Leaderboard

Will be joining the YouTube party at some point.

Bigger sensor, or faster lens? Which is most important? Well, a lens you can change and your sensor you cannot. Here's how to stop worrying about crop sensors. Read the full article

Forced AF with an AF-ON button does not work well in video mode. Gives too much hunting. So my practice is to have a dedicated button that toggles between AF/MF. When I want to focus I engage the toggle and to set the focus point you can touch the point on the touchscreen. Then turn off if you don't want to change focus any more. Woks reliably for me.

I wish you'd start a Youtube show Andrew to combat all the misinformation (esp from Northrup) out there

We have standards for tonnes of things, why not gimbals? Specifically, how well they stabilise? As far as I can tell, a gimbal is a physical device that receives vibrations from the handle and through the three motors forms a low-pass filter such that only large slow motions are able to make it through to the camera. This should be easily test-able via a test rig of some kind. I would expect a graph showing dB of attenuation across a range of frequencies over the three axis's of motion. That way we'd be able to say things like: "gimbal X has better attenuation than gimbal Y up to vibrations of strength Z, but above that X runs out of steam and Y is better, therefore for fine work X > Y but for difficult environments Y > X" or "gimbal A has much better attenuation of higher frequencies than B or C or D, therefore if you plan on mounting it to a vehicle (which has a vibration frequency distribution shown in the graph below) you're better off with A". Instead, what we get is "I'm going to watch youtube videos where people compare two different gimbals by running with each in turn, therefore seeing how well each performs IN STABILISING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF VIBRATIONS". Hardly the best way to compare devices costing hundreds or thousands of dollars.

I just joined to applaud this article. Very well-written and thoughtful. I guess it helps that I agree with every bit of it. Filmmakers should be shit-disturbers, not fast-food scientists creating pre-chewed garbage for people who know no better.

@horshack If I'm not mistaken, pixel vignetting is entirely due to angle of incidence on the sensor. Smaller sensors have less oblique angles of incidence at the corners. I could be wrong, but I bet that pixel vignetting won't be a factor in this comparison. I'd love to see evidence either way, though.

@Sage I'm loving all the work you're doing on all this. I really respect you for that.

It seems to me the price of getting bigger sensors into cameras is falling faster than the cost of getting bigger faster lenses to make up for the smaller sensors.

Right? They can say, "Our camera gives the best detail" With the OLPF side-by-side, you can really dial it in to get the Alexa aesthetic - here are new settings that are even better than the previous for the single node approach:

I usually use Blur (0.53) as a node and change the gain to like 0.3. Will try your solution as well. On a sidenode. Just tried out the Sony A7 III earlier. At -7 there is absolutely no sharpening. Wondering why Panasonic forces it on us?

One better - you actually only need the base clip in Resolve (no second Opacity layer needed) Just set Gaussian Blur 'Blend' to 0.640, and the Strength at 0.170, as before. Also - Border Type to 'Replicate' for good housekeeping. *Note: these settings are for working in a 2K timeline (I shoot 2K All-I, and the Alexa C is 2K), they may change per NLE when at 4K (Also 0.160 might be preferable for detail resolving)

In final testing stages now, so early next week hopefully.

Voigtlander vs SLR Magic: I have the 25mm 0.95 Voigtlander and it's amazing. Only thing is it has a bit of bloom wide open but it's useable for video. The image is lovely. The SLR Magic 12mm T1.6 is nice enough and a lot cheaper. It has a natural look (not like the Lumix lenses) and is a bit warmer than the Voigt. It's a bit harder to focus as well. What I really feel is that T1.6 is not fast enough for me at times on the GH5. M43 vs APSC/FF I have the GH5, a Speedbooster Ultra and the Sigma 18-35mmm 1.8 (1.2 with the Speedbooster) and there are good things to say about the combo. What I really like is the IBIS as it means I can go handheld in run'n'gun situations. The 4K 10bit and 4K 50p are great and give a lot of flexibility in post (edited in 1080p). But....it has 4 weaknesses for me for video. Coming from a Canon C100 mk1, the GH5 really isn't great in lowlight. With the same Sigma lens I could go to 6400-8000 iso with the Canon and with the GH5 it's pushing it at 3200. Whilst the Voigtlander improves things I don't feel it's able to really compete. Another problem is focussing. The LCD and EVF are miles better in the GH5 but being able to punch in to check focus is a godsend in the C100. In the GH5 if you haven't nailed it you are punished (we won't even go into AF!). Ergonomics is another issue. The GH5 is a vast improvement over the Canon DSLRs I have used before but on a C100 everything is in the right place and works. I now find myself thinking about buying a loupe (Vary-i) or mini rig for the GH5 which is not why I bought it! I wanted to go lighter! The other thing I notice is that somehow (voodoo?) the small Canon (WDR) files seem to have far more dynamic range than the GH5 (even 10bit). The Canon is somehow able to make the image work and handles complicated lighting (colour temp or lack of light) much better. At least that's my opinion! So last night I got very little sleep as I contemplated selling the GH5 and buying a C100mk2! Why o why hasn't Canon produced a 4k 50p C100 mk3!!!

Wonder if he thought A Serbian film was the feel good hit of the year..

brilliant. Can't wait to try this out. The over sharpened and processed look from the GH5 is the main thing that keeps it inferior to proper cinema cameras in my opinion. Looks very close in your examples. Thanks for your work!

I find going from stills to video is like you discovered in your fun time with the A73. What I did for myself to make it easy to do both is to set C1 as base set of video settings and then the same to C2 for a base set of photo settings. If I am going to do video I turn the mode dial to C1 and then adjust from there. If I am going to shoot some quick images then I turn the dial to C2 and fine tune whatever I want to do with the images. The only catch, or "gotchya" is after you turn from C1 to C2 you MUST hit the SET button to register all the changes. Same when going back to C1. What I should actually say is, whenever you change to a C1 or C2 always hit the center SET button for the changes to happen to the camera. I was easily able to work this camera this way in a fast paced event. I had the video settings using the wide mode and face detection focus modes plus all my other video settings, but the C2 for pictures is registered differently with the Flex-L focus mode as the launching point when I go to C2. Of course all the other settings registered to my liking for pictures versus video. Peter PS I would have liked more than just C1 and C2 like the Panasonics have, but . . .

Great article. To me it has always been about if there are lenses to match though I have never actively tried to match systems and have just tried to use what was appropriate for the system I am using/used (FF, APSC, M43 and Pentax Q). In the last couple of years there has been an increasing number of faster options for smaller sensors (and FF too). I am sure there will be situations that I would have to go higher ISO with FF than M43 but not as many as is often implied and is focal length and subject dependent and sometimes it might just mean a different shutter speed. The thing that I sometimes have an issue with is "matching DOF". FF lenses get infinite DOF pretty quickly with wide angle lenses so in many cases there will be nothing to match once you are at infinity anyway. Longer lenses like 300mm also I find the typical subject will have enough DOF even at 2.8 FF Maybe around 50mm FF versus 25mm M43 for my uses there could be an issue FF for me with very fast lenses but while I like fast lenses, I use them wide open fairly rarely (at times a few 50 1.2 and an 85 1.2 and a 24 1.4) but then it is pretty hard to match those fast speeds FF with M43 anyway.

Art in which the supposed audience are not supposed to get it, generally work because the people who believe they are the audience are not. Some artists are their own intended audience, taking amusement at the bewilderment, or for others to take amusement at the same thing. When you make a work intended for (insert group here) and that group of people see it and say it's rubbish, then it's rubbish. Art is a lot of things but one thing it can never be is audienceless. Art by definition is supposed to be seen or otherwise experienced. Sadly artists are just normal people and come with the full range of weasel like behaviour that we can all exhibit when our feelings are hurt, and that includes lying about the intention of art if it fails the honest intention. As for "commercial art", everyone's got to make a living, and if you can monetise the thing you love, why shouldn't you, why should you get sneered at for making the decision about your life that made you happy? Who are you to say that if I make something and someone is prepared to pay to experience it, that it's worth less than something made that no-one is prepared to pay to experience? Or that if I choose to take that money, suddenly my art is less worthy.

I have known that from the day I started photography. BUT as you say, 1.2 and 1.4 on FF cannot be replicated on M43 and i do not agree there is a big difference between a FF 1.4 and 2.0. Also I don’t agree with DR in stills. Giant leap between M43 and FF, and yes I have owned a GH4, GH5 and Olympus as well as FF DSLRs and A7RII. Massive real world difference. In fact as you say super 35 is not bad. A Nikon D7200 for exemple boasts a very good usable DR better even that some FF like Canon shit. But M43, not at all. For video DR is less impacted. In fact FF is not crazy important for me in video especially because having a 1.4 look in video is pretty hard to manage. I returned the GH5 not because of M43, but because of that god damn shitty AF. GH5 with great AF is all I need for video and I guess it’s gonna be a A7S3 i would not mind paying less for body and lens and loose FF. Again, for video only.

I use the c500 for all my work 2k 60 12bit the C300 mkii does not have this. It is an amazing camera. I think you can get DPAF on this it’s not been done however it is the same sensor as the C300 mk1 and that has DPAF. Re: Pro Res Raw, in the menus it does have 4k 60 raw and 4k 120fps half raw email Atomos and shout about it they should consider it. Here is some of the Work shot with the c500, a documentary I am working as a DP on

Thought I'd play around with that shot. The overexposure on the guy's collar really bugged me at first but it doesn't seem to be hugely obvious now.

Yep, perspective is only affected by the distance of the objects to the lens. The focal length & sensor size do not affect perspective in any way. A 25mm on a m4/3 sensor with an aperture of f/1.4 will have the same perspective and DoF as the 50mm on a FF sensor with an aperture of f/2.8. The other aspects of the image like distortion or busyness of the bokeh depend on the design of the lens and not the focal length/aperture/sensor size.

I used the 25m T/0.95 from slrmagic extensively and enjoyed it a lot. The GH5 still lags behind though compared to full frame. You need the GH5s in order to much the low light performance for the same DoF (two stops slower on the FF) at least in video. For photos there is still at least a 2 stop difference between m4/3 and FF and will always be the case for sensors with similar technology and a 4 times area difference. The advantage of the FF lenses is that you can get very good AF with very shallow DoF which can also work great with video. The eye-AF is just an amazing thing to have if you like shooting faces with very shallow DoF. Another important point is that while these lenses are OK for video, the quality is not great for stills. You have to go up to the newer Olympus f/1.2 PRO line to get really good results, and then you are actually paying a lot of money for a m4/3 lens and still lag behind in the sensor department.

Wide open I don't like so much. I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split. That looks good to me. No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

Looking forward to seeing how you guys get on with the adapters... post some videos!

Interesting article and great job matching the focal lengths and depths of field, but the cost associated with getting the full frame look with the GH5 will put you at $2500-$3000. With an a7iii and a Nikkor 35mm f/2, you can be well on your way for less than $2200, plus you’ll have the option to go with f/1.4 and 1.2 lenses and higher ISOs. The Voigts are a great cheat though and the 25mm is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used.

Hey Salim. Thanks for creating this topic. I just found it and I'll check it out tonight and report anything about the camera I discover.

The Shining, Scarface and Terminator got mild reviews when released too. haha

"so many people can’t interpret the correct target of a film or even a joke, because they are too thick." A joke, or a film that has to explain itself to the audience is a failure. If the audience don't get it, then you as an artist have failed, you've either marketed it in such a way that the wrong people are going to see it, or you're not a very good artist. Now if you're trying to show something to an audience that they wouldn't usually see, and are trying to show them why your work is good, then you both need to expect the discussion about it, along with the criticism and for only the very pinicle of your genre to have any chance of success. If you are not at the pinnacle, you're likely to fail. " I remember reading just recently about a top scientist who was in a large elevator with a lot of members from the audience of a conference, and he joked he wanted someone to press the button for him to get out at the women’s lingerie department. The target for this joke was of course himself, a decaying old man finding humour in a desperate fictionalised version of himself, seeking sexual satisfaction by exploring the women’s lingerie department, " With you completely... "but he ended up losing his job because people in the elevator took offence" He didn't lose his job. He didn't lose anything. If he does, it won't be about the joke, it was about how he responded to the complaint. See below. "saw the target as their gender, thought it misogynistic and wanted him fired. And the community in which he worked was so politically correct that they actually went ahead and did so. A life’s work ruined in a blink of an eye, a career smashed in the time it takes to make a wise crack in a lift. Actually, the complaint about the joke was, quite rightly about to be dismissed. The big problem wasn't the joke, it was that he tried to intimidate the person who complained. Ex Partie communication is a very bad thing and should never be defended. "but trivially empty family friendly content has kick started a mental health epidemic" No it hasn't "In the lead up to this year’s Cannes, Kate Muir of the Guardian newspaper in the UK lambasted Von Trier’s presence in the festival purely for being male" It's interesting you think she lambasted him, given that all she did was print his own words, in context. What she was saying was, when there are all these great female directors, why is space being given to this guy. Here's things he has said. She was lambasting Cannes, yes, but him, no - his own words were enough - she even printed his follow up's to complaints about his words. "At the screening of the new film, over 100 critics walked out mid-way through, probably because .." Probably? Hmmm..... anyone can make up stories about why someone did domething that supports their narrative, look: You probably wrote this article because you have been kidnapped by aliens. "The Ghostbusters remake and Black Panther were both terrible films " Black Panther was terrible? Really? Most people disagree with you. "and were practically immune to criticism" Not being criticised doesn't mean they were immune to criticism. For starters Ghostbusters was heavily criticised. I've only seen one even slightly positive bit of press about it that they didn't pay for and it was as faint praise as you can get, basically saying that it's for kids, and this is what kids find funny (They don't, as you can see by kid's criticisms of the film). Black Panther meanwhile was not heavily criticised because most people thought it was OK. "This privileged puritan mindset implies that women and black people are so downtrodden, they need some lightweight popcorn hit to empower them into doing something with their lives. " Hmmm... No. This "privileged" "puritan" mindset implies that not all successful movies need to be made for straight white guys in their early teens through late 40's. "it demonstrates to us that Von Trier and artists like him are right not to care, because logically the audience have no right to be offended." You there, stop feeling the things your feeling and saying the things you are saying! You don't have the right too feel those things and say those things. Von Trier would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement of yours: “Rebelling is part of my family. If you come to a family gathering, the family says something, you have to say something else. Then my family met my wife’s family, who said yes to everything, but my family often said no. If I see a form or a concept, I’d naturally challenge it, to see if there’s any possibility to gain more from it.” If everyone loved his film, if no-one was offended, if no-one criticised it, then he's failed, in his own eyes. "It is the filmmaker who is offering something to the audience." In exchange for money. Never forget that bit, you can rightly rail against criticism if you are offering it with no expectation of recompense, but as soon as you earn a living from your trade, expect to be compared against others doing the same, and criticised for where you fall short. "To feel personally insulted afterwards tells me that these critics are grandstanding a superior moral position over a work of FICTION, whereas the job of Von Trier the director is to create art, not a piece of ethical code for society." Logically then, you are grandstanding a superior moral position over a film writeup, whereas the job of a critic is to guide consumers to work they may enjoy, not a piece of ethical code for society. "In the puritan society" Let's talk about this. Can you really call a society puritan when bikinis are acceptable wear, when pornhub exists, when comedians routinely get naked on stage. Society isn't puritan, especially when you understand puritans dislike violence too, but society doesn't want to see tits in nearly every film (It would be nice if violence was in nearly every film too), not because they don't like seeing tits, but because it's so fucking boring seeing the same story points over and over and over again. If every schlocky horror film had gratuitous closeups of amputees limb endings, it would be that which society would be bored of. " really, it amounts to cultural censorship" Spoken like someone who has never experienced the horrors of actual censorship. No-one is putting him in prison for his movie, they are just not going to give him as much money as you would like for it. That's not censorship, cultural or otherwise. "If the industrial pioneers whose technology led to the creation of the camera all sat around raising awareness about empowerment of science, rather than making experiments in a lab" They did both, actually, because, you know, people aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts. "and the way things are going we’ll be without the future films of one of the world’s most interesting directors because no studio will accept his material." The irony, on a piece decrying pearl clutching, you scoop up the mightiest pearls you can find and clutch them so hard it's making me think this whole piece is your attempt at comedy. ---- I do agree with the thrust of your argument - that films like this are important and should be given publicity - I just think you went about it in quite the stupidest way possible. Now excuse me while I write an email to my local arts cinema explaining why they should show this film. Please stop assuming I'm so dumb (and the silent majority) that I swallow critics self serving ramblings hook line and sinker. And try to not say things that are factually wrong.

I don't think the majority of his work is even meant to be enjoyed. However in all of the Von Trier films I've seen, I've felt an intelligence and deep layered meaning was there behind all of the graphic scenes. If certain things are to be censored like sadism, then it means certain stories can't be told and I don't agree with that. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion on a film and whether they enjoy it or not is up to them. It's hardly going to be a date movie is it? But to get hysterical about it and walk out of the cinema like those 100 at Cannes is more likely a result of these people not really seeing beyond the surface. As for left vs right politics, let's try not to get into that here, because it isn't really what the article is about. The left has gone more extreme, has gone hysterically politically correct, but the right has gone more extreme as well and both sides at their most extreme are as batshit crazy as each other. I don't support any form of political extremism either left or right. What I do support is the freedom of the filmmaker to make a film of his choosing without censorship.

Make it 40... to me this camera doesn’t even exist. Eventually we’ll have footage from John Brawley or Frank Glencairn or Noam Kroll and the footage will look amazing. More people will love it but a few will find something wrong with it... Eventually card info will be released, and more people will complain. Eventually AF tests will show up comparing this camera to the PDAF of the a6500 and more people will complain. Eventually low light tests will show up comparing this camera with the GH5s or the a7sii and more people will complain. At the end, when it’s released, a bunch of people will complain because they hate that they have to use an IR Cut filter and they will complain that they only get 45-60 minutes of battery life and that they wish it had IBIS... And eventually the usual suspects will be the only people that have the camera and the footage will be absolutely gorgeous. The End.

The left have become a bunch of whiny, pearl-clutching Victorians. They've gone completely off the deep end with the offense culture and all the divisive race-baiting and reverse sexism/racism. Hillary was the last time I vote with them. Glad we still have a few brave people like Kanye and von Trier who truly don't give a fuck, but they are few and far between.

There are some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm makes the space wider, this is almost not noticeable in many cases but for example when you are filming a dialog between two actors the distance in depth between then will be different and this will convey another mood to the scene. Also, a 17mm will in most cases have more distortion especially when you are close to the lens, and also focus will be easier on the 35mm 2.0 than on a 17.5 at 0.95 .