johnbauerphoto

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=596.msg4404#msg4404 date=1334890841] [quote author=John Twigt link=topic=596.msg4368#msg4368 date=1334864547] No HDMI for EVF [/quote] This isn't really a negative.  HDMI has no business in the field.  It's a terrible hardware design.  Mini-HDMI even worse.  Never again. [/quote] That's true. I wouldn't want to use HDMI in my daily work but the problem is that SDI Monitors are rather expensive (nothing below 1k$ I believe). So if you on a really tight budget cost can add up quickly with this camera. We'll see if this Thunderbold adapter idea works, otherwise we'll need to use the converter. BTW, does it need power or is it selfpowered?

[quote author=Bruno link=topic=613.msg4357#msg4357 date=1334850962] [quote author=johnbauerphoto link=topic=613.msg4336#msg4336 date=1334840258] What kind of processing power do you think will be needed to properly work with the camera's files especially the DNG RAWs. [/quote] You don't edit with RAW files, no one does, you use proxies. RED has a quite cool quicktime proxies system that allows you to create different res quicktime proxies that are just an alias and don't take up any disk space, but they interpret the RED raw footage as lower res quicktimes, that you can edit on any system. [/quote] I know you do all the cutting with proxie files which makes sense, but you have to use the DNG files for grading don't you? I thought about upgrade to the newest iMacs but I don't know if it's worth it right now... Thunderbolt and SSDs is great but like you said they will not give you the Cuda support... It really seems like the perfekt low budget camera but postproduction hardware could be a problem for the low budget shooter..

that's what I thought. I can imagine that some people are in this situation. DNG RAW is great but you need to have the power to work with it. And if you don't have it the 3k$ can quickly turn in to some more k...

What kind of processing power do you think will be needed to properly work with the camera's files especially the DNG RAWs. Right now I'm editing all my Mark 2 footage on a late 2009 iMac. native h264 or prores both work pretty flawlessly in Final Cut or Premiere Pro. I can imagine the 2.5k DNG RAW files could be a problem for my machine. What kind of power do you think you would need to process these files? I really can't afford the Camera, SSDs and a new Computer.

There must be thousand versions of this video online by now. This is a god one, but when you understand German, it's not as funny somehow.

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=596.msg4281#msg4281 date=1334791005] [quote author=johnbauerphoto link=topic=596.msg4273#msg4273 date=1334784371] yes flange depth will be the problem. EF Mount is quite "adapt-unfriendly". [/quote] I'm still not clear this isn't just "baggage" that's come along with the EF mount, based on existing cameras. [/quote] We'll see I was just stating this based on the thing I read on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

There are some nice things you can adapt to EF thats true but not the right things  ;) Like I said, m43 or C-Mount would be nice and these will not be usable sadly.

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=596.msg4251#msg4251 date=1334768637] [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=596.msg4242#msg4242 date=1334760097] ... Yes it is a shame specialist stuff like LOMO OCT18 and rangefinder glass ([i][b]also Nokton 25mm F0.95[/b][/i]) won't adapt but you will still have a GH3 for that. [/quote] Why wouldn't the Nokton and other M43 lenses not adapt?  I understand why you wouldn't on a full-frame camera that normally makes full use of what you get with EF glass but you would have full coverage here.  Or is it a flange depth issue? [/quote] yes flange depth will be the problem. EF Mount is quite "adapt-unfriendly". Andrew you are right when saying that shallow depth of field is overrated. but still I dont even see an good option for a 50mm equivalent and fast lens. You don't always need and aperture below f2,8 but especially with this sensor size I would love to have the option. For a 50mm equivalent lens you would need to use a lens around 21mm, is that correct? And there are no fast lenses at this focal lengths in Canons or Nikons line up sadly. I'm just saying a m4/3 mount (or something similar) would have made much more sense because it gives you all the options. You can easily adapt EF glas...

[quote author=popalock link=topic=596.msg4178#msg4178 date=1334686112] There is only 1 real worry with this camera - lens compatibility/incompatibility.  We need to know which lenses will work & which wont since we all have our own inventory of lenses I'm sure we'll want to use with this camera.  I've some EF lenses (great, they'll work) but I've also a GH2 and am acquiring manual lenses for that.  Will these "vintage" lenses work or not?  that is the ONLY [i][b]important[/b][/i] question.  then there's anamorphic.. All this chat about documentary vs film, and batteries are minor points, and quite frankly BS [/quote] I think he is totally right. This question is very very important imo. The EF mount is great and most of us will probably have EF lenses but they are designed for full frame photography and so are their focal lengths. The 2.X crop factor might be a problem here. It is great because it will give you nice fast tele like lenses but on the standart to wide range it will give you problems. What are your options for a fast 35mm or 50mm (equivalent) lens in the EF or Nikon line up? Even Canons widest fast prime the quite expensive 24mm 1.4 will become something like a 60mm... And the second problem is that the EF mount is far from ideal for adapting lenses. There are lenses that would pair nicely with this sensor (m4/3 like the Voigländers (17 or 25mm f0.95 or the 12 1.6 Hyperprime) or even C-Mount lenses) but you can adapt these because of the flange focal distance... An 4/3 mount would have made more sense on this camera imo. It gives you way more options and adapting EF glas wouldn't be a problem.