IronFilm

Funny you metion the F55. I'm a regular user of the FS7, but I was given an F55 for today's music video shoot. It had a shoulder mount and Sony EVF to get closer to the FS7 ergonomics. The F55 didn't improve our creativity and the quality at all. If we shot on the FS7, I'd expect the result to be very similar to the F55 footage. 
Ultimately, I prefer the FS7 because I don't need the benefits of the F55. The shoot could of been better, and this was nothing to do with the camera & gear choice. The pre-production logistics were frail and lost a lot of time. 
The best shots were actually on a BeSteady Plus gimbal and a GH3. The combo really caught the energy of the band. 
My point then - yes cameras are 2nd fiddle to everything else. Totally. But the right choice of gear can clearly influence creativity and set you on a path of consistent results. On a troubled set - a little GH3 and myself experimenting with it on a gimbal brought it all to life. Did I say I had an F55?  
 

Zach, this is for starting a business geared towards client work. While your philosophy is great for an indie filmmaker, it does not hold for a production company. Money for crew, if a crew is necessary, will come from the budget for each project. 

​Yup, that is why I am consider the JVC GY-LS300, because low end corporate is exactly what I'm aiming to target. 

​If he's starting building a company this is a bad idea for a 2 reasons.
1. No disrespect to him, but the chances of a first time film being a hit is slim to none.
2. His bread and butter is corporate, music videos, and events. With good equipment he'd be able to book jobs and make bank on simple projects. Work some events and make back that $18,000 in no time. After some capital is built, then maybe shoot a short/feature.
 

​Did you read this entire thread? His friend wants to invest in his production company. The story argument is totally lame. the friend is already working on different projects.
Oh yeah, and we don't need poverty tourism in India...

And since the first rumor the supposed release date has been the same... the second half of 2015, so there is still time.

​Try Mega.nz. I am very happy with it and it gives you 50GB of space for free.

​
Thousands of professional videos done with GoPro, GH4, Dji cameras, thousands of Professional videos...........
 
*With all due respect, enthusiasts seem to do too much talking and have no idea how things work in the "real" world

I can assure you it is not.
They have indeed enabled raw video. At what frame rate and at what maximum resolution for continuous recording has yet to be determined.
What sort of headline would have satisfied you sir?
"Nikon Hacker Enables Raw Video And Further Development Needed To Determine Final Usable Form It Takes Along With Resolution And Frame Rate And File Sizes And Whether It Will Arrive On the Nikon D750 Or The Soon To Be Rumoured D900 Please Wait To Find Out More"
Is that specific enough for you?
Headline writing lesson for Araucaria.
A headline such as that above isn't a headline. It's a sentence.
The purpose of a headline is to grab attention with as few words as possible.
For example:
Forum User Is Negative Wanker
That's a brillaint headline.

I agree, in the years and years which a person might spend to produce just one "high quality"​ film (it might even never happen...), another person could've in the same length of time produced half a dozen or more quick films that gradually escalated in complexity and budget. 

Who do you think at the end of this period has gained greater knowledge and more contacts, and is better prepared for his next film? I'd say obviously the latter person.
​You're making some huge assumptions here. Take another example: running. Does everybody who takes up jogging aims or even want to go to the Olympics? Nope!
Some runners just enjoy the process of running, and who cares about how far back they finish?? They don't. 
Others enjoy running for all the other benefits they reap from running (which is many many!), other than the elusive Olympus Gold Medal. 
Yet another group of runners are happy if simply their PB drops each year to be faster than the year before, even if they never ever get close to breaking 30 minutes for 10km (let alone a 26 minute something 10km for top Olympic standards!). 

Now, why should filmmaking have to be any different? 

There are a very very diverse range of reasons and motivations as to why people are filmmakers. 

​Offers an alternative.........................
For $8000 or $15,000!

Jimmy the fan boy speaks again.
It's not a prototype, it's a pre-production. Tiny little tweaks for mass production and it's done. If the non-prototype has a lock on the lens and doesn't need taping up for your drone, give us a call!

At least Canon offers alternatives. I'm still mad at Panasonic for not releasing a kick ass AF200. (yet)

But downscaling 8K to 4K requires a lot more horsepower of course, since it is four times the data...
Also it means you need a sensor that can do full pixel readout at very high speed.
Here's a list of Sony sensors with some specs: http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/IS/sensor2/products/index.html
You can see the IMX094 (36MP fullframe) for example, as used in the Nikon D800 / Sony A7R. Max Frame Rate @All pixels = 4,7 fps.
Speeds are going up though. The current Sony 24MP asp-c sensor (IMX193) does 8.7 fps. There's a new one listed (IMX271) that is rated at 19 fps. Maybe this could be used for 4K with a small crop or little processing. Sadly the 12MP 35mm Sony sensor is not listed, would be interesting to know the max frame rate of that one.
 

Which is a great achievement indeed. The NX1 is a bit bigger than a Sony A7 though and has a smaller sensor. Samsung has more room for heat disposal.
My point still stands: high resolution is not an advantage for 4K, it's the opposite.
Look at the video quality of the Canon 5DS / 5DS R...

I agree, in the years and years which a person might spend to produce just one "high quality"​ film (it might even never happen...), another person could've in the same length of time produced half a dozen or more quick films that gradually escalated in complexity and budget. 

Who do you think at the end of this period has gained greater knowledge and more contacts, and is better prepared for his next film? I'd say obviously the latter person.
​You're making some huge assumptions here. Take another example: running. Does everybody who takes up jogging aims or even want to go to the Olympics? Nope!
Some runners just enjoy the process of running, and who cares about how far back they finish?? They don't. 
Others enjoy running for all the other benefits they reap from running (which is many many!), other than the elusive Olympus Gold Medal. 
Yet another group of runners are happy if simply their PB drops each year to be faster than the year before, even if they never ever get close to breaking 30 minutes for 10km (let alone a 26 minute something 10km for top Olympic standards!). 

Now, why should filmmaking have to be any different? 

There are a very very diverse range of reasons and motivations as to why people are filmmakers. 

I agree, in the years and years which a person might spend to produce just one "high quality"​ film (it might even never happen...), another person could've in the same length of time produced half a dozen or more quick films that gradually escalated in complexity and budget. 

Who do you think at the end of this period has gained greater knowledge and more contacts, and is better prepared for his next film? I'd say obviously the latter person.
​You're making some huge assumptions here. Take another example: running. Does everybody who takes up jogging aims or even want to go to the Olympics? Nope!
Some runners just enjoy the process of running, and who cares about how far back they finish?? They don't. 
Others enjoy running for all the other benefits they reap from running (which is many many!), other than the elusive Olympus Gold Medal. 
Yet another group of runners are happy if simply their PB drops each year to be faster than the year before, even if they never ever get close to breaking 30 minutes for 10km (let alone a 26 minute something 10km for top Olympic standards!). 

Now, why should filmmaking have to be any different? 

There are a very very diverse range of reasons and motivations as to why people are filmmakers. 

​Good point.
Do you remember how Peter Jackson gave his 48 Epics for The Hobbit nicknames, a method for him to keep track of their individual tasks? This was covered in a 'production diary', and though those making of teasers often were mockumentaries (i.e. the production designers who painted 3D drafts, one in red, one in green), I do believe this detail. You should read a Peter Jackson biography, on how he started as a filmmaker. His early attempts could hardly have been called professional. He filmed with a 16mm Bolex, spring mechanism, see the crank in this image:

The tricks were shirt-sleeved, if not outright crude, but he could do them all alone. The unauthorized biography by Ian Pryor also shows his somewhat darker side. Of course he couldn't make Bad Taste alone, he had a talent to get people work for him like slaves, even unpaid, sometimes with vague promises to share any possible profit.
His early experiences as a one-man-band, controlling every aspect of the process, just having 'helping hands' around him, made him the best producer and VFX/SFX supervisor in the world. Without such knowledge and giant self-esteem the LOTR trilogy could not have been made. People tend to forget the roots.
So imo there is nothing wrong with a hands-on approach, if you haven't money to do it professionally. One should just be able to scale down expectations.
​All lectures on writing (novels or screenwriting) stress the importance of not simultaneously inventing and editing. If you doubt that what you write down is any good, don't stop writing. Keep the flow. And then, instead of script doctoring weak parts (made easy by Word or the like), you dismiss the whole and start over again. Every new version is a better one. Wash, rinse, repeat.
This could also be a good advise for us indie filmmakers. So we've got a plan. Why not make a very amateurish first version? Built-in mic (could as well be a smartphone version), no lights, no tripod. Location scouting as you go. Some friends to play the characters. Like children re-enacting The Avengers. Improvisations welcomed. Temporary score. Makeshift, deliberately crude tricks.
After editing this shit, you know better. You can kill your babies, you know where you need to invest more time and/or money to enhance story and production value. You could do a second, a better version, and so forth. 
What think?
 

I've been following Mirrorless Rumors and that lead me to EOSHD... I heard about the upcoming firmware and how it hasn't happened. Seems now that there are talks of an entirely new firmware. Myself, I own a couple GH4s and am just about ready to jump ship. I've known about V-Log since November and I'm frustrated after waiting nearly 6 months...
In the meantime, I have called Samsung and asked them to take a request to make a Log picture profile. I feel that the GH4 and the A7S are going to have a serious advantage and therefore, I can't buy the camera of choice, the NX1 (with Adobe H265 decoding). I got to admit, Samsung was happy to take my suggestion about adding a Log picture profile. They were genuinely excited to hear customer / potential customer feedback. It's easy to say that I respect that and that I appreciate their business.
Meanwhile, I've called Panasonic twice. The first time took me 45 minutes to explain to Tech Support that I am interested in testing V-Log L. After 45 minutes, they told me that their engineers would contact me within 24 - 48 hours. 96 hours later, I called them back. Next, they told me they would call me back in 24 hours. It's now over 36 hours later. The first conversation was a waist of time. The second conversation was a waist of time. In my opinion, they could care less.
So, for fun, I started searching for a new camera that's less than $1500 and has a high megapixel count. I called Nikon to talk to them about their D5500. The camera has 14 stops DR, crazy-low rolling shutter, and has a clean 1080P image with a Flat Profile. However, if you're like me, you know that Nikon's Flat Profile is basically what the GH4 has had for the past year and the NX1 has had in the last couple of firmware updates. It's no Log profile. So, I asked Nikon's tech support group if they would take a suggestion to allow the shooter to create their own picture profile settings using an adjustable Gamma Curve. Nikon's answer was, "We already have it. It's called Picture Control Utility. You can create your own Picture Profiles based on current Picture Profiles and then apply your own gamma curve. Next, you'll save them them and add them to the camera." WHAT? On Friday, I'll give it a test and make my own Log profile for the D5500 based on the Flat Picture Profile. Why wait around for these 4K DSLR companies to release firmware updates when they don't even tell you when they are coming?
Hypothetically, if 30 out of a 100 people can't tell the difference between Full-HD or 4K, but 50 out of a 100 people can see the difference between 14 stops and 12 stops latitude, then maybe the latitude of the image is where I need to be? And for what it's worth, the D5500's "theoretical 14 stops" may only cost 60% of the $1500 consumer 4K DSLR. Why not shoot with a Log profile to an external BM 5" display or an Atomos?
Currently, there is not much quality control in the business. It seems like one product is totally awesome in one respect or another, but then totally fails in another respect. It's about time we came together. These cameras are awesome tools in need of some serious upgrades / suggestions from their users. For sure. Where's the 2.5K? Where' the 48 FPS? Where's the Log? Where's the Raw? Why are we reminded every time we switch to 4k that it requires this? Why can't we chose which areas of the sensor we want to record and see how that affects frame rates?
Long story short, thanks for making this NX1 list. It's awesome to read how the NX1 actually performs from individuals who use the camera and understand how it works. I think I am a lot like you in the fact that I am looking to invest my time, energy, and money with a tool that continues to evolve and push limits.

i had a shoot with the original 2.5k bmcc, great cinematic image.. love it... if i had the money i would buy the mini in a second...
But remember the real cost for the ursa mini upgrade:
5k for the body
minimum 1k for fast cf cards if you dont allready own them
100$ V mount plate
500$ Batteries
1.5k shoulderkit
so youre in total around 8k... for a nebie thats an overkill

Do you feel limited with your gh4? and if yes what is the limit.

I would skip on  such a device for the GH4...  The price vs performance is not there.

​I should have been more specific. It should be fine for normal editing, but the minute you start using things like After Effects, more video streams, etc it will slow down. I personally feel spending $4500 odd on an iMac ridiculous for the performance one gets but its sooo pretty. Also, that thing gets hot and noisy as it has smallish fans. I don't want to turn this into a MAC vs PC debate, but in $4500 you can build a super souped up rig that will lap up all those 4K files without breaking a sweat. We focus a lot on cameras, lenses, etc but a majority of our time is spent on post production so one might as well invest well there.

​
​I was referring to your irritation, that people on this site "look down on you"  for willing to sacrifice technical perfection in order to get a film finished. Whereas I really believe this is the wrong approach, nobody is in a position to "look down on you".
 
Back on topic, which is about the distinction of professionalism on one side and amateurs (or better ambitious indie​ filmmakers) on the other. The whole purpose of this forum, as I see it, is to discuss low-budget means for not having to sacrifice technical perfection. There hadn't been many excuses twelve years ago, when people had DV-cameras with 35mm adapters and some other things. There are less excuses today. You can buy cheap equipment with high image quality, you can even rent it. A BMPC (4k raw), for instance, costs around 50 € a day in my area, if you rent it for 10 days and you are nice, you might even get it fully rigged for that. The software is *free*.  
Designing sound is a whole different chapter, but recording usable sound on low budget isn't, as Jay_Rox wrote. But there should be someone in your *team* who is responsible for that.
 

Yes, the short vs. feature argument. I know it all to well. Back in the 70s and 80s directors made shorts to promote themselves, usually USC, or UCLA students who utilized their situation to develop a "calling card" short. In the 90s when I first became interested in filmmaking, it wasn't in fashion to make a short, or go to film school... You used that money to make a feature. Making any movie is hard work, akin to moving mountains... The thought process was why should I spend a crap load of money and time on a short, when I can spend a crap load of money and time on a feature. Remember El Mariachi was shot for 7000 bucks and that was shot on 16mm film. So, I think I am still in that mindset. But distribution channels have changed, so the short film has once again become a viable way to market yourself.

The a5100 image is quite good for 1080p,slightly better than a6000. I think most people with video in mind would actually purchase a a6000 do to better overall functionality.I wouldn't say it's a crappy camera but a camera mostly brought by people who don't highlight its image strengths. I thought these two videos represent decent video from the cam.
https://vimeo.com/109800427
https://vimeo.com/124275133