leeys

And don't forget the 35-100mm as well.

That is spherical aberration, have you not heard? It's what causes the "Leica glow". :P

 

You'll need to stop the lens down. See if it goes away at f/2.8

Electronic corrections for m4/3 only corrects geometric distortions and vignetting. Panasonic lenses on Panasonic bodies also correct for lateral chromatic aberrations.

 

 

In your case, you're right that there is something wrong with either the Speed Booster or the Sigma. If you have a plain adapter or a camera with the Sigma's native lens mount, test the lens on its own first.

 

 

I was told by one of the main guys at B and H that you simply cannot get any sharper than than the 12-35mm for Lumix. I believe anything native will inherently have the edge (on sharpness). The look is something else all together, but no doubt you could tweak the 12-35 and make it look less video-ish..too bad the lens isn't faster.

I own the 12-35, and love the lens, but it's definitely not the sharpest. There're quite a few native lenses that can outperform the 12-35.

Great! Glad to hear the problem is fixed.

Eh, thought they'd improve it, since I recall reading somewhere about Sigma wanting to keep up. I guess they meant that in other ways.

I hate what they've done here with the new models, made a sort of half foveon. Why not just up the processor speed and card write speed and buffer, and keep proper, true film like Foveon X3?

 

They've created a compromise, rather than pushing the most promising photographic technology out there. It makes me sad. BOO! Grow some nuts, Sigma!

I think it was necessary to keep up with the high ISO capability that other cameras can do. I recall Foveon cameras pretty much stink once it hits ISO 800 - the three layers don't do the light sensitivity thing very well.

Cibachrome is dead now, the chemicals are too old, even if you can find them, so that's another issue with the end chemical printing format dying.

Ah, I loved Cibachrome back in the day. Still, modern inkjet techniques come pretty close for me. What I really miss is working with a master Cibachrome printer. Thanks for reminding me about it.

innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography.

mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least.

i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is.

check this guys film wedding photography, 

http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2

no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic.

Actually, I'm pretty much done with film... 35mm film at least. Digital has pretty much overshadowed that, even m4/3. MF and LF are different things, which is why they're still around, in the background.

 

SLRs will probably go that way in the future - supported by a small group of people who either don't want to change or need its unique advantages (eg, ultra low-light photography to preserve night vision). The rest will go with mirrorless for its cost and availability. Or even not that, who knows what the future will bring? Wearable cameras?

Can't read the article, but if they didn't mention that mirrorless will be the way to go in the future because of cost issues, then it's not forward-looking enough. :P

Can't think of a camera without something like that nowadays - believe me it helps with the dust issues.

 

Also, those items you bought look pretty alright. Good luck with the sensor cleaning!

Ok, grinding bad. Clean the mounts, and if it persists, send it back.

New mounts can be a bit tighter. It's just tight, not rough, right?

I did say to light your backgrounds better. :P

 

I've seen this happen when the first time photographer (or seasoned photographer gets lazy, don't ask me how I know) uses only one or two lights and doesn't adequately light the background. This gives a shadow that when pushed in post gives ugh results, even in raw.

Thanks for the reply!
 
I can imagine it still helping with a shoulder rig, but my worry is that I'll spend the money on a lens with IS, but at the same time it won't be as good quality looking as something like my Sigma (which I picked up 2nd hand for £400!!!), so it'll be more stable, but look a bit crap.
 
Is the image quality out of the panasonic's good for professional use? I know it's not going to be a cine lens, but nice to know it'll hold up quality wise and not look too low production value.

The Panasonic 12-35 is the best standard zoom they have - I'm not sure why you seem to automatically relegate Panasonics to cheapies.

Ugh, my mistake. Took a look at the GX1's mode dial and there doesn't seem to be a manual mode.

Yep, didn't help. What about sensor brushes, are they safe?

Yes, but effectiveness varies. What did you get in the end?

I was also looking for a standard native lens I could use for general video and stills that I could just take around me. Something with autofocus, IS, preferably a zoom, really fast constant aperture, parfocal? Not asking for much am I?  ;)

Heh, 'fraid so. Closest is the 12-35/2.8, but that's not parfocal.

Do I really need an IS for video? Or at all? My filming is going to be documentary or narrative, and I always use a tripod or a shoulder rig really?

Then IS isn't so useful for you, though my experience it still helps with the shoulder rig.
 

Will IS help for photos? Is it worth it at all?

Handheld static scenes? Yes, 100%. Never was big on IS but it's definitely helpful.
 

I'm looking to add a Tokina to my lens collection once my god damn speed booster or even the new adapter I've ordered actually arrives! But if I got a wide native lens with IS and AF, that was great, then I guess I wouldn't need one.

None of the ultrawides have IS. Not the 7-14/4, not the 9-18/4-5.6, and not the upcoming 7-14/2.8. The latter two are Olympus lenses anyway, which never have IS.

Did you get a Metabones? They normally don't take that long to ship.

How much is a GX1 in your area? Here they're being sold off in the secondary market for as low as £80.

I've seen the various comparison videos with the latest and newest Sony and the GoPro 3+ and the GoPro is still better, I feel. Amazing how a tiny 1/2.3" sensor can perform in the right hands.

The 3+ was announced in October last year, so not surprised they'll do it again this year. I agree the timing could be better...

It's not a dust spot, that would have been easy to fix. Sensor cleaning function in the camera doesn't help either.

I was commenting on Nick's problem, since he had a picture to show... you're right that different spots can mean different things, but his from my experience looked like a dust spot.

It's a dust spot alright. Fact of life. Try using a blower on the sensor and see if you dislodge it.

 

There is no way to prevent this from totally happening, short of buying a fixed lens camera with minimal moving parts.

 

Take care when changing lenses: Don't face them upwards, don't take too long, and always shield with your body against wind blowing at the camera.

Wowsers. That's a killer price. I also vote for people to buy.

 

 

The pocket is already worth 20x times what I originally paid for it. And it's only been 7 months. ;)

 

I've use it for high end real estate videos. Shooting RAW on an edelkrone motorized slider/head I can pull off layered sequences. I kinda feel bad about the photogs I bumped for work, but hey, I'm able to do what they do, only with thousands of frames. I'm sure someday too I will become a fossil.

I'm curious - do you have a sample of your work to show? I'm not a fan of the BMPCC but if you can show me the applications I just might be!

20FPS *with* AF. To break it down:

 

The V1 with CAF does 10 FPS, the V2 15 FPS, and the V3 20 FPS.

 

As I mentioned, if you're not interested in AF, then it doesn't matter. All top out at 60 FPS. The V1's buffer allows 30 frames to be shot, the V2 40, and I have no idea about the V3, though it also seems to be 40 frames.

Thinking about this, it's a bit of a letdown by Nikon. With the V2 onwards they could've capitalised on this by giving it a buffer deep enough for more photos. There are budget smartphones under US$200 with 2GB of RAM now, so imagine that on the V2; that's enough for 160 images, or 6.67 seconds worth of video at 24 FPS.

 

Maybe we should badger Nikon to see if they can offer a memory upgrade service like they did for the D1X and the D3