Inazuma

I have always said I think DXOmark's results are overrated at best or totally unreliable at worst. For one, look at this comparison gallery: http://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=nikon_d5300&attr13_2=canon_eos700d&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.33728931254340005&y=0.21647887339789734 The 7d ii is clearly looking better here

Yes but you also claim that you can comfortably shoot the d5300 at ISO 3200 and sometimes 6400 when I have a video clearly showing the noise to be much worse than even my 1080p GX7 :p

ISO 3200 looks pretty similar to the LX100 :/

My Tokina is the Angenieux 2.6-2.8 version. It's not at all sharp but it has a nice aethsthetic and I'd love to see what images it would produce in full frame. The 12-35 is a lens i want to like but there's something about the f5.6 equivalent aperture (or even 5.6 on an actual full frame camera) that I find unappealing. What is the video like compared to the D800? One of my favourite independent filmmakers uses a d800 for all his stuff.

Thanks for the info :) Going to cross this from the list (at least for video)

Hey guys I am thinking about getting a Nikon D600. I know this is a bit crazy coming from me, who has advocated shooting with the little Panasonic GX7 for a while now. But here's my take: I've been wanting to use a large aperture zoom lens with autofocus for photography for ages. I have a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 and a 80-200mm f2.8 so I'm already set for lenses. A used D600 goes for about 750 quid these days, which is just ridiculous really. I can buy a d5300 and 17-50mm f2.8 for about the same price and I know that camera has better video (no aliasing/moire, bigger screen and 60fps) but the d600, at least from looking at dpreview's comparison gallery, looks about a stop better in low light (ie. iso 3200 on the d600 looks similar to iso 1600 on the d5300) and simply handles better as a stills camera (viewfinder, buttons, menus etc). My question is, how does that convert in video? Does the higher DR and iso capability transfer? What kind of real world differences will I expect coming from a GX7? Some other things I found while reading this: http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/nikon-d600-digital-camera-review/video Apparently it resolves 750 lp/ph horizontally and vertically. The d5300 resolves 700 lp/ph whilst my GX7 resolves 800 horizontally but 625 vertically. D600 was able to produce a 50 IRE video image using only 4 lux of ambient illumination; same as the d5300. While the GX7 requires 17 lux, which I think might explain some things I have noticed about its tonality. Some other things I'd like to know: can you monitor video via hdmi whilst recording to the camera? Can you record via hdmi? What are people's experiences with the hack on Nikon cameras which increases the internal bitrate? Is it stable? Does it actually make a difference to your ability to grade? Any other thoughts you have?

I normally use the camera's presets and sometimes change the hue/tint if I think it would improve the shot (btw cheaper DSLR's might not have this feature). From time to time I have used this which has a grey card on the back. Other times when I didn't have it with me I've used anything around that's white or grey, including my car or the back of my phone. Honestly I don't think it matters that much, but the real pros around here might have a different opinion.

How does the image compare to the d5300? In terms of colour, sharpness and DR (such as seeing details in the shadows underneath those little metal shack things).

Nice info but you didn't actually reveal which adapters were adapter 1 and 2. Also in the 14mm test the aperture of the lens was clearly different (judging by the background defocus) which would change the sharpness of each image. BTW I also tested these two adapters a few months ago (didn't post anything though) and got a strangely mixed bag of results. Whilst the colours with the Metabones were indeed better, the RJ seemed to have an overall sharper image whilst the Metabones was sharper in the centre and quickly became softer as you looked off-centre. The results were inconsistent though. Sometimes the RJ was sharper than the Metabones throughout and sometimes it was the other way round. Another difference I found was that my zoom lenses which were supposed to be parfocal were not so on the RJ but were on the Metabones. Not sure how much that has to do with the rotation of the back element of the adapter. To be fair, the issue with the play on both sides of the RJ adapter is reason enough not to get it IMO.

Any chance you could upload a raw, ungraded version so we can see what you mean Brandon?

Andy don't you remember the message I sent you months ago when I was still a bit of a newbie around here? :) I had noticed you were based in Manchester and told you I was too. I'm not actually Mancunian though. I just work here. Would be cool to shoot with you!

To say that the larger sensor gives a more cinematic feel is both very subjective and irrelevant. I have shot and seen lots of stuff that looks cinematic on an m43 or smaller sensor. And it's irrelevant because if we're here buying sub £800 cameras, do you really think we can afford full frames? I'm just talking about native lenses btw. Both systems can adapt other lenses if you want but you lose AF and image stabilisation unless you get an electronic adapter.

Hah that's a really loaded question. You should post it in the Lenses thread at the top of the forum and give details about what you're looking for :)

Andy uses the Mitakon which works really well for him. Only thing is that this adapter does not have aperture control, so you cant use modern Nikon lenses with it. I used to have the Camdiox/RJ which works alright but have since upgraded to the Metabones

Nice test :) I don't think you needed to sharpen it though. It makes the compression artefacts stand out too much. This is my entry for the HitRecord competition by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. The objective is to take cinematic, handheld footage of your city. And it needs to include some walking shots as well as a shot with the camera on myself. The afternoon and early evening shots were done on Saturday when I received the Ultra Contrast 5 filter. As I mentioned I think it's a bit too strong and so used the #3 for the rest of the footage which I took over the next few days. Really like the image I get with the filter on. Just a shame about my terriby shaky hands :p

I think the large sensor size of the a6000 is a bit of a moot point really. The largest aperture zoom of the E system is f4, which has the same dof as the f2.8 zooms on M43. The closest lens to the Olympus 17mm and Panny 20mm is the Sony Zeiss 24mm, which is two or three times the cost. The DOF of the 25mm f1.4 will only be a little less shallow than that of the Sony 35mm 1.8. And once you get to around 50mm, the DOF is already very shallow on both systems that it doesnt really matter

Love the look of that! How did you grade it?

Same mounting system but most lenses in the system are designed for the a6000's smaller (APS-C sensor). For lenses that will work on both APS-C and full frame you'd have to look for "FE" in the product name.

Great review and video as always. It's funny you should mention the little quirks here and there; these Sony cameras always have the strangest ones. I think this camera with the native 24-70mm lens is my ideal travel and semi-pro camera combination. Just have to save up the coppers now :)

BTW it's dropped to £699 and also the GX line is discontinued or at the very least I don't think we'll see one til late next year. Considering a 12-35mm lens costs more than this camera, I would say it's quite a steal. It has a 43mm filter thread

Good summary Matt :) @jase: Theres actually two methods of manual focus with that lens. One is to pull the ring back, which reveals a distance marker. In this mode, the ring stops at either end of the scale, so you know when you're hitting max or min focus. Only issue is if you rotate the ring too slowly, the focus will "pop" rather than transition like a normal manual lens. The other mode is if you change the camera's AF/MF switch to MF, the ring will change the lens' focus like a normal lens but theres no distance markers or stops at each end to help guide you. @Daniel Since they're one inch sensor cameras, the DR and noise performance won't be as good (I owned an RX100 last year for a few months) and you don't get as shallow DOF.

I used the Olympus 17mm f1.8 almost exclusively for the first 8 months of owning the camera. Actually one of the reasons I bought into MFT was so I could use that lens. Great lens with nice photography style manual focus ring rather than most other MFT lenses which dont have a distance indicator or stops at either end of the scale. I also sometimes used a 55mm f1.7 lens from my film camera.

I don't know about colour reproduction, but in terms of noise and dynamic range for stills and video I found the G6 and GH3 to be noticeably inferior to the GX7. I haven't got a GH4 but I've heard it uses the same sensor as the GX7. The GX7 also handles the best imo, except for when using large lenses (500g+). Also I wish it had a 50mbps codec. If I had $1000 or £700 now I would buy the LX100 to accompany my GX7. If I was starting from scratch... I don't know really.

This is one of my favourite things shot with the Blackmagic Lenses used included a Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 which seems to be his main lens of choice.

Also I noticed last week in the UK the price had dropped from £799 to £699. The Leica clone remains £825 though.