TheRenaissanceMan

Looks like an adapter problem for sure.

This is ridiculous for so many reasons...

Maybe it's just the forumite echo chamber, but everyone seems to bring up battery life the moment I mention Blackmagic and conveniently forget about it when they recommend the A7S (II). I was on a shoot with a guy the other day, and he said in the cold conditions here in Wisconsin, he has to change the battery on his A7S every 20 minutes. That's outrageous. I totally see where you're coming from. Shot in its sweet spot, that 4K sensor produces exquisite results--especially those magical skintones. https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/12/director-of-photography-blackmagic-4k-ursa-tests-part-1/ https://vimeo.com/139130557

Look forward to hearing your thoughts, DBounce!

What's funny is for video shooting, the BMPCC's battery life is as good or better than the A7S', which no one seems to criticize. And the BMPCC has the benefit of an external power connector for batteries or wall power.

Better than not having the option at all, like the G7 and LX100.

A fair number of lens adapters will be a millimeter or two short of the proper flange distance to ensure every lens can hit infinity focus. That's generally fine, but it means you can focus a little past infinity, which will make your wide shots look blurry if you're relying on your distance scale. The solution is just to focus a little short of infinity.

Um...did you forget Blackmagic?

It's still not clear from that conversation whether the HDMI out is 8-bit or 10, but it sounds like 8-bit 4:2:2. Still, that's better than I thought.

The add-on grip for the E-M5 II has the headphone jack in it. Perhaps you might do some research and mention that instead of just being trite.

"Investing in lenses" is a fairly common expression. No need to ridicule the man just because he thinks differently than you.

Or did Samsung cut out their camera division and sell it to Nikon outright? I don't think we'll figure any of this out before an official press release hits.

Ooh, neat! I must've read some bad information. Did they specify 8-bit or 10-bit?

Most likely, they'll create two mirrorless lines: A full frame F-mount mirrrorless for pros, and new Nikon 1s with Samsung sensor tech for consumers/enthusiasts. Maybe they'll introduce an F-mount APS-C body once the FF model gets a foothold. They need a new source of 1" sensors now that Aptina has been acquired, and there's zero--ZERO--chance they'll use Samsung's lens mounts over their own.

Well, not exactly. Samsung is a far, far, far larger company than Nikon. All they're doing is buying/licensing Samsung's technology.

Unless something was changed in firmware, my understanding is that it's always been 8-bit 4:2:0. Would love to be wrong though!

Sadly, no. It's not even 4:2:2. Just uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:0.

If they're trying to make a mirrorless camera for the professional market, the advantage is that there's one less thing to fail. A professional on a job doesn't want to worry whether their adapter is going to be shorted out by rain or bend a connector pin in tough situations; they just want it to work. Adapters on high-density sensors can also introduce all sorts of centering/planarity issues, which will turn off landscape photographers and people like Ming Thein who are trying to squeeze out that last 1% of performance. I see what you're saying, and it might give our market pause, but the fact is that professionals care far less about thicker and heavier if it means rugged and consistent. It doesn't give up any of mirrorless' advantages either, which extend beyond just small size. Effective EVF/Live View shooting with accurate image preview, on-sensor AF for perfect focus alignment without fine-tuning, vastly improved MF compared to today's brighter but low-res OVFs, and all the benefits a live view-centric system provides for video shooting. Many professional photographers, such as Kirk Tuck and Ming Thein, have lamented that no DSLR manufacturer has just ripped the mirror box out of their flagship stills camera and given it an EVF instead. They don't care about reducing size. Tuck wants to keep using his vintage portrait lenses on their native mount, and Thein wants an ergonomically mature product that'll do justice to his Otus lenses. If Nikon took Samsung's mirrorless tech, put in a full frame sensor, and gave it a native F mount, I think they'd be answering a lot of people's prayers.

If you're looking at Milvus and Sigma Art, definitely add Contax Zeiss to the list. There's a bunch of guys over on REDUser getting great results with them on the Epic Dragon at 6K. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide Or if you prefer a warmer, prettier look, Leica Rs and Minolta MDs should be on your radar. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92246-Minolta-Rokkor-Survival-Guide It depends more which Nikkor/FD lenses you're comparing than any hard and fast rule between the brands. Personally, I find Nikons to have more contrast and hate that their focus rings turn the wrong way. Canon FDs tend to have a little more CA, but nicer colors and a very organic look to the highlights. YMMV. Worthwhile reading: http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/nikon-lenses-faq http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/canon-fd-lenses-faq

Re: BMPCC low-light performance, let's break it down this way. The Pocket's native ISO is 800. Using a Speed Booster, you gain 1 2/3 stops of light, effectively bringing that native ISO up to 2500. Since most of the Pocket's DR lies in the shadows, it can easily be pushed 2-3 stops in post with acceptable results. (Ctrl+F "underexposure." https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/06/director-of-photography-blackmagic-cinema-camera/) Therefore, using the same full frame lenses, you can shoot the Pocket at an effective 10,000-20,000 ISO with acceptable results--the same or better than the A7S in S16 mode, according to Ebrahim--but with the added benefits of 10-bit 4:2:2 and RAW. I don't claim the Pocket is the best low-light camera out there, but it's much more competitive than sensor size snobs would have you believe. With fast primes and a Speed Booster, the BMMCC should perform like a champ in most any environment.

Don't be afraid to crush your blacks, but don't clip your highlights. Film, especially black and white, has real 100% black, but an incredible highlight tail. This will produce the most a natural image with striking contrast. Depending on the project, try and use shadows as graphic elements in your frame. And don't be afraid of subtlety. Not every shot has to be a melodramatic Sin City still frame--low contrast B&W can be as immersive and powerful as high-contrast. Just remember, even in a low-contrast scene, to include one very bright element and one very dark element to give the viewer a sense of relative contrast within the other tones. If you do a straight desaturation, you're working with luminance information only, which makes your lighting absolutely critical. You'll probably want to use harder light than you're used to, or the image will feel a little "undefined." Let me know if I can offer any other pointers. B&W is something of a passion for me. As usual, the best research is to go watch some great B&W movies and steal like an artist.

So it's sounding like 5x7's your upper limit.

I'm not crazy about Sigma Art lenses for video. They're sharp and all, but too sterile and contrasty for my taste, creating crunchy images and limiting your latitude. If I want that harder look with more microcontrast, Contax Zeiss is my first choice. YMMV.

My recommendation is colored by working at Best Buy, where most consumers have no idea what they're doing. For that clientele--soccer moms, new parents, event shooters, film students--fast, silent video AF and flawless ergonomics take precedence over that bit of aliasing. Plus, Canon's reputation for DSLR video is taking a long time to die, they still have the most third-party support, and EF mount is much more flexible. All in all, both solid choices. Nikon wins on quality, Canon on convenience. Question though--you really think the 7D II has an identical image to the 5DIII? From the samples I've seen, the resolution and compression seem improved. How does the T6i image compare in those regards? It's hard to tell after web compression, and I've only seen the footage on a 3" back screen.

The T6i has the same IQ as the 7DII, which is a solid 1080p camera. The stills aren't as good, but it has the advantage of fast, silent DPAF in video. Most beginners are better off with a convenient camera with good results than an inconvenient one with great results. Plus you save $50 to buy her a bag, battery, and/or SD card.