TheRenaissanceMan

I've heard these are difficult to adapt. Can you post a link to a suitable adapter?

Right? Those yellow patches are baaaaad, man. It's worse than the Panasonic salmon skin.

I set my SLR Magic 12mm to f/5.6, and everything between 4ft and infinity is in focus. No AF? No problem.

Actually, my first thought was "it could use some diffusion." It's a little crunchy-sharp for my taste. Also, those skintones are WACK, man. Crazy flatness and oversaturation in the yellows. Some skin colors fare better than others, but none hold a candle to Panasonic/Blackmagic.

Also with all due respect, the G7 actually has a hair more moire than the GH4. "The composition includes many areas of fine horizontal lines, particularly on the various doors and shutters by the beach. As these approach the resolving power of a camera, there's inevitably issues with moire, and indeed when I played the footage back on the 4k TV, I noticed tell-tale shimmering in some of these areas. Interestingly the GH4 wasn't immune to this effect, and while it suffered a little less than the G7, it really was only by a small amount in this particular composition. I'd expected to recommend the GH4 in this situation, but was surprised to find them very close in quality. Of course this is just one example and in others greater differences may emerge. Equally there'll be other situations when the difference will reduce or even disappear. I think the bottom line is while the GH4 should still enjoy the edge in 4k quality, the G7 comes very close, and in some situations the footage will be almost indistinguishable." http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G7/ Looks similar to the NX1.

As far as I know, it's 8-bit that causes most of the problems, which means it wouldn't do well on the G7 at all. Still, it'd be fun to have it. Problematic or not.

The X-Pro series is a niche product for a very small audience seeking a very specific camera. The X-E and X-T series are far more mainstream, and it makes sense to give them the big video features. Otherwise, the X-T2 won't have much to elevate it from the Pro besides being SLR-shaped. The deciding factor for me will be what they do with the X-E3. If it gets 4K, I'll be switching entirely from Panasonic to Fuji as my secondary/stills system. If they only give it the X-Pro 2's still excellent 1080p...I'll be torn. But extremely tempted. Sigh...that's the problem with being a hybrid shooter. I need robust, all-manual lenses for video, but light ones with fast AF for stills. That's already 2 lens sets for one camera system--2 would be a nightmare. >_<

Hm...that's definitely not something I've seen on my GH4 projects. Double check your other settings. Anything unusual you're doing to push it around? Messing with the Shadow/Highlight curves? Pulling footage in post?

Damn...that is one fine image. Skintones are kinda flat and blotchy, and the rolling shutter in the background is horrendous (no idea why he did that); however, the DR, resolution, and fine grain really bowled me over. Good thing I don't have enough money to be tempted.

There's been a lot of discussion about this on the Mu43 User Forum. In short: shoot with good technique, use a sharp lens, and you can print large with very little worry. Don't let the numbers scare you.

A very good image trapped in a very impractical camera.

Wait...is it 16mm film?

That's by far the best footage/screengrabs I've seen you post.

And another one, from The Online Photographer. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/06/a-little-lens-tale.html Another example is tyre Nikon 58mm f/1.4, which was designed with the express purpose of maximising these now subtle qualities at the expense of absolute performance. While the details of the OP's article do indeed seem really bullshit-y, there's definitely something to the trade off between character/depth/3D and raw sharpness. One is just easier to measure.

Hey Chant, awesome to hear that progress is being made. Forgive me if this has been discussed (I haven't read the entire thread), but is there someplace we can donate/send tips to you? You're doing a lot of work, and I'm sure many of us here want to compensate you for it.

Red One Btw, animals love those microfiber blankets, don't they? My cats won't sleep anywhere else.

I'd still be interested to see how Leica R, Contax Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkor glass performs on it. All three brands resolve famously well for video. Geoff, he's not saying they're bad lenses, period. I'd be hurt if he knocked my FDs. But as has been discussed in other NX1 topics, the sensor just doesn't play nice with a lot of glass--a combination of the camera's high pixel density and "worked over" video processing/encoding. Kidzrevil isn't trying to insult anyone. I think if his FDs looked awesome on the NX1, he'd be pretty stoked. We're all just sharing our experiences as honestly as we can.

Love the info you're sharing, but minor math correction. The G7's 4K crop factor is actually 2.2-- slightly improved over the GH4. With the SBXL providing a .64x reduction, that puts your final crop factor at a healthy 1.408x. That's almost the exact size of spherical s35. Pretty swanky.

Thanks, Geoff! Resolving power looks great on both lenses, although I'm not crazy about the 58's bokeh. Little harsh for my taste. Still, the 20, 40, and 90 are looking like awesome options. All manual, Nikon mount, and they can resolve the NX1 sensor wide open? That's good enough for anything.

I'm starting to see that. Milvus glass isn't cheap, either. So when you say stopped down...the Nikkors and Canons didn't look good until f/4? 5.6? F/8?

Seriously...dammit, dude. Now I've got to spend money on another lens I don't need. THANKS A LOT. :P Has anyone used the Voigtlander 75mm 2.5 or 58mm 1.4? Do they resolve this well too?

How does it like the Canon FDs? Same story as the Nikkors?

I've been looking everywhere for cheap used D16s. Where are you finding these?

Are you using external audio? If so, a GX7 might work well for you. Better low light and DR than the GH2, and the articulating viewfinder is surprisingly nice for tripod/monopod work. It's not as sharp, though, and lacks mic and headphone jacks. Otherwise, I'll second Stewart and steer you toward the GH2. Great image with the hack (Sanity is nice if you don't want the Moon file sizes) and a proven production workhorse. Plus, the multi-aspect sensor means you get a 1.3x crop with the speed booster! Pretty nifty.

I don't see much evidence of massive de-saturation or heavy noise past 1600 here. 6400 sure, but it's honestly not past saving with a little Neat Video. What CAN'T be saved are those horrible artifacts on highlights. In the first scene, all the lights next to the pool have gone sickly, saturated yellow. Very videoy. The Panasonic's are neutral, more like film's would be. Look at the underwater pool lights in the second scene. 100% clipped, then a ring of pure cyan, then blue water again. There's no fixing that in post. Now look at the Panasonic. A smooth gradient from darker blue to aqua, then a gentle transition into soft highlight. It takes longer to clip too, which means it holds more highlight detail than the A6300 even at higher sensitivities--which I prefer, since I light most of my work. I agree that the noise grain has improved quite a bit, but it's not more than a stop, stop and a half better than the G7. If you need that, cool! You have another good option. But realistically, how often do people really need to shoot about 3200? Even the weddings I've shot rarely require more than 800-1600. The A6300 does have a certain sense of "richness" as it ramps up in ISO, but that might be the amber-magenta color bias fooling my brain. Hard to say without a better white balance. It's good to hear that some of the profiles have been improved. For people who prefer to bake in their look, that's awesome. But for video power-users and enthusiasts who are trying to squeeze every drop of performance from this camera, it's disappointing to have a LOG mode that's borderline unusable. Natural has the best color straight out of the G7, and it loses maybe one stop to V-LOG. CineD loses nothing to it, and has excellent colors with the Leeming LUT. So it feels like I'm losing out less on Panasonic by not using LOG than I am on Sony. Although...I guess I've never seen any empirical tests. Has anyone shown the difference in DR between SLOG and the Cine profiles? You could get 3 or so hours out of a GX7, and the A6300 certainly isn't smaller than that. I haven't heard much on the A6300's battery life, but does it top that? The G7 does 4 hours, and it has the same small battery. And once you've added several overpriced Sony spares, you're adding more weight and expense to the bag, both of which you were supposed to be saving with a Sony mirrorless camera. Ah, so you did see the word "native" in there. Eventually. :P Seems rather unwieldy to strap huge Sigma or EF glass to a tiny Sony body, and the AF won't hold up for some stills work. I suppose unlike Sony themselves, Canon does offer a nice variety of APS-C glass, which should balance reasonably well. Shame most of them are focus by wire, though. Sony's actual APS-C lenses are mostly either awful or very overpriced. The stabilized 35 and 50 are good (if sterile), but other than that....you've got a couple Sony Zeisses that are nice, and...that's basically it. You could get FE glass, sure, but paying $1000 for a 55mm 1.8 when Panasonic and Olympus sell portrait primes for less than half that seems silly to me. It definitely wins with vintage glass, though, especially smaller primes. No arguing that. And come to think of it, SLR Magic makes a few lenses in E-mount. No AF in that case, but they render and handle better for video. Unless Sony's improved their button customization, the A6300 should still require a healthy amount of menu-diving over the course of a shoot. By your own (and most other people's) admission, Sony menus are ass. I'll still take Panasonic for usability. Eh...maybe it's to do with S-Gamut, but I'm not sure this test was even shot in that and it shows mis-balanced color too. I'm guessing, like other Sony cams, the A6300 will benefit heavily from manual WB with a grey card. Look, I'm not trying to bag on Sony. This looks like a great camera, and the sweet spot for a lot of shooters. But when we have 2 or 3 different topics breaking down why Sony cams wow and impress out of the gate but ultimately fall short of their competition, I feel compelled to play devil's advocate. Thanks for the tests, Andrew. Eagerly awaiting any new footage. Cheers. Edit: Any chance of an answer to the two questions at the end of my last post?