Ernesto Mantaras

Sorry, looks like our own Andrew Reid is saying this should work! Getting a speedbooster got even more tempting...

At least if you're planning on getting cheap C-mount lenses I think it's not looking very promising.

By the way, the guys from Germany sent me the Schneider Kreuznach Variogon 18-90mm f2 zoom now, but Tungee already showed it works perfectly!

Here is the SLR Magic 11mm F1.4. Covers!
 

Yep _ I bought from Ciecio7 in the past (OCT-18 to mft adapter) and I would recommend him.

ebay.  ciecio7 makes some really robust adapters.  They're not cheap, but they seem to get a lot of love from those that have them.  Also, you might want to grab a port cap, too.

And add to that a Speed Booster if you're in Micro Four Thirds land (hope it gets here soon) and it becomes a real beast, f1.2 zoom lens!

And add to that a Speed Booster if you're in Micro Four Thirds land (hope it gets here soon) and it becomes a real beast, f1.2 zoom lens!

Eu! Saludos desde Argentina! Voy a escribir en castellano e inglés para el resto. Pero por lo que veo los resultados son similares a lo que pasa con la GH2, en el sentido de que las ISO más limpias son 160, 320, 640, 1250 y 2500 (incluso puede verse que la ISO 1000 es mucho más ruidosa que 2500!). Interesante, creo que anda bastante bien considerando lo chiquita que es la cámara. De todos modos, el video original que tenés subido tiene compresión y eso esconde un poco el ruido. Y por cierto, si no sos usuario Plus creo que luego de una semana sólo vas a tener la versión en 720p nomás! Ah, otra cosa: en este foro no hace falta pegar un embed code, porque te sale así como en tu posteo, mucho código raro. Deberías copiar y pegar sólo el link del video, y con eso basta para que el reproductor quede insertado en tu post y se pueda ver desde acá directamente.
 
-
 
Now in English :)
To me it looks like the best ISOs are 160, 320, 640, 1250 y 2500, much like it happens in the GH2 (although these look cleaner, but that might have to do with the compression even in the original upload file). You can even see that ISO 1000 is a lot noisier than 2500!
I think it performs really well considering the price (well, I've never complained about my GH2 performance in this department, really, as long as you remember the ISO trick).

What do you guys think? I'm getting one of these no matter what RAW cameras are out there!

Eu! Saludos desde Argentina! Voy a escribir en castellano e inglés para el resto. Pero por lo que veo los resultados son similares a lo que pasa con la GH2, en el sentido de que las ISO más limpias son 160, 320, 640, 1250 y 2500 (incluso puede verse que la ISO 1000 es mucho más ruidosa que 2500!). Interesante, creo que anda bastante bien considerando lo chiquita que es la cámara. De todos modos, el video original que tenés subido tiene compresión y eso esconde un poco el ruido. Y por cierto, si no sos usuario Plus creo que luego de una semana sólo vas a tener la versión en 720p nomás! Ah, otra cosa: en este foro no hace falta pegar un embed code, porque te sale así como en tu posteo, mucho código raro. Deberías copiar y pegar sólo el link del video, y con eso basta para que el reproductor quede insertado en tu post y se pueda ver desde acá directamente.
 
-
 
Now in English :)
To me it looks like the best ISOs are 160, 320, 640, 1250 y 2500, much like it happens in the GH2 (although these look cleaner, but that might have to do with the compression even in the original upload file). You can even see that ISO 1000 is a lot noisier than 2500!
I think it performs really well considering the price (well, I've never complained about my GH2 performance in this department, really, as long as you remember the ISO trick).

What do you guys think? I'm getting one of these no matter what RAW cameras are out there!

It's two people in one account, him and his wife. I remember he mentioned one of them made the more technical posts and the other one was more on the creative side of things, but I don't know which was which and I'm probably messing both of their tendencies up. :P

I think there will be a lot of people cancelling and jumping on the canon raw parade.  so pre orders are probably diminishing as we speak.
 
I'm hoping everyone cancels, jumps on the shallow dof bandwagon like back in 2009 (but this time with raw), and leaves the smaller more tactful sensor size less used leaving potential for us who are sticking with it with the aesthetic edge.  
 
I have to say I'm on the cusp of looking at a 5dmk3, but the idea of a silky smooth s16mm sensor (and its limitations) is one that is very attractive to me, where most are hankering after a larger sensor again. 

@Janek: check the link. You can download 78 samples at 1.8, plenty at 18mm. I think it's great.

@Ernesto: working for a photography magazine helps ;)
After 5 years working in the photography business I picked filming as a new hobby. That's why I'm here...

Looking forward to seeing your shots, Gábor. 
 
I've tried the Sun with my Helios 44. Images look pretty sharp to me when in focus. What do you think?
 
Here are some screenshots with the Helio 44M:


 

 

The problem is that Canon wants to make too much money.  The accountants and marketing people want to maximize profits by targeting the masses.  By doing this, you stiffle the creativity of the engineers. 
 
One must wonder if the Canon engineers purposely left breadcrumbs in the firmware code in hopes of having the full fruits of their labor discovered.

A lot of bullshit spoken about Blackmagic there.
Internal battery was an extra feature. It works as a UPS / backup power. BMCC uses an external battery as the main power source, like the Epic. Nobody complains the Epic has no internal battery like an iPhone. This is a consumer mindset. Try a filmmaking one.
 
If you think the dynamic range is 'disappointing in practice' on the BMCC, I can only assume you've never used one, and have picked up some quote from somewhere about usable DR being less than 13 stops. The BMCC excels at dynamic range. Vincent Laforet compared it to a 1D X raw still.
 
So their earlier attempts were crude? Dropped frames and moire all they had to offer? Really?
 
You are annoying.

It's irrelevant. GH2 resolution is not improved by any hack. Unlike Magic Lantern which is reverse engineered new firmware providing a lot of new functionality the GH2 hack just alters internal registers that control how the image is compressed & recorded.

They probably put the lag in there on purpose so you'd find the C300 more attractive.

aaAAgGHH!
 
...
 
well
look
I have
something
for
people
like
you
 
l l
l l
l l
l l
V
 

I enjoyed Phil when he was genuinely putting out useful regular posts. Super 35mm adapters, DSLRs, all workarounds he endorsed. Built his name on DSLRs in fact, wouldn't have a well known blog without them. Now all I see is extreme self love and a formidable self obsession. Pics of Bloom on a plane. Pics of his cats. Instagram self portraits. Fooling about at NAB, Looping Vine videos. Posing here, posing there, posing doing this, posing doing that. It's enough to make you go insane. HAD ENOUGH
 
The cult of personality has overtaken the filmmaker for me. Hate all the moral posturing too. Philip uses the moral high ground and his sense of humour as defence mechanisms against those he doesn't agree with. His ego HATES any form of criticism however constructive. Sad really, as in doing so one is left with just Bloomies and groupies around you. Say you don't like so many ads on his blog and you are met with standard response THIS BLOG COSTS SO MUCH TO RUN, and he tries to claim the high ground. I know how much blogs cost to run. Very little. In the past I did EOSHD one-handed on a shoestring for years. So make no mistake, the blog is to promote Philip Bloom. It is not only a selfless act of sharing he makes it out to be.
 
Met Phil quite a few times, each time has been odd. Charming and coldly indifferent at the same time. At Photokina, he belittled me and basically humiliated me in front of two strangers in the name of humour knowing it was inappropriate in the circumstances - very barbed passive aggressive exchanges disguised as humour, really uncomfortable to be subjected to. On other occasions he was fine. I think he has issues.

Does it leave a sour taste because I am being sour, or does it leave a sour taste because I criticised someone you like?
 
I suspect the latter.
 
Really, it is time for a more open and honest debate on the merits of our DSLR community leaders I think.

I like the image so much that I have decided to adjust my strategy for the cameras I shoot with.
 
Out goes the Sony FS100. That was my main low light tool but now the 5D Mark III with raw is that.
 
Blackmagic EF mount version will also be sold. I have the Pocket Cinema Camera and 4K AND MFT versions pre-ordered!! I don't need all of them and can use my EF glass on the 5D. I am heavily invested in Micro Four Thirds glass so will likely keep the MFT Blackmagic for a while. 4K and global shutter will be interesting on the Production Camera.
 
I need to clear out some of my other DSLRs. Nikon V2 don't need, got it for raw bursts! Amazing sensor technology, nice as a stills camera too (very good AF, very light, very compact, lots of other cool stuff) but now the Sony RX1 is by far my most compelling stills cam and it wasn't cheap.
 
Nikon D5200 can go too. Nice bargain but it's no longer competitive with the image on the 5D Mark III.
 
Canon don't deserve this, what a crazy situation.

Who cares what Vincent Laforet thinks? What matters is what you think. May I ask, why do so many websites put Vincent Laforet on a pedestal? Why? Just curious, I'm not meaning for that to sound negative.

I agree, good to know the info. Thanks Miguel.
 
It is good to bear this in mind with any bayer sensor. Red is interpolating to get 4K resolution, whilst the Sony F65 over-samples from 8K to do true 4K and true 4:4:4 colour.
 
With the anamorphic mistake - totally put my hands up to this one. In my haste to get on with shooting, I assumed I was getting 2.39:1.
 
It is actually 2:1 and the horizontal resolution should be 2560 not 3000. This is quite handy actually as it perfectly matches the native resolution of my Dell display.
 
Here are the other anamorphic resolutions for 4:3 and 3:2...
 
2x anamorphic from 4:3 (1770x1280) = 3540 x 1280 (2.66:1)
2x anamorphic from 3:2 (1920x1280) = 3840 x 1280 (3:1)
 
1.5x anamorphic from 4:3 (1770x1280) = 2580 x 1280 (2:1)
1.5x anamorphic from 3:2 (1920x1280) = 2880 x 1280 (2.35:1)
 
Do those aspect ratios look right? I'm not too sure.
 
I'll re-upload the video and it should look perfect.

Its funny that everyone screams "workflow" problems from the get-go.  Not too long ago we were capturing everything in real-time from tape... remember??  My film-school experience was that we shot on 16mm - had to get it processed overnight (while praying that your exposure readings were actually OK so you wouldn't have messed up footage) and then we edited on pre-final cut pro systems... meaning Steinbeck machines with white gloves and scotch tape and razor blades... And I'm not even old!!
 
In 2006 we were so impressed when we began producing tv with a big production company that had a TERABYTE!! of storage.
 
In my estimation - the color on this footage is BEAUTIFUL! - A drastic, marked difference that any non-pro can easily see.  Honestly, this stuff makes me want to buy a 5D3.  An option I would absolutely not have considered two weeks ago.