All Activity

That's a hell of a lens! I have a Tokina 400mm F5.6 permanently on my GH5 now to act as a telescope because I looked into buying one and it was cheaper and more fun to buy a super-telephoto lens! It's not super-sharp wide open but in daylight you can just stop down, plus anything that is quite far away suffers from heat haze anyway, so the sharpness of the air is the limiting factor. I've thought about going on safari for years but have never actually gone. My thinking eventually lead me to the idea of having two bodies, one with a very long lens on it, and the other one with a very shot zoom on it so you can get shots of when the monkeys start stealing food out of your van, or the elephants ram you. My impression from social media is that these things are practically guaranteed to happen. I have the PanaLeica 100-400mm on my "when I'm a millionaire" list as it seems it would be perfect for things like a safari where you never know how far away the subjects are going to be.

Ouch!! My GH7 (with battery, card, 14-140mm, and vND) is just over 1.1kg. The 12-100mm is just a hair under 300g heavier, so the GH7 + 12-100mm combo would actually be a hair above 1.4kg by the time it's fully functional, and my setup doesn't even include any audio equipment, so that's also something to take into consideration. I walked around Pompeii carrying the GH5 + Voigtlander 17.5mm + Rode Videomic Pro (1.4kg) in my hand for several hours, raising it up when I saw something I wanted to shoot. My wrist was sore for several days afterwards, just from having the weight on it for that long. It might be something you'd get used to, but having to train so you have the strength and stamina to carry a camera around seems a bit much to me! I agree. The high-ISO performance is actually quite impressive too. For low-light I have the 9mm F1.7 with CrZ and if I want longer range than that I have the 12-35mm F2.8. Probably the only other lens I would get for super-low-light shooting is the PanaLeica 15mm F1.7 because it's small and fast and being a Leica lens should be nice and sharp wide-open so the CrZ mode should be quite usable with it.

I own and use both. The Oly 12-100mm F4 is a great lens, but it's much bigger and heavier than the Pana 14-140mm (560g versus 265g) - both on an OM-1: On an E-M1 ii/iii or OM-1 the 12-100mm supports Sync-IS which gives sublime video IS performance, but even with the relatively light (for that kind of camera) OM-1, the combo is 1.2 kg and somewhat front-heavy if you're using it handheld. A GH7 + 12-100mm would be nearly 1.4 kg. As a 'travel' lens, IMHO the combination of low weight and focal length range makes the 14-140mm almost perfect (other than in really low light, of course).

But, imo, you/me/we are only capable of looking at this from our particular idea of art and what it means for art to have a soul. The next couple generations of kids will have different reference points for that same idea/measurement. This is why the big corps pushing AI don't care how we feel about it - bcuz they're looking at the long game. So they understand that we are not their target audience (bcuz we'll be dead, lol). Their target audiences are the generations coming up who will be born into a world where AI, etc is just the norm. So you're absolutely right that there will still be people who value art that has a soul - but again, what will prob be different is the criteria they use to decide what art with a soul looks/feels like. It will be different - but just as essential to their existence as it has always been throughout human history. There is no technological advancement that will ever result in humans losing their desire to make/consume art with soul. What can and is happening is that we are losing our ability to monetize/exploit/make a living off art with soul on a large commercial scale. But that really only matters bcuz we currently live/work/exist within a capitalist system that is exploitative by design.

Today I stepped out to poke around a local park to look for a spot for the feature I'll be shooting soon. I took the chance to finally take out the Canon 35/1.4 and the Fujinon 500/5.6 to test them on the GFX, the latter especially because I'll be going to Namibia in a few months and will want/need something for wildlife in the distance, especially when driving around Etosha. The 35/1.4 on the GFX is totally fine, no complaints. The 500/5.6 is... astounding. I would usually say that sharpness isn't the most important thing for a lens, but with this sort of telephoto, I guess it kind of is - I'm going to care less about lens character when trying to photograph a giraffe in the distance eating the leaves from the top of a tree (I really hope I get to see a giraffe!!!) and I'm probably going to care a lot more about being able to crop in and discern the giraffe. I have a number of other fairly competent telephotos, but this one is just on another level. Here is a still photo of another park across the river with the 35/1.4. I saw a person by the storm drain and thought maybe I'd caught an urban explorer in the act... However, with the 500/5.6, I realized I couldn't have been more wrong. GF in 8k mode here and on a 4k scope timeline since that's what my scratch project is set to... And at 4x zoom in Resolve (for 1:1 from 8K): And his friend nearby, 8k and 1:1 punch in from 8K... The still photos had even a little more detail still - even though the light is imperfect, I can make out individual hairs of the hairs of the beard of the guy fishing by the drain. I also need to do a couple of tests with the Fuji 1.4x TC to push the lens out to around 700mm - it's a great TC and I barely notice any loss of detail with the 250/4 so I'm assuming that'll be true with the 500/5.6 as well. If so, I'll have some confidence that I can do alright with the wildlife of Etosha!

I dunno. I think people have a good sense of when some art just doesn't have any soul. Many won't care but a lot will, enough to cause a reaction and a different direction. Look at other art movements in history, most of them were a reaction to a status quo establishment that was no longer interesting.

You're absolutely right, but the creator of the future will likely be wired differently than us. Specifically when it comes to how we perceive/capture/synthesize/translate the real world into different visual/audio mediums for the purpose of telling/expressing a story/POV. So it is understandably hard for us to fathom how AI will change things. But that could be the "difference" you're sensing. But that doesn't mean the core thing(s) that drive humans to create will change. But I could also be completely wrong too, so there's that, lol.

Curious to know how Canon users go, very interested in this. Have a C70 and R3. R3 does not need but C 70 would benefit greatly. I’ve never been game to put a Lupe on it because of how flimsy the screen is. I might brush up on the returns policy and procedure if it doesn’t work and maybe send the seller a message asking them first and then bite the bullet.

Nice! What type of underwater housing are you using for your GH5s? That looks really beautiful.

It still have one of the sharpest FHD footage since it is supersampled from 4k sensor If C100II have 4k it will certainly change the projectary of the cinema space, unfortunately Sony came out with 4k FS5 and that was history (I was one of the early adaptor of fs5 ha) With c300ii only have 4k30p certainly doesn't help either when FS7 have 4k60p

I agree 100%, it is technically perfect for a beginner to grow into the system, both in photo and video terms. Now about the AI stuff I don't know. I have my reservations for it as a tool for human expression. As of this moment there is a stark difference between going out into the world and shooting with your own hands and eyes and soul vs. prompting lines into a machine.

Understandable. Not the smallest camera in the world lol.

The Canon C100 was a fantastic camera. Great images and ergonomics. It's main problem for me was it's size. It was hard to pack away quickly with a lens attached.

Literally he is so underrated

GxAce's stuff is so good. One of the few YTers I will purposefully wait to watch on my desktop or TV.

prepping a no budget feature. here's some stuff that i like somewhat from the past year and a half or so:

We should revive this what cool stuff is everyone making right now?

Even the freaking c100 II and original A7S look incredible in the right hands.

And the difference now is nothing like what it used to be. When we leapfrogged from lineskipped Canon t2i mush to GH4 clean 8mp 4k readouts, those were some huge IQ improvements. Everything now feels so tiny, what I really do care and appreciate about with modern releases is workflow, ergonomics, things that contribute to my enjoyment of shooting. And I do see genuine advancements. That’s what matters to me.

Haha nice I just bought a Nikon F 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 as a dirt cheap zoom lens for my Nikon z6. Gonna post about it in the lenses topic but yea f4 is often plenty. Yepp. I was networking with a wedding videographer the other day and showing her some of my work, she was asking me if I shot in SLOG3 when like half the videos I sent her were in 8 bit flat on my Nikon z6, but they were color graded in davinci to improve the highlight rolloff etc lol they did not end up looking different from lots of people’s videos they’re produced on FX3s. Really does come down to how you use the tools and seems that we’ve had sufficient tools for quite a while. I still don’t think I have reached the limits of what my 7 yr old Z6 is even capable of haha. Again I also think a big reason in people’s minds that they think the current crop of cams looks so much better than the stuff we had in 2017/18 (or heck even 2015 with some of the stuff I’ve seen from the Panasonic GX85 lol) comes down to skill. YouTube reviewers are much better in lighting, grading, editing etc than they were when say the A7iii was released. Yea there are totally very real advancements and I’m not discounting that these advancements can be extremely helpful, but I think so many older cameras are capable of a wayyy better image that I used to think…and that a lot of people on YouTube still think.

Equivalent to 3.2K to be more precise :- )

This seems like a simple question, but the more I think about it, the less simple it gets. Let's start out with the seemingly obvious answer - it looks like Super-16 because the sensor is literally a S16 sized sensor. End of thread, thanks for coming, byeeeee! Here are some thoughts suggesting it looks more like S35, or at least more than S16. Some are good arguments, some aren't, but summed up I think they're hard to dismiss. It appears sharper than S16, a lot sharper. Without getting overly technical, S35 has around 4K resolution, but the level of contrast on the fine details is quite low, and it's well known that by the time you print and distribute a 35mm film it really only looks like about 2K once it's projected in cinemas. This is perhaps the biggest argument for me - the P2K just looks like cinema did in the 90s. I know this isn't comparing a 35mm neg scan with the P2K files, but virtually all the memories of 35mm film that most people would have are from movies shot and distributed on film, not from viewing modern film scans. Lenses are much sharper now too, adding to it. S16 lenses were often very vintage! We have speed boosters, much faster lenses, and much wider lenses now. One of the looks of S16 was longer focal lengths and deep DOF, but if we were to use the P2K like we would use any other camera, it would be with speed boosters and faster lenses which would have much shallower DOF. The wider lenses we have now would be much sharper and faster too. So the lens FOV, lens DOF, and sharpness combinations would all be much more like S35 was, and perhaps even exceed it. How it's used would be much more modern. The framing, movement, lighting, locations and subjects also play a role in 'placing' a medium. This has probably changed less than the above arguments, and the things that any of us might shoot are more likely to still resemble things that I would associate with S16 (like FNW and TV and low-budget projects). I'm curious to hear thoughts from others. I've been reviewing my equipment and got to the P2K and thought "oh, it's a pocketable S16 camera" but my brain immediately added "that looks like 90s movies" and then I realised that these two things don't align!

Yeah, I think we’ve hit a ceiling in a lot of ways. Most of the "progress" over the last couple of years has been in resolution increases, but visually it hasn’t been a major leap. It’s nothing like the jump from SD to HD, or even HD to UHD. And honestly, most of us aren’t even making full use of UHD, since our TVs usually aren’t big enough to show the difference clearly. There have been a lot of quality-of-life improvements when it comes to acquiring images, and things like color science have improved. But visually, you can still take a GH5 and, with some effort, get results that look very close to modern cameras. I can’t say the images I’m getting from my S5 and S5IIX are that much better than what I got from my old GH5. The larger sensor and better color are definite upgrades, but I don’t always take advantage of them. I often shoot at f/4 or higher because I don’t want extremely shallow depth of field. And while the color is nicer out of the box, it mostly just saves time. I was still able to get the look I wanted from the GH5 with a bit more work.

The mad texture-maker is at it again! Brand new seamless textures are ready for your projects...you'll find them here: https://soundimage.org/txr-brick-seamless/ Thousands more await you on my website...all free to use in your projects with attribution, just like my music. https://soundimage.org/images-home-page/ Enjoy, stay safe and keep creating! 🙂

Yes, it's the AF that makes me think of manual lenses on the GF3. For stills it's a fully featured camera, but for video it's auto-everything* and so having an AF lens on it is a pain because the CDAF will hunt occasionally. (* actually I recorded some clips with it last night and discovered it keeps the current WB setting - how odd that's the only thing it will let you lock down!) If you don't already own the Olympus body cap lens then perhaps the "7Artisans 18mm f/6.3 Mark II" might be a better choice as it's cheaper and faster than the Olympus.