norliss

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Darn! Maybe the budget can stretch to a kickboard and diving fins so I can swim across?? :-D

I'm sure it could stretch to that!

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just fly me in from NZ :-P

Ha! Alas the budget is unlikely to stretch to such an expense...

Hey Mattias,

I'm afraid I'm not in the market for any of those lenses but I hope you get good prices for them. Gunpowder looks like a lovely dog and I always enjoy seeing her in your videos

45 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

It is a fantastic camera. Especially check out slog3 with LC709a

 

If you can't make great content with the F5 then it won't be the camera's fault! :-P

Good to hear! 

FWIW I take a big interest in cameras/lenses, although I'm not a DOP or cameraman. I'd love to get someone who is a very talented & skilled DOP for this shoot...

Thanks for your replies, guys.

In all honesty, a large part of the appeal of the F5 is/was the potential to use it for free (or for a nominal amount). That said, I very much want a 'film' look; indeed the look of this piece is of paramount importance and it may be that this isn't the right tool for this job….

So no-one used it, then?

I'm (hopefully) nearing the end of a short documentary with eyes on my next project, a short drama (thriller) piece. The look of this one is super-important and I'm weighing up camera options.

I'm certainly not averse to having to rent a camera and very much like the idea of shooting RAW for the first time which is why the forthcoming BM URSA Mini 4.6k appeals.

However, the company at which I'm employed has (amongst other things) two Sony F5 cameras (not currently upgraded to shoot 4k) which I think would be possible to use one either FOC or for a nominal rental, using my own set of Contax Zeiss primes modded to EF mount.

So my question is: which of you have used the Sony F5 and what are your opinions of the image it is capable of?

5 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

The specs sound really good ! I just hate the ergonomics of these bodies ! Really wish they invest some of these features into the sony a-mount cameras with the traditional styled dslr bodies. Dying for a full frame a mount cam with these video innovations

I hear you. Alas, I think Sony is giving (or has given) up on the A-mount DSLT cameras...

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

My opinion:

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/02/canon-80d-chicken-feed-at-the-mirrorless-banquet/

Possibly one of your best opinion pieces ever, Andrew.

Whilst so many other manufacturers steam ahead with cutting-edge tech/spec and innovations, Canon's models 'progress' at the rate of mammal evolution. Sadly, they don't feel they have to put in the effort because people (en mass) will just buy them because they are the most recognisable brand.

I work in a production company and I get annoyed at how many productions use 5DIII wherever and whenever they want something different to their usual XF105/305 workhorses. They just aren't aware there are so many far better alternatives: and this is people that work in the television production industry.

Sadly, until/unless Canon's sales and market share goes through the floor, I can't see them changing.

1 hour ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Anybody know the mount adaptability to other than Pentax lenses? Long or short flange distance? What's the mount brand/official name. I really reaaly hope it takes Nikon and or Canon lenses because of the IBIS.

Not great, because Pentax has one of the longer flange-mount distances. You certainly won't get Canon EF mount on there and possibly not Nikon either, given the similarity of flange mount distance.

Agree with you though: it looks like a nice camera for the money.

Looks like a very interesting proposition.

Still wondering how Sony can justify the price disparity between US and Europe, though.

You'd think that, alas M4/3 is known for some pretty variable tolerances, sadly.

Really enjoyed that. I'm going to take a look at some of your other YouTube uploads.

Thanks, Mattias.

As a matter of interest, which Blu-rays do you have that are 720p? I've never heard of any before now....

I reckon you must be really busy at the moment, Andrew!

Hi Andrew,

I dropped you another line about this.

Cheers,

Dan

Hi Andrew. I sent you an email too. Is the NEX-7 still available?

 Bravo!

Camera-makers focus on adapting to smartphones' market​

Not read it yet, but thought the topic would interest you...

And here was me thinking this forum was about discussing the use and technical merits of cameras...

Wise words from mtheory and Nick Hughes above. I work in Post Production and for TV programmes, if you mentioned RAW they'd think you were having a laugh.

RAW is fine for indy films shooting a smaller amount of stuff over a shorter time period OR for big budget stuff with the time/manpower to deal with it, but for uber tight turnaround TV programmes in which they shoot large volumes, it just ain't practical. Not only that, but aside from the marquee HBO/AMC type stuff, TV just isn't made to such high standards that would necessitate shooting RAW. The in-camera codecs with C-Log, S-Log etc are plenty good enough for them...

Thanks for the replies. I think dividers are probably better than foam although I only want this purely for lenses not a camera and other items, so I need to find a suitable divider insert.

I've built up a collection of C/Y mount Zeiss Primes (with one zoom) but currently don't have a proper box in which to keep them.

I was looking at Peli/Pelican cases but read all sorts of things about the little bits of foam getting in the lenses, the foam containing gases, that they shouldn't be kept in there for anything other than brief transportation etc.

Can anyone recommend any quality, sturdy storage & transportation solutions for my glass?

Thanks!

Ah, I remember the days when this thread was about, you know... the Canon 1D C's price drop. I miss those days.

Truth be told digital now makes more sense for a whole plethora of reasons: more practical, cheaper etc etc. I think Andrew makes a fair point about modern film stocks too: there's no comparison between the look of some of the more recent films compared with the best of the films from the 1960s, 1970s etc.

That said given the supposed superiority of digital, it's funny how much time and effort is made to make it look like film