Leaderboard

​For me, I have no interest in buying a lens that is the full frame equivalent of f7.6 to f15.2 in terms of depth of field. Having said that, I'm sure people will be able to produce beautiful footage with it. But I'm not gonna limit myself with a lens like that.

I uses both, for fast turnaround project or co-op with other people GH4 is the way to go, especially if you have same day edits for wedding, no time for transcoding! NX1 I mainly use it for gimbal (AF is awesome!) GH4 can look cinematic if you know how to shoot and colour grade (same for other DSLR type camera including NX1) Like this one is shot on GH4.. nothing docu look at all!

Hey guess what - let me make 1. a test video 2. make it in slo motion!!! http://vimeo.com/123435623 thanks to convergent design - now you can go 60 FPS into their odyssey 7q - and plus - this makes it such a small camera to do this - no giant recorder anymore this is amazing news....for the 6 people who own the f35!!! so it can do 12 bit dpx files RGB and 60 FPS in 1080p - do you need much more than that out of a camera - with CCD, global shutter, and all this for under 8k!!! well the lighting is crap - but hey, it's the sony f35 via dual link into the odyssey 7q in 60 FPS!! HOW ABOUT THAT??? 50mm sony lens. look at that noise - that's the f35 - not adding film grain - noisy - so everyone please expose your footage correctly!

DISCLAIMER: I apologize for posting a new topic on this, as I have also added this to the diopter thread. I didn't get any feedback and could use some because I want to sell one of these lenses and I can't decide which. I hope someone can clear things up for me. Although I've read up a lot on anamorphics over the past months, I am very much a noob when it comes to using them properly, as getting everything you need to maintain such an expensive passion is very difficult where I live. Knowing that the very coveted Tokina achromat is arguably the Holy Grail of anamorphic diopters, I was very happy to find one for cheap at a local shop (who knows how for long they probably had it). I did a very bare bones test to compare it to another lens that I bought a while back, a Tamron +0.5 singlet close-up. I know there may be a lot of things wrong with it, lighting changes, the objects don't have an adequate texture to them for test purposes, and so on, but I wanted very quickly to see if there is any obvious advantage (in terms of sharpness) to the Tokina over it's single element counterpart. Now, is it just me, or is there no huge difference between the images? I fail to see anything that would justify the huge price gap. I don't know if I should be dissapointed in the Tokina or impressed with the Tamron. I understand that maybe you can see what the Tokina is capable of by using better lenses, filming in different conditions, and so on. I don't know, what do you guys think? What am I doing wrong?

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before, but the thread is a little bit too lengthy to skim through all the way. If the barrel of the FM is 71mm in diameter, does this mean that my Sankor 16F, that is slightly slimmer than its cousins (the focus ring is just under 70mm from what I've measured) can fit the module without modification?

Cosimo - no trolling of this thread. John - no blatant advertising and hype. This is the final warning for the pair of you. It's dragging the atmosphere on the forum into the gutter. If you carry on, either of you, then I will just wash my hands of you both in the control panel and delete everything.

​i´ve done my homework 4k downscale is the way i want to go. 4k in camera downscale to hdmi like the gh4 would be nice to avoid transcoding

Its really sad that one of the greatest TV shows will never be the same. Jeremy Clarkson was the backbone of the show but he also bears the responsibility for its (probable) demise. He seems to have a problem with understanding that actions have consequences - you see it in pretty much every episode and it really makes for great TV. He behaves as if he is invincible and entertains the hell out of us in the process. Unfortunately this behaviour leaks out into the "real" world and he's got himself into trouble many many times. You can argue that he should be given a break but its not an isolated incident. He's really f**ked up a lot and got away with it with a slap on the wrist. The BBC has defended him where it may not have defended others and they have already given him the "star" treatment several times over. He's one of the biggest starts of the corporation and given his serial bad behaviour, which has put the show at risk on a few occasions before, I'm positive that his superiors would have done everything they could have to protect the show. He's put the BBC in a terrible position with his latest actions and he alone is responsible for this. I spent 4 years working at the BBC and its a very "by the book" organization. Its pretty clear right from the beginning whats acceptable and whats not. Tens of thousands of other employees seem to get the rules. He's worked there for decades, understands the organization and the responsibilities it has to license fee payers and he still screws up like this after many warnings. How many warnings and slaps on the wrist should he be allowed exactly? I understand the argument that its a bigger picture; that one of the most popular TV shows on the planet is at risk and that sometimes you need to be flexible with your rules to benefit the greater good. This is fine on short-term productions (like film) or with independent companies that only answer to shareholders, but the BBC cannot afford to be that flexible - its a publicly owned company with a charter, answerable to the people and absolutely cannot be seen to be supporting criminal behaviour. As I said, Clarkson knew this. He knew he was on thin ice and he knew that another f**k up probably signal the end of his employment. He might have been under a lot of stress and fuelled by booze but he still made a conscious decision to do what he did. I'd bet you anything he woke up the next morning and thought to himself "oh dear......." Its just a sad sad situation. Like many stars, he's the master of his own downfall. His unpredictable and risk-taking character which has helped to take Top Gear to the heights of success is also the cause of its demise. Maybe he can take a break on Clarkson island:

Funny I ditched A7/5D2 for NX1/GH4 for wedding.. and don't miss the FF look, or "worse" low light performance, slowmo and aerial is the buzz lol. For most client they don't really care about the stuff at we care. they just want good edited video with the right mood/atmosphere that show off their day. For commercials they are much more picky, you can rent EPIC/FS7/C300 on the corner.

Why do people on the interwebs write off a camera before they've even seen/used it? The specs of this camera might not seem that good, but no price has not been mentioned or the complete feature list. It might even have a feature where It has this feature that is featured on the camera. Hope so!

Last night I watched Frances Ha. Shot on a 5D. Now that is something I would like to see discussed here. A lout and cars, not so much.

What's drawn you to either of these to get you to this final decision? Sorry, i mean i assume you've done your homework and know you want one of these two, just asking. Is it the 4k? I could see why someone would decide that's necessary at this point, but if not, there are other really good options in and below that price range for low light, sensor size, colors, lens options etc. Though these are obviously great cameras for the money for more than just the 4k, and I'd think native h.265 editing and v-log are on their way to make both options better. Having less color grading experience and not needing auto focus (or OIS really), I'd go for the nx1 between these two and adapt manual nikon lenses

Most of the people in the comments disagree with you, so why on Earth would you assume that everyone else who read the post without commenting agrees with you? I don't think you can rely on your site statistics being an indication of how many unique visitors you have either. There are probably quite a few of us checking in regularly on the progress of this discussion. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Clarkson positively endorses it. People have various ways of rationalizing their own behavior or excusing their own mistakes as exceptions, but if he's going to do things like this, there should be consequences. The actions of any individual are invariably explainable if you look closely enough at the circumstances of their lives, and you can have all the sympathy you like for someone who is going through personal issues, but it just isn't sensible to allow someone in a poor state of mind to hold a position of responsibility. When people say things like "I don't mean to be rude, but...", they generally follow it up with something rude. When they say "I'm not racist, but...", they generally follow it up with something racist. It's a familiar way of anticipating an objection and maintaining some deniability, so when you preface your comments by saying you consider what Clarkson did wrong, but go on to argue that he still shouldn't be sacked, you can maybe understand why some of us take that to be a less-than-convincing denunciation. I don't think anyone here is arguing that you positively endorse his actions (that word again), but you are clearly downplaying their significance. Your explicit attempts to justify applying a double standard to talent vs non-talent are also deeply troubling to me.

Well, if Jackie Chan is promoting this and features a red recording button, then you just know this has to be one mean movie camera. /sarcasm In some way this reminds me of my old Canon PowerShot SX1 IS. Although no bad things about that one though (you know, for 2008 standards). I believe it was the first bridge/superzoom to do 1080p and I got really excited after hacking it with CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit -> Magic Lantern more or less). That led me on the path of upgrading to a GH2 and hack that! But I'm not really sure where it leaves this 1" f/2.8-f/5.6 fixed zoomlens camera... when we already have the Sony RX100, RX10... although not 4K, as well as the 4K capable LX100 and FZ1000. Big target is the aerial sector ('This definitely looks to be Canon’s foray into the drone market.')? The Inspire 1 has really nice 4K, but yeah, covers a fairly wide angle only. Although, that would just mean you wouldn't have to fly as far away, which in most cases would be an advantage? If you want something better, you could go for the DJI S900 and a broad selection of sweet little lenses availlable for the 4K GH4. Or go for an even more advanced set-up and hire someone to shoot with proper cinema gear from the big guys. It doesn't look sexy. But then hopefully... form follows function and there are some good reasons to make it look as silly as it does. The grip looks interesting. But yeah, the label '4K' alone doesn't convince me, especially looking at all the other specs and without a built-in EVF it's not really the thing you'd go for if you want something hybrid either. At present I see no reason to go with this and knowing Canon it won't even be that cheap. Especially if it targets a very specific audience and makes this a specialty camera. I mean, I'm willing to consider a lot, but it's 2015 and there's a lot of alternatives...

Sent you a mail mate outlining the madness Sadly still no fully unified delivery method for territories and TV/Film/Online etc. I will send you the specs and talk you through the process when you find out where the piece is going to be delivered. Even in this age of file delivery I'm just about to pop a mix onto SR for the BBC this afternoon, so I still have to check every project in case they've moved the goalposts yet again, so it can be confusing!

Why the hell did they put a fixed lens since they've got the biggest lineup of lenses that people could buy and...oh wait I forgot about their Cinema line.....

so much wrong with this.. viable if it's $200

I thought I would check back on this 'discussion' again. It has helped me understand better why this website is so underwhelming to me. I say that as someone who has used this site for years as (one more) reference for filmmaking. The rot started to form a while back - before this Clarkson nonsense - when I read a post about the LX100. An amazing little camera I felt. But it got sneered on - initially. Soon after there was a 'rethink' - suddenly it was a super piece of kit etc etc Later after getting flamed by SleepyWill and some other old timers, I started to mentally list why this website constantly disappoints. By that I mean I spend my valuable time occasionally checking in, see nothing much, so check out again...nothing compelling here (for me) basically. So here are my gripes: 1. The website is named after one proprietary camera system. In business terms, this is silly. Its like the kid who starts TripodsRUs - only to advertise a year later that he will also sell you a Slider, or a Monopod or whatever. It illustrates a lack of vision. A simplistic outlook. Of course it also ostracises Nikon or Sony folks, at least subconsciously, which seems unnecessary if its meant to be about filmmaking (which it isn't) 2. The website talks largely about Consumer Purchasing Decisions. It might be better named CreditCardCameraConsiderations.com or maybe BokkehSupermarket.com or perhaps EndlessUpgrade.com 3. The Clarkson chatter shocked me (and others here too it seems). Its almost fantastical that 'filmmakers' would defend this JC stuff. Apologies to those with me on this, but to those who are gushing forth with the latest skinny on poor JC and his downtrodden crew ...really? Is this news? for a filmmaking site? Regardless of whether people like the crap or not its EXTREMELy telling that by the end of this week it could be the most discussed topic - ever - on this site... 4. There is damn all abstract, challenging, artistic, genuinely creative discussion initiated by Andrew Reid. As editor/writer, I would've thought thats a failing, if others agree. Some do I know, as Ive read their posts of frustration ("What About Storytelling", etc) - 5. The reason JC+Crew gets s much focus, and Machinery From Canon et al gets focus, is perhaps because this is an Industrial News Site. Not A Creative Filmmaking Site. Its for people who are in 'the business', 'the trade' (or want to be) and therefore it seeks to Defend Jobs At All Costs. Well screw that. No filmmaker I know has a real job, whether they're swanning around Cannes or Berlin or not. They are constantly fighting broadcasters, distributors, unions, investors, bosses and banks to get their sh1t made. Now if this is a site for jobbing SkyNews Cameramen or, thats cool. But why not say so? And lets slot a few more articles in about staff conditions, retirement plans, commuting problems etc. But don't pretend its Cahiers du fricken Cinematograper.... 6. Seek out all the posts on Framing, Composition, Production Design, Editing Technique (not software) - there aint many folks. Why? Andrews busy? No problem, but just don't pretend to yourself that EOSHD is something it isn't. Its less useful than the Reviews Stories on BH's online shop. Most of the time. I wish it wasn't (and don't screw with me you Clarkson-loving Etype-lusting future retirees out there) - I've paid my dues and used this site for a long time. Hell I probably accounted for 5% of its traffic. A good example is the 'Pinned' Topic on "Shooting Inspiration and Ideas" - Nice idea to start a discussion. Just a pity A.R. does not mention any inspiration or Ideas. Thats for the plebs i guess. This is the kind of DailyMail hack website/hipster blogger nonsense which peeves me no end. Why is it pinned? You wanna solicit some traffic on that subject? Cool. Why not put up or shut up? Is it just to try to start a conversation on 'fimmaking"? Well, too bad (for all of us) - nobodys biting. Its got 24 replies compared with Clarksons hundreds. Wonder Why... 7. This site has all the architectural and functional finesse of a bad Themeforest Joomla site. I can buy it in India for 30 quid. To me, thats lazy. Theres lots of gifted designers out there, and they'd probably do it for free to contribute to a creative community. If there was a creative community. Sorry Everybody but a community is not just a website where a few hundred people occasionally read and post a reply. 8. The site's content is taxonomically random in a way that frustrates and does't invite easy reading. Looking for location documentary stories? Nope. (and don't mention TAGS please...) 9. The sites been up for nigh on three years and It has helped build Brand Reid. Good. We all need to sell advertising. Good. Good....BUT...Out of maybe....30,000 posts, Andrew has posted nearly 7,000 it says. Thats also good, and I've read, appreciated many, slept through many more...BUT is this a place that gets my time? IS it trying hard to be a Curated and Edited Place for Filmmaking and Filmmakers - naaaah...it aint. 10. Andrew has been downright out of line to some posters here IMO. Its my opinion, s'all, but it seems I'm not the only one who sees this. Now I know us mere readers can't be 'as equal' as the publisher. I get that. Thats fine. But easy with the entitled, patronising tones please. It seems...to insult your readership. 11. These days everyones an expert on something. Building Your Brand Is Key, they say. I do fear that EOSHD's brand is built on exceedingly weak foundations however. The answer is to shape up and do what it promised. Or else delegate this 'content' work to another. Someone who is a good Editor. Personally I've never met an Editor in Publishing who was also a useful cameraperson or cinematographer. Or vice versa. Andrew's credentials as a cultural commentator are (for me) forever damaged after his passionate pleas that the BBC were acting like cultural fascists (or words to that effect). Really Andrew? You think that TG is "Important Work" huh? I always thought you were somewhat relevant. I was wrong. Way wrong. That doesnt mean you don't know your way around a german or japanese camera, but only a dinosaur would defend JC like you have, bless. 12. Its not ideal to scream at the subtle racism on this site by some very few contribs, but at least it would be good to have some fun with those weirdos using this forum to take the last train to Clarksonville and defend Mr. Camerons drunk racist mate Jeremy? Could even set up a vintage car club for any EOSHDs distraught TG Fans? The BRollers? Ok...theres my civic duty completed for another year. I trust I haven't offended anyone this time. Filmmaking shouldn't be conventional. It should be brave. Different. Visceral. It should also be honest and engage with the world around us. Top Gear on the other hand is Prince Philip's favourite show. It has nothing to teach 'Filmmakers'. Get it Andrew?

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that. I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points: 1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation. 2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes. 3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately. How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault? 1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public. 2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it. All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson. So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world. Today was a bad day for the industry. As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine. And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?

I'd probably think most of the "internet camera nerds" don't bother using lighting, or very little. Whether this comes down to shooting style/hobby/lack of interest... Don't know. I can be a camera nerd who surfs the net on a daily basis to feed my latest craving. But I also see cameras/footage being critised where proper, good lighting was NOT utilised. How many actually realise that a camera produces superior images with a good set of lights, or a knowledge in how to mould natural light? A lot of the "skin tone" footage on the net with the A7s sucks because the operator raised the ISO to 20,000 in locations with weird colours/no colours, and didn't bother to consider light at all. Lighting is far more important than cameras. You start to realise that your tool has much better colour, dynamic range, resolution and motion than you thought. Even if you use a flat piece of foil to reflect the light on your subject, every little helps. My order of importance for every shoot: 1. Idea 2. Subject (actor, location etc) 3. Lighting 4. Lenses 5. Camera So onto your subject, whatever camera you use, start with lighting first. You will get much much further with your filmmaking and produce much better images this way My honest opinion is - those who are serious but don't consider lighting, you might as well not bother!

As the house is probably burning at night, AND the a7s cost more, I'd of course grab the Sony!