Julian

[quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1344534105' post='15216']
I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, all of Sony's E-Mount lenses are APS-C only.

I was watching a presentation on the NEX camera line and when asked about a full frame NEX the Sony official said there were currently no plans to make one, and he thought it was unlikely, mainly because the main point of those cameras is the compact design, and a huge full frame sensor would not really make sense.

It's a shame, but we're probably stuck dealing with the Alpha Mount for full frame cameras from Sony.
[/quote]

It would have to be some kind of hybrid design. E-mount lenses could work in crop mode, like DX on Nikon FX.
For full frame lenses an adapter would be needed:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sony-approves-the-launch-the-new-hyrbid-alphanex-mount-camera-sort-of-fullframe-nex-7/

It's rumours fow now, but Sony doesn't seem to be afraid to try new things.

[quote name='sandro' timestamp='1344531450' post='15212']
I'll tell you what will actually destroy everyone. A GH3 with a bigger sensor and the same mount. Unbeatable quality and every single lens in the world usable!
[/quote]
Very unlikely Panasonic is going to leave the Micro Four Thirds format in the near future.

On the other hand, it seems quite likely Sony will come with a fullframe NEX (mirrorless) in the near future.
Rumours of that have been flying around for some time, and it makes sense.

A77 > NEX-7
A99 > NEX-9... (somewhere in 2013?)

That would defniately be great if the A99 is optimized for video.

Exactly. If you already have them, use them, compare them and see what you like most.

Also, think about buying into one system. It's good for your image consistency to use lenses from the same brand/era example. All lenses have specific character in their bokeh/contrast/sharpness and even handling (focussing on Nikon goes the other way around for example).

http://www.mflenses.com/ might be what you're looking for, but I don't think there is something as expansive as dpreview for legacy stuff. On the technical side there is http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/photography.htm where you can find a load of history about old lenses and camera's.

You can get an ILC camera for $300.. Just add a simple manual lens that costs next to nothing. Any camera would do, although audio input is another story. I think the cheapest camera with audio in would be the Canon 550D?

Nice. I like the handheld look.

And what about a cheap fluid head? Manfrotto 701 seems popular here and I could find some nice examples on youtube.
Does anyone have experience with the Benro S2/S4?


For small tripods you could have a look at Cullmann.

I'm using this one and it folds pretty small: http://www.cullmann.de/en/detail/id/magnesit-522t-cb51.html
It does'nt get very high, but I like the fact that you can get very low with the short column that is included.

The article in the first post mentions that the ISCO's don't flare like anamorphics.

I gave it a try. What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTUlvIC4DtU

GF3 hacked with EOSHD GF2 patch (seems to work fine).
Minolta MD Rokkor 135mm f/2.8
Minolta MD Rokkor 28mm f/2.8

The 28mm is obviously too wide. So here's a 2,35:1 crop.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAVPvJIPMw[/media]

Going to look for a Minolta 35mm.. I think that might work with minimal vignetting so I can crop it to 2,66:1.

Thanks Andy. Is that the outer thread or the inner thread? Any idea if there are stepdown filters in that size to regular filterthread sizes? I'm using 55mm mostly.

Shame the HK dealers aren't selling cheap versions on eBay... I got my adapters for next to nothing and it works for me.

My ISCO actually has (something that looks like) a filter thread on the back though. I guess some stepup/stepdown ring should do the job as well.

[quote name='brintamatic' timestamp='1343832051' post='14783']
Thanks for the reply. I've got a specific budget for camera, lens and rig. I originally went down this journey looking at a Canon 5D MK2/3 and I came across the GH2 phenomenon. I've been very impressed with the GH2 when compared with the 5D. I don't know what lenses are required for the GH2 and what those recommended lenses may cost either.

I was also told to look at the Blackmagic Cinema. Again, the price for the body fits within the budget but I don't know if it's like a RED where it needs a bunch of attachments just to get started. All in all, the GH2 really stands out of the crowd because of it's great value but if there is anything on the horizon that will make the GH2 obsolete in a year or two, I would rather wait on the next best thing... Thoughts?
[/quote]
There's aways something on the horizon. Who knows whats new in two years.

Good thing about the GH2: you can use about any lens on it because of the mirrorless design. With a dslr you have much less choice. You have tons of options to buy cheap (but good) lenses for the GH2. The only thing that's a bit more difficult to find cheap is wideangles because of the 2x cropfactor. But there are plenty of options.

You could buy a GH2 set and a whole bunch of manual focus lenses for the price of even a 5D Mark II, for the price of a MK III you can include the rig... Does the GH2 become obsolete for you? Sell it, you wouldn't loose much probably.

The GH2 is cheap and gives you great quality. I think you can expect the GH3 to be quite more expensive at launch.
In the GH2 price range Sony, Canon, Olympus or Nikon aren't any better in terms of resolution.

I tried finding a GH2 used but on eBay they go for prices not much less then a new camera. At Amazon a new body is $699 now.
The hack doesn't cost any money, although you can donate as much as you like to support the development.

The whole hack thing can be a bit overwhelming when you jump into it, but with the FAQ's on [url="http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/"]http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/[/url] you should be able to get the idea. The biggest 'problem' is choosing the right settings.

You could start without a hack anyway. The GH2 offers a high bitrate mode by itself and it might suit all your needs.

Should you buy the book? No idea. Depens on how much experience you have with dslr's, video, etc.

Thanks for the tips dahlfors!

My lenses also extrude forward and backwards. But that means either the camera or the anamorphic lens can't be fixed on the rig. I'd have to come up with a solution for that. In your setup the anamorphic lens can move freely forward and backwards I suppose?

Your ISCO looks much more compact than mine though.. With my tiny GF3 it might be a better idea to let the camera do the moving instead of the ISCO maybe...

I don't think the unsharpness off the video is due to focussing. Take a look at the high res pictures in my gallery. They are stills I shot during some of the sequences with the same settings. Aperture was around f/8, f/11 or f/16 for the flare shot. The focus in the stills looks fine to me, also on the ones with bigger apartures (the tree, might be 5.6). Since we're shooting a 2x crop sensor the dof is already twice as big as on a fullframe, so f/5.6 would be like f/11 on fullframe anyway.

I shot on the GF3 with sharpness and contrast at -2. Adding sharpness in post did'nt help much though. But what i've read so far the GF3 kinda sucks for high detailed images. Started hacking the camera yesterday and i'll do some more tests.

I have an ISCO Optic Ultrastar. I've been photographing for 10 years, kinda new to video but I jumped right into the whole anamorphic thing because widescreen fascinates me. Tried the GH2 for a while and loved it. Using the GF3 now because I could get a good deal on it.

The ISCO I bought on eBay (I think from Andy Lee who's also active here) came without a rear lens so it's ready to go. I built a very simple rig with the Velbon Support SPT-1 and i'm using just a rubber hood between the camera+lens and ISCO. I tried with the Minolta 45mm f/2 and Hexar 40mm f/1.8 so far and I think the Minolta gave better results. Sharper and more contrast.

I'm a bit puzzeld about clamps. The vid-atlantic looks nice, but do you screw it into the taking lens? I suppose not, since most of the legacy lenses have moving front elements. But then what would the advantage be over my cheap solution right now?

Here's my setup:
[img]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s720x720/551200_4434984476102_215117211_n.jpg[/img]

I have no idea which ISCO lens this is - and if there are any differences at all. According to the scale the MFD is 5 meters or 17 ft, but in practise I can get a bit closer, around 2 meters, anything closer and the image gets weird. On the site linked in the first post I read mdf of 1,5 meters in the comments, should this apply to my lens as well or do I have a different one?

This weekend I took the setup to the park and shot a testvideo with the GF3:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLtmitUGWok[/media]

I stretched it 2x, exported as 1920x540. I was wondering about the aspect ratio though, it seemd a bit off. Today I photographed a circle with the setup and according to that the stretch ratio should be 1,78x. This seems to make sense as this is a standard in video I think? It would turn 4:3 into 2,37:1 (1,33 x 1,78).

The video lacks sharpness in my opinion. But i think thats because of the low bitrate of the GF3. Looking into the hack right now and going to apply it soon.

While making the video I also shot some pictures (4:3). I stretched those 1,78x which seems to deliver good results. Also the sharpness of the pictures is way better then the video so the lens doesn't seem to be the problem.

Here are some of the pictures (remember, taken in photo mode, not video):

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_8/med_gallery_20742_8_1090796.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_8/med_gallery_20742_8_456319.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_8/med_gallery_20742_8_1206426.jpg[/img]

Lager files in my gallery:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/album/8-isco-ultrastar-gf3-minolta-md-45mm-f2/