Andrew Reid

What I love about that shot is there's way more of the background vista actually visible than would be on a full frame camera at 135mm F2, or so, where this shot would be cropped in and creamed out with silly shallow dof. The 180mm on medium format has an uncannily wide look given the long focal length and a lovely slow roll off when it comes to focus Then there's the obvious advantage that the leaf CCD sensor is a total beast... enormous dynamic range, amazing colour and incredible resolution. I still think Hasselblad will manage to overprice and overfuck the mirrorless cam up though... let's hope not

As for full frame vs medium format... I can 9 times out of 10 tell the difference. The lenses and larger sensor have the following advantages: - 45mm is wide, yet close to the subject, perfect rendering of a human face, perfect focus fall off from the eyes to the ears, it's beautiful. You can't test it by shooting a 5D on a stick like JCS - 45mm will have lower distortion than 28mm - The longer lenses for medium format portrait shooting, i.e. 80mm, gives extremely gentle focus roll off - it isn't about a more shallow DOF - it is about the all-round rendering of depth. You see it in both the clips from 2001, and The Master that Nikkor posted previously in this thread. Hard to put my finger on it, but I notice it. Every aspect of the lens is Gradual and smooth... the bokeh, the vignette, the focus, the micro-contrast, the resolving power, it is all buttery. - A large sensor can increase resolution whilst maintaining very large pixels with a wider dynamic range and lower noise than a full frame sensor - There are some lovely medium format lenses - punching through the centre-only of these on a full frame camera won't give the same look - Yes sure there are a lot of nice full frame lenses too and their apertures are faster, but like I said above, it isn't all about shallow DOF, more about the overall image.

Instead of reputation points, I am replacing the forum system with e-penis points from now on.

Agree on your medium format image observations, the look is truly special and different to full frame. The 4K from 50MP isn't impossible. Remember the A7R II for $3k does pixel binned 4K from 42MP. And it actually looks pretty ok, with less rolling shutter than the native 4K Super 35mm crop.

To be honest even with 10bit YUV I can't tell much difference in the grade to 8bit. RAW or RGB is where it's at

Germany, Swedish, Europe, all the same thing these days really

Some observations about the Europeans right now... Their engineering base is dwindling and they find it hard to complete on very complex projects. Berlin's new airport. Leica SL's LOG output. They are transitioning to a softer services economy like the UK. This means Hasselblad, like German companies and Leica, are full of marketing people (even though they're a Swedish company - the same applies right across the continent!) It seems from the rumours that they have put a 50MP medium format sensor from Sony in a mirrorless camera, I sincerely hope it is more engineering driven than marketing puff.

This assumes the NX1 and all other mirrorless cameras apart from the GH4 output 10bit, they don't. It's still 8bit to the View Assist. Storing 8bit as 10bit doesn't give you the extra luminance information to work with. The difference is quite small. We're not talking raw-style noise grain. It's still a blockier chroma-noise style noise, not like film-grain. True. Only in true 10bit or RAW is this the case.

I don't know the make as it's a generic chinese thing from eBay. Will try and find a link. Get asked for this a lot. Wish there was a high quality hot-shoe hinge made of metal. This one is plastic and a bit wobbly when something heavy is on the end.

I prefer the NX1 with the 16-50mm F2-2.8 Not tried the 18-200 but these zooms for APS-C are usually pretty soft 4K needs a good lens. The XC10 would be better in low light, it can do pretty respectable 6400 whereas the NX1 is very noisy indeed at that level RX10 II 4K is pretty soft, I don't rate it. RX10 III much better FZ1000 is a very decent bargain super zoom, this is cheapest way to get a 24-400mm. 28-200mm is the 18-200 on NX1

I think these things are more fun when you do the following: - Expose properly - Use an interesting shot to grab peoples attention - Have 3 or more comparison shots, shot using different cameras - Tell us what those cameras were, then allow us to link the shot to the camera - Shoot wide open on the lens so we can tell look the sensor size / optics are giving. The shot you used is flat and doesn't give anything away at all

I put A7S II for feature Blackmagic for green screen in controlled studio lighting situation NX1 for run & gun The reason I chose the NX1 for run & gun was purely ergonomics. If it is run & gun at ISO 12,800 then the A7S II would be better choice. In terms of what is more enjoyable to shoot with though, the NX1 wins every time. GX80/85 is good for run & gun too... That stabiliser!

Fair comment Chris

Are you using Canon DSLR batteries on your Flame? How's the build quality? One thing I love about the Odyssey 7Q+ is the magnesium chassis... very cleanly designed, thin, light. The Shogun had open seals, vents, creaky plastic. If the Flame improves significantly on that then it justifies the $1695. As it is the 7Q+ at $1795 is the one for me, by some margin. No vents or fan. No plastic joins all around the body.

It is too reflective, like I said in the cons it needs a better anti-reflective coating. However the high brightness of the screen helps outdoors. Not as good as the Odyssey 7Q+

Can't say I noticed either of those flaws on my View Assist HD. Maybe you had a faulty unit? The display quality of the 4K is high end... very impressive colour & contrast & visibility. The fan is practically silent, you just hear the air moving if you put your ear to the back, that's about it.

I've recently had a Video Assist 4K 7"on loan from Blackmagic. Here are some observations on this newcomer to the 4K recorder party. Read the full review

The X-T1 firmware update lifted the quality? I can't say I noticed. The quality was always better in 1080/30p than in 60p by the way. I can confirm the creator of the video didn't handle the X Pro 2 files correctly. They should be mapped to 16-235 in Premiere and the shadows lifted.

It's a bit lens dependant. The 35mm F2 WR and 18-50mm F2.8-4 OIS work best in AF-C mode but it's definitely not very reliable all the time. The 35mm F1.4 and 56mm F1.2 have really noisy AF motors and big heavy glass elements to shift... so don't work as well. I think the A6300 and X Pro2 share a very similar sensor and phase-detect AF is on the chip.

The original A7?... hmm. Similar results to a GH3? Not really. It has bags of aliasing, moire, pathetic codec and a soft image. Not my cup of tea. If you're going to use the 55mm F2.8, why not put it on an A7S for 1080p? Yes 4K has a lot to do with it. You need better lenses for it. I have this lens. An ok cheap lens, nothing unique or special really, aside from it being nice and compact. However you're not comparing kit that's even in the same league. When you say 'very sharp and well corrected'... not compared to the Batis 25mm F2 or the Leica 12mm F1.4! This is my entire point. It's not overpriced. It's just fucking good. The absolute cutting edge comparable with Leica's $$$ M lenses. The Olympus OM lenses are all soft in comparison, designed for film SLRs and a long flange distance. The Leica 12mm is designed for digital, short flange distance mirrorless like a rangefinder M lens. BIG difference. Lovely. But your argument seems to be that this would be as 'sharp' and as highly corrected as a GH5 + Leica 12mm F1.4, which thus makes the Leica overpriced because it isn't any 'better'. Nope. You have lost your own argument! I have seen the samples.

@wolf33d Oh really? 2x 0.64 = 1.28 F1.4 x 0.64 = F0.86 50mm x 0.64 = 32mm No arguing with the maths there. That's a 50mm F1.4 full frame lens on the Speed Booster XL on top of a Micro Four Thirds sensor. It would look like a 1D C in 4K - as near as a full frame as makes no difference in the real world... down here on earth. If you prefer your 50mm F2.8 to the 25mm F1.4 panasonic, it's a matter of personal taste not universal facts. And that's ok, nothing wrong with having an opinion on a look. But the Leica 42.5mm has a completely different look to any of the other Lumix lenses and I am sure this Leica 12 will be in a similar league.

Not sure where the 8.5mm comes in. Anyway let's take your example of 25mm F1.4 MFT versus 50mm F2.8 FF First of all there aren't many 50s that are wide open F2.8. So are you talking about a 50mm F1.4 stopped down to F2.8? In that case, the image will be different. It's unlikely the aperture will be perfectly round for a start, unless it has many many blades. The bokeh will have a completely different character. No field curvature at edges on the 50 @ F2.8 The attractive vignette of an F1.4 wide open will be GONE GONE GONE. Fake it in post if you must, it won't be as nice. Flare changes. Not as nice, more sterile. I can always tell a fast aperture on MFT. And so what if the depth of field is no more shallow than full frame 50mm at F2.8? That's nothing to sniff at - if, say, the forthcoming GH5 gives a LOT more than any full frame camera on the market today, but just happens to have a smaller sensor, I can take that 50mm F2.8 depth of field no problem - especially when the MFT platform has such stunning glass. So many options! 18-35mm Sigma F1.8 on Speed Booster XL! Stunning. Leica 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. Dreamy. SLR Magic 10mm T2.1. Cinematic as hell. The list goes on. Aperture is about more than just depth of field.

Yep the X Pro 2's colour is effortless, you don't need to do anything to it in post and if you just want 1080p, it's a lovely simple solution. The magenta cast in the S-LOG 3 footage though is down to the user not being knowledgable enough with grading tools to correct it. S-LOG is a bitch to work with, so it is partly the camera's fault and partly the user's. I don't blame anyone who has trouble getting the colour from Sony cameras to match Fuji! It's hard!

Much much more difficult and much more advanced, and F1.4 will give a completely different look & feel to an F2.8 on full frame, plus it's 2 stops brighter. It's not right to go around multiplying apertures by crop factor. An F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds is as a big a hole as an F1.4 on full frame. If this lens is as stunning as the Leica 42.5mm F1.2, I will be buying one. Plus... it IS a Leica you know!? It isn't a Zeiss. It's not a Panasonic. It's not a Canon. Leica designed optics cost a lot of money for a reason. No you can't dude. First of all an image is a combination of camera and lens. Tell me about that full frame sensor camera that shoots 4K for less than $1200. It doesn't exist yet. Then add the cost of the 24mm for full frame. Forget about that mythical full frame 24mm F2.8 you seem to be in awe of... the premium, sharp, low distortion optics are the Zeiss Batis 25mm F2, the Sigma 20mm F1.4 and if you can forgive the lesser sharpness and more distortion, the Canon 24mm F1.4 - all of those push you quite far past 'affordable' when paired with even the cheapest GH4-standard full frame 4K video mirrorless body or DSLR, namely the A7S II or 1D C. The GH5 paired with just two lenses, the Leica 42.5 F1.2 and Leica 12 F1.4 will have astounding image quality, likely bettering the A7S II or A7R II with the Batis 25 and 85 for FAR less money. Nobody complains about the Batis 25mm F2.0 price being $1200-ish and that is the nearest modern competitor to the Leica 12mm F1.4 in terms of image quality and modern build standards & AF. All I ever hear is full frame this, full frame that, it's like people are blinded by the pure simplification of all the arguments regarding image quality down to one spec. Not to mention the fact that if the GH5 has the GX85's in-body 5 axis IBIS, it will be stronger than a full frame camera in that respect too... And if it is Super 35mm you want, put a Speed Booster on it. You could say that for $999 you can get an A6300 but the rolling shutter and overheating really kills it compared to what the impending GH5 will likely be capable of in terms of reliability and rolling shutter less than half of what kind of skew the A6300 produces. Then add to that $999 the cost of a 16mm F1.4 E-mount lens... oh there isn't one... ok the cost of a Speed Booster and full frame Canon 24mm F1.4L, and already you are past the $2000 point... Easily. And that is why Bro... You don't knock this Leica 12.

So your price range is 5k-8k? Used C500 = $6k Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k Sorted.