TheRenaissanceMan

No, just a mic jack. Things are looking promising so far. The noise is a little fizzier than Panasonic's, there's more rolling shutter, and the highlights still go a little weird when blown, but it's a damn fine image. A bag of compromises--hard to wrangle LOG mode, limited DR in the modes with good color, limited battery life, no headphone jack, a dearth of good native APS-C lenses, cruddy ergonomics, an LCD screen that doesn't flip out, poor white balance, no 30p without a big crop--but for many people, I can see it being the right mix of compromises. Something tells me this camera and the G7 will be our go-to recommendations for most of the year. Also interested in this. Do the A6300's EVF and LCD go dark during 4K like the A7X II's?

Hey Stab! Fellow GH3 shooter here also looking to pick up a G7. The GH3 is indeed still a great 1080p cam. Robust build (I've dropped it on cement twice and it didn't even blink), decent low-light up to 800/1600 (the noise is very grain-like and monochromatic), wonderful ergonomics (although I'd kill for peaking), efficient codec, and legendary battery life (I've gone through a 10-hour shoot without changing batteries once). That being said, the new 4K Panasonics really kill it for IQ, especially when downsampled to 1080p and/or externally recorded. The EVFs are also a big step up, especially the G7's. I haven't seen much of the newer Panasonics in 1080p. Not a lot of comparisons out there. The GX7 is supposed to have a very similar/the same sensor as the GH4, so this might give you a vague idea: Noam Kroll has a little article about 60p on the GH4 as well: http://noamkroll.com/slow-motion-work-on-the-gh4-why-i-always-overcrank-at-60p/ Here's what I can tell you from my own anecdotal experiences: -The newer cams have nicer color, especially for skin, and better separation of color channels. This makes for easier CC and nicer footage in general -The newer cams have less rolling shutter in 1080p. I'll often switch my friend's GH4 to 1080 for gimbal/handheld shots, where you won't notice the resolution dip anyway -The newer cams have more range in the highlights and a nicer roll off. -The newer cams do away with the GH3's weird purple cross-shaped flaring around very strong light sources (drives me BANANAS) -The newer cams have CineD, which, combined with the Leeming LUT, provides my favorite version of Panasonic GH color science -The GH4 is a little better in low light in 1080p, and the G7 a lot better Hope that helps!

I'd put the D750 on the short list for best hybrids. Then G7/A6300/NX1, then A7RII. If you already have the lenses, the D750 seems like a no-brainer. Shot on the D810, but video quality is almost the same as the D750: Don't worry about lens IS. Grab a cheap monopod; mine is solid as a rock and cost me $5. Combined with an LCD loupe, this style provides results as good or better than VR lenses. It's hard to give any more information without knowing more about what you shoot and how.

Contrast and saturation are doing some really weird things to his face.

Slightly less rolling shutter, nicer colors, no more moire. Otherwise, pretty identical.

Yes, Sony E. I'd personally take an NX1 for ergonomics, color, and battery life, but it depends more on your tastes and priorities than anything.

Honestly, I'd be happy with a pocket 2 that just had the BMCC 2.5K sensor and 60p. A better screen would be nice, and a more secure HDMI connection, but otherwise the old body is fine.

Take a look at the G7 as well. Amazing value if you don't need all the GH4 features, and even better image quality.

It and the GH4 are both totally valid production tools. Found this on DVXUser. Shot on the GH4, CineD, Leeming LUT. Used right, it's a really nice "film stock." Detailed, high color discrimination, very good tonal separation, with a bit of organic grain and surprisingly good highlight roll off. It gets noisy fast and doesn't like underexposure, but if you treat it right, it'll reward you.

Yep! Cleaner in the blacks, better low light performance, no color artefacting, and a very slight reduction in crop factor (2.2 vs 2.3). I'll be buying one in the next two weeks to finally replace my GH3 as the compliment to my BMPCC.

They've had a lot more years to refine it than Samsung.

Brandon Li can do it, but it does seem awfully rare.

I've seen good results with Contax Zeiss glass, but the NX1 doesn't respond well to lower-res lenses. It's a very demanding sensor. Modern stuff will work best, or anything vintage that's known for its resolution (Contax, Pentax, some Minolta MDs, probably Nikon).

Iirc it should be the same.

A6300 then. Final answer.

2 has pretty bad yellow highlight clipping, which is usually a Sony trademark. I'm going to guess A7S II. This is throwing me off.

The issue isn't that the colors are wrong. It's that they feel wrong.

Could definitely be a picture profile/settings thing. I'm sure, with tweaking, we could coax a little more resolution and shadow detail out of the G7. However, while the Panasonic has more blocked up shadows, it also has a clear advantage in the highlights. Not only is there more latitude, but it doesn't show any of the hue shifts, bright color ringing, or hard clipping I see in the A6300. Check out the underwater lights in the second example scene. Horrendous performance by the Sony. The Panasonic has much nicer color overall too, struggling less to render the mixed sources naturally. With used G7 prices dropping to around $400, I'm struggling to think of reasons not to buy it. No LOG profile I guess, but those things cause more problems than they solve in 8-bit cameras. Image looks acceptable at 6400 and rather good at 3200. As to people bashing it for stills...you're full of shit. I'm sorry, but even measurebaters can look at DXO and see that raw performance is less than a stop away from APS-C. There is so much amazing work being shot on M4/3 that no one can claim the camera is their limitation to getting good results. Panasonic's DFD autofocus has also been shown to be faster and more accurate than any other current mirrorless. Time will tell on the A6300, but "it doesn't have PDAF points" is an asinine argument. The last thing to look at are lenses. Last time I checked, the Sony APS-C stable was pretty pitiful. There's like...2 or 3 Zeiss lenses that are pretty cool I guess? Micro Four Thirds, on the other hand, has a gigantic selection of both AF and MF glass, almost all of which are stellar pieces of glass. As someone who's shot and edited a couple dozen commercial and portrait shoots with a GH3 and A6000 side by side, there's basically nothing in it. The Sony is higher res, but the M4/3 glass has the edge. The Panny has lower DR/higher noise, but the Sony's 11+7 bit compression makes it a wash. The Sony is smaller and lighter, the Panasonic much better built and better-handling. Neither have great color on Adobe defaults, and benefit greatly from profiling in ACR. The GH3 battery life is enormously better, the A6000 has almost double the burst rate. I would never argue that Micro Four Thirds is the best stills platform available, but I do believe it represents the best mix of compromises for most photographers. The system's image quality today is where APS-C was a couple years ago, and I don't recall many people complaining then. In a few more years, it'll be where class-leading APS-C is now. And so on and so on. So as technology marches on and sensors get better and better, I'd rather have the smaller size, better glass, and stronger features of a M4/3 body than a bump in performance less than 1% of shooters would even notice, let alone need. Some samples to ponder: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-mu43-wedding-experience-by-sssyurrr.61628/ https://www.mu-43.com/threads/m43-portraiture-by-livingloud.61610/ https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-photographs-from-morocco-by-ggibson.62877/ https://www.mu-43.com/resources/voigtlander-nokton-42-5mm-f-0-95-real-world-review.36/ https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-my-portrait-work-with-m43-can-it-hang-with-the-big-boys-by-spatulaboy.58189/ Cheers.

Anyone have a link to the new Zhongyis? I'm looking specifically for the Minolta MD -> M4/3 and not having much luck. EDIT: I'm stupid! Just found them.

Even worse! They don't even make them anymore: $10 Rocketfish (Best Buy brand) LED lights. I worked there at the time, so I got them half off. They were actually a fun way to start learning-- cheap, directional, battery powered, dimmable, decent output-- but I've moved to greener pastures. Aww, the Aputure looks perfect! I'll check out the reviews. Thanks!

Great topic idea. We don't talk about lighting nearly enough. Still using Arri fresnels over here, but I can generally get by with 300s and 150s on the BMPCC. Anything bigger I'll rent for that specific shoot. Sometimes I'll use a set of strategically placed small LEDs I picked up a while back, but dialing out the green spike is a total pain in the ass. Anyone have any suggestions for small, directional lights that won't break the bank?

They're good! Sharp. A bit smoother in contrast than Zeiss, but also more sterile. Should resolve just fine on the NX1 sensor, depending what's in the set. Just expect to use them one stop down from max aperture; vintage lenses with uncoated rear elements tend to glow a bit wide open, which the NX1 hates.

Great topic idea. We don't talk about lighting nearly enough. Still using Arri fresnels over here, but I can generally get by with 300s and 150s on the BMPCC. Anything bigger I'll rent for that specific shoot. Sometimes I'll use a set of strategically placed small LEDs I picked up a while back, but dialing out the green spike is a total pain in the ass. Anyone have any suggestions for small, directional lights that won't break the bank.

I'm also a huge Contax fan! Especially the f/2.8s. Not so much the 25mm (great in the center, iffy everywhere else), but the 21, 28, 35, 85, and 135 are all exceptionally cinematic. One thing though: aren't both CZ 50mms Planar designs?

I noticed that too. Honestly, it's a relief to hear that the fringing is a problem with Premiere and not the camera itself, because this footage rocks in every other respect.