MattH

​Yeah, I think a sticky thread with links to review threads in the first comment would be good. That way you would have both imediate exposure in the main forum and also searchability in the future.

Thanks for the links. I'm sure most people here have heard about this already. Pretty rediculous. A copyright on a buiding should be to stop people copying the bulding. That is: building a building that is identical. To say that no-one is alowed to own artistic depictions of your design that you have plonked in a public space is an afront to freedom and common sense. Surely this would apply to painting as well. Can you imagine that? an artist isn't allowed to paint buildings anymore? Of. course it is just as rediculous for photography, but the painting example really drives home just how ludicrous this is. Thankfully, a lot of uk MEPs are ukip who will have a pretty good notion of concepts of freedom when it comes to things like this.

I actually very rarely click on subforums. Really I should. But putting your review in a sub forum maybe a sure fire way for it not to get seen.

​That's an interesting opinion. How have you come to that conclusion? Is it through your own tests and experience or is it looking at other peoples work or test videos? What is it about IS that you think is detrimental to the cinematic look? I agree that, with sufficient weight, IS is not necessary. However, from this, one could be forgiven for deducing that if someone wants a lightweight system that they should consider IS, unless one argues that a lightweight system should never be used. It seems clear to me that the majority of amateurs are bad at hand-holding. (mainly because they aren't thinking about how to do it better or even thinking that they should try to do it better.) I'm inclined to think that someone who is bad at hand-holding is still going to be bad even if the lens has IS. The IS can take the edge of their sloppiness, but it cant do magic. Could, however, someone who is good at hand-holding not potentially get even smoother results (in a pan) or stiller results (in a static shot) with IS than without? Or perhaps it’s the smoothness and stillness that you object to? )Also, I should state that I share a sceptisism to in body IS as I have seen bad examples. But if we presume we are talking about canon lens IS which I consider to be quite good. Though again, maybe it is the effectivness of the IS that you take issue with)

​Hope. For example, I hear that the new NX mini will have 4k video. That gives me hope that instead of the shitty 1080 video (which I would have known for sure had it been 1080 in the specs) it may have good 4k video. But I am prepared for it being shitty 4k video as well. One thing I know from the spec sheet is that it will have a 20mp sensor. From this I know that it will either line skip etc giving artifacts, or do a full sensor readout which will probably be slow and give bad rolling shutter. But I still have hope. Could provide a truely poketable 4k option. I have less hope for the RX100 iv after seeing the awful sample on youtube, but still a bit of hope that the shooter and editor fucked up.

Whoa! that is one hell of a post. Basically, you have intellectualised the thought process of a rational intelligent person in this field. The problem is that not all people are sufficiently intelligent and also sufficiently rational. This is why spec lists work as advertising. This is what has driven the megapixel war and now the 4k push. What use is 4k if its got aliasing, macroblocking, focus pulsating and rolling shutter skew to the eyeballs? Try pointing that out to someone who has already decided to buy the camera because its spec sheet says its 4k and has this and that, and they will say "Dude! this file is COMPRESSED! You need to see the original." Yeah, because no video on youtube has ever looked good, right? It's very hard if not impossible to get through to these people. But be thankful that you are able to evaluate things rationally.

​If you mean recording in 1080p then the rolling shutter is excellent in that mode. About 5ms which is Alexa speed. If you mean downscaling from 4k and viewing at 1080p, it makes no difference. You will still get the 4k rolling shutter. I assume you mean the first, but I thought I'd cover the bases.

FAKE!

​Good comparison. bmpcc wins hands down in this case. Great tones, smooth roll off, pleanty of detail when in focus. I think the all I-frame nature of the proress helps as well: going through fewer cycles of interframe compression makes the motion look less 'ghosty' and smoother.

I think you should stick with your 600d for now. The nx1 is a downgrade in rolling shutter and workflow. Save up and see what some of the new cameras coming out are like. The a7r ii or the micro cinema camera might take your fancy. There might be a 4k a7000 or even a new samsung (as rumoured) with fewer megapixels and better RS.

​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.

I relate to the feeling well. All options seem so close to what you need yet so far. You don't want to go down one route of a camera and lenses and then regret it. I think we have to be at peice with the fact that some of the purchases we make may turn out to be a waste of money. But as long as you are going forward, in the long run it doesn't matter. That being said, theres no point going down a dead end route if you can forsee it. What equipment do you currently have?

Im sure I can't be only one who thinks the v-log L shots look a bit iffy? Even graded, the colours and tones seem to have a sort of matte pastel grey mush look to them. No natural tonality. Just like cinelike D but even more exagerated. It looks like when you mess around with the contrast settings and the clipping points stay the same but the image just looks flater and duller. And there seem to be weird yellow-green tinges here and there. Having said that, the outdoor shot in the latest video looks better than others, so im not rulling it out yet. But it still has a bit of a matte look.

The photozone review http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/613-pana1425?start=1 shows that without automatic micro four thirds correction, the lens does have a quite high barrel distortion of 5%. But as you say, because the bmpcc uses the centre of the image, It wont be as bad as that. From the exmples above it looks ok to me.

Well if you need telephoto then the LX100 can be eliminated. If you don't need telephoto and you are looking for a cheap all in one solution the LX100 looks hard to beat. Isn't it about half the price as the RX10 ii? Maybe wait a while untill more RX10 info and samples come out.

​I was just about to blast you, but then I noticed you were from Egypt, so I think there is a subtle language barrier at play here. Just so that you are aware for future reference, terms like "I hope it's clear" may come across as condescending to a native english speaker.

​You aren't listening. The press release implies that is the case, but does not confirm it. That is the point I'm making. It only says the full frame mode uses the entire width of the sensor. It doesn't say what it does or doesn't do beyond that. If I say "there are 2 cars on the race track, the BMW uses its 4 wheels to grip to the road as it speeds round the corner, the Mercedes uses it's V8 engine to deliver explosive power". That doesn't mean that the Mercedes doesn't have 4 wheels does it? Although it does imply it. As it happens I do think you're right. Its just a point of logical exactitude that I'm making.

Could anyone with a 4k monitor tell me if there is any moire on the garage/shed roof in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdiRFFl1ZDw On a HD monitor it shows bad artifacting on that roof at both 1080 and 4k. The sharpening looks pretty intense on that video as well. hopefully that was done in post or can be dialed down in camera.

​No. Less megapixels. A multi aspect sensor like the gh2 with DCI 4k native at the widest setting. Global shutter, better dynamic range. 10 bit internal. There's pleanty of room for improvement.

​You mean pixel perfect I think. Although I would call it rull readout oversampled. Pixel perfect implies it is native resolution to me. But sure, a speed booster could be used.

​The press release does certainly imply that full frame isn't full readout: "In Super 35mm mode, the camera collects a wealth of information from approximately 1.8x as many pixels as 4K by using full pixel readout without pixel binning and oversamples the information to produce 4K movies with minimal moire and ‘jaggies’. In full-frame mode, the α7RII utilizes the full width of the 35mm sensor for 4K recording, allowing users to utilize the expanded expressive power of the sensor. It is the world’s first digital camera to offer this in-camera full-frame format 4K recording capacity1." however it doesn't state it specifically. It could be just the wording of the person who wrote the press release, however due to the vast amount of pixels to read out and the rolling shutter It could well be the case. If it is the case, It would feel weird to me buying a full frame camera to shoot apsc. Surely an A7s 2 is on the horizon.

​A B C and D are consistent in clips 1 2 and 3. They are the same shots if you look closely. The letters are mixed up for scene 4 and then mixed up again for scene 5.

Firstly D in scenes 1,2,3 is abysmal. No detail, over-sharpened. Probably 720p from a point and shoot. I believe this was the same camera as B in scene 4 and C in scene 5. Unless you want the 80s video look do not bother with this camera. Forget it. I think you know this already though. I will not even include it in my rank of preferences. Scene 1,2,3: B,A,C (B being the best) B is the bmcc. I thought it was the bmpc 4k until I saw the moire in D in scene 4. A is the pocket. Good but a little soft. For film look it works. But revealed itself with the moire as camera A in scene 4. Scene 4: C,A,D in order of moire suppression. C probably won because it didn’t have the detail to resolve the moire area. Scene 5: B,A,D but there wasn’t much in it. With a mosaic filter the BMCC would walk it. C in 1234 did pretty well as an all rounder. Prety much equal detail to the pocket Oh and I didn't like the grade of scene 2 by the way, but b held up the best.

One positive is that you actually have films being made were you live.

1. Don't know 2. Don't know 3. Could be literally a year or more knowing black magic. My guess is when a buyer tests it out for the first time when they get it. Lets say november and for a big anticlimax the footage will look exaclty the same as the pocket. The global shutter is certainly and intriguing prospect though.