Sekhar

Not sure why you say that. Sure, it is FF. But NX1 has pluses of its own: e.g., 120 fps in 1080p and true 4k (vs. UHD). At the end of the day, both are 8 bit 4:2:0 internal, so I'm not sure what the headline feature is for A7RII that should get everyone excited over above NX1. Against A7S, it'll be internal 4K; but against NX1, what? Comes down to FF, right? IMO, we need to learn a lot more about its performance and see real world results before passing judgment vs. other cameras. For one thing, I thought the colors are muddy in all the test footage I saw from A7RII so far.

My point is: except for FF, it's not a slam dunk. Log on 8 bit 4:2:0 isn't exactly great, IMO colors are muddy because of it. This is even assuming NX1 won't get log itself soon. Low light is great for candle light test shots, but does anyone ever do any serious project, especially narrative work, based on low light capabilities rather than light the scene? For doc folks, would be good though. I don't know what you mean by codec, H.265 is an extremely efficient codec that makes great use of the bandwidth, perhaps you're talking about the need to transcode to ProRes? You'll need to do that with a7RII as well. Rolling shutter is just as bad on crop mode, if not worse, as I understand. IBIS and lenses would be a (possibly big) advantage if you use other lenses, but otherwise lens stabilization works quite well with Samsung lenses (though I don't know how it compares to the IBIS in a7RII). And don't forget that NX1 costs less than half of a7RII, which should be mentioned when you list the pluses.
Bottom line, we can enumerate all the things on one side to make the advantages seem big, but as I see it, the only headline plus I see is the FF aspect, but as I said the colors on the other hand seem muddy compared to the vibrant colors of NX1, which for me trumps FF. Of course, I'm only seeing the test clips posted, and that's why I said we need to see more before judging.

Weren't you recently singing praise for the 1DC used for $3500-$4000? And now in light of the new A7Rii, would not such a purchase be in question?

Quotes like that annoy me as well because it's too easy when you have money rolling in left right and centre from professional video work to say "ah, throw that $12k 1D C aside I'll use it as a doorstop" and run out and spend another $3.5k on an A7R II. Way too easy!
However for the majority of people $3500 is a lot of money and significantly more than a GH4 or NX1 and thus the deliberation needs to be more critical.
When the Samsung NX1 came out Cinema5D basically rubbished it. The reason? Bad rolling shutter! Yet here with the S35 crop mode of the A7R II we have what looks like potentially even worse rolling shutter problems and they are practically mute about that... do I detect a Sony bias?
Well I have seen Cinema5D's guys operate first hand myself, at trade shows such as Photokina and they do know a few Sony people and get cameras early. It is too easy to recommend something when you have the camera literally dumped on your desk by a PR company as well.
I was offered a trip to the US to shoot with the A7R II by Sony and I turned them down. I was offered a demo unit by the US PR agency Sony had organising the A7R II marketing and I turned them down. On Wednesday 5th August I will walk into a shop, hand over my hard earned cash for the A7R II and if it is rubbish I will say so and take it back for a refund.
The only reason I am going anywhere near Sony and their PR agents is that they have organised an interesting shoot the day before on Tuesday and it is a chance to get some decent footage. Most of what I say to the Sony people there will be about how it can be improved and what the most glaring flaws are, because that is what I regard as feedback... saying "wow buy buy buy" does not have any useful substance to it, it is pure hype.
And so back to the topic...
It's an open secret Sony want you to buy more than one camera!
That's one reason why the launches are staggered like this. If the A7S II and A7R II came out on the same day you would be able to compare them and select the best ONE.
As it is, this week if you need an internally recording 4K full frame mirrorless camera and can't wait for a mystery to unfold 6 months from now then you are obligated to buy the A7R II.
Personally this is the approach I am taking because there's always eBay to shift gear whenever you like, whenever it is superseded.
I am sure the A7S II will push video to even greater heights, 4K 60p and at least 250fps 1080p, much less rolling shutter, better low light, etc.
it's a guess though and the A7R II is a guarantee of quality right now.
However there's always the danger with waiting for the next model and upgrading in that you never appreciate what is right in front of you.

Yeah, I did an extensive test once between 422, LT, and Proxy. There is a HUGE drop-off in quality from LT to Proxy, but not much from 422 to LT. If space is tight, may be LT is enough, but I would go with 422 for all regular jobs. For 420 8-bit video, HQ and above is overkill IMO.
BTW, the lens I used is the "S" version of the 16-50, I just realized there is another version. This lens has given me amazing results, I got it with the NX1. I'm going to do a bunch of tests tomorrow, mostly on the big zoom use of NX500, for which I'll use my Canon 70-200 L lens (non IS version), which is also great. Lenses always make a difference, but IMO more so when it comes to 4K video, which is why I kept mentioning lenses.

I convert to ProRes 422, I think it's enough. And yes, you have access to the whole frame, which is why you can cut with 100% and 50% to simulate two cameras; keyframe the zoom to effect slow zoom; keyframe lateral/vertical moves to fake slider and jib shots; etc. For the fashion show video I posted, I only had the 16-50 zoom, and even at 50 I just about managed to cover the stage; but with this crop technique for example I was able to go real tight, and the models (all amateur event attendees and their kids) were very happy. Going to ultra zoom is the main reason I got the NX500.

I'm on Windows, but here's my workflow in case it helps:
Shoot with manual focus at UHD 23.98 and all camera settings to default except for DR gamma (on NX1), sharpness -10 and contrast -5 Plug in card to PC and check directly from card using Potplayer If good, copy to PC and convert to ProRes at UHD res with FFmpeg (this is the engine that does the real work, I use it directly but you can use front ends like RockyMountains) Import to Premiere Pro onto a 1080p project or UHD project, edit Color correct and grade in SpeedGrade Other than the tools themselves, you seem to be following a similar flow. Perhaps it's the settings at each stage. IMO your lenses are also contributing to the IQ problems.
Anyway, as I was writing this, my NX500 just arrived at the door. I'll shoot some with it, compare with my NX1, and upload to see how that turns out.

I'm on Windows, but here's my workflow in case it helps:
Shoot with manual focus at UHD 23.98 and all camera settings to default except for DR gamma (on NX1), sharpness -10 and contrast -5 Plug in card to PC and check directly from card using Potplayer If good, copy to PC and convert to ProRes at UHD res with FFmpeg (this is the engine that does the real work, I use it directly but you can use front ends like RockyMountains) Import to Premiere Pro onto a 1080p project or UHD project, edit Color correct and grade in SpeedGrade Other than the tools themselves, you seem to be following a similar flow. Perhaps it's the settings at each stage. IMO your lenses are also contributing to the IQ problems.
Anyway, as I was writing this, my NX500 just arrived at the door. I'll shoot some with it, compare with my NX1, and upload to see how that turns out.

Ok, so my adapters arrived in the mail this morning. First thing I noticed was how small they are compared to NEX and eos-m adapters... Obviously due to the flange distance, but that is a major plus for me. I like mirrorless cameras because they're small, but I also have only vintage lenses, so adapters are a must, but the adapter is usually so long that it makes the camera seem that much bigger. On the nx500, the adapters are half the size of the others. 
I, pretty much, immediately took a drive out into the Pine Barrens to take some test shots. I brought my Canon FD 17mm and 28mm f2. And my Tokina 17mm and 25-50mm. And a Miranda 28mm f/2.8 macro m42 lens I also got in the mail today. 
As soon as I got into the car, I threw the Tokina 17mm on and it looked nice. 
When I got out to the Pine Barrens, I was blown away by the iq of the camera and these lenses. Even with everything dialed down the image was so sharp and contrasty, in a good way. I'll have to mess with some of the profiles to try and get the flattest image, but for the first time out, just messing around... I am pleased. 
The crop factor is not bad at all and the movie standby mode is smooth, even going out of movie standby mode to use focus magnification and peaking is a breeze.
I did have a card error in my second recording that worried me, it basically would not let me do anything with movie recording, but when took out the card and turned the camera on and off as instructed, it worked fine the rest of the time without any hiccups.
When I got home, I tried converting the footage to prores, it worked fine in editready, but it was slow. About an hour and forty minutes to convert a half hours worth of footage. 
When they were converted, they worked fine in QuickTime, but when I imported them into fcpx, I had nothing but a black screen. The inspector recognized them as 4K h.265 clips but not as prores... Not sure why. 
Does anyone know the best workflow with these clips? I would rather down sample to 1080p and work in it there, but editready didn't give me an option to downsample, of course I very easily could have missed it. 
I will try and upload some of the clips to Vimeo over the weekend. 
 

It's hardly a risk in a natural environment, I'd say. You're more likely to come across issues in urban environments with a lot of lines intersecting. Usually man made stuff. For example, where I live streetlights are connected by powerlines. When they intersect with a building behind it with a lot of patterns/lines in a grid fashion, even with your bare eye you see moiré. In the forest there's a lot of trees of course, which you could consider lines, but they hardly really interesct in a moiré inducing way and have organic shapes, again contributing to the fact moiré is rather unlikely to appear. I'd be more worried if you're using talent, that they not wear clothing that could induce it. Don't think there's a real need for such a filter. Just avoid the likelyhood of it appearing and be aware about it. My 2 cts.

I did some tests on NX1 some time back and came up with these as the best: DR gamma, sharpness -10, contrast -5. See my post NX1 DR settings thread for examples and discussion. Given that NX500 is so similar, I'm pretty sure the same settings apply (except for DR gamma, which I believe NX500 doesn't have...yet anyway).

Or take some cool lens-less photos!

Well, those 7 negative comments are vs. 826 positive ones. You're never going to get 100% of the buyers satisfied, some of those may well be competitors. Besides, there are a million protections these days: we have the 14 day money back protection, the eBay protection, the PayPal protection, and the credit card protection. Not to say all said and done we're talking about $344 bucks, so the thought of risk didn't even occur to me.
But buyers, note that this is just the body (they're taking out the lens), it isn't same as the retail packaging that goes for $799 regular.

Thanks, bought one. I think it's a great second camera for those with NX1 (I have one) and makes one heck of an ultra zoom out of your regular 70-200. With the APS-C crop, the 4K crop, and then the 2x 4K->1080p crop if you use that, it will be massive - there is no way to get that kind of zoom at that price. I will post some of these ultra zoom shots as well as some comparisons and cross-cuts once I get the camera, especially for the benefit of others thinking of getting this.

They just updated the firmware for "Pro" bitrates in video mode too, which is a nice bump.

Also, you can buy one grey market off Ebay for $350. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Samsung-NX500-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera-Black-/191641873596?hash=item2c9ebeecbc

The biggest problem with the 1DC is it's price. And I'm not talking it's used price. Used is like a box of chocolates... And since new is $8k, what exactly is the point in comparing the two as if anyone actually cross shops them. 
If I was seriously considering the 1DC, I would also be seriously considering the Ursa Mini, and the FS7, and the C300 Mkii. So how does the 1DC fair in that company? And I'm talking the total package, IQ, easy of use, media, workflow etc...
So given the current options, and the NEW price of the 1DC, how many here plan on picking up a 1DC for $8k new?

Agreed, and you will never be wrong.  Not sure why I bother.

That's because nobody with a strong viewpoint/conviction ever wants to talk "all else being equal" because it's just inconvenient. The same thing played out in the (too) long discussion on whether education is important and most recently in the discussion you started on digital cameras and film look. Talking about some other extraneous confounding factor is an easy way to deflect.
IMO it is disingenuous to say that clients don't weigh the gear when picking a DP, "all else being equal." To those believing that, I have a thought experiment. Imagine two new forum members you know nothing about. One talks of his work with Alexa and the other with t2i. If you were forced to select your next DP with no other info (i.e., all else being equal), would you pick the t2i guy? I didn't think so.

All else being equal gear can make a difference. Not sure why everyone keeps bringing talent into the equation. I believe the assumption is that the person buying the "high-end" camera is a professional who is capable of delivering pro level work. And if this is the case other factors now come into play. 
If not all movies would be shot on $197 camcorders purchased at best buy.

Canon reported their most recent quarterly profit today and said that DSLRs continued to face 'severe market conditions' noting yet another slide compared to the same period last year.
The firm cut its outlook for the rest of the year.
Read the full article

You can't be serious. Did you watch the original 4K download? NX1 stood its ground beautifully and even topped 1Dc in resolution (not sharpness) in several spots. To say 1Dc annihilates NX1 is serious hyperbole. The only place I thought NX1 looked cheap in comparison was the garden (trees and bushes) shot.

Okay I have to chime in here on the NX1 sharpness that everyone is harping on. Sharpness is not an issue unless it's creating visual artifacts like moire. Like adding sharpening, you can blur the image to your hearts content in most modern editors. Also you can use diffusion and filters to get the look you want. I would rather have the sharp image and reduce it than have to artificially sharpen an image. 

What is called for is really a change in perception. To say something looks like video does not mean the same thing today as it did 20 years ago. Years ago it was an insult, because most video looked pretty darn bad. Today it is simply a different feel... Cleaner, sharper and it can still be very cinematic. It think instead of saying something looks like video, what most people really mean, is it does not look cinematic.

The problem is in the "not yet as good as film" part. The point is: that is not a fact, but an opinion. Perhaps shared by many, but clearly not everyone.
In any case, every time a discussion comes up about digital cameras and the film look, why do we go off on extraneous stuff like movement, and lighting? Obviously we're talking CETERIS PARIBUS. I'm really looking forward to Mattias' comparison since he'll be holding everything else constant.

Film doesn't look like real life. And that's the point imo. It looks good, dreamy, exciting, magical, "enter any random word".
And it's the same with everything in films. Even if they are shot digitally it doesn't look like real life. It doesn't sound like real life. People don't talk or act like real life. Physics don't apply. People don't die when they should. Etc etc etc.
All I know is that I sit in forums like this and peep at everything from Sony 4K to H.265.  I mainly shoot Raw but also avchd. I watch modern movies shot with the absolute latest in video technology. 
And then the other day when I rewatched the old "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" I was once again just blown away of how good real film looks. Even if it's over 50 years old and kinda Vintage.
The skin tones, highlights, shadows, everything just straight out kills any video footage I've seen.