Jump to content


  1. DSLR Video

    1. EOSHD

      Welcome to the EOSHD forum. The knowledge-base for all mirrorless, DSLR and pro video cameras.

EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
EOSHD Pro Color 3.0 for Sony cameras
EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony cameras
EOSHD 5D Mark III 3.5K RAW Shooter's Guide

  • Popular Contributors

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Jason J Eliot
  • Posts

    • I just bought a used Pana 25 1.4 and besides its stunning imagery, I was very surprised by its manual focus capabilities, which was unexpected to me. This lens was produced back in 2011, but its the best manual focus fly-by-wire native MFT lens that I've used so far and by a great margin. I own 14-140 zoom (3.5-5.6), 42.5 1.7 and 20 1.7. They all are PITA for manual focusing, especially 42.5 1.7 which I would consider otherwise a superb small and affordable lens, but its MF is just so wired - one second very slow, then suddenly blazing fast. Completely unreliable for video and I hate its unpredictable acceleration and speed. Who's genius idea was to setup modern MFT lens manual focus behavior like that? The 25 1.4 has fast smooth MF with close to none acceleration so I can easily pull focus on any shot without any extra effort or shaking my camera. Its reliable and constant. But all other lenses I've tried are plain terrible at that! So I wounder, WHY PANASONIC MAKE THEIR CURRENT LENSES BEHAVE THIS WAY?!   And it would be so EASY to correct, just by adding some extra menu setting with a profile for every lens for a) acceleration control (starting from zero) and the lens speed itself. Only two freaking parameters and thats all. That would safe so many people from constant struggle with that MF flybywire bullshit.  And now try to explain my why its not done yet? And consider that Panasonic stronghold is video, they are perceived by many as video camera makers, they excel in video.. but, they did not offer any solution in that department for all this years. Unexplainable idiocy.  BTW, maybe some hero hacker can modify MFT lenses firmware to change those parameters? That would solve this too.  P.S. Well at least now I have one lens with which I can focus comfortably. 
    • IMO its quite useless - no focus control, and how many mft users haver power zooms? All this controls are doubled on Zhiyun crane handle anyway. 
    • This info may be a bit dated in relation to the ones mentioned that would still provide such lens servicing, but the thread below can at least maybe get you started if you haven't already stumbled upon it. The Anamorphic lens REPAIR thread: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/926-the-anamorphic-lens-repair-thread/?tab=comments#comment-15560
    • We are all comparing apples with oranges. As PS and AAE subscriber, I can test a new Premiere version for 7 days, and I did. Last year I made the double mistake to import 4k XAVC using cmd + i, and the performance was ridiculously poor. This year, I hastily tested just three things, and all seemed to work flawlessly: > I imported a 20 minute timeline from FCP using XtoCC (a little tool that modifies the XML so that as many things get translated as possible, it's also frequently updated). Played back well. > I tried the proxy workflow from a camera card using ProRes Proxy as proxy codec and activating proxy in preferences. A breeze. > I imported CDNG files from the Pocket using the Media Browser and right-clicking import. Appeared instantly as regular clips. Don't know though if they are actually read as RAW, if Lumetri interprets them correctly. I admit that these are no exhausting tests, but the first impressions (two afternoons spent with Premiere) somewhat corrected my view.  OPINION: 1. 30% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with the configuration of my system, and if the software in question is optimized for it. 2. 30% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with the user not RTFM. 3. 30% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with using original, highly compressed UHD media for editing. 4. 10% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with the software being crap. For point 1, FCP seems to be the winner from the start, but Resolve has done some serious optimization for MacOS. Point 3 is valid for all three competitors. Adobe always bragged about being able to work with the native media. As a matter of fact, UHD needs four times the horsepower than HD, and imho it's simply silly to quadruple your system specs just to be able to keep up. These codecs are not meant to be edited, and proxy historically is a pro solution to edit. Furthermore, as it seems, Premiere has the best proxy workflow now (transcoding runs in the background with AME, it's reasonably fast, and you can start editing in the original codec without being forced to toggle like in FCP or having to wait until the foreground process is done like in Resolve). FCP's strength is optimization through optimized media (ProRes) which not only runs unnoticed in the background but is also the fastest of them all. But just for the sake of proving point 3 to be universal, try to delete all generated media (or how it's called precisely) in the midst of a long UHD project, and you will see how much remains of the often-praised superior performance and stability. Now, for anybody seriously considering to jump ship, you better evaluate by checking these factors.
    • Thanks, works like a charm!