Chopnshoot - get the 16-50. You'll love it, especially if you shoot video. It really shows off the full capabilities of the NX1.

Isn't it a fact about H265 that it captures at half the bitrate of H264 but with the same quality? Meaning then that an 80 Mbits in H265 is the same as 160 Mbits on H264?

No, it is not fact. If you get good software H264 encoder and use two pass slow encoding it'll be most probably better than H265 camera encoder at same bitrate.

For camera encoders it is around 20-30% difference, no more.

"For camera encoders it is around 20-30% difference, no more."

What studies, evidence are you citing to make this claim? Below is what I see from Wikipedia, which indicate much higher savings in efficiency than you are saying - maybe over 60% for UHD. I am not claiming you are wrong, but it appears you are differing from at least some of the literature, some of which I have read.

Perhaps the cited studies were software tests? If so, where are the in-camera tests. We only have two commercial (consumer) HEVC hardware encoders - the NX1 and NX500 - so presumably these are the basis for your claim?

The claims about HEVC efficiency are a big deal; it will be the standard for 4K blu-ray, so just saying there is a 20-30% gain is itself a big deal.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding

"The study compared HEVC MP with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP and showed that, for HEVC MP, the average bitrate reduction based on PSNR was 44.4%, while the average bitrate reduction based on subjective video quality was 66.5%.[57][58]

In a HEVC performance comparison released in April 2013, the HEVC MP and Main 10 Profile (M10P) were compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP and High 10 Profile (H10P) using 3840x2160 video sequences.[61] The video sequences were encoded using the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder and the JM-18.4 H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder.[61] The average bit rate reduction based on PSNR was 45% for inter frame video.[61]

In a video encoder comparison released in December 2013, the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder was compared to the x264 encoder and the VP9 encoder.[62] The x264 encoder was version r2334 and the VP9 encoder was version v1.2.0-3088-ga81bd12.[62] The comparison used the Bjøntegaard-Delta bit-rate (BD-BR) measurement method, in which negative values tell how much lower the bit rate is reduced, and positive values tell how much the bit rate is increased for the same PSNR.[62] In the comparison, the HM-10.0 HEVC encoder had the highest coding efficiency and, on average, to get the same objective quality, the x264 encoder needed to increase the bit rate by 66.4%, while the VP9 encoder needed to increase the bit rate by 79.4%.[62]

What studies, evidence are you citing to make this claim? Below is what I see from Wikipedia, which indicate much higher savings in efficiency than you are saying - maybe over 60% for UHD. I am not claiming you are wrong, but it appears you are differing from at least some of the literature.

My experience as well as some doom9 discussions.

Unfortunately you did not understand that I said properly. Despite being H264 or H265 video encoders can work different. All realtime encoders in cameras have lower efficiency compared to best software encoders.

Same is especially true for H265. As for now x265 software encoder is not mature yet (providing not much plus compared to x264). And hardware encoders are simplified and first generation (Panasonic SD1, for example, also had similar encoders but for H264, they were much worse than any modern ones).

So, by extrapolation, it is fair to assume that a mature h265 will be at least about 40-60% more efficient than a mature h264, right?

The 16-50mm S lens may be too heavy for a pistol-grip style gimbal. No problem with traditional 2 handle gimbals built for DSLR's. The 16-50mm PZ lens is also quite light (Samsung has three 16-50mm lenses, two smaller, one large). For auto focus, as I heard, the professional S-lens (the large one) performs the best.

Look at the camera setup weight and compare it with what your gimbal can take. Going to the max gimbal capacity is not the best idea.

I'm excited to see the NX2.

So it would be safe to say you want to expose to protect the highlights right? Looks like Gamma DR retains more detail in the shadows. Under exposed footage looked more usable than the overexposed by a long shot.

@heradicattor

Check few posts above.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/198025#Comment_198025

Post has link to same post (just to specific article).

I don't like editready because of how it clips the hightlights unless you change the camera settings to broadcast safe.

Photon is a great option, and my current favorite. http://brightland.com/w/photon-manual/

As well as Rocky Mountains Move Converter http://sourceforge.net/projects/rockymountainsmovieconverter/

I use Rocky Mountain.