Kisaha

Guess its time to prepare for disappointment.

Actually I completely agree. I am waiting for the F4 (do not care for 8ch at the moment), stepping adjustment issues (if Iam understanding it right) is a no go for me, and of course you have to trim "when and why", and digital gain with step implementation is a post nightmare when you do!
There is a recent trend here(Greece) with one man sound departments, especially for documentary series, so my evolution is to have the ability to have some kind of control while booming. The market is just a mess at the moment (for financial, political and social reasons), so I have to upgrade wisely, as sound is often overlooked and very badly paid.
 

Also just did this corporate video. Stronger LUT applied here - 
 
 

Occasional?  
I scan channels on my G3 before every shoot, set my frequency, and I still get interference often.  Been in the city a lot so I guess that's the issue.  Lots of radio waves flying' 'round.  The spectrum is only going to get more crowded into the future.  How viable is wireless in these environments, really?
Here's the thing, the work I do, if something is going bad I really can't do anything about it in the moment, so ultimately (and god help you if you're an audio guy reading this) monitoring a wireless system does nothing but tell me what I'm getting might be dropping out or squelching every once in awhile.  So, that's nice to know, but again, I can't really interrupt the moments and do anything about it... and, since that's the case, why not just carefully place a wired lav on my subject and hope for the best?  After all, that's what I'm doing with my G3 wireless anyway.
I'm one guy with a camera following my documentary subject.  Yes, there's the "right" way to do audio, and then there's the "actually-productive-on-a-shoe-string-budget-way."  
Poo-poo that if you must.  I'd love to be able to monitor and fix all my audio with whatever problems arise, but there are times I just can't.  Wireless that's monitored is usually the best solution.  Maybe in other situations it is not.    
Audio solutions are like video solutions.  I'm not shooting 8-bit on a GX85 because it's the best camera. I'm using it because I think it's the best solution for my particular job.  Similarly, unmonitored wired solutions like the DR10L is a viable tool for certain gigs.  I kinda feel like it's deserving consideration.
 

I've made a similar setup for a friend and the result is really good. In my case, I have a Tascam DR 100 Mark II and want to fully utilise it. Otherwise, it is a good combination.

The challenge you'll find with the 1DX II is that if just want good 1080p, you have to shoot 4K and downscale in post. The 4K files are of course gorgeous (as is the 4K60p), however they are also huge, and even with very powerful computers NLEs like PP CC have trouble playing these 4K files in real time (not an issue with FCPX on the same hardware- even 4K60p plays like butter). For short interviews/shots and/or when you can frequently offload to hard drives, it's not really an issue. However if you need to shoot a live event that is long, you're out of luck unless you can afford to miss some footage when switching cards (and don't run out of cards).
As for stills, the 5D3 has higher resolution and I haven't seen any DR advantages during real-world shooting giving the 1DX II an advantage (I'm sure it's there I just haven't seen or tested it). For sports style shooting, absolutely the 1DX II is a better choice.
I haven't shot on the C100 II, however the C300 II is a superior video camera to the 1DX II. The 1080p is gorgeous and the files are small. The 1DX II 1080p is soft and aliased, barely OK for closeups but too soft and aliased for wides. The C100 II 1080p is also gorgeous and the files are tiny. A really good fit given the OPs original specs. The C100 II is S35 and lenses like the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Canon 17-55 F2.8 (used extensively in Cartel Land) are great for low light and run & gun.

I bought a C100 and a 5D Mark III right after they came out. Sold the 5D pretty quickly although the RAW looked good (not as good as the C100 other than its shallow depth of field "FF" look, which was impossible to pull focus with so whatever). The idea that the 5D III's RAW is technically a better image is a misconception fueled by people who are incompetent on set or in post. Both have great images, though, and the quality is really pretty close.
I've used almost everything on the market and it's the combination of great ergonomics and a good image without much work in post that's led me to not replace the aging C100. I feel like nothing else on the market has an image that's better in a meaningful way without some sacrifice. Sony is technically a bit better (a stop better highlight detail, a stop faster native ISO) but the ergonomics and workflows are dodgy and the color is hard to work with on the high end and on the low end it's a real nightmare with overheating and SLOG 2 having awful color (the Kodak emulation LUT on the F5 is decent, however) and the ergonomics are awful. The Red is expensive and difficult to work with on set and in post, awful in low light, and actually had slightly less dynamic range than the C300 etc. until the Dragon and the new color processing. The Red M had like 8-10 stops of DR, MX about 11-12, and color wasn't great then. And still it's behind Canon and Arri but it does become subjective because its looks is digital, not film emulation. The GH4 is not bad IMO but its 1080p is surprisingly soft (the 4k is fine but you get a bit of crop) and the ergonomics I don't love and it's not super reliable. But it's not bad at all.
But they're all fine. I guess for me if I want a better image the next meaningful step up from the c series is renting an Alexa, but that's also a pain to use. I sort of worried about minor differences until I tried something that was actually different and now for me it's Alexa or bust (though the C300 Mk II look pretty nice after the firmware update–haven't tried it with the new firmware though!).
I don't care for the "FF" look, but if you want shallow depth of field get some f1.4 or f1.8 lenses and an 80D to go with the C100 I'd say. The 80D is easy to use for video and the autofocus is useful for close ups (where sharpness isn't important) and you can get APS-C lenses like the new Sigmas that are sharp and fast enough to match f2.8 on FF and for cheaper. And the DR is RAW is good on the 80D for stills.
Also the Canon RAW workflow is the exact opposite of the cinema series workflow–a nightmare, and that's really why I abandoned it. The 5D II is nice for stills, but has poor DR in RAW compared with the 80D. I'd get an 80D and a C100 Mk II, but I think part of it is that I'm lazy and I do care about color more than most people (consistently score off the charts in color vision tests).
I wouldn't bother with a 1DXII as a video camera. Same very limited dynamic range as other Canon dSLRs. 1DC could be nice, but it lacks the efficient low bitrate codec.

I think you'd make a wise choice in getting 2 separate cameras. I never understood the need for using one camera for both unless it's just for fun or travel.

I would love to order one, but from the lack of sample photos is really hard to jump the gun. Can you paste more comparisons raws or send one to someone for a review?
Its hard to rely on early adopters to make and post tests. Thanks!

Tutti frutti!
Yeah. There is something off about it though even when focussed correctly. It's like it renders distant scenes into one big blue greyish atmosphere. Only the foreground subject looks as you'd expect. That is why top down mode looks the best (to me), because basically it's a flat plane without any depth to be messed up. Also something unnatural about the colors maybe. I don't know. But... it's almost a 180 from the first impressions, so I'm starting to warm up to it. Been flying toy quadcopters before (after planes and helis) and tried a couple spy cam DIY solutions, but when things got lawyered, I just gave up on stepping it up. Still don't know if I have the guts to just launch it in the air around here... but I get where the Italians are coming from, that this would be the more innocent option. I suppose this is more of a camera I would take to Spain or Thailand and shoot some footage of silly beach fun. I guess for actual aerial video production work, I'd either need to fully commit and do it as a legit business, or hire someone that has already done just that.

The Blackmagic Video Assist 1080p one is actually 495 dollars so it makes no sense to buy anything else as the Blackmagic one has Waveform and everything else including Zebra's, 1080p recording to ProRes basically you get more for the same price and it is better build quality and it does audio. 
So basically, if you need a monitor and absolutely have to spend up in the 300 - 400 price range, the Blackmagic one is the only one that you should be focused on unless you need a very big screen but then again I do not buy anything made out of plastic and take it out in the field unless it is for studio use strictly. 

Blackmagic Video Assist is actually and probably THE best external recorder right now, the build quality is superb and the interface is as one expect, very solid and touch friendly, beautiful display and supports NX1 and NX500 at least in my tests but ask Blackmagic just in case.
But to answer your question, no.
But like you said, your partners need ProRes, and shooting with Samsung in-camera colours and outputting it to ProRes could be many, MANY hours saved in not just grade but conversion as well. And this alone is a huge advantage, another point in using an external recorder besides the dual purpose screen is also the fact that you can record audio to it! 
Why audio you may ask? Because it is a known fact that the audio in the Samsung cameras are "#&%"("#!) and you really need to watch those audio levels like a hawk, if it goes a bit over you are screwed big time, it works fine for me on regular use but the first time the audio fucked me over big time because I assumed it worked like my GH4 which it did not.
So basically, because the Blackmagic Video Assist is SO cheap and so well built, one may ask why not? But if you really just want the ext recorder for better video then no not worth it, but on the longer run it may be if you plan on getting a GH5 or something although it wont support 6k video or 2160p60 so there is also that to take into consideration. 
 
This is my opinion on an external recorder for the NX1 anyway, for the NX500 it only adds ridicules bulk to the camera. But if I wanted audio features I would use the Blackmagic, and yes I have tested the Blackmagic and the Atomos Shogun, the Shogun is shit with terrible build quality and the battery life is horrible worse than a Sony A7s in the heat avoid it like the black death. 

If your player gives you an option to choose resizing algorithm, try "lanczos", but I really don't see "sharpening" as an issue.

re original issue: Destroying the footage with "softening" just to look good when you playback 4K on 1080p (when your player uses poor resizing algorithm) does not make sense.

Man - so how does one synch in that case? The Canon sends just the video to the recorder. So you need an external recorder for audio. But the footage has no audio. So - time code? Clapper boards and prayer? Or can you record to the camera card as well, synch that, and then replace with the recorder footage?
And is sending a 4-2-0 signal to a 4-2-2 recorder worth all that hassle (sure, it can record 4-2-2 but it ain't getting 4-2-2)? Can the average viewer even see a difference? Or is your goal to leave the set with ProRes ready to go?
And I gotta agree, plugging a 1/8 mic into a DSLR, yet thinking an HDMI recorder is your next upgrade? I'd look into an audio recorder first if you want to upgrade what you're doing. And maybe look into a "shotgun or lapel" that uses XLRs too. I've found the camera out of my audio recorder (which has its own output level) into my camera via 1/8, often saves me from synching if all the gain is staged correctly. The preamps in the recorder really make the difference (and using quality phantom powered mics and good cables - this has been true for Nikon and NX1 cameras). I still have the recorder card if I need it, and the -6DB safeties, but I don't always need to synch. (Though I usually just throw everything into PluralEyes and go make some coffee or a cocktail. The Tascam recorders have been shipping with a free copy of Pluraleyes, nice bonus and PE now outputs ProRes).

@lucabutera
Thanks for the hard work Luca, I will buy one when I can afford it, hopefully it still on sale until then, I intend to keep this camera with me, I like things that works very well and I use them until they fall apart from age, your adapter will help me adapt future lenses to it.
I look forward to an electronic adapter, that would be Christmas

All these sell and wtb posts should be moved to the SALE topic, to keep this topic clean and clear, and keep us focused on the important stuff.

Ive been happy with the DR100mkii + MKE600 for a long time now.
Good amps in the Tascam and I love the emergency power system.
 

No I have not used the MkII but looking at the specs when going from mk2 to mk3 you get the same increase from 92db to 109db s/n. I guess a proper comparison might be more helpful but I was really surprised to find a recorder <$500 that gives me a similar noise floor to the RM222. 
 
Unfortunately the phantom power is applied on both channels so no... 

As the sticky end of the stick recipient of location sound (and after many years swinging a boom and recording on 2 track DAT,  broadcast and film sets) I'd just love the operators to point it in the right direction lol. Saves me calling ADR, saves us placating artists returning 2 films later and a year later to recapture "the moment" and asking why, it's not impossible - requires balls on set and proving your talent to the director and 1st AD etc (no boom in calls!) and mostly taking the lighting dept out for beers so they'll chuck a flag in for you   
No excuse for not getting a boom inches away from artists or asking crew to move chokes, lights, turn off fridges etc etc. Personals were an absolute last resort, should always be, and lazy - if your sound guy turns up and wires everyone up, records to an 8 track and depends on post to ISO unpick the scene IMHO then you've gone low.
No-one leaves a cinema or viewing whistle-ing a two shot, but shit sound ruins the best of films.
August brings a raft of picture makers (aiming for competition submissions) who've spent everything on cameras, lenses and booze, and want ADR foley track-lay and mix for bugger all, may be the effects of schooling, but will become very apparent you can't skip audio, you can - but the viewer will withdraw from the picture and story far faster than a dodgy shot instantly with cack sound. 
Hire a great boom swinger, and post is piss easy.
Just my 2 pence
 
 
 
 

Yes I am an amateur. I made a few videos in my entire life. 6 of them on YouTube. 
This is my latest one below. Can you show me your 6th video you made as an amateur with no rig or budget so I can see your talent? Sorry if mine does not please you, I am constantly evolving (compared to my previous video, and the previous one) and that's what counts for me.
I know small sensor limitations. I constantly defend larger sensors on this forum. GoPro footage is better than the Mavic is what I am saying here. Take a look at the video above as well as the thailand one by bloom. You can produce good stuff with small sensors, amateur or not, but small sensors are not equals. Neither are lenses and codecs.
 

+1 Emanuel!
Plus, just to conclude my thinking, when I started working, late 90's, everyone was concentraded on his trade, be it sound, be it camera, whatever, and we were investing accordingly. Today, things are getting cheaper, but the market requires, for even a very low budget production, a 800$ wedding let's say, or a 700$ small shop FB video, an interchangable lens camera, couple of lens, few OK led lights, whatever can do for sound, an action cam, a drone, a slider, a few more things (tripod/monopod/bags/batteries/cables/hard drives/computational power/editing amd pp software/memory cards/monitor/etch) and the budget is not adequate for another person to come help. Sorry for ranting, just some thoughts while preparing my bags for such a project!

All these action cameras are really bad comparing with even all these cheap mirrorless we are getting these days. They have to step up their game somehow (bigger sensor perhaps?). 
For amateurs, Mavic seems just fine (or amazing, depending one's perspective), for low budget semi-pro work, I guess GoPro offers better, and well tested image+a whole system to play with (gymbal, camera).
It seems that everyone has a drone for whatever production (weddings, to corporates, documentaries, hobbies, everything).
I am surely tempted to get one for the low budget jobs, but honestly, I would always prefer a specialist to come to do the job with an Inspire and a better than those cameras. Less money for me, but I am against the "do-it-all" approach of the 21st century (and the still going on financial crisis). I truly respect these kind of people, and I do the same to some degree, but sales-production-script-direction-camera-lighting-sound-editing-post production, is too much for one person to add to everything else. For not extremely low budget jobs I would prefer a 3 persons team, and probably drone/musician/After Effects small jobs.. and I am not a communist!
Does anyone know how the Sony X3000 compares to those in image quality? And is any other competitive drone around 1300$?

I don't know if that is a correct method of determining exposure difference, but after cropping the NXL RAW in Lightroom to the same frame and turn it into BW, it takes about 0.5 stops of pushing the exposure until histograms are roughly matched.

Isn't v-blogging the type of video where you talk to your audience in front of a camera that is fixed (because there is nobody else to operate it)?

Jvc's LS300 is a super 35, native m4/3 camera. It is not rocket science, and JVC is very close to Panasonic, anyway. There are speedboosters already for that cam, also. A sensor like this, could have made the GH5 the ring to rule them all.
Panasonic have to realize that this is a video camera, with the form factor, and a little bit of a photo camera. Just the right count of megapixels for better low light capabilities would be a check mate.
It is too early for anything meaningful though, I don't see myself discussing X-Files theories for a camera that I am going to see, probably in a year.I just hope for Panasonic to take the right choices, until then.