nahua

Hi Julian...
Thanks for the response. After a close family friend passed away years ago I arranged for the sale of his old Arriflex II-C camera, His Iscorama lens was given to me by his niece as a "thank you". I've used it for years, shooting slides, then shelved it when I "went digital". Several years ago I stumbled across the EOSHD website and it rekindled my interest in using it for digital work. It's only fairly recently that I've played around with it with the idea of adapting it for close-up shooting. I'm still not fully up to speed with it when working at close distances. The very shallow DOF at high magnifications is a problem, and working with mongrel supplementary lenses scavenged from junk lenses is "iffy" at times. There's a tremendous amount of variability in image quality when I mount add-on lenses on the Isco, depending upon which primary lens I'm using. Through quite a bit of testing I've created separate sets of supplementary lenses to work with the Isco when mounted on specific primary lenses. A few of my add-on lenses do vignette a bit, which is cropped away preserving the normal decompressed aspect ratio. I haven't run any focus / compression tests at anything closer than about three feet, but feel as you do, that if I leave the Isco at infinity there probably won't be a shift in the amount of "squeeze". 
Here are a few sample images, all taken using an old Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8...  stopped down to f/16 or f/22, with a variety of supplemental lenses. The 85 and the Iscorama both have their focusing ring "locked" at infinity with wide rubber bands, focusing is achieved by moving the camera. Lighting is from either the pop-up flash, or a small speedlight bounced off foil covered cards or shot through a home-made bowl diffuser.

Forget-me-nots, 85mm Nikkor-H, Iscorama, objective from a junk Soligor 450mm reverse mounted on the Isco.
 

Orb weaver leg regeneration, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective. I really like the bokeh here (out of focus evergreen branches).
 

Web repair, 85mm with Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective reversed on the Isco, with a Soligor 90-230mm zoom lens objective reversed on the 450mm.
 

Bee, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscoama, with a Soligor 90-230mm objective reversed on the Isco, and a Panagor 85-205mm objective reversed on the Soligor.
 

Freshly moulted Funnel Weaver, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, with the objective from a Vivitar 28-210mm zoom lens reversed on the Isco. 
 

Tiny fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and the objective from the Vivitar 28-210 reversed on the Isco.
 

Baby funnel weaver with a fruit fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and a Raynox MSN-202 close up lens on the Isco. This add-on lens is mounted on an adapter ring that fits the Isco, not in the "snap-on" adapter supplied by Raynox.
The results I've been getting with the Iscorama are very encouraging. It's been great for general photography, but seems to work well up close too. Shooting anamorphic macro images is great... but there are a huge amount of "throw-aways"... more than with using a macro lens without the Iscorama. Shooting extreme close-ups with the Isco is probably "pushing the envelope" a bit, but I'm getting enough decent images to keep me at it. I've been asked why I'm "wasting my time" with the old isco, and been advised that shooting wide angle and cropping might be easier. Having done that years ago... there's no comparison. I just like the look and feel of the anamorphic images better. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

owning gear is good if you want to shoot your own stuff and to play with a camera and figure out its quirks - it can be good - that's how I did it.
I still use gear on tons of jobs - mostly the monitors and support and all that. 
The actual camera and lenses at a certain point you can just rent.
But it's really good to know the fundementals of it all, and saves you money when you want to go out and make a film or let your friends make a film.  Rental houses will cut you a deal on your small stuff, but well I didn't go that route.
But with that said, it's an expensive, endless game - owning gear.  Stuff is always breaking.  Insurance costs.  It's a lot of work.  I enjoy it, but I feel that it keeps me from also thinking about more important things like this script I am procrastinating on or learning lighting.

There's a whole world of clients out there that don't know the first thing about cameras. On rare occasions, there will be someone involved who's played with DSLRs for video and asks tons of questions. Maybe people shooting national TV spots get into these issues, but for small corporations, startups, entrepreneurs doing web marketing, email blasts, Facebook video campaigns and internal communications/training - they pretty much want to see your reel or examples of stuff that is in line with what I'm proposing or what they envision. If an agency I work with gets the gig, I don't even show a thing - the end client trusts the agency.
That said - if I shoot with a kitted-out DSLR - matte box, follow focus, rails, monitor, loupe, a big geared prime or zoom and an audio recorder - it does look pretty cool on the tripod. Now the total costs of all that may be well under $2k, but I've had clients squeeze through a tight set in terror of bumping the camera and, literally, they've said "I bet that cost more than my house!" It doesn't hurt for a client to perceive that you're using very high-end gear. 
But you could be shooting a national TV spot for Revlon and tests showed the BMC pocket with a super-16 lens from the 70's gives the exact look, and the director wouldn't blink an eye - whereas one of my clients would be "hey, you just stuck a lens on a iPhone, right??" For the size of clients I mention above (and in a big city, you can make a good living at that level) setting up an $800 Kessler crane makes them feel like they're getting a lot of bang for their buck. Don't disregard this sort of perception from people without knowledge of the tech side, who are writing the checks.

Their label might. I've worked with a band now on 5 videos for LEGO. The first one, LEGO requested a RED ONE MX to be used, back in 2012. Last year I asked if we could use GH4's and Blackmagic Pocket cameras to keep the profile lower and to use gimbals etc. They agreed and it helped free up money for other areas like costumes. When I look back I can totally see a better looking image with the RED but no one even notices, especially the kids who watch those videos. Hell, LEGO didn't even comment on the image quality of the GH4's/BMPCCs.
If I had to guess I'd say clients can sometimes be nervous about how everything is going to look and some of them know the name RED. They'll mention it as an option to help free up some uncertainty. It can be a pain in the ass but it's just how it goes I'm afraid.
So, as a business decision, I personally wouldn't buy a camera that expensive. I would just rent.

You're talking about wedding videos here. That's meant for a very select audience and hardly a grand production you would whip out a RED for or something. I have no idea why you bring that up in this topic. How about we don't stray from the matter at hand here? Just to set straight what it is we're discussing here:
He's talking about music video production and corporate stuff (advertising). Now, someone wants a music video or ad shot... guess what? Chances are it's not their first. What ever happened to the last guys? Maybe those are too busy or something. Could be. But might well be that the client wants to up their game by selecting a production company to up it for them. And having some previous experience, they will tell the difference between a camcorder and a rigged up cinema camera, especially when the name 'RED' is involved. They probably have their own ideas in mind, with a creative marketing team. They just need someone to get their thoughts and run with it and turn it into an actual quality production. Knowing that you're good is one thing. Knowing you shoot on a RED is a dealsealer.

I have been out shooting with the SLR Magic Rangefinder.
Key features:
It completely takes over focus from any prime lens Solves lens breathing (reduces to such low level it isn't noticeable) Adds cinema standard 240 degrees focus ring with FF gearing and hard stops Reduces minimum focus distance of all anamorphic lenses to 1m (even long-throw projector lenses) For those who shoot anamorphic especially this will be music to your ears. These shooters will also be familiar with diopters, which are used to correct aberrations and achieve very close focus. Effectively the SLR Magic Rangefinder is a variable diopter and thus a rather brilliant concept as it is capable of taking over focus from the taking lens entirely.
Read the full article

So happy to find out about this. It also added autofocus to existing adapters. Here it is on my Speed Booster S (Canon to Micro four thirds). Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 on a Panasonic GH4. 
 

@EOSHD Maybe instead of a thread, a real forum section.  I'd like to discuss specifics - Micro 4/3rds lenses, vintage lenses, full frame lenses, etc.  I'm just worried that specific topics would be lost in a single discussion thread.

Considering your limitations, I think you did a good job.  A6000 is probably one of the best little HD cams.  Slo-mo looks good and used sparingly.  Color grade works for the gritty feel.  Pacing seems good too.  Didn't feel like 5min film, felt much shorter.  Good thing because this could have dragged like some other short films.  Sound is good and gives a good sense of unease and the whole "apocalyptic" feel.  I think you had a good sense of what you wanted, and then shot it very well.  Edit, sound, music is all good!  Be nice to see it made into a 30min short.  Maybe on the lines of the STALKER PC game or something.

During lunch break I played with the screen grab for a few minutes more just for the heck of it.  Along with the Varicam35 LUT I also played with image in Photoshop Camera Raw a bit here.   I don't think there are any skin-tone issues to worry about at all once we finally get V-LOG.  Image degradation seems nonexistent as well, and this is a screen grab of a compressed youtube video.    I think we are in for a treat when we get the real deal. 
 

Playing with V-Log L a bit more, I've found that it responds wonderfully to Alexa LUTs. This is great, since I won't have to wait months for V-Log L LUTs to become available for the shoots where I don't have time to manually grade (also, I'm not a great colorist by any means!)

All I see is this: This Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed.

Nice work Edward.
 

@Jed worst dual focus ever.  Don't waste your time with SLR Magic.  Better to get a cheap Sankor or other 2x anamorphic.  Or just get a Cinelux and Focus Module and you'll have a single focus solution.  Perfect for run-and-gun one man operation.

Loving the V-Log L beta Panasonic Canada got me!

@Jordan Drake Good to see you here! You shot the G7 review on the GH4 V-LOG L, right? Can you tell a bit more about the grading etc?
 

Make sure to read the description on Youtube.

I assume everyone saw this -  
 
 
"The log curves for the Varicam, the DVX200, and the GH4 (the latter coming in a firmware update later this year) are exactly the same over their common ranges. The DVX200 and GH4 will simply clip two stops earlier than the Varicam, but that’s still about two stops more than the GH4 currently captures."
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/panasonic-avvcam/nab-15-from-the-panasonic-private-suite.html

It's all good enough for me at this point.  
I came up in the days where if you didn't have pro gear it really showed.  You had to buy-in to get great IQ.  That was high 5 (into 6) figures, easy, now it's in the low 4's.  The fact that's there's two less zeros between these cams with pretty much indistinguishable IQ to all but the most discriminating viewer...well, I'm cool with that.
You whippersnappers and your expectations!  Why, when I was young I had to film uphill in the snow!  Both ways.

I can't totally agree on this and weight on the final part sounds a bit bitter.
I do agree that Panasonic took a bit too long and that this delay may cost them but I think it's a bit unfair to call out Panasonic like that almost like they were Canon itself.
There is a reason why Samsung is doing this. First because they can, Panasonic does not have the same firepower and resources as either Sony or Samsung, Panasonic is much more like Fuji. Secondly because Samsung is the one racing from behind, the one that had no credit in the market so if they were any serious about video, they HAD to show that to the world, so the firmware guerrilla is a big part of that and a way to sustain interest from people.
I don't think Panasonic would had been able to offer V-long off the bat, I doubt they had resources or engineers for that, at the time they were already proving the first of its kind, they were the one pushing bounderies. Sony wasn't even able to provide internal 4K in time with the A7s, that's why they pushed the S-log. Sure, after that Panasonic should had start thinking more serious about providing V-log since it was clear that it was a matter of time before 4K was coming to Sony cameras.
Panasonic still provided the FZ1000, the LX100 and now the G7, which seems to be an excellent budget choice, all great cameras for the price and feats and only now Sony is catching up on that front. So, from my POV, this is back and forth and Panasonic is a bit late but just that.
Panasonic won't come up with a new GH camear every year like Sony is doing with the A7 family. The A7s still doesn't offer internal 4K and it will never do that, and as I said, Panasonic doesn't have that same power to push new products like that.
But Panasonic better wake up though. With Sony being able to provice internal 4K, S-log2, IBIS, etc. Sony basically took away most of Panasonic's upside. Panasonic still has the better lens ecosystem but with adapted lens with electronic connectors working as they are with the A7RII, anyone that have Canon glass can easily jump into Sony, just selling their Canon body. So Panasonic better come up with a new sensor, better sensitivity, faster readouts - possibly better slowmo -, IBIS, 4K/slowmo, etc. Panasonic still have a swivel screen, no overheating issue, better battery and some other things but that's barely enough now. Maybe not just a GH camera but an AF as well.
I would like Sony to make the rumored A9. They could use their new tech for faster readouts and improved low light. There are 2 alternatives. One would be something like a bigger brother of the A7s with that insane low light capabilities and DR, another, which I think might be interesting as well, would be to make a sensor with more pixels, which would allow them to have lots of PDAF - to work well with electronic adapters - but one that could do 1:1 pixel crop in Super35/APS-C mode in 4K. I think they would need a 24MP sensor, this way you have the option for FF or Super35, in Super35, you would get less rolling shutter and differently from the A7s or A7RII, a true 4K image output. You could even use Metabones to get more light and FF look. Plus, 24MP would be enough for photographers as well. With a bigger body Sony will be able to put a better shutter for faster burst, without the miniaturization limitation that the A7 family faces, it would have better battery life, zero overheating issues and a swivel screen as well.
I'm not sure Sony is ready to make the A9, but I think a camera like that would be pretty nice and it would make sense as well, it wouldn't be cheap though but I doubt Canon would be able to respond to that with a possible 5D MKIV or even upcoming EOS-C cameras.
Anyway, this is all about competition and this is great for consumers. What more can we expect from the A7s II, the GH5 and what's the next step for Samsung?

I'm still quite happy with the images coming out of the GH4 with or without V-log.  The metabones XL adapter just added that much more capability to the camera if I should decide to slap on some bigger glass.  I might actually be more impressed with Panny if they release a V-log update a few months before the GH5 is announced, that would buck the trend of holding back advanced features for a next-gen product.  I can honestly say that I don't feel limited by technology for the first time in a long time.
The new Sony tech is very good from the standpoint of hybrid imaging, but not earthshaking for a lot of filmmakers.  4K/60P would be more useful for me than any of the features announced in the A7R II and I doubt they'll be delivering that in a future firmware update.

Panasonic disrupted everyone last year and this year they got disrupted. I don't think they deserve the criticism yet.
I do think you have a great point that firmware is the way forward as hardware is really solid now.

This test shows some of the signature SLR Magic lens characteristics I have grown to dislike.  
1. Reminiscent of the Century 16:9 adaptors:  
The Image quality in general looks degraded.  The image lacks any tack sharpness on the in focus areas, even at f4.  This couldnt be further away from what I'd expect from a frame size only slightly bigger than s16mm, acquiring 4k.  I can live with a lack of sharpness if there is a lot of defocus blur - since the ratio would make the slightly soft infocus areas appear sharper. 
The unpleasant blue/orange fringing on contrasty transitions (even at f4) is really hitting hard on the look and also making the image feel like it's had some type of 1980's filter applied.
 
I hate being harsh on people's investments, but it prompts me to suggest others shooting on gh4 4k mode to consider retrying the century 16:9 adaptors (Which are very cheap now), and since the sensor area from the gh4 is so small I'm almost certain the century will fulfil the needs of those investing 3 times the price on these new slr magic items.
https://vimeo.com/47971206
this was the century 16:9 with a 28mm lens on the old nex5n.  considering how wide i was going and how behind the nex5n is comapred to the gh4, as well as a sensor almost twice the area, the results are pretty good.  i imagine a super fast m4/3 voigtlander, the century and a gh4 would deliver awesome things.

I agree the difference of 0.07 is not such a big deal, but imo the 'normal' EF - MFT Speed Booster is already a great product. This just makes it better.
The difference is more relevant for wide lenses. Because you now get the same crop factor as any aps-c camera, you can use all lenses 'as intended'. The Sigma 18-35mm for example. With the 0,71x Speed Booster, you get a 31-60mm equivalent (4K UHD), with the 0,64x you get the 28-55mm equivalent. 28mm vs 31mm is noticeable. It's not only about subject distance, but about a certain look and perspective.
On top of that, you'll get an extra 1/3 stop of light. It's not much more expensive than the 0,71x SB either. So, that's what makes me - as a GH4 owner - excited.
Thanks Brian!

​Because, traditionally, making a movie requires several different focal lengths ranging from wide to long. Shooting without a wide angle option can be both creatively stifling, as well as impractical if you find yourself in a confined space.
Secondly, at least to me, something magical happens when you put on a wide-angle anamorphic lens, particularly around the 35-40mm range. Look at Wes Anderson's use of the 40mm Panavision C-series. Or the wide-angle 'Scope work in the films of John Carpenter or Brian DePalma. It's a look that you can't replicate with a spherical lens. A wide-angle spherical lens has a completely different geometry. On a spherical lens, lines recede into the distance and the edges are stretched out. On an anamorphic lens, the foreground bulges forward and the background wraps around as if it's being projected on a globe. This shot from The Royal Tenenbaums is a great example. Even though it's a wide angle lens (40mm), and the subjects are arranged in depth from front to back, they appear stacked as if it's on a telephoto lens. It's like multiple portraiture. It's an effect that can only be had in anamorphic.