Leaderboard

The biggest clusterfuck of 2016 was Syria, where thousands of people, including many photo/video journalists, died and the world did absolutely nothing.

The jvc ls300 has a s35 sensor yet has a m4/3 mount so it should be possible but that doesn't matter as it is not the case with the gh5.

So i've been waiting for bit for a while and patiently waiting for the Core DNA to come back in stock to finish my setup. Here is how she sits now! The new Rapido system is great. Had some custom step up rings machined by Raf in russia and everything mates together now. Once I get the rectilux i'll do an initial test then send away for cleaning/adjustment at super16 inc.

Just shows how much room there is to expand the sensor if they wanted to.

@Marco Tecno Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-t20-will-shoot-4k-video/ If true its pretty major. I had the X-T10 and its a sweet, compact but very solid camera with major mojo and plenty of bells and whistles to go around. Ad better video and you have a winner! The video in the x-t10 was similar to the xt-t1, so ok but nothing for serious stuff. I did however shoot all the footage of the X100t with the X-t10 in this review. So it should have potential to be just as good as the X-T2. Only alot cheaper.

Night for day on Luke in the snow, works pretty nice thanks to the low light (reflector?) in front of him.

Thanks gents. Will enter 25mm. Cheers !!

Sadly there are very few 4K recorder options which are 5" at any frame rate! Video Devices PIX-E5 being one rare expection, but it is not 60p

It's a problem that only came up when cameras got smaller and lighter. They don't have a lot of inertia anymore and thus require an active effort to be keps steady,

You're telling me a man that won't release his taxes, won't put his holdings in a BLIND trust, constantly talks about how wealthy he is, puts gold leaf on everything, spoke in his first press conference about a 2 billion dollar deal he'd just been offered, used funds from his "charity" to buy paintings for his golf courses, doesn't want more money? His entire persona is built around being rich. That is delusion. There is never enough money for people like him. Human nature will show you there is never enough money for most people. You can support that idiot for other reasons. But the idea that he is incorruptible because he's already rich is almost criminally stupid. He got rich by being shady as hell. "He's not a politician" != "he's not corrupt" and if i recall, samsung officially shut down their camera division around this time in 2016. That's a clusterfuck if I've ever seen one.

Yes. Can be reworked, but cons yet double focus... On man made mechanic single focus for this lens https://www.facebook.com/anamorphicru-310006809400799/ As an alternative, it is an interesting variant. Some automation on post for right proportions, when change focus, breathing, one special taking lens, but quite cheap compared to other solutions. And there is no additional optics, which makes its own distortion. My thread about this ana here

Nx1 is very good at 120fps.

You broke the skintones entirely. Back to the drawing board with that one.

I am not against ergonomics in general at all! (don't wanna be a fool... LOL : ) I am just criticizing the weight some people give to the topic here or in any other cameras forum. There are much other aspects to consider when we choose a camera IMHO. Aside the fact, this issue can also stand in a subjective approach, as Mattias pointed out. It hasn't impacted the task to not buy a camera IMO. I differently agree that buying/using a camera for form factor is a whole other matter, though. Two different perspectives. C100/300 are indeed a fine example. Samsung owners praise their devices as we all know here, too. Nothing against on their/your/our likings on the subject matter.

this will probably not eliminate macroblocks, as ti is not simply a sub-sampling artifact (I think). if you try a filter which removes MPEG/JPEG compression, it should do the same, right? You should easily (if you already have Avisynth) be able to test it, using the plugin, so just compare the results and check how it measures with the mpeg-denoiser of your choice.

Hi, I'm sorry if this is a really noob question, but I've been wondering about this for some time.. and have not found a good answer via google. Is there any aesthetic difference between shooting 24p in camera, compared to shooting at a higher frame rate (like 60p) and dropping it into a 24p timeline in premiere? I mean, I know the 60p file gives more flexibility with slowing down footage, but just in terms of the filmic 24p look is there a difference? I have been shooting always in 24p because I don't like the look of the higher frame rates, but it would be good to have the added flexibility of the higher frame rate if I can still achieve the same look easily. Thanks for helping me with this

What you say is correct, but all the programs that I use to eliminate macroblocking and artifacts, blur the image to "soften" the color, this algorithm instead also recovers the definition lost by the compression. Certainly it is hard to think of a recovery of 4.4.4 sampling but have a more realistic 4.2.2 would not hurt!

I’m a filmmaker turned travel vlogger using the GH4. I’ve been shooting in Cinelike D and trying various LUTs each episode. For the latest episode I slapped EOSHD Pro Color on an adjustment layer across the whole episode and took the saturation down to 70%. For this fast turnaround content I look for a LUT that works across many lighting situations. EOSHD Pro Color seems to be a great fast way to add a look. GH4 Lumix 12-35mm Cinelike D (Default Settings) Heliopan Vari ND Airport shots at the end on G7X mkII LUT: EOSHD Pro Color Edit in Adobe Premiere CC2017 Mac

I'd rather stick to 2.8 or stop down more than deal with sharpening and adding contrast back into those shots.

Because I dont agree with you For my hands they aren't any better or worse than other cameras.

To my eyes slow-mo tends to look cinematic by default. But if the OP is speaking about dropping frames to convert to 24p... then yes, I believe you are correct that motion blur will look at bit off.

Hi Guys, I bought the Zhiyun Crane because of all your helpful reviews, so I thought I would share my experience so far. This is the first project I shot with the crane (and Panasonic GH4): So far it has worked great. Easy to use and quick to set up. As you can see in the video it is not always perfect (far from it sometimes), but I think that has more to do with my lack of experience with gimbals than the gimbal itself. Especially the pan movement in the default mode is not always smooth. It is also a bit heavier than I thought, so I had to pause every 10 minutes or so or the footage would get shaky. As for the batteries, they last very long. I used the gimbal for two projects with the same set of batteries without charging, about 4 hours of continuous usage and they still weren't empty. Well that's all, it's a great gimbal, thank you guys for making me buy it!

Somewhat off-topic. I grew up with film, shot in Super 8 since I was 8, a pun I was aware of at my birthday, life-determing, my Rosebud. I shot 16mm B&W and developed the footage myself. I was a projectionist for many years, it's like my pulse is tuned to 24p ... - but I never understood what is meant by motion cadence (not a language issue, in german it's Kadenz). But I see that there is something special about jonpais' shots. I think you partly nailed it down by "chilled" and "slow motion". ;-))) Or that asians generally radiate more patience than Europeans or Americans. And that jonpais reacted to that in his static tripod shots. He observes patiently. Too cryptic. I quote my favorite director, who put it more simply: If I know WHAT I'm shooting, I know HOW to shoot it. jonpais portraits people, they are his subject. If I shoot action, the natural impulse is to follow it, "track" it. On-topic again: what is all this stuff about in-camera-stabilization, Dual-IS and so forth? Yes, I understand that with the FoV of a 50mm on MFT it's more difficult to shoot handheld. But then, these techniques didn't exist before and people managed to hold their cameras steadily nonetheless. It's a matter of an ergonomic rig and training. No?

"primetime" - nice one Jonpais!

@Parker if you had any backstage photo with NX500+12mmm+crane, and maybe a photo or two with this combo! I feel I don't do much things with my NX500, I have to find new ways to use it!

Thanks but do you think you could do it a bit more scientifically? So indoors, filming something that's thin and vertically long. Like another tripod or a door frame. Make sure the shutter is at 180 degrees. Do 3 videos. One without the VPB attached, one with it attached and one with it attached plus Boost mode turned on. You might find you can get a more consistant pan by just whipping as fast as you can. Since the VPB juices the camera up a bit more, I believe it might increase the readout speed. It might also explain why Cinema5d found the rolling shutter to be significantly better than the A7S whilst the DVXUser guy found it to be very similar.

Honestly, the GH5 seems to bring much to the table. Of particular interest is the 6k anamorphic mode. Still, I am skeptical of the low light performance given the smaller sensor size. Additionally, the 4k 60p mode may be less useful due to lack of 10 bit and the many comments about needing to capture color in camera if not recording in 10 bit. The IBIS is clearly a good thing. The flip out lcd view screen is another plus. It's a very interesting camera. I guess a large part of it come down to what you plan on shooting. Will you spring for the anamorphic lenses? If so it becomes a more appealing preposition. If not... and assuming you have the budget, then the Canon with it's DPAF will likely be better long-term. I personally feel more comfortable investing in Canon glass than in M43. I am kicking around the idea of picking a GH5 up. For me the compelling feature in the thought of finally being able to have some nice anamorphic shoots. But will these shot be in 10 bit? I seem to recall some saying that mode may be 8 bit? I will wait to see more footage before making any commitments. I think if money is an issue, then the GH5 seems to be the best choice. It is rich in video features. The image so far looks quite good. And it offers good versatility. The Canon is the clear choice of any action type shooting. The DPAF makes it easy to get focus under challenging conditions, and that can make for faster takes when recording video. In the end you might want to give both a try and then see which suits your needs best.

OK let's play the ego game. I have a degree in Cognitive Science from UCSD with a specialization in artificial intelligence (and have written neural networks from scratch, worked on projects with GPU neural networks as well as machine vision). I've written complex real-time simulators including flight simulators using fluid dynamics to model airflow, custom energy-accurate integrators, and 100% custom from scratch impulse-based rigid-body physics. For the driving simulator I modeled the ground using cubic polynomials with a Newton gradient solver to intersect rays to compute tire-surface interaction with C1 continuity, allowing for very high speed accurate collision modeling (including physical bump mapping to simulate roughness when needed). The engine sound simulation was modeled on my Z06 Corvette (recorded from actual engine then modeled in real-time). The tire simulation is completely custom (a very hard problem to model realistically due to the nonlinear behavior of the elastic rotating tire), the network protocol is a custom UDP design which incorporates TCP design elements (reliable) with UDP elements (non-retransmitted elements such as position) for optimal network bandwidth utilization (used in the first XBox Live! game). Additionally, the physics simulation hid visible lag well over 500ms, including collisions. AI is used to drive the cars around the track and avoid collisions (the flight simulator also used AI to fly the aircraft, which could also perform post-stall maneuvers, long before real aircraft could do this in real life. The model uses a generalized rigid body moving through a fluid, which wasn't replicated by other developers until many years later). I wrote the first stereoscopic head-tracking multiplayer games for the PC (virtual reality), including 3D sound modeling, and showed John Carmack (now CTO of Oculus) how to do proper stereoscopic 3D when my company ported Quake to stereo3D for H3D Entertainment. I'm an expert in real-time simulations and accurate modeling of real-world systems. I'm very familiar with the scientific method, as well as how to conduct single and double blind studies for psychology. When I proved that the full frame look is a myth, people still argued and didn't believe it (some still don't believe it). I did the math, did the experiment, and showed the results for others to replicate. http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/, There's another thread where someone created excellent 3D renderings, taking the lens out of the equation, and some folks still argued. So the point is even with the scientific method, math, real-world examples and simulations, people still argue because of their ego, just like you are doing right now. You are using ad hominem, which is an instant fail in debate. You've got to focus on the topic at hand, instead of attacking the other party, otherwise it becomes clear you have no valid argument in the debate. From my background in mathematics, physical simulators, networked simulations, and artificial intelligence, I can see patterns in systems such as quantum physics when combined with concepts from psychology (as well as life experience) that make a good case for concepts like "thoughts make things", that working together and not fighting is more efficient in terms of energy, and am confident that a simulator which replicates large systems such as what is going on in the world today would coincide with economist Mark Blyth's analysis on the effects of Predatory Capitalism. The quantum experiments show that the universe reacts to perceivers in irrational ways. Einstein thought quantum entanglement was bunk, calling it 'spooky action at a distance'. He was wrong. These simple concepts should give one a powerful idea as to what the universe really is on a large scale. Due to the quantized nature of quantum physics (hence the name), some theorists believe the universe is a simulation running in a computer (and are creating tests to check the theory). Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen believe the universe and everything in it is God (which makes all of us elements of God). Alan Watts does a good job describing it (YouTube). And that there's a 'peek-a-boo' with our consciousnesses and the universe/God which correlates well with what we are learning about quantum physics. Science can't explain everything (not even close), it's just a tool, and said tool has limitations. The human filter on reality also hides the true nature of reality, and the only way you can see this is through meditation and/or through compounds such as DMT (which shuts off the human filter 'software', especially 5MeO-DMT). This post is intended to open your mind to possibilities beyond close-minded thinking. If you disagree and choose not to look deeper into what reality really is, that's cool. Many people enjoy living in illusion, The Matrix was a good example of this concept.

I have the SLR Magic Vari ND II, it's one of the best in it's price category. It's also a polarizer, but that part is unfortunately a pain to adjust.

It is a lomo yes, but it is a projection lens not a true cinema lens like the square and round front lenses. There were originally made in 2 mounts Oct18 and Oct19. Both can be converted to PL and there are adapters that can work for going from Oct18 to pl. If you get a Oct18 to PL adapter be sure it is like the one from Ciecio7 with the locking pin otherwise it won't focus properly. There is also an Oct19 mount for red that can be used or you can often times find Lomos that have already be converted to PL since many already have already been. The round fronts are the newest and also the largest and heaviest. The will all be PL or Oct19 and are the most expensive. Next are the single lens square fronts that will either be OCt19 or PL, they are lighter smaller and cheaper than the round fronts. Lastly are the dual lens Oct18 mount versions most often they are still with their orignal mount. These lenses are about the same overall size as the single part square fronts but are less expensive and not quite as good due to them being two separate lenses that lock together with a pin so both the spherical and anamorphic can be focused in unison. They also require lens support for the anamorphic front otherwise it will rotate during focus. If going this route finding ones already converted or having them converted to PL by Dima at conversiontopl.com would be best. He offers a great mod which not only converts the Oct18 to PL but also adds a PL style locking mechanism to the spherical and anamorphic front so they are almost like single bodied squarefronts. The tight fit allows for better collimation and quality like the more expensive ones but it will still require lens support to prevent the anamorphic front from rotating.

@Axel I visited a pro colorist in London during last fall break to get some insights in the industry and methodology. I was really fascinated but the quintessence was: There is no good "wannabe colorist"...If one doesn't have thousands of hours of experience in coloring and with different cameras, don't color the footage. It will end in a massacre... Your statement on Pana footage is quite interesting, because I've discussed this on some examples in London. The guy likes the GH4 colors and said "many GH4 shots need appropriate lighting when shooting and some texture in post. He knew about the Noam Kroll settings and told me, they are quite nice and usable out of the box. In his eyes (depending on lighting or contrast), they are better than V-Log because of much easier to work with when expecting pleasant, balanced results in colours." He told me, OK the GH4 is far away from a pro Cine camera, but it a phantastic allround camera. He doesn't see as many problems with colour grade, but more with a "too perfect" texture of images and the complete lack of motion cadence. When talking about motion cadence, he adviced me - independently from which DSLR I use - to experiment with different rates of fps. With some cameras, this could work quite well to get a kind of "motion cadence" in the shots. @jonpais Motion cadence: That's probably one of the reasons, your Pana shots look so "filmic" - there is not much motion in your examples and that's why we (the audience) percieve the footage as filmic...it could be the feeling of a great motion cadence in these "chilled" shots...They look somehow like "slow motion"... Another reason could be the asiatic skin tones matching much more better the Pana colour science than shots with "pale europeans"....

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off. There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited: NX500 over 5DS and NX1: I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department. I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1. By how much, I don't know. But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200. DXO One: Its Super RAW literally is super. It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise. The difference is dramatic. While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability. This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size. D3X over D5: The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III. Even crop sensors beat it. The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far. The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW. Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation. D600 over 1DX II and P40+: It's true. The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up. the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors. High ISO is also neck and neck. Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old. Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin. By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO. D3s and D700: I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point. It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best. The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own. Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f. All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings. If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO. My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810. #IQsnob. For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount. How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise. So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software. Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice. And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered. Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective. Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

Thank you all! If today some of us have a chance to see samsung nx1 with full frame eye is thanks to your financial support.

@sondreg and @Kisaha and others have expressed that I share some of my work with the NX-L. Obviously Enna is probably going to supply us with a sweet review, but I guess I can post some of my work with it so far as well. I've shot tons of stills with it (if people want to see some of those, let me know) as well as several video projects that I can't really release yet since I'm still in post with the clients, but here's one I can realease that I shot entirely on the NX-L (except for the wide angle/gimbal stuff, that was a NX500 and 12mm on a zhiyun crane), but apart from that everything in this video shot with the NX-L and rokinon 85mm. At the very least it shows off the dreamy full-frame look the NX-L provides as well as clearly maintaining sharpness and detail. I'm also happy to answer any questions. Once again, @lucabutera has done an absolutely amazing job with this wonderful piece of kit. Anyway, here's the vid:

this is actually true ^^ im not smart enough to understand those videos, but the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics absolutely fascinates me

No. Probably the official image was either a render or a mockup. Here is a view of the real thing:

Looks great! I think it's so funny how far cameras have come in 5 years, yet the complaints compound even more. "Yeah it's HD 180 frames per second in a handheld camera with a 5 axis stabilizer, but....."

Comparing NX1, A7R2 and 1DXMkII... I rank them as follows: Canon... Sony... Samsung. They are all great camera, but I prefer low light on the Canon. The noise is more organic. The Sony rules for resolution. The Samsung had the best UI. Video performance: the Sony always felt a bit videoish to me. Regardless what processing I would do. The image was also more fragile than the Canon in post. The NX1 seemed to lack DR. The Canon files are the most flexible. I would have loved to see a NX1MkII... I think a lot of potential was there. The 16-50s lens was wonderful. I loved my Sony, but the Canon is in another league. I can not recall a time where I looked at an image coming out of my 1DXMkII and thought it didn't look great. By right any one of these cameras are good enough for the work most people will do. If you have the means the Canon is an attractive choice. The A7R3 will likely be out soon, so if Sony is your poison... you might want to wait. The Samsung only makes sense if you can find a really good deal. I don't see myself parting with my Canon any time soon... It's an epic camera.

This is always the problem with A and B comparisons. It is better not to look at them, unless you own the better camera.

@Arikhan "Geeks, enthusiasts and pixel peepers" are people that can EXPLAIN, manipulate, and work with color science. "Normal" people do understand color science, but can not express it, and that goes on since for ever, because skin color associates with survival. Like you can understand when a medicine is good for you, but in no way you can make better medicines than Bayern laboratories, because there are some "geeks, enthusiasts and cell peepers" over there to try to achieve the best in their field (or to be better at least). Color science in video is more important than ever right now, I know people that leave their editing jobs to become colorists, and are paying good money for special seminars and courses (usually in London). In European cultures, rosy cheeks, are considered healthy, green and sicky-yellow obviously are not the best, etc. I am sure there are similar patterns for people all over the world. Look at the interpretation of color in old school cartoons (and from different countries), that explains a lot, in a very simple way. Color is a very important factor in evolution terms and goes further than camera science, but camera color science is explained by that, and that is why Canon sells a ton of cameras with out any real innovation, it is just takes pleasing photos. Also, Canon and Nikon color sciences are the best in the world, it is not like you compared the best and the worst, you compared the 80-90% of the professional cameras out there, and I do prefer Nikon to be honest, but I am not really that anal about it. You should have tried with some other manufacturer probably. I use Samsung by the way. No complaints.

It's a little early but just playing with those clips a bit more, I'm really not that happy with the colors. This reminds me of my GH4 and my struggles getting really good color out of it. It's a little better than my Sony A7s and 6300 but not as good as the Samsung NX1. To be honest, I'm a little bit less enthused about it now than I was last week. Hmmm.. decisions..

180fps looks like it does suffer aliasing and moire to quite a severe level but it's great as a creative bonus.... NX1 120fps probably a bit better but that still has aliasing and moire.

Scorsese said cinema's now officially dead. May as well be a theme park ride. Event a good director can't save the system... Duncan Jones on Warcraft. Peter Jackson on The Hobbit Part 10. Looking to Netflix to save cinema... They have picked up the Blade Runner style sci-fi shot by Bowie's son Duncan Jones, set in Berlin in 2050 called Mute. And more stuff good coming out soon. As for 2016... I am voting 5D Mark IV!

I don't know what you should take, I just wanna see the results!

I have seen your video before. I really liked it, and I believe NX could be right for you style. NX1 is great with the 16-50S 2-2.8f, I have great results with Ronin AF with the 16-50pz lens (the cheap kit one), I haven't use the S for gimbal yet, but I am expecting much better AF. 28megapixls BSI, it also has DIS+dual IS with the lens, but it works great ONLY with very limited action, too much things going on, and behaves very erratically; very small H265 files (you mentioned that you are not going to have any hard drives with you, a few 64GB cards can last for the whole trip). Time lapses, hacked/moded firmware with extra features. NO crop in any mode (unlike other APS-C and smaller sensored cameras), and best slow motion for any cheap camera at the moment. Great EVF, OLED screen, ok audio pre amps (better than Canon at least). No overheating problems, ever. You can add a NX500 for a back up or B camera, with the amazing 10mm 3.5f fish eye is a super small combo for some "wow" shots also. In DxO measurements NX500 is at the top with 7200 as the best ASP-C sensors. With these 2 cameras, and a few lenses you are set. I don't know what lenses you need, but you can have 10-200mm (307mm equiv) APS-C native lenses options. 10mm 3.5f fish eye, 12-24 4-5.6f, 16-50 2-2.8f, 16-50pz 3.5-5.6f, 18-55 3.5-5.6f, 20-50 3.5-5.6, pancakes { 16mm 2.4f/ 20mm 2.8f/ 30mm 2f/ 45 1.8f}, 60 2.8f macro, 85 1.4f, 50-150 2.8f, 50-200 4-5.6f

My opinion is that Panasonic colors are accurate and close to what an eye sees. Usually no need to add red. Canon colors are too sweet and warm and little unrealistic.

Very easy to dismantle DNA...I modified mine myself. It is only the larger Inflight 1.75x that can be a bit of a pain to get it working with - other lenses (such as Kowa B&H/ 8Z etc) will work fine with the standard 75mm rear opening. Optically, the DNA is probably the best choice for now in my opinion - just don't expect precision engineering out of the box (it wobbles and makes a horrible noise when focusing) but that can be adjusted and the optic quality just about makes the price worth it IMHO. I tend to shoot with an old 100mm meyer optik f2.8 zebra - set no wider than f4 on full frame. Gives good all round performance and sharpness at that stop. All vari-diopters increases the apparent defocus bokeh, so f4 can be plenty shallow enough. DNA/Rectilux/FM module/ SLR Rangefinder are all single element design to their diopters, so fast open apertures are always going to show aberrations/glow/blur of some kind. Achromatic optics (if even they could be made at scale) would be horrendously expensive and noticeably heavy but would solve this issue. How close do you align the kowa rear element to the taking lens? I have my setup as rail mounted - so I either attach taking lens via an empty cpl ring (so taking lens can turn into camera mount whilst still attached to everything) or simply by pushing the kowa rear as close as possible to taking lens front, using a rubber collapsible sun hood as a donut. The optic rear of the Kowa is protected by collision by a uv filter and its diameter, relative to the taking lens front. It's a setup that I find can work very well. The other advantage of having the setup rail mounted, is that i can mount a VND to the rear of the kowa and in front of the taking lens...this works very well.

Yes the image can match in terms of colour in post... A7S II just takes more expertise. The A7S II gives you almost everything on a plate but yet doesn't fully feel satisfying sometimes. I cannot quite put my finger on it. Maybe it is the way certain scenes like S-LOG exposed a certain way for best results and you really don't get a lot of help from the camera in knowing when to expose which way. It has to be spot on. Then the footage off the card looks thin, green-tinted grey and you have to work hard in post or find the right LUT... and even then sometimes after many hours I am still tinkering over the mouse and keyboard not quite fully satisfied. The standard pic profiles are C.R.A.P. S-LOG 3 can't do skies and walls. Canon LOG is far superior and the MJPEG codec at 500Mbit/s is 5x the bitrate of the A7S II's 4K codec so it feels thicker with a finer more film like noise grain, it is also 4:2:2. Colour really is outstanding on it, it seems the debayer on the Canon body has some secret recipe to reign in green, boost reds and blues. Green photosites on a bayer sensor outnumber the red and blue ones. I don't feel Sony have a handle on this yet like Canon or Fuji do, and a Foveon sensor beats a bayer sensor for colour and tonality hands-down. You really notice when you see the difference. The 1D C is certainly the better built body and feels more pro, the A7S II has a charmless feel and cheap feel to the dials and buttons. Overall I think the image on the 1D C is more cinematic and the grain is finer, with 12,800 being perfectly usable. The A7S II is a smoother more digital look. Sony's menus are complex and the camera has a busy feel sometimes on a shoot. On the 1D C there are hardly any options on the camera to think about. Shame the files are enormous on the 1D C and it has no EVF or articulated screen. Also you can't punch in for focus during a shot. Battery grip helps the A7S II, bulking up the handling whilst doubling the battery life in-between swapping cells. IBIS on the A7S II works like IS on Canon lenses, it isn't a revelation like the Olympus system but it's a nice bonus.

Exactly. I feel like Impulz is more of a starting point than a full look. I'll usually throw Impulz on an adjustment layer, on top. Then use Colorista to tweak each shot underneath.