Leaderboard

If you go after a certain type of dynamic range none of the Panasonic cameras will match the bmpcc. I have a GM1 and love it, but it doesn't have near the DR as a RAW based camera. I don't know what "look" you're going for. If you try to maximize the strengths of the BMPCC it will work against you with the 8-bit cameras. Here's a video I did about my choice of going with the GM1 instead of BMPCC for personal stuff You'll see certain scenes where the BMPCC has a kind of lighting depth the GM1 can't match, like the basement of the Goodwill. Or my desk. Outside in high contrast, they can probably match very well. The small size of the GM1, and it's ability to mount all kinds of lenses, makes it a unique camera. The silent shutter is also very useful. As Andy says, it is better in low light than the g6, so even though 10%, I think it makes enough of a difference to lose the EVF (or go with GX7). I have an a6000 too. Great camera, and better low light than the GM1 BUT will still not match the BMPCC in my opinion. Where the a6000 can have shallower DOF than the GM1, and less noise, the Panasonic image is cleaner. Again, though I'm saying you may have problems matching to the BMPCC, the Panny cameras are amazing if you've never used one. In fact, I had a guy in my office today who shoots professionally on Canon gear and when he played with the GM1 he was floored. In short, I believe you will have problems matching cameras, but if you experiment before hand, in what you want to shoot, and with what camera, you can find ways to match them fine and YES, the GM1/G6/GX7 will allow you to get shots you can't get with the BMPCC. As Andy said, "Amateurs talk bodies, pros talk glass, and photographers talk light."

My company just finished a documentary shoot with a GX7 and the GM1 was the b-cam. Their image IQ is the same from my experience. We put a loupe (a cheap Hoodman) on the GM1 for focus assisting. Not a bad solution. Looks ugly as hell, but it works. It's my stealth camera. We use it to shoot clean and impressive video in locations where we need to fly under the radar. We also do a lot of run and gun small business work; shoot lots of restuarants. One of my main gigs in the past was filming restaurants and galleys on cruise ships. Most of that was done on NTSC cameras and 2/3" CCD sensors. That said, if there's an attractive evenly lit small business on the planet I've yet to find it. Here's my easy solution to make the lighting in businesses look better: Turn off their lights. Always. Then utilize the natural source as best you can and supplement with your own sources only if needed. 2 or 3 good LED's will do the trick since most cameras these days are decent in lower light. Many times just having some natural light pouring in with good drop off into the distance is enough to get by. Hitting your subject with some side rim/back light makes a ton of difference. Strategizing effective angles that take advantage of that new light is the final step. It's fast, simple, and effective. You do that and your work will look better, doesn't matter what camera it's shot on. If I could pound one sentiment into the heads of video and photography enthusiast it would be this: Stop worrying about camera bodies and lenses until you understand light and learn to control it. An education in this stuff is free on the interwebs. You can become a better shooter than most overnight with an earnest ambition to apply good lighting to your work...but since knowledge is not something you can purchase from B&H not as many people rant about it online.

save the money and get some lights , lighting is the key thing! .....all the rest in number crunching pixel peeping -

g6 is a superb camera and will do the job for you very very well , but - gx7 is the best panasonic 1080p camera they have made to date - it has the same sensor as the gh4 its is very very clean , produces a superb image .so if you can get one its a better camera longterm

I'm very excited about this lens. Only recently have I been seeing optical characteristics from my iscorama that I feel could be better. The cinelux does this - it;s drastically sharper than the isco 36 from edge to edge on full frame it would appear. ````so focusing it with this unit should deliver maybe one of the sharpest anamorphic systems available. - assuming they didnt get the two front elements drastically wrong! One of the primary concerns i see is the rotating front element. @hans-Punk mentioned earlier in a previous topic that he is intending on fitting a uv filter straight away - since any coating damage or build up of grease can show up during focus pulls where flaring might be present. - the flares change during focusing creating a rather distracting look. Not a horrific problem but would have been really nice if that front element didnt rotate. I also agree (based on my experience using the iscorama 36 (with a rotating front optic) that it might be wise to use a UV filter, regularly changing them as they get dirty, to limit the amount of contact the front optic has with pollen, stray fingers or other contaminations that can make contact with that big front optic face. I was really pleased to see they included a focus scale on the unit - something the original prototype we've seen previously didnt show. I am personally trying to locate a suitable short anamorphic that can sit intio the unit and allow the taking lens to also sit into the fm module barrel. this will be a great way to shorten the total length.

This worries me, Im the proud owner of the A7S and Im very happy with it, however, I was really hoping to see some firmware updates in the future that fix the most stupid things like no programmable shortcut for aps-c or direct link to framerate settings. Simple things like that make the camera a joy to use and should be addressed if you want your customers to be happy.

Eye candy from the largest mall in the world, Dubai Mall. Shot on Sony A7s in Autumn Leaves creative style (-3,0,-3) and then processed with Impulz LUTs in FCP X

My feeling is you should either go to film school, or spend those 3-4 years crewing on films, gaining experience and working in the industry. I have never been a fan of this 'don't go to film school, just shoot a feature!' mindset, as without some basis of training (whether that's learning from those better than you by being on a set, or in a film school environment), you're making a film blindly, and whilst you will learn some things from it, I see it as much more of a waste of money than film school itself.

SayÅnara! I don't think Sony cares. Where ya gonna go? Nikon, Canon? They aren't listening to their customers either. Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus are about the only companies who listen to their customers. Fuji has a history of improving upon cameras they've already sold. It's their philosophy of Kaizen. Panasonic and Olympus are innovating in our niche independent film making market. They've both saw a need and filled the gap. Panasonic to a higher degree for video and Olympus for photos. The only issue I see is that when the lights get low, IQ on the Pannys and Olympus drop like a rock. Sony doesn't seem to have theaten Kaizen philosophy, they are a profits FIRST company. That drives their decisions, not happy niche market customers (You and I). If it'll make them more money (A7II) or stop them from loosing money (RX10), they'll implement a change (firmware for example). I own an A7s and I think it's an absolutely awesome camera. Sure their are small issues with ergonomics, button placement and customization but NONE are deal breakers. If shooting video is your primary goal, you realize the awesome tool the A7s is. The ergonomic and button placement/customization issues are minor. Not ideal for you, but minor nonetheless. NO camera is going to give you everything you want. You may as well change manufactures every couple of years if you expect this. I do hope for an A7sII someday, but I hope it isn't within this year. That would tank the resale value of my current A7s.

in day time outside in bright light the gx7 and g6 are very similar iq wise at night in low light the gx7 is maybe 10% better - cleaner than the g6 - less noise in the blacks

Why dot you take that hard cash buy some used arri lights, red one mx camera or black magic 4k and start shooting dedicate your self to learn story telling cinematography color. Some of the famous directors like Quentin Tarantino Lana and Andy Wachowski Christopher Nolan Akira Kurosawa and Stanley Kubrick to name few never wen to film school Terry Gilliam Film school is for fools. Live and learn how to make films. I didn’t go to film school. I just watched movies in the cinemas. And probably my greater education was actually making films, so that’s all I would ever say: watch movies, get a camera, make a movie. And if you do it enough times, eventually you start learning how films are made.†Quentin Tarantino “Trying to make a feature film yourself with no money is the best film school you can do,†Tarantino told students during a master class at the Cannes Film Festival James Cameron One of the best things that happened to me was that I didn’t go to film school. I used to go down to the USC library and read everything. I’d Xerox stuff. I made my own reference library of doctoral dissertations on optical printing and all that. You will spent shit load of money to get access to film cameras that you can buy now for 5000k on ebay red one mx body goes for 5 to 8k. I wen to film school they told me i can learn it all in 1 years 11k down the hole took me 5 years to pay that off working as a tradesman i dont mind my job at all money is really good but if i could do it all over again i would spend my 11k some place else. School those day is only good for me if you want to make like minded friends that why we have forums like this one. I hear those film schools in USA are dam expensive. like 700 dollars for each class you attend a day. Just my 2 cents

If you want to understand the criticism against Canon, imagine a Ferrari that can only do 80KM/h.

Jeff Cronenweth is one of the best ......his dad was a legend. I liked 'Hitchcock' film Jeff did too its was more brighter and more vibrant and a different look to his work with Fincher.

I have every copy for the past 25 years since I started .along with Cinefex ...its a great magazine

As the guy in that really big suit once said, "stop making sense."

No wonder Canons sell so well if their users think the 70D is full frame :)

Wait. When did the 70D become fullframe?

Wow, this topic is on fire! I still shoot most of my stuff on my GH3. I get paid for it. Nobody complains. So the fact Canon have been reserved in their product features doesn't bother me in the slightest. It doesn't affect me at all. Yesterday I shot on the FS700. The fact any Canon camera can't do what this camera can do didn't change anything. I got my shots. Client was very happy. I think everyone needs to chill out. The options available now are ridiculous. Who cares what brand you use? Pick your camera, shoot and delight. :)

Ouch! :) As for Canon's EF lenses, well, that IS the only thing they're protecting at this point, but if Sigma and others keeps coming out with equivalent (or much better) product than Canon does at substantially lower prices, it's game over for that part of their business, too. I'm very interested in what Canon does with the 5d Mk IV, but only for curiosity's sake. If all they do is add 4k and only marginally improve the image quality, that's pretty much the most I expect from them - shooting to duplicate Sony technology from a year ago. If Sony gets their 21-stop sensor out in an A7S Mk II or A8S (and especially if they can put in 10-bit 4K recording in-camera), that's pretty much it for Canon in the indie video/film world as far as I'm concerned. If they can really go for it and do IBIS, that would be epic, but that might be too much heat dissipation for an IBIS sensor to handle at this time. If the 5d Mk IV is what I suspect it will be, then they're so far behind the development curve, it'll be another 4 or 5 years before they can adapt to the new reality. They have a lot of VERY interesting-looking patents that have leaked over the last few years - which haven't made it into actual products. They're basically IBM from the early 90s, coasting on their R&D and reputation. They have the technical chops to do the necessary, but don't have enough vision to figure out that coasting only works until you get to the bottom of the hill - which they are approaching very soon, indeed. The company I'm really wanting to jump in head-first to the cinema game is Sigma. I'd love to see some cine Art lenses...

We use both the A7S and 5D3 RAW. If you want the best image quality, 14-bit 5D3 RAW wins, especially for skin tone color science and post gradeability. The A7S has a much faster and easier workflow. For our 10 minute Sci-Fi short, we used mostly the A7S with picture profile 6 (Cine 2 gamma, cinema color mode). We also used a tweaked picture profile 7 (Slog2 gamma, Pro color mode). We found that picture profile 6 produced the nicest skintones and was relatively easy to use (exposure, etc.). PP6 can be further tweaked to make skintones look better in varying lighting conditions (I'll post my results after more testing). Unless shooting outside in really high dynamic range situations (or with a very bright backlight), it's probably best to skip Slog2 and use one of the Cine gammas. If you also need high quality stills, especially if shooting mostly people (skintones), you'll want to keep the 5D3. If you don't need super low light, the GH4 is a much better all around video/stills camera vs. the A7S. We purchased native lenses for the GH4, which is an added expense, and unless using something like a Voigtlander F.95, shallow DOF isn't as easy with native lenses (a Speedbooster gets you to S35 level DOF, which is plenty for filmmaking). When traveling light with no controlled lighting and shooting mostly video, I use the A7S with the Sony SEL18200 lens (FS700 kit lens).

Am I missing something? All those YT vids above have 720p resolution. How am I supposed to judge the quality of the original video? Furthermore, those seem to be converted by Handbrake, which Andrew noted has inferior conversion quality, no? So basically, what we see here I re-re-converted video downsampled to about 16% percent of its original resolution. Can't those in possession of a NX1 post 1:1 stills from the original H265 material?

you can get the same look just by using a Tokina RMC 28-85MM F4 - the glass gives you this look as is with no filter , its a very very low contrast and low saturation lens - also very very good on a speedbooster too.....and very cheap on ebay .......

So I bit the bullet over the week and bought the filter. From what I had read the filters work by spreading the light around the image, which is different to simply using a low contrast lens I think. And besides that, I don't want to add another lens to my collection when I already have three superb ones. I started with Ultra Contrast 3. It had good effect but I thought I'd go further so this morning I received the #5. The filters have an immediate effect of making the image look way more filmic. The reason for this is that really do spread the light around the image - but it's not so simple. They take in more ambient light and thus ambient colour. The result is that you get a much more balanced picture in terms of colour and tonality. These filters really are something magical. I have been shooting a fair bit with them over the past few days and will be putting together a video, but for now here's a few images: No filter, Standard iDynamic: With FilmConvert: Tiffen Ultra Contrast #5 (no iDynamic): With FilmConvert and some additional saturation. Each filter costs just over £100 for the 77mm sizes. I do recommend getting the strongest one (the #5). After further consideration I think the #3 is a better choice because the #5 washes out darker midtones too readily.