Tim Naylor

​Like or not, 4k deliveables will become standard. I personally don't care for it. I diffuse images already in 2k. All but one Acedemy nominee was mastered in 2k. But TV's must be sold so 4k is here to come. That being the case, for crop in and motion stabilzation you might as well be shooting 6k for 4k broadcast,

I absolutely love the images I see in the "test". The flesh tones look full and rich to me. Also worth talking about is the camera's ergonomics. While it may not displace an Amira soon, it definitely will take a broadside at Red. What I see design wise over Red is placing all the ins and outs on the dumb side facing the rear. Used an Epic last week and it reminded me what a POA it is to getting to some of its ins/outs especially the HDMI. Also, the Kine's menu and dedicated function buttons for things like ISO, WB, IRIS, etc. will be welcome. Though once an Epic owner, the touchscreen system never sat well with me. It's not only an extra appendage that's useless for critical focus but I can't tell you the number of times my hand grazed across it and changed a critical setting - it has no bloody settings lock! Then the last thing that's quite exciting is Kine's PL style EF mount. Optitek makes one for F5/55 and one for Nikon lenses. I've tried it and with this type of mount, your lenses will not think of jiggling. Far better than the twist and click. This camera has me considering getting back into the owner / op game as it offers the right specs, decent ergo and great price. A real deal sealer would be built in ND's. Sony and Arri heard the call and answered this while Red's best effort is the light sucking motion mount.

As much as I love those NX1 images thus far, comparing it to C300 seems a bit off. If I had to do doc / client work, I'd still go with the C300 as it has the things that make a production go smooth: built in ND's, XLR's, 4:2:2, SDI, ready to edit codec, etc. I could see myself using the NX1 for productions that are a bit more savvy, not run n gun or doc, perhaps more narrative, music video, etc world. They just seem like completely different tools for different jobs. It's like comparing an ENG camera to an Alexa. Sure the Alexa takes great images but I wouldn't use it for news.

So I'm seriously considering this NX1. What do people do for lenses? Are EF mounts out of the question? Can it support a dumb EF mount? Love to know what people do for lens solutions, especially manual options. Also, has anyone started making a form fitted cage for it? Thanks

​I have no issues with the A7s layout. Mine is permanently in a Movcam cage (best accessory ever). I never shoot video with it unless it's on my rig (18" 15mm rods, Wooden Camera hand held grips and an F&V monitor mounted on the cross bar with a counterweight in the back). It balances perfectly for hand held as well as on sticks. I use it for work and play. Sure this rig might seem a bit much for many here. But as someone who shoots Arri's all week long, it's a welcome relief. On occasion when I'm fooling around I'll shoot it "naked" (cage / top handle only) and just use the camera's EVF / Monitor. The results are fine but not reliable enough for paid work (meaning my focus isn't as good with the camera's EVF/monitor). Andrew on the other hand probably has younger eyes than mine and seems to work this mode fine. If you're one of those rig less shooters let me suggest using a cage such as Tilta's. The wooden handle will definitely improve the ergonomics immeasurably. I only wish it was around before I bought my movcam.

​Well put. I come to this site because I learn things about small and inexpensive cameras that we don't regularly test or use on set. Last week I shot an AMEX commercial with an F55 but we also used a BMCPC as well for a different look. Much of the info on that cam came from sites like this. For the past month, I'm on a TV show where we use Amira's all day but guess what, we also break out the A7s and Go Pros from time to time. Again this site and several others help pros get a handle on emerging tech. I'm actually considering shooting my next feature on A7s (even though we have the choice of Arri's). While I do think we sometimes over analyze specs here and not just look at what great pics a camera makes, I find this site at the forefront of smaller, lighter and more versatile tech. Any pro who ignores these things will be left one day wondering why the phone stopped ringing.

​Will definitely give this camera a shot. I've been a Samsung fan since I bought a 53" Plasma from them a few years back. Still the best colors I've ever seen on a TV.

​A face with a color chart are essential in all comparative IQ tests.

​Agree on most points except the rolling rehearsals. Nothing worse than saying, "it looked better in rehearsal." If the set is lit, AC has marks, blocking roughed in, etc. Why not roll? Just don't call it a rehearsal I guess.

I started on film ages ago. The last time I shot it was three years ago (See: "Besides Still Waters" in last month's American Cinematographer). We had issues that I rather not revisit. For one, shooting on a remote location, our dailies were not daily. So dirty gate and static issues reared their ugly heads. Also, focus. Today's younger AC's are brought up more with focusing off monitor instead of tape. Problem is, with film camera monitors it's hard to judge critical focus. The more experienced AC's with a film background are older and hence much harder to afford for low budget indies. Should I ever shoot an indie again on film, I'll ask that the focus puller's scale be doubled. In short, I don't miss medium, but I do miss the efficiency. Andrew, you talk about how shooting on digital is faster and more spontaneous. Perhaps for the lone indie as yourself shooting off the cuff. Unfortunately, that's not the look everyone's looking to pay for in the theaters or watch on TV most the time. Professional shoots are still a multi headed beast. Perhaps the biggest complaint those of us who started in film and now shoot digital have is the endless rolling rehearsals, re-sets and innumerable takes plus the amount of playback that we never experienced with film. It's worse now with commercials as the video village has now become a small country of too many cooks. I defy anyone who works on features, commercials or episodic to say digital has made work days shorter or more efficient. And now that everyone thinks they need a DIT it's done nothing for labour costs. Then with the amount of footage that now has to be reviewed, transcribed, and noted, compared to film, I wonder if the difference between film / video production is that huge. The best part of digital has not been with the way I make a living (episodic / commercials) but mostly for my personal projects. For people who already know how to make a film, they know if they literally can grab and go and then make a film for next to nothing. There are a few directors who've taken the immediacy of digital and exploited it. Fincher comes to mind. Several of my colleagues work on House of Cards. It's mostly available light, they work very fast, and have no DIT. I wish everyone else would catch on. As far as IQ goes, for nights I much prefer digital. For days its a toss up. As a DP for work, the best part I like is being able to see a close to finished image on set. You actually take greater risks when you can see your mediums threshold right there on set instead of waiting for it to return from the lab. Regarding storage, anyone with anything worth storing will back up to new digital storage tech as the need comes. I still have scripts that were originated on floppy but living now on SSD. And when you die, it won't matter. You're dead.

Seems like the option to edit your posts is no longer there. Does anyone know of its fate?

I own the 24,35,50 and 85. Non DS. The only difference is DS has markings on both sides. I love them. Bought them to use with my A7s. Best lens for the money. The only short comer is the 24mm. It's not the sharpest of the bunch. I wouldn't recommend shooting below a 2.8 with it if you want it to feel as sharp as the rest. You can get away with a 2.0 in a pinch but at 1.4 it's unacceptable. The 35 looks great down to a 2.0. And the 50 and 85 perform well wide open. I use these lenses with a Ronin and because they're so light, they work great. Also, the dampening on the focus/iris rings is butter smooth even in the cold. Here's a little video I did a few weeks ago. All the street footage is Rokinon 35mm. Studio footage is Rokinon 85mm, Nikon 135mm 2.0 and Nikon 185mm 2.8. http://vimeopro.com/user6325180/cock-it-up-featuring-timeka-marshal

Placement aside, mics definitely make a difference. For the money, Rode is hard to beat. I've tested it against mice that were 2x-3x the price and I preferred the Rode. If $ were no object, I'd get a Shoeps.

Ebrahim, good stuff. Love that step by step tutorial. Casey, just remember to expose to the right. I get as right as I can to the clip threshold. Also, I like screwing around with the pre-sets in camera such as boosting saturation and magenta signal (ever so slightly) in both S Log or PP6. I find this gives me a signal I can bend to my tastes better without breaking down or looking so "thin".

​Make no mistake, I love my Canon Zooms. But compared to Leica R primes, the Leicas are in a different league IQ wise. But I was a controlled situation (we had time to change lenses). They're definitely not for doc / run & gun world. I'm a big fan of Nikon AIS glass. I feel they have the "magic" especially their 85, 105, 135 and 180. Mechanics are rock solid.