Subforums
-
-
- 27
- posts
17,106 topics in this forum
-
- 524 replies
- 172k views
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.4m views
-
- 21 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 10.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 4 views
-
- 70 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 22 replies
- 925 views
-
- 40 replies
- 4.8k views
-
- 11 replies
- 371 views
-
- 22 replies
- 676 views
-
- 61 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 84 replies
- 6.8k views
-
- 232 replies
- 85.8k views
-
- 5 replies
- 337 views
-
- 18 replies
- 521 views
-
- 12 replies
- 7.6k views
-
- 33 replies
- 2k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 28 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 415 replies
- 65.1k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 32 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 80 replies
- 12.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 491 views
-
- 63 replies
- 18.6k views
-
- 6 replies
- 725 views
-
- 19 replies
- 3.3k views
-
- 16 replies
- 920 views
-
- 7 replies
- 4.5k views
-
- 17 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 16 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 249 replies
- 28.2k views
-
- 12 replies
- 845 views
-
- 7 replies
- 802 views
-
- 46 replies
- 5.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 813 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.1k
-
Total Posts348.2k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
-
hi, i want to use the Canon R5c in super 35 mode. When i connect the sigma ef 18-35 to the camera via the meike ef-rf adapter (with variable ND) the camera states“ the lens is not supported - it will not work. But everything seems to work fine… Any idea what could be the problem?
-
Sharpness seems very natural to me, although I am not at the level of pixel peeing as others around! What I can say is that the Prores feels like Prores from a cinema camera. So the files edit like butter, the grain is well captured and not removed / crunched, etc. I've done quite a lot of low light high-ISO testing in the last few weeks and even up to ISO 12,800 the footage cleans up in post using temporal NR, which wouldn't work if the compression killed all the noise. Punch-in focussing is available during recording, and pops up automatically if you touch the focus ring on a native lens, and has a custom amount of zoom. I'd assume it's the same as previous cameras where you have an option to give you a punch-in box in the middle of the monitor, or for the whole monitor to show the punched-in part. The focus peaking was also active within and outside the punched-in part of the screen. The in-camera digital zoom is changed from previous models, and significantly improved at that. It's quite different now. Let's say I have my 9mm lens fitted. I hit the button I have mapped it to (it's called Crop Zoom "CrZ") and it activates the feature, showing me the current focal length (9mm) and there are a bunch of ways to get it to smoothly zoom in and out, displaying the current equivalent focal length as it goes (10mm, then 11mm, etc). The function is integrated into the zoom controls for the powered zoom lenses too, so I think you can zoom in and it will zoom the lens in as much as it can and then (if enabled) it will keep zooming in with the digital zoom. I thought the idea was it will keep zooming in until it gets to a 1:1 sensor read-out and then won't go any further, but the manual just lists some rather arbitrary zoom amounts. With my 9mm lens, if I shoot with the C4K mode it will go to 11mm, but on the 1080p mode it will zoom in to 24mm. In my tests I've found that the in-camera cropped images are free from artefacts, and I'd even zoom in/out during recording using it if I felt the need to. I'd happily use it for S16 cropping, or any other cropping you wanted. Perhaps the only caveat is that if you wanted to crop more than the 1.3x it will do in C4K, or 1.4x in UHD, then you have to use the 1080p mode, and that mode seems to have a slightly different look to the images, a bit more like the OG BM cameras in that it looks like a lower-resolution sensor readout. It's got a bit of that lower-resolution more sharpening look to it, rather than a higher-res-downscaled look to it. It's subtle, but it's there. It's still high-quality, but just compared to the 4K modes it's noticeable. I've been doing lots of tests for my next ballooning trip, and these include low-light testing. I figured I'd take my 14-140mm zoom for when the light is sufficient, and I'll take my new 9mm F1.7 as my ultra-wide, but was wondering if the 9mm could be my low-light non-wide lens as well. I did two tests. The first test was an ultra-low-light test. I tested: - GX85 with TTartisans 17mm F1.4 manual prime at F1.4 - GX85 with TTartisans 17mm F1.4 manual prime at F2 - GH7 with 9mm F1.7 at F1.7 (shot in C4K and cropped to be 17mm FOV in-post) - GH7 with 9mm F1.7 at F1.7 (shot in 1080p and cropped in-camera to be 17mm FOV) - GH7 with 12-35mm F2.8 at F2.8 and 17mm - GH7 with 14-140mm at 17mm - GH7 with TTartisans 17mm F1.4 manual prime at F1.4 - GH7 with TTartisans 17mm F1.4 manual prime at F2.0 - GH7 with Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 manual prime at F0.95 - GH7 with Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 manual prime at F1.4 - GH7 with Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 manual prime at F2.0 I reviewed all of them with just a 709 conversion, with NR/sharpening, and with tonnes of NR/sharpening. This is a test of lots of things being traded-off against each other, as the slower lenses all needed a higher ISO, and the 9mm was sharp wide-open and brighter but also pulling from a smaller sensor area, but I didn't upload to YT so it's not a full pipeline test. The result was that the Voigtlander won, the TTartisans at F2.0 was good, the 12-35 was good, but the 9mm was still acceptable and waaaaaay better than the GX85 + TTartisans wide open (which was what I shot the previous outing with and I found to be disappointing - the combo of the TTartisans at F1.4 combined with the GX85 ISO6400 was just a killer combo). I also tested the 9mm F1.7 wide-open vs the 12-35mm F2.8 stopped down to F4.0 against each other in good lighting and native ISO and using the 1080p in-camera zoom to match focal lengths. I reviewed all of them with just a 709 conversion, with NR/sharpening, and with NR/sharpening put through my FLC pipeline (which includes softening the image slightly and adding grain). I didn't upload it to YT either, so it's not a full-pipeline test but was a good indicator of it. I found that the 9mm zoomed to 12mm was equivalent to the 12-35mm, at 18m it was noticeably softer, and at 24mm it was really noticeable and getting into vintage territory. I can post some stills if you're really curious. -
By John Matthews · Posted
I have so much great footage I've taken with the gx80- the one that was used in that gx85 thread started way back when (and briefly became the most popular thread on EOSHD ever). Every camera I've used since (there have been many of all shapes and sizes) was either bigger, lacking features, or didn't have add significant improvements over it. In retrospect, I probably should have stuck with it and I would have saved a bundle and paid off my house that much quicker. Just last night, I was live streaming via HDMI with my S9 (not recording) and the camera over-heated mid-session (about a hour in), something my M43 cameras NEVER did. Granted, I don't think the S9 is made for what I was doing with it in a VERY hot attic (~35C), but still I wasn't even recording and I had a dummy battery. I guess the S5ii will now need to be doing that job and I'll set up my GH2 as a backup (just in case it happens again). -
There’s a truth in that and every time I try a prime again, it’s pretty much straight back to a zoom. I recently invested in a set of Panny L Mount f1.8 primes and though I like the 50, the 18 is just too wide and I’m just not using the 85. So it’s back to the 28-70 f2.8, probably keeping the 50 as I do need something as I have ‘stolen’ back the 28-70 from one of my statics. The 18 and 85 I reckon I just need to sell but most likely trade for the Sigma 28-45mm f1.8 because for indoor work and my needs, I can’t see past it. I did look at this new 17-40, but no dice as I’m not going back to 4k crop when for the last 2 years, I’ve been shooting full frame 6k open gate.
-
