1000€ to spend. G7 + SB vs NX1

[BrandonDor]

Hello,

i have 1000€ to spend for a new camera.

What we have:

- Nikon D600 for Photos

- Sigma 35mm, 1.4

- Nikon 85mm 1.8

- Atomos Assassin 

- Zoom H4N

- Sennheiser ME 66

- 2x Lightstorm LEDs

 

What we need:

- 4k

- Great colors

 

We need the Cameras for Interviews on YouTube, like Tony Northrup or Matt Granger. I dont need super fancy color grading, i would prefer no color grading for a fast workflow. I have this two cameras in the focus:

- Panasonic G7 + Speedbooster = 800€

- Samsung NX1 + Novoflex NX to Nikon Adapter = 1000€

 

Which camera would you buy? 

[neosushi]

If you need great colors I would rather go for the NX1... (you also get great AF at the same time if you use NX S lenses)

[andy lee]

Panasonic g7 with speed booster metabones Xl , superb camera and you can get the colours right all in camera it is a very powerful camera with its internal colour processing , you can get away with not grading , I have four of these camera they are that good

[Marco Tecno]

Nx1

[Hene1]

NX1 has way better colors straight out of camera. Panasonic users can't even imagine.

[IronFilm]

As you have Nikon lenses I'd recommend the NX1

If you'd have Canon lenses you'd be stuck... as then you couldn't use the NX1 And Panasonic would make more sense then. 

[Dustin]

If you didn't NEED 4K you'd be great off with the d750. But hmm...

[TheRenaissanceMan]

11 hours ago, Hene1 said:

NX1 has way better colors straight out of camera. Panasonic users can't even imagine.

I'm a Panasonic user and have worked with NX1 footage in Resolve. It's honestly not a big gulf. 

With the support gear you have, you could honestly go either way. Is it possible for you to get hands on a G7 and see if you like it?

[Emanuel]

G7 is a very interesting tool. NX1 too. With more aliasing issues though, IMO.

[fuzzynormal]

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor.  C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear.  All of it is more than good enough. 

Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this.  

It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube.  If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine.  Panasonic is fine.  Canon is Fine.  Nikon is fine.  I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K.  It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans.  Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy.

(Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days.  Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) 

So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff? 

[Mattias Burling]

I agree that most modern cameras are just fine.

But I dont agree that skin tones are the "least" of the problems for shooting interviews. If I where using it for interviews it would be my number 2 priority after audio.

All the cameras produce the frame rate and resolution needed. Handling and build isnt very important for locked down interviews. The only two specs to care about is audio and skin tones

[fuzzynormal]

Okay, okay. You don't want someone looking green...but what new camera when properly set up for studio shooting is going to fail at acquiring decent skin tone?

Or any camera made in the last few years, to be honest?

Serious question, that, Mattias, you play with more cameras than just about anyone.

I'm just amazed people will dismiss a camera because some other camera makes human flesh look subjectively "dreamy."  Even though that may well be true, when you can control your set up and setting, you can dial in the colors to your liking.

Maybe I'm the one being nuts here, but I really think that for this level of production, one could buy a used $200 G3 and a used $10 Pentax lens and still make it look great. 

[Mattias Burling]

35 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

for this level of production, one could buy a used $200 G3 and a used $10 Pentax lens and still make it look great. 

My point exactly.

But still, I would choose the camera within my budget that made my job as fast and easy as possible without skimping on the quality.

[fuzzynormal]

23 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

My point exactly.

But still, I would choose the camera within my budget that made my job as fast and easy as possible without skimping on the quality.

Fair enough.  I think, for me, my attitude is also a product of my age.  Whereas I see all this gear as being incredible compared to the stuff I had to pay for in the past, new folks coming up focus more on the minute differences between cameras/brands; simply because those small'ish differences are the only things that separate one product from another.

So, it becomes not whether or not the camera can do good skin tones, but rather: is it easier to do it on one over the other?  On top of that, resolution capabilities are stunning, regardless.

I mean, here's a Panasonic cam that does 4k for $700.  Here's a Sony cam that does it for less than $1K.  It's all a candy store to me.  I'll pig-out on taffy or chocolate, doesn't matter.

[Mattias Burling]

16 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

So, it becomes not whether or not the camera can do good skin tones, but rather: is it easier to do it on one over the other? 

For me thats the important question.
A BMCC might get me the best image I can produce.. scratch that.. Film gets me the best image I can produce.
A camcorder get me a very nice image, but it does it so fast and easy that the quality drop is worth it.

[neosushi]

On 31 mars 2016 at 11:45 AM, Hene1 said:

NX1 has way better colors straight out of camera. Panasonic users can't even imagine.

I have both NX1 and GH2, 3, 4.... And totally agree with you  

[christrad]

I bought the GH4...and learned how much color and skin tones (straight out of camera cause I'm not so good at grading) are important : so I sold the GH4 and his ghostly skin tones for the NX1 and I'm very happy with it (coming from Canon 5D).

[Mars]

I'm with Mattias on that one: Skin and audio are key. Not that fuzzy would be wrong either but if you have two alternatives for almost the same price tag, your priority is probably on these two aspects. Plus usability of course.

All that said, I have tons of Nikon glass myself and have bought an NX1 (and the two S lenses for convenience plus the 16mm and 30mm primes). And two Nikon mount adapters. And an LX100 for really quick stuff.

Happy so far.

[Fredrik Lyhne]

If you cant get decent skintones out of G7 or GH4 with Neutral or Cine D + Leeming Lut its not the cameras fault. 

[j_one]

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.