Nikkor

The canon primes aren't stabilized either, right? You could get the tamron 24-70 2.8 and the nikon, or the new nikon zoom. But those are huge. Anyway, you sound like you are going to regret it once something better comes along, but if you go for the nikon you will loose 500$ after selling it, Sony prices seem to be less stable and you also would be buying into the expensive early price.

Miguel Bahía?

They go for 500€ or more (you can probably find them cheaper but they are not cheap). Anyway, there are no magic bullets , but it does have that pop...

No, this is the small one. The 28 2 is huge, there is also a rollei version, a pentax version (andrew has one I believe) and probably a few more. this one was shot with the pentax one https://vimeo.com/7028401

The distagon 28mm f2 "hollywood" is a classic and very "cinematic".

These set of primes are traditional in photography. The others are used in film and are different because its either s35 or other formats, not photographic 35mm. If you have a fullframe camera you could try pentax67 lenses, they have odd focal lenths and are rather slow, but at f4 (wide open) they aren't as sharp as your typical photolens. Bronica lenses are also good options. (because they are so cheap)

1.8 is something like a 1.2 lens. I think the easiest way to picture this is to imagine the focal lengh you are used to but with the fov expanded to the sides. What richg says about it being easier to focus it's true because thhe difference between in focus and out of focus is more noticable. So while on a 35mm shot something is still acceptably sharp in 65 it will be sharper, but a little further away out of dof on 35mm you won't notice the difference as much but on 65 it makes a jump. This means that for small screens 35mm could be easier to deal with but on larger screens it's the opposite (circle of confusion,bla bla bla) This is why in cinema they have to shoot stopped down unless it's some gritty nightime taxidriver style shot where resolution doesnt matter. In 65mm you can still shoot wide open and get away with it because the actor fits into the dof without looking mostly blurry. Get some hasselblad and watch through the viewfinder, its magical and selfexplanatory.

Focus pulling isnt really any different, the dof is as wide as the equivalent on 35mm it just pops more, you can always stop down and still get pleasant images.

35€

Error error, that does not compute. I thought this was a myth I believed out of ignorance.

This looks a lot better than fullframe because the dof is "denser". The blurred corners and the color are obviously not so great. But yes, it totally has the 6x6 feeling, great job. I think you should contact some fashion photographer and shoot a video of some fancy session in natural surroundings, this is totally great for fashion.

I dumped my macbook pro 17" years ago, god I hate macosx.

I have nikkor 28-70 2.8 for sale, great lens specially with a speedbooster.

The d800 oversamples from 2300 pixels to 1920 and you can see the moire, the d810 probably does the same but you don't have moirée. I think there is some sort of fancy processing going on.

The nikon d810 also has lineskipping (im pretty confident it does) but no moire, maybe canon uses the same trick. Anyway, good news for those who want to use a 5ds

I would rather use the 7D for video.

huhu

It looks like a user error to me.

The a7000 is probably going to fix this, but I think the a6000 is better than the nex7. Over at mflenses.com they know better.

And your last movie will suck bigtime.

There is an option that let you count the number of singular colors present in a frame, depending on the processing the camera does there can be a lot of them or just a few.

Someone with a bunch of cameras could shoot a scene with 8bit and 10 bit log/flat profiles and en ask photoshop to count the colors, I can imagine the numbers will correlate with the feeled quality of these images.

10bit is good when working with log, shoot jps with a log profile and you can see the problems. Personally I want good compressed raw because it's actually a better way of compressing files (14bit per pixel vs 30bits per pixel (10bit 4:4:4))

Because they dont want to.

The camera reads 14/12 bits pixels from the camera which is then send through the debayer and turned into 8bit 4:2:2 yuv. If you can't have 10bit it's because of the image processor, not because of the speed of the readout.