Leaderboard

One month has passed since i bought my NX1 and i thought i would share my thoughts so far. Coming from full frame as my main camera i was hesitant to the change in the beginning. I started my hobby with a Canon 550D/t2i and then later upgraded to a 5D Mark 3 which was really pleasant, i loved the full frame look. The choice to abandon both Canon and full frame did not come easy but a Panasonic G6 (Micro 4/3 entry level camera) helped a lot in the transition. The NX1 really fits well in my hands and after a not so steep learning curve of the controls i feel comfortable to just pick it up and shoot. I have pretty large hands so when i changed from a 550D/t2i to a 5D I pretty much decided to never again buy a smaller camera. That didn’t work out as I later bought, tried and sold the A7s as i was reminded why i don’t like small cameras. This is of course a very personal opinion, i know that many people prefer portability. Somehow the NX1, being smaller than a 5D, feels really good to hold for hours. Image quality of both stills and video are great, just great. You can throw whatever specs and lab test at me you want saying that the NX1 is inferior in dynamic range and what not but i just love the sensor and the colors it produces. With that being said, im not a professional and i don’t have professional needs. What i also like to point out that this is a $1500 camera, not an Alexa. And what you're getting for your $1500 is in my opinion a very capable camera. On a lot of videos posted from the NX1 there have been comments on banding and macroblocking, including my own. As there is no/almost no banding or macroblocking in the raw files this is a result of transcoding. I use Samsung Movie Converter which comes with the camera and it’s clearly not the best option yet every other software i’ve tested seems to fail me in some way (Maybe i should invest in a new computer?). Still waiting for Adobe to support H265! To sum it up. I feel that i have finally found a camera that will stay with me for a long time. I'm not over the "wow i have a new camera let's see what it can do"-phase but i have high hopes for this plastic monster. This camera has been discussed a lot on this forum but if there’s any questions i'll be happy to answer them. Here’s my latest video shot with the NX1, 16/2.8, 30/2.0 and 45/1.8. Shot in both 4K and slow motion 1080p. Standard picture profile with sharpness and contrast set to -5. No change to luminance or master black levels. Edited, stabilized and graded in Adobe Premiere with Visioncolor LUTs Osiris M31 and KDX as base and then RGB Curves. No sharpening in post.

Can't wait to snap one of these up on eBay in 5 years

​Possibly because they don't want youtube being filled with footage that doesn't show off their camera in talented hands.

2015 has been unexpectedly busy already work-wise. This is awesome but it means that I have no time for personal projects and so I'm selling my Canon/Kowa anamorphic setup. I've used this mainly for home movies and fun little things and just love that look.... but I can't justify it sitting lonely on the shelf like a guilty secret. Here's the breakdown from L-R: Komputerbay 64Gb 1066x CF card2 x Canon batteriesCanon 7D3rd party battery gripStrapEOS lens capM42/EOS adapterHelios 44-2 58/2 (has a 49mm-58mm ring glued to the front)58mm-52mm ringRedstan ClampKowa 8-Z AnamorphicRedstan Filter Clamp72mm-77mm ring77mm lens capAll in really good condition apart from the helios which is in the condition of a helios! Oh, and a battery charger of course. And here is the last thing I shot entirely with this combo: If you are looking to get into anamorphic RAW shooting this kit is everything you need on the hardware side to get started. Blending the 7D raw with the helios and kowa gets you a look very like 16mm film to me with all of the incredible flexibility of raw video. £1000 including paypal fees and tracked UK delivery. Discounts for cash and you are welcome to come inspect in Oxford. Will post overseas at buyers expense. If you want me to shoot something specific or you have any questions message me!

​Funny, I heard the precise opposite argument over a coffee time discussion of this thread. My collegue whom I have a great deal of respect for was raving about how, for the same lens, FF picks up all the interesting, more distorted, less perfect and precise edges of the image circle, and there lies a unique aesthetic.

I shot this entire piece with 2 GH4's. It's for LEGO and their new season of Ninjago which airs on Cartoon Network.

​ Exactly- it's not that FF is better because it has this otherworldly look that can't be replicated. It's that it is cheaper and more practical in many situations to achieve this look using a FF camera. It might seem like a moot point to some (same way that it's not a tele lens that causes compression, but rather your own distance from a subject), but I personally think it's an important discussion to be having. If you know what's really going on with your camera, then you have more opportunities to 'exploit' it to your advantage.

​FF: 16mm F2.8 S35: 16mm/1.5 = 11mm, F1.9. Tokina comes close with an 11-16 F2.8. On m43 with a Speedbooster the crop factor becomes 1.42: m43+SB: 16/1.42 = 11mm, F2. Again, if an 11mm F2 doesn't exist, it's a current limitation of lens systems. Nothing special about the 35mm sensor in terms of looks. Does the 'full frame look' go away when an 11mm F2 becomes available? Looks like Canon already has a patent for an 11mm F2 design: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/ It's best to focus on measurable image characteristics we're looking for, such as shallow/deep DOF, bokeh, contrast, color, resolution/detail, MTF, low light, distortion, flare, starburst pattern, coma, chromatic aberration, astigmatism, etc. (sometimes we want defects, for character). From there we can figure out how to put together a camera+lens system to meet the requirements we're looking for. Focusing on sensor size when it doesn't provide a unique measurable look isn't useful.

Give this a try and see if it's any faster. it was for me! http://sourceforge.net/p/rockymountainsmovieconverter/wiki/Home/

Tee hee

Look, man, if your primary need is educational and if you want to spend most of your time actually doing post with 2K DNGs instead of building rigs with many components, you should go for 5D3 with ML with a nice big Lexar 1066x CF card, once you set it up to stable settings its the easiest camera to pick up and shoot without worrying about batteries or monitors, etc. I recommend you spend $2K on 5D3 and spend the rest on good Zeiss CP or Canon L lenses, they will last you forever as you keep upgrading to new cameras. If you're buying 5D3 brand new, make sure to check the firmware that is compatible with ML before you buy, some of the latest supplies have a new firmware that doesn't allow downgrading.

They should have named it St. George because the Dragon has been slain... Jokes aside, looks like a brilliant tool for DoP's hopefully it has nice rental price

Currently shooting a Documentary on a mountain rescue team and locations have often been a day or more hike away from electricity with temperatures averaging -8 or 9 dipping to -14 and well into the -20's when factoring in windchill. When it came to testing and pre-produciton tested the Amira and Alexa as well as 2-perf 35mm on the Aaton Penelope, also had my BMCC which i had planned on using as a B-Cam. The BMCC and Arri's needed batteries changed constantly where as with the Penelope the 2 onboard batteries lasted a full 2 days and they still did not even start warning that they are low and even when low they will still shoot at least 800ft of film (2 mags) so practically in keeping the kit as lightweight as possible and not needing to lug block batteries up and over mountains in snow film became a really practical choice, also the batteries are pretty small iPhone with a rugged case size (a really rugged case) but pocketable which also keeps them warm and more juiced between takes during hikes. The images from testing even the BMCC all looked wonderful but film had a certain aesthetic that fitted the harsh environment and the snow perfectly and seemed to deal better with extreme highlights when the sun would glare and reflect in the distance of snow or get really bright due to spindrift in the air etc. also the subbtle grain of 50d really added a extra layer of texture to the thing snow flying everywhere infront of the lens and sticking to people and things. Cost wise the camera package as well as zeiss primes and everything was given to us by the rental house at a absolute steal 1/3rd of the price of the cheapest Alexa package which would have had lesser lenses and then we would have had to factor in needing laptops etc. out in the middle of nowhere to somehow sort and transcode for us with no power so when factoring in this even with lab costs and stock which we got discounted as re-cans from Star Wars Episode VII we have actually come up under the price of a Alexa kit not by 1000s of pounds but enough to make it viable to shoot film obviously we are limited in that we have a certain ammount of stock meaning a much lower shooting ratio but this so far has been a beautiful limitation but it may bite us in the ass in the coming shoots etc. TL:DR its not as expensive as you might think, if it works for the benefit of the final image and for a smooth production workflow its worth it, it has a look that suits some things more then digital and vice versa do not discount it.

I'm kinda on the fence... a GoPro Hero4 Black or this... hum.

Why don't you buy the KineMINI as a barebone 2K starter version for around $3K-$4K, you will be able to upgrade it to 4K and slow-mo in the future.

The SLR magic 2x certainly has a nice look. Particularity with people in the frame I think. Any idea when this will be released?

Red (as all modern cinema cameras) are literally computers...pretty obsolete after a few short years and eventually phased out of service by changing OS or no firmware support (Assuming no electronic components die before then). you can now buy a used Arri D-21 for cheaper than a used Red One. The D-21 is the Alexa's father and had a true optical viewfinder (this was pure magic at the time). But now there is hardly any interest in that camera at all. People bang on about film being dead, when in reality digital has a much shorter lifespan in Product iterations. a 100 year old film camera can be made to work like it was new, a 10 year old digital camera is probably going to go 'pop' the next time it is plugged into the mains.

I wasn't saying it was unusable, quite the opposite, but I was pointing out the drastic limitation of a shallow depth of field, thus the naievity of justifying larger sensor sizes by that alone. Unless you are a focusing savant, and they do exist, your subject will be rather stationary in the frame, especially if it is a human face and unless you like the effect of part of peoples faces/the thing that is the subject of your shot being out of focus, which personally gives me a headache, then you are going to be shooting small (depth wise) flat or very far away objects. Yes a human face side on at the end of a 200mm length filling less than a quarter of the screen is small. That's not a criticism. Your scene was gorgeous. But try watching something that makes you desperate to pick up your camera, the thing you turn to for inspiration. You will find a variety of shots, 95% of which are equally as easy to achieve on any sensor size, from iphone through to 70mm +, and you may find those other 5% of shots are in fact easier to achieve on a smaller sensor, depending on the style of the artist. FYI, my vote is for full frame, but the reason is perhaps surprising. It is the budget option. I know, I know, full frame cameras are very expensive when compared to crop frame cameras, but this is a genius of marketing over the consumers willingness to understand the product. If I want to achieve a specific look, it is almost certainly cheaper to achieve that look on a full frame sensor than a crop frame, because lens manufacturers lie when it comes to f numbers. They give the rating for the light gathered by a full frame camera, even on lenses designed only for crop frames. And because the consumer is either unwilling to do the simple maths - full open light gathered = diameter of lens opening/focal length or is willing to believe that their favourite lens manufacturer can somehow bend light into the front of their lens with magic. Thus that $1000 beautiful quality lens is not and f2.0 wide open, it's more like f4. Go look up the price for that lens that can cover a full frame, with the correct f number and see just how many hundreds of $ you can save to get a similar lens. Then work out how many lenses you need to buy before it would have been cheaper to go full frame from the beginning. With products like the A7s, it's getting close to 1 lens. The real kicker is that if you leave the crop frame system to go full frame, your lovely, overpriced lenses won't cover the sensor. So you have to hand over more $ to the scum who lied in the marketing material in the first place. It's important to note, not every company does this all the time, but every company has done this at one time or another. Of course, in the real world, you aspire to have a variety of cameras with a variety of sensor sizes and technologies. Then, no matter the look you are after, you can choose the tool that will achieve it the easiest. Because that's all sensor size is, a tool. I find internet discussions on the merits of claw hammers vs wooden mallets far more relevant and interesting, which is why my contribution to the debate is often tongue in cheek.

I've used the Red1. I don't want to use it anymore.

Don't be fooled by the RED model. Sure they are amazing cameras that have shot Hollywood films but those films also had a huge crew. The shoots I've done on RED have been very slow (as I didn't have enough crew) and technicalities then came before creativity. Also if you want more accessories it costs a fortune. It's a hardcore system. I would only buy RED if I had the money to fund more crew members, and I had consistent decent budgets to play with. You also have to consider post-production. The raw workflow is one of the best. But it takes a lot of work and time. Time is money. Personally I think a much better option would be the Sony FS7. It's the best "all-rounder" camera available. It's the same sensor as the F5. It has high FPS. Wide DR. Slog3. 10 bit. E-mount. Lovely ergonomics. Great price. Good low light. You can film anything with it brilliantly, pretty much out the box! (You need a mic, cards and batteries). Also you can upgrade it to shoot in raw and higher FPS.

​Right, I'm aware of this. I also consider stills and in that area, D7100 offers some really cool features (better viewfinder, high speed sync with flashes), so I can live without 60p Also, I found really great video shot with D7100. To be honest, it is really hard to find good footage from the camera that isn't so popular among filmmakers. https://vimeo.com/113947519

​f5.6 on s35 is a common preference for people (narrative fiction cinematographers) that actually do this stuff for realsies. So I find that the "FF" aesthetic argument is pretty indulgent for the most part. On the other hand, technically, you can get some great low-light capability...and that's something practical to actually consider depending on what you want to do. That said, I still carry around my 5D and an old 50mm Nikon f1.4 lens for making easy and great looking corporate interview type shots. If anything, using FF for talking head documentary type work is my idea of FF's strongest aesthetic "feature."

​Yes, clear advantage to shooting 4K for delivering 1080p. Shooting 1080p in 2015 is a bit like shooting standard definition 720 x 480p in 2008.

You know, I've been binge-watching a whole bunch of movies on Blu-ray this past week. From classics like Princess Bride to modern blockbusters like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Not once have I gone, what nicely isolated background blur is in the scene. In fact many of the movies I liked don't even use that much shallow depth of field, and it's clear that the lens has been stopped down some. I think on the whole we're looking at 5-10% of the scenes at most? What's really more obvious to my perception I think, in the technical aspects of the camera itself, are things like dynamic range and colour response (as we all know, with this will affect the final grade and compressed footage makes this even more challenging), how camera movement is handled, and skill taken in focusing (1080p is not forgiving for errors in older films, 4K is going to be less so). The example above illustrates my point: The one stop difference in DoF, if not placed side-by-side, wasn't going to be something I would have commmented about, and wouldn't have made me prefer one image over the other.

Delivering in 1080 does not necessarily mean shooting in 1080.

Yeah, I don't know why people get their panties knotted about certain digital cameras not looking cinematic enough. These are judgements based on what exactly? Vimeo or YouTube videos from amateur goofballs like me slapping a kit lens on a camera body, lazily applying some ill-conceived color grade, and uploading it? Jeeze, if it looks too "digital" to you, change the lens, change how you shoot, change the color grade. Okay, maybe a certain camera gets you closer to a subjective cinema-look to start, but it's still up to you to finish the job. If you can't find a recipe to make your shots cinematic, you're doing it wrong, not the camera. I'll guarantee you someone with talent and skill could grab my modest Panasonic GM1 and make visually stunning shots while I could run around all day with an Alexa and create a pile of worthlessness if I didn't know what I was doing. Too much worrying about the wrong stuff when it comes to cameras, I think.

I'm full of nikon lenses. Unless nikon comes up with something that can compete with NX1 - I'm sticking to a7s <3

Thanks. ​You and me both! I actually had the A7s for a while but I ended up selling it. Iv'e seen people create amazing stuff with it and it's without a doubt a very capable camera. But, we didn't really bonded.

As an example of what can be done with any good, modern camera... I think you could probably replicate this scene quite easily if you had the time, the actors and the proper lighting. Here, crushed blacks are half the fun. We should do "replicate this Blade Runner scene" as a weekly challenge. Compare this to the KineMAX snapshot.

Using my Panasonic lenses less and less I have to say. The 100-300mm is a kind of specialty lens which is nice to have on hand and the pancakes are just incredibly small. But what optic feel concerned I'd very much prefer the Olympus line-up as far as native e-lenses concerned. To me they're somewhat like the Sigma ART line-up. Clean, sharp, but not in a videolike sense, which with the Pana's is a little harder to shake... the Olympus lenses have some nice character, rendering and color reproduction. Love the 45mm f/1.8 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 (also have the 60mm f/2.8 macro). I'd love to get the 75mm f/1.8, but for that kind of money you can buy another Olympus body! The 12mm f/2 has come down in price a tad bit, but same story more or less (wouldn't mind having it for the BMPCC though). The 25mm and 17mm f/1.8's are pretty cool too from what I've read/seen, but I kind of already got that range covered in meanwhile. Panasonic's own lenses... unless they're not Lumix, but Leica branded, such as the 42.5mm f/1.2 (and I thought the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 was expensive, lol) they tend to be a little too modern looking. Pretty much tack sharp, but kind of emotionless... little cold, contrasty, not as creamy in rendering. Picking the right lens, will get you the right look. Lately I've been leaning more towards good old vintage glass and quality lenses meant for larger format cameras. They just render nicer, have a chiller vibe to 'em. Especially when you're not just using a regular dummy adapter, but a lens turbo with optical elements to widen the lens and boost performance. Surely part of getting the right look is applying a grade that fits the piece. Naturally I'm more attracted to the still somewhat flat look over the crushed blacks and heavily saturated stuff out there. All that said. There we absolutely some nice shots in there and overall was a really enjoyable watch. @ Rudolf: nothing wrong with the GH2. It's still an absolute charming camera to me. I love the look you can squeeze out of it. If you have one, definitly keep it. If you don't and can get one on the cheap, definitly worth considering to add to your inventory still.

if you can find a +1 achromat it'll still be a great addition to any lens collection. a +0.5 non achromat isnt really that special since it doesnt correct for CA and using on anything more than a small sensor/aperture it'll degrade the optical quality. But the reasons a +0.4 achromat is more desirable than a +1 achromat is this:- a +0.4 achromat will reduce the minimum focus distance of your lens to almost half it;s original minimum focus (if you have a 1m minimum, the +0.4 achromat will change minimum to 0.6m. However due to the weak diopter value it will still allow focus to all the way to 2.2mtrs. this is a really good focus range for racking indoors. a +1 achromat will reduce a 1m minimum to 0.2m so can get closer, but maximum distance when the lens is set to infinity will be 1 meter. As a result, your focus pull range is drastically reduced. So to answer your question, the reason is that a weaker diopter value lends itself well for users requiring focus pulling between 0.6m - 2.2m - still a rather useful range for medium/close shots, or powerful closeups from fast 85mm lenses which tend to have a minimum focus of 1m or longer.