ReinisK

Still have my NX1, but for the most part of my work, the G85 has replaced it. Never matched the IQ though, but since I picked the G85 up, I cannot work without the IBIS. My NX1 though is pretty scarred. The rubber grip has lost some pieces, the screen almost gave up, but I fixed it, still cannot be tilted anymore without losing the picture. The rear, flat wheel stopped working and the top mode dial sometimes switches from video to C1. The card door has lost some rubber, and the sensor is very dirty 😄 Yesterday got my newest camera. The IQ of the NX1 (ok, probably better) and the IBIS of G85 (ok, a bit worse I think) - the Lumix S1. Huge and heavy compared to the NX1.

Awesome idea! Looking forward for the results.

This is awesome! A raw action camera is what I'd like to make.

I'm also a fan of the g80. Got it for 400eur, been using it for 2 years I think, previously had the Samsung NX1 and still sometimes use it. But most of the time it's sitting in the bag, because of how much more versatile the g80 is to me. I also don't think it can be beaten for the price. The ibis is just awesome, 4k is great, the crop doesn't bother me nearly close to what I thought it would. 1080p is usable (very similar to a6300), not great, but that's subjective probably because of the NX1 I have, which has amazing 1080p. I really like how the camera handles highlights, much better than the NX1. For 300 I would be tempted to grab another one 😄 Here's a music video I shot last year with the g80 and NX1. Everything is handheld with just the camera, no rigs, 1080p 50 fps g80 with 25mm f1.7, except for some 100fps shots of the NX1 and Canon FD 35 f2 and 50 f1.4.

When talking about Premiere Pro, don't expect much performance increase in any case. I replaced my old system a while ago, nothing too fancy, but approximately double the performance of the previous pc. Performance in Premiere Pro increased very little. Still, sux at h264 and h265 codecs. Some cameras are fine, others just can't playback properly. I've read guys going from 8 core to 16 core, just to discover, that Premiere's performance still is shit.

The images look great, but for me I feel the dealbreaker is going to be the ibis. If it's at least close to the g80, that would be nice, if it's closer to sony models, then probably I'll just get the GH5 as my next camera.

Yes, this question again. But I'm not looking for a better quality solution, I want a faster one. Maybe some new plugin has come out? Since I use the warp stabilizer quite much, I just envy the FCPX guys, who just tick a box and the effect is ready in a few seconds vs 10 or so seconds for approximately the same clip length on similar spec pc. Yes, the warp stabilizer can do more complicated stuff better, but 99% of where I use it, is just reducing minor small shakes, which is a simple job.

I've filmed from a moving boat, not a helicopter. I would think it's similar to a helicopter, but harder, depending on the waves. On a boat, a gimbal is a must. If you have a good gimbal, then ibis is not so important, but definitely welcome. GH5 has a better ibis, than the a7mk3, as far as I know, haven't done a direct comparison though. If I would have to do this, I would definitely get a good gimbal. If there really is a risk, that the gimbal might just stop working, then GH5 for sure because of the better ibis.

Apart from cost, weight and resolution goals and differences for each lens, what else could be the difference between lenses with bigger and smaller front element? Everyone's talking about the 3d look of full frame cameras vs crop cameras, but I haven't really found an explanation from a physics POV. So I came up with a guessing, that the full frame sensor gives more of a 3d look, because being bigger, it kind of sees more around things, than a smaller sensor. Like it can see more of subjects sides, because it is wider, and the plane is bigger to the subject. The difference should be bigger and more visible using shorter FLs. Basically, it would be the same thing as a soft light source (bigger plane) vs a hard light source (small plane) where the bigger planes very side sees more around the subject. So getting back to lenses' front elements - would it be possible, that the lenses with a bigger front element, also see more around the subject, therefore, could create a more 3d look? For someone, who is good at physics and knows optics it probably could be an easy question, I guess?

Depends on what you shoot of course. Does that camera make your work easier vs the camera you already have? Of course it's good to have internal nd, xlr, good AF etc, but do you need those things? I can say for myself, that I don't. For the majority of the work I do, I'm happy with using shutter speed to adjust exposure instead of ND, 3.5mm mic is fine, and I mostly shoot with manual lenses. Recently I have picked up a G80 with a manual speedbooster. It's a real joy to use because of it's size and IBIS. For now I would definitely not trade small size and IBIS for internal ND, xlr and good AF. I can't really see the c100 making my main work (edited TV stuff, interviews, small corporate videos, events) easier. But that's totally me, for you if could be different.

If I had the same problem I guess I would try to compare video recording to music recording. Like - there are a lot of things that must come together to make a good music recording. If you have a shitty mic placement, but an awesome world class quality mic, it most likely would sound way worse than a good mic with a good placement. That's like 4k with a bad lighting vs 1080 with good lighting (or wardrobe, or actors, or locations etc.). If everything is done to the top level, it's going to be a top level production, and 1080p isn't going to be the thing holding it back. Plus it's also an esthetic question - maybe you don't want the crispness of 4k or the mic where you can hear everything crystal clear, maybe you want something else for the right mood. And about the tiny 4k - it could also be compared to mics something like - recording to a pro level mic or entry level mic, but with the same numbers (bits, khz, etc). The pro mic would have a richer sound than the entry level. This probably is longer than you were hoping for ?

I haven't had that green thing. But in the beginning when I got the nx1, I had a video with one duplicated frame and also with an odd frame from a different time. The video goes, and suddenly there is 1 different frame from a further time in the same clip. But I haven't encountered those things since then. As for the exposure changes - I assume that you shot in M mode. I have had a similar thing, where it was in M mode, but the exposure changed like in some auto mode. The fault was the dial, it was showing M, but actually custom mode 1 was enabled. I guess something is a bit broken inside, because it has happened multiple times, though very rarely, so I just live with it.

A used Sony a6300 + a chinese speedbooster is a cheaper FF option and it even has 4k. 5d3 ML raw is nice of course, but the regular 5d3 picture kinda sucks, if you compare it to newer cameras. If you are 100% sure, that you're going to shoot only raw, then might consider the 5d2 or 3, but otherwise I think there are better options, because the raw workflow takes a lot of time.

This looks so cinematic to my eye! I don't know if it's because of the unique event, location, live sound, good compositions or what else, but at least half of the shots definitely look like out of some car racing movie. Very nice I see you've shared the lenses used, but what about picture profiles and your grading settings?

Wow, the detail gain is really noticeable. Was it 4k or 1080p?

I've done some tests today. The camera was set to UHD, 25p, Gamma DR, -5 contrast, -7 sharpness, 16-235, sRGB. I compared different ISOs with and without RGB set to max (1.99). So what I found out: All RGB channels at 1.99 increase exposure by 1 stop (or very, very close to it); Therefore ISO 1600 with RGB at 1.99, is the same exposure as ISO 3200 with RGB at 1; It positively affects the inbuilt noise reduction. Seems like the NR really is triggered by ISO value and not the actual sensor gain; It doesn't have any visible gains in highlights. Here's the test. The password is - rgb . Here you can download the edited test file, if you would like to take a closer look - https://failiem.lv/u/xvgh44ks

This is what rising master black level does. It's cool for high contrast scenes or if you have a contrasty profile. As far as I've tested, it can easily be done in post, and it seems to not matter, if you do it in camera or in post.

Thus is definitely worth looking at. I've done a few tests in even lighting. Can't say anything about the DR improvement, but it certainly increases exposure by about 1 stop. Someone asked for a boosted max iso hack. So there you go :D Also, maybe there's a chance that it would have a positive effect on noise reduction. Like if the NR kicks in at 2000iso, you could use 1000iso instead for thr same exposure and not get the NR. That's just a thought for now.

Interesting results. I watched the video on my phone, so could be wrong, but there are a few things I want to say. You defined highlight clipping only by looking at the scopes, but I would say, that if you compare the first and the last test, it's visible, that the hanging leaves on the tree have less detail in the last shot, than in the first one. I'm saying, that maybe even if the scopes are not at 100%, the highlights are still blown. For a better test, I would suggest looking at highlights and shadows together, and look closely at the detail in them (basicaly, analyze highlights the same as you did with the shadows).

On my gimbal there seems to be decent amount of rubber between the camera and metal, but I guess I'll try that, thanks! I would love to get the Samyang 12mm f2.0, have been thinking of it for a while, but on nx mount it seems to be more expensive, than m43 or e-mount. Also not a lot of them available. Will probably get it one day, when I get rid of my Tamron 10-24.

The steadicam walk is no stranger for me, as I've been practising it in different situations for more than 4 years. Warp stabilizer is also one of my best friends since it first came out in Premiere CS6. If I add warp stabilizer to the footage, at 10-15mm it comes out pretty nice, at around 35mm it's ok. But before warp stabilizer there are little shakes all the time, which make the footage unusable, if warp stabilizer is not used on it afterwards. On a stabilized lens it is much better. I'm sure I definitely need to do a better job calibrating the motor power, but stabilization in lenses is something that I wish I had for other purposes too, not only gimbal use.

I was hoping of some unpopular adapter, like aputure DEC, which has it's own power and really doesn't need a camera. I know there are no electronic adapters that fit the nx mount, but maybe there are some standalone lens controllers, which can control Eos lenses, for example. Actually, while writing this post, I just remembered, that I have an old and buggy eos film camera, and it can control IS! Looks like it will finally be useful to something else than messing up film shots Kisaha, could you post some examples of the cheap 16-50 zoom? I was also thinking of it, but I figured it wouldn't be much better than the 18-200.

Hi guys! I've got a new gimbal and really need a stabilized lens for that. I've got the 18-200, which has stabilization, but the image is not the best and I would like a wider lens, too. So the real question is - does anyone know of some adapter, which could enable IS on canon lenses? Or maybe some other lenses? I don't need AF or aperture control, I just need stabilization.

You should be able to do it. It's possible since CC 2015.3 version if I'm not wrong. That came out about 2 years ago. Previous versions couldn't do it. And what do you mean by - can't edit? Does Premiere show sound and no video or nothing at all, or some other problem?

Exactly what Happy Daze said. The blacks ar not crushed, Premiere Pro is just viewing the footage that way. To get rid of this, select the 16-235 luminance setting in camera, not 0-255. If I remember correctly, the easiest way to get Premiere to 'see' the blacks (and also highlights, which are shown as blown-out, but actually aren't), would be to set output values in fast color corrector to 16 for blacks and 235 for highlights. You could also use RGB curve and lift the left end (blacks) and lower the right end of the curve (whites), while keeping the curve line straight. As to getting flatter image - I see you're using normal gamma with -4 contrast. Gamma DR with the same settings would definitely be flatter. Black level adjustment though, also gives flatter image, but I don't use it. When I plan to grade the footage, I use Gamma DR, -5 contrast and -2 saturation. With -10 contrast the image can get weird, and you have to perfectly nail WB, to not get weird colors.