j_one

Thanks for that perspective. I can relate in experience. I wanted to like the camera with all my heart, and shooting on it was a joy, but any time it came to grading footage I just could never stand how black levels specifically responded to any kind of push in luma. I'm willing to go through a larger workflow to handle larger bit rate files if it means a cleaner, more flexible image if it's coming from the nx1. The codec is the only thing holding it back (like a lot of prosumer cameras).

It isn't a MUST if you are experienced with shooting with gimbals, electronic or not (though know the difference!). It helps to have IS in most cases, but I've even found myself turning off lens/sensor IS for certain steadicam motions due to jitters or complete jumps in motion. Something to consider. A well balanced camera+lens with moderate weight within the steadicam system (and a tiny bit of digital stabilization if needed for some troublesome clips) can go a long way, so don't be afraid of lenses without IS if you're finding yourself in a corner with options!

I don't believe it can replace. I do believe many will settle with the format as sensor technology advances, though, for the sake of convenience. And we all know that. The same way some professionals put down REDs to shoot on these smaller mirrorless 4k cams. I know some who mount their iphone 6+ on pistol grip gimbals, and in the hands of someone who can deal with the sensor/lens/codec shortcomings, it and look and feel like great portable super16 shooting (not exactly, but you catch my drift). And it cuts very well with other cams for professional work. Just saying. Not a replacement yet (by any means), but as the technology becomes more versatile, people will probably settle with what they're already paying for monthly to talk on. Who knows what's yet to come though. I never thought I'd see specs like the nx1 or a6300 here already in their form factor. But they're here, yes?

Can I recommend you try editing in Edius if you experience major banding issues? Their pseudo 10-bit conversion actually helps smooth gradients in all my 8 bit footage, especially from my LX100.

Just popping in to say thanks and cheers to all the time and effort you all are putting towards these two cameras. Kudos to you all and whatever you guys come up with and decide to share.

In relation to motion cadence, I've found that it's pretty pointless to shoot any scenes that pan or track in any kind of way at 24p @ 1/50 if there are noticeable artifacts like RS. What I've been experimenting with lately is exposing using my shutter @ 30p. Keeping the base or lowest ISO and adding light where desired or needed. Then, regrettably 'in post', I apply digital motion blur to my liking or taste. But the final image is better to my eye than if shot 24p @ 1/50. As long as there's not a huge disadvantage in how your camera renders 30p vs 24p (moire or even worse RS from higher fps read at equivalent compression as 24p), you should see a much clearer image IMO. Not as good as less RS from faster sensor readout, and it's not global shutter, but it's my own budget method of combating it in consumer video cameras. Why would you go and shoot with a slightly blurry shutter like 180 or 1/50th when the digital artifacts are already doing it too? This is especially true for those who shoot 4k on consumer cams with only 4k 30p, and can use twixtor to control a bit of time remapping as well with fluid motion if desired. Again, more post work though. Not real alternatives.

That's good to hear. I was always compelled to invest in a chart but thought they were suited for material with room with push color around, like raw stills and professional video codecs. However most of the cameras I use record 8-bit h.264. I was afraid of artifacts, banding, breaking footage etc, even if I get my white balance near perfect. So with using the chart with a7sii footage (internal codec), you see no real downside? The tonality of colors usually holds up?

If you want something cheap, as I've said before on this forum, I'd recommend a sony a5100/a6000 with a speedbooster and a fast nikon lens (modern or legacy). But, that's to assume you wouldn't mind adapting or manual focusing. If you only have time for native mount then I'd agree with everyone elses recommendation on the nikons (d3300/d5300).

RAW footage isn't exactly as flexible to work with when considering most types of film/video work, versus, say, recording 10-bit prores. It's also costly in terms of media storage, depending on the type of work you are doing. I love "budget raw" (BMCC/BMPCC, 5d3 raw) but it isn't always the best choice. That's all.

Is Panasonic taking funny jabs at Sony's naming of model series? Better be careful, they don't wanna lose their indie market to Samsung of all people. Samsung. Samsung and their ongoing updates. Really Panasonic?

So, I've owned 2 of the 4 cameras you've mentioned: a5100 (basically the a6000) and the bmpcc. I've sold both a little while ago, and just bought an NX1 body for $920 yesterday. Here's my take. You still haven't given us much info on what your shooting style is, what kind of film/video work you'll be doing a majority of the time, and how much time is allocated or can be tolerated for post-production workflow. Because as you know, all these cameras (probably except for the Gh4 if you shoot portrait, or the a6000 if you keep your grade simple) have some kind of workflow shortcoming or nuisance. The BMPCC records RAW. Nuff said there. The NX1 needs h.265 > editable codec transcoding, unless you run it into a 4k recorder (which is $$$). The GH4 can be dodgy and trickier to grade if you're shooting CineD or V, though it's marginally better than grading Sony S-gamut1 color on the a7s/a7rii even with log conversion LUTs. Though, it seems Andrew's new GH4 LOG conversion system might help you get decent color faster and more consistently if you like his methods. Finally, the a6000 is fairly decent to grade, but it's like the NX1 where you're grading "flat-ish" rec709 colors instead of dedicated log. All of these cameras, considering their price point, needs to be cared for extensively in their setup during shooting in order to maximize results in post. There's no getting around that..unless you want a Canon rebel. So here's what I'll say. If you don't know what kind of shooting you'll be doing, go with the GH4 and pimp it out cinematic-wise in terms of settings (EOSHD guide + other user experience info) as well as gear (speedbooster, anamorphic if you're into that kinda thing). It's the most all around balance between all the cameras you listed, everything considered. The BMPCC gives you the most possibility in terms of looks at the cost of rigging cost and workflow time. I also didn't like how inconsistent RAW could be in terms of detail. The 1080p one minute was mind-blowing, and the next it was aliasing mush. What I'm guessing is that the NX1 is great with rec709 color but bad with possible compression artifacts and grade possibilities. That's fine, because I can work around both of those things. I think it actually has the same latitude as the GH4 if not a bit more, based on tests. Also, that sensor, in a well lit scene...you could mistake it for RED footage if the person didn't know. So that's why I'm giving it a try now. The recorded file sizes are small, making it great for archiving footage. It also makes the best photography camera out of the entire lot. That's a big plus if you don't care for the 5D RAW workflow. The a5100 I had...I know I can handle the NX1 rec709 colors just fine because I was doing it with SONY colors on this camera. It's a tiny little workhorse that really brings out the photographer mindset inside you because of how easy it is to handle. It feels like a toy. The a6000 isn't too far off. The XAVC-S codec holds up VERY well if you take care of your scene. Gradability is actually really good for what it's worth. A consumer camera. File sizes are small here, too. Just beware, this camera has aliasing/moire problems similar to the BMPCC. Take care of your scene. But again, all of these opinions of mine are based on the types of things that I shoot and the work that I do, which is a healthy mix of personal/short film work, music videos, fashion films, and corporate event work. BMPCC fails here for all of that. a5100/a6000 for video isn't as attractive for this work as the GH4/NX1. A7s is amazing but a headache for color if you're not experienced and don't want to fight with skintones with almost every scene. So, what do you shoot?

Because of this lens alone, I'd probably always have aps-c mode on for the a7s. But from what I understand, the image is softer from full frame mode, because crop mode readout is actually upscaled 2.7k...right? 2.7k-ish readout with insanely sharp sigma 18-35...is that defeating the purpose or no?

I've posted a thread about this topic some time ago. Everything about the a7s is amazing to me except it's color rendition and how efficiently it deals with white balance. I keep telling myself it's user error/experience, but the more videos I watch, I'm let to assume otherwise, and it's just made up for with decent grades to the footage to counteract any of the usual color quirks from the camera. Take a look at these tests of the a7s against the NX1 done by Andrew, which has been claimed to have excellent colors right out of the camera: 1) https://vimeo.com/115669917 2) https://vimeo.com/115647045 Of course, it depends on the look you're going for in your footage, but in terms of ONLY color accuracy, the NX1 is miles ahead. Of course, the a7s is flatter and has better highlight rolloff. But it seems to have an ugly yellow/magenta bias that pollutes other colors. This is why it's quite difficult to get accurate skintones out of the camera, slog or cine profiles. As someone once described before, the a7s looks like film stock. I'd agree. The sensor produces a beautiful image that the filmmaking community seems to love. But personally speaking, I might not always want the film stock look. I'd rather start with an accurate "close-to-real-life" representation of colors right out of camera, not an image that looks strange and works well with LUTs, but is difficult to get back to a natural look if needed. So, like a cinematographer is supposed to do, its time to do extensive camera tests in various conditions and locations. The following is a link I'm sure you've come across already; it's a popular compilation of popular camera picture profile settings for the a7s. Test extensively, figure out what brings you closest to accurate/lush/natural colors, then compensate the rest with quick grades. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGxsgFMLk-oATs-05iN6fzb-uGkcgvLBIgJo_2GWvB8/edit?pli=1&hc_location=ufi#gid=0 Best of luck. I plan to buy back an a7s soon and do the same myself, hopefully. It really is a fantastic, special camera, and it's very possible to get accurate colors. It's just a question of consistency, considering how the auto white balance/set white balance tools and features are literally the worst I've used on any modern DSLR/mirrorless camera.

When I saw this camera get announced, and I saw the fixed zoom lens, first thing I thought was "...*sigh*. Sure, maybe Canon can pull that stunt but not you too!"

Andrew, you are really fixed on this possible impending GH4 firmware update. Did some inside source slip some info a while back that has you this excited (if you are)?

I appreciate everyone's feedback and comments. Its been great to see where everyone stands in terms of importance on Color, DR, Low light, workflow, 4k debate, etc. I sold the a7s yesterday. I had a gut feeling i was making a mistake as i was talking to the guy I was selling it to about the camera. It felt I was giving over a loved puppy I could no longer take care of. Dramatic, yes, but I already knew the camera is capable of great color. So for me to be selling it for my frustrations with color felt silly. Here's the thing about these cameras: like we all like to remind ourselves to dibble in the sentimental side of the art of filmmaking, "cameras are just tools". Now these tools have their own methods and character that DO affect the look and message of your film. But they come and go, because thats the damn nature of technology. NAB is literally weeks away. Its not like i didnt give the camera my full attention and technical consideration. I spent two of the three weeks I owned it for researching plenty of picture profile settings that worked for people (including the ones suggested in this thread), considered different grading workflows and techniques in both Resolve and Premiere w/ filmconvert. I tried conversion luts as well as different Impulz luts. I worked with the camera snd didnt find the look I personally want for my work, which in all honesty, is offered best by 5d mk III RAW (cursed be the workflow). The a7s is amazing. Just not for me, for the different work that I will be doing. I sure as hell will be renting it plenty times, though. But again, NAB is around the corner. I dont need to force my attachment to the camera like this. So like what most of you have been saying...shoot, test, shoot more, compare, and trust your gut. In terms of 4k, I just like how downscaled, unsharpened 4k feels like actual actual true detail in a 1080p timeline vs sharpening 1080p footage on post. It isnt a necessity. A7s footage is crazy sharp with great detail. But then, look at the 1dc downscaled. Same look and feel as the a7s imo, but even more detail without feeling video-ish. Hell, look at a7s 4k. Same premise. Stop saying 4k capture is pointless or not a necessity as much as DR or whatever other attribute. It has its great benefits that DO still contribue to the overall look of yiur film if handled correctly in post. As for my next camera...I think im going to just chill with my lx100, my bmpcc, and my a5100+speedbooster for the time being, and then just rent for bigger projects. I think i still need to figure out the type of shooter i am, as well as the type of footage I prefer to reproduce. Do i LIKE crushing blacks and blowing highlights? Do i like seeing flat footage? Do I REEALY care about sharp images?

Hi all! I've been following this forum for almost a year now, so I thought I'd finally jump in and join discussions! Glad to be a part of the great community here. I've been an owner of an a7s for about 3 weeks now, and I'm loving everything about it, from low light abilities to its dynamic range (8-bit or not). There's just one big deal breaker that has me ready to sell it to a potential buyer tomorrow on craigslist: the colors from the camera. To be frank, I despise the color rendition. I've taken great measures to ensure that white balance is on point with my scenes, and that my exposure reflects what has produced great results for others online. Even still, I find that color accuracy is just plain off, usually containing too much red/yellow, and other times just plain iffy. Accurate, vibrant skin tones mean a lot to me, and this camera just didn't give them like others do in lower budget cameras (canikon, apparently samsung). I now see why people say this camera's picture looks like film; DoF aside, the colors feel like a vintage film stock! I don't only work on narrative projects. I have corporate work that I do almost on a weekly basis, so it's important that I have a camera that produces accurate, vibrant colors right out of the camera (if not fairly close). So as a result of my frustrations spending weeks tweaking and experimenting with slog2 and cine2/cine4 profile settings (as well as neutral) in my grade, I'm switching to the NX1. If any of you have an opinion that contests this decision to switch for the sole reason of COLOR, please voice it! I understand that every shooter is different and has different needs/taste...I'd just like to hear what the rest of you have to say. Because I am hesitant. The a7s is still an excellent camera. Pros and Cons relevant to me as a shooter _______________________________________ a7s: ++ Untouchable low light (makes looking a photography and light totally new, fewer situation limitations) ++ ​Dynamic range + Full Frame (I can do without, s35/apsc is enough for me) + Film Look (color wise, subjective) + Full Sensor Readout, Quality 1080p (contests some 4k that is downscaled in this camera price range) + Small files, codec that is easy to edit/grade - In terms of grading, irritating "log" profile that is Slog2 (Sgamut is an ugly color space without a proper conversion LUT, which the a7s doesn't seem to have made specifically for it. Overexposing around +2 stops helps skin tones but not by much) - Weak battery - Not much of a stills camera compared to competition (IMO) NX1: ++ Best 4k APS-C + More accurate colors + Layout/Ergonomics + 28 megapixels + Well supported/growing firmware + h.265 - transcoding h.265 - Limited Dynamic Range So do I throw in the towel, or do I keep this amazing camera and subscribe to Color Grading Central and continue to get my color correction/grading skills up? Thanks again guys!

​I second this. I snagged mine used on amazon for about $300+ as well, and IQ wise, it's the best money on a camera body I have probably spend if thinking in practical terms. Great codec, great picture, workable low-light an dynamic range. Couple that with the speedbooster I placed on the mount, and you have a near-full-frame camera that's an excellent B-cam for the a7s (if not a worthy A-cam on it's own).

I really wouldn't pay them any mind. The more attention your film gets, expect 10 more tweets like that to come. But as long as our work is receiving honest, positive feedback, if not praise...it shouldn't matter.