Leaderboard

Really surprised they didn't do more with that sensor. I know they had issues wit the supplier early on, I hope that didn't put them off. The 2.5K sensor is incredible. It just needed to be in a different body. Smaller with decent ergonomics and without the need for a brick of a battery. BMPCC was a nicer form factor. Great image. For me it is a shame Blackmagic haven't brought out a BMCC V2 and another pocket. The Micro cameras are interesting, but they are not really cameras... just a cam head. The URSA is pro and not so much mirrorless / enthusiast. Bit of a shame really! Because they started something wonderful with the first 3 cameras.

I don't want to sound negative, but what you are looking for will be pretty bad on any camera system, it's only a question of "good enough". These super-zooms are made for convenience, not for absolute image quality. If you shoot for web galleries or comparable use, all of them are sufficient and so will be the samsung 18-200 I would think.

Contax Zeiss glass is very very good , its the same glass formulation that is in Zeiss Super Speed cinema lenses ,Im now using a full set of these primes as my main lenses . Ive been very busy this year working on a film and my next film in prep for next year is all being shot of Contax Zeiss glass.

This is a very basic test but it does show the resolution advantage of oversampling 4K from a 6.5K sensor on the NX1 Doesn't show much else, like what it is like to grade or dynamic range, where the FS5 definitely has an advantage with S-LOG and the 10bit output Internal 1080p is also much better on the FS5 but good 1080p is pretty commonplace these days so not jumping up and down in excitement too much for that at $5000 I absolutely love my NX1 and the H.265 codec maintains a TON of fine detail in the mids... not so much in the shadows or places where there's not much detail anyway NX1 with the Novoflex A mount adapter and Sony / Minolta / Zeiss lenses by the way = MEGA!!

The first of several short films I shot on the NX1. Let me know what you think

Hi everyone, As most of you know by now, Im an avid user of the NX1, specifically for video, however, I photograph on a daily basis as a hobby. For the most part im extremelly happy with the NX1 as a stills camera, however, coming from an OVF, im still getting used to the EVF. This might be a "silly" question, but, my EVF does not show exacly how my still will end up looking, I mean, if I change settings (aperture/shutter speed), it does not give me a real preview of what im getting, instead gives me what the camera thinks I should see. Is there a way to change this ? Are all EVFs like this, and this is common practice ? wouldnt it be better if it gave real preview of what im capturing ?

Hi everyone, Merry Christmas! I wanna share my last short film, "Best-Seller". I shot it entirely with Nikon D7100 and D5300 on September 2014. I´m releasing it online now because it was circulating some festival during this last year. Hope you all can enjoy it. IT HAVE ENGLISH SUBTITLES just activate them.

Make sure "Framing Mode" (entry in menu) is off, it holds the brightness steady.

Messing with the A7R II - good, but I would wait if you can till the A7S II - rolling shutter issues. Also save some cash. Here's my receipe that I'm liking: COLOR MATRIX - Pro, not s gamut - reds feel more red COLOR GAMMA - CINE4, not slog - cleaner highlights. Slog2 looks weird with an 8 bit codec how it gets noisy in highlights Black Level: 0 Black Gamma > Range: Middle , Level: -3 Knee > Mode: Auto , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid Colore Mode: Pro Saturation: +8 Color Phase -2 Color Depth > R+1, G-1, B+2,, C-2, M-1, Y-3 Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0 White balance > Manual > Grid setting B 1 (one to the left) You don't have to follow it perfectly, but overall it can get to some stunning results. And the secret to any log recording is post. Use film convert. filmconvert.com. Or impulz luts. Select slog 2 - modify it - less contrast - less of a curve since it's less flat as s log 2 I used Film Convert Arri Alexa Log C profile for grading. FilmConvert setting is Arri Alexa as the camera. logC. film stock is Fuji Film 8543 Vivid. color 93. curve 100. size 35mm full frame. grain 0. But just mess around - find what you like. Have fun! And everyone post your own. Together we can help each other improve. That's what it's all about - using the Hive to get better. Get knowledge, give knowledge.

I tested with the following combos: NX1 -> Generic NX to EOS EF Adapter -> Fotodiox N/G - EOS Adapter -> Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art in Nikon F mount NX1 -> Generic NX to EOS EF Adapter -> Samyang 85mm f/1.4 in Canon EF mount Both combinations hit infinity where it is marked on the distance scale despite the double adapter gamble, obviously you can focus until "after infinity" as on most modern lenses. I didn't see if shop links are allowed, but to be precise it's these two adapter: EOS EF to Nikon G: http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B008BBIBOM The super short throw of the aperture lever IS annoying after some use, the blue plastic lever fell off so I superglued it on again and you can only take the lens off the adapter after taking the adapter off the camera... but then there is no way at all to control canon lenses' apertures so beggars can't be choosers and the double adapter combo is more flexible/lightweight than buying separate NX -> F and EF adapters. Samsung NX to EOS EF: http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00MKZXQA4

I usually just export to uncompressed AVI, then convert the AVI to ProRes. It's a hassle of an extra step, but I only do it when creating a master.

These look stunning ! Gotta try some new settings !

The trail is is being blazed.

No it isn't available in any Adobe product on Windows. Apple hasn't approved its use on Windows which is why it is not. Any software on windows that does offer it is doing so via a custom coded unapproved version of ProRes. Also the whole downscale to 10bit is an internet myth but there are gains in chroma sampling from downscaling.

I can only put on the chart cameras I've actually used extensively. I'll admit my interest in the little XC10 is growing. It hasn't had a positive reception from most people. The Camera Store and Canon Rumors voted it their worst of the year. I didn't like the handling when I briefly tried it and I wasn't blown away by the specs or the pricing either. But if the 8bit image really is like a small chip 1D C with great colour it could be useful. The 4K 300Mbit/s 4:2:2 compared to 4K 100Mbit/s 4:2:0 on the Sony RX10 II does seem to look a lot more organic with a better texture, better noise, better colour, more natural detail. So maybe it is worth a closer look after all.

contax zeiss are pretty good, a lot of them are the same designs as the zeiss "Classic line" ZE ZF.2 and the best part for video work is that they have manual apatures but also spin focus the right way. like a zeiss ZE ZF.2 hybrid. some of their coatings are not as modern or flare resistant as the "classic line."

review of SLR Magic's achromats, I thought it could be useful here. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8334

I'm shooting with an LX100 and FZ1000 atm, but I'm a bit surprised they're so low on the lists. I feel like I have most of what I need to shoot covered yet I can't help but consider if I should sell and go for a G7. I hear good things about the G7 for the price. With the LX100 to cover lower light conditions and FZ1000 for range and slo-mo (and both having auto zoom via rocker nub or wireless control), it seems almost redundant to start over again. I do know that I will be able to invest in particular lenses and even go forth with a speedbooster in the future, handle greater lower light conditions and maybe less noise image patterns overall... still. While I can't make much for comparison, any advice from those who have handled all these cameras would be of help.

And after shooting with both cameras, I can declare with great confidence that if stills are entered into the equations... at all, you can just start saving your pennies now. ... everyone knows it would have better IQ ... it's FF with a state of the art 42MP sensor. I like taking stills as well and thought that the A7Rii would be the perfect hybrid cam but it's not at all IMO. I just hated using it mainly from an ergonomic perspective. Not fun at all. NX1 is a pleasure to use. I'd rather have an NX1 & a D750 than just an A7Rii. The auto-focus is mythical. -- Try using a D750 ... to me the AF on that cam is amazing ... in any light. The burst speed is truly something to marvel at - better than the 15fps on the NX1? At least on the NX1 you don't have to walk around the block to wait for the cam to finish processing those shots. The A7Rii is without a doubt among the best full frame stills camera currently available -- utter nonsense. Many would argue a D4, D750, D810, 5DMkiii, 5Ds are better cameras. Just depends what you are using it for. Overall image quality is superior on the A7Rii. Colors seem more true to life without the need for tweaking. -- did you get the cameras mixed up in testing? LOL 9. Pleasing colors (Thank you Sony... at last). ... really??? The NX1 seems to have much nicer colours. I've had both cameras as well. A7Rii is better for stills for sure (the end result that is .. not necessarily taking the actual shot), but everything else I'd rather use the NX1. Ergonomically I find the A7Rii terrible in comparison to the NX1. The NX1 seems to have everything in just the right place and feels great to use. The A7Rii also feels drastically underpowered as far as the processor goes and really clunky to use ... like you are waiting all the time for things to happen. It's like they put a V8 in a mini. I don't get why everyone says the AF is that great on the A7Rii either ... it's good for mirrorless but all mirrorless seem to suck really badly when they light goes down a little ... including the Sony's. The NX1 is worse than the Sony for sure but I don't find the Sony in any way near a D750 or the like. The AF is good for a mirrorless cam ... still no where near a DSLR IMO. I also hate the fact that it is near impossible to film outside in 4k on the A7Rii as the LCD & EVF dim so much as soon as you press record. Makes it impossible to see what your actually filming. Only Sony's seem to to do this ... RX100iv does it as well. Doesn't happen in 1080p so probably done to prevent overheating ... perhaps they can hire some soon to be out of work Samsung engineers soon to fix this up Also, at the end of the day, no matter how small they make the FF mirrorless cams, there's no way around the fact the any decent fast & bright (2.8) AF zoom is going to be a monster and totally unbalanced ... bigger cams seem much better suited to shooting these types of lenses. That being said, I don't mind Sony and I'm happy they keep pushing the envelope and things like the 42MP sensor and inbuilt IBIS are awesome. I like the little prime lenses as well. I really wish they bring out a slightly bigger version of the A7 series with better ergonomics, much faster processor and no heating issues. This would be a nice camera.

First time poster. In regards to the Samsung NX1, I'm considering a purchase, but I'm a bit curious about your comment regarding "3. Unnatural motion cadence when panning or recording a moving subject (deal breaker)." Is this in reference to some form of extreme rolling shutter when recording UHD or 4k? I've seen that the 4k rolling shutter is pretty bad on the Samsung but its also not great on the Sony A7 series. However, the Samsung 1080p rolling shutter is one of the best among CMOS sensors. My thought is that during scenes with extreme action or during lots of hand held shooting, I could drop to 1080p to compensate. Or does motion cadence refer to something else? To my mind, something shot at 24 fps at 1/50th shutter speed should be pretty much the same across cameras unless rolling shutter plays a major role in what is perceived by the viewer. I'm very curious in regards to what people are referring to when they reference motion cadence. Seems a very nebulous trait of a camera and I'm very interested in what makes good cadence vs bad cadence that would constitute a deal-breaker for a certain camera.

Perhaps since when the nx1 is the best and most affordable 4k photocamera? :-P

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this.

Award of the most useless post of the year !

I'm a huge fan of the bmpcc. It's the ONLY camera that fulfilled the needs of my FORBES70 prototype camera in terms of DR, low light performance, resolution, compatibility with adapted specialist lenses, solid codecs, etc. since the bmpcc's release there has yet to be anything that comes close to its overall performance when paired with fast modern c-mount lenses. The sheer number of so-called high end cinematographers interested in FORBES70 but who disregard it based on that fact that the internal camera is a BMPCC is amazing. Also those who complain about anything the camera does visually are asking far too much. £800 for the best picture available from any camera in the price bracket where re-mortgaging isn't required to make a purchase. https://vimeo.com/136554487 password : fbs I hope the bmmcc does the same amazing job and better!

The resolution that I see from the C100/BMCC is ideal for me. I think what has made me reconsider is the new Blackmagic cameras. They just don't look as rich as the original models. The DR looks nice but it's just too sterile and digital-esque. Yeah I made that word up.

I've sorta changed my tune recently on 4K. I really like true 1080 better for everything except product/landscape shots.

It's an interesting test in that it proves just how misleading camera specifications can be. Based on that test one would feel a fool to spend $5,000 for an FS5 body, instead of $1,000 for a NX1. The test shows that, resolution-wise, both cameras output similar footage in a static scene with objects lit within (my guess) 2 stops of each other (if that!), between the white of the photograph paper border and the black in the wall, depicted in the picture. There's a reason Andrew puts lamps, strings of lights and shadow-producing objects in his test scenes. It is difficult to shoot a scene of wide dynamic range using reflected light only. In the real world, where the sky is in the scene outside, or even coming through the windows, there will be 10-20 stops of dynamic range, or brightness from dark to light where each stop at the high or low end would show more or less detail (contrast). So when a filmmaker looks at Andrew's test scenes, for example, he will look to see how much detail is preserved in the string of lights, or in a shadow. The book on the table is mostly to show color at middle gray. Point both cameras at a person sitting on a couch, say, with light streaming through the window, with a mix of highly reflective objects, and light absorbing objects, and then let's see the difference between the FS5 and NX1