Leaderboard

this is so much fun. driving my wife crazy. she's trying to watch the untouchables on hbo go while I frame her up in various CUs.

​I don;t fall for consumer selling techniques very easily. Sony and the bloggers will tell me my A7S is redundant and to buy the new model. The gear heads will tell me my A7S is redundant and that I should buy the new model, I'll be outside shooting with my redundant camera and doing fine.

got it!

The convenience of Dual Pixel CMOS AF is now coming to raw video, with Magic Lantern now available for all 70D owners. Read the full article

the ntsc one i guess. 59.94 hz? Heres some footage I shot right after i updated, ungraded. 4k downscaled to 1920x818. all shot wide open (2.8) except a few that were at 3.5, had a ND 8 on though, with an old FD mount sigma 35-70mm with a dyaliscope junior 16.

​Yes, but global shutter and 60p add quite a bit. Also paired with a monitor like the SmallHD 502, that setup is tiny.

​These adapters should work, and they both control the aperture of the Nikon G type lenses. You cannot go wrong with Novoflex, made in Germany with very high precision, very high quality materials. Fotodiox should be ok, if you can buy it and try it with the option of returning it then why not. But my experience with various low cost adapers is not so good, the problem is with the lenses not reaching infinity or going past infinity, they are usualy too thick or too thin (fraction of a milimeter counts here) and in my experience wide focal lenght lenses require even more high quality precise adapters.

Now I'm really envious of you guys with anamorphic lenses. Good luck and post videos!

  The AF is wonderful. Image isn't far off C100 Mark II at ISO 400 either, but raw baby!

This is awesome ! Way to go Panasonic ! The GH4 just became a 5.7K camera over night, as you can get a 5760 x 2400 image with 2.40 aspect ratio !

Caveat: I don't own either. However, I've had to match many cameras before. Trick is to first nail your white balance with a proper grey card (do this religiously, in the full light that your subject's faces will be reflecting) and THEN shoot a colour card (in the same place your grey card was). The LX100, from what I've seen, looks pretty good. Shoot it with settings as close to the final look as you can, and shoot the BMPCC in either RAW if you have the time or ProRes if you don't. You won't go wrong either way, since the LX100 will be "driving" the look as it will be more limited in it's ability to adapt in post. As long as you find a setting in the LX100 that looks close to what you intend to end up with, you'll be great, since the BMPCC can really stretch to match it. However, the LX100 can be made to adapt pretty well to the look you want to begin with. Try playing with the photo settings, and then fine-tune contrast, saturation, etc. to get to where you want. The pros do test shots with both cameras under a variety of settings, then match in post and see what works the best for them. This is highly recommended for anybody trying to get two cameras of different ilk to work together. And don't forget to control your lighting as much as possible. Help the camera out rather than forcing it to deal with high-contrast situations it may not be suitable for.

​Sorry, I meant the Samsung NX500 - costs the SAME, and has all the features of the EOS M3, except the soft video, and it has a 28 MP sensor and a 4K option. There is a transcode...

I just took another look at the video. The GH2 actually still looks quite good in this test, and the colors are pleasing to my eye as well.

I completely disagree that the D5300 has a rubbish image. I've seen some amazingly filmic stuff shot on the crop sensor Nikons, and very much appreciate their strong color science, great low light capability, sharp 1080p, and surprisingly good dynamic range/highlight roll off. I would never own one, but that's because I can't put my FD or Minolta glass on it, not because of its video quality. Very encouraged the EOS M III's improved performance. It's not up to GH2 level--not by a long shot--but it's decent, and features that Canon color science everyone raves about (and I just like for certain projects). My enjoyment of the original hinged mostly on it being a great pocket cam with the 22mm f/2 (an exquisitely good pancake lens) and that it's a Canon sensor I could finally use my glass on. Once we see what can be done with this puppy on proper projects, I'd definitely consider picking one up...or an LX100. :D Cheers!

Better to spend an extra 800 than waste 800 completely!

I'd go for the LX100 over the M3 in a heartbeat. That said, the M3 looks better than the 70D and 7D so at least there's progress on the Canon front.

This whole discussion goes the way discussions like these tend to go. It starts with a claim like "your $1500 camera is better than the Alexa". Then someone points out that there is more to an image than vertical resolution (that would be me), then folks react claiming rightly that one can produce great work with any camera, especially the GH4. All true, but why wasn't the mentioned "Ida" shot on a GH4 wich also has a 4x3 photo movie mode? That film surely had a great script, director, DP, cast, crew etc. The production company could have paid better wages, donated a significant amount of money to some human rights organisation or bought three dozen GH4 and donated them to aspiring filmmakers. (Should I point out to those who aren't getting it that this is meant ironic?) If EOSHD had been modest and written a subheading like "The GH4 now offers anamorphic shooting to low budget productions". But that would have been less catchy, wouldn't it?

I'd be surprised if it has "HIGH SPEED" auto focus.

as far as I know, metabones doesn't offer AF, and this isn't a speedbooster. I'm very interested in this if it works.

Agreed, I get a little suspicious when people rant about specs too much, it is a bit like guitars...when someone says such and such a guitar is sooo much better because of this reason or that, the first thing I want to do is hear them play. As Steve Vai once said...when people get too caught up in I use this amp, with this vintage valve mic, thru to such and such a pre amp and then to tape...yada yada...well you grow old that way LOL!! Obviously there is a difference between say a great guitar and a shit one, but that difference is not that great (as some make out) between say an NX1 vs GH4 vs C100 or C300 or whatever from Canon..or even a Red, perhaps even the "GOD" Alexa! So if anyone says the GH4 footage is just "OK" thats fine, but perhaps show something you have shot that is miles better, that anyone could see..(without pixel peeping) otherwise its just words. Take this footage for example https://vimeo.com/125389854 this could have been shot on an Alexa or anything else, its great!! However if you think it shows the failings​ and limitations of the GH4, thats fine...but then post something "you have done" that is noticeably better that anyone can see....its easy to quote specs on a forum (and yes specs are important...to a degree) but the reality is, the GH4 (even without V-Log) can produce an amazing image in the right hands. Buying an NX2 or a GH5 is not going to make your work "miles" better, it will simply give you more options thats all. How do I know? Well I operate a 20 core Xeon E5-2680 v2 CPU and a ton of VST plug ins, libraries of sounds, and a couple of very versatile DAW's..and a lot of mastering plugs and hardware. You know what? I cant make better music on this than I did 5 or so years ago on a quad core with far less,the reality is I am limited by my imagination and skills...its the law of diminished returns, go back 20 years...yes there is a difference, go back 5 years...not so much. The GH4 vs the NX1 vs Canon or others ..even less so. .