Inazuma

Isn't super 16mm much smaller than the Micro 4/3 sensor? How can the lens cover that sensor if that's the case?

Any consensus as to whether you get more range in the highlights with this new firmware? And also is the 1080p image quality better now or is it just the same but with higher bitrates?

The GX7 stabilisation doesnt work with video. It works ok with photo, though not consistently

That's really great, thanks for sharing. I might have to get that nude filter. Could be good for Panasonic cameras.

Also check out this thread http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7284-tiffen-ultra-low-contrast-filters/ The filter spreads light more evenly across the image and thus gives it more of a filmic feel.

This is the one I use: http://kamerar.com/products/shoulder-rig-counter-weight It's pretty much perfect.

I know that you were going for a bit of a rough look but I really think it's neither here nor there. It looks too clean and is framed too well to look flawed. Yet doesnt look good enough to be filmic. I would suggest for a flawed look, check out It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. Great show, pretty much shot on a handicam (at least the early episodes) Again, just giving my thoughts. Sorry if its coming across rude or anything! The work isnt bad, it just could be better.

The main thing that sticks out to me is that it seems like there's a lot of shots framed on the actor's talking. I know this is a weird thing to say. But try giving more screen time to the facial expressions reacting to the other character's speech (if you have that footage of course). Otherwise it starts to look a bit soap-ish. Some the framing I believe could be improved. There's a few too many close-ups. And people's backsides facing the camera, as if the other character is talking to an anonymous butt. Maybe next time put the camera over the shoulder of the guy that's standing up. Finally I might be mistaken but it looks this was filmed with the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. In future I would use a more cinematic lens on a speed booster. I'm not a professional by any means so take my advise with a grain of salt

Dude this is ridiculously good. Really can't put into words how well made this is. Well done!

I know I've been advocating the Nikon in this thread, but the one thing I cant agree with is the issue of colour (which has been all the rage in this forum for the past few weeks). IMO it's been completely overblown. Yes the Canons/Nikon do delivery natural colour, but so do broadcast cameras. Most videos I see from those cameras just look quite stale. However colour can be changed to a fairly high degree while things like dynamic range and resolution can't be. These are examples from the A7s. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the colours. Please note Im not saying you should buy the Sony a6000/a5100. I still think the Nikon is better in all respects except for usability.

That's odd that the 24-120 f4 is sharper. I have read that it's not very sharp at all, especially in comparison to the Canon 24-105. Does the VR work with your adapter?

"Tons" was a bit of an overstatement, but it does have noticeably more than the GX7. And the GX7 has slightly more than the d5300. Download the uncompressed video through Vimeo below. In the first shot check out the bricks and see how much more aliasing and moire there is on the bricks. And look how blown out the sky is.

I have owned the d5200 and a6000 and also tried out the d5300. I found the a6000 has tons of aliasing/moire and poor dynamic range. Other people have had different experiences though, with Phillip Bloom stating it's the best budget APS-C video quality he'd seen. But he based that on a video of a cat. Andrew Reid also said the camera was great initially but rescinded the statement in a later full review. If you want the best image quality I'd go with the d5300. The peaking on the Sony cameras is very useful but if you're willing to stick a loupe or a HDMI screen on the d5300, you won't have any problems focusing. I've heard the a5100 is better than the a6000 for video quality but don't know it compares to the d5300.

​No, that would make it even more noticeable because youd be shooting at a faster shutter speed and then dropping frames to cut it to 25p. There's no solution really except to not do slow pans like that. Most films tend not to I think. Maybe you could also try filming at a slower shutter speed so that you get more motion blur?

It's just the nature of shooting at film speed (24/25p). Slow pans will have a juddery feeling because the frame rate is much slower than how we perceive motion in real life. It's the same reason why motion looks different with 30fps, 48fps, 60fps, etc.

I'm not seeing any jitter. I think you're just noticing the judder of shooting at 24/25p?

I have to agree with the others Ed. That looks like exposure drift to me. I mean just look at the tripod shot for example. When you pan back from the window you can see the tripod's dark areas going from being quite visible to not so visible. That's not blooming. As you say it's unusual for a camera to overexposure in brighter scenes. But auto screen brightness will brighten screens in brighter areas. So I guess somehow for whatever reason the camera gets confused about screen brightness and exposure.

Are you trying to discredit me because I'm unfamiliar with the terminology? That's really fine. I never claimed to be an expert of any kind. I'm just pointing out what I see. My professional knowledge doesn't play into that.

What does Pro quality mean?

When I had the d5200 I had the 35mm DX. Wasn't a big fan I'm afraid. Flimsy focus ring with infinite rotation and no distance scale. I'll be using the lens on a speed booster with my Panasonic GX7. I'm also considering an M42 mount lens, or any other mount that has a speed booster available. I just saw a Carl Zeiss Jenna 35mm f2.4. Anyone have experience with this lens? Also found a Flektagon. What's the difference there?

I'm looking for a cheap Nikon mount 35mm lens. Nikkor seems to have a few versions. Pre-AI, AI, AI-S and D. Which one is recommended? Nikon AI-S is very good the glass is the same in the D version its just a more modern styling to the body

​Not sure if you will be able to see this here either (photo of the photo attached). But what I'm talking about is that I can see clear tonal differences between the lenses on the left and the wall. I can see more of the sheen on the lens of the camera in the centre. I can see more tonality on the camera at the front on left. It looks more 3D where the on the 1DC image it looks more flat because of the crushed shadows. If I copy and paste the image into Photoshop and increase the contrast in the shadows of the 1DC image to get that same detail out, the image reveals a lot of banding and chroma noise. I will concede that there is slightly more range in the highlights of the 1DC image, but it really is slight. But anyway, I guess it doesn't matter to me much since I am not in the market for either camera right now. Just thought I'd point out that I can see differences that don't seem to match the OP's findings.

The shadows on that 1DC image just look more crushed to me than the A7S'. I'm not seeing any dynamic range advantage. Maybe different monitor gamma?

Oh I see what you mean. The EM1's 30 fps video doesn't help either. I would indeed go for another camera if I were you. But then again, Andrew made a really cool music video with the EM1. Although completely different style

What aspect of the video quality do you want to improve? If its resolution and dynamic range then yeah the A7s/c100 will benefit you. If it's low light then I'd be more inclined to suggest you get more lights for the studio