Jump to content

Samsung NX1 vs Canon C300


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in the techy aspects to an extent, it's part of the picture and is especially useful for those trying to decide which camera to buy. Talking about aesthetics and *art* is great too, but fundamentally more subjective. So, if we're going to talk techy, can't we be a little more scientific and apply some reasonable guidelines and methodologies? DR is a useful thing to talk about about, I use to shoot a lot of ocean sports, especially surfing, DR matters in those environments, but how about more emphasis and emulation on the approach of someone like Adam Wilt, where things are quantified in controlled environments. Saying "NX1 looks to have about 2 stops more than a RED1 according to my eyeballs"  isn't particularly helpful IMO. That'd be my criticism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That video is brilliant!  

​I think maybe you need a more active imagination.  This capability has existed for years now.

​Coming soon. New firmware is great! But wait till you see what is in store for the GH4 ;)

Posted Images

​That's intelligent. I ask myself that same question, why are you here?

 

I am here because I’m interested in the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.

That was sort of the point of my response.  That you are criticising behaviour that is the entire purpose for most people even being here.

Its like going to an antique website and saying “What do you care how old it is”?
It’s perfectly acceptable to hold that point of view, but then why go to an antique website?
And you could hardly expect to go to an antique website with that point of view and not be told to fuck off.

It doesn’t matter why I want to learn about the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.  I do it for my own reasons.  I certainly do not do it with any concern to providing you with material you may or may not care about.

Your comment was supercilious and a pathetically transparent attempt to belittle peoples interests and curtail their passion for knowledge.  Therefore, it deserved nothing but antipathy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody with skill and talent can make any camera look awesome. A person without skill and talent will make an Alexa look like the worst camera ever. 

 

​That's true, I've seen some catastrophically bad RED footage. On the other hand, shooting in uncontrolled environments (run n gun docs, sports) sometimes forces your hand to rely on a cam's inherent capabilities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am here because I’m interested in the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.

That was sort of the point of my response.  That you are criticising behaviour that is the entire purpose for most people even being here.

Its like going to an antique website and saying “What do you care how old it is”?
It’s perfectly acceptable to hold that point of view, but then why go to an antique website?
And you could hardly expect to go to an antique website with that point of view and not be told to fuck off.

It doesn’t matter why I want to learn about the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities.  I do it for my own reasons.  I certainly do not do it with any concern to providing you with material you may or may not care about.

Your comment was supercilious and a pathetically transparent attempt to belittle peoples interests and curtail their passion for knowledge.  Therefore, it deserved nothing but antipathy.

 

 

 

​No, not true, it was merely an observation. I would hardly call arguing over nothing a passion for knowledge. Read through those posts, there's nothing constructive about it. Although, I will admit, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's all you'll hear about this from me, I certainly don't want to hurt your feelings in your quest for knowledge!

Link to post
Share on other sites

​That's true, I've seen some catastrophically bad RED footage. On the other hand, shooting in uncontrolled environments (run n gun docs, sports) sometimes forces your hand to rely on a cam's inherent capabilities. 

​The Epic MX doesn't even surpass the C300, which isn't that much better than the GH4/A7s/and apparently the Samsung... The Alexa is pretty hard to screw up, though. Dragon is another story... jury is out but the capabilities are amazing.

The strength of Canon's CX00 series is that they have "good enough" image quality for cinema (whereas dSLRs don't quite, but maybe in a pinch) and good low light, REALLY easy to use, no need for kludgy connectors, etc. Just a workhorse for the owner/op. 

But for anyone trying to get images that look "as good" as a C300 (which you can make to look "as good" as the Alexa or Epic, fwiw), just get something like this. You're paying more for easy of use and something that's efficient for what's it's designed for (C100 weddings; C300/C500 doc and low end cinema... a low light Alexa b cam) than image quality.

Lighting and art design are not cheap and skill is priceless, but getting a good enough image really is pretty affordable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question, what the hell are you guys all shooting that's so significant that you'll sit here and split hairs over DR, gamma, this, that, and the other thing? Are you producing a multi-million dollar blockbuster, or, rather is it something like some shots of a trash can, may be the sky and a few trees posted on Vimeo? You take one persons findings and opinion of a camera and suddenly you're all high ranking DP's of the world, trash talking this and that because it isn't 10 bit, it doesn't have enough DR, it doesn't compare to this camera or that camera. Who cares? Show me something you've done that's so significant that I should care. I'll be waiting!

​Seems counter-intuitive,  If you are buying new cameras every time you change your underwear the way pros do and get a tax write off each time you do it you don't have to worry about things like depreciation.  If your camera makes you thousands of dollars a month... or week you don't need the perfect camera.

 

If you are a pro who bought a 1DC for $15,000 you probably don't care its current price is $8,000.  If you are a hobbyist who did no research... you're probably kind of pissed.

 

A lot of us got sucked into the large sensor video world by Canon and were shocked by the appalling video quality of the Rebel series.  Steve I tried your method and experienced a lot of disappointment.  I'm glad I decided to thoroughly research my second video camera purchase.  I engaged in plenty of debates online and shot very little.  But you know what?  I also had my $500 ready when the Blackmagic sale happened.  People told me I should feel lucky to shoot with a BMPCC for $1,000.  I pointed out the flaws and said no way.  Everyone has their own ideal price point.  For someone working and earning waiting around for a $500 discount doesn't make any sense.  But for me it does.  There is nothing wrong with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​that Samuel H guy said it made no difference... But worth a try.

​Although it looks as if it makes a difference, I took screenshots into photoshop and it turns out you can make the 0-255 look just like the 16-235 by (you've guessed it) setting the output levels to 16-235.  So Samuel H is right.  So the transcoding process must be working full range.  So there is actually no reason not to shoot 0-255 if you are going to grade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​No, not true, it was merely an observation. I would hardly call arguing over nothing a passion for knowledge. Read through those posts, there's nothing constructive about it. Although, I will admit, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's all you'll hear about this from me, I certainly don't want to hurt your feelings in your quest for knowledge!

​I purposely didn’t write “quest for knowledge” as I realised it sounded douchey.  But passion for knowledge isn’t really right either.  What I mean it that I want to know all the fine details I can about a camera. I don’t want to sell it short or give it praise without being totally aware of what it is and isn’t capable off.  Maybe that is being too picky, I couldn’t say. But given that is my goal, I want people to be as particular and specific as possible.  So any comment that dissuades that goes against my interest which is why I took exception to your comment.

It struck me as the typical kind of “why do you care?” comment I see on forums which always seems pointless and just throwing a spanner in the works for no reason. I always think “oh, fuck off” when I read comments like that. And this time I said what I thought. 

From your previous comments relating to transcoding I take it that you have the NX1.  Your angle seems more understandable with that in mind.  You would rather hear praise about it than criticism. I get that.

You are also right that many, if not most people will not produce anything fantastic.  So I suppose I can’t fault you for saying that.  Although if anyone ever does produce something fantastic I would rather see it shot on a camera with an impeccable image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if anyone ever does produce something fantastic I would rather see it shot on a camera with an impeccable image.

​That's interesting and I'm not knocking your opinion, but for some reason I'm compelled to think the opposite.  I like awesome considerate shots on limited technology for some reason. Something flawed feels more real to me, somehow.  Must be my inflated infatuation of French New Wave. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i have shot more with the NX1 then most people at lest posted the most at this point in Vimeo and i see no problem with highlights any more then any other camera i see video shot with and i have shot outside in very bright sunlight a lot. the new Sony FS7 that has more blown out highlights then what i am getting with the NX1 in videos people are posting.. Also grading has a lot to do with it some of mine that has some highlights blone are from the grading i used..

I think if you gave a NX1 to a few guys shooting on assignment around the world we would then see some amazing footage coming in from the NX1. As of right now it seems almost no one shooting pro making money is using a NX1 as they are all ready invested in another brand so we are not seeing some of the great footage we see from othera cameras. But give it some time and i am sure this will turn around some.

​Hey Ed, I have been following your work with the NX1. I just used the NX1 around the world for one of my customers (have been shooting in NY, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and Paris with it. We will make a 4K projection in a few month using only the NX1 (and maybe a few FS7 shots but very few). So fare I can only say that I am much more confortable using the NX1 than the GH4. I wouldn't compare it to an Alexxa though. But what would be the point ^^

EDIT: Considering the whole debate here about technology, I should add that IMHO the NX1 gives you this 4K look, that I just didn't really see with the GH4 (looked more to me like "ultra HD ready" or 2.5k). Also it is a question of color science. I just couldn't get what I wanted from the GH4. And then the autofocus - especially with the 16-50mm S. For me it is a game changer. Makes my life so easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​That's interesting and I'm not knocking your opinion, but for some reason I'm compelled to think the opposite.  I like awesome considerate shots on limited technology for some reason. Something flawed feels more real to me, somehow.  Must be my inflated infatuation of French New Wave. 

I agree that a flawed image feels more real.  A film shot on a bad digital camera looks like a back stage access documentary watching actors at work rather than giving the impression of a fictional world.  So it depends what you are going for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, even the image an iPhone produces is amazing compared to what things were like 10 years ago. 5 years ago I would've said the limiting factor is no longer your camera. It's you. That statement feels truer than ever with the gear we have now. You can get a used GH2 for $300. If you cannot make something interesting with that, an Arri Alexa won't save you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

​Hey Ed, I have been following your work with the NX1. I just used the NX1 around the world for one of my customers (have been shooting in NY, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and Paris with it. We will make a 4K projection in a few month using only the NX1 (and maybe a few FS7 shots but very few). So fare I can only say that I am much more confortable using the NX1 than the GH4. I wouldn't compare it to an Alexxa though. But what would be the point ^^
EDIT: Considering the whole debate here about technology, I should add that IMHO the NX1 gives you this 4K look, that I just didn't really see with the GH4 (looked more to me like "ultra HD ready" or 2.5k). Also it is a question of color science. I just couldn't get what I wanted from the GH4. And then the autofocus - especially with the 16-50mm S. For me it is a game changer. Makes my life so easier.

​Did you use 4k or UHD with your NX1 ? Reviewers have shown that the image looks a lot softer in 4k. The quality has been improved in 4k since the last firmware or the UHD is still better ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

​That's interesting and I'm not knocking your opinion, but for some reason I'm compelled to think the opposite.  I like awesome considerate shots on limited technology for some reason. Something flawed feels more real to me, somehow.  Must be my inflated infatuation of French New Wave. 

 

​I completely agree. I was talking to my friend the other day about New Hollywood horror films are that they looked far too perfect and clean. It makes me forget it's a horror, and more like a one dimensional teen comedy. You NEED something tangible. (George Lucas I'm looking at you!) 

That's why the EM5 II is compelling. Doesn't have 4k or a built in microwave. It has one spec which means you can go anywhere without fuss and pull off some lovely stuff without having to carry rigs and a tripod. The guerilla type of filmmaking this introduces is liberating. Much better than an Alexa if you are running around getting shot after shot like a madman!!

Camera features are very important, but they are bloody useless if you don't have any ideas that would benefit from these features.

Did I mention lighting? Not yet. Everybody should consider lighting before cameras. They last pretty much forever too. Not a single camera image is any good without skilled lighting and composition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lighting is on my list for sure. I am on vacation till the end of the month when i get back i will be looking at and getting more lighting. I have a green screen area all painted at my house i used for photography so i need lights for that to i was very into off camera lighting for photography used a lot of them on the job and for on location portraits and know how that works out so i will be using what i know for video to i hate the look of the deer in the headlights look..

Also thinking if it will work a small lower cost gimble and the new pocket NX when it is out would be a good investment i could see using that a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...