NX-1, GH4 or 5DMk.II for Windows Premiere editing?

[pix4work]

Greetings,

My first post on EOSHD, and I am trying to decide which camera-edit combination will give the best results for image quality and post production. I will be shooting documentaries as well as narrative films, and I have a fairly robust HP PC which I was thinking would be good for PPro. I know the NX-1 has been discontinued, but the images it has produced in the few short films posted online have looked amazing, with their high dynamic range, resolution and color fidelity. The GH4 has also produced some drop-dead gorgeous images as well, and the Micro Four Thirds format has it's own strengths/weaknesses during acquisition and editing. The old standard, 5D Mk.II, is being mentioned because it probably has the greatest number of workable shooting/editing solutions, and now with the use of MLRaw files, it can produce some notable footage, also. I should also throw the BMCC 2.5K format into the ring, as it has also produced some excellent images and is a known quantity for acquisition, as well as as editing. My experience with these systems so far has consisted of working on a short film with a pair of BMCC's, with the others being unknowns, including the editing portion. The bottom line in all of this, I think, is: all in and done, which camera format and edit solution produces the image which stands up best to post production/grading, and on to the final digital display product at the best price point? Keep in mind I have only one Canon FD mount 50mm lens, so another lens or two would be needed in any case. Thank you for allowing me to post my question to all of you.

pix4work

[fuzzynormal]

“NX-1, GH4 or 5DMkII?”

The answer is yes.  Any of those cams will allow you to capture fine images and to an accomplished 1080p edit.  The quality on all will be fine.  The difference in how they render their image is a nuance that you'll have to decide on your own, preferably by doing tests.

In a way, it's like choosing a preferred film stock.

As we all know, any "drop dead gorgeous" images created on modern gear typically depends on the skill of the shooter and lighting, not the camera.

You're right to be more concerned about the post process and, depending if your a beginner or a skilled pro, figuring out the best workflow for your abilities.  And man, when I shoot a doc and end up with hundreds of hours of footage, I want postproduction firmly planted in the KISS realm.

If you know how the BMCC behaves and are pleased at what it delivers, why not stick with that?  ProResHQ and Raw, use either depending on need.

[Geoff CB]

I vote NX1 because I love the image, and they are on fire sale right now. I personally love having a viewfinder on camera for doc work, so the GH4 and NX1 fit that bill. The 2.5K is great for narrative, and has some good used prices online, but I would hesitate using it for documentary work unless you rig it extensively.

[pix4work]

Thank you for the replies. First of all, I have set up and operated the BMCC before, but I haven't edited any of it's footage, so my knowledge there is gathered from others end results. The NX1 does have room to grow technically with a higher res picture, but appears to require more horsepower and process steps to work with editorially. On the other hand, the base of BMCC users is larger and the editing work-arounds are well known, so there is a slight advantage there. Overall, it's a trade off with positives and negatives on both sides. Thank you fuzzynormal and Geoff CB for your thoughtful replies, I will gather a bit more user information before I make a decision.

[caseywilsondp]

Whats been said so far I definitely agree with... but if it were strictly doc work... man a 5D might win for me just because of the small file sizes and ease of working with it in NLEs... the caveat would be that I'd say it be a 5D3, not 2, as that'll give you more wiggle room with your iso (easily safe up to 6400) and the codec is a little better.

[Hene1]

I used 5D Mk2 for three years and its poor resolution was a big problem. I wouldn't use it anymore (except maybe in Magic Lantern RAW mode, but I don't have experience with that). NX1 and GH4 are both good, NX1 is cleaner and has very bright, vivid and beautiful colors, but GH4 is more "filmic". GH4 is easier to post process, becouse it doesn't need to be converted to ProRes. If you have GTX960 or similar HEVC supported video card, you may be able to edit native NX1 files.

It's really hard or impossible to get bright good colors from GH4, so you are forced to go with more "filmic" style. With NX1 the colors are superb, but you can't hide its digital look.

GH4 may be better for conservative short films. For commercial stuff NX1 is superior in that group.

Personally I wouldn't buy NX1 anymore becouse there seems to be no future for it. But after using NX1 I wouldn't be able to transfer back to GH-world either. I hate Sony colors, Canon lacks resolution, Nikon lacks resolution, GH4 isn't vivid enough, NX1 is perfect for my use but has no future. If I was forced to buy camera at this moment, I would be most interested in Blackmagic.

[M Carter]

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.