Ernesto Mantaras

Hi! The band I made this video for finally released it and I'm very happy, so I wanted to share it with you guys.   It was a lot of work and it's not without its flaws, but considering the crew (three people including me apart from the make-up artist) and the time we had it came out quite decent.   Please tell me what you think!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhqTsAmPYYs   By the way, I shot it with the Driftwood Apocalypse Now! 6GOP Nebula patch, and the lenses I used were:   · Rokinon 28mm f2.8 · Minolta MD 50mm f1.7 · Minolta MD 135mm f2.8   If you have any questions just ask!

I'm not sure on the Nikon having 98% of the resolution the GH2 has. The left "5.6" on the Olympus looks to be more detailed on the lower pic. But it sure does seem to have better gradation and less color noise. If it really has no moiré it can be a really cool option, and I can't help to think of future hacks for it... I do wonder about the lens options though, but the Samyang collection and older AI-S lenses might do the trick for me. Very interesting.

The three adapters I have are Fotodiox ones (Minolta MD, Canon FD and Canon EF -without iris ring-). They cost me around $20 each and I have to say I have no problems with infinity focus, they all reach to it and I don't notice any softness (at least in video, I don't shoot photos). I think different lenses will yield different results, though. I have two Minolta Rokkor-X lenses, a 135mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.7 and while the 135mm hits infinity at the right spot, the 50mm goes a little beyond, so I do have to come back and check my focus. I can't trust the marks with this particular lens.

  But doesn't the 35mm T0.95 have a longer flange distance than that of MFT lenses? Of course it wouldn't fit on an EF to MFT adapter, but maybe a different one, like perhaps a specialized Leica-M to MFT Speed Booster adapter that requires no electronic connectors?

This is amazing. And on Micro Four Thirds, imagine using the SLR Magic 35mm T0.95! I don't know the exact math, but a 50mm a stop brighter than T0.95 is absolutely crazy and now it's possible.

Hi. Where can you buy that Wesley lens, may I ask? I haven't found any results when searching for it.

They probably aren't at the top of the game optically speaking, but the Rokinon cine lenses have now become a great option against the 25mm Voigtlander I was gathering money for. If a full frame lens becomes like a Super 35mm lens (sort of) on my GH2/3, then a Rokinon 35mm T1.5 would roughly become a 50mm T1.1, am I wrong? Having a consistent look through them ready for focus pulling, and a really fast one at that, is a great set to have. I'll still need my 12mm SLR Magic, but having such fast lenses for a fraction of the Voigtlander's price (the 17.5 still appeals to me, though) is amazing. This is great news.

How much light would you lose with those adapters, Andy? It's interesting for getting wider fast primes.

I'm only talking in terms of resolution. DR and colors might be different, but I can't understand how most people praise it so much. Please, I urge you to take a closer look at the image I posted. It's as honest as it gets. And stand by my statement. I just searched for a comparison video, and while the 5D3 is a little bit softer it doesn't have the 1DX problems.   http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/943-canon-1dx-v-canon-5d3/   The 1DX has some sort of vertical stretch in the pixel level and something like an aliasing, or like the video was uprezzed with a box filter. It's evident here as it is in the rest of the 1DX videos in that topic, as well as in the Africa video Philip shot. Look at the small details in the video I took the screenshots from. That specific shot is at 1:24.   https://vimeo.com/47426015

But they're also the most expensive, and their focus rings are servos, motorized ones. That's why a lot of people fancy Carl Zeiss lenses for video, which are way more expensive still. I love having a wide lens choice. I can put anything I want in front of my GH2. And the focus rings on the vintage lenses or the Voigtlanders are awesome. On the other hand, I shoot a lot of low light, and although I light most of my stuff, it'd take a lot of light to get a good exposure at night with the lens stopped down at f/5.6. 17.5mm @ f/0.95 is beautiful.

On the same vein, I just saw this video that directly compares IS on and off in the Panasonic FZ200. The principle stays the same: IS is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=PkHVyke1Grw

Some of us don't like such a shallow depth of field, though. If there was a camera like the 5DIII that had a Super35 or MFT sensor and a more friendly mount (again, like a MFT mount, but that comes with the sensor) then I'd return to Canon.

That's fair, let's not compare the 1DX with the C300. But have you seen those stepped edges? That blocky grass? There's no fixing that in post unless you blur the hell out of it. The 5D Mk III is better when shooting video (I'd love to see a comparison where I'm proven wrong). If you want to have that option in your toolset, that'd be the camera to choose. I for one prefer Nikon for stills, even though the noise performance in the Canon is better.  

  I haven't ever for once considered the EF mount version. In my mind there's always the MFT mount version, which allows you to adapt any lens you want. So the mount issue is off. And if you're serious about audio, you'll be capturing it on an external device. The one from the camera is only for reference. You have to think about the camera from a filmmaking standpoint, where you have a small or any size crew, but you have one, and where the workflow is very different. So is the delivery of that product and the quality standars expected, which will be higher in the future and the BMCC is ready for it today.

Most people wouldn't choose the BMCC in that scenario, no. But the comparison was made in regards to the image quality being comparable to that of the Alexa, which is way more expensive. And you mentioned it's a consumer product, which it isn't. The price doesn't define its professional nature. It makes it affordable for the independent shooter and the low budget filmmaker.   I think that for the price it offers quite a lot, and the essential features it provides as of now allow for shooting and exposing the right way. Film cameras often give you just that and not the features we're used to on most DSLRs and video cameras, yet they fulfill their purpose. But guess what? The firmware improves and so does the camera's performance and features.   I do think it's a camera that seems to still be in a beta stage, but it pushes so much that I think no one can blame them that much. It does what no other camera in its price range does right now! And in a level that will give you material that will last for many, many years to come, even if its value should depreciate more than that of the 5D MkIII.

  I honestly don't know how people make these assumptions. I hate the image that comes out of the 1DX. It'd be fine if I was watching it at 720p on a 1280x1024 17" 4:3 monitor, but at 1080p in a 23" one it sucks. It's kinda like you recorded interlaced and then dropped one frame to make it progressive. These crops come from a video made by Philip Bloom (who had nothing to do with how bad the image is in the 1DX, in fact I liked the video), where you can see intercut footage from the 1DX and the C300. The first one is nowhere near as sharp as the second one. (the GH2 crops are just for the sake of a kind of comparison)   https://sites.google.com/site/dddresource/_/rsrc/1356027346702/imgs/botones/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png   And before you mention online compression as the culprit, feel free to download the original .vid file which shows you the same image and resolution, albeit with a little digitally added grain, all in the 1DX footage..  

  That's nonsense. IS will indeed improve the image. Lenses are optical stabilizers and they reduce the jitter before the images are recorded. This will reduce the jello effect as well. Just try it out, do a comparison recording the same stuff with IS on and off and judge for yourself whether it creates distortion or it makes it all look smoothier.

If he had the budget he could alright. Because this camera delivers amazing image quality for an extremely low price, making it affordable, not consumer oriented. If a consumer was to buy one of this he/she wouldn't know what to do with it.   The only comparable cameras in image quality are REDs and Alexa, and maybe the new Sony's now. But if I had $4000 I couldn't buy any of them but the BMCC, yet I'd get that level of quality! The rest goes in front of the camera, and behind it of course. It's talent and work. And I don't see what the point is in measuring a camera's worth in the longevity of its original price, its reselling value. I don't want a camera to place it in a locker and then resell it in two years. I'm not a finance company, I'm a filmmaker. And I want the best camera I can get, one that can deliver the best possible image and one that will hold the test of time, just like film does. The BMCC is the closest to that I could afford right now, and shoot an independant film without having to deal with rentals or the budget it implies, and yet still get premium image quality.

In the second video, the one on the water, the shutter speed is at 1/24 while the other two cameras are at 1/48 (or 50 o 60, but around 180º).

That was very beautiful. But of course credit goes to the filmmaker, not the camera. Great storytelling and camera work. Makes me want to go out and shoot with whatever I get a hold of. And that should be the case for everyone.

Been wondering this same thing from day one. I wondered wether they had shot at a 360º shutter in 48p to get 180º shutter in 24p or if it was shot at 180º in 48p and then perhaps they would apply some vector motion blur like RE:Vision's plug-in in post? But of better quality, I hope. Down here I can watch the HFR version, but I'm hesitant. I don't know if I should watch the 24p version first and then the 48p version. I'm actually considering that 48p could hurt the cinematic experience for me. I know I don't even like 30p, I notice the added fluidity in motion and it bothers me. So the full TV look in the theater could prevent me from diving into the movie. On the other hand, watching the 24p version first could make me over-analyze the 48p the second time and not get the full experience I could get if I watched the first time. But all things said, perhaps I'll take the plunge and go for the HFR version and see for myself whether it helps or detracts from the narrative. I really want to form my own opinion.

Hour and a half straight and still 3 bars is great! But I don't understand why you'd get such short time with the GH2. I can shoot or over 2 hours straight without the battery dying on me.

This is the one I have right now, although I never use it mounted on the camera, but on a light stand. It's the most powerful out of most of the mentioned lights and uses cheap NP-970 (as well as AA batteries). Also the color is quite there, it doesn't have a green tint.   [url="http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-AL-198-Camera-Lighting-Camcorder/dp/B008VKMLE4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351190687&sr=8-3&keywords=aputure+led"]http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-AL-198-Camera-Lighting-Camcorder/dp/B008VKMLE4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351190687&sr=8-3&keywords=aputure+led[/url]  Then one option I'd like to have (but I haven't tried yet) because of it's higher power and the fact that it can be plugged is this one:   [url="http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Dimmable-Switch-Battery-Charger/dp/B0054EI79I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354919069&sr=8-2&keywords=312+led+light"]http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Dimmable-Switch-Battery-Charger/dp/B0054EI79I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354919069&sr=8-2&keywords=312+led+light[/url]   This one up there could be bulkier, but it doesn't seem to be much bigger. Both lights come in daylight and selectable temperature versions. In the latest there are 156 daylight balanced LEDs and 156 tungsten balanced ones, so supposedly it has the same power as the daylight LED light only when all of the LEDs are on (which is a color temperature that sits in the middle). You sure have options! EDIT: I think the 312 ones are the same as the ones Tomekk mentioned, but these from Amazon are branded as Fotodiox, which is a brand that hasnt't let me down yet (in the adapters department at least!).

I guess we all assumed stuff. The OP was talking about a non-IS lens being usable even on a tripod. We respond supporting ourselves in personal experience, I believe. Then the thread starts drifting and we end up discussing whatever it is drove our attention away. For the last 20 posts I was thinking the OP wanted to shoot handheld with the 200mm! haha But to summarize, I'll add my list of 2 cents. 1. It's hard to discuss stuff when we don't share the same language, and I'm talking about mere technical terms (or not so technical). I assumed "handheld" was about literally holding a camera with your bare hands, no support whatsoever. IS does help, using a non-IS lens is jittery as hell. And that's talking about a 200mm on a full frame camera. 'Cause it becomes around 300 on a super35 sensor or an APS-C sensor. Then 400mm on a MFT sensor! So unless we agree on the camera, it's hard to say how bad or good it will look. There's definitely a "handheld look" as opposed to using a camera "handheld" or shooting with a "handycam". If I shoot with a shoulder support I wouldn't say I'm shooting handheld, but I'm definitely getting a handheld shot. So there's that, if it means anything to you. 2. I shot a documentary last monday with just my 28mm, 50mm and 135mm (and sadly, my 14-42mm kit) on my GH2. 50mm is as far as I'd go when shooting handheld (that is, using my bare hands). I like to think I've pretty steady hands. But 135mm (270mm on 35mm equivalent) is crappy footage altoghether, of course. But when I put on my shoulder rig, things start to look sweeter (although I really really miss IS). In other instances, some kind of support like a monopod or a tripod acting as one (of course, the ultimate weapon is a proper tripod, with which I've managed to get awesome pictures using EX Tele on the 135mm). I could put together a private popurri if you want to see those shots. 3. About IS not working handheld on a 200mm lens, markm... I used the HV series (HV20, 30 and 40) for a couple of years almost daily. I loved it, and still do. They all have image stabilization AND rolling shutter and shooting at their maximum 10x zoom was the equivalent to 430mm in 35mm terms. I'm not gonna say it was the best footage out there, but it was certainly useable. So I can say tele shots with IS do work. And of course, on the other hand, I would've never achieved them without it. Here's a promo video I made to sell my cam with many shots I made through the years, and there you can see many long tele shots (like the little Beagle's ass, the two Jehova Witnesses on the building, the road/plane shot which reads "CON MUCHO ZOOM...", the crowd shot of Fito Paez's scenario...) [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgWXuQLQgM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgWXuQLQgM[/url]

By the way, I hadn't checked the URLs in HurtinMinorKey's signature. Are you the first woman to set foot? I which case yesterday I noticed there's a second one. :P