M Carter

Not scientific, but will give you a good idea of what gels a light may need - you need a camera that shoots raw stills. Shoot a gray card under the light - optimally a grayscale, if not, a professional black/grey/white card. Stick a human in there with it if you like. Open the raw file in photoshop/etc - eyedropper the gray and look at the RGB readout; r, g and b will optimally be the same number. (IE, R144 G144 B144). In reality, within 3-5 digits or so. If they're off, play with the color temp (orange/blue) and tint (magenta/green silders) and see if you can get the numbers close. When you get them close with the sliders - within a couple points - look at how far you've pushed things. If you've moved the tint into magenta territory, re shoot with, say, 1/8 minus green and try again. You want to find a gel combo that gets the grays neutral as possible. At every step, check the whites and the blacks as well. Shooting raw is best here, because you won't have the light's real color messed with by camera profiles.

Man. To me, this was the most Kubrick film since Kubrick. Not as far as lighting or shot design, but a film where subtext and symbolism seemed far more important than the story - almost at if the story was an afterthought, a face to stick over a very different skeleton. I spent most of the movie marveling that europeans were able to eventually conquer north America, and found the juxtaposition of nature vs. human nature to be the real story; from nature itself and its power (storms, rivers, bears), to the native people who seem one step removed from nature and can be as viscous as nature, to the trappers who are almost proto-humans by today's standards, up to the guy at the fort trying to enforce notions of honor and law when surrounded by people reduced to a near-animal status. And how this played out against human desires - the trapper and the chief both on journeys based on the breaking of familial bonds (recall a bear and her cubs put the story in motion), how tenuous the more evolved ideas of morality and character become in the face of greed, vengeance, and self-preservation, the size of the stakes (from starvation to freezing to a pretty awful death at the hands of the natives) and how different people respond to those fears. I don't go into movies seeking this stuff (I usually just wanna see shit get blowed up, and some boobies) but was very surprised that those thoughts kept me more rapt than the plot. Not trying to sound all intellectual and I don't have the vocabulary to express some of this - but in novels and films "tone" and language, rhythm, symbolism - they hold my attention much more than plot does. For me, one of the absolutely best films I've seen in years. (But as you can tell, I'm weird).

There's always a downside - lighting is a compromise. In this case it's lumens. A YN300 has less output than ONE 55w biax lamp. Not one fixture, but one tube (biax tube 2900 lumens, YN300 2280 lumens, according to their site). You'd need three of them to surpass one dual biax fixture. I know people really love the idea of LED panels, but... I really like having a lot of light available. We're just now seeing panels with a really useful output, and they're in the $1k range. I can get a 575 HMI for that if I shop around. "But you can't run that on a battery". True, but in the last 5 years of shooting, I've never shot an interview or a project where I needed battery lights - there's always been power within reach, and when I've needed light outdoors, 2000 lumens wouldn't even register on the sensor. If I were doing news or something, maybe - there are careers where LED panels can make your day easier, I'm sure... but I get at least a few minutes setup time in my kind of gigs. If you generally shoot within an extension cord's reach, you can get a lot more light for reasonable money. I'm not an LED hater, but it seems like every kid who buys a DSLR starts shopping for LEDs when they really could do better. (Not saying the OP or contributors are "kids", but LEDs have become a newbie lust item it seems - think it through before buying!)

I just sort of cringe at the idea that every single shot I take would go through a polarizer… to each their own I suppose, but "variable ND" isn't really ND at all.

The daylight vs. tungsten suggestions… they're really two different animals and eventually you need both. I've yet to see an affordable LED panel that will outdo a quad biax fixture. You can get a quad for under 300 bucks these days, sometimes close to $200. As far as delivering the photons, very similar to led, in that you need some diffusion. If I were flat broke and starting out? $500: Quad and dual biax; $60: A used tungsten fresnel, 6", that can be lamped in the 650-1k range - eBay is full of them; $30 A dimmer (or "router speed control") $25 An open-faced tungsten, preferably a rectangular theatrical unit with barn doors that can take 100-1k pencil-shape globes; $20 - $300: Some sort of frame & diffusion system, from a pop-up diffuser with the zipper sleeves to a scrim jim setup or one of the myriad systems out there; $70 A 3" 300 watt fresnel if I could find a deal; $20 A popup reflector or reflector panel. And, of course, stands. That would give you the ability to do tungsten and daylight; you'd have trouble doing low-key work that requires a softbox and grid, but you could overcome that to some extent with duvatyne and more stands. (Gel the 6" fresnel with 1/2 CTB for daylight shoots and use it for hair or backgrounds without killing all its kick). You wouldn't be able to hold window views when shooting interiors, but that's getting to HMI levels. I've rented tota lights but they're stupidly overpriced and the barn doors are like someone's joke on the buyer. There's all sorts of open-faced tungsten out there used, from rectangle theatricals (I have about 6 of those, they're insanely handy) to smith-victor cans to redheads. If you can find a good deal on a used Photoflex Starlite with a softbox, that gives you 500 or 1k tungsten in a softbox (and you can stick a 400 HID mogul in them with a ballast - that's actually become my main interview light when I don't need bigger HMI stuff). Yeah, LEDs are the latest-greatest thing, but if you want one that can give you more lumens than a 400-watt open faced fresnel, you need to spend some bucks. (And 400 watts through diffusion doesn't give you much leeway for many situations). I do plenty of work with a kit similar to the above list (though the 400 HID stuff goes out more often, there's usually a quad biax in the case as well, it's very fast to set up if I'm in fairly close and spill isn't an issue).

Feedback with closed-back cans in a non-amplified environment? I have no feedback issues in my studio space with monitors blaring and big-capsule cardioids. It's a non-issue on set. WTF?? "blow your hearing"?? My experiences day to day with bluetooth is that it can be a real "ghost in the machine" technology. Stuff lags, disconnects, one device decides it just doesn't like the other anymore… I'd guess acceptance of it is more of a "why add more complexity?" issue. But for indie, small-gig corporate - people do some weird things that happen to work perfectly for them. I was once derided on a forum for mentioning my "400 watt mogul HIDs with an aquarium ballast in a Starlite softbox". But damned if it's not my most-used interview light… 1200 watt tungsten equivalent with no-gel daylight in a really nice box with grid that pulls 3 amps? It works and looks like pro gear (no duct tape or PVC pipe involved), so laugh your heads off! If I were having cable issues, I'd likely give it a try, but I'm usually the interviewer and I ditch the cans once levels and placement are set. And boom ops are usually physically connected to the recorder. Maybe for dialogue scenes it would be handy for a director or DP/director. The only way I know of to remotely trigger video on an NX1 is with a phone app, so Bluetooth may be something we'll all get used to in the sub-Alexa/Red market.

I've been shooting UHD since it's the exact ratio of 1080, which I tend to deliver in. I still use FCP 7 for editing (I know, but I need a week or so to get 2nd nature with something else and the time never appears…) I transfer the H265 to UHD prores, and I also do a batch at 1080 prores. I synch both sizes and my audio on a 1080 timeline, do my rough edit with the 4k turned off, and then go to the 4k layer and reframe as needed - but I do a lot of one-man-band corporate stuff, and reframing interviews is really a great tool for me, particularly going to a much more tele look for key phrases or to hide cuts. I do basic CC with the three-way in FCP, and take clips to AE for any specialty work. Good system and very quick, and I'm cutting in real-time, no rendering. My decision is based on the aspect ratio, but I'm not losing much by going this way. Any hard numbers or tests on rolling shutter though? I could see using DCI for scenes with a lot of motion or for keying/motion graphics projects.

Well, you could buy four 5300's or one MKIII. On the web, there are hundreds (or likely thousands) of posts, reviews, tests, and so on for these cameras. The major differences are, of course, price and sensor size. Sensor size has a really big impact on your footage and in many cases it's big, big differentiator as far as the look you want to achieve. Then there are dozens of smaller differences, from color rendering to menus to size to… etc etc etc. I don't think anyone can answer this with zero info about what you want to do (other than the fanboys for either body). For the $$, the 5300 can give a really beautiful look. If you want raw, that's another thing entirely and you should be considering raw cameras. In many ways you're comparing apples to elephants here. If you have the money for a $2400 body, I'd start thinking about what features you really need, what sort of look you want, and which cameras deliver it. If your budget is $600, you might be hard-pressed to find a better body (new at least) than the 5300. You'll be limited to Nikon mount glass though, which isn't a giant limitation - only about 5 decades worth of glass out there. But it doesn't seem like you've thought this through or done much research. If you're an absolute beginner (and we all were once), get the cheap one and see if you actually have talent in this area first. If you've got money to burn… I dunno, get an Ursa Mini.

the 7100 (to me) is a quantum leap from the 7000 for stills - I'd definitely spend an extra $150. Losing the OLPF was a major jump for Nikon.

I can't tell you exact technical diffs, other than the 5300 gives you 1080p@60 (the 7100 only 720p), so if you need a 60p level of slow motion, that's a big factor. People that have seen shadow banding claim the 5300 is cleaner, too. "Detailed" is one of those words like "tasty" or "sexy" I suppose - there are likely plenty of sites with pixel-peeping tests I imagine. Good glass and the ability to focus and light a shot, and I've had very crisp video (the lack of the low pass filter made a diff for video, I thought it was a big jump from the D7000). I mostly shoot in controlled situations with DSLRs, kept backgrounds a little soft, etc. I never worked on an edit and thought "where's all the detail"? Beautiful sensor up to 1600iso or so. I've even pulled some respectable keys with it - best keying DSLR I've used in fact, up til now, stray hairs held up very well. Shooting with the NX1 gives a new meaning to "detailed" - it's an amazing sensor, and shooting it with a 200mm 2.8 Nikkor wide open, I can count eyelashes while having a luscious soft BG - it's really phenomenal, even downscaled to 1080. That said, there's something about the D7100/5300 color that's very appealing to me - there's a coolness to the blacks with a warmth to the mids and highs that just gives a cool, 3D sense of depth. It's subtle but really lovely. They're usually rentable online (lens rentals, etc) but for a $500 cam, that may be overkill, $70-ish for renting and postage.

You've listed three very different sensors and seems a big area of your choice is your editing setup. But you want to make films, not be simply an editor. I'm editing NX1 and Prores and have done raw on a 2009 Mac Pro (with transcoding steps, but I usually have plenty to do in the studio when that stuff runs). You can cut anything on any reasonable system; some systems mean you have to run your footage through something first. When I have to hand footage off immediately to another editor, I choose a camera for that situation. But that's rare for me. Get the camera that will produce the images you see in your head. For me, APS-C is right on the money, I tend to like more tele looks and it's close to super-35 which is a visual language I can connect to. I feel the full frame look is overdone and an overblown, a too-much version of "cinematic", and the super-16 sensor seems like a nightmare to me. YMMV. Every camera has pros and cons (the BMPCC has a great image but I couldn't imagine it without the $500 speedbooster, and it needs some rigging to make sense, the batteries suck). And so on. 4K has been really huge for me as I do a lot of one-man corporate shoots and I can punch in on 1080 edits as needed and still have amazing quality, and plenty of prettiness or "character" with a range of glass (just a kickass flange setup for APS-C, you can put about anything on it with glassless adapters). I also do motion graphics and do overlaid graphics with footage and green screen work - 4k is just a new era of sheer joy for that stuff. The NX1 has been great for allowing me to jump from interviews (old Nikkors) to operations/establishing shots (the cheap little kit lens, wide open, OIS and peaking and AF and I've gotten great handheld and steadicam-style walking shots with shoulder mounts, fig-style rig, or just the camera). Slowmo options for manufacturing, beauty, music vids, effect plates… it's as perfect a setup for my specific needs as anything out there, regardless of price. But that's me. Considering the NX1 camera with "no future" is silly - for my situation anyway. If it lasts 2 years, something better will come along by then. But I shot 3 years with a D7100 and I'm coming on 4 for my big Panasonic cam, which goes out for events several times a month and has been in helicopters and boats and in deserts and storms. But I don't have a huge reliance on AF or OIS, and there are thousands of NX lenses out there that will work natively when I do - if my NX glass dies, I expect I can find more and I expect it will be affordable. It's a sensor in a box with a lens mount that cost under a grand. If it lasts a year I'll have paid for it again and again. In the past I just dedicated another camera to the steadicam, I can always do that again. (Not trying to push the NX1, but it is the most modern and in some ways most capable of your list. If all I did were resorts and golf courses or boats or seaside real estate for millionaires, I'd go 5D RAW or the BM cinema cam and shoot raw.) (And why isn't the Cinema Cam on your list? Seems a much better camera in every way then the pocket and you can get one used pretty affordably). One thing though - I'd be leery of doing much doc work unless it's controlled. I have a big "video" camera with a big zoom range and XLRs and NDs and a great EVF for that stuff - if it's a situation where you can miss a key shot that's gone forever - I've watched too many DSLR guys sweating bullets while I got every. Single. Second. Not always as pretty as a DSLR, but that's a moot point if you miss half the shots.

According to Visconte (producer) he knew his days were numbered when he wrote and recorded BlackStar. When you see the "Lazarus" video, it seems apparent that he wanted to tell us all goodbye. I love that it's serious and spooky and also kind of goofy. He went out in as Bowie a way as possible. All the superlatives this week seem lame, weak, and overused. He was a massive talent, never sold out, conquered glam, pop radio, and avant garde, never coasted on some classic-rock status, and almost all of his output was at the very least interesting, with spikes of unforgettable perfection. Any one phase of his career would have made any artist proud to have accomplished, and he did it again and again. One of the most remarkable careers in 20th century art. For years this has been a favorite clip to share with people - Bowie at 25 and already writing songs that are insanely memorable and original. But look at that smile - this is like a cocktail of joy. So glad we have things like this to look back on:

Why not archive everything? Adding the original card to a project archive will be among the smaller files compared to ProRes, effects pre-renders, etc. Seems silly to toss anything. Unless you guys are archiving on CD-ROMs or something. I just use a drive dock, get the plastic drive boxes, and use 500GB or 1TB raw drives. Every couple months it costs me $50 or so. Eventually I'll put a server in the garage in a refrigerator or something (they tend to survive fires and minor floods/water leaks, I'm not in a flood/earthquake/hurricane area) and cat-5 it into the system for a 2nd set of archives. But I have a closet with (as of now) 16 raw drives in plastic boxes and do occasionally have to pull a file from one. I never agonize about what to toss, and usually have all the email threads about a gig, bids, contracts, releases, maps, footage, AE and edit files, renders, and a final ProRes 1080 that can be output to any new formats that come along. I keep a spreadsheet with the key folder names so I can find the right drive in a second.

Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. I felt Inniratu did a great job with subtext, stuff that doesn't show up in a script. Nature itself as a character, and the "reach" of nature, from the settings and power (rivers, storms, wind, animals) to the native "savages", to the barely-more-advanced trappers, up to the fort where one guy is trying to hold on to more evolved concepts of honor and compassion that are (ideally) the heart of a technologically based civilization. I was able to completely enjoy the movie as a visual commentary on humanity's rise from nature, with the sheer power of nature still having sway over technological advancements . Like some of you guys, my wife compared to to "gladiator", but to me Gladiator was a slick hollywood product; and I found this flick to be much more. I found the plot to be secondary to the experience, but… I kinda like Kubrick too. He also has a great way with action scenes, and a verisimilitude that action usually lacks - a more honest sense of the horror that, say, an indian battle would have been. I thought it was a great balance of a much, much larger story told with visuals that could weave back into dialogue or plot. Ain't never been to no college, but the film did work on me in a more between-the-lines way, and I found it one of the most effective things I've seen in ages at that level. (I'm always curious what the people who diss a movie like this consider a "good" film - I sat through like three Super-Hero-Marvel trailers and just thought "Who watches this lame-ass childish shit?? Six year olds??" But the world would be a dull place if we were all the same… and I thought "Batman Begins" was crap and "The Dark Knight" didn't deserve Heath Ledger, so what do I know anyway?)

I've shot dozens of corporate videos and some celeb interviews with the 7100 - over time I started to notice a lot of busy horizontal noise, but turned out to be the flat profile I was using. I switched to (I think) the portrait setting and tweaked it a bit and it's back to great video, though I bring a lighting package (usually 400 HMI softboxes for interviews) and tend to shoot around 400 - 800 iso. I rented a 5300 for a multicamera shoot and liked the image a lot and the color intercut fine with the D7100; I didn't like the lack of a wired remote (use these on cranes a lot, often the crane is used as sort of a floating tripod) so that, and the screw-drive for older AF lenses (to set initial focus from the back of the crane) were huge for me. But I also do a lot of stills gigs where the extra 7100 features are nice, esp. since I have several screw-drive lenses. The 7100 feels a little "old tech" video-wise, but the actual image is really a beauty, and it will be my main stills cam til it dies. Switched to the NX1 for video and really freaking pleased - though I need a newer phone to run the remote VF software which seems like the best crane solution. If I were trying to decide on a sub-$700 DSLR for stills and video, I'd have a tough time choosing between the 5300 and the 7100 (but I have enough monitoring gear that I don't need an articulating screen and before the NX1 with OLED and peaking I always used a loupe). But for someone shopping around the $1k mark, there are many more choices out there.

The main problems with on-camera diffusion are - you can't take it off or dial it down later, and you need several levels of diffusion if you want the same look from wide to tele. That, and just how many types are out there - pro mist, black pro mist, warm, gold, and all the other vendors and flavors. Just a set of 4x4 black promists in a reasonable range (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, full) could set you back over $400 new. I've been playing with Invisible Chainsaw's diffusion plugin for AE and I've gotten some cool looks testing it; it can be very subtle, and you can also mask it to keep things like eyes clear. They have a massive preset library and the presets are named "sorta like" the brands they're emulating (for legal reasons I assume, but it does make it easier to try things). It also has some interesting skin-tone tools I need to play with more. Takes some render time but to my eyes, looks much more real than all the plugin and layer recipes you'll find on google.

This is a killer price for a really capable DSLR for video and stills. Really pretty video, superb stills, takes 30 + years of Nikkor glass. I bought my D7100 as a refurb in Sept. of 2013 and it's going strong (Nikon refurbs come "as new", complete accessories and sealed package). It lacks 1080p @ 60FPS, and of course it's not 4K, but the image holds up very well in todays' world. A lot of camera for the money. Saw it on Adorama, probably at other vendors as well.

Regarding batteries - I've used the various Amazon aftermarket batteries for years on Nikons and big Panasonic broadcast-style cameras. Zero problems. Still, if the NX system is truly dead, don't be surprised if the aftermarket stops producing accessories. I'd consider grabbing some batteries (I don't feel comfy without 5 or so for any camera). I'd also suggest getting the genuine Samsung charger (that SHOULD HAVE SHIPPED WITH THE DAMN CAMERA), for 2 reasons - 1, the aftermarkets are direct-plug so tough to have on a desk; and 2, they're about as cheap as a charger can get. They're all the same base with snap-in plates, and my plate is already falling off when I take a battery out. (Ever have a multi-day gig out of town and go to sleep in your hotel with a dozen batteries on a dozen chargers??) I'd also think hard about what glass you may want someday, and possibly grab adapters while they're plentiful. Think you'll ever do a music video and want that crazy helios look? Get an M42. Who knows, maybe this stuff will be manufactured for years, but a $12 (or $30) adapter isn't going to get much cheaper, is it? And buy a spare for your favorite glass. (When I shot canon, I just bought adapters and rear caps for most of my Nikkors, really sped things up since the Canon adapters were a fiddly pain). It's gonna suck if you still love the NX1 three years from now and can't stick your glass on it...

So far, with the NX1 - the Gamma DR gives a nice shadow lift - it's still kind of a shock to see just how much the image changes when you pop out of video mode to set white balance and then go back in. I'm only a couple weeks in with it, and I've been keeping master ped at about +2; so far, the footage comes into the NLE a little flat in the shadows, and bumping up the blacks makes it all good and very pretty. This will generally be my camera for controlled light situations, where I'm used to adding some overall fill if I want some lift in the shadows. The bigger thing I see is in very contrasty situations - the color gets very saturated (though color balance stays good, other than cyans and blues really seem to pop). I try to dial the saturation down in those situations - I can de-sat in post, but I assume that not asking the codec to compress all that extra color may be a good thing. My gut feeling is that this sensor excels when you can rein things in a bit. As far as ETTR - I dunno. I did some tests and wasn't happy with the highest values in the skin. VS exposing to the right, I'd say light to the left: get some more fill going and push the left side of the histo towards the middle a bit, and make sure you're well shy of clipping facial highlights. So far, I've been happy getting skin where I want it and then bumping up maybe a 3rd of a stop. I'm much more comfy when the face looks proper but bright on my monitor. The other key to a really lovely look on this camera is glass. I don't own the S zooms, but my go-to glass for years has been these: Nikkor 28-70 2.8; Nikkor 85mm 1.8 (just a greek god of an interview lens, generally use at 2.8 to 5.6); Old push-pull 80-200 2.8 (LUSCIOUS at the long end!!! And you can get a beater for $350 or so); Series E 100mm 2.8. The NX sensor is loving these lenses. I have a wide Nikkor zoom but rarely use it for video. The Samsung 16-50 kit zoom is really a nice lens wide open - stop it down much and there is some freaky sharpness stuff going on.

My experience with master ped over the years is: it's not more light. It's not like upping your shadow fill ratios. But - with some compression schemes and some camera-tweaked looks/profiles… it can help to lift it a touch. It can be handy to bring two different camera a little closer look-wise on set. IN MODERATION... You just really, really have to run tests. If there's time on set, run a take and slate it with the new master ped setting so you can see it on a real-world clip. It's really the kind of thing that's too weird and specific to expect a useful forum answer. You have to see it on your gear with your style.

It's a really gorgeous image with and adapter and quality glass. Prices still back to intro-era in the US as of today. Body only now is $100 more than I paid for body with the (really kickass) little wide zoom a few weeks ago. Keeping an eye out... NX glass is now officially a little more risky, unless your purchase can pay for itself quickly and serve you for a few years. I shoot weekly with Nikkors I've owned since the 1980's/90's, so the NX lenses I'd like (the S zoom and the 85, maybe a 2.8 pancake for handheld or steadicam) are a tough sell after today's news. But funny, 6 months ago, I didn't even give AF a thought for motion work, and now I'm using the little kit lens wide-open for handheld and faux-steadicam work. Never imagined video AF could have a place in my workday, so… I'll keep my eye on lens prices.

I have a couple nice 70's "hippie straps" that came on old ebay film cameras. They go on my nice digital bodies when I'm shooting stills. All of my guitar straps are from Get'm Get'm, incredible brocade and embroidered straps. And they make camera straps! http://www.getmgetm.com/products?category_id=72

Maybe I'm unique, but my must-haves were pretty simple for an affordable DSLR. I would have spent up to $2-$3k for: APS-C/Super 35 sensor;At least 2k, pref. 4k (reframing for low-budget, 1 camera shoots and being able to pull great keys are huge for me);Ability to take a wide range of glass;Image with decent enough DR to be able to "light for the sensor" - I don't need 14 stops, I can light for 10.Audio meters, manual audio control, some sort of usable 1080 slowmo.I really wanted to love something from Black Magic, but those sensors meant Speedbooster, and the 2k cinema camera meant speedbooster and SDI monitoring. I really need at least 60p@ 1080, too. And freaking interchangeable batteries that last 45 minutes or so. The NX1 really hit the sweet spots for me, and then some. I don't take a loupe to shoots anymore for chrissakes. Technically, the image is superior to the Nikons I've been shooting for client work. Aesthetically - my D7100 is still "prettier" in some ways, and it's got nothing on BMC at their best. OK, find some tech guy to contact Samsung, license their tech, and create a reasonably priced cinema camera for pro, semi pro, corporate and enthusiast market. Give it Prores 422 to the card or an SSD, boost the DR and gives us some output options for raw or bit depth. There is a market - assuming it's Nikon or Canon's market is the big mistake forum posters here and otherwise make. I live in Dallas, which has a lot of well-employed people. Not just the rich, but those with expendable income. I'm really used to seeing the soccer-mom, the hipster dude, the dorky dad, the "I'm a big fan of live music" 20-something, all rocking nice cameras at shows or outdoor events. Look close and they have the mid-level zooms (not the 2.8 stuff but not the kit - fairly chunky F4 stuff in the $800 range). And the strap. For this market, the strap is of vital importance and equal to the physical size of the lens. It absolutely must say Nikon or Canon. I don't recall ever seeing a Sony or Panny strap on those shoulders. Can't tell you how many times I've chatted with such a camera owner - "Oh, I have that body" and you find they're shooting it 100% program/auto. They're getting the exact shots they'd get with a little mirrorless rig. But man, they look so legit! This, and semi-pros concerned with lens ecosystem is likely what did Samsung in. I've yet to take a single still with the NX1, but on my third paying gig with it. I'm a drop in the bucket market-wise though.

Did an interview today, basic settings most people discuss here. Nikkor 28-70 2.8 at 70-ish/2.8 (room was too tight for my fave people lens, the 85 1.8 - or to get much separation from the BG). Haven't started an edit yet, but amped the DR flatness back up in Photoshop here. Very nice camera to use for these sorts of gigs, and though i recorded audio with an external, the line-out fed into the Samsung sounds fine, so no synching needed. I do think an attenuating cable will be in my bag next, the Samsung's pre's are pretty hot. I really like Nikkors and such on this sensor - from wide open to F4/5.6 or so, they really sand off the hard edges nicely. Waiting for my FL adapter - I have some 1960's Canon glass to test… I may get a full set together if I like 'em. I do miss that Nikon sensor sort of "coolness" to the shadows… may play with that in post. Really had a lovely 3D-ish look sometimes.

Or they believe (or their research tells them) that DSLR-for-video is simply too small a market to invest much in. Since the D90 started all this (which seems to have been a case of an engineer saying, "hey, I think we can get the live-view feed to the card"), posters on every video-centric forum decry the stupidity of the two big DSLR makers. But maybe the truth is that investing in R&D and manufacturing that adds more features gives profitability too big a hit. Nikon, for one, must know by now the big-demand features we want. (And keep in mind some of the most-desired Canon features come from Magic Lantern, an open-source third party - not from Canon) (As far as I know, haven't owned a Canon since the D7000 came out). I have to assume that Samsung's failure (if that's indeed what's going on) has just reinforced that idea. Any Nikon engineer pleading to add video features has just been told "look what happened to Samsung". I assume there's a lot of product dev folks in Asia heaving a big sigh of relief about playing catch-up with Samsung. I'd love for someone at CES to see if they could get a clarification from Samsung though. An NX2 could be a lovely thing.