Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Yes, I think it becomes a ~55mm F1.2 lens - and thus a 110mm equivalent to full frame. But now I'm starting to get confused as well when it comes to equivalent depth of field. I usually don't think about it because I don't personally care what the DOF is equivalent to full frame. I think it has depth of field like F2.4 on full frame with the Speed Booster and F4.0 without the Speed Booster. But I'm really not sure anymore and I'm no expert. o.o" Ah, yes, the physical shutter must be the reason why it doesn't work on regular MFT cameras. I totally forgot about that. I really can't b
  2. In theory, the 0.64 and 0.58 factors also work for full-frame lenses on regular MFT sensors if I'm not mistaken. So it's a little disappointing that these Speed Boosters only work with the Blackmagics. But this is the case because the focal-reducing lens comes so very close to the sensor, right? Would have been cool to get nearly the full image circle of full frame lenses on a MFT camera. The Speed Booster doesn't really change the look of the lens. It shrinks the image circle, which mainly affects light gathering (density?) (and, of course, format coverage). The size of the bokeh rel
  3.   Must be software stabilization in post. Edit: Continued watching and ewww and more effects nonsense. Don't know how this helps to assess the GX7's video quality.
  4. The first video shot with the GX7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE55G_YLXZk Though YouTube isn't very useful for examining quality, right?
  5.     Yep, it's been stated a couple times on 43rumors: http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-small-rumor-the-name-is-gx7/ http://www.43rumors.com/gx7-image-and-specs-roundup-do-you-like-the-design/       Hmm that would be really cool, but so far the suggestion for people with Olympus bodies mounting Panasonic lenses was to turn off either the the lens stabilization or the in-body stabilization because both would work against each other, apparently 'not being aware' of each other. I don't have an Olympus body, but at one point was curious what would happen if the Olymp
  6. Am I getting something wrong, or does the video quality also depend on the downsizing algorithms (pixel binning methods) of the sensor image to HD resolution? Aside from the encoding, couldn't this be another reason for loss of detail in the case that G6 video quality does turn out to be behind of what the GH2 offers?
  7.   That sounds weird. If the sensor's "character" (is that what you mean by "special magic"?) is so desirable to warrant it being used again, then why is its multi-aspect-ratio potential – being a characteristic of this sensor that is appreciated by many just like its readout speed and low-light performance – left unused at the same time? I understand that you are probably only referring to the look the sensor produces and not to what format or image circle it covers. But both are features belonging to the same component and if one is dropped (or, better to say, disabled), that is so
  8. It seems the multi-aspect sensor feature is still not in use in the G6 if you look at the pixel sizes of the stills: GH2: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh2/specifications.html "[3:2] 4,752 x 3,168, [16:9] 4,976 x 2,800"   GH3: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh3/specifications.html "[3:2] 4,608 x 3,072, [16:9] 4,608 x 2,592"   G5: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/g5/specifications.html "[3:2] 4,608 x 3,072, [16:9] 4,608 x 2,592"   G6: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/g6/specifications.html "[3:2] 4,608 x
  • Create New...