j_one

This is awesome work BTM, seriously nice job. It makes using the gx85 and lx100 more attractive to shoot with, being my choice for compact size cams with the bmpcc. Pocket-sized latitude for the grade! Can someone confirm if CineV settings also aren't working properly on lx100?

Oh yeah, if you're cool with hacks, the best option IQ wise, imo 5d mkiii RAW 10bit 60p Wedding example

My recommendations, as others have already stated: d750 - the body is dropping in price, keep an eye out for a deal. Full frame, super DR and color edge over a7s, but soft 1080p. nx1 - jack up the bitrate with the hack, invest in Luca's speed booster, and keep that ISO as low as possible...you have a excellent 120p performer. Best 120p full frame for the price (maybe the only). Great color and sharpness, lackluster DR and strange highlight/black levels when grading if you ever miss your mark on exposure. a7s - keep it in crop mode and speedboost. Best low light, great sharpness, DR and highlight roll off but, imo, terrible white balance and strange colors. Compression isn't the best either a5100 - super cheap, speed boost it and it's quite comparable to the a7s, a tad bit softer, a bit less dr and a bit more macroblocking/artifacts but for the price... And hear me out Bmmcc - if you can live with near apsc crop instead of full frame, bmmcc speedboosted would probably yield the most beautiful results. But that's subjective, as I value color information a bit more than compressed 60p. buy an rx100 iv as b cam for superior slow mo of any of the cams. Excellent sensor readout and result for a compressed image. 1 inch sensor though.

To be honest, my sights are currently on the XT-2 and fuji ecosystem, so I'm curious to know the same as OP

Wondering what that third one is. Seems soft and even, like I'd use for film projects. Is that second one the panny?

60p would go to the A7S mk1 cropped, then nikon d3300/d5500/d750 and 5D RAW ...I'll throw in that 120p would go to fs700 4k and rx100 iv/rx10 ii I'm sure I'd love the BMMCC 60p more than anything for the price, but I haven't tried the camera yet.

I'd recommend the a5100 or g7x if you want to keep it cheap. Selfie articulating screen and good 1080p. A bit of aliasing out of the a5100 but you have fast AF and choice of lenses.

I used to think noise reduction was the key and holy grail to professional standard delivery when I first started handling footage in post. It helps sometimes, but now I'm so used to making sure I'm exposing with base ISO and adequate light to avoid the need altogether. I can't stand the plastic look that sometimes comes from it, and it really bogs down post-time for all the system resources it eats up. I hate 'color noise' or the digital blotches that come from compressed video. Guess that's why I hate seeing rainbow moire but can live with simple aliasing. Desaturating shadows helps. And as you said, a little noise never hurt anyone.

Do you take many stills on a professional level? Do you not mind the h.265 codec, along with it's macroblocking artifacts and slightly limited ability to push in grade? Then the NX1 will perform will excellence. It has better rec709 colors popping right out the cam moreso than the G7. 'S' lenses are great to use. S35 sensor off the bat. Currently it's resolution is king. Use some kind of filter that can diffuse the image and cut down on the in-camera sharpening. OTHERWISE I'd say get the G7 and speedbooster. Options for lenses are overwhelming, considering the m43 native mount alongside all the speedbooster mounts. Codec holds up well when pushing the grade if you expose right and get white balance spot on! Getting rid of this 'plastic' yellow/green cast and skintone look I keep hearing about can be dealt with in seconds. Also mostly avoidable with proper white balance. But it's hard to save h.265 footage with strange milky blacks and limited color info coming from the NX1. TBH same goes for most cameras talked about on this forum even Sony. But again, as mentioned earlier, which one is a breeze to shoot with and get you the results you need? This is subjective. I'd say both cams are excellent in handle and usability. But in post, I'd feel more comfortable working with the h.264 panny files.

I do believe this is the only current workaround. Use presets for scenes where you know the camera's field of view will change, in an environment with mixed light, so that the NX1 won't guess green or magenta tint. Can someone confirm?

Solid review Andrew, thanks. I'll personally use this camera for creative shooting that requires wide-angle gimbal shots of short length (music videos, fashion films, etc)

Thanks for that perspective. I can relate in experience. I wanted to like the camera with all my heart, and shooting on it was a joy, but any time it came to grading footage I just could never stand how black levels specifically responded to any kind of push in luma. I'm willing to go through a larger workflow to handle larger bit rate files if it means a cleaner, more flexible image if it's coming from the nx1. The codec is the only thing holding it back (like a lot of prosumer cameras).

It isn't a MUST if you are experienced with shooting with gimbals, electronic or not (though know the difference!). It helps to have IS in most cases, but I've even found myself turning off lens/sensor IS for certain steadicam motions due to jitters or complete jumps in motion. Something to consider. A well balanced camera+lens with moderate weight within the steadicam system (and a tiny bit of digital stabilization if needed for some troublesome clips) can go a long way, so don't be afraid of lenses without IS if you're finding yourself in a corner with options!

I don't believe it can replace. I do believe many will settle with the format as sensor technology advances, though, for the sake of convenience. And we all know that. The same way some professionals put down REDs to shoot on these smaller mirrorless 4k cams. I know some who mount their iphone 6+ on pistol grip gimbals, and in the hands of someone who can deal with the sensor/lens/codec shortcomings, it and look and feel like great portable super16 shooting (not exactly, but you catch my drift). And it cuts very well with other cams for professional work. Just saying. Not a replacement yet (by any means), but as the technology becomes more versatile, people will probably settle with what they're already paying for monthly to talk on. Who knows what's yet to come though. I never thought I'd see specs like the nx1 or a6300 here already in their form factor. But they're here, yes?

Can I recommend you try editing in Edius if you experience major banding issues? Their pseudo 10-bit conversion actually helps smooth gradients in all my 8 bit footage, especially from my LX100.

Just popping in to say thanks and cheers to all the time and effort you all are putting towards these two cameras. Kudos to you all and whatever you guys come up with and decide to share.

In relation to motion cadence, I've found that it's pretty pointless to shoot any scenes that pan or track in any kind of way at 24p @ 1/50 if there are noticeable artifacts like RS. What I've been experimenting with lately is exposing using my shutter @ 30p. Keeping the base or lowest ISO and adding light where desired or needed. Then, regrettably 'in post', I apply digital motion blur to my liking or taste. But the final image is better to my eye than if shot 24p @ 1/50. As long as there's not a huge disadvantage in how your camera renders 30p vs 24p (moire or even worse RS from higher fps read at equivalent compression as 24p), you should see a much clearer image IMO. Not as good as less RS from faster sensor readout, and it's not global shutter, but it's my own budget method of combating it in consumer video cameras. Why would you go and shoot with a slightly blurry shutter like 180 or 1/50th when the digital artifacts are already doing it too? This is especially true for those who shoot 4k on consumer cams with only 4k 30p, and can use twixtor to control a bit of time remapping as well with fluid motion if desired. Again, more post work though. Not real alternatives.

That's good to hear. I was always compelled to invest in a chart but thought they were suited for material with room with push color around, like raw stills and professional video codecs. However most of the cameras I use record 8-bit h.264. I was afraid of artifacts, banding, breaking footage etc, even if I get my white balance near perfect. So with using the chart with a7sii footage (internal codec), you see no real downside? The tonality of colors usually holds up?

If you want something cheap, as I've said before on this forum, I'd recommend a sony a5100/a6000 with a speedbooster and a fast nikon lens (modern or legacy). But, that's to assume you wouldn't mind adapting or manual focusing. If you only have time for native mount then I'd agree with everyone elses recommendation on the nikons (d3300/d5300).

RAW footage isn't exactly as flexible to work with when considering most types of film/video work, versus, say, recording 10-bit prores. It's also costly in terms of media storage, depending on the type of work you are doing. I love "budget raw" (BMCC/BMPCC, 5d3 raw) but it isn't always the best choice. That's all.

Is Panasonic taking funny jabs at Sony's naming of model series? Better be careful, they don't wanna lose their indie market to Samsung of all people. Samsung. Samsung and their ongoing updates. Really Panasonic?

So, I've owned 2 of the 4 cameras you've mentioned: a5100 (basically the a6000) and the bmpcc. I've sold both a little while ago, and just bought an NX1 body for $920 yesterday. Here's my take. You still haven't given us much info on what your shooting style is, what kind of film/video work you'll be doing a majority of the time, and how much time is allocated or can be tolerated for post-production workflow. Because as you know, all these cameras (probably except for the Gh4 if you shoot portrait, or the a6000 if you keep your grade simple) have some kind of workflow shortcoming or nuisance. The BMPCC records RAW. Nuff said there. The NX1 needs h.265 > editable codec transcoding, unless you run it into a 4k recorder (which is $$$). The GH4 can be dodgy and trickier to grade if you're shooting CineD or V, though it's marginally better than grading Sony S-gamut1 color on the a7s/a7rii even with log conversion LUTs. Though, it seems Andrew's new GH4 LOG conversion system might help you get decent color faster and more consistently if you like his methods. Finally, the a6000 is fairly decent to grade, but it's like the NX1 where you're grading "flat-ish" rec709 colors instead of dedicated log. All of these cameras, considering their price point, needs to be cared for extensively in their setup during shooting in order to maximize results in post. There's no getting around that..unless you want a Canon rebel. So here's what I'll say. If you don't know what kind of shooting you'll be doing, go with the GH4 and pimp it out cinematic-wise in terms of settings (EOSHD guide + other user experience info) as well as gear (speedbooster, anamorphic if you're into that kinda thing). It's the most all around balance between all the cameras you listed, everything considered. The BMPCC gives you the most possibility in terms of looks at the cost of rigging cost and workflow time. I also didn't like how inconsistent RAW could be in terms of detail. The 1080p one minute was mind-blowing, and the next it was aliasing mush. What I'm guessing is that the NX1 is great with rec709 color but bad with possible compression artifacts and grade possibilities. That's fine, because I can work around both of those things. I think it actually has the same latitude as the GH4 if not a bit more, based on tests. Also, that sensor, in a well lit scene...you could mistake it for RED footage if the person didn't know. So that's why I'm giving it a try now. The recorded file sizes are small, making it great for archiving footage. It also makes the best photography camera out of the entire lot. That's a big plus if you don't care for the 5D RAW workflow. The a5100 I had...I know I can handle the NX1 rec709 colors just fine because I was doing it with SONY colors on this camera. It's a tiny little workhorse that really brings out the photographer mindset inside you because of how easy it is to handle. It feels like a toy. The a6000 isn't too far off. The XAVC-S codec holds up VERY well if you take care of your scene. Gradability is actually really good for what it's worth. A consumer camera. File sizes are small here, too. Just beware, this camera has aliasing/moire problems similar to the BMPCC. Take care of your scene. But again, all of these opinions of mine are based on the types of things that I shoot and the work that I do, which is a healthy mix of personal/short film work, music videos, fashion films, and corporate event work. BMPCC fails here for all of that. a5100/a6000 for video isn't as attractive for this work as the GH4/NX1. A7s is amazing but a headache for color if you're not experienced and don't want to fight with skintones with almost every scene. So, what do you shoot?

Because of this lens alone, I'd probably always have aps-c mode on for the a7s. But from what I understand, the image is softer from full frame mode, because crop mode readout is actually upscaled 2.7k...right? 2.7k-ish readout with insanely sharp sigma 18-35...is that defeating the purpose or no?

I've posted a thread about this topic some time ago. Everything about the a7s is amazing to me except it's color rendition and how efficiently it deals with white balance. I keep telling myself it's user error/experience, but the more videos I watch, I'm let to assume otherwise, and it's just made up for with decent grades to the footage to counteract any of the usual color quirks from the camera. Take a look at these tests of the a7s against the NX1 done by Andrew, which has been claimed to have excellent colors right out of the camera: 1) https://vimeo.com/115669917 2) https://vimeo.com/115647045 Of course, it depends on the look you're going for in your footage, but in terms of ONLY color accuracy, the NX1 is miles ahead. Of course, the a7s is flatter and has better highlight rolloff. But it seems to have an ugly yellow/magenta bias that pollutes other colors. This is why it's quite difficult to get accurate skintones out of the camera, slog or cine profiles. As someone once described before, the a7s looks like film stock. I'd agree. The sensor produces a beautiful image that the filmmaking community seems to love. But personally speaking, I might not always want the film stock look. I'd rather start with an accurate "close-to-real-life" representation of colors right out of camera, not an image that looks strange and works well with LUTs, but is difficult to get back to a natural look if needed. So, like a cinematographer is supposed to do, its time to do extensive camera tests in various conditions and locations. The following is a link I'm sure you've come across already; it's a popular compilation of popular camera picture profile settings for the a7s. Test extensively, figure out what brings you closest to accurate/lush/natural colors, then compensate the rest with quick grades. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGxsgFMLk-oATs-05iN6fzb-uGkcgvLBIgJo_2GWvB8/edit?pli=1&hc_location=ufi#gid=0 Best of luck. I plan to buy back an a7s soon and do the same myself, hopefully. It really is a fantastic, special camera, and it's very possible to get accurate colors. It's just a question of consistency, considering how the auto white balance/set white balance tools and features are literally the worst I've used on any modern DSLR/mirrorless camera.

When I saw this camera get announced, and I saw the fixed zoom lens, first thing I thought was "...*sigh*. Sure, maybe Canon can pull that stunt but not you too!"