fuzzynormal

​Indeed, and I already do this quite often.  
Seeing as how a speedbooster will get focal-length and f/stop numbers into similar territory as FF (or s35) equivalent counterparts, how it renders and bends the light differently is a  consideration.  Thanks for the other advice too.  

​Yeah, I've done stuff with FD's on the FS700 and enjoyed the results, so getting 1 or 2 FD primes would be a nice addition to the pile of lenses that keep accumulating...

Fake or not, I'm not sure why people judge a camera's IQ capabilities when in the hands of obvious amateurs posting junk on youtube.  
Well, I guess if they want to see the limitations of the default settings and images made by GAS geeks with no visual skills...
And it's not just amateurs.  I mean, let's recall that official NX1 film about the lady in the fridge.  That looked lame as heck, but we all know the camera has potential well beyond what was on display in that instance. 

​Definitely not.  
Brand loyalty, a strong hard-wired-to-the-brain-physiological-effect that marketers have been successfully exploiting for generations gets in the way of rationality.  Humans are irrational people when willingly or unwillingly ignorant --and they rely on those "gut-decisions," typically based on familiarity, in those instances.  Advertisers know this and it's why advertisements/marketing is most often built not to actively sell product but to get the familiarity of the brand stuck in your mind in a welcoming way.  After all, Coca-Cola ads never sell the actual thing, they sell happiness, love, and comfort.  And to get it you're encouraged to buy the can/bottle with their logo on it.  Same with imaging.  You want to be a great photographer you HAVE to buy a" Canikon" ...because that's what just about everybody has familiarity with.  You heard about it, you know people that use it, etc.
So, as us filmmakers/photographers get more informed we can make more rational decisions.  Newbies can't really do this as they don't grasp the details as well, so they'll most likely tend toward Canon and Nikon unless actively exposed to different ideas.
This post is an excellent example of explaining those different ideas in the context of making motion pictures.  It might seem redundant to us that have been in the market for awhile, but for somebody new to it, it'll be very helpful just as a way to understand how to consider things they've never considered.
Good job on articulating those basics Ebrahim, it'll definitely help someone in the future!  If I could up vote this or pin it to the top of the page, I would absolutely do so!

Even with a 16stops camera, shitty light will always look shitty.

​Definitely not.  
Brand loyalty, a strong hard-wired-to-the-brain-physiological-effect that marketers have been successfully exploiting for generations gets in the way of rationality.  Humans are irrational people when willingly or unwillingly ignorant --and they rely on those "gut-decisions," typically based on familiarity, in those instances.  Advertisers know this and it's why advertisements/marketing is most often built not to actively sell product but to get the familiarity of the brand stuck in your mind in a welcoming way.  After all, Coca-Cola ads never sell the actual thing, they sell happiness, love, and comfort.  And to get it you're encouraged to buy the can/bottle with their logo on it.  Same with imaging.  You want to be a great photographer you HAVE to buy a" Canikon" ...because that's what just about everybody has familiarity with.  You heard about it, you know people that use it, etc.
So, as us filmmakers/photographers get more informed we can make more rational decisions.  Newbies can't really do this as they don't grasp the details as well, so they'll most likely tend toward Canon and Nikon unless actively exposed to different ideas.
This post is an excellent example of explaining those different ideas in the context of making motion pictures.  It might seem redundant to us that have been in the market for awhile, but for somebody new to it, it'll be very helpful just as a way to understand how to consider things they've never considered.
Good job on articulating those basics Ebrahim, it'll definitely help someone in the future!  If I could up vote this or pin it to the top of the page, I would absolutely do so!

You can wait forever for the next best thing.  Buy a camera so you can do something tomorrow.  You're not going to accomplish anything looking at spec sheets.  
Here's an example shot with the Panasonic GM1:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/694tsb6iwy5y6um/AABQqvadHmjdB8jqJDat5cVTa?dl=0
Is it the best IQ available?  No.  Do the GM1's IQ limitations get in the way of me telling an effective story?  No.  Is it pretty darn good with IQ anyway?  Yes.  DOF quality?  Watch the interview shot I linked to and you tell me.  Besides, most cinematographers prefer f5.6 on s35mm, so I think this FullFrame DOF argument is overplayed, but if you feel like you need it, that's your call.  4K?  Eh, it's nice but not a deal breaker for me.  I can shoot on 1080 and be content.
I'd also point out that M43 can take a speed-booster adapter and work as an effective s35mm cam. 
Anyway, the thing is if you're shooting on a budget you have to make compromises...and I don't think the compromises these days are really that bad.  This cheap stuff does quite well.  My advice is to go get it and actually do some work.

FWIW, I will add this:  imaging tech is going to get so advanced and so cheap that very soon everybody, and I do mean everybody, will have awesome IQ power with them at all times -- via smartphones and enthusiast cameras.  
http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-aims-to-launch-new-8k-cameras-by-2020/
So, ultimately, I don't think you're going to be able to significantly outclass competition with just the camera you buy.
I'd argue that this moment has kind of arrived already, but great IQ will continue to get more and more democratized.  
As this happens, what's going to matter more?  How you work with a client, how you visualize your images, how you collaborate, how you successfully envision a project and deliver it, how you tell a story ... or, what camera you choose to do the job?
Depending on what you do, only you can answer that, but I know what I'm trying to value and nurture. 

​Yup.  For whatever reason, the Japanese strive for the fast frame rate aesthetic. Not sure how they got started down that path --maybe because of the big way consumer technology is tied to their national economy, those legacy developments during the old broadcasting standard (ntsc 60i) days affected the culture?  I do know the "asadora" programming has always been hugely popular and they've been doing those @60fps since the early 1960's.  Almost all of their "prime-time" programming would do the same.
Imagine a mini-series like "Roots" or "Edge of Darkness" grabbing the popular imagination, but instead of it being filmed at 24p on analog film, it was all shot on 60i broadcasting cameras.  The Japanese would do a lot of their stuff electronically.  They're both motion pictures, but obviously look really dissimilar.  
Point is, the Japanese now typically prefer fast frame rates with pristine zoom broadcasting lenses over the cinematic look, and that difference translates into 60fps PR videos that tend to appear way too clinical to western eyes.
So, all that sort of nonsense being said, just consider the context when looking at Sony PR vids.  They're coming at imaging from a different taste.

​Yup.  For whatever reason, the Japanese strive for the fast frame rate aesthetic. Not sure how they got started down that path --maybe because of the big way consumer technology is tied to their national economy, those legacy developments during the old broadcasting standard (ntsc 60i) days affected the culture?  I do know the "asadora" programming has always been hugely popular and they've been doing those @60fps since the early 1960's.  Almost all of their "prime-time" programming would do the same.
Imagine a mini-series like "Roots" or "Edge of Darkness" grabbing the popular imagination, but instead of it being filmed at 24p on analog film, it was all shot on 60i broadcasting cameras.  The Japanese would do a lot of their stuff electronically.  They're both motion pictures, but obviously look really dissimilar.  
Point is, the Japanese now typically prefer fast frame rates with pristine zoom broadcasting lenses over the cinematic look, and that difference translates into 60fps PR videos that tend to appear way too clinical to western eyes.
So, all that sort of nonsense being said, just consider the context when looking at Sony PR vids.  They're coming at imaging from a different taste.

​I think this is an unfortunate assumption.  
One that I see often on online forums.  As you can read in my previous post, I feel it's what you do with the gear rather than the gear itself.  People need to stop fretting about spec sheets and just use the stuff.  I don't think folks are doing themselves any favors when they feel their potential success is tied directly to whatever gear they have.  Yes, it's part of the equation and you need to take the considerations seriously.  It's just not as important, IMHO, as many seemingly tend to believe.
So many other factors (and most not technically related) are so more valuable to a successful production.
I'll qualify this and say that this is from my experience as a corporate video shooter.  Other's reality may be different.

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability. 

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability. 

FWIW, I will add this:  imaging tech is going to get so advanced and so cheap that very soon everybody, and I do mean everybody, will have awesome IQ power with them at all times -- via smartphones and enthusiast cameras.  
http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-aims-to-launch-new-8k-cameras-by-2020/
So, ultimately, I don't think you're going to be able to significantly outclass competition with just the camera you buy.
I'd argue that this moment has kind of arrived already, but great IQ will continue to get more and more democratized.  
As this happens, what's going to matter more?  How you work with a client, how you visualize your images, how you collaborate, how you successfully envision a project and deliver it, how you tell a story ... or, what camera you choose to do the job?
Depending on what you do, only you can answer that, but I know what I'm trying to value and nurture. 

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability. 

Actually, ​I haven't read a single screenwriting book.  I'm just not a fan of voice over.  It's usually done poorly and I also don't like heavy handed exposition.  However, I just watched Shawshank yesterday and I feel that's an exception.

Are you available for parties?

Are you available for parties?

Excitement for new technology can certainly manifest into creativity.  I'm pretty sure we've all experienced it.  You can do a lot of fun NEW creative things with light  (if you know how) using something like an A7s.  You wouldn't have that particular opportunity until that camera was released.  But let's also not lose sight of the fact that you can still do a lot of fun creative things with light (if you know how) using something like a GH1. 
I do think buying a new camera will also highly motivate you to shoot stuff if you're a camera geek and enjoy fiddling with knobs, just like getting arbitrary shots, and worry more about the best IQ than story.  If that's you, then great.  The camera/lens manufacturers are going to keep your playpen stocked with great toys.  Pull out your camera charts while you're at it.
The reality is, and we all know it, some people clamor for the latest and greatest, acquire it, and then don't really do a heck of a lot with it... random motion picture city shots backed by a music cut from some indy band is fine and dandy if that gets you going.  Congratulations.  You'll be able to do that all over again when the next new camera goes on sale. And again.  And again.
Just talking for myself --I'm kind of over the technology arms race.  I'm concentrating on making stuff for clients/myself and using whatever tools I have access to within my budget to solve my problems; real or imagined.  I'm grateful that clean flexible imaging tools are cheap and easy to get and use.  I don't want for great IQ anymore.  It has arrived.  I do want for a deeper skill set at impactful cinema, and the ability to nurture my creativity in other regards --not necessarily associated with cameras.
But, if you have a job where you're tasked with comparing and reviewing the more and more subtle nuances that exist between new cameras, then by all means, do that.  Nothing wrong with it.  Do it.  Make it work for you.
There you go.  Thoughts from a somewhat hypocritical corporate video guy served with more than a few grains of salt.  Got my daily procrastination all taken care of.  Now, back to work... Once I check out M43rumors....

I'm a guy that doesn't have any qualms shooting images with a crop more than s35, so the G7 looks like it'll be a great cheap cam to get regardless if I ever put a speedbooster on it.  Good to hear about some of the details with the adapter, however.  Always nice to know what the options are.
 
 

It's all good enough for me at this point.  
I came up in the days where if you didn't have pro gear it really showed.  You had to buy-in to get great IQ.  That was high 5 (into 6) figures, easy, now it's in the low 4's.  The fact that's there's two less zeros between these cams with pretty much indistinguishable IQ to all but the most discriminating viewer...well, I'm cool with that.
You whippersnappers and your expectations!  Why, when I was young I had to film uphill in the snow!  Both ways.

Maybe your guy's problem is that you don't know what's available over in the broadcasting realm of motion pictures... ;-)
 
Now. 
Now, that's sufficiently bad-ass, right?  Obviously, that's as goofy as hell, but don't tell me you couldn't use such lens effects for at least one cool shot in a narrative movie.

It's all good enough for me at this point.  
I came up in the days where if you didn't have pro gear it really showed.  You had to buy-in to get great IQ.  That was high 5 (into 6) figures, easy, now it's in the low 4's.  The fact that's there's two less zeros between these cams with pretty much indistinguishable IQ to all but the most discriminating viewer...well, I'm cool with that.
You whippersnappers and your expectations!  Why, when I was young I had to film uphill in the snow!  Both ways.

Well, doing "this" certain look or doing "that" certain look is nice and all (and you should strive for a cohesive aesthetic--even if it's just doing the whole thing on a cheap 50mm lens) but you should really save more particular image considerations for the bottom of the want-to-do list.  
Ultimately, nothing is going to make your film more viable and successful than a good bit of considered pre-production planning.  And most of that stuff has nothing to do with lenses or cameras.
Also, it's free.  
Arguably, you could shoot the whole thing on an old VHS camcorder and if the story was solid, people will watch it.  Heck, I'd argue that the IQ low-fi quality of such would be a helluvalot more compelling than contemporary electronic imaging.  
Obviously, good IQ is great for a film, but certainly over-emphasized here.  An old NEX and a kit lens is more than good enough in capable hands...IMHO.  Especially for a western where the limitations of a "softer" camera fit the rustic quality of the setting.  Would great dynamic range be nice to have?  Yes.  Is it a necessity?  Well, I guess that's for you to decide.
Again, the most solid advice I can offer since you're on a time constraint, is definitely do the storyboard.  If you're real ambitious, slide-show your story board and then do a real time edit with a dialog comp/music track.  This can be fun if you have willing and eager players involved to do their voices (it's even a sort of rehearsal) and it'll also illustrate any camera-shot holes you might have...before you're on set.
Recently I made an experimental short film wherein I attempted to film actors on-locations in a documentary style.  While successful on certain levels, ultimately it didn't hold together as too many shots where absent, the production went way too long, and the talent floundered too much.  A director with more tenacity and skill probably could have tied things together better and artistically, but I definitely ended up stretched beyond my capabilities.  So, knowing what to do going in is the best bet.  At least it was from my experience.
If nothing else, all that pre-pro that helps you stay on task.  Ironically, it seems like you have the initial insight and (most important) helpful crew, that'll allow you to be more accomplished at this --more so than some aspiring "pros" like myself would be.
Obviously, come back here and post your results when you're finished.  I would love to see it.  I wrote a Western script last year that made it deep into pre-production before the investor pulled out...and I have a soft spot for that genre...hope it goes well for ya!

Maybe your guy's problem is that you don't know what's available over in the broadcasting realm of motion pictures... ;-)
 
Now. 
Now, that's sufficiently bad-ass, right?  Obviously, that's as goofy as hell, but don't tell me you couldn't use such lens effects for at least one cool shot in a narrative movie.