Mattias Burling

Did a quick test with my $12 Zeiss. Haven't used it but might need it this weekend for a little project so I took it for a quick walk.
And yes, this is text book boring leaves, flowers and pet footage. 
 
 

​Yes I like it for handheld. And yes I want it to look hand held. Otherwise I use a tripod. i know some want handheld to look like jib shots but that is not for me.

600mm 4K for a 1080 or 720p timeline would be pretty decent reach

This is why they sell light meters.

If that's true why don't you correct the aperture for Full Frame? Why does the sunny 16 rule work both for my medium format as well as m4/3? Why does my light meter not ask me what sensor size I have?
Because it's BS, that's why.

If that's true why don't you correct the aperture for Full Frame? Why does the sunny 16 rule work both for my medium format as well as m4/3? Why does my light meter not ask me what sensor size I have?
Because it's BS, that's why.

I dunno, they don't let just anyone post videos to YouTube, ya know. It's probably legit.

​mine works great on nex 7 plus lens turbo. Little soft wide open but really good at 5.6

​great video thanks Mattias

One person says,
"Look at this result"
The other says.
"Can't be, because of specs"

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

Yeah I see nothing but great potential in that thing.

Yeah I see nothing but great potential in that thing.

​
It's also laughable when people base the performance of a camera on someone else's work. Try them, and then judge! 
From what I have seen though, I think the XC10 is capable of producing lovely footage for the price. 

I'm sorry but all the negativity against this camera is starting to become laughable. 

This one is the best I've seen, and that it includes quite ​a few low-light scenes:
 
 

​hehe, well done Sir. 

After playing for a year with 4K in the Bmpc, LX100 and NX1 I've now moved back to HD. 
I don't really get any big benefits from it. HD broadcast in Sweden is 720p. 4k and HD on youtube looks the same. And anything looks good if not full screen. 
Instead I focus on having a proper robust codec that can take some abuse. Also there isn't any 4k cameras that ticks all the boxes of what I need. And if a project all of a sudden require 4K I will rent. (Worth mentioning is that I have never used my own gear for serious work. Maybe a small gig here and there but otherwise my employer takes care of it.)
I guess I'm on the same page as the biggest broadcaster here in Sweden. When asked recently where they are in the process of 4K development they said roughly,
"We don't care about that right now because it wouldn't look that much better. What really would look better and that we are working on is 10 bit and wider DR. 
The transition to HD isn't even done yet so no hurry for 4K. 
I know this wasn't exactly what the thread was asking but it's the thoughts that came to mind when I read it.
 

After playing for a year with 4K in the Bmpc, LX100 and NX1 I've now moved back to HD. 
I don't really get any big benefits from it. HD broadcast in Sweden is 720p. 4k and HD on youtube looks the same. And anything looks good if not full screen. 
Instead I focus on having a proper robust codec that can take some abuse. Also there isn't any 4k cameras that ticks all the boxes of what I need. And if a project all of a sudden require 4K I will rent. (Worth mentioning is that I have never used my own gear for serious work. Maybe a small gig here and there but otherwise my employer takes care of it.)
I guess I'm on the same page as the biggest broadcaster here in Sweden. When asked recently where they are in the process of 4K development they said roughly,
"We don't care about that right now because it wouldn't look that much better. What really would look better and that we are working on is 10 bit and wider DR. 
The transition to HD isn't even done yet so no hurry for 4K. 
I know this wasn't exactly what the thread was asking but it's the thoughts that came to mind when I read it.
 

I would go g6. You can get it for less than half the cost of a gh3 plus it has peaking. 

This one I can agree to. Selling and buying stuff on forums is a great way to avoid ebay but it almost makes you feel like spaming.

I get so confused when I read this post. It sounds kinda like your against sports but pro objectifying women. But then it becomes some sort of a Zen thing.
I think I might be drunk. I will read it again tomorrow

"Come on guys, in raw, ISO is just metadata - everybody knows that.
Only if you set it to 1600, the curve gets mapped a bit different, to prevent noise in the blacks.
But it still is metadata."
, Frank Glencairn
 
"When you change the iso value on the bmcc, the clipping point does not change, but the noise floor is pushed down. So lowering the ISO will make the image look cleaner, but you will still be clipping at the same point. So lowering the ISO on this camera in order to help to control the level of light being recorded is not a good idea. 

Iso 1600 is a slight exception in that although it is still meta data, the way the range is mapped is different, allocating more bits in the shadows."
, Tom  Majerski
 
 
"A couple of things worth noting.

There's "exposure"....A creative choice.....

And then there's the ISO you choose.

The sensor is always 800. When you change the ISO in RAW or ProRes, all you're doing is changing a curve that's applied to ISO800. Lower ISO's trade some DR in to get you a nicer looking curve for those lighting conditions. In effect you're "grading" your image down exposure wise, then baking it in if you're shooting ProRes

I think the reason a lot of people like lower ISO's is that it kind of forces you to to a bit of ETTR, and appears to give less noise. That's because there's less detail in the blacks. The near black information is now crushed along with the noise.

The end result of ETTR is that is pushes the noise further down into the blacks....thus reducing apparent noise.

When shooting RAW, I often use the ISO 0f 400 or 200 to enable me to overexpose the image a little, and it ALSO gives me a nice looking preview image on the back of the camera.

In my thinking, without changing your exposure for a given setting and shot (aperture and shutter angle stay the same) you can always achieve the same result in the grade." , John Brawley

"Come on guys, in raw, ISO is just metadata - everybody knows that.
Only if you set it to 1600, the curve gets mapped a bit different, to prevent noise in the blacks.
But it still is metadata."
, Frank Glencairn
 
"When you change the iso value on the bmcc, the clipping point does not change, but the noise floor is pushed down. So lowering the ISO will make the image look cleaner, but you will still be clipping at the same point. So lowering the ISO on this camera in order to help to control the level of light being recorded is not a good idea. 

Iso 1600 is a slight exception in that although it is still meta data, the way the range is mapped is different, allocating more bits in the shadows."
, Tom  Majerski
 
 
"A couple of things worth noting.

There's "exposure"....A creative choice.....

And then there's the ISO you choose.

The sensor is always 800. When you change the ISO in RAW or ProRes, all you're doing is changing a curve that's applied to ISO800. Lower ISO's trade some DR in to get you a nicer looking curve for those lighting conditions. In effect you're "grading" your image down exposure wise, then baking it in if you're shooting ProRes

I think the reason a lot of people like lower ISO's is that it kind of forces you to to a bit of ETTR, and appears to give less noise. That's because there's less detail in the blacks. The near black information is now crushed along with the noise.

The end result of ETTR is that is pushes the noise further down into the blacks....thus reducing apparent noise.

When shooting RAW, I often use the ISO 0f 400 or 200 to enable me to overexpose the image a little, and it ALSO gives me a nice looking preview image on the back of the camera.

In my thinking, without changing your exposure for a given setting and shot (aperture and shutter angle stay the same) you can always achieve the same result in the grade." , John Brawley