TheRenaissanceMan

If you have MFT glass you like, I would definitely give the Blackmagic cameras a look. I recently upgraded from the GH3 myself and as nice as it was to use, the Pocket's image is in another league. I wouldn't be worried by specs. There are always going to be new and improved cameras coming out, but if you're still making great images with your old gear, who cares?

I'm not sure why someone would buy an 8-bit 4:2:0 camera for $3200 when they can have a 10-bit 4:2:2/12-bit RAW camera for $500. Even if you want more resolution, I'd take a used BMCC over these compressed convenience cams any day. But hey, I do music videos and narrative in controlled lighting. Horses for courses.

Now now, my RX10 got XAVC-S (fixing its one major flaw) and 120fps 720p last year, and no one was even asking for that.

​They've actually made some great strides with the SGamut3.cine/SLog3 color space and LC-709 Type A look profile. The problem with the A7S is their use of a non-standard SGamut color space and trying to cram a log image into an 8-bit color space. http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony_sgamut_vs_sgamut3.html

There's very little you have to do these days to get great footage out of the Blackmagic cameras, the pocket in particular. This is what's helped me: 1. If you're alright with Prores for most things, buy big capacity Sandisk Extreme Plus cards, like 128 or 256 GB. If you want RAW, just bite the bullet and buy 2 128GB Extreme Plus cards. That's plenty for most applications, and allows you to offload one card while the other's in the camera. 2. Buy an external battery solution, not a bunch of spares. I like the one Mattias Burling uses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkwJFgyrF6k 3. Use an external recorder or something that can send a strong line-level output into the camera, like an H1 or H4N. 4. Unless you have a specific project that requires more style, just use the color correction tools in Premiere. Drewnetwork has a great tutorial on how to crank out Prores clips in seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fufG4BHhx7Q Hope that helps!

[ No more drama please. ]

If he's working on corporate videos that are fully lit, my recommendation would be the Blackmagic Ursa 4.6K. It's incredibly well built, has all the amenities for a 3-man crew, and even lets you upgrade the sensor down the line without eating a loss on the body itself when/if he wants to upgrade. The files are large, but he'll have the option of 4K and 2K ProRes, which should flow like butter through even a more modest computer. It'll give him great dynamic range (which means more flexibility in his lighting), 4K deliverables for clients who request them, and a rugged, professional body that no client will dismiss (happens more often than you'd think, especially at the corporate level). If he wants to save a little money, he could also go with the 4K Ursa, which has less dynamic range but a great image nonetheless. If he's lighting all his work, the reduced DR in the shadows shouldn't be a killer, and he can always upgrade to the 4.6K head for $2K if he feels limited. After that, I'd put my money into some PL glass (or get the EF Ursa if he's happy with his current lineup) and some nice LEDs. He'll also want to pick up a new tripod, since the URSA weighs about 16 lbs. The key here is to pin him down on one question: Where does he feel his current gear holds him back creatively? Not enough DR? Compressed color space? Working style? Lack of lighting flexibility? Clumsiness with non-cinema lenses? Computer choking on VFX sequences? Once he does some soul-searching and figures out where he'll appreciate that money the most, his path will unfold pretty clearly. Cheers!

​I'll give you that, although the 4K mode entails a heavy crop and still needs a transcode. Unlike Andrew, I'm actually a big fan of the NX1/NX500 1080p image. Virtually no rolling shutter and very competitive with the other 1080p cams.

Does someone want to post some pictures of what they're getting so we can get a better idea of what we're talking about here?

​Because it costs twice as much and requires a lengthy transcode to use the footage?

Rereading the review, I have a quick question: In the comparison shots between the A6000 and EOS M III, they both render the building completely different colors. Since you were there, can you tell us what color it actually was?

I completely disagree that the D5300 has a rubbish image. I've seen some amazingly filmic stuff shot on the crop sensor Nikons, and very much appreciate their strong color science, great low light capability, sharp 1080p, and surprisingly good dynamic range/highlight roll off. I would never own one, but that's because I can't put my FD or Minolta glass on it, not because of its video quality. Very encouraged the EOS M III's improved performance. It's not up to GH2 level--not by a long shot--but it's decent, and features that Canon color science everyone raves about (and I just like for certain projects). My enjoyment of the original hinged mostly on it being a great pocket cam with the 22mm f/2 (an exquisitely good pancake lens) and that it's a Canon sensor I could finally use my glass on. Once we see what can be done with this puppy on proper projects, I'd definitely consider picking one up...or an LX100. :D Cheers!

You're right and you're wrong. Sub field motion and 600hz are marketing, but plasma's motion rendering advantage over LCD is a well-known fact. Thus had to do with the fundamental differences in the ways the two technologies create images. http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/

LCD or plasma? A plasma will show much smoother motion with its sub field motion than any computer monitor, which may be what you're seeing.

What TV do you have? And are any motion enhancement or motion smoothing features enabled? Any speculation without that information is pointless.

​Which Kodak (and other) LUTs are you using?

​I don't find ISO performance very important at all for independent filmmaking. Any film, independent or no, should be using lights to create mood and craft the story, and lit scenes rarely need clean results any higher than 1600, or a clean 800 pushed a stop in post. Almost any camera can do that much. Documentary and event work, on the other hand...

Internal 4K is at the bottom of my A7S II wish list, under IBIS, SLog 3, SGamut3.cine, 10-bit HDMI out, professional Look Profiles (like Rec709 type A) as picture profile options, smoother AF, the elimination of lossy RAW compression for stills, and less rolling shutter.

​I agree that at the end of the day, the image is the most important thing, but arguing that ergonomics and shooting logistics don't matter is completely asinine.

​Don't forget to keep some red in there. You need at least a little pure red to keep skin looking natural, not plasticky.

​Looks a little chalky/pink to me.

​Besides 12 bit RAW and 10-bit prores with 13 stops of dynamic range, better rolling shutter, and WAY nicer color?

They look good to me! My only gripe is that his shirt is going supernova around the Simpson logo.

​Yeah! F*** YOU, ALEXA!!!

​Sadly, every plasma factory has now closed. They could never make the pixels small enough to support 4K in reasonable sizes anyway.