Cinegain

Great write-up!
 
 
I couldn't agree more! To me that's the essence of this camera.
 
 
Great tip, thanks! Hadn't thought of that!

My personal favourite is the Noritar 80mm f2 on full frame, wide open.  Or notched down to f2.8 for that slight increase in sharpness on the eyes.  second best is the helios 44.  Both happen to be Double Gauss designs.
 
My personal favourite lens I've used for humans..  An FF58 I wish I'd never let go:( :-
 

 
the description actually talks about some of the points I bring up earlier:) 

resolving power (optical resulution) and contrast are directly related yet can co-exist as a miss matched combination.
 
for example a high resolution, but low contrast lens - one which is designed with a high level of correction to limit the effects of CA and other nasty attributes could be finished in less effective anti reflective coatings and thus be able to resolve detail but yield a lower contrast image.  
 
So..  in LP/mm terms the lens might resolve very clean steps between the black and white lines on a chart, BUT, due to the lower contrast caused by low efficiency AR coatings the black lines might be lifted (to a dark grey) and the whites will be darkened somewhat due to the light transmission losses caused by refections within the lens.   The effect to the eye is a lower perceived sharpness - despite the fact that the detail is there.  
 
Contrast directly affects how sharp an image looks and therefore can be used to fill in the gaps and smooth an image.  a low contrast lens with high resolving power is a very powerful tool - even if you need a sharp looking image since you can apply more sharpening and more of a boost in contrast in post before it starts to look nasty and over processed.
 
If i were shooting buildings I'd be using Schneider Digitars which outresolve pretty much every dslr lens in existence.  But for humans I'd rarely use anything made within the last 20-30 years because they make human beings look like cgi.  

Ebay.

you can get the same look just by using a Tokina RMC 28-85MM F4 - the glass gives you this look as is with no filter
, its a very very low contrast and low saturation lens - also very very good on a speedbooster too.....and very cheap on ebay .......

Cool test. I really like the look you got out of it in the end. Thanks for sharing.

So I bit the bullet over the week and bought the filter. From what I had read the filters work by spreading the light around the image, which is different to simply using a low contrast lens I think. And besides that, I don't want to add another lens to my collection when I already have three superb ones.
 
I started with Ultra Contrast 3. It had good effect but I thought I'd go further so this morning I received the #5.
 
The filters have an immediate effect of making the image look way more filmic. The reason for this is that really do spread the light around the image - but it's not so simple. They take in more ambient light and thus ambient colour. The result is that you get a much more balanced picture in terms of colour and tonality. These filters really are something magical.
 
I have been shooting a fair bit with them over the past few days and will be putting together a video, but for now here's a few images:
 
No filter, Standard iDynamic:
 

 
With FilmConvert:
 

 
Tiffen Ultra Contrast #5 (no iDynamic):
 

 
With FilmConvert and some additional saturation.
 

 
Each filter costs just over £100 for the 77mm sizes. I do recommend getting the strongest one (the #5). After further consideration I think the #3 is a better choice because the #5 washes out darker midtones too readily.

One of my favourite independent directors has started testing the GH4 against his RED. http://danieljohnpeters.com/2014/05/14/gh4-2/

This sort of modular build is reminiscent of Red where I can say as a former Epic  / R1 owner, the body is the cheap part. To be functional on a pro level costs a fortune (my package was about 150k USD, the "brain" was a fraction of that) .
 
But let's start with the basics a semi-pro needs to be functional.
 
Axiom Body (2or 4 grand at retail).
4k recorder
EVF
On board Monitor
Media (whatever it uses)
AB or Vmount Battery system (four batts, charger, batt plate)
Baseplate and rods
Mattebox
Canon Adaptor (the semi pro won't be buying PL glass)
ND IR Set (Axiom has no built in ND)
SDI Module (Price?)
Hand Held Rig
 
Put in your estimates, add it all up and tell me does it cost less than Sony's proposed price of an F7s? Will it be as functional without built in ND's? Will you be using or buying more lights with its less than stellar ISO? Will you lose set up time lugging a battery system instead of small internal mount batts that'll get you till lunch until you have to change? How well will it talk with Canon EF Lenses? Is your Alphatron or Zacuto EVF driving you nuts already? Are you better off buying a used Red 1 MX with better ISO, IQ and established workflow?
 
How much do you really save?
 
Things to think about before pulling the trigger on any system.

Yeah, cool implementation, maybe put my Kalart Victorscope 16mm Super Anamorphic-2x back to good use again.

The only thing oversimplified here was your response.
 
I took the time to read the financial reports for Canon and Panasonic. As someone else previously mentioned, Canon is making a profit currently and Panasonic is losing money.  It's starting to get clearer what Canon's strategy is here.  With the market for mass market cameras shrinking due to competition from cell phones, etc., they have evidently decided to preserve profits by cutting product development costs except for their high margin lines. So their APS-C cameras have shared the same sensor design for the last five years.  4K capability was added only to their two most expensive cameras.  The only real innovation added to any Canon model under $10,000 in the last few years that I can think of has been "dual-pixel" focusing on a few models.  Panasonic and Sony are doing the opposite - taking some losses to make cameras so advanced that they hope cell phones can't compete with them.
 
For the advanced videographer who doesn't have $15,000 or more to spend on a camera, currently the best choice of what to buy, I'm sorry to say, is probably a camera that doesn't say "Canon" on it.

It's a shame not all Windows apps can 2x scale, as I'm a committed Windows man. Apple do have advantage here with the closed hardware loop.

They clearly do: In the intro it says: "Lens Used :- Panasonic GX Vario 12-35mm 2.8 (on both cameras)"

For those who did not see it, an incredible production from Nikon Canada. Much much better than its USA counterpart. It is more static and much more in focus than the Family video above. The sharpness, details and DR looks very good. More so that in the BTS video they say they used only the internal codec.
 

All these new anamorphic options are exciting in theory but where is the exciting footage? I think if this and the other newer options want to really move units they should have a DP do something impressive showing the results they can achieve when used well. The bent jello cam tests aren't enough when asking people to part with $800-4000.
 
That never seemed to come with the letus or the slr 1.3x and I don't hear much about those since they have been released except FS posts.

My fantasy camera would not be constrained by optical or sensor limitations. It would capture all light waves (visible and invisible) and combine them into an exploding HDR video rainbow that would instantly create world peace and harmony. It would heal the sick, feed the poor...dispense ice cream and winning lottery tickets for all the poor children in this world.

Or an Alexa 65.

It is completely fake. They are posting such videos every time new camera is released. (They say they use Panasonic 12-35/2.8 lens on both cameras :D )

We need tomorrow's ND filter technology today. They already have glass that when exposed to electric current will change its transparency...
Just imagine they could somehow make a ND filter working in a similar way and could be put in front of a sensor and could be driven by the camera/user. :D

Just the other day Caleb talked about this ;) :
 

 
~ http://dslrvideoshooter.com/filters-video-part-filter-types-uses/

Huh... you're making up sales by looking at the number of daily users on a photography sharing website? You think the GH2 through GH4 are primarily stills cameras? If I go out to shoot stills I'll take my E-M1 with me. If I'm going to shoot video, which rather is a planned thing, not a daily occurence, I'd be more inclined to use one of the GH's or the BMPCC. If I was more serious about photography, wouldn't mind the bulk of it and had the money to spend, I'd just might go for a D810, 5DmkIII or something in that general direction with some nice glass. If I wanted quick snaps, I'd use a smartphone or the LX7, if I were on vacation travelling light, I'd be shooting with the FZ1000. It comes to me as no surprise for example that there are more people sharing their LX7 and FZ200 pictures, than stuff shot with a GH3 for example. The use is completely different, not to mention people don't just stop using their camera after half a year.
 
You can't really make any judgements on the sales of cameras if the data you're basing your assumption on comes from one particular website focused around photography.
 
I do however agree that the 7DmkII is primarily a stills camera and for that, it actually makes quite an ok camera, with some appealing features. Although even then it's nothing radical, nothing groundbreaking, and I have to agree with the naysayers... this is a little too late. If you want a Canon APS-C crop camera for fast tele shooting, then yes, this is the logical thing to look at. But it's a mashup between the original 7D and the 70D's internals and then adds a little other gooey stuff. But in terms of video... and we are on a video focused website here, why even bother? I really don't see the appeal here. If you see how the competition just keeps stepping up the game and then look at this 'increment', well, it starts to look insignificant. And having to rely on Magic Lantern to give the features people are looking for... well, that just won't do.
 
And I get that the fraction of people actually seriously using video on a dSLR is rather small, but to me it seems foolish not to go along with it anyways. I'm sure technically it's very well possible and in comparison to the competition they just seem stagnant. A T2i/550D used to be a nice affordable starters package for video and Canon could still be as relevant as they were back then if they'd continue to evolve. But how much better is a 700D really? The jump in relation to upgradepath is just way to small. I didn't expect the 7DmkII to be a videographers dream either, although, a significant upgrade on the videofront would've been nice. But I'd really like to see a 700D successor with a more forward focus towards video to become the present day's T2i/550D. But I don't think they care enough to pull something like that. 'Selling units against least effort', seems to be their motto. They'd rather throw on a different button, use another rubber coating and add some filters and sell it as the 'latest model'. Wow John. It's amazing. But wait! There's more! Well, actually, there's not. There never seems to be more with Canon. With Canon you can't.
 
You have a great pick of lenses and for taking stills it's pretty cool to look at some of their offerings, but for video... mweh. A shame really.

Shot 4K with the LX100 yesterday, going to upload and write my review as soon as I have access to a 1st world internet connection ;)

ML is the one and only thing that could possibly make this useful as a cinema camera in 2015. But even then I think this camera is too little, too late. It's cutting edge 2012 DSLR video for the year 2014/2015. Like it was said, this camera will be on the market for several years and money would be better spent on something else now or next year that isn't so outdated out of the box.

So, it ML can get Raw working it may actually be usable.  But this camera likely won't be replaced for another 4-5 years.  That is an awful long time to be stuck with this resolution and overall quality.

How is this new D-LUX a better choice than the LX100? Sleeker design? What sleeker design? They removed the grip and changed the labelling a little bit. I actually prefer the grip of the LX100, it's rather practical. Besides, you're not all of a sudden going to make the camera more compact by losing the grip, the lens is still the main thing sticking out. And you can put on a red dot that says 'Leica', well whoopty-effin-doo, congratulations. Maybe you should add a red dot to your nose too, because if that's the reason you get a certain camera, doesn't that kind of makes you a clown? Free lightroom..? Ok, so you pay more to get less, some sprinkles of Leica make-up and then you're praising them for including a software that you, if you're serious about photography, probably already have. I'm sorry, I do not follow this kind of reasoning. Then they can include Lightroom with the LX100, up the price by the costs, and sell it as a premium package with 'free' Lightroom as well. You're still paying for it (although perhaps at a reduced fee, because of the partnership). And I'm not sure about the firmware... but I think Panasonic will care quite a lot about firmware support and fixes and upgraded features, especially concerning video, I'm not sure if Leica would follow with the same upgrades right after... so you might be missing out here...
 
But whatever makes you feel better. I mean, I always say: a certain camera wouldn't exist, if there wasn't a single soul found to buy it. If you feel like you can cheat your way into having a Leica by buying a relabelled LX100, then by all means be my guest. But if you want this for the sole reason it has 'Leica' written on it, I'm not really sure if that's the right reason to spend some extra dough on it. But again... you're in charge of your own wallet, whatever rocks your boat. I'm laying off the Leica and Hasselblad rebrands myself. It's like an Apple. People are willing to pay for the 'name', 'image' and 'philosophy' more so than specs and performance. In fact, it's much like a religion. But I'm open to any brand. If they have incredible performance for a justified price, I'm going with them and Panasonic is doing a damn good job at providing the best bang for buck lately.

Leica LX100 main difference in design is the lack of nice grip.