All Activity

Sorry, I meant S5II cage did not fit my S1RII. The S5 would definitely not either! Not sure where/how the Snake cages fit.

Right now I'm mostly using the Canon's .71x speedbooster on my R50V - but before that I was using it with my R5C for years as a great way to access the cam's 2-5K RAW features (which are only available in s35 mode) while basically making it FF. It's just one of the many reasons the R5C remains one of the most versatile releases in Canon history.

A GH7 (or G9 II if it has unlimited recording and doesn't overheat) really would be my ideal camera. Even though I use the excellent kit lenses a lot on my two S5 bodies and my S5II X, it's still not as light weight as I wish it were. I don't really care about shallow dof and low light isn't nearly as big of an issue when it comes to the GH7 and G9 II based on what I've seen or for what it was on my GH5 cams. But it's hard to justify going back to M43 because I just don't have faith that Lumix is invested in it for the long haul. Everyone i know loves these two cameras, but they don't get the firmware updates that the full frame cameras get. For Lumix that's a red flag because they've always released firmware that gave new features and improved their cameras. I mean, look how long they supported the GH5!

Truth bomb spat out right there and unique to you, to me, to others as our situations and needs are all different but unless you actually get out there and shoot shoot shoot, you’ll never truly know what works. And what does not. Probably always will be other than perhaps AI etc might/probably will fill in the blanks.

I don’t know but do know that my S5 Smallrig cage did not fit my S1RII due to slight differences in the bodies.

Yep. As I’ve shot more and more I’ve determined what is importantly to me: A comfortable, balanced, somewhat lightweight body but that is built well and has a good grip Great stabilization. I shoot heavily handheld and often will use warp stabilizer a lot. I’ve got a workflow down to get good results out of a lot of different cameras with varying IBIS strengths, but the G9II with its superb stabilization will make my life easier Decent lowlight. That includes having a somewhat noisy image as long as the grain looks good. Decent autofocus. Benefits my very run and gun content like weddings. Good internal image. My Nikon Z6 setup taught me I don’t love rigging out my kit. I have learned to work around any camera that is weak in one of these areas. I’ve figured out how to make very different equipment work for me and work around limitations. It’s just the G9II seems to really fit the bill with what is most important to me. That’s where I really feel camera decisions matter. Not in the IQ. But in the usability. How does it feel to use. Does it have those practical features that matter to you.

Anyone know if the Smallrig Black Mamba cage for the S5ii is valid for the S1ii?

Adapters used to be a big deal... with camcorders there were wide-angle adapters. Then for smaller sensors there were speed boosters to try and get shallower DOF and make more use of vintage photo lenses. Anamorphic adapters were always an option / confusing dream. Then "everyone" went FF to get that shallow DOF, and Chinese manufacturing started giving us good quality affordable fast primes and now there seems to be an avalanche of anamorphic lenses (with recent additions including anamorphic zooms, and some even have AF now!). Why are they "back"? Not only can adapters take MFT cameras to beyond FF, or take S35 to FF and beyond, but they can also take FF to Medium Format and beyond as well. The key to this is the emergence of high-quality single-focus anamorphic front adapters, and especially combining them with the new anamorphic glass or with speed boosters or with super-fast native lenses. I realised this when I shot with the GH7 + Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95 + Sirui 1.25x combination and realised it's the horizontal FF equivalent of a 68mm F1.5. That's not impossible in FF terms, as there are 75mm F1.4 lenses and 85mm F1.2 lenses available, but this was only with the Sirui 1.25x adapter. There are 1.33x, 1.35x, 1.5x, 1.7x, and even 1.8x front adapters available. There is even a PL-to-PL 1.33x rear anamorphic adapter available. Combining the 1.33x PL-to-PL rear adapter with the 1.8x front adapter would be a 2.4x adapter. Not a lot of anamorphic glass over 2x! The combinations are practically endless, and compatibility will definitely be an issue with some combinations, but the thing about adapters is they multiply your lens collection..... If you buy an extra lens then you have an extra lens but if you buy an adapter you multiply your whole lens collection by a factor somewhere between 1-2x, depending on compatibility. Here are couple of worked examples. Just to get the juices going, and as a completely manufacturer supported Full Frame option, Sirui has the Venus anamorphic set, which are 1.6x anamorphics with T2.9 aperture from 35mm to 135mm, with the 1.6x giving them a horizontal crop factor of 0.625, so they're the horizontal equivalent of 22mm to 84mm T1.8 lenses. Add the Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter, which is officially part of the set, and they become 2x anamorphics horizontally equivalent to 17.5mm to 68mm T1.45 lenses. This isn't completely beyond normal spherical FF glass, but it's an adapter that can be used across a range of lenses and quickly change the crop-factor of these and many other lenses. Let's go bigger.. Rokinon / Samyang have a 1.7x front anamorphic adapter specifically designed for their Cine V-AF line, which includes 35mm to 100mm T1.9 Full Frame lenses (and a 24mm T1.9 APSC lens) but with the adapter they'll be 21mm to 59mm T1.1. Once again, these aren't impossible to find in spherical versions, but we're getting into more rarified territory. Also remember you now have two lens sets, not one lens set with an extra lens. Would the 1.7x adapter work on other lenses? Not easily - it seems to have a strange proprietary mount to attach to the lenses, which have a 58mm front thread diameter. The Sirui 1.25x adapter is huge and has an 82mm rear thread diameter, so would work on lots more lenses. The Blazar Nero 1.5x has a smaller 52mm rear thread diameter, and the SLR Magic Anamorphot-40 1.33x has an even smaller 40mm rear thread. However, the SLR Magic Anamorphot-65 1.33x has a 82mm rear thread and the Anamorphot-50 1.33x has a 62mm rear thread. I think the BLAZAR LENS 1.35x has a 77 rear thread (not sure), and the Venus Optics 1.33x definitely has a 77mm rear thread. But, if you have the funds and really want coverage, then the Letus35 AnamorphX-PRO series (1.33x and 1.8x) seem to clamp to the outside of 114mm lenses. Of course, they're USD2500 and up! Let's go faster... The Sirui 1.25x adapter claims it's T2.8, but on my MFT 42.5mm F0.95 lens it didn't soften the lens even when shot at F0.95. Maybe it wouldn't be so good if paired with a lens faster than F2.8 on a FF sensor - not sure. If you took an 85mm F1.4 and attached the Sirui 1.25x adapter you'd get a 68mm T1.12 - and an 85mm F1.2 would become an 85mm F0.96! But take the 85mm F1.2 and attach the Anamorphot-65 1.33x instead and now we're down to 68mm F0.90!! My impression was that the FF 50mm F0.95 lenses were pretty mushy at F0.95, but with a 1.33x attached they'd be 38mm F0.71 (and probably like a drug-fuelled haze). You could find out what an F0.71 lens looks like for only USD800 - completely doable if you're crazy enough. If we ignore the compatibility issues, and zoom out, then here's how I think of it - front anamorphic adapters are horizontal speed-boosters you mount to the front of the lens. 1.25x is a 0.8x horizontal speedbooster 1.33x is a 0.75x horizontal speedbooster 1.5x is a 0.67x horizontal speedbooster 1.7x is a 0.59x horizontal speedbooster 1.8x is a 0.56x horizontal speedbooster On FF, you can take a lens and use an adapter to boost your lenses from FF to Medium Format and beyond. The Alexa 65 has a crop factor of 0.67 - which is within reach of these adapters. On S35, you can use an 1.5x anamorphic adapter to get you to FF, but you can combine that 1.5x with a 0.71 speed booster to boost non-mirrorless glass to a crop-factor of 0.71, which is about 6% smaller than the Alexa 65! On MFT, you can use the 1.33x adapter to get you to S35, or combine a 0.71x speed booster with the 1.5x adapter to get you to 0.95 - just bigger than FF! BUT maybe you can push harder than that. No idea! Any discussion that puts S35 closer to the Alexa 65 than FF, or MFT larger than FF would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Are there caveats? Sure. Compatibility for one thing. The stronger squeeze-factor adapters likely have limits with how fast you can push the aperture and perhaps on sensor size too. I suspect that my Sirui 1.25x T2.8 adapter might only be sharp with my F0.95 lenses wide open because they're MFT lenses on an MFT sensor. I could be wrong though. The smaller rear diameter of some of the other options might cause vignetting on larger sensors, and maybe softer corners at larger apertures. But lens sharpness and shallow DOF are only useful to impress paying customers and for bragging to your friends, and that's not what anamorphic is really for.. so if you're willing to stop acting like you live in a hospital, these things can open up a whole new world.

I get the appeal. Full frame makes that look easy. The medium format comparison is flattering, not literal. M43 can still do it, but only by design, not by accident.

These knock-off cameras seem a bit extra to me.

Good choice. I think that film-making is about compromises and the more you understand what you're trying to achieve then the more specific you can be with your equipment selection. The "I'll being everything just in case" shooter does so because they don't know what they want and therefore can't make any decisions. The more I shoot the more I understand what I want, how I work, what challenges I face, and what is available, and the clearer I get on what equipment I should use and why. It's sort of incredible that even with todays offerings of 8K video and 240p slow-motion and 14+ stops of DR and RAW and all the lenses available, even if you had infinite money, infinite strength to carry and operate heavy equipment, there are still serious compromises that have to be made. The does-everything camera is still a wild fantasy, even for gym bros in the billionaire class.

Fair point. I think that’s where full frame really starts to show its edge.

Wide angle and shallow DOF isn't for M43. Recently, I got the Laowa 28mm f/1.2 for my S5ii/S9. The rendering looks and feel like medium format. If your subject is 4-7 feet away, you get a really interesting look that is impossible on M43, showing plenty of context, yet quite a bit of blur. That lens is my indoor lens. I absolutely love it.

I get what you are saying though for sure. It's an artistic taste. I do still like it; i just find that you can get away with less, which is what I will end up getting with my 12-35 2.8 for example. It's a 5.6 full frame equiv. But I still think I can get enough to get by. And I get a nice tiny lens and dual IS.

I still do like shallow DOF, but I've find even the equivelant of a full frame f4 for example is just fine.

I think sometimes on forums and YouRube comments sections, too many get jumped on for wanting fast lenses with the often false assumption it’s all about getting the most shallow DOF possible, but for many of us, that is not the primary driver which is low light capability, ie, without the picture turning into a muddy mushy mess. Personally, I do like a shallow(er) DOF, but then for me it’s not a fad but something I have preferred for 25+ pro years. But not the razor shallow f1.0 in bright sunlight shallowness that causes all kinds of issues, more some clear separation and modest background blur rather than obliterated any and all context. Focal length can also of course remove said context so it’s all about balance and intent. In good light, outdoors, nothing much in it really but it’s definitely easier/more options with full-frame for low light. I don’t have anything faster than f1.8 for primes and no issues with low light.

Yeah I just figured why not embrace being on micro four thirds and use the small lenses I guess haha. But I DO need good lowlight for weddings and some concert stuff I do. G9II as Andrew said is good in lowlight. I rank it not bad. From my testing, if well-exposed then even ISO 12,800 is not too shabby all things considered. It does seem to revert back to contrast detect af at that high of an ISO though, or maybe that’s just V-log being b-log; I know log profiles in general aren’t always great with AF in lowlight. I may toy around with using cineD v2 in intense lowlight and running it through the same Davinci node tree I used to use with Nikon flat. Should still hold up better being 10 bit and I know to get a comparable exposure you don’t need to have as high of an ISO. I was unsure if I’d miss the extra two stops difference between the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 and the sigma/metabones combo. Same for DOF. But DOF isn’t everything. I think I’ll get enough with the 12-35. And I know I’ll just love how compact it will make the setup feel. And again the DJI 15mm 1.7 will sort of bridge the gap when I really need it.

Good call. I have spent years and years going back and forth between primes and zooms and in the end came to what should have been a very obvious conclusion and that is I need both. Depending on the circumstances. In an ideal world, I could do it all with fast zooms but fast zooms (faster than f2.8) are a rarity and come with the penalty of size & weight. I was debating (yet again) at the end of my most recent season the case for continuing with just primes (needs +1 body) or going back to zooms (needs -1 body) but there are compromises to both scenarios. Instead, I decided to go with the -1 body, but keep the primes and though it means a couple of extra lenses in my bag, that (and having to do a lens swap every now and again) is my only compromise. I took a very hard look at the G9II and I think if my needs were different, I might have gone for it (over the OM-1) but in the end decided I wished to stick with full-frame stills but would go back to shooting S35 for video. Which is what I am doing.

Settled on getting a combo of the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 II and the Panasonic/DJI 15mm 1.7! I figured 12-35 2.8 would be enough for a lot, and for the few times I know I need more shallow DOF, that 15mm 1.7 would give me a 30mm equiv which is a SUPER versatile focal length, while having very decent DOF.

Exactly. It does so much for such a cheap price. I am currently very torn between getting a Panasonic 12-35 2.8 II or a Sigma 18-35 1.8 & Metabones 0.64x speedbooster. I know both will autofocus well. I am unsure...would I prefer the small size of the Panasonic 12-35 or would I appreciate the 2 stops extra lowlight I'd get with the sigma combo. DOF is far from everything, so I think I could live with the DOF of the 12-35...decisions decisions.

Hi Everyone, What a year...ugh. In these troubling times, I thought I'd finish out the year with a music track that maybe offers a little bit of hope: "THE MEADOW WE CALL HOME" (looping) You can listen to it here: https://soundimage.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/The-Meadow-We-Call-Home.ogg And download it here: https://soundimage.org/fantasy-13/ Have a safe New Years Eve.

Once they brought the price down it made so much more sense to me, $2k region was always asking just a tad too much for a Micro Four Thirds camera, at least that was the perception. But this now has the specs of a $6k camera, only it's a Micro Four Thirds size sensor. So even at $2k it's a good deal. At nearly half that it's a total must-have. In the old days, the smaller sensor lacked dynamic range, low light performance and decent autofocus. This is just not the issue it used to be, gap has closed up.

So in the end, I went with an R6 III. 🤷‍♂️ How did I end up here, you may ask. I originally wanted R7 and R8, but had a hard time reconciling their limitations (R7 = slow readout, crazy 4K60 crop, AF issues, shutter issues; R8 = no IBIS, tiny battery). So I was still stuck without a "hero" camera. Something I could use for handheld video in most situations, and for photo on the same job if needed. I decided to get an R6 II, due to the holiday discounts that I hadn't anticipated earlier, to get past all limitations. Though now, I'd need to get a Ninja V+ to get the highest quality out of it ($500ish used), but I was OK with that. And then I got a deal I couldn't refuse on a new R6 III, which would end up costing the same as the R6 II/V+ combo, while exceeding even their limitations. Grabbed a 28-70/2.8 STM and Godox V480C while I was at it. Everything arrived at the very last second, and I was able to use the combo for the Xmas Eve job I had lined up that same night (nightclub photo/video). Photo AF was about on par with my A9 in extreme low light (good but not amazing). Got hung up on too many unintended faces, so I turned off subject detection. Video AF was definitely better than photo (no noticeable wandering/searching), probably because it moves slower. Lighting was super dark, so I was at ISO 25,600 4K24 video/6400 photo + flash, but the video quality held up thanks to the second base ISO being close. Added Canon's own CMT LUT and some Topaz NR, and the video was good to go! Vs my old OM-1, it's not even a contest. R6 III feels like a decade newer. Even the IBIS is MUCH smoother with more natural movement, despite everyone constantly blanket-praising m4/3 IBIS. It's hard to make it look bad if you move somewhat deliberately (slow walking through a crowd), while OM-1 would twitch at random, no matter how smooth you were, even with plain old panning. And OM-1 would randomly lose video focus in much brighter situations than that night, no matter how large the focus box was. R6 III stayed in place through some absolute hell situations (nightclub strobes), though photo AF completely choked at that point. Wondering if it was the 1/8 mist filter causing AF issues (no noticeable flaring), but it doesn't matter. I got all the shots I needed, the client was happy with the output, and the R6 III roughly worked as expected.

Well for me it is taking me out of the film right away. I feel there is something off in each shot. ( color, dof, detail, dynamic range, bad lighting,...) So for each their own I guess, but this is not for me. As I am constantly wondering why each shot looks off and that is keeping me off the story.. (not sure if people with no film experience can spot it, I think they can). But just my 2 cents. The only film I ever saw that kinda worked that way was "the blair witch project" but they tell you in the first minute. This is the footage of some students that went missing in the woods" so I could give it an place.