Cinegain

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).

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

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

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

You mean like DMX...?
 
 
I'd like to know what their light output is/some photometrics. I don't mind the idea of 'modular' lighting, but I can't see myself using these. Potentially not enough output, too small (so inherently hard) - I could see myself ganging a few together and putting diffusion over them, but then it defeats the purpose.
 
There'll be some obscure cases, but I don't think it's the second coming of lighting equipment.

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.

I'm still not convinced by the footage I've seen from this camera - still looking overly sharp, very brittle, crushed detail and quite artificial, didn't see this "filmic motion" others have spoke of here. 
 
That said, the features are not too far off ideal for my uses so I'd rather give it a go then set my opinion based on a few quick shots. 
 
I'd still like to see more.... ;)

I'm curious to see how this camera would perform in the hands of a talented filmmaker. The very little stuff online including the demo reel is rather awful and brittle - yet the same can be said of most new camera releases at the early stages, in the awful aspects. ;)

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 fully agree on the HDMI! Glaring omission for drone users and will hurt sales. Sure I can forward the feedback to Matt. They are on our side. It's just sometimes a decision is made in Japan for engineering, technical or marketing reasons that doesn't quite chime with the demands of filmmakers.

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.

 

Samsung NX1 review is evolving, keep checking back.

The NX1 costs $1499 body only or $1699 with the 16-50mm power zoom OIS lens. Expected availability in the US: 28th November 2014.

I've been shooting with the Samsung NX1, an absolutely massive leap for camera technology - even a leap too far?

Take a cup of tea and enjoy my rolling review to find out whether the NX1 is a petulant robot here to make your life difficult, or pushing the bar higher for 4K and DSLRs.

Read the full article here

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.

Here are the two pieces I made today with the Sony FS7.  This camera is going to be a giant hit.  Everything about it is amazing.
  Charlie Chicken:   Small Moments (180 FPS):

Yeah, I just found out that a lens I ordered on eBay is part of this Global Shipping Program when I went and googled what the 'UPAAB'-tracking related to.
But so far so good, it got shipped out promptly and I'm getting regular status updates, so fingers crossed.

I got mine through Vitaliy: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9086/rj-lens-turbo-m43-adapters/p1?Sort=newest
 
 
Me three. That's a great idea. Would make for a good and valuable read I'm sure. I already have quite a bit of vintage/legacy glass and now got the RMC coming my way as well. What Andy said about the 28-70mm f/2.8 putting on a speedbooster basically covering three basic f/2 hollywood-look primes really got me intrigued too...

the whole Carl Zeiss Distagon 'Hollywood' look is all referanced to Super 35mm film field of view (in dslr terms thats APSC or micro 4/3 WITH a speedbooster to give a Super 35mm Field of view)
 
The Carl Zeiss Distagon f2 28mm lens has this reputation and the nick name 'Hollywood' in referance to it giving a similar look to a 27mm Carl Zeiss Master Prime Cinema Lens or a Zeiss Ultra prime 28mm
 
The Zeiss Master Primes is in fact a 27mm lens not a 28mm like the Distagon.
It's is David Fincher's favourite lens and used alot on all of his films plus DOPs like Roger Deakins use Zeiss Master Primes alot and large postions of the James Bond film Skyfall where shot on a Zeiss 27mm Master Prime.
 
 
To get the 'Hollywood' look with the Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2 you need to shoot with it WIDE OPEN at f2
Its a very good expensive lens because it is sharp wide open at f2 - it is very very usable there!
If you shoot with this lens at f5.6 it just looks like any other 28mm lens - BUT VERY SHARP!
 
The 'look' is wide open at f2.
 
The other month I was fliming with a 2 camera set up and I wanted the same lens on both cameras.
I only have one Zeiss 28mm lens I was using on camera 1 on a Lens Turbo speesbooster on a g6
so I came up with a very good alternative for camera 2 that looks practically the same as the Zeiss.
 
Here is how I did it- poor mans Distagon 28mm f2
 
you take a Canon new FD (nFD) 28mm f2.8 and put it on an RJ canon fd - micro 4/3 speed booster - this gives you the Super 35mm field of view like you need and makes the lens f2 which gives you that look - the speed booster also sharpens the lens so its now of similar sharpness to the Zeiss .
 
When I cut between camera 1 and camera 2 in the edit it worked great both looked the same!
 
The Canon fd lens has the same warm look and great blacks like the Zeiss and its now f2!!
 
So there you have it Hollywood 28mm f2 lens look on the cheap !!
 
If you are serious about getting a Hollywood look on all your footage the three focal lengths you need to be using
they are
28mm , 40mm and 70mm all shot at f2 all the time in a Suoer 35mm field of view (so APSC or Micro 4/3 on a speedbooster)
 
28mm for the wides
70mm for all the close up head shots
and 40mm for all the rest the coverage shots
(use a 50mm lens if you don't have a 40mm lens and take 3 steps backwards!! haha that ususally gives the same look)
 
 
and for all of you that read about me harping on about the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 'Bourne' zoom lens will see it covers all those focal lengths I have mentioned above in just one lens - instant Hollywood in one lens !!  stick it on a speed booster and  that makes it the all magic f2 you need to get the 'look'

sounds like a good idea!
 
we are all in the middle of a massive Digital Film making revoltion right now
- film is dying - it's almost gone for good (Christoper Nolan will have to start hording film stock soon!!)
- the Alexa has now made such in an inroad in mainstream Hollywood films this past 3 years that its accepted as the main camera now.
 
The thing that has not changed is glass! and getting the right focal lengths for the right shot in your film is still exactly the same for Digital or Film.
What has changed is that Indie film making on Canon and Panasonic cameras it is now possible to make a finished product that is almost 95% as good as the big boys in Hollywood - the difference is not that great if you know what you are doing and if you learn to exploit the 'pros' of what ever camera you are using and mask the 'cons '.
 
The right lenses help you get the 'movie look' and it is all very acheivable very cheaply if you look around for lenses that have a certain 'look' similar to expensive movie lenses.

My first week with the LX100: http://www.mirrorlessjourney.com/blog/2014/11/my-first-week-with-the-panasonic-dmc-lx100-1
:D

Canon. Can. Non. Non-can. No can do. Cannot. Can't.
Just sayin'.

You can check out my extensive test using the metabones speedbooster on a GH4 + SLR Magic Anamorphot.  You can see the clear difference in FOV and a little with depth of field.
 

Not quite. There's a sealable hole in the battery door, which you can run a wire through. The compartment door itself would be difficult to get rid of without breaking it/being able to put it back together again, I'd say.

Canon. Can. Non. Non-can. No can do. Cannot. Can't.
Just sayin'.

Okay. So thank you for contributing to this topic, bye for now and good luck in the other threads.

Hi, 
 
When you watch the video below, you'll realize that I am not a video maker, but a programmer.. There are artifacts in the video that I couldn't get rid of..
 
Oh, by the way, don't play with your receiver's settings, there is no background music :)
 

 
Hope you find it useful
 
Melih