sale around Photokina. Shipment was a bit delayed. They're on their way now though and according tracking have just left China. Will take a week or two/three to get here. There were some answers on the Veydra comments-page. Sounds pretty cool. Not quite sure about the Kodak-colorscheme of the branding though (orangy red with the orangy yellow). Do markings on cinema lenses really have to be orangy yellow?

Have you seen this? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/665053329/veydra-m4-3-cinema-lenses-for-gh4-and-bmpcc Just read about this, so I'm not sure if they have character... perhaps these are reworked Rokinons as well, but could be something to look into? - Ah, key, apparently not. + saw mister Caleb Pike is using the 28-70mm f/2.8 as well! Slowly starting to convince myself that this would be a great one to have combined with a Nikon focal reducer...

Except for the fact that it's a side effect of the GH4 being used with external monitors and recorders. So there's no way they could leave it out if they wanted to. Pretty sure the feature wasn't added in mind that you could use it for FPV and monitoring on aerial shoots. So it's not quite the same. That's why I said that probably they do not expect you to rig the LX100 up and just use it as it is, because it is so compact, that's the key selling point, that it is all-in-one already. And yeah, it's a step below the GH-line, surely. But I'm not sure adding HDMI-out during recording to the LX100 would effect GH4 sales that much. So I hope they have a change of hearts then if it's technically possible to add it with a firmware update. The other point. Yeah, a couple of years ago you'd have to go with spycam(like) cameras. There weren't any gimbals around for consumers/prosumers, let alone an afforable FPV solution. So I did fly without seeing any livefeed... and still people are shooting without a live feed... just because it can't be budgeted for, so it's not impossible, it's not that insane, people have been shooting like that for years. But fair enough, those people then probably don't have the means to get themselves a multirotor with gimbalmount to handle a camera such as the LX100. So admittedly it's already more serious and I know it's not years ago now, we live in 2014 with all this technology availlable... except then for the lack of video-out whilst recording, lol. Well, I hope Matt will respond to this and maybe tell us if anything will be possible in the future. The range though... besides, people aren't fond of Wi-Fi signals when they're flying their multirotor. Wouldn't want to get signal mess-ups.

I remember the times that a livefeed was still something extraordinary. Now it may perhaps be quite mainstream, but enough people know how to live without it. So I agree, theres no reason it really cannot be used at all. That aside though, I also do not really see a reason for Panasonic just to leave out this option. I can't imagine them just 'overlooking' this ('ah shit, now you can only use it for 'playback', not 'live recording', guess we forgot, good point'). Maybe they believe nobody wants to add a monitor or external recorder to a 'compact camera'? They're afraid to many people would use it as an aerial cam, crashing it and using the warranty to claim Panasonic has given them a faulty camera? Not sure, I'd say techwise there wouldn't be too much to it. Perhaps it's even as simple as coding a few lines? Perhaps they'll even do that? They also didn't think the 4K Photo mode would be used for anamorphic shooting, so didn't give it a 24p mode. I can see them changing that, so if this really was an afterthought, then I do hope the people in need of such a thing will get it through a firmware update. But if not... remember, Panasonic never advertised the LX100 as being the 'ideal camera for aerial video', so being all upset and never wanting to buy something from Panasonic again is pretty uncalled for. I've seen people do great things with a DJI Phantom 2, H3-3D gimbal and a GoPro too... and again, people used to film without a livestream all the time, so it's still not impossible with the LX100 either.

Nice write-up, cheers! Yeah. Def need to see that camera in action: footage / handling reviews! Looking forward to be seeing that. Very curious to see how it holds up (not footage out of the hands of a whole crew that shoots ads for Samsung, nor Joseph Gordon-Levitt). I actually didn't see this powerzoom lens pop up in a kit yet ( http://geizhals.eu/?fs=Samsung+NX1&in= ). Judging the price though, the 16-50mm S ED OIS must be quite the piece of glass there (much like the Pana 12-35mm f/2.8 and the Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 I guess), must be in quite a different league. Looks like some places around here (in Europe; well, Germany) do already have the NX1 availlable, nice. Would love to have a little playing around with it at a store nearby, hopefully it will be readily availlable in more countries soon. I'm not sure if there's gonna be a that big of run on 'em? Atleast, judging the past, I wasn't really into their NX-range that much (didn't like the NX300's ergonomics AT ALL, NX30 was a little weird for my taste) and they haven't really made name for themselves videowise (what interchangeable lens systems concerned) yet. I feel like a lot of people will probably still stick with the Canon system because of the electronic pairing with the lenses, whereas people like myself are already heavily invested in the m43-system, so the 16-50mm would be one of the first and only ones to use with the system. So probably I won't be changing systems myself just yet, but it's cool to see someone trying something different and it does sound like they got it right with this one. 'In your face, Canon'... 'Pay attention to what these guys just did!' I would almost say. APS-C, ISOCELL, processing power, codec... could be quite something of course. Would love to see more GH4 head-on comparisons, since that's the somewhat obvious one to beat in the range with a similar deal going on. Interesting times these are!

Isn't Panasonic representative Matt Frazer to be found somewhere on the social mediaz to address this? I suppose that's the guy to forward this to...

Yeah, you appear to be right, I can't seem to replicate that. Perhaps this wasn't the case to begin with and ISO200 coincidentally just happened to be sufficient when briefly testing that, making it seem the camera locked the ISO to match the lit scene and not dynamically adjusting the ISO to keep a balanced exposure when starting to pan away to something lit differently (the test was to see if the ISO (auto) changed throughout; it didn't, auto-locking an initial ISO was an unfortunate assumption, not tested for (apparently)). Although again I still prefer not to use any automated settings. I don't want to touch the shutter (flickering/motion blur), I know the aperture is not clickless (exposure jumps, losing set depth of field) and you can not add more light to f/1.7 (maximum aperture), in lowlight you don't want to cut more light with a ND-filter (it's like that one guy you know that wears sunglasses indoors) and if you're out and about doing some street stuff, you can't just add light to a scene (or do you just happen to always carry around a huge lighting kit?)... so I get the only variable left to touch and add light is the ISO. But then again, I also like to control noise and think it's rather noticeable if you change ISO mid shoot, but okay, you can make a creative cut to make it less obvious... but then again. You can also do it manually. Just 'feel' what the scene needs and just adjust any of the settings you'd rather not change. Sometimes I do not mind under- and/or overexposing during a clip when I know I'll be back to the initial settings a moment later (I find this rather natural anyways, on a sunny day with blinds closed at home, you won't magically adapt from in- to outdoors in a second, it takes a bit). It's different of course if the change lasts and you're still under- of overexposing. But again, then I just press a button, twist a dial and Bob's your uncle. Not really a that big of deal. Especially if you considered it for intial ISO and knew it wouldn't change automatically thereafter anyways. Would you really mind setting it? Do you think the auto-mode would be that much faster/accurate? Maybe due to funky metering it might jump up to a higher ISO than you think the scene needs (or a too low ISO). I don't know. I guess that more options and features is always a good thing and that (extreme) situations (where you need to start rolling quickly and adaptively, or an oppertunity could be left unused), might require certain wishes to be fulfilled, I personally can't really say I'm bothered by the amount of manual control.

The 'underarm bag' could be worth trying... maybe it sucks, maybe it's really practical. Ships from China for around 10 USD on eBay ('Redalex' - 'R-lex' branded it seems). If it just needs to hold a lens cap, some spare batteries and some filters, it should do the job just fine?