Leaderboard

This forum is better than the telly. Just bought an iscorama. (No disrespect to slr magic.) For sale My SLR magic anamorphot with diopters, 950 euros plus transport, location paris, europe

Looks like the 5D Mark III is still the lowlight king, but I'm impressed with how well the GH4 footage holds up to being denoised. Curious to know if this was Neat Video or something else.

Lowlight test has hit the web:

The link isn't working for me. It takes me to a copy.com page with no visible files, pressing "save all" creates an error. Really keen to see this. I got a cheap second-hand NEX6, fantastic for stills, but as many have pointed out (Johnnie Behiri, Brandon Li), the video is awful, almost un-useable, worst moire and aliasing I've seen. A real disappointment after the 5N (which was reasonable on the moire front IMO). Looks like I might be trading the 6 in for a 6000 tho....

  I got it to replace my NEX 5N and 7, but to be honest it could end up replacing my A7R as well.   Speed Booster gives me the full frame look.   The A6000 has much better AF and a much shorter EVF blank-out time when taking stills... like 0.2 sec compared to nearly 1 second on the A7R. Just overall feels much more responsive, smaller and quieter shutter to boot. Of course video quality is miles better too.

I brought the sample clip into FCP X to inspect on the histogram, and as suspected, it records into the "super-whites", just like many of Sony's cameras. So by lowering the highlights a bit, you actually recover some more detail and increase the perceived dynamic range. I also noticed some of the artifacts of poor compression around the shadow areas of flesh tones, which was one of the big drawbacks of the NEX-5n and made it almost impossible to color grade effectively (especially at high ISO). The RX cameras don't seem to have this problem. I'm curious about: - Clean HDMI - I doubt it'll be 10-bit, but maybe at least 4:2:2 - pixel binning: I've noticed that the Rx10 and Rx100 are sharper than the D5200 and 5dmkIII because the RX cameras use full-sensor readout. Would be great if Sony somehow implemented a similar downscaling method in the A6000. - overheating: still an issue? - rolling shutter - was awful on the NEX5n; maybe they've taken strides toward improving it. - Is video autofocus improved, or just photo? - really a pity they didn't go for 35mbps at 60p. Just saying.

Sony A6000 with Zeiss 50mm F1.4 on Speed Booster The Sony A600 is the best Sony consumer camera yet for video. A Nikon D5300 in a mirrorless body, with far more features, the image quality is closer to the FS700 in 1080p than to a NEX 7 or A5000. The pristine sharp EVF, a magnified focus assist which can be activated whilst recording (rare!), peaking, zebra, 16:9 screen and of course the mirrorless form factor. This is arguably the best current 'cheap' camera for video, de-throning the GH2 and GH3. At just $650 it is an absolute bargain. Read the full article here

Well that's interesting, Good thing I spend 98% of my time shooting under ISO3200.

Actually didn't Red have 4K with the Scarlet around 1D C prices way before Canon launched their 1D C circa $13k?   And it isn't old technology. The 1D C is based on the 1D X and that is bang up to date. There's no newer or better Canon tech out there.

Play nice guys A need is something you have to have, something you can't do without. A good example is food. If you don't eat, you won't survive for long. Many people have gone days without eating, but they eventually ate a lot of food. You might not need a whole lot of food, but you do need to eat. A want is something you would like to have. It is not absolutely necessary, but it would be a good thing to have. A good example is music. Now, some people might argue that music is a need because they think they can't do without it. But you don't need music to survive. You do need to eat. One of the most basic concepts of economics. I think you all know the answer, so stop arguing over the price, nobody is forcing you to buying it, what is your need?

I'm stoked to see your lowlight shoot out. One of the big ones for me with Canon is the clean ISO performance i had on the C100. The 1DC is said to be better but I've never had $12,000 to test that... (Who the hell does.). It'd be great (personally) to know the gh4 stood up to the C100 in those terms.

I am surprised as anyone at the gradability of the 4K files. I'm a big fan of raw!!

Seems a lot of people here have the same thoughts, including me. I've owned both the Nex7 and G5, both of which I liked, and miss, for different reasons. My 2-cents. o. Mic input. If I have time to mic somebody I'm going to have time to sync external audio which I would do no matter what in those situations. Really, only crucial if I'm going to lock the camera down in a studio, which I'm not. So NEUTRAL o. Larger sensor. If I shot still photography and had to choose only one camera it would be A6000. However, I have other cameras so this is neutral for me. o. Off center focused, as mentioned above, I could never get this right with the Nex7. I doubt they've improved this. I don't have any hard evidence, but felt the g5 kept focus better. (partially due to smaller sensor). o. Video. Now that I have a BMPCC I see most H.264 cameras as the same in image quality, but different in ease-of-use. Shooting video with the g5 was EFFORTLESS. Shooting with the d600, a super PITA. The Nex 7, easy enough, but just never felt comfortable. o. Low light. That's the $20,000 question. From the guitar shop scenes in Gordon's videos it looks like the A6000 uses some form of pixel binning like the RX10. If so, would give the low light video edge to A6000 (Andrew, would be great if you had some moire producing patterns in your test scene). Anyway, that would be my only misgiving with the g6, that I would get better low light with A6000. When Andrew first wrote about the A6000, which I've been watching, I wanted one. Now I'm back to getting a g6 when the price is good. If I want IQ or film-like low light, nothing beats the BMPCC. BTW, I predict the infatuation with 4K will die down when people realize the image lacks the good skin tones you can get with RAW. Not saying 4K isn't beautiful, but only in sharpness. It still looks like video-face color. Will have to see. The a6000 vs 53000? A6000 if video greater than photo. If photo greater than video, 5300. The a6000 at $650 may sound cheap to some, but what you can get with $350 more (BMPCC). Still worlds apart if you like the film-look. But if you're not going to go that way, why spend $350 more for an a6000, over the g5/6 when they go discount? I'd rather have more money in glass and a camera that loves to shoot video. I try out tons of cameras. Again, I liked the Nex 7, but I miss the g5. I'm going to press the "Post" button now so I can change my mind ;)

another pro that the @admin seems to have missed is the option to choose the autofocus transition speed, you can make the af transitions slow like the canon 70d, or really fast and snappy for sports. It´s a really good feature to have in video.

As a child, Batman, Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were the first movies that made me want to make movies (even though I didn't know what that really required and meant when I was that young). But the first films that motivated me to make a movie were Scream and Halloween. I was way too young to watch them, but, nevertheless, I did, and they changed me. There was something so visceral about the horror in Scream (the satire was lost on me when I was 10) and Halloween was the first time I became aware of the camera, with that great steadicam cinematography (in 4:3 on VHS, no less. seeing it on DVD in widescreen years later was an even bigger revelation). At age 12, I finally made my first movie (on Hi8): a parody of slasher movies. Of course, in high school, the first movie that made me realize I could be a filmmaker was El Mariachi. My Hi8 movies looked like crap, I thought making real movies was too expensive and impossible, so I had thought about just being a novelist, even though my heart was really in film. With that out of the way, the films that really influenced me artistically... 2003-2004 were huge years for me. My sophomore and junior years in high school. Earlier that year (2003), Silence of the Lambs opened my eyes to the possibility of genre. It was technically a horror movie and a detective film in a drama's clothes. I think this was the first really artful film I saw, where I was more aware of the craft: the direction, writing, acting, cinematography, editing. I was aware of all of those things before, but this was the first film where I could see how they all worked together as a whole. And I realized film could be something beautiful, even with ugly subject matter. Speaking of which... The summer of 2003 was huge. It started with Taxi Driver. That film knocked me out. It didn't have a conventional plot to speak of. It was more episodic. It was crazy. It was gritty. De Niro, whom I had known better for Meet The Parents at that time, was incredible. THAT was acting. His monotone voice-over, his charmingly psychotic smile, his lack of emotion during the graphic shoot-out. And of course, Scorsese. The slow motion, the overhead tracking shot a the end, the heavily processed footage of the streets, from inside of the taxi. It felt surreal. And the script; the things Bickle said in the voice-over really got under my skin. Later that summer, in one weekend, I saw Rushmore, Ghost World and The Graduate. The Graduate I didn't really appreciate until I was older. I liked it, but it didn't fully click at the time. But , Rushmore was sort of a teenage version of The Graduate. I noticed the influence The Graduate had over Rushmore immediately, but I connected more to Rushmore. I was even the same age as Max Fischer when I watched it. Wes Anderson's filmmaker was so striking and bold. The tracking shots, the sharp, deep-focus widescreen, the colors, the wardrobe, song choices, title cards, curtains with the seasons, just...everything. Much like Taxi Driver, it existed in it's own slightly unreal world. Ghost World I watched three times in a row, in one sitting. Like Rushmore and The Graduate, it was very melancholy, but also, in my opinion, then and now, the funniest of the three dramadies I watched that weekend. The dialogue was so real and so sharp. The filmmaking was pretty anonymous, but the storytelling, tone and mood were part of a clear vision. It felt so real, and as a teenage boy trying to navigate the secret world of teenage girls, it felt like a real window. I knew girls like Enid and Rebecca. I was surprised that the film was written and directed by men. I also had a huge crush on Enid. Not Thora Birch, but the character of Enid. Ghost World is still my favorite film of all time. Later that summer, and into the fall, I saw Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill Vol. 1, which had just come out in theaters. Tarantino was practically all I thought about for a year. I read everything I could about him. I read all of his screenplays, and obsessively re-watched everything. I was an addict. I wanted to keep re-experiencing the high of watching Tarantino's films for the first time. Much like Wes Anderson and Martin Scorsese, the filmmaking was mind-blowing. It was bold, brazen, different. The structure and storytelling choices were unlike anything else I had seen. And that dialogue... I ended up writing a ton of Tarantino-inspired scripts for a year. 2004 included the release of three films that came out in theaters at just the right time: Shaun of the Dead, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. Of course, the last two were by filmmakers I had just fallen in love with, but Shaun of the Dead came out of left field. I saw it early, in the summer of '04 at comic-con, with Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright doing a Q & A after (Greg Noctero, Robert Rodriguez and Ken Foree were in that audience too). All I knew about the film was that it was a British zombie comedy. I hadn't seen a trailer, or knew much else. I hadn't heard of anyone involved with it. I saw it totally blind, and it was like walking down the street and finding a million dollars in cash in a bag. It was special. It was one of the funniest films I had ever seen, but it also had very real human issues and character drama. And of course, it was well-made and gory as hell. Earlier that year I had become obsessed with Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had become more accessible because of the re-make (Romero wouldn't be a real influence, just an obsession at the time). After the screening, I was using the restroom and Simon Pegg peed in the urinal next to me. It was the closest I came to God at the time. I told everyone I knew they had to see it immediately. I don't really need to say much more about Kill Bill or Life Aquatic, since I said enough about Wes Anderson and Tarantino already. Later that year I saw two more important films, the first being A Clockwork Orange. I don't know what else to say about it, other than it was like Taxi Driver all over again. It was one of the most extraordinary films. The opening, with the synth score, the long-zoom-out from Malcolm McDowell as Alex, staring into the camera, immediately put me in a trance that I've never awoken from. That halloween I dressed as Alex. Around close to the same time, a kid name Johnny I knew peripherally, but not well, approached me, wide-eyed, asking me if I had ever heard of Eraserhead. I said I had heard the title, and indeed I had seen the iconic poster image of Jack Nance as Henry Spencer, with the hair sticking straight up, back-lit, with a crazy expression on his face and dust in the background. "You've gotta see it, man." Johnny told me. The next day, he presented a VHS tape to me. The cover art was there, though it was clearly a regular VHS box cut up into a slip cover to fit on a clam shell. I don't think the tape even had a label. It was a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy, with video static at the bottom of the frame that Johnny claimed added to the experience of the film, and indeed it did. That night, I turned off all the lights in my bedroom and watched it alone. It was the first film I had seen that really, truly captured the feel of a nightmare. I thought about the visuals and sound design for several weeks after. I haven't been the same since. Looking back on my life, those were the films that really had the most profound influence on me.

I just had a good look at this and I also had a good look at the 4K Nick Driftwood short film at Brighton showing skin tones...I did not see any green tinting or magenta or artefacts or moire. I also own a GH2 and I am a professional 3d artist for the last ten years...and before that an airbrush mural artist (what would I know?) I only mix colors daily for 2d textures on 3d models, define realistic ray trace or hi res shadow map shadows with 3d lights, set sub surface scattering for realistic skin etc...etc... I cant see it!!...especially in the Driftwood vid, if you cant make a good image or film with this camera...then you probably cant make a good image or film with whatever else is out there either.

If Sony wasn't so afraid that a possible A7000 would mess up with their A7's sales and market, we could have expected a a higher end one with mic and headphone inputs and that would had been great. I'm also curious about the GX7 vs A6000 tests in terms of IQ, overall operation but also AF in video. How does it compare to the GM1 in terms of video quality? That should give us about where the GX7 stands against the A6000.

I really wanted to know more about the AF in video, some other "NEX" would hunt a lot or focus on the background when you want it to focus on the subject that is in the eff CENTER of the frame. And more importantly if touch focus works well, with no hunting from one point to another, that would be great. Maybe some tests paired up with some fast primes like the 35mm or 50mm or the zoom made for video like the 18-105mm G with power zoom. As there is no IBIS it's harder to handheld it in longer focal length with legacy lenses so I think that native lens OSS will be important. Unfortunately people should not expect Sony to give the consumers the extra customization of the button via firmware, so far it has not been Sony's mantra.

  Magenta or green?... can't be both tints at same time!   I am not seeing what you're seeing in the files to be honest. How is this image 'a bit disappointing' for $1699. Have you not been taking your happy pills or something!?

If this really does give the same image quality as the D5300 I will seriously consider selling the Nikon and buying one of these.

  ISO 640 I seem to remember.

Great news. Would be great to compare also with panasonic G6 in terms of video and still. Best.

Shame about the audio. If it had the jacks I would buy one. I'm not really that happy with my A7. Great article again. Thanks.

Wow, that looks awesome! great find! Seb: I'm surprised you trust it to hold a tokina and variable ND, it must be strong! It looks like it adds in total about the thickness of an extra tokina, which is quite a bit in terms of additional vignette, I'd say it would take 5mm off your range on isco + asp-c.

I definitely want to take a look at this when I've got some more time on the weekend. Thank you Andrew for doing this. It really helps a lot of people.

  Nice!   Colours look natural. Wow what a difference. New slogan for GH4 - "I can't believe it isn't raw!"

  You're making it sound only about the lens. What about the nut behind the camera!?   The 18-35 is very nice, almost as sharp as the Cookes.

You get a more robust lens but you loose a bit of flexibility – because of it`s design (as mentioned before). It becomes a real "fat lady" after the mod. And with the close focus mod done you'll need a FF with a faster gear ratio (2:1 like the Arri Cine FF). And this FF isn't a lightweight at all!! When I got my ISCO back from VD, I decided to mod the mod. A friend of mine – "SFX Lange" based in Hamburg – did the following: - we made it noticeable lighter (the mount is the heavy part of it) - we've added a solid lens support (Vocas) - we attached a torque motor on the lens support (redrock micro remote) The ISCO is held by the lens support and is just "pushed" in front of the lens (not screwed!) Now I can change the taking lens within seconds, without a recalibration of the ISCO is necessary. Have fun!