TheGrapeEscape

Not really sure at the moment

I'd be leaning heavily towards the 23mm if you need a more versatile lens for those tasks, or maybe something between a 23mm and 35mm. How far are you expecting your subjects to be at for photo and video?

Depends if you're asking about the build quality, or if the focal length will suit you? Answer to part one: 50mm primes are some of the best performing glass because they're easy to build and the optics aren't complicated. So any 50mm prime with serve quite well, unless you've got specific pro needs (extreme overall sharpness, excellent micro-contrast, perfect edge to edge sharpness, etc). I'm very happy with my 50mm prime on my crop body for portraiture. Answer to part two: For the body you're pairing lenses with, 50mm is a pretty good focal length for portraits and nailing a subject, but not the things around it. 35mm will be more of a "normal" (as in closer to the focal length of the human eye) focal length on that body. 23mm might be even better if you're trying to capture a scene. Be aware though, that since you're choosing prime lenses you'll be zooming with your feet (walking closer and further away) instead of zooming with the lens so the free area around your subject may be the determining factor on what focal length you should choose.

Love em photos

If in the end you can't reach the $500 mark you could also find an older body Nikon D3100 for the price you need on KEH. The D3100 preforms quite well compared to the 450D http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Nikon_D3100

Hmmmm... $300 is a bit low to get any interesting choices and the 400D and 450D don't exactly make the best low light cameras. Is there any chance you can bump up your budget to $500? There's some good choices in the Nikon D3200 and Pentax K-50 (sensor performance: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-1200D-versus-Pentax-K-50-versus-Nikon-D3200___940_890_801) With the D3200 pulling just ahead of the K-50 in low light performance. A similarly priced Canon is in there too for comparison, but it's suffering in the low light department.

My argument is that for OP's needs it doesn't matter and they would be perfectly fine with a range of cameras. I'm just going against your argumentum ad populum. That point is obviously not getting through to you, and frankly I'm not sure why I'm bothering. So really, I'm out. This is getting old and I wont be responding to any more posts in this thread. Also, "pledging yourself to a system" isn't the more important thing, having a camera capable of what you need it to do is. There are mediocre cameras with poor system support that produce amazing macro images.

Thought so, but my realm of knowledge is still photography so I wasn't 100% sure. Some of that cine-glass you mentioned sounds good, but man can it be expensive! EDIT: Hah, time to eat my own words! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1016629-REG/rokinon_super_fast_t1_5_cine.html That's a really nice range for that price!

Ah, bummer. I thought Super35 was APS-C sized? The dimensions are nearly the same. Good catch mate!

Not that I can see, but I'm a stills photographer so my knowledge of videography is mostly from reading related things here and there. If you don't have a pair, then maybe a set of headphones to do sound level checks? Also, how are you handling storage? 4K can get out of hand pretty fast.

It's my understanding that 4K downsampled to 1080p has better quality than a native 1080p capture. I assume the same way super sampling anti aliasing works. There's merit to getting a 4K capable camera for the quality boost to 1080p video. As to the topic on hand, I'd probably just get the GH4 unless you can claim the FS7 as a business expense on tax. I remember you're a fairly popular youtuber, so I'd go for whatever would have the greater return on your investment. There's merits to having a 60fps stream for gaming, but I haven't really seen it for anything else on youtube. If you had lots of fast movement in your scenes then maybe. Honestly I think it's an either/or option, since it generally doesn't affect the audience too much. I'd probably go 4K on the GH4 and downsample to 1080p if your main objective is "oooo pretty!" or go for native 1080p60 if you have to capture movement in a scene.

I think the UI on the X100S is pretty good, but all interfaces have their quirks. The only thing important to me is that the most used functions are easy to access so I don't miss shots, and in that regard I've never had a problem with the X100S. I've never had a chance to use an A7 but I've only heard good things about them. One of my favourite photographers, Serge Ramelli, uses and swears by them and his portfolio reflects their capability. My only quibble with it is that much of the appeal of mirrorless is the lightweightness, which unfortunately is lost when using FF lenses (damn they can get heavy) on the A7. Hard to fault the A7 range otherwise if they compliment your style of photography (landscapes/portraits/travel/maybe street).

I love the mirrorless man but you'll miss out on focal length range if you swap over to the RX100 III or LX100. Personally I'd prefer the range your current lenses provide, and supplement with a nice mirrorless for when you don't want to draw as much attention to yourself or want to go light. Any APS-C mirrorless gets my thumbs up for that with my recommendations leaning towards a Sony RX100 III or a Fujifilm. I own a X100S and it's a gem! It goes around with me nearly everywhere

I'll take that and congrats on reaching "1,337 posts"!

The headphone he's using is this http://www.sharkoon.com/?q=en/node/1664 What do I win? Proof: