All Activity

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.

In one interview the director spoke about a black forest diffusion filter. The key factor is that they really wanted to go unnoticed. On the first day of filming, they had to abort because the crew showed up all dressed in black; everyone realized they were doing something and a crowd gathered to see what was happening. They sent everyone home and the next day they forced everyone to wear normal clothes and disperse once their tasks were finished. The group following the actors consisted of only 4 or 5 people.

At least judging by the trailer, I agree. The only thing that bugged me, really, was the glow/halation effect - were they actual diffusion filters or did they just smear the lens with vaseline? Other than finding the diffusion distracting, though, I thought the look was absolutely well-suited to the story being told. The choice of a phone felt intimate and immersive.

I think we are missing the point. Does it really matter exactly how it looks? The low-fi aesthetic fit the story perfectly and, to be honest, I enjoyed it visually much more than that Portuguese film shot on the GH7. Obviously, both are deliberate stylistic choices. If you read the article, the choice to shoot with a phone and minimal equipment was absolutely necessary to be able to film in a real market on an open set.Baker already shot a movie on an iPhone 5 years ago and looking at Anora, it's clear he isn't afraid to spend money when the production calls for it.

Do you honestly think it looks good?

It looks good. The use of iPhones is interesting. The quality is now more than good enough for narrative. I would imagine the camera operator would have been seen as just another YouTube travel and food blogger and ignored. I don't know how "guerrilla" their approach was though. Did they inform the market authorities they were shooting or did they just go and do it? Story wise it seems fine. From my perspective (in a progressive city in another country) the left handed thing is so old fashioned that I wonder if it's truly a thing in Taiwanese culture or just a device for this story.

I'm dumbfounded by the fact that the GM5 commands the same price as the S9 at roughly 840 euros on MPB. When will Panasonic take notice?

It is absolutely in a different league.

I know I can finally breathe haha. I’ve learned full frame is NOT the savior of the world. Shocking really!

Ignore it today, it's stuck in the past. E. :- )

I have not seen the film. I just watched the trailer because you shared the name. But I wonder why they chose the iphone 13 as the main camera. I wonder if its not just to tell people "hey we shot this on an iphone". I get you can win time with just shooting on an iphone, but the image just isnt there. Based on the trailer alone, its not a movie I would want to see, as I have not seen a single frame that looks great. It all looks like something a soccer mom or kid on youtube makes these days. Not into that vloggy style of filmmaking myself.

Welcome back! Can you tell me your name? Where are we? What year is it? Good, good... You've been in a DOF-induced coma for the last 7 years. We'll contact your families and let them know you've woken up - they'll be very happy to see you!

It's sad to hear this - the S9 seems to suffer with the same cost-cutting mechanisms of all smaller cameras. It's funny how consumer electronics mostly tend to charge a premium for smaller devices and yet when it comes to cameras the industry seems to regard small as being cheap and large as being professional.

This is the core challenge of film-making - compromises and trade-offs. Absolutely, open gate without dropping quality means many trade-offs.... more rolling-shutter, more processing demands in-camera, greater heat generated in-camera, more power requirements and therefore shorter battery life or larger batteries required, great write-speed requirements for the media and larger capacity media, more processing power to edit, greater hard drive capacity, etc etc etc. His choice to use the Ronin 4D would have been like any other choice in film-making - a tradeoff of various factors to try and optimise the outcome (video quality, customer satisfaction, profit on the job, or some other factor) but if I had to guess it might have been that the 4D has excellent stabilisation including a fourth axis, which would have been important if the operator was walking/running rather than having the shot on rails or using something that rolls (considering the shot was a horizontal move with parallax on what looked like a longer lens). So this situation ends up potentially being a trade-off between DOF, sharpness, size of area required for a shoot, and stabilisation (fourth-axis stabiliser / slider / rails / dolly / etc and the associated setup and teardown times, etc). The value of open gate is that it removes the requirement to trade some of these things off against each other. The key question being debated though, is choice. No-one is suggesting that everyone be forced to record in open-gate modes. Yet the people who are arguing against it are saying that it shouldn't be in cameras and therefore no-one should have the option to use it.