Leaderboard

Yeah, that says a lot, doesn't it. Honestly, Albert Fast has been doing great stuff with the G7! And it's an cheap as fuck camera that doesn't overheat! He uploaded this a few days ago:

Ok, I admit, you can't get IBIS via firmware upgrade. But if I had bought a Sony A6300 I would be pretty upset now. Regarding the schedule of the product announcements of A6300 and A6500 I would feel ripped off. But thinking about possibilities for a firmware update for the X-T2, I could imagine the following internal F-Log histogram and or zebra in video mode Kodak 5219 film simulation (ok, maybe a Fujifilm motion picture film sim) continuous video AF improvements etc. (I am pretty sure, I forgot some other things which can be fixed through firmware evolution) If I think about the improvements I got for my X-E2, a lot of things are possible.

I like his videos but I'm starting to get sick of these "filmic" colors. [hijack] I liked his NX1 videos better. [/hijack]

So apart from the overheating, the lack of 42 mp still files, and possibly a more user-friendly (though bulkier) form factor, the gap between the A6xxx series and A7Rii has narrowed considerably. For manual shooters, a focal reducer can get you the full frame look, and the 6K -> 4K S35 video mode on both bodies is probably very similar. For those who can't afford an A7Rii, or the expensive full frame G lenses that add several thousand onto your investment, this could be an option to get comparable results.

I WANT to have an APS-C camera like the A6500. But without comparing it to anything else... and without actual more hands-on experiences... you might as well lock up this thread, because there wouldn't be much to discuss except 'I feel cheated, I just bought the A6300!'? I'm not a Panasonic/M43 fanboy. I'm a camera fanboy. I use whatever works best. -- neways, I'll just add another video:

G7 VS A7S2 or soon to be seen look alike test G80 VS A6500, i go for the G80 + speedbooster. Look at those colors..

They are great, unfortunately you just don't know how to use them...... Not every camera can just magically get you the image you want without knowing what you're doing, also why in the world were you using S-Log in an indoor environment with lights.......

G7 / G70 (Germany) and the GX85 / GX80 (outside US) / GX7 Mark II (Japan) are the best bang for the buck out there, nowadays and ever, so far... Albert, BTW, left his NX1 for a G7 ;-)

The A6500 uses the same body as the ($500) A6000. They keep boosting the specs but no change in body (hence perhaps the overheating, tiny body wasn't designed for so much power - as the A7RII)

Film is also a language. Static tripod shots are a way of saying (because they are understood subconsciously in that way by the audience): "Look here, I wanna to show you something I have selected for your consideration". The fast zoom of the late seventies and early eighties says: "And it's THIS !!!" Until Godards À bout de souffle (Breathless) of 1950, hand-held camera meant either POV or amateur. Suddenly people realized that a doc-style hand camera did NOT say: "this is something witnessed by a camera operator, there is no structured narration", but that it added emotion to the scene. It said, "what happens here is (or WAS) not fully controlled or understood". Godard, also a film-philosopher, explained that cinema showed "death at work". The viewer of a traditional movie was like someone who sits in a train, in driving direction. He could anticipate everything because it slowly moved into his field of vision. Cuts with perfect continuity or with a too obvious narrative function, motifs carefully framed and presented in cold blood. A deterministic world view, down-to-earth (or down-to-your-knees!) morals, Pleasantville. Every 'film of life' has the same curve bending from the cradle to the grave. Revolting for the existentialistic Godard. He wanted audiences breathless. I think that a gimbal or IBIS stabilized shot that is deliberately made shaky in post does NOT transport this. People who want "total stabilization" often also demand HFR, 48, 50, 60 fps. This smoothes motion, true, but it effectively makes motion blur (or lack of motion blur!) almost invisible. They smoothed motion, but they also stopped (e-)motion. Film is a language, and it needs as much differentiation as possible. Sharp - unsharp, stable - shaky, smooth - choppy, contrasty - misty, giant - tiny, what have you. Film is not about technical perfection. If a gimbal shot looks as if made by the Terminator (I own the Ronin M, so I'm not a hater), you don't need servo sounds for the audience to sense this, imo. RS already has it's place in the vocabulary of contemporary cinema. If there is an explosion or sth. like that filmed in the aforementioned Nouvelle Vague fashion, RS will add emotion AND authenticity. Of course not in the long tripod shot in which Daniel Craig escapes with the explosion on the horizon. Let me add another semiotic polarity: UGLYYYYY - nice ... EDIT: I can't remember which film it was, but only recently I saw RS flashes (images torn in their middle) in an, er, blockbuster. Viewing habits have already adopted that look.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6500/

Just saw some more photos of the A6500. Why do they continue not offering a front dial? Having two dials readily accessible seems like a "must" in ergonomics, especially when it costs 1700 Euros... or maybe they'll put that in the A6700 that's due in a few months. If I had all that cash to blow on a camera like this, it would be a deal-breaker for me.

Nah, it wasnt ground breaking like the bmcc or anything. But you missed my point completely. My point was, how is what it could have been relevant (especially in a6500 thread) and how could you have any clue of the specs of something that never existed? As of now 10-bit and Ice Cream are roughly equally likely in the NX2. BTW, Almost bought my third NX1 yesterday. Last time I payed for the body and got the S zoom and all the sub 50mm primes for free. This time it only includes the S zoom, 60mm Macro and the 30mm. Not sure its worth the 1h drive though. Back on topic: The price of the a6500 is to thigh imo. Just like the a7sii. On a low budget camera I can accept som bugs and quirks. But not at these prices. It must operate flawlessly. The other brands do it.

Haha I love audio. Here's a big pile of ego: for my day job I wrote real-time audio DSP software for years and wrote the real-time audio engine for MySpace Music's Karaoke software. Also play acoustic and electric guitar and compose on keyboards (basic stuff using Logic X for our video productions; now hiring more experienced folks as I'm not fast enough at my skill level). Familiar with signal processing theory (and applications writing low level code) through music theory and intuitively understand what sounds good by ear. Years ago a friend put a pair of Stax electrostatic speakers on my head through a Carver Magnetic Field Amplifier after utilizing certain plant compounds and it blew my mind! Later I listened through Stax headphones at NASA Ames Research Center through a Convolvotron 3D VR system with a Polhemus 3D tracker- another level of audio mind-blowningness. Finally, hearing Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus Speakers and similar in prepared rooms (including an anechoic mixing room at GTE Imagetrek) topped out the high-end audio listening experience. As time progressed, consumers got used to and were OK with highly compressed MP3/AAC audio on comparatively very low quality headphones and/or home speakers. I realized the 99% of people didn't care about ultra high quality audio and would never hear audio at these levels of quality. Additionally, listening to crap audio helps keep the high end stuff sounding killer. Otherwise there's a never-ending chase for more quality. Steve Martin summed it up here with the Googolphonic (note the proper spelling before Google bunged it up :)). After years of software and product development, I'm focused on creating and using the simplest systems possible, where quality is balanced with cost and system complexity. For our own productions for Cosmic Flow (my current day job, software tech is now part time), in-camera audio is ideal. C300 II preamps are good enough, and so is the $500 Audix (I use it with the Schoeps for two channels vs. 2 Schoeps). Even the A7S II's preamps are good enough when using the Sennheiser G3 wireless on location. For separate audio I wouldn't use anything less than a Sound Devices 702 (and would hire a sound person). I used to use an RME Fireface 800 for computer audio, then replaced it with a $140 FocusRite Scarlet 2i2 (v1) which actually has better sounding preamps. After many years the budget 2i2 hardware crapped out and I replaced it with a Sound Devices USBPre2 I had purchased as a tool to get high-quality preamps into DSLRs years ago. The USBPre2 doesn't turn off when the computer is in sleep so I had to purchase a USB switch (not a big deal but was surprisingly hard to find a USB switch that cut power and handled data lines properly too- that was the only one I found that works). After so many years of going deep in tech, for the final product, and in the case of video, the story and emotion are far more important. The C100 II with an Audix, Shure, Audio Technica, or Rode mic, and a Mogami or similar quality cable (tried budget cables- not worth it), will provide a perfect balance of good enough quality, low system complexity, and highly versatile usability to be just about perfect for the OP and others wanting to get things done quickly with low effort, low cost, low headache, and least time to produce something cool. Ultimately, we want the gear to just work and get out of the way of the creative process.

Not good news :P First I tried with Canon 40mm pancake, the lens wasn't responding at all, I suspect that the protocol has expanded a bit. Spent that weekend trying to get any kind of response to no avail. Good-ish news, during the week I tried the 28-135 and there is definitely movement in the lens, but I've had no time to explore further. It seems like I might need to get a logic analyzer to have a shot at it working with newer Canon lenses. If anyone wants to leapfrog me, there is someone that claims to have made such a working adapter for basic manual control using buttons on the adapter for focus and aperture, and was actually using it on NX. Scroll way down to the post by a Peter S on January 2, 2012 at 14:15 https://pickandplace.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/canon-ef-s-protocol-and-electronic-follow-focus/ Need to adapt that code to Arduino Nano when I get a chance, very similar microcontroller used in his project. http://blueringlab.com/2016/03/canon-ef-lens-aperture-control-test/ It's too bad he didn't post that code, the answer to his unresolved precise aperture setting is in Peter's post. http://howiem.com/wordpress/index.php/2016/07/07/motion-control-canon-ef-lens-hacking/ Is an informative post, he also has code available, but it is a bit different, being driven from a connected computer rather than a microcontroller, etc.. but still possibly useful. In my searching about, it seems that almost everything the public knows about the EF protocol originates from this German thread: http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=649529&page=61 Which is unfortunately a jumbled mess and all the useful compilations of the info some members made seem to be defunct. Still, it's worth combing through. The next step for me I think is to re-verify the physical integrity of my connections, then start working with the 28-135 instead of that obnoxious 40mm. Not sure 100% about the logic analyzer yet... but since I'm thinking it will be needed eventually I'm starting to feel like I should order one soon. The NX side is easier and harder. I think I have quite a bit more concrete information on the protocol, thanks in part to rockymountain's blueringlab site, but this side likely involves fooling the camera about certain aspects of the lens and spoofing lens responses. Luca: If I want more than one focal reducer should I donate that number of times? <- in bold because the site is merging my posts and I thought this should be separate.

Only upgrade it needs is +10bit prores

I don't know what they are smoking over there at Sony, but I love how in that video they say... "This does not replace the a6300 or the a6000 at all, its an addition to our a6000 line" then right after that he says... "and everything that makes the a6300 so great, we just built upon it with some new technology." I don't know whether they listen to themselves... oh well... thats Sony for you. Editted to add: Even at the beginning, "...its been aaa about 6 months, 6 months? 10 months, 8 months, its been 8 months since you last introduced the a6300" and the reply was "has it been that long?" REALLY??? lol... bah wait another 6 to 8 months for the a6700 or a7000 - can't wait for affordable 5K RAW, same as they put in the RX100 v

It won't be more profitable in the long run when people are too afraid to buy a Sony camera for fear that in 2 months they will make it obsolete.

They tried that with the a7 and a7r, im sure they looked at the numbers from that and decided that what they are doing now is more profitable.

Hehe, too heavy to me. I remembered the front glass of Moller 63/2x is around 0.47kg. So I think the 46/2x or 48/2x lens are the best size for me. The front glass is around 0.3kg range. But the 32 lens is too small. BTW, who knows what this number mean? But I guess it maybe the rear glass size in mm, looks very close.

The digital Olympus cameras of nowadays have a 4/3" sensor with Micro Four Thirds mount. It's different. You will need an adapter to mount classic 35mm film system lenses. My pick would be a Kent & Faith (K&F Concept) one, as seen for example here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-OM-lens-to-MICRO-4-3-M4-3-adapter-Ring-GH1-E-P1-E-P2-High-Precision-SALE-/191634180837 . Of course, you can also go with Leinox or Fotga for example. Respectively found here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEINOX-OM-M4-3-Adapter-Ring-OlympusOM-Lens-to-Micro-4-3-Body-GX1-G5-GF5-EPL5-/291566575237 and http://www.ebay.com./itm/Olympus-OM-lens-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-adapter-Ring-G10-G6-GH3-GH2-GH1-E-5-E-P3-E-M5-/272402527407 . * just be aware of the crop factor

Yes. You pay for what you get. Possibly getting upscaled 4K from low-res too. There's decent alternatives to a GoPro that cost way less than a GoPro. But still if you want something that works well, you've got to pay up. Even within the cheaper China segment, like the 100$+ Xiaoyi/YI, SJCAM, GitUp, etc.

Goddamn these NX1 freaks and their irresistibly fabulous cameras!

I have almost exactly this. The Tascam DR-10CS with the Senn ME2. Its pairs really well. Very clean and loud. Gets the job done. But overall if you're an audio snob there its more of a utility mic than a mic for someone looking to capturing the endearing nuances in someone's voice. If I were to vlog like Casey Neistat, I would do it with a Oktava MK 012 with a hypercardioid capsule powered by a irig pre with a Rode SC3 adapter straoght into the 80D. And for interviews on a budget I'd get a cheap boom for the Oktava and and a XLR extension for the same setup. It may look a little wonky, but it would sound a million times better than a Rode VideoMic.

35nap 2-2 smaller than 35nap 2-3m. Weight you see... front lens around 500 g, rear 370 g. 35nap 2-3m lenses in sum near 1 kg

More for less is exactly what the GX80 is all about. Personally, I got the gx80 because I wanted to start out and be able to get a few primes after. It completely fits my needs. It's offering top-tier IQ with 4k in a small package, truly in the spirit of M43. I have reached my "good enough" camera.

I'd say it depends on your needs and style of shooting. If you're in a sound-controlled room, yes you can get away with a quality mic into a quality recorder. But when you increase the number of subjects/actors, or need better isolation because of the shooting environment, or meet the expectations of the client or studio, then you need more tools. in many situations a mixer would be essential - regardless of how good a cameras preamps are. In the end, that's why you really do need a person for location /production sound, for the majority of shoots. You need experience and the tools to capture sound in the most appropriate way. Can you shoot without one? Sure. But it would have to be very limited to a specific situation, or your results will be compromised. Maybe that's ok - I know eng guys often use a mic with a wider pattern and just shoot close with a wide lens. Depends on your needs and limitations. But for a more dynamic single operator you should have a mic with decent reach and rejection, and two sets of wireless mics. And a mixer with quality preamps. Even for a single subject interview in a treated environment, I would send a lav into one channel and the mounted/boomed mic into the other, for safety. Again, clipping, self-noise, batteries, too many potential problems, avoided with not much more effort. It depends on the project, but sometimes getting out of the way and letting the story come through means doing things right, which can mean hiring a sound guy. Even if that sound guy is your buddy you roped into holding a mic for eight hours.

I would wait and see what initial reviews say about rolling shutter, battery life, and overheating. All are big issues on the current Sony cams, and it remains to be seen if they've been improved at all in this model.

The GX85 seems like the best value on the market if you're a shooter desiring 5-axis stabilization. It's a cheap cam with good IQ and the 5-axis works quite well. Who can argue with that? Would I say it's a great camera overall? No. But it's an AWESOME camera if you're buying it to do what it's strengths allow you to do --'kuz you get more for less.

The difference can be used for Sound and Lighting Equipment.

Hobby or for profit? If for profit and you need 4K, C300 II is a great option if you can borrow and pay off quickly. I use the C300 II and don't currently use 4K as we're shooting a lot of content and most consumers don't even have a way to view 4K material. So the C100 II is a great camera if you want to shoot right now, get things done quickly, along with tiny files and very high quality 1080p. RED cameras are a totally different experience and use case vs. a Canon Cx00 (number one, no PDAF). I use the 1DX II only for short interviews and initially 4K60p (until I switched everything over to 1080p to speed up production). Since the 1DX II 1080p isn't very good, 4K24p must be used and downscaled to 1080p in post. This looks great however the files are huge. The C100 II is a much better choice for those on a budget looking for a good reliable all around performer. For long form 30min plus- C100 II all the way. You don't need 4K.

All Sony cameras should come with ice cream. It helps with the cooling!

Like you say, subjective. And depends on the narative. I mostly like static shots and stiff movement. But in The Hurt Locker the hand held 16mm cameras with long telephoto lenses are just right.

Nah, you subconsciously notice it. The difference in motion is huge, but hard for someone to pick out in reasons why it looks better. I shoot a of skateboarding, the 16mm stuff on any level has always looked and felt a lot better than any digital stuff.

They're trying to stimulate grey import, or what?

Both yes and no. My gess, Its not a distraction big enough for regular viewers to notice. But a global shutter will make it look "better" and contribute to the viewers experience without them knowing. I mean thats how it is with most things. My family cant say "why" they like a video Ive shot on a Blackmagic over a cheap P&S. They just know they do. And they probably figure its because I used the "expensive" camera. They dont even know words like DR and RS.

10bit and 4:2:2 would have been in nx1-mk2 for sure, if it ever existed.

Touchscreen and IBIS. My a7rII and a6300 are officially for sale. I'm buying two of these. Thanks Sony for FINALLY listening.

Lenses from modifications 35NAP. All my own... yet

It's not terrible in lowlight but that's not where this camera shines. Daylight, cloudy, overcast, dusk, interiors that are lit or have lights on, night stage lighting at concerts = awesome footage. I would shoot interior interviews with at least one z96 LED light on the subject. I would not use the XC10 for wedding receptions or night exteriors without light. I would not shoot over 3200 iso. It is my favorite run & gun cam. I have a C100MK2 and a 5DMK3 but I enjoy shooting with the XC10 the most out of the group. Here is an example of a low lit interior with mixed stage lighting in 4K.

Above 2 kilos they demand for pilot license as same as the big ones with people inside... :D Oh yes, I am not seeing the Carabinieri or Polizia Municipale asking the same for it if you're playing with this Mavic, PRO or not. Anyways, this is funny: http://www.quadricottero.com/2016/06/enac-pubblica-i-criteri-di.html "#Enac pubblica i criteri di #inoffensività ma ci lascia perplessi...attualmente nessun modello presente sul mercato rientra tra i parametri, ne sembra fattibile un modello economicamente conveniente che li rispetti." Another joke: "Le parti rotanti ( ovvero le eliche ) devono essere intubate o costituite da materiale morbido"

On the G7, I use -2 contrast, -2 sat, -5 NR, and -5 sharpening.

Great little cam, you should be happy with it. I have been using Natural - Contrast -5, sharp -5, nr -5, sat -2 or -3. But I have seen really nice work with everything dialed all the way down. The camera is crazy sharp, so I would keep the sharpness all the way down.

Hi there everyone, Just wanted to chime in and give a big thank you for all of the support! Zhiyun has done a fantastic job with the Crane and we think the product really speaks for itself. We essentially sold out of almost all of our stock within a few days when the Crane initially launched. As one of the main distributors of Zhiyun products in the USA, we wanted to let you know that we're offering a 5% discount off orders when ordering direct through our website, www.zhiyun.us. Feel free to use the code "EOSFORUMS" at checkout to apply the discount, this should help some of you save around $30.00+ dollars on the Crane if you've been holding out on purchasing it. As one of Zhiyun's main USA distributors, we offer an exclusive 1-year domestic warranty on all products purchased directly from us or one of our authorized dealer stores, meaning if something goes wrong, you don't need to ship it back to Zhiyun-Tech in China and wait weeks for replacement. We hope that this warranty along with USA-based support really helps Zhiyun shine in the months to come, and we'd be happy to get your feedback and suggestions so we can continue help improve Zhiyun's products for consumers in the US. @RNvideo, feel free to contact us directly on our website so we can try to help you out with this problem if it hasn't been resolved. We're not sure if you ordered directly through us or not, but we'd be happy to do what we can to get that Crane working if it's still in your possession! If all else fails, we'll make it a priority to see that you can get a replacement from Zhiyun as soon as possible.

Why not? If you're going to be shooting 1080p, then I don't think there's a big difference, if any at all. In fact, the GX7 has the same sensor in it as the GH4. It's just that the Gx7 doesn't shoot 4k. You can get the same IQ for 2/3rds less cost. Anyway, I don't know what you're up to as far as shooting goes, I mean you're decisions should reflect the direct needs of the production. Still, I'd worry more about getting useful lenses for whatever you want to do rather than camera bodies. Really, cameras these days...they're all good. How you use 'em, what glass you decide to use --that has a bigger factor in the cinematic quality of your project. That's my camera agnostic viewpoint anyway. On the other hand, if you're going for something specific, like shooting a doc at night time, then an a7s would be a decent choice. Think of buying a camera body like deciding what film stock to use.

Only problem is that Tugela have gone through great lengts on another forum to explain that the EBU assessment are using the wrong method. And that he has a much more accurate way of meassuring than the BBC. Of course its all based on arm chair evaluation

This camera, like most Canon products, is clearly more than the sum of its spec sheet. The image is cinematic as hell.

Did lots of lens tests today during our morning walk. Haven't edited, will probably use it for a review. But I puled some frame grabs. Closest Focus at 24 mm (20 cm) Closest Focus at 240 mm (50 cm) 240mm Lets you keep distance (but of course less background). "Shallow" depth of field 24 mm f2.8 "Shallow"depth of field 80ish mm f4.0 "Shallow" depth of field 240mm f5.6

​Its an instagram pseudo film grade with milk blacks, but apart from that the image looks ok. Just a few nondescript test shots edited to an indi soundtrack. This cameras main problem is the lack of lens options. No wide aperture options, no wide angle option, no telephoto option. But for the people for whom the money is nothing, it will be a convenient tool. If this came with a selection of stabilised lenses designed for the format it would be fantastic.