kidzrevil

Nice! How is the stabilization on that lens for handheld work?

Looks like the smartest move is to send it to Canon before you think of selling it.

Damn are all these camera manufacturers rushing shit out the door before they test it ?!

I really appreciate the support dude ! You are right the XC10 has produced some of my best that's why I am still wrestling with it. Hey if anything I will just move up to the XC15 and pay the ransom for it. SMH it seems Canon fixes their issues with hardware updates instead of firmware updates @mercer

not sure yet but I am going to make that decision tonight. Running some tests to see if I can isolate the problem. If I do sell it this week I am going to get another nx1 but with the 16-50 or I will try the Fuji XT2. I can now say with confidence the NX1 is one of the better cameras I have used and I can only imagine how it would look with a lens built SPECIFICALLY for it + the hack.

I just seen the link about stabilization. So is every camera manufacturer kicking their camera out the door with bugs? LOL damn! @Kisaha

@Kisaha no more NX1. I really needed the IS of the Canon but that didn't pan out like I thought it would. I am on ebay on the hunt for an NX1 with the 16-50. Even with the new cameras out I have yet to come across such a complete package. How do you like the nx1 stabilization with the16-50?

You think this grip would work on it?

Yeah the only options on the table for me is the upcoming olympus,the nx1 ONLY with the 16-50 & an a7sii. Im only looking at these cameras because in body stabilization is critical to my work being that i am a handheld shooter. Really wish fuji had ibis

Is the camera worth sticking around to figure that out is the question. I now see the significance of the release of the xc15. It fixes the issues of the xc10

I am giving the xc10 another shot today. Amazing camera but the in camera NR or whatever's going on Is causing after imaging from up to 3 frames prior. Idk whats going on but im at a total of 3 underwhelming shoots using this camera. The NX1 hasn't let me down yet & I am considering getting one with the 16-50mm S or a GH4 with OIS. Definitely no longer taking Mr.Reid's word for what makes a good camera. MP4 works the same as MXF from what i see @mercer

same. I shot this at 1000 iso and voila. Ghosting. Its not as noticeable shooting at 1/40 shutter speed because of the motion blur. I may even goo a little lower than that just to hide it. I rather have rollling shutter than this ridiculous afterimaging when panning with a camera designed to be hand held

I say go with an ultra con 3 & a BPM 1/8-1/4. Those work really well for me without deteriorating the image @Tim Sewell

I think they may have known about the issue and fixed it with an "update" kinda like the sneaky shit Sony did with the a6500. The most i'll do is wait a month or so and see what happens. So far I've been working on ways to avoid scenarios that exaggerate the ghosting/noise reduction issue. I like the results thus far

Im not waiting on Canon their tech support seems very dismissive of the problem.They would like me to send my unit in but my gut is telling me the only real solution is to just upgrade to the xc15 and avoid the drama. I see our tests are catching on with other filmmakers so its only a matter of time before they have to address it. I love the handling of the camera so if I must then I am going to upgrade it to an xc15. The other option is to wait a month or so in hopes that people start bombarding the web with these high iso tests

Looks like someone is paying attention to our high iso / ghosting problem

@hyalinejim are you going to start exposing +1 stop over ? It looks so clean !

oh I thought you were insinuating that doing it in post will give you the same characteristics. I do agree that you can add some digital optical characteristics, my favorite to add is vignetting and it works really well in post...diffusion however is an entirely different beast ! I wish I had fcpx so I can try out your plugin, unfortunately im a PC user lol Also my initial point is in fact that when you do things before post production using filtration you do NOT degrade the image. The less you have to do in post the better. Yes you degrade in post production but the point isn't to degrade to the point where its noticeable. The more effects you add it becomes very noticeable like when people think they can underexpose an 8 bit log image and complain about the camera. Not saying you do this but I see this happen entirely too often. :-) looks REALLY good ! is it too heavy on the lens ?

If its just the depth of field you are after the closer you get the subject to the minimum close focusing distance of your lens + the distance of the background will create the "full frame aesthetic" most people are trying to achieve imo the REAL full frame aesthetic comes from the rendering of the lens from the center to the corner of lenses. Crop cameras obviously crop out the corners of the lens and you lose resolution BUT if you get an aps-c lens on an aps-c camera You are getting the FULL RENDERING of the lens from corner to corner.

@Lintelfilm??? there is nothing you can do in post to match what can be done optically. The transmission of physical light has infinite variables that just cant be simulated digitally. If your fcpx plugin is giving you an image that fits your personal taste thats fine but it can never touch the benefits of getting the image you want naturally through physical components i.e. lens & filter combination versus doing it through digital manipulation. If that was the case we can create plugins that can make a cheap Nikon E series lens look like Zeiss Otus glass in post

Just went through a stack of these filters testing em out on the xc10 All I gotta say is heavy diffusion plus the EOS Standard profile is a God send! Im blown away Experimenting with it on my shoot tommorrow....I can't wait to share the results aint no way im sleeping tonight ? That vid @BenEricson posted was shot with EOS standard and that inspired my test

*contacts Tiffen right away and prays for job* lmao

im going to say this without sounding like a purist typical forum dwelling asshole IF YOU CAN DO IT IN CAMERA THEN DO IT IN CAMERA!!!! :-D Light has literally an infinite amount of variables before it hits the lens,passes through the filter, the sensor then the 14bit raw conversion. When you do it in post your doing a computer generated idea of what diffused lighting looks like after a 10 or 8 bit conversion. Get a filter and test it out and you will see it looks infinitely better than what you can get in post

@hyalinejim "deMISTifies" lmao I got a tiffen black satin 1 & 3. They are pretty good to me...real subtle and gives a natural look. Some people don't like the texture it adds to bokeh but to me it looks good with the deep depth of field from the super 16mm sensor. The black pro mist 1/4 is definitely a good look on the xc10 but I am going to order a 1/8th to experiment. Going forward I am going to only use diffusion with C-LOG because it handles gradation and hold highlights better. Using these mist filters with the other profiles sometimes ends in disaster because of the color fringing around the highlights.

Thanks ! I love how this camera responds to diffusion ESPECIALLY in Canon LOG. Gonna go back to shooting in C-LOG because apparently it has no color fringing in the highlights like the other profiles. I think the camera is applying a negative gain to the other profiles which is causing the fringing....who knows just a hunch. I have a shoot today I will be using Canon LOG with a new diffusion filter I picked up so fingers crossed :-) @BenEricson