The price point, their 5mpx rating and their 1" capability would suggest they might do exactly what you require. The 35mm will almost certainly cover aps-c. the 25mm will probably be safe on m4/3. after that I imagine those wide lenses are assumed to really be used on smaller sensors like 2/3 and 1/3. 6mm and 8mm on m4/3 is crazy wide and not a regular requirement in machine vision scenarios. whether infinity is achieved or not is gonna be dependent on the rear diameter and whether or not the lens can seat deep enough into the m4/3 mount. if the gh4 had a e-mount all would probably be swell.
As Julian has shown, the kowa prominar lens set offers 8.5mm f2.8, which might suggest that closing the aperture down on the 8mm f1.4, and closing it to f2.8 the circle might get big enough to deliver. Personally I'd be looking at a fast 16mm fisheye for full frame (like the distagon 16mm f2.8) and using it with a 0.64x speed booster. price point is about he same. and you'll likely get better coverage of your sensor and less barrel distortion this way. resolution might not quite match the machine lenses but it'll be close.
Generally the high end 'megapixel' lenses are designed for 1" sensors - which are only slightly smaller than the gh4 in 4k mode. However it's normally the 35mm (and above) focal lengths that deliver onto a 1" sensor. extreme wides like a 8mm lens will be aimed at much smaller sensors I'd imagine. probably for 1/3rd of an inch sensors. In order for the lenses to deliver the published specs such as resolving power of 150-200lp/mm, correction for ca, vignette and edge softness over a 1" sensor it means the actual image circle is often a lot lot bigger. I've tested high end machine vision lenses from Schneider, Moritex and Qioptiq. all of which, if publihsed as 1" sensor (<3.6micron px size) will deliver up to aps-c coverage at surprising levels of quality right to the edges. Therefore these lenses are very good for m4/3. However, the c-mount adaptors to m4/3 are often too thick and don;t allow infinity focus. often resulting in no further focus distance than around 1meter.
Remember to grab an Otus and shoot 3 stops closed down to deliver 50mpx onto that sensor. And I hope they have the ability to read all 50mpx at once, without rolling shutter. I think not and as such the new 5d will be worse than the 5dmk3 due to line skipping of 3/4 of the pixels.
Sony on the other hand will respond with a 50+mpx camera with a sensor size that actually allows such resolutions to be a design benefit. The D800E pushes even the Otus to its limits of resolving power, and that's the best (technically) 35mm format lens ever made. For more mpx you need physically more image area for it to be worthwhile IMO.
it is a poll where people are allowed to express their opinion. I didn't say your opinion is wrong, just one that contradicts my own logical theories behind how a 'FULL FRAME' system of lenses should be built. A slow 18mm lens to cater for those who can opt for smaller format faster lenses to fulfil wide angle seems like a complete waste of time IMO
24/T2.1 - 35/T2.1 - 50/T2.1 - 75/T2.1 - 100/T2.1 19.26% (26 votes) when finalising the set SLR Magic need to be 100% dedicated to the full frame sensor when factoring in focal lengths otherwise the strength of the system is compromised. my reasons for choosing the above are because of the fact that when used on full frame or speed boosted s35 sensors the fl's will be equivalent to 16mm, 24mm, 35, 50 and 65mm in s35mm terms. Personally I think they need to factor this in and as suggested a 135mm or a 150mm should be offered rather than the 100mm. the 100mm becomes a 65mm which is too short for the longest option on full frame. a 135mm on full frame is where the magic starts IMO my personal preference would be 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. this set would translate into fov's similar to a 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 55mm, 90mm on s35mm. This is a classic example of a suggestion that should be ignored in the context of a set of full frame lenses - a set optimised for a s35mm sensor, and m4/3 baby sensor safe. With the advent of the speed booster ultra, no one needs to be spending big money developing full frame lenses wider than 24mm when the end result will cost more and be way slower than a 24mm and a speed booster ultra. In the past SLR magic seem to have been pandering to the small sensor crew. If they're gonna offer high end APO corrected lenses for the big frame they need to concentrate on focal lengths for the big frame or for speed booster use.
their current 50mm t2.1 becomes a formidable 35mm t1.5 for s35mm when used with the SB Ultra and a FS7.
Ultimately it's easiest to get sharp results from smaller sensors since it's less stressful on the optics. The bigger the sensor, the better the optics need to be in order to cover it successfully with less aberrations etc.
Assuming your budget allows an iscorama 36, then full frame will give you a more powerful setup since the 'rama can deliver sharp results on full frame and with big apertures. a full frame sensor + 85mm + iscorama36 set at f2 will be nearly impossible to match in terms of fov and dof ratio. to get a similar look on the pocket cam you'll need a 30mm f/0.7 - f/1.0 + iscorama36.
Sensor size won;t determine the amount of oval defocus distortion, but since you;re using a wider lens for the same fov you'll need very very fast lenses to get the same shallowness of dof. Without the shallowness of dof, the oval defocus wont be as obvious.
unfortunately very few anamorphic lenses can actually deliver on full frame sensors, so using smaller sensors can often be an advantage. APS-C sensors are probably the sweet spot since a 58mm helios 44 and iscorama is having it's best portion of the optical path being used while the focal length of 58mm dictates a nice shallowness to the dof, while coming close to the limitation of the iscorama36. you can get to around 35mm, but will need a fast 35mm that is also sharp to match the cheap 58mm f2 helios44.
whether or not the actual glass in either of these lenses will contribute to a cinematic look is purely down to personal opinion.
I for one believe modern canon glass is about as far away from motion picture lenses as you can get (in visual terms). If you had Cooke or Panavision at one end, the modern Canon lenses would be at the other. Maybe because just about every stills photographer turned corporate film maker from 2008 till now just goes stright for what they owned as still photography lenses. It's blighted modern canon glass imo. There is also the focus mechanisms. the nifty fifty for example has a really nasty manual focus mech. as I imagine the 40mm does? Focus pulls look very non cinematic from most af lenses when used in manual mode.
I'd suggest getting either a vintage nikon 50mm f1.8 (£40), olympus 50mm f1.8 (£40) or if money allows a contax 50mm f1.7 (£100). and the suitable adaptor for around £10.
a 50mm on aps-c is about as 'cinematic as it gets' to my eye.
indeed. you need 64gb cards for xavc-s. they donlt actually need to be crazy fast. but have to be sdxc cards. avchd on the a7s is pretty good since it's originating from a full sensor readout. however xavc-s is around twice the bitrate so theoretically it should be better quality. I imagine very few people have done a direct comparison between avchd and xavc-s, and I'd bet there isn't much difference. the fs100 and fs700 recorded to avchd and their images always looked good to me - as do the c100 avchd files.
indeed. The new concept art looks good and I see a lot of carefully thought out details in the cg drawings. I agree, ditch those knobbly bits on the focus ring. go black anodised. You'll be kicking yourself when you try to source a manufacturer who can offer those colours in a process that is durable. Also, give us loads of area for a nice deep focus gear - assuming these units are gonna extend more than an iscorama during focusing we're gonna need at least 20mm or more of flat surface to attach a gear ring. The initial test footage of the working prototype shared many moons ago doesn;t really ignite much enthusiasm for me either, So I'm basing my interest solely on concept art and performance claims for now. We need to see proper video tests with people in shot (Eyes in focus). showing an 85mm on full frame. 85mm f1.4, f2or at the very least f2.8, shallow dof, smooth locked down focus pulls, a chart test, and ultimately the Iscorama comparison we've all been waiting for. Tests are gonna need to be shot on something current, like anA7S or hacked 5dmk3 which allows us to see the capabilities without camera limitations playing a big part in the quality. Obviously the above criteria is rather challenging, but will serve to illustrate what is being offered. I'm not put off by a lens that doesnt deliver on a chart test if it allows me other qualities, but a chart test is very good for showing how a lens will perform over its intended imaging area. Same with full frame capability. it might not offer stellar results to the edges, but we'll see just what it can do.
Come on guys. Lets leave it there. I understand there was sourness towards Cosimo's group buy topic (and as such John Barlow lost his administrator rights). So I understand Cosimo's reasons here. I am also happy to see developments of the Rectilux concept from John - I'll freely admit I gave him a hard time about his methods and conduct, but primarily about bold claims I was questioning. Now it would seem John is taking a quieter approach with only occasional updates of this topic. To be fair, I am not seeing hard selling but just occasional info about developments. I am also seeing a product that if it comes to light in a tangible way ( I hope it does), will be something that will benefit a lot of users here.
Personally I feel it might be wise to close this topic down, and have John decant the most important information into a new topic where potential customers can direct their queries and productivity can be rekindled on the subject. Does this sound logical?
**I'd also like to point out that as a potential customer myself, I will be awaiting images and tests (ideally third party) or finished articles before any money leaves my account. I urge everyone to take care and factor this in before jumping on board without seeing tangible products or an expected availability date of items that appear largely at the concept stage of development. **