MattH

Those are both apsc lenses so I dont think it would make much sense to get a focal reducer/speed booster. It would definitely vignette at the wide end. You just need a regular smart adapter. I wonder if he means 2x crop of full frame or 2x crop of apsc. The former would be mft size. The latter would be 16mm size. I think he meant the latter. Good for a free zoom I suppose.

I certainly wouldn't complain.

And make all their lenses obsolete? I can't see that happening. It would be nice just to have a multi aspect sensor like the GH2 with no crop for 4k. That would be a 1.8/1.9 crop and still alow their lenses to be used. There would still be pleanty of options to entice: Global shutter, 10 bit all I internal/ raw.

I'll tell you what, the music in those videos is the most atrocious ever, but I'll be damned, It doesn't half stick in your head!

One issue with the crop is that you will have to use full frame lenses or third party aps-c. EF-S lenses will not work because of the mirror. I'm struggling to get exited about this, with the other options available at the same or cheaper prices.

Saying its not the cameras look that matters is easy when you have an alexa. Few other cameras could get that close to film.

The FS5 is a 10 bit 1080p camera. The 8 bit 4k is a feature thrown in for marketing. Since the 5d raw is 1080p anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to compare to the 10 bit 1080p from the FS5?

I empathise with your dilemma. Panasonic currently have the best budget 4k options. (Not sure why you are looking at opymus if one of your priorities is video.) For the record I do not care about 4k video for 4k output. I care about it for good quality 1080p output. What we don't know is if panasonic will come out with a 4k camera that doesn't crop. The crop makes native 4/rds lenses narrow. I also dont like the thought of lenses with large narural distortion that digitally corect. Maybe that doesnt make sense, but for some reason the idea doesn't sit well with me. The 12-35 2.8 looks a nice lens but it is expensive. Is it realy worth it for a system that can only be 2x crop maximum? I would say at the moment, the best future safe budget system, If you don't mind using manual lenses, is the GH7, cheap speedboster and full frame manual lenses in nikon mount. That way your lenses are garanteed to be usefull on anything. My only issue with this setup is that full frame lenses are big. And there dont seem to be any good ultra wide options. This is the reason that I have been waiting for sony to bring out a 4k apsc mirrorless. But they have been dragging their feet so far. Probably for a few reasons begining in FS. hopefully I dont have long to wait. and hopefully there wont be a massive crop. Even though I think panasonic 4k is a cleaner image than sony 4k, Id rather have a compact apsc system for photography. If cannon eos m had 4k I would have got that long ago because the native lenses are great and fairly cheap. But I doubt they will ever have 4k. at least not in the next 10 years. They just wont undermine their cinema line. Maybe I have just thrown up more questions than answers, but hopefully you will find some use in my post.

Maybe it is the noise, but the besides the look, film seems to have something that makes subjects come alive. As you have said in the youtube comments, Gunpowder jumping is the obvious example. But also in the shot of yourself at the end. The film shot would look great cut into a home movie reel or music video compared to the sony where you just look bored.

It varies. There are people who actually cant see the difference, like people who cant tell the difference between SD and HD. I call them blind, or at the very least imperceptive. Then there are people who know something is different but don't know what it is. I asked my laymen friend how he was liking his massive new tv. He looked sheepish and said 'It's ok, theres just one annoying thing, It makes everything look like a cartoon" . I turned off all the bulshit enhancers and turned the settings down to medium and he was much happier.

What the fuck was that bullshit? I thought it was going to be an actual short film. Why does an arbitrary video of nothing have a name? It looks like a perfume advert that is too long and was thrown out for being too cleche. As for the look of the footage. Ok, nothing spelbinding. A bit videoey in certain shots.

'It's not going anywhere' - as a figure of speach - doesn't mean the same as 'it's not going places'. It means 'it's here to stay': The opposite of NX mount.

Reading the other thread and this one I am now pretty convinced that option 1A will be taken. The current systems are too well established and changing them will just confuse things. One big advantage for E mount is that you can use virtually any manual lenses. An advantage for the consumer, but would nikon see it as an advantage for themselves? You might think flexibility would encourage customers to the system. It would with me, But from nikons perspective they are probably more comfortable locking people into nikon lenses. The A7 cameras and FE lenses are already at the stage where there isn't much of difference between them and a DSLR in size. They aren't exactly pocketable. So really theres no big disadvantage to having an F-mount mirrorless. In fact this rumor apears to be on the money: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/04/20/new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-on-the-horizon.aspx/ Also, a good thing about f-mount for a hybrid camera is that there would be plenty of room to integrate behind the lens filters. But thinking again about the NX-mini lenses, perhaps the primes could be rehoused in a recessed configuration which would make them look like body cap lenses.

Nikon have 3 main options. With respect to the alleged take over of Samsung. Before we look at the options let’s just summarise Nikon’s and Samsung’s current systems: Nikon F- mount. A very long running mount with a 46.5mm flange focal distance. For 135 format (full frame) and APS-C sensors. This clearly isn’t going anywhere. Nikon 1 mount. With a 17mm flange focal distance designed for one-inch-type sensors. Samsung NX mount. 25.5mm flange focal distance designed for aps-c sensors. Samsung NX mini mount 7.5mm flange focal distance designed for one-inch type sensors. First lets look a the possibilities for one-inch-type systems. I was first thinking that NX-mini lenses could be adapted for Nikon 1, but after checking the flange focal distances it seems that this will not be possible. A. Continue With Nikon 1 mount and discard nx-mini mount and lenses. likely. B. Take on the NX-mini mount to utilise the lenses and provide an adapter to use Nikon 1 lenses. I think this is unlikely because there are only 3 NX-mini lenses and the Nikon 1 system is quite established. Although this would be a shame in the long run because Samsung sure beat them when it comes to compactness. C. Discontinue one-inch-type system. Now for the main options. 1. Discard NX mount and lenses completely and just plunder the technology. Probably keeping Nikon-1 as the primary compact system. 2. Take over NX mount, simply re-branding the lenses. And creating a smart adapter for F-mount lenses. The NX flange is awkward but Nikon flanges are long anyway and there wouldn’t be much point making a new aps-c mount. At this point they could either keep Nikon-1 and have 3 parallel systems or discontinue Nikon-1 to have two systems. 3. Create a new short flange full frame compatible mount to compete directly with Sony E-mount. They could then provide smart adapters for existing NX-mount and F-mount lenses. And posibly create new full frame mirrorless lenses. In this case they would probably keep a one-inch-type system for compactness.

Where are you re-locating to, Mars? Can't be back to England or somewhere else in Europe as you'd just drive that shit there.

Thats the same skew perceptively as 20ms in 16 by 9. A slanted lamp post doesn't get less slanted if you chop the top and bottom off the image. The only exception to this is if you are viewing on a native 2.35:1 screen. Though 20ms is better than 30ms for sure.

All films you see on tv or blue ray fit that description so it actually isn't as sarcastic as you intended. The fact is, that in this comparison, the C300 ii has way more of a video look, by far!

The A7s ii looks better to me. The canon is a video image, the A7sii looks more film like. For documentary the canon wins, for narrative the a7sii wins.

I wouldn't count on it. I think we are going to have to endure this sort of over exuberant grading till the day we die.

Na sorry, take that bulshit back to DVX user, this is 2015. Full frame means 36mm wide. Get over it.

Has nobody else seen what I saw in that article?: "The camera quickly shifts from 35mm full frame to 35mm cine at the push of a button. Full frame is HD; Super 35 goes up to 4K." So it isn't really a full frame video/cinema camera (and neither would a theoretical Panasonic version). It's native 4k at 1.5 crop which is good, but there are other options for super 35. For example, the current GH4 with a speed booster. Reading that fact makes this camera less exiting, but - on the positive side - something I can forget about.

Not necessarily. There is such thing as cumulative error. A relatively small example of moire when viewed at 100% could manifest as a bigger example when downscaled and could be visible even when viewing full screen. To say that a stills OLPF has no effect on video and is totally irrelevant is a false statement.

I take it back. Looking at other clips, the RS still looks shitty. Sony were lying when they said the sensor reads out 120 times a second. If they meant in crop mode then they should have specified the crop. Otherwise you could say it has a 0.001ms readout speed then turn round and say its only for a crop of 1 pixel.

As I predicted, the rolling shutter skew has been greatly reduced. No way that is 30ms like the original A7s. Has to be at most 8.3 milliseconds mathematically. It looks even less. I'm still dubious about the overall look though.

Would shooting at 48p solve the flickering issue? I doubt that it would. Just shoot 60p and conform to the 24p timeline as hmcindie said. The only difference will be that it is slightly slower slow motion.