Leaderboard

Two Luchadores face off in this battle for supremacy. Really enjoying the aesthetic of this adapter combined with the BMCC

​Why does the raw data show it was processed in ACR and came from application: A7R v1.01 not A7RII? Seems like someone missed a forgot to modify a exif field.

A6000 is the first that comes to my mind too. Great for stills, good sensor, nice EVF, decent video quality/options. A5100 is even better for video (XAVC-S) and cheaper, but less practical for stills (no EVF). Nikon dslr's are no options since your Canon glass won't fit. Canon dslrs are no option anyway A6000 beats Micro Four Thirds for stills. I don't think there's a better option.

The downsides on the NX1 are related to the new codec, those "problems" will soon go away, leaving me with a superior camera on the long run.

​I should have been more specific. It should be fine for normal editing, but the minute you start using things like After Effects, more video streams, etc it will slow down. I personally feel spending $4500 odd on an iMac ridiculous for the performance one gets but its sooo pretty. Also, that thing gets hot and noisy as it has smallish fans. I don't want to turn this into a MAC vs PC debate, but in $4500 you can build a super souped up rig that will lap up all those 4K files without breaking a sweat. We focus a lot on cameras, lenses, etc but a majority of our time is spent on post production so one might as well invest well there.

I think it honestly comes down why you buy a particular camera. I did not invest all the money to get the A7s because of DR. But my audience is also totally different: I make videos for my friends and myself when we are spending time together. They honestly dont care about DR. They also dont care and dont see whether I use my GM1 or the A7s... However, when I do some low light work, they actually do care because they see the difference. Yes, I know that with a ND I can overcome the iso 3200 limitation easliy, but I am a run&gun shooter - if you take a look at my work you will notice that everything is spontaneous.. I just point and shoot and just care about aperture and focus of course. Thats it. I dont care about shutter and very often I dont care about ISO as well - thanks to the A7s I dont have to, anymore. All boils down to your needs. I heard from many people that SLOG is not necessary in 99% of the situations - for you it is quite the opposite. But hey, thats ok - personal preference

I couldn't give a rat's bum about this camera. There are a plenty of other options on the market. It's much more interesting talking about those.

Damn it we need 80MP now!!

I was thinking about the NX1 as well but went for a used GH4 (€1.000). What I like about the GH4 is the fact that it is very reliable and a "grown up" camera system with lots of glass. I only own 14-140mm and the 35-100 and use them very rarely. For video I use FDs, Nikon and M42 with cheap speedboosters and anamorphic adapters. You could buy a cheap Canon FD 20mm 2.8 plus 100$ speedbooster and you are pretty wide and fast...

I just have to click the image, thought anybody could? But here it is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/116862472@N02/17106693237/

Again, all I was asking is specifically what the DR was like without SLOG. I wasn't asking whether or not SLOG should be used ​

You're from Slovenia? If that's the case, like I said in the other topic: ​You could just order a NX1 already. Don't think that's a problem. If you're up for a little road trip, you could even cross the border and go up to Vienna where it's in store and pick one up in person. Don't think it's much of an idea to go up and buy a new GH4 kit and then sell it in a few months though. Unless you really have a shoot coming up where you need the 4K or something and you really need to buy it locally for whatever reason... I'd say there's little point to get the GH4 now if you're set on the NX1 already. But if you go GH4, pick one up 2nd hand. Must be some folks that went fullframe with the A7S and perhaps Nikon D750. Or the NX1, and now have to part with their beloved GH4. And once you're done with it, if you bought it second hand, you don't have to drop the price much lower than what you got it for. You'd lose more on a new one. And in the end either a new or 2nd one both can accomplish the same. @ darrellcraig: you're right. I was mainly talking about the normal line-up like the 14-140mm and the 14mm and 20mm pancakes. From what I've seen the Leica branded ones are something else. But then again, so is the price, no?

F mount lenses with their design for a longer flange distance means they're pretty much adaptable to anything, including EF mount.

I think for weddings, the easier work flow of the GH4 would be far better and outweigh the advantages of the NX1.

​The 14-140mm is a great flexible lens. It's sharp, has pretty nice rendering and contrast and everything. But... personally I think it's a little too modern and tends to give off a slight clinical but also video look. Kinda lacks 'soul' so to say. The pancakes are pretty sweet, the 20mm f/1.7 and the 14mm f/2.5. Olympus has very sweet offerings too, and I like the character Olympus lenses give off quite a bit better, more organic with very nice rendering. Yes, they are e-native lenses, even the Olympus ones, they share the same e-mount, so in-camera settings and autofocus. With none of the Olympus lenses stabilization though, as Olympus doesn't build that into the lens, but into their camera bodies. But then again, the 14 and 20mm lenses also do not feature built-in stabilization. The closest thing to the 15mm f/1.7 Summilux might be the 17mm f/1.8 from Olympus. They're pretty similar in price. No experience with either here, so not sure which is the better performer. If you want it for tight spaces... there are the Tokina 11-16 or 11-20mm f/2.8 zoomlenses. Not as tack sharp as a prime, especially wide open, but very usable and flexible lenses I'd like to think. Could get one with a Nikon mount and cheap dummy adapter. Or a focal reducer/lens turbo. Or if you can accept the price and range the Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8 of course. But again, adapter needed, so no AF, full manual everything. Could be the holy grail amongst the choices though... In the end it's a tough call I guess. But you really have to be dedicated and sure of the choice for the 15mm f/1.7, because you're putting quite the constraint on your range. The 14-140mm again is just so great because it's so flexible. But if its character bothers you, then that's not really gonna work either.

Outfitting a studio for lighting can be involved. Things to consider are square footage, power, lighting grid design, grid height, power distro, grid grip hardware and fixtures. There are companies that will look at your space and do all of the design and construction work. Also, some lighting manufacturers will give estimates and make overhead diagrams for free (featuring their fixtures, of course). If one is beginning in lighting, start small and get a kit with one or two focusable lights (Fresnel or open-faced), a flood light and a soft box. If more gear is needed for a specific job, rent more gear and see what works. Then, when one has a better idea of what is needed, one can start getting more lights and grip equipment. Another good approach for a beginner is to hire an experienced gaffer (ideally one who is also a DP) for the first jobs. He/she will spec what is needed for the shoot, and one will get to see the equipment in action, utilized and deployed in an optimal and professional manner.

Dedolights make a great set of LEDs that are super customizable. A full set will run more than 2K though. You could always get 2 Flolight fluorescent banks (similar to Kino Flo but half the price), and 2 Arri 650W fresnels. Mix in a couple of diffusers and flags - you'll have a good kit.

you kinda did it too jfr, and tons of people here love the nx1. I'd rather we get off topic than nasty

Here is a new video out shot with the JVC looks darn good to me. Other then better low light shooting i do not see the Sony as any better in any other way, Both the JVC and NX1 record 4K, And the JVC gives you pro audio, Video streaming and a lot more. I like the JVC for a camera you can go shoot with that has everything built in ready shoot, I have had no problems shooting with my NX1 i have had since December i have well over 100 hours on it the image quality is sharper then the Sony and when you need auto focus the NX1 is much better, and i have no problem with Dynamic Range. And he HD slomo is quite good to at 60 and you have 120 as well. And here is the guy that shot all that talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW_U93HJbAo