Leaderboard

Thanks Zach. I am pretty happy about it!

NOTE: Download the original file for most accurate comparison. This is a rushed test to see if I can live without my D5300 (a supposedly decent low-light performer) now I've bought a GH4 (which I'll be using alongside my BMPCC). Conclusion: I'm happy to sell the D5300. I can't see any noise advantage to the D5300 at 1600 ISO. Colours are more saturated but I don't prefer them to the GH4 colours here. As with daylight footage, softness and macro blocking is an issue with the D5300 but much less so with the GH4. BMPCC has finer noise than GH4 but colours are difficult to pull up, and there seems to be more false colour than the GH4 I think.

What matters is the sensor readout for us... 4K is all the image data. 1080p is traditionally a line-skipped mess or pixel binned atrocity, exception being the A7S.   Go back to 2009, compare 1080p on the 5D Mark II to a JPEG from the 5D Mark II, now do the same with the NX1 video at 4K and a 28MP JPEG off the same camera and tell me 4K doesn't matter :)   We've come a long way, and all in a single year.

Kristoferman, some of the more affordable rail systems I've seen are the Jag35 ones, like this one: http://jag35.com/universal-baseplate.html I have this older version myself: http://jag35.com/dslr-baseplate-basic.html Been using it with a follow focus. Can't complain, solidly built. From what I've seen, Jag35 seems to be a bit lower priced than a lot of other video gear, yet the products I've seen haven't skimped on quality.

I feel you man. My storage server (that contains all my data) is acting up and I'm looking at throwing in big bucks on that now, to build a new storage setup... So I haven't yet pulled the trigger on the FM lens module, although I really would want Santa to bring it to me. Especially since after I saw Häns footage! Soon... Soon...

I had similar problem... Bought lx100.

A bit more extensive. Shot on the Helios 44 full frame with 1.2x digital zoom enabled. Cropped to 2.66.

Moving the camera closer to the subject for tighter shots and moving away from the subject for wider shots is too complicated?

He always said that he took this massive break from action movies in order to actually dive into the oceans before he gets too old to do that ( Abyss and Titanic were only made because he wanted to physically dive into the ocean, the films were just an excuse ), so maybe he can finally focus on proper sci-fi action again. After Avatar, I'm really hoping he returns to previously planned projects like Battle Angel, one of the best sci-fi graphic novels of all time, or his Hiroshima movie. Also, in 2018 the rights to the whole Terminator franchise revert back to him...so he might actually do a proper Terminator III. He said if he does it, it will be a very massive re-imagining of the whole concept of cybernetics, so I don't imagine Arnie will be coming back. He also joked he'd love to do Prometheus II . :D Probably just to piss of Ridley Scott, who was always sour for being passed on for the Alien sequel.

Now all we need to do is persuade video game makers that setting the frame rate of their game to sub 60 fps doesn't make it a "cinematic experience", it makes it jerky and nauseating to watch and we will have a full house!

I actually think it a blessing because it seems you may need more time to pick your camera, long-term. Borrow any Canon/Nikon from a friend is what I'd suggest. Don't worry too much about the expose to the right (which is really better with RAW; h.264 isn't as forgiving). Also, your DP is going to be focused on shots he wants to do, it sounds like you represent the client. In any case, ONE of you needs to pay attention to making sure you get the shots you need. Shooting should be second-priority to one of you. Many of my favorite videos and photographs were taken with old cameras I never meant to use but had to, for one reason or another. And to follow-on to what Leeys says, don't try new stuff at shoots, you never know what hiccups you can run into. Borrow a camera, put it on auto mode, and focus on framing, composition, and help your main DP. You'll have fun and I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised! One story, I went to my niece's concert and they said no photography. Don't know why, they usually didn't say that. Anyway, I had brought a BMPCC to use, was really excited. But I knew it would be obvious if I took it out. And ushers did go through the audience slapping wrists of camera users. I also had a Panasonic G5 with me, which I had gotten about a day or so earlier, knew little about, so I put it on auto mode and shot through my coat. The video was great! Better than I would have gotten with the BMPCC--definitely a lot longer ;) It PAID TO BE AN IDIOT :) Don't sweat not having the camera you want for your shoot!

Here's another pro tip: Never make gear purchases this close to a shoot. You never know what hiccups you can run into.

Just to let you with this music video i directed and shot with a GX7

Everyone has a choice - one man wants ease of use, another man wants a particular quality of image (not a "better" one). There is no "better" technology in art! There is only the right tool for the job. Nobody tells me what camera is "best" for the film I want to make. That's up to me, and my film will succeed or fail on my choices. If we all made exactly the same films, with strict aesthetic criteria, we'd be living in a pretty awful (and dull) society. Try telling any professional painter or art historian that painting - the history of painting - is not hugely driven by technology! Paint is technology just like a camera is! It is a more basic technology, of course - but technology is almost by definition about advancement and increasing sophistication. Take two of the most famous periods in art history - the Renaissance and Impressionism. Both basically began due to advancements in oil paint "technology" - the realism of the Renaissance would not have been possible if it were not for the slow-drying qualities of oil paint (until then most painting was done with quick drying egg tempera). Impressionism quite literally only happened because of the invention of the paint tube!!! Before the invention and mass-production of the very affordable, very portable metal paint tube with a screw-on top in the late 1800's, it was a huge undertaking for anyone to take an easel out into the landscape, do a day's painting and then pack the paint you made yourself in a big tin away so the colour you want to use again tomorrow doesn't dry up! It might sound funny, but the invention of the paint tube was far, far more revolutionary than the day Canon put HD video on the 5D2. Without the paint tube Van Gogh would not have been able to afford paint or take his wide, rich palette of colours outdoors. Monet could not have painted so "fast and loose". Ditto Cezanne. As Renoir said - "Without tubes of paint, there would be no Impressionism"! ALL art is bound up with technology. All of it. You cannot separate the two things. Cameras and paint-boxes are not so different. We have very sophisticated technology now, but to say paint is not technology is simple ignorance. Affordable video ILC's's have made cinematic images available to almost anyone. They are todays paint tubes. This is not the time to say - "yes I have a kind-of cinematic camera, but the image is not quite up to "real" cinema standards - it needs to be "better" before I can compete with the gallons of dross Hollywood vomits on us every year." Now is the time to say, "Finally! I can make a film the way I want to! I don't give two sh*ts about whether it stacks up against the f***ing Alexa! I'm going to go out and do my thing. If it does what I want it to do then that's all that matters to me." "Better"!?! For F's F'ing sake! Seriously, I enjoy a bit of heated debate on this forum and genuinely get very valuable info here, but sometimes I wonder if half of you know what you have in your hands. Today NLE's can be put on any computer going; the internet is a readymade distribution network; video DSLR's give wonderful, creative images. It's genuinely revolutionary. Stories make the world go round. And all you can do is compare your tools to the Alexa and suck on Ridley Scott/Terrence Malick/[insert canonised director of your choice here]'s great big Cooke. The world is changing. Art is bound up in technology and revolution is bound up in art. Why can't we go out and tell our stories the way we want to tell them? If for you that's ultimately with an Alexa with a view to cinematic distribution, great - all power to you. But every representational system has its limitations. In 200 years time the Alexa will be as funny as a box of paints, for sure. I love the image from that camera, but don't bloody tell me that it's images are "better" than mine. "Better" at what? Resolution, dynamic range, colour? Yes, for sure. But if Upstream Colour had been shot on an Alexa, would it have been the same film? I really doubt it. That film is it's own thing in a way very, very few features are able to be. Did I do much pixel peeping while watching it? Personally, not much at all. If you need ergonomics and usability for what you want to do, great. If you want to sacrifice your creativity at the altar of ever-improving image quality, fine. But images are what they are made of as well as what they show us - as Marshall McLuhan famously said "the medium is the message". I'd like my message to be my own, and not translated into the fascistic hierarchy of aesthetics that rears its ugly head here pretty regularly. Note to dstillo: this rant is, , as usual, mainly directed at Andrew (who wrote the original response to me). I'm not really this mad at you :)

I was using Nikon dslrs and some Canons until now, I prefered the overall image quality that the Nikons gave me, but now that I use the a6000 for a few weeks , I can say for sure that the chromatic and overall image quality is great, and it looks better to me than Nikon. It's very close though, but with all the extras that Nikon doesn't give in it's firmware , and the light body of a6000, for me the clear winner in video is Sony. And yes I'll keep using both. ;)

This sounds reasonable, but only if you don't have another canon that takes video because they are all the same (or almost). Any canon aps-c camera gives image quality on the level of 2008, they are outdated, any actual sensor design is a lot better.

Ι would recommend it my friend over the 70D , it has a better sensor, that gives you better image quality, wider dynamic range, and better overall iso performance! It has a great autofocus system, very fast very precise, and a much lighter body to use for your everyday walks! For video it's better too, it gives you better image quality, more organic feel to it, and less to none moire issues (The Canons have problem on this, the XXXD -XXD line) . So I would prefer it overall.

Thanks for all the insights here. After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses. So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost. From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300. One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain. Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)