Jump to content

Fatalfury

Members
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fatalfury

  1. Current times, GH5 Mark II release with little improvement is not at all surprising. As long as GH6 will be released eventually and MFT will not be abandoned, then it's all good in my book. MFT lens collection is incredible and new cameras surely will be made.

    Though they should have put GH5S sensor it it, might be that the sensor is too big for stabilization to work in MFT mount, but as the mount can house a super 35mm sensor, it's probably isn't the problem. 

  2. Sirui is the best, got a carbon fiber version just recently. Got Manfrotto before, but immediately sent it back, fell over far too easily with those tiny legs. But really liked Manfrottos head, so it's a combination of the two. I'm sure Benro is nice as well.

  3. Wow, the specs are huge for the money! I'd rather have 1" sensor, since I have loads of s16 lenses. Maybe there is s16 mode with no loss in iq. Nevertheless this cam will kick ass, if the image will deliver. I even like the looks, like something out of the Alien franchise.

  4. On 1/15/2018 at 9:06 PM, noone said:

    What about the Mitakon 85 1.2 in EF mount?

    I do love my old 85 1.2 FD but it has the dissolving bearings problem some FD lenses have so focus is very loose.      You could always get a FD to M43 focal reducer to go with the FD 85 1.2.

    Hmmn, Mitakon looks interesting. Never realized they made lenses for the EF mount, iq looks decent as well. Altough for that money i'd rather get a Canon FD 85L. Just loaned a Helios 44-2 85mm F1.4, will so how that pans out.

  5. I'm looking for the best 85mm out there to use with speedbooster xl. Anybody has experience or know if the manual focus is usable on the Canon 85mm F1.2 l mark ii? The new Sigma 85mm is great, but the picture quality is a bit too clinical for my taste. Is the manual focus any better than the mark I version. Honestly i would rather get the FD version, but that won't fit on the EF mount without a conversion.

     

  6. I think it looks eerily similar to the new Ghost in the Shell film, very pretty indeed but too sterile and glossy. Doesn't feature the depth of the original, same thing with Alien: Covenant. The music on the first half is good (because it's a version of the original Vangelis soundtrack, though not as good), the rest of it sounds cheap imo, standard modern action trailer background music that has no place in BR universe. I thought they would go the extra mile with this, currently it does not look very promising.

  7. 13 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    I will have to do some more tests from f/1.4- f/1.8. Also, a few with LED lights to see how their color compares. It's definitely not a scientific comparison, I was mostly interested in how the lenses performed for the way I normally shoot.

    In my experience the Zuiko 25mm F1.2 was a bit soft when the focus was far (in case of full body portraits) but otherwise it was very sharp with pleasing soft micro contrast that is especially useful for portraits. If you have the time, it could be very helpful if you could post two full body or close to full body portait photos with both lenses wide open. 

  8. 2 hours ago, jonpais said:

    Finally. The Olympus 25mm f/1.2 PRO vs. the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

     

    What about wide open or from F1.2 to F1.8, is the Sigma just as sharp as the Olympus at 1.4 and what about vignetting ? The T-stop is 1.6 for Sigma vs Olympus 1.8 (in contrast the 250 bucks Sony FE 1.8 has the same 1.8 t-stop), but i guess it would be difficult for you to test that since the focal lenght is a bit different. 

    I actually like the colours from Olympus more than the Sigma from your video, but i will get the Sigma if it's as sharp as Oly + it's actually a bit better in low light.

     

  9. 12 hours ago, jonpais said:

    Your post is both confusing and silly. Are you more interested in T-stops or optical performance? You say you were impressed with the low light ability of the Olympus, then you write that you are disappointed to read that DxO tested it and found it is actually slower than f/1.2. Then you say that DxO mark rates the Olympus lower than the Leica, but you insist it is actually the other way around. Did you even bother to read the entire review? Or do you profess to have higher standards than DxO mark? Because in the review you cite, DxO Mark clearly state that 'Its [the Olympus 25mm f/1.2] excellent light transmission ranks it as one of the highest-scoring MFT-mount lenses we’ve tested on the E-M1 II, only fractionally behind the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4'. Does measurement of T-stop take into account huge vignetting at wide apertures? Because even an outstanding lens like the Sony G Master 85mm f/1.4, which has a T-stop rating of 1.5, measures more than 1EV of vignetting wide open. Which is quite good performance for such a fast lens, BTW. All lenses have T-stops slower than their f/stop, because there is no such thing as a lens, let alone a UV filter, with 100% light transmission. Remember, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 has one of the most complex designs for a m43 lens, something like 20 elements! Perhaps the reason few reviewers even mention T-stops is because it is a low priority when assessing the optical performance of a lens. I seldom even see it mentioned over at Lens Rentals.com, one of the more rigorous sites for testing lenses. Same goes for lenstip.com, unless the discrepancy is huge. I've never heard of any respectable photographer base their evaluation of a lens on T-stops alone. And I've never ever heard of anyone choosing one lens over another based on light transmission values. Maybe I should sell my Nocticron, since it only has a T-stop of 1.7. Are you after best value for money or absolute quality? Also, you mention several different focal lengths here, so not sure what you are looking for: difficult to discuss so many focal lengths - 12mm, 25mm, 30mm, 35mm - and throwing speed boosters into the mix makes it even more complicated. And if you're holding off purchasing the Leica DG Summilux because you're waiting to learn the T-stop of the yet-to-be released Zuiko, that's one of the most baffling statements I've ever read here at EOSHD, and I've seen a few. If you were to apply the same criteria to your camera purchases as your lenses, you might also avoid Panasonic altogether, since they inflate their ISO readings too. 

    Tbf, most cine lenses are marked with T-stop, as it provides the correct info how much light actually gets through, very useful for video especially. And obviously the t-stop is usually a notch beleow the f/stop, that's a given. The zuiko 25mm 1.2 is a beautiful piece of work, it's a pleasure to use. According to DXO Mark the t/stop is between zuiko 25mm 1.2 and lumix leica 25mm 1.4 is the same (1.8), while the sigma 30mm 1.4 is rated 1.6. So this means there is zero advantage when it comes to actual low light use, premium price is mainly due to the image and build quality, which may justifiable by itself. And yes the low light advantage with Nocticron is marginal compared to the much smaller and cheaper lumix 42.5 f1.7. 

    But right now i'm looking for a solution that allows me to use as low ISO as possible while being reasonobly sharp wide open, focal lenght 35mm - 50m (in 35mm terms). I'd pay premium for that, but as it seems there are more budget friendly alternatives with the same low light performance. I'd really preffer a native lens, so i'm gonna probably go with sigma 30 1.4 next.

    As an alternative for zuiko 25mm 1.2 i have considered getting speedbooster XL + Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (or 50mm 1.4) instead. Theoretically the speedbooster combo should let in more light than T1.8, but how much?  Plus the speedbooster could be used for other lenses down the road. If i was loaded with cash i'd get the zuiko pro anyway, but right now this DXO test has made me postpone at least for me, a quite significant  purchase. At the same time i actually don't trust Dxo that much, so maybe i shouldn't bother with their tests.  

    Am i being unreasonable?

    Btw i'm waitning for the t-stop of 12mm DG Summilux and how it compares to the zuiko 12mm f2, a lens  released years ago. 

     

     

  10. So DXO just released the zuiko pro 25mm F1.2 test. T-stop 1.8! Really? The same t-stop as lumix 25mm 1.4 (and better overall score for the Lumix). I tried the zuiko 25mm 1.2 for couple and was really impressed by the images, the low light perfomance + the very useful manual focusing ring. It's certainly better than the lumix 25mm 1.4, despite the Dxo score. But if the light transmission actually isn't any better for lowlight video, then i will go with the 30mm 1.4 sigma (t-stop 1.7) or the even cheaper lumix 1.7 (t-stop 2). 

    Any idea what t-stop might the speedbooster XL + sigma art 35mm 1.4 combo provide? I want to buy one higher end prime for low light and so far i had my eyes on the zuiko pro 25mm. Not really interested in voigtlander or slr magic at the moment, because the image is a bit soft below f1.8.

    I'm also seriosly considering Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4, love the look of the images. Now waitinig if the t/stop is any better than the zuiko 12mm F2.

     

  11. Awesome lut, just bought it and will be using it for sure, thanks! While it makes a drastic difference to the usual Panasonic look as it is, and i don't mean to be rude, but i'd be thrilled if Andrew could somehow add additional third Panasonic lut that has more or less same features, but is less emphasized in the reds. I'm not very good with colour correction and this would be a huge time saver.

  12. 3 minutes ago, DevonChris said:

    But it doesn't have a tilting screen which is excellent on the GX8 :(

    I wonder if the 5 axis IBIS implementation in the GX85 is software implemented and can therefore be firmware upgradeable for the GX8.

    I think the IS on GX80/GX85/GX7-M2 is mechanically implemented thanks to the new compact sensor tech. GX8 itself is in difficult situation when the lower end model is in some (actually very important) ways more advanced model. Shame that the GX80 battery is so weak, but that problem will be liquidated in GH5. 

  13. Wow, there are really a lot of negative comments about Kung Fury in this thread. 

    Personally, I thought it was absolutely awesome. The style, the one-liners, the creative compositions and the confidence to make something this ridiculous actually good is a winner to me. 

    This filmmaker had a lot of fun making this, is clearly very inspired and doesn't care how dumb people think his film is. (Because it's actually very clever).

    Maybe I love it because I can relate to it. In uni, I loved watching "so bad they are brilliant" films like Ninja Terminator. So when I see Kung Fury taking that to the level of awesome, I understand it completely. 

    ​I too love watching bad movies that are great fun to behold, but these films are genuinely sincerely bad. It is nearly impossible to make intentionally a good bad film, and for me Kung Fury proves it. As i've said, Kung Fury has it's charm and couple really nice bits, obviously a lot of hard work into it yada yada but in the end it's a five minute viral sketch stretched to half hour feature. Seems that most people love it, and from the trailer and music video i expected to love it too. 

  14. Yeah, but no. The music video and trailer is 1000x times better, was surprised by how soulless, unfunny and overlong the film felt by the end. Was promising and somewhat funny at first until the time travel sequence began, then it became tiresome and obvious that this is far from genius. Dat animation bit near the end was well done and a nice touch, some of the one liners by the main hero are quite epic but it's overall a mess. Worst of all, much of the humour comes from unimaginitive reference joke gags a la the Epic Movie series. Hitler as the main baddie is getting really tiresome, ok Kung Führer is a good villain name i give it that. The digital effects were well made and the soundtrack is quite cool but the overall look is too digital and nowhere near captures the trashy 80s vibe imo. 

     

    7.5/10 for the first 8 minutes, 3/10 for the rest, so i give it 5/10 - pretty good for a crowd funded youtube clip. Appreciate the effort that was put in and i can see why the kids of the youtube generation might dig it.

     
×
×
  • Create New...