Leaderboard

Never thought i had particularly large hands, however one gripe i have found (its a personal one) is when i grip the e-m1 my little finger tends to wrap underneath as the camera isn't tall enough. Not that i want to call the e-m1 vertically challenged. Its more of a me thing than a camera design issue. One of the reasons to get it was the mft form factor. Its just a little uncomfortable to hold after a little while. At the moment it lives with the ziyhun space plate on the manfrotto base plate and that seems to work ok. I don't seem to have any issues with the plates on the bottom, i don't seem to accidently hit at all and i can put pretty much any lens on it without fear of it falling over. I suspect one of those optional HLD-9 Power Battery Grips is in the near future for this camera and the gimbal should accommodate the extra weight. At the moment its about 50 % tripod time and then 50% hand hold. Its nice the space plate and base plate are out of the way of the battery door and its easy to change the battery without having to take something off. I did get a few photos with the super takumar 35mm f2 today and i'm quietly confident that i met or exceeded the mission brief of finding a yellow lens. i should also point out it was nearly 4pm and winter here, so the sun is low in the sky. From the left, straight out of the camera. For the middle shot, and to get back to a less artistic image, i took a grey point off the lavender as thats kinda grey, perhaps a little too blue ? I do like the colour of the dirt in the middle photo but i suspect the rest of the photo is a bit too cool ? which might come back on using the lavender as a grey point also the gerbera isn't as orange as in real life. I can of course massage things in post but that kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise. Plus its all subjective anyway lol. Third is from the iphone 13 for a bit of a comparison, the flower certainly is more orange, maybe it pops a little too much. I guess the iphone is doing some " magic " although i am sure the profile is set to normal. I think its kinda interesting how cameras / lenses interpret an image and then how humans interpret that result as pleasing or not. I'll also add i don't like to overthink it, more of a conceptual thought rather than a whole process. Next shot is taken at the same time and i threw it in as i thought there was abit of fine detail in it with the spider webs. After that the battery died. I was hoping to get it charged for sunset however i was a bit late and it was abit of a bland sunset as well. So far i am liking this lens, from the very limited time i have played with it, it behaves like i thought it would. I have a bunch more things to try with this lens yet. I doubt anyone else will buy this lens for the same reason i bought it. Most would buy it and stick out under the sun or uv light to clear away the colour cast. To me thats what makes it unique. I do have other takumars super taks and smc's and the 17mm smc on the desktop beside me is clear or almost clear of a colour cast. I'll have to check the others now ... The 17mm smc also has a filter wheel built in with a red, yellow, and clear, i remembered that only a couple of days ago... I should get some comparisons to satisfy my curiosity. Also its very much a mint looking lens and the focus works smoothly and aperture work nicely, i also bought one that had front and rear lens caps. After my first couple of takumars it began to annoy me that people will sell these lenses and ship them round the world without a front or back lens cap. I am confident i have always paid good prices for the lenses i have bought and honesty i think its just lame, that people cheapen out and won't put a cheap cap on it. I have a birthday next week, kind of ironic and depressing to think that i am as old or older than these lenses. These lenses keep working just fine, however my shoulder is starting to pack it in... 🙄

Wow, "too clean" wasn't a reaction I anticipated!! Yes, it was 24p (well, 23.976p anyway). I don't think I've heard of shooting a little slower to give a more filmic cadence - interesting idea and one I will absolutely try. I'm not sure how I would actually shoot at that speed, as I don't know which of my cameras would offer that option, but as a test I could just slow some of the above 24p plant footage down as plants moving slightly slower in the wind is a thing that happens so shouldn't be too surreal. I've slowed 30p cameras down to 24p, which is a 20% speed reduction and noticeable, which would be about the same for slowing 24p down to 20p. I am yet to really study that test I posted, but my initial impressions were that while it looked like film, it didn't have that certain something I'm looking for. What I'm looking for I can't describe, but it's sort-of the opposite of that "video look" of shooting 60p with sharp lenses and with accurate colour science and proper WB. I watched Old Guard 2 a few days ago and was impressed with how it seemed to have a cinema look but was also quite sharp (which I think have a strong negative relationship) but when I went back and took screenshots I found it actually wasn't that sharp. I then went looking at film trailers trying to find examples with this real cinema look, but most of them were sort-of "neutral" in the sense that they looked somewhere between cinema and video, with some being closer to cinema than others but none being fully at that end of the spectrum. They were mostly uploaded in 1080p from the studios, and the ones in 4K were from other movie review sites and looked a lot more detailed but I can't be sure if these are AI upscaled or what the image pipeline was, so I didn't look at them. When I think about what looked really cinematic to me is mostly old films that were actually shot on film and are surprisingly soft and grainy, so I really need to go looking for some high-quality footage (that I can trust) from more recent films. Anyway, this all sort of made me question if I was now just seeing things, or if all the trailers looked too sharp to me (including the trailer for the first Knives Out movie which seemed to be very high quality upload), so I am going to do some more testing and try and reality check myself with more research and more testing. Also here in Australia some services stream in SD (for a variety of reasons) so there's a non-zero chance I've just gotten used to that, but having said that when I go to the cinema to watch the really big films (like Dune 2 or Bond movies etc) they don't look sharper than I was anticipating, so I don't think it's that. In an attempt to give myself some perspective, yesterday I shot a motion test where I shot the same shot of the plants and then I walked through the backyard, with the following settings: - iPhone 60p using auto-SS (short shutter) - iPhone 30p using auto-SS (short shutter) - iPhone 24p using auto-SS (short shutter) - GX85 24p using auto-SS (short shutter) - GX85 24p using 180-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 180-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 216-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 288-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 360-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 108-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 70-degree shutter I haven't looked at that one in detail yet either, but it was sort of a combined test of subtle variations in shutter speeds (the GH7 shots) and also a reality check to judge the GH7 shots against actual video (iPhone and GX85 auto-SS shots). Today, I've just finished assembling this monstrosity: This is the P2K and GX85 on top, with GH5 and GH7 on the bottom. I finally own enough vNDs to do this, although the 82mm vND I bought for the Sirui anamorphic adapter does look rather ridiculous on the P2K and 12-35mm! I'll shoot a side-by-side with all of them rolling and will walk around the yard to get a number of compositions and lots of movement. I forgot to include the P2K in yesterdays test, but I also want to have a reference where the motion is essentially the same, which is why I have rigged them together. I can replicate a 35mm F11.5 FOV on all these, so should have mostly the same image. There will be resolution/sharpness differences, but I can level the playing field in post by applying various FLC profiles, which will be a good test to see if any perceived differences disappear or not. I'm still waiting for my Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter to arrive, but once it does some future tests will include various combinations of the wide-angle adapters, the anamorphic adapter, modern AF lenses, modern MF lenses, vintage lenses, and probably some filters too, as I've got a small collection of softening filters and a few vNDs of vastly varying quality which should add a look to the footage too. I might also shoot some tests comparing various amounts of rolling shutter too, as I think the GH7 has strong enough codecs and enough modes to make meaningful comparisons between these too.

You can't compare a fast 35mm to a 50mm F8 macro lens or whatever it is they usually use on the DPR test scene. It's a fantastic lens, always was. Even wide open at F2.0 it's close in sharpness to F5.6 stopped down. Of course, only in the centre - but the DPR test scene is a sensor test scene, it isn't designed for wide angle lenses. The real-world performance of the lens is what matters. It's not as good as a Leica M APO 35mm F2 for 4 grand or the 35mm F2.0 lens on the Zeiss ZX1, but it's still very good. I have always treasured the shots from my RX1R and RX1R II That's what counts, not the pixel peeping at 2000% magnification. I think it does just fine... By far the most important thing with a lens is to go out and take real shots with it... The Panasonic 28-200mm on paper is a piece of garbage. Is not the sharpest, not the fastest, F7.1 at the telephoto end, and yet it shoots shots like this... Which look like they're shot with a high-end 135mm F2.0. The rendering is just superb at 200mm F7.1 Does it look like F7? Nah.

Still too clean for me. Dod you record at 24fps? Maybe try lower at 20-21fps to give a more filmic cadence?