TheRenaissanceMan

Nope. The D5500, D750, and D810 are actually excellent for video. That doesn't give you a lot of options...I'd say a 6D, used D800 with a mosaic filter, or a used A7R sound like your best choices.

It's more expensive than some of these other options, but it sounds like what you want is a used D750. The autofocus is a night and day improvement over the 5DII, it's tops in DR and low light, and the video is excellent. The others all seem like pronounced compromises on either the video or the stills side.

In my experience, they're close enough as makes no difference. The GX7 has slightly better DR and cleaner shadows, but only has 12-bit RAW files compared to the Canon's 14-bit, which makes the ends of the tonal scale a little more "brittle" when processing. With the quality of Mu4/3 glass, I'd give the GX7 the edge, but at that point you're picking nits. In video, on the other hand, the GX7 absolutely stomps the Canon.

The lowest I've seen on forums is $1500.

Add the BMPCC-specific Speed Booster, and think about what you're getting for your money: -Internal 10-bit ProRes -Internal log-encoded 12-bit RAW -1.67x crop factor -An extra 1 2/3 stops of light on all your lenses -The best color science in its price range -13 stops of DR (11-12 in GS mode) -The option to turn on global shutter whenever you need it Add a cheap HDMI monitor or use your existing one, and you've got an insanely beast camera for ~$1500.

THIS! The BMPCC produces some grain when pushed to 1600 and 3200, but it's filmic and pleasant-looking. There's two or three ready-to-shoot BMPCC kits on sale at BMC User for $600-700. Pick up a couple fast lenses, and you'll be making low light your bitch in no time.

Before you go stylized, just try to get a natural look. You need that strong starting point; THEN get creative with your grade later. Try this. Set the camera on a tripod in front of a wide scene. You want a variety of colors, textures, and light. Then, record 30 seconds of that scene with each picture profile. Default settings, everything at 0. Then go through again with contrast lowered. Then go again with saturation lowered. Then go again with contrast and saturation lowered. Write the order down in a notebook or label each with a voiceover as you're recording. Then go home, sit down in front of your monitor, and really look at what each profile and setting change is doing to your image. Mess around with raising shadows, recovering highlights, messing with saturation, manipulating colors, etc. Do that, and you'll figure out what's what real quick. Thorough hands-on testing is the only way to get a definitive answer on what settings work best for you.

GX7. Same or slightly better quality as the GH3, but smaller and better in low light. The only downside is no headphone or mic jack. You can grab it for $300 used if you hawk forums for used copies.

okay, nothing cheap and good.

Shoot...I can't think of anything manual between 17mm and 14mm.

If you're looking for a good manual GH4 wide, I'd look at the SLR Magic 12mm. I've had mine for about a month, and so far I'm very, very pleased with it.

That's why it's my favorite. ^_^

I haven't tried it, but clearly some people have been able to achieve acceptable results with the internal codec. Not ideal, but acceptable. Maybe it's an exposure thing. Regardless, I wouldn't use it without an external recorder for any of my work.

I'm in a similar boat, actually. As you said, the Nikons aren't better--just different. The main reason I wouldn't buy them is because their focus rings turn the opposite way from every other manufacturer's lenses. It drives me absolutely bananas. On top of that, they've become massively overpriced in the used market since this vintage lens craze has taken off. If you're looking up for a step up in quality, my recommendations are Leica R, Contax Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkor, in that order. The advantage of the Leicas is that you can use them on anything, even Nikon mount. They're pretty expensive, but they provide the most beautiful images I've ever seen from stills glass. In terms of bang for the buck, I'd put Contax Zeiss on the top. Built extremely well and can easily intercut with Zeiss Master Primes. You just can't beat them for the price. Minolta Rokkors match each other extremely well in color and contrast, and give a nice look for not a lot of money. Not all their designs were winners, so do your homework and get the right versions.

I'm talking about color science in general, not the A7S II specifically. My work is mainly creative features, docs, shorts, and music videos, where I have don't have lightning-fast deadlines to meet. In those conditions, I've gotten much nicer results from beefier color spaces like Blackmagic's than Canon's very saccharine, Crayola look. Even with weddings, you generally have a couple months to deliver, and between Filmconvert, Speedlooks, and Magic Bullet, finding a decent look is within anyone's reach. If not, I doubt the camera is the problem.

Well...that's the thing. You can get a 50mm f/2 and a 90mm f/2 for between $400-500 each, but a fast wide is going to be tricky. If you can settle for f/2.8, the 24mm and 28mm are both excellent.

You realize Nick Driftwood posted a bunch of those months ago, right? And actually, those same magenta/green artifacts are present in the other GH4 picture profiles too. They're just much more pronounced in V-LOG L. DVX User had an interesting thread about it. As you theorized, the profile simply isn't meant for use in 8-bit. For best results, you need an external recorder. And if you're not used to shooting and grading non-Canon LOG, it's very easy to **** up your exposure/color correction. Research is your friend! Although...I've actually seen some excellent examples of good-looking stuff shot on internal V-LOG. Check it out:https://vimeo.com/139600006 https://vimeo.com/139922620 (Not sure why only one link posted as a preview...)

It's harder to make a great steak than a great burger, but I know which I'd rather eat. When I see Canon footage, it always looks like good Canon footage. Somewhat with Nikon, too. But with other manufacturers, it can look tons of different ways. So it's easy to get good results with Canon, and difficult (but possible) to get great results from manufacturers with wider-gamut, higher-bit depth footage.

Leica R primes aren't that expensive if you get the older versions.

I absolutely agree that highlight rendering ( along with color) is hugely benefited by V- LOG. In fact, I think it gives the GH4 the best highlight rendering of anything sub-RED Dragon/Alexa. The internal codec can get a little ropey, but you're using LOG on an 8-bit camera. What did you expect? Add an external recorder and the GH4 becomes an absolute beast. 10-bit plus LOG really puts it in a whole new league.

I don't know. People still use PCs, despite them being less idiot-proof than Macs.

I think if you stuck a Canon lens on the Sony, they'd match almost exactly. That's not just sharpness, but also that Canon lenses tend to be much warmer than Sony's (and most other manufacturer's) glass. Thanks so much for this test! It's good to know that the A7S II can produce great skin tones when handled correctly.

To answer the question in the article: No, not really. Canon's color space is just more idiot-proof than Sony's.

A little research goes a long way.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of good, adaptable, APS-C-specific glass out there. Your best option is just to get good full frame glass and smile knowing that you don't have to worry about vignetting or corner performance. If you just want solid lenses without breaking the bank, I'd look at Minolta Rokkors and Contax Zeiss. Here's a couple links to get you started. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92246-Minolta-Rokkor-Survival-Guide http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide The Zeiss look very clean and "honest", whereas the Rokkors have a warmer, more "vintage cinema" look. Look at some samples and see what you like.