Leaderboard

So as I've hinted more than a few times in the other thread, the discovery of the Cinelike D and other bits and pieces for the GX80 etc was actually a bit of a happy accident while I was trying to do understand the Panasonic wifi stuff for something else. And here is that something else. Well at least a prototype of it but it is fully functioning and will just be finessed a bit more. Basically, its a wireless hardware remote for the G series cameras that operates over wifi and can currently control record start/stop, shutter speed as well as aperture and focus if you're using a native lens, including a single shot AF switch. For the non-Cinelike D cameras that can now be hacked to have Cinelike D there is also a dedicated button to toggle it on and off so you don't need to mess about with browsers and computers or smartphones anymore. Focus and aperture control are done on a joystick and everything else is switches. I'll be putting a layer switch on so that it can be toggled back and forth to a different control mode for ISO, WB and other stuff. As this is the prototype it is nowhere near the finished piece and it will be reduced in form factor to just be about the size of the control board. Power is by any USB source so there are billions of options. There is a lot more finessing and feature enhancement to go on with regard to the focus control (and yes, I know exactly what you'll all want it to do !) but the hard part is done now. It does support the display of the values on a screen and I'll be sorting some options out for that. The purpose of this gadget is primarily for use with a gimbal but it can also be really useful on a tripod bar for anyone shooting live event stuff. For cameras with inbuilt lenses I'm going to add a zoom mode on the joystick. A very quick very rough demo so you can see it in action. Any lag you might see between me operating the controller and the camera video is just a sync issue between me throwing the two recordings on very quickly

This camera is better in almost every way than the A7R II and A7S II. Lenses... I'll get onto those in a minute but A mount is nothing to be afraid of. Will be selling a lot of Canon glass after this and will end up actually saving money at the same time as increasing quality and decreasing weight. The AF is definitely better than the A7R II and kicks the A7S II into the dust. At F3.5 it tracks like a hawk. I can now see why Sony did this because at F1.4 on a softer lens it doesn't work nearly as well as Dual Pixel AF on the 1D X Mark II. But to have this bonus feature on the 24-70mm F2.8, losing just half a stop, but gaining amazing run & gun AF for video. The 1080/24p and 1080/120p are the SAME QUALITY. This makes the 1080/120p the best on the full frame camera market. The nicest ever. There's no crop, it's full frame. A7R II was 720p only and A7S II was a big 2x crop! What's more it is not just an S&Q mode but a fully continuous normal video mode with 5 axis IBIS and AF tracking, at 100Mbit. The S&Q mode is only 16Mbit. The 4K full frame quality is also very good but Super 35 does still have advantage in low light and to eliminate moire. Nice to have a top LCD for shooting info. A7 series lacks this of course. Buttons are better arranged than A7R II and A7S II. It is not laid out like a RX10 III. It is its own beast in terms of ergonomics. You can now assign Super 35mm mode to a button, which you can't on the mirrorless cams. The new menus are in there and do group stuff together better but they're not a big enough overhaul to make me really appreciate them. I try to go into the menus as little as possible. Unfortunately you can't assign 4K/1080p to a func. button or the func. menu, you have to dig into the menus when switching between 4K 24p and 1080/120fps. You can assign video recording to the exp. comp button next to shutter release, really handy. Default video button is better placed than A7 series but on the rear not the top. Exposure compensation can be assigned instead to rear or front dial when in A-priority mode, then it automatically reverts to shutter speed / aperture control in manual mode.... again super handy. The LCD can face forward for VLOGs and stuff, cannot do that with the A7 series or A9. It can also sit on top of the hotshoe almost (reminds me of Sony R1), or flips away to the base. More articulation options than the A7S II. AF for photos.... hmmm lovely. Super quick and reliable. The A lenses...TOP stuff. Particularly Zeiss 135mm F1.8, 50mm F1.4 and 24mm F2.0. The 85mm F1.4 is a bit noisy and slow for AF but great in MF. Super optically. The Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 is like the G-Master lens, and just as big unfortunately. I prefer wherever possible the SSM lenses (24,50,24-70 but not 135 and 85) if using AF for video - much quieter internal focussing. I love the green indicator boxes in manual focus mode for video. Way less intrusive than peaking. It stops you from diving into the punch-in zoom mode or racking the focus ring back and forth a little bit to be sure. As soon as you get that green dot you can just stop and relax knowing that area is in focus. LOVE IT Have dialed EOSHD Pro Color into PP1. Looks WAY better than the default. Not tried S-LOG 3 to see if the banding is improved since A7S II yet. S-LOG 2 and S.Gamut Cine 3 with view assist all present like A7S II and an improvement over A7R II. 42MP stills and 18MP Super 35 mode. This for photography is significantly more in resolutions terms than the 1D X Mark II and allows you to effectively get two high quality prime lens focal lengths in one. The camera is more responsive than A7R II / A7S II. Starting / stopping video has zero lag. Start-up time very good. Writing the 42MP RAW+JPEG files - MUCH smoother. Max write speed is 60MB/s to UHS 1 cards. Dual card slots. Not Compact Flash speeds (80MB/s plus) on the card controller but much better than A7R II 30-40MB/s. This isn't a DSLR. EVF quality is very good, translucent mirror doesn't flip. It's instant-on like mirrorless camera. Body size and weight is similar to the GH5. So far far less than 1D X Mark II. Has a DC-IN port, but doesn't seem to take charge from USB. Battery is probably too big for 5v 2-amp charging. There's a very smooth and nice front dial near the lens release which is assignable to things like ISO... It can be clickless or clicking. Now the bad stuff... The LCD dims in movie mode when you're shooting 4K or 120fps 1080p. It's either a power management thing or a heat thing. Makes exposure look totally different and 2 stops darker than same settings in stills mode. Very silly Sony!!! It seems all unnecessary on this camera because of the bigger battery than A7 series. Although the screen does get very slightly warm at full brightness outdoors, to think this would contribute to overheating problems is unlikely and it can be flipped completely away from the back of the camera where the hot main board and chipsets back directly onto the rear casing with no proper heat sink (I've seen the tear-down photos). Sadly my camera came with a small faulty part... a sticky joystick in the 'right' direction. Apparently it 'wears-in' over time but I don't think mine is proper...why would it only need wearing-in to click right responsively and not also up/down/left? We'll see if my next unit does the same weirdness. On this point, I think Sony still have work to do to convince us they can make buttons. Can you imagine this on a pro body like a Canon 1D X Mark II? Journalists would be rabid, foaming at the mouth. That's it for now, can't actually use it much more as it has to go back to DigitalRev but plan to do the review soon. I think this is a real rival to the GH5... No 10bit but you gain full frame, better slow-mo, 42MP stills and maintain pretty much all the other features. That's it with the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 The Sony 35mm F1.4 G is also a nice one... forgot to mention that. It's much smaller and lighter than the Sigma ART 35mm. Size comparison with the GH5 Although lens mount makes the A99 II look much larger, the tops of the bodies are practically level (look at hot shoe and mode dials) The grip is a bit deeper on the A99 II and card door a lot wider... dual card slots on both.

Frankly I think it's ok if this camera is not for everyone. That's why other options exist. You can't be all things to all people.

nothing special, but i really like the cinelike d hack!

Yes, it does all of the same functions (and a few more actually) and you could fit in pretty much whatever worked ergonomically. Once its in its finished much more compact form (just the size of the blue-ish control panel in the video) its pretty small. You could probably gut something like this PC Joystick (which is about £15) to use the handle part which has a similar ergonomic approach to the Sony grip and mount it in there. For me, its better as a pocketable thing but thats the beauty of it being a bit of a DIY hack, it can be a lot more custom than an off the shelf product.

The documentary was destined for broadcast, and post wanted 10-bit for some compositing stuff with stock photos. XF-AVC isn't yet an option on the C200, so Raw would've been my only choice there. The actors weren't blindly improv-ing for 5-10 straight minutes. They started by working directly from the script, then the director would talk to them about the character and encourage them to change the words up for their comfort. Then the actors would add new lines and topics, and feel their way to a richer, more natural conversation. This meant the conversations had to play out in as long a take as possible, at least in the first angle, as otherwise the dialogue would suffer. Very cool working method, and we got some great stuff. More to the point, I was hired on as the DP. You've never worked professionally, so this may be new to you, but I would never presume to tell my director how to work with his actors. I'd never work again. As the shooter, my place is to collaborate with the director and bring his vision to life. "You shouldn't work that way" or "I can't work like that because my camera..." etc are not options. Commercials and corporate work are generally for broadcast, meaning that I'd have to use RAW. Also, this was another instance where clients requested 10-bit 422. In addition, it had to be delivered to their post people for a relatively quick turnaround. If post called me and said "what the hell is this codec and how do I edit it?" and I answered with some shit about the Canon utility and how great it'll be once NLE support is widespread, guess who's never hiring me again? We were not able to have electronics within a wide radius of the Tesla coil, as there was a risk of the field it creates frying anything nearby. Also, all available house power was going to lights and the robot, and we had a generator to handle the coil. There was nowhere to set up a DIT station, and we were shooting somewhere pretty of of the way, so no extra personnel for that either. Plus, as you said, it wouldn't be ideal. We would've needed to bring down the robot arm, dismount the Faraday cage, change out the card, format, re-mount the cage, run the camera, then re-position the robot arm. And that would've taken 2-3 people to do quickly--people who were needed to reset the rest of the scene elements in a timely fashion. We were shooting night exterior, and we only had one day with the coil. There was no extra time to wrestle with media. That's why I say this camera falls into no-man's-land. The 8-bit isn't good enough for me and many of my clients, and the RAW isn't practical for many shooting scenarios I encounter day to day. And the fact remains that I need enough media for a full day of shooting; it's an actual problem, not a straw man argument. For you personally, shooting RAW all day with minimal media may be a viable option. For many of us, it is not. Implying that we are being disingenuous or lazy for pointing that out is reductive and misleading.

Shot with the Blackmagic MIcro Cinema Camera with the Angeniuex 12-120mm 16mm lens, a cameflex mount modified to micro 4/3rds. For color, I brought into Da Vinci resolve and used Filmconvert with a Fuji Eterna film stock and softened it even more to Super16mm softness. Added a tiny bit of grain and that gave me a great starting point to harken back to a more organic look. I zoomed in digitally mostly around 20% - and it still was too sharp of an image. Why not shoot it anamorphic instead? Well, I am in love with documentaries of the 60s and 70s like Grey Gardens, etc. And they used this lens I think, and it has a certain feel to it that’s pretty beautiful. Let me know what you guys think of this.

There is just something about that BM Super 16 sensor that is magical. I look back at stuff that I shot with the Pocket and think "Damn that was one of my favorite looking videos."

Wait for the D750 mk2! Or buy now a D500 / D7500 Fully ?% agree that Nikon should have released the DL18-50!! Would have been a massively kick as camera for real estate or drones.

I just listened to an hour long podcast with the DP of Fargo season 3. I've been really digging the look of the season. He gave some insight to his color profile, so I decided to make a LUT for V Log L based off of Fargo Season 3. By no means is it perfect but have fun: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gtpwt6gxczfnyrf/FargoSeason3VLogL.cube?dl=0

Great stuff!! Well done!

I have DPed with raw cameras plenty of times. It was the much more ubiquitous and well-supported cinema DNG, but still. It works very well for certain projects and certain shooting styles. My preferred way to work actually, but I'm still green and un-specialized enough that I don't get to do that as often as I'd like. In my experience, shooting 10-bit 4:2:2 simply represents the best compromise between quality, file size, and workflow. It makes things look good for my clients, reasonable file sizes for me, and good vibes from post. The C200 competes with 3 other cameras: Ursa Mini Pro, FS7, and EVA1. All of those cameras have internal 10-bit 422 codecs. I don't find it unreasonable to wish this one did too. The C200 indeed hasn't lost me work. I think it's a very solid camera for many users, and as I've said repeatedly, it seems like a great camera that I wouldn't judge anyone for liking or using. In fact, I even said a few rentals are probably in my future. I'm simply laying out the reasons why I personally am disinterested in it as a purchase. Seems like things are getting a bit hostile in here, so I'm going to withdraw from the discussion. @mercer, I'll shoot you a PM about lenses. Cheers.

There is no simple answer since video editing and codecs span a wide range. H264 1080p can be edited natively with good performance using either Premiere or FCPX on most machines. You don't need a top-end CPU or GPU for this. OTOH most H264 4k codecs are difficult to edit, even on top-end machines, and often require transcoding to proxy for smoothest editing. Exceptions are H264 4k codecs like Canon's XF-AVC Intra, that is very fast to edit. There can also be a big difference between (say) Premiere and FCPX, especially on a Mac. In general FCPX is considerably more responsive, especially for editing H264 4k. It is about 4x faster exporting to H264 since it uses Quick Sync and Premiere does not. However Premiere has gotten faster the last year or so, even without proxy, which it now also has. That's the editing; effects are different. No matter how lightweight the codec, a computationally-intensive effect must be calculated for each 4k frame. Effects can be implemented entirely in the CPU, entirely in the GPU or a mixture of both. Some effects like Neat Video allow CPU vs GPU rendering, a mix of both and how many CPU cores to use. In general 4k is really difficult to edit. From a CPU standpoint the more (and faster) cores the better. An i7 iMac can be significantly faster than an i5 iMac of the same generation because (1) the CPU clock is faster, and (2) hyperthreading. The current iMac 27 the i7 is about 11% faster just from clock speed. Benefit from hyperthreading varies widely. I used the 3rd party CPUSetter utility to disable/enable hyperthreading on an i7 iMac, and this made about 30% difference in FCPX export speed to H264. For other tasks such Lightroom import and preview generation, it made no difference. Re Radeon 580, I haven't see any good benchmarks yet. However only certain tasks are amenable to GPU acceleration, e.g, H264 encode/decode cannot be meaningfully accelerated. The core algorithm is inherently sequential and not amenable to applying hundreds of lightweight GPU threads. But in general software developers increasingly try to leverage the GPU where possible. You can't update the GPU in an iMac so I'd tend to get the fastest one available.

Note: These are stills and not video frames. And I know in video there is a more direct money to quality correlation. But most people here use still cameras for video and are therefore paying a lot of money for the still function and its features. So I thought I would post anyway. I was flipping through some images at home. And at one point I realized I couldn't say for sure which camera I had used for a picture of a flower. Since I had taken the same picture with three different cameras and lenses on three separate occasions. Whats interesting to me is that they cost $80, $500+Lens and $2000+Lens. I think it really illustrates what many of us try to tell beginners who ask advice on what camera to buy. The extra money isn't going to guarantee you any better images. Its about handling, features, speed, etc. See if you can tell which could be which. Again, three different locations, lenses and white balances.

Yeah I definitely see the point of my expensive cameras. They are great. But for casual shooting Ive started buying all kinds of old "crap"

Next gig, next clip: This time OOC.

Agreed...except one of the best aspects of that lens is the fact that it's a pancake....on a stabilized camera, you can be on any street corner grabbing stellar footage while attracting no more attention than a tourist!...huge value in that stealth factor for me...I've actually contemplated the 14mm 2.5 Panny pancake for this very reason...they are tiny and optically excellent for the price!

They aren't supposed to be better or worse. The point I guess was just that people wont be able to point and say "that one is the the $2k camera".

Correct, so, I am using your link, files. Must be my paranoia settings in FireFox, used IE, now works. Actually, I think I right-clicked the files, and saved as. If you just dbl-click, it comes up different and now works. Will run this again, thanks!

I can't really say which frames are "better" or "worse" but I prefer 2.

@BTM_Pix dude, youre amazing~! youre super cool to share all of this stuff, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've had a bit more of a dig about this because I was pretty sure that I remembered that the viewfinder app was upscaling to fill the phone screen. I had remembered correctly as it turns out the live stream resolution is only 640 x 480 so that would immediately rule it out.

That was cool of Ewan McGregor to sit down for you. Lol. Awesome idea. This season is great. I think I liked the look of last season a little more, but anything different than the normal Hollywood TV look is much appreciated!!!

10bit would be great but Canons 4K 8bit 4:2:2 is no slouch either. I'm abit suspicious that despite the EVA apparently having varicam IQ that it doesn't warrant the Varicam branding, but we'll soon see. Internal raw without hacks is great and I'm seriously considering one for just this reason.

Cool. I've got an arduino development board called an Esplora thats got lots of interesting sensors built in to it. If I did this remote on it I was going to incorporate the temperature sensor on it to give the Panasonics a Sony emulation mode where it stops the recording when there's a whiff of warm weather

There is huge difference now. Do you remember? Now you can transcode in the background and start editing right away. Whereas you can import all footage at once and immediately throw it into the timeline with FCP X now (even without transcoding, and, if you are fearless, even with naked files that are left in place!), it's not very smart. In my very humble opinion. This app offers us the best tools to prepare our clips for editing in the browser. In my eyes this is at least as crucial as the efficiency of the magnetic timeline. But I learned to respect the workflows of others. Mine also changes from time to time.

The mod looks good....if the optics are good and the Focus scale is accurate, the price would be amazing...never heard of this company...but one of the advantages of EBay and PayPal is security...I would start with email questions via eBay to the seller, as that immediately leaves a paper trail for eBay, in case of a dispute...also check if you're responsible for the $60 shipping and return shipping if they're misrepresenting the lens.

http://menexmachina.blogspot.com/2018/07/egpu-for-video-processing-on-laptop.html

"It poses more questions than it answers" -- That's a great way to put it. Overall I agree. On the hardware side of things, though, I think the investments would be minimal. All modern laptops bring fast WiFi, extremely fast processing, and fast storage. It then comes down to software to solve the problem. I think a proof-of-concept could be done in python in a matter of days or weeks. What remains unclear to me is whether or not the resulting stream is of good enough quality (fps and "bitrate") to be worthy of recording at all. A dedicated piece of hardware is far more elegant, of course, but also pricier. And I think one purpose of these hacks is always to save money by putting in slightly more effort on the user's side.

So I've been back down to Philip Bloom's beach again (hah!) - this time with a tripod, BMDVA and Samyang primes at golden hour. Bloody windy, but a nice light. Hope you like it.

Actually I've just watched this on my bigger monitor for the first time and I can definitely see some nasty jaggies that I guess must come from the poor way in which the BMDVA handles the output from the C100MK2, which is (crappily) interlaced. I'll have to redo this with the files from the card that was in the camera.

That is one of the most hipster things I have ever seen in my life.

Nice Ed and Ed! Liked both of those stories. I use a 12-120 and also the 15-150 by angenieux. I am pretty sure they are the exact same lens, the 15-150 just sits a bit farther away from the mount increasing it's coverage (it's also a 2.8 instead of a 2.2 like the 120 which makes sense) I love shooting with them! Never have to change a lens.. just focus on getting shots. My favorite doc lens. I shot this for RIT with the 15-150. Do you guys use the diopters as well? I had to use them for a couple close ups as the minimum focus was something I had to get used to. I really took modern focusing distances for granted.

Yeah the crop is dumb and I suppose for interiors you would need that wide end. But it is a really nice 4K image. And the 1080p is gorgeous as well. The Tokina 11-16mm would cure that or for low light their 14-20mm f2 could work. Here's a 4K video shot with the D500 which has identical video as the D7500. This looks like it was shot in the Flat Profile and it doesn't look like he did any, or much adjustments in post, but it still looks great. Of course, this type of video doesn't really help you make a decision for what you need in a real estate video camera. But it's still a nice video... In all honesty, if you need 4K for your work, you may be better off with an RX10ii or an XC10. The FZ2500 does really nice video as well. The high bitrate, all-i 1080p in CineLikeD is really good and at no time did I feel like I should have shot in 4K.

@Andrew Reid First of all I am glad you are more active with your blog and forum. Most of us we are here because we trust and value your independent thinking and opinions. To add some things to the discussion. GH5 batteries are the same as GH4s while the camera needs more power to operate (a lot of extra features and processing power). I have read that power consumption in real life is much bigger than GH4s were. I can not be certain of course. I week ago a shot a 3 hours continuous performance with my NX1/NX500/NX3000 with only one battery each, and I own the cameras (and the batteries) for a couple of years now (the NX1 a bit less, and in the end I changed the NX500 battery, just to be sure). There is a whole thread about the NX1 EF speedbooster in your NX sub forum, people reporting great results, but it is a somehow specialized, and limited edition item so the price is to the higher side (600euros was it?), and it is called NX-L (it also has a Nazi thunder logo on it! Just kidding, but it does)! The main reason I didn't care, was the fact that I am covered with native lenses 100%. I used to use a 18-135 EF-S with a plain adapter, but no need for that anymore. In the Philip Bloom video, he added the NX1 probably just for fun, and in my opinion it was the second best after Dual Pixel. I have expressed my opinion, that even Dual Pixel canon in spec sheets seem less than Sony's latest AF trickery, in real life is the best AF system and the one and only for pro video, but in my experience NX is working sufficiently good (Great results with Ronin and sliders), and better than Sony's (yesterday on a short that I was doing sound, an a6500 on gimbal and slider was extremely unstable so the camera men could use AF). Plus, GH5 seems (and probably is) bulkier, and has almost 40% more weight than the NX1 (550 vs 725gr), if you add a cage, mic and a few extras, those 175grms are something. GH cameras are pretty reliable cameras and highly recommended for "serious" videographers. Something that is not mentioned a lot, and it should, is that H265 workflow right now is much easier than GH5 10 bit one, and 10 bit is demanding in both hardware and software, but mainly hardware!

To Sandro, the NX1 is far more enjoyable to shoot with than the A6300 and the A6500 didn't solve any of the rolling shutter issues and just papered over the overheating problems in firmware. Less crop? I assume you mean in the 4K 30p and 1080p 120fps modes... no still crops in a bit like the A6300. But in 4K 24p there's no crop (again same as before). MountneerMan GH5 vs NX1 - They overlap in some areas and have pros and cons, with some things I prefer on the GH5 and some things I prefer on the NX1, so here goes... The NX1 is of course Super 35mm in terms of sensor size and the look, and GH5 needs Speed Booster to get that look. The GH5 is also double the price and Speed Booster will add to that. The advantage though is you might save money on the lenses if you already have Canon stuff. The GH5 is great for Canon lenses. The NX1 has no adapter that controls aperture of EF lenses yet and no Speed Booster (what happened to the third party one?) The image quality is quite close between the two, with the GH5 + Speed Booster having about 1-2 stops better low light performance, but still a maximum of ISO 6400 really, whereas NX1 is 3200, 1600 to be safe. Take into account 1 stop extra light from Speed Booster and GH5 is definitely comfortable at 3 stops brighter than the NX1. That's the difference between 1600 and 12,800 but ask yourself if you really need usable 6400 at F0.95... rather than usable 3200 at F1.4! It'll cost ya! Colour is a strong point of both, but the GH5 has the option of proper LOG. The NX1 stores a LOT of dynamic range in the standard non-LOG files and there is option to raise blacks, reveal more shadow info, prevent highlight clipping and adjust gamma curve so it's pretty good in this respect - and a LOT easier to grade. Rolling shutter is a big win for the GH5. Ergonomics are a big win for the NX1. Battery life is good on both but GH5 wins. There is a battery grip for the NX1 which sensibly doesn't require you to take the battery door off the camera or the battery out, it slots into a pin-out on the base of the NX1. ALL battery grips should be designed this way! Both weather sealed, as long as you also use a weather sealed lens. Samsung S 16-50mm OIS is weather sealed and one of the best zooms ever made. F2.0-F2.8 and super sharp. Stabilisation on the NX1 in DIS can be hit and miss but when it works, it uses very advanced custom hardware chips to completely lock down a shot, more effectively than Warp Stabiliser. It's 5 axis and amazing if not much is moving in your shot. Sometimes exposure changes and sudden movements in the frame cause it to lose track and have to regain its composure within a few seconds, but that can spoil a shot for sure. The GH5 is all-round more consistent with the 5 axis in-body sensor shift but surprisingly for locked down shots the NX1 is less floaty and completely still like on a tripod. You don't need to enter the focal length for manual lenses and it is even more effective when using a Samsung lens with OIS. I find it works best with 35mm lenses if you are adapting a lens with no optical IS. On the stills side, NX1 is superior for resolution and has very good dynamic range in the RAWs. GH5 is superior for continuous burst rate, stabilisation and adaptability to Canon EF glass. I use a Novoflex Sony Alpha mount adapter with my NX1 and the 35mm F1.4 G, 85mm F1.4 Zeiss Planar. The 35mm is an evolution of the brilliant Minolta design and the 85mm is an evolution of the Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4, one of my all time favourite lenses. These are the only two lenses I find myself needing on the NX1 as I have the Samsung 16-50mm F2.0 to cover the rest and when I need AF. One important point about the Sony Alpha 35 + 85 I mentioned is that they are much lighter and smaller than the Sigma ART equivalents for Canon and Nikon mount. Of course you can get a Nikon adapter for the NX1 which adjusts aperture, just like the Sony Alpha adapter does, but I think Sony Alpha glass is a bit undervalued on the used market, with some real gems in the lineup. Video AF, I believe Philip Bloom did a big test of this and included the NX1. I rate it quite highly for this. The NX1 has phase detect pixels on the sensor so AF is really rather good in video mode - not quite Dual Pixel AF good but close. Sony's on the A6500 is hit and miss, sometimes works well, sometimes does stupid things. The GH5 doesn't have phase detect AF pixels so it relies on a very fast sensor scan of 240fps in stills mode and Panasonic's DFD technology to analyse focus and in that mode it is very fast. In video mode it falls back to the frame rate you have selected for the recording so in 24p the AF is really rather dog-slow and in 60p still not as good as the NX1. On the codec side they are quite different. 10bit and superior 1080p codec, 4:2:2 on the GH5. The 10bit 4K really is lovely and 8bit 4K 60p very nice to have. The NX1 is of course an 8bit camera but the image quality is right up there, like a JPEG still, it just doesn't quite grade as well and there's still some macro blocking even at 160Mbit in H.265 with the hack, although I still rate it as a good performance. The Canon 1D C's 4K is also 8bit and this eats image quality for breakfast. 10bit on the GH5 really comes in handy for improving Panasonic's colour science (although it's not just 10bit responsible but a lot of other nice stuff going on) and for LOG it helps too. However it does make for files that are almost impossible to edit natively straight off the card at the moment, so you will have to transcode. Then again you should do that with the H.265 files from the NX1 as well, although Premiere does now support H.265 you will get smoother editing performance by using EditReady to convert them to ProRes. Anything I've missed, let me know...

If you hate using the a6300, what makes you think you'll enjoy the a7s? The D7500 will be released this week, may be the smaller, lighter body with a little cropped 4K will be a better fit for you until the D760 gets released.