Leaderboard

Hey Borja, Yes unfortunately Lomo zooms do command a high price, if it seems too good to be true it probably is. This forum is a good place to buy for the most part. Tito is a good guy he's been doing business on here for a while. I would say anything this old and Russian would need to be serviced to get the best out of it anyway. If your budget won't stretch, go with a Sankor or a Kowa, you wont go too far wrong.

Hello fellow optical connoisseurs, I got the 85mm f1.2 canon on a lens binge today, and nowi am wondering how to adapt it on a canon mark 3. Does anyone know the lens? It needs a converter (FD lens to EF body), but as i read on, it seems the lens loses its infinity focus, and i don’t know if it even shows any vital marks when on the camera.There are some limitations that seem to be very serious ones. I am using it only on manual mode and for video. Does anybody own the lens, can you please recommend any good adaptors? Has anyone shot any video with it? Thank you very much for your time p.s don’t drink and lens

Only solution: http://www.ebay.com/itm/EdMika-Canon-FDn-FD-85mm-1-2L-EOS-mount-conversion-kit-/181006816741?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item2a24d8d5e5 I have read that on standard fd to eos adapter the lens is pretty much useless.

Don't use lenses for mounts with shorter flange distance than the one of your camera. Maybe there is someone who can change the lens mount for you to make it shorter.

one solution is the Kipon adaptors, the other is to convert your rear FD element I think, but maybe someone else knows better.

Especially since he doesn't light, generally speaking. Being able to see where he can use available light to artistic effect is some kung fu he's really strong in.

There's always the risk of feeling buyer's remorse with technology but, realistically, your film won't be any better or worse off no matter the decision you make. 4K isn't something most folks should be concerned about. It's no guarantee of a better looking film if it was projected in a theater and if it's not being projected in a theater it's pretty much a waste of money and resources and effort that could be used elsewhere. Most theatrical films are still finished 2K (regardless of origination) unless a director has the juice to force production to pony up for a 4K finish. You would think that for $100+ million dollar blockbusters this would just be a given, since they're already spending a mint but that isn't the case. It's still quite rare. Not as rare as even a year ago but it's not standard practice to finish 4K. Making your own feature, either putting up your own money or getting some from investors, you should save yourself the headache. Spend the money that might be needed for extra storage or an upgrade to your editorial on something like catering, being able to bump your key talent's per diem a bit or the wrap party (or wrap gifts...I didn't understand the importance of these my first indie). And make sure you even really need to upgrade your camera, considering it's an asset you already own. $1500 goes a long way on an independent feature. I admit I never thought much about the T2i but that was before seeing Kendy's stuff... ...I'm a GH2 guy and know it's technically a better camera but operator talent (along with the quality of the content) can render technical jibber jabber and megabits rather meaningless.

  Quite, it can't be "fine to shoot the grandkids" and copy a useless feature from high end. These are just excuses. It isn't finished, it's not a complete product.  You can't delete clips or format because the firmware isn't finished. It lacks some basic functions, and from what I've seen, the image is 'alright', not spectacular. Yes it's good for the money, but a camera is not just its image when you're under pressure.   Another couple of years yet I reckon til they're solid kit.   It's a tool, if it doesn't work right, then it doesn't work right. No one here owes it any abstract, philosophical leeway. Pure abstract 'image quality' is not everything, and it doesn't even kick arse at that. There's moire, it ain't so sharp, the highlights clip super hard, and some sensors are calibrated wrongly.   May sound harsh, but combined with all the glitches and shipping issues, there are a lot of negatives.   "it can be fixed in a firmware update"... yes so could many dream features. C100 could become a C500 and so on... but we've yet to even see decent functionality updates for the first bmd camera, let alone the 'pocket'. People wait for years with a tool they dislike, praying for updates only to be disappointed. It's just no way to live, guys  :blink:   Buying a tool because it might work properly later seems mad to me.   If you're dropping a lot of cash, you shouldn't have to 'work around' your gear. It should work for you.    This is, in it's current state, far less convenient to shoot on than an RX100, a pure consumer camera!   Also, all this extra 'quality' and 'grading room' is only any use for those who are able to take advantage of it, quite frankly. 90% of films I've seen made with these cameras haven't benefited in any meaningful way from high bitrate. They could have been shot on camcorders. The extra creative leeway simply hasn't been used by the shooters. It's the great power/great responsibility thing.   When it comes to judgement, if this were 4K or very compressed RAW or S35 prores, actually had a real standout feature (though of course the usefulness of each in context is debatable) that was fully functional... it'd deserve the easy ride it's getting in some parts...   but it's a box of compromises, and a bunch of the early bodies even need to be sent back for adjustment.   Imagine the amount of media you'd get through in raw? It won't even be slightly useful til cards are much bigger and faster cheaper, by which time it'll be obsolete. Moore's law is a bitch, she hits both ways...   I give them their due: it is an attempt at innovation. That in itself is good and we need more of it. But most of what is happening in the hands of a few pros and a lot of eager hobbyists, should have happened in a lab. I don't want to pay that much to be a beta tester.   In most of the shoots I've done recently, all of the pocket's 'niggles' would have resulted in me getting far fewer shots which would have impacted the creativity of the piece negatively. That's my number one concern TBH.  And that's the thing the client (in the pro world) or audience care about most, not a few more lines of resolution or a bit more grading room.   Though extended dynamic range or resolution is nice to have, it means nothing if you can't even capture the content in a given environment due to a high number of workarounds.   The OP's example of the director's dis-satisfaction is illustrative. As a director I wouldn't mind the whole thing being shot well on GH3 (granted, this is greenscreen, but for most shoots), but to have to pick up a few shots on a remarkably different camera at short notice because A-cam didn't work, would be annoying and a bit of a negative mark... you expect people to know their gear. how many people want to expose themselves to the possibility of looking foolish when their livelihood depends on it?   It's too glitchy for pros and it's needless 'quality' and excessive extra equipment for amateurs... I just don't think it's ready for either market.

Another, the Alary Design 'Phoenix'.  (shameless plug)  ;)   http://alarydesign.com/phoenix-brushless-drive-gimbals/