Nikkor

New Lens recomended to try out
as you all know I do like the Tokina/Angenieux  28-70mm and the Nikon 28-70mm 'Bourne Lens' and I'm pleased alot of you have bought them and found them to be superb lenses.
I was shooting a pop video for Rozalla last month using the Nikons and as I was shoooting with 3 cameras I wanted total glass parity so it all matched up look wise in the edit.
So 2 cameras had the Nikon 28-70mm F2.8 IF EDs on them and I bought a Nikon 35-70mm F3.5 AI for the 3rd camera.....
WHAT A LENS ! it matches the bigger Nikons exactly , colours blacks etc and it is very very good and cheap on ebay.
I used it on a speedbooster so its f2.8 and looks great
It has clicks on the apperture at f3.5 and f4
f3.5 is a midges softer fully wide open but a f4 it tightens up alot , so I used it at f4 on the speedbooster = f2.8
This is a late 1970s early 1980s lens and is built like a tank all metal , fully internal zoom and the focus only moves the end of the lens about 1cm forward
72mm front end for filters
But the glass is stunning ! the full Nikon 'Bourne ' look we all love and it edits in exactly with your bigger Nikon Bourne lenses the 28-70mm and the 80-200mm
Its smaller and lighter than its big brothers but packs the same punch .......I highly recomend this great lens
 
Andy
 
 

I zink yu shut wörk e liddl bit mohr on zat akzent

I zink yu shut wörk e liddl bit mohr on zat akzent

Whatever man... I have been following it for 2 years and I know where the problems are, enabling raw video sounds like they are taking videos which is not the case.
Btw, this hack will eventually work on the d5100/d7000/d800, the newer cameras are totally different and they haven't worked on them at all.

Yes, it is really 1.8
You can look at the measured T stops on DxO: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon---Measurements
When comparing it to your Leica, you don't have to 'guesstimate', you could test (and confirm the aperture) by shooting in manual mode. Shoot with both lenses wide open, with the Leica use 1/50s, ISO 800 for example, and set the Sigma to 1/50s ISO 400. Brightness should be almost equal with those settings.

Andrew, I have read EOSHD quite a while now, and I like it - especially since you usually do not use the over the top sensational titles like many sites today do.
"Nikon hackers make progress with RAW video", "RAW video on Nikon cameras soon?" or something in the line of that would have been closer to what's going in the nikonhackers.org community.
I used to read nofilmschool in the earlier days too, but I kinda grew tired of that site, a big part of that being their sensationalism/content-less articles. What I'd personally like to see here on EOSHD, is if you keep on doing reviews just the way you've been doing earlier. In general your headlines and articles are spot on - and it's interesting to read your findings and experiences with cameras, softwares, methods etc.
Cheers!

Whatever man... I have been following it for 2 years and I know where the problems are, enabling raw video sounds like they are taking videos which is not the case.
Btw, this hack will eventually work on the d5100/d7000/d800, the newer cameras are totally different and they haven't worked on them at all.

This is a big step but there is still a long way to "enable raw video" if its possible at all (because there could be some problems with speed,and many other things...)

I just have to click the image, thought anybody could? But here it is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/116862472@N02/17106693237/

I think the samsung NX1 is much more interesting because landscapes,etc... benefit a lot from the 4K.

He finds a great deal on a complete zeiss super speeds mkii set, sells his lesser cameras and buys a nx1.

i'd sooner shoot spherical and crop than this.  no anamorphic aesthetic what so ever.   not only that, but the anamorphic section appears to be delivering rather nasty degradations onto the image.  cropping a decent 2x image and losing sensor resolution is better than feeding the entire sensor with a crap image.
Yet another lens designed and manufactured without any care being taken to understand the reason why people want to shoot anamorphic.     

Ed is experiencing the dangers of the countryside ^^. In NY you can blame the noise,the cost of living, the dirt,etc... On the country you will encounter your self, and it takes some time to digest.

​Considering that 4 days ago, one of your realistic hopes for NAB was that this camera was going to have slo mo, and you only re-evaluated that to be the Mk3 later, after the rumour was released, I'm going to suggest that you're not one of those Japanese testers, neither have you had enough access to one that your job would be at risk

I havent tried putting them on a digital camera (only the 55 2.8) but for video they should be sharp enough for shure, the 35 3.5 probably being the worst but still more than usable (its actually the most expensive in that list). The only problem might be bokeh, I once compared the mamiya 55 2.8 against some nikkors and the mamiya had very nervous bokeh (its actually a fast wide angle lens on 645, so nothing strange there) while the nikkors were perfectly smooth @2.8 (50 1.2 , 60 2.8). The 110,150,300 wont have that problem.
Anyway, these lenses should give similar rendering as the nikkon zoom (not vintage, but also not super contrasty). You could always resell them if you dont like them. 

These lenses are nice if you want to shoot film on a mamiya 645, for small sensor digitals they are ok but not the sharpest nor biggest aperture lenses out there. Eventually somebody comes out with a speed booster for the a7 and then that set would be very useful, until then there are a lot of better options out there like minoltas, nikkors,etc... The price is right if they are n versions (not that it really matters)

The moire filter is going to add to the cost. The video quality is very primitive and unless you want to use ml raw (not really suited for documentary) any recent camera is much better.
gh3, d5200, etc...
Welcome to the forum 

Don't forget to check out the Nikon D750 as an option. Just finished a 3 day production for a music video with it and really pushed its to its limits. The Colors are spot on accurate, super easy to grade in post, flat profile gives you huge dynamic range that has a really nice roll off in the highlights. Rolling shutter, Aliasing, Moire hard to find even in my hand held shots with a higher shutter speed.  Also combined with the Ninja 2 I get very clean 1080p. I used to own 5D mark III, and Magic latern Raw which was very nice colors with 14bit raw, but nightmare to work with that hack. But I am getting very similar results with D750 and the ninja 2 (even though its only 8bit color), plus more no more rolling shutter and clipping at 11 stops.    

This is the biggest challenge for me as a photographer and filmmaker today. You have to promote the crud out of yourself, because nobody is going to do it for you. I've made some connections with clients who i've made incredibly happy that promote me almost every time I shoot something for them, and I'm discovering clients/relationships like this are absolutely invaluable. 

I think it's great and I enjoyed watching it, but you already know that (that it's great). In fact I watched it a few times, and also a few videos of people you work with and I found that you really mastered the craft of editing because everytime I watch it to learn something about what you are doing I forget about it and get drawn to "the story". Maybe I'm just retarded...
It would be nice to have a 4K download to avoid the compression artifacts messing up the grain.

I just need to rant a little and not give any new input probably, because this is just my favorite subject.
First of all, bravo, Ed!
“I didn't know what you couldn't do. I didn't deliberately set out to invent anything. It just seemed to me, why not? And there is a great gift that ignorance has to bring to anything. That was the gift I brought to Kane, ignorance.” - Orson Welles, in reference to still the greatest film ever made
This is why I left school really. It wasn't a school with particular emphasis on film, which showed. it was zero to do with creativity and all to do with the terrible formula for making films the crappy way. One of our textbooks was Your Screenplay Sucks - a book written by a man who has written maybe a handful of unknown, low-rated feature length screenplay that have been made... one of them was Ernest Rides Again. I wish I was kidding. . I had never been more inspired to not care about what I was doing. I once made a mistake of writing about something I cared about for her class, and since stuck to bullshit since that's what it would become anyway. She disrespected innumerous amazing films in our class by saying an aspect involved in it was horrible. Along with many things, she criminalized montages altogether.. which is literally a term for "editing". It can be used in sort of an overdone "cheating" fashion perhaps.. but it's clearly an insane set of parameters.
Since leaving school, I buckled down and wrote my second longer screenplay, which I'd had in mind for years but couldn't touch because I was kept so busy with nonsense. I absolutely love it, and I'm satisfied to say in that class it would have been torn to shreds. It may not end up feature length even! Which I love! That's freedom! Because no one wants that. Let's not conform to an standards by adding rubbish to your film so that it's long enough, nor keeping a short film short enough that it can hold the attention of the audience by falling into a different formula.
"A movie tries to pacify people by keeping it going for them so that it's sheer entertainment. Well, I hate entertainment." - John Cassavetes, my favorite director. And with this mindset he has made the most entertaining, amazing films. When making Faces he and his team didn't know if it would end up ten hours long. They made it anyway, expecting zero profit, because screw everything. There are legitimately good 5 hour long films which people won't give a chance.
Let's do what's right for the story. The films I've written had been entirely formed in my head before I started typing. And it wasn't active brainstorming. They just happened and they mattered. Not that every film has to be developed that way, but shouldn't we all be that lucky! and then people come in to criticize and change things. But if my professor could have changed Citizen Kane, she would have. We'll end up with bad films if we don't try to change something when we see a "flaw", but we'll also end up with amazing films. Sidney Lumet is fantastic, but could have never made Kane in his studio setting. And Welles made KANE, but also made some real stinkers, because he fought for that freedom. He would have been much more crazy if he could have, and I really wish he could have.

haha, if all these rumours come true, the big boys are gonna freak out
compressed raw, 240fps at 1080p, crop mode along with all the current features... Boom