jasondhsd

Ooo, it's the wishful thinking thread! 200/2.8 for me please. Panasonic were so close with that 150/2.8.

 

 

If you believe the murmurings, Panasonic apparently had that 100-300/4 but killed its development.

Yeah Panasonic rep confirmed that the 300mm wasn't happening & they wanted to go in favor of making compact standard zooms for the GM1.  The 150mm f2.8 is still suppose to happen, too short for wildlife or birds but a good focal length for sports & action.   I think they are making a mistake though abandoning the pro 300mm zoom, they could of won over a lot of wildlife photographers who are tired of carrying a $8k bazooka lens into the forest. 

I know you guys are mainly video but I like using mine for photography as well, I think with GH4 new AF it could really be a competent bird in flight or sports camera if it had a pro-level lens at a longer focal length with a fast AF motor. I would vote for an Lumix G Vario X 100-300mm F4 with stabilization & weather proofing.    Maybe throw in a 600mm F5.6 prime. 

Jason, if your contribution to the forum is going to be humour, at least make it funny :)

I was going more for satire, not sure I can do funny. 

Link?

Umm, really?

BREAKING NEWS!! CONFIRMED!! FIRMWARE WILL UPDATE SENSOR TO FULL FRAME WITH INTERNAL 4K RAW!!

The updated specs look mind blowing ! 

 

Higher Bitrate (similar to the GH4, also for the 1080p too)
4K + the usual FullHD, HD recording mode
Slow motion mode at 240fps and 120fps
New codec (Panasonic patent, AVC-I-U)
Framerate control (24p,25p,30p,50p,60p, including the slow motion one)
Updated ColourCreator
FullHD 4:2:2 in MJPEG mode too
Uncompressed HDMI with 4K support
More manual control during recording mode
Better mic control
UHS-2  support (improvement of the UHS support)
Improvement of the Wifi control (including a live control)
A lot of picture improvement and art filter update (composite, etc…)

 

I had one ... I buy one again if this turns out to be true !!

I have a photo of the person leaking these rumors:

Ah thanks I think newsshooter is where I might of saw that article about WSJ and yeah they shoot to web & it's probably edited & adjusted but it was the fact they were a news company that made the question pop in my head.  I found this article just now about a Sky cameraman using a GH2 (unhacked I assume) http://www.newsshooter.com/2011/12/14/size-matters-sky-news-beijing-bureau-cameraman-andy-portch-reports-on-a-year-with-the-panasonic-af101-and-gh2-cameras/  it seems like the qualifications for HD broadcast quality are pretty loose though & doesn't seem to describe the actual quality of the image itself. The two things I see a lot of people mentioning is 50mbps bitrate, 2/3 sensor, 4.2.2 output.  Now I'm not sure why the sensor size would matter all that much & I'm guessing the 4.2.2 would mainly be useful if you were throwing the footage up behind a newscaster in front of a green screen but I don't see green screens being used that much anymore it's mainly big flat screens isn't it? So in most cases now I think GH cameras would be fine.   

Any of the GH cameras but Gh3 in particular

This post is just pure curiosity as I just read about how the Wall Street Journal uses GH2 for all their video work & have upgraded to GH4s anyway that got me thinking what would be the best settings to shoot video when you're not going to grade it or even run it through an NLE to do sharpening or adjust contract, etc?  You're shooting news footage that will be delivered and put on air shortly after it's shot.  Like would you still keep sharpness and noise reduction -5 or just shoot standard or natural with everything at zero?  

Maybe he means adjusting the picture profile,ya know setting it natural dial down the sharpness to -5.  I like to shoot with natural, -3,-5,0,-3  if it's a dreary day I might put the contrast back up a bit.  

I was thinking about getting into weddings as well I'm a bit concerned as some reception venues can be pretty low light, have you ran into any issues where you've been forced to use a higher ISO then you'd have liked? I mean your friend in particular, I think you'd be good with the sigma and speedbooster...you might want to have your friend pick up something like a lens turbo & a samyang/rokinon 35mm just have in case the lights go too low.

Someone needs to come out with a battery grip add-on for the A7s but instead of it just being for an extra battery it would also be a 4k recorder....essentially giving you 4k that you can hold in one hand like the gh4.

Read Andrew's review of the 1DC he was never happy with it and I agree 100% with the issues he brought up. http://www.eoshd.com/content/10179/the-canon-1d-c-review  Canon really needs to rethink it's business model.  Maybe they could get away with their overpriced crap a few years ago but IMO if they want to continue to sell high-end cameras for $10k plus they need to do internal 6k and external 8k, global shutter, 16-20MP, xlr inputs, etc.   Right now 4k is being used to acquire and deliver to HD, so what Canon needs to do is anticipate when consumers want 4k delivery and make a camera that will do 8k or 6k for a 4k delivery.....I say this because the best advantage in using 4k and delivering in HD (besides a cleaner image) is you don't need as many cameras you can have a wide shot and crop in to close-ups.

Huh I guess this was already discussed awhile back http://www.eoshd.com/content/605/what-smart-glass-means-to-dslr-video-digital-nd-filters

Can something like this be adapted to cameras as an ND filter? http://www.smarttint.com/

This is true. The full frame f/2.8 are bigger and heavier due to the increased coverage. But then there's volume vs supply & demand. Canon's lens will fit on a variety of cameras, with an exponentially larger user base than micro 4/3. That means they can afford to charge less on each one and still make enough money to be worth the effort. Panasonic, meanwhile, needs to charge more because they won't sell anywhere near as many. I'm sure they'd like to charge even more for it than they are now, but it wouldn't seem fair for them to charge significantly more than what other manufacturers charge for a similar spec option. 

 

I know it sounds like a weak excuse, but that's business. I opted for a particular phone handset that wasn't as popular as others and dealt with the same thing - was considering a Samsung Galaxy S3 back in the day, went with a relatively unknown LG model instead. When I wanted to buy accessories, spare batteries, cases, etc. Galaxy S3 options were plentiful and super cheap. Finding an option for my LG was much more expensive for the same thing, simply because it was a less common item to find. 

The compact kit lens that comes with the camera is technically more complicated than that 25mm f/1.4 prime, but they are a dime a dozen and can't hold the same price value as the fast prime.

 

Bottom line here is that creating an F/2.8 constant aperture zoom is a more complicated and expensive endeavor than their previous offerings. They should be allowed to charge more for it, and they do.
 

Actually, I've heard that there are Olympus f/2.0 zooms that are exactly that: Lenses originally designed for larger formats with an optical reduction element in the back. They aren't cheap either.

But when you think about it the Panasonic considers the two X zooms equivalent to canon L zooms.  The Canon 70-200 f2.8 sells for $2300 compared to the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 which sells for $950 so roughly the panasonic is 60% smaller and 60% cheaper. So from that perspective just comparing the physical attributes the lens are prices competitively against one another.   On the other hand if you want to try and directly compare full frame dof, angle of view, etc like the video has then you'd only have to compare it to the 24-70 L f4 which is only $1500 the higher aperture number is compensated by using a higher ISO.   See I do get what the video is TRYING to say but the problem is 1. No one is lying. 2. Doing crop factors for ISO noise is a moving target with no baseline.  3. Not everyone cares about full frame equivalent. 

That said, I think if Panasonic revised their zooms to f2 or below constant aperture and could keep the price within $100 or $200 of the current prices I would be an extremely eager buyer and I think they'd boost mft sales significantly. 

I watched the video but didn't have the time to go through the discussion here. But as far as I am seeing, all he's saying is that marketing teams always apply the crop factor to the focal length and not the aperture, or ISO. 

A 12-35mm lens is in fact a 24-70mm f/5.6, not an 24-70mm F/2.8. 

We all know that in terms of depth of field, that's correct. But his theory is that it also applies to the exposure value. 

That a 12-35mm F/2.8 is not the same brightness as a 24-70mm f/2.8, but it's the same as 24-70mm f/5.6, and smaller sensors have to apply more gain to compensate for that exposure difference, thus have more noise. 

Example:

Two pictures. 

1- 35mm - 2.8 - 800 ISO on M43s
2- 35mm - 2.8 - 800 ISO on fullframe 

1 & 2 don't look similar in terms of field of view, depth of field, or ISO

so to match field of view:

1- 35mm - 2.8 - 800 ISO
2- 70mm - 2.8 - 800 ISO 

Now 1 & 2 look similar in terms of field of view, but they don't look similar in terms of -ISO -Depth of field. 

so to match depth of field 

1- 35mm - 1.4 - 800 ISO on m43s
2- 70mm - 2.8 - 800 ISO in fullframe

1 & 2 now look similar in terms of both angle of view and depth of field, but they don't look similar in terms of - ISO (1 is two stops brighter than 2)
 
so to match ISO 

1- 35mm - 1.4 - 200 ISO
2- 70mm - 2.8 - 800 ISO

now 1 & 2 are exactly identical in terms of field of view, ISO noise, and depth of field. 

_______________________

So as far as I understand his theory is that we should also apply the crop factor to the ISO value. That a smaller sensor at 200 ISO = 800 ISO on full frame, and he takes noise levels as his proof. Thus says that smaller sensors don't have noisier ISOs. 

_______________________

Not suggesting he's right or wrong, I have no idea. 

but it's interesting. 

Everyone knows how to calculate dof and angle of view when comparing crop to full frame sensors and sometimes the marketing people will do that for you.  The problem with the whole noise and iso calculation is it's trying to mush together different measurements.  ISO at 200 is going to give you the same exposure across all different cameras, same with 400, 800, 6400, etc.  So not worrying about dof or angle of view, 50mm f2.8 800 ISO will be the same exposure for all cameras.    As far as noise is concerned there's no way of comparing that because it changes constantly and varies camera to camera.  Right now the real world differences in noise from 200-800 is pretty negligible. And what basis do you calculate the noise from....a full frame sensor? Well a MD MkII at 20mp is a lot noisier then any of the current mft sensors at the same ISO, and the Nikon D4 looks like it has about 2x less noise when compared to the MD MkIII even at lower ISO. So what do you use as the base to determine these calculations? The video appears to be using the MD MkIII but what about 3 years from now? If this guy it trying to get manufactures to more accurately advertise their lenses and sensors as compared to a full-frame the advertisers will be constantly having to update their materials as new sensor technology hits the market.  If I'm looking to buy a new lens four years from now and the numbers are based off the noise from a MD MKIII I'm not going to get an accurate assessment because by then technology would have advanced to where the MD MKIII at say 800 is equaled to my GH6 at say 1600 or 3200. Like I said, the manufactures job is to report the physical properties of their camera and lenses. It's up the buyer to determine whether or not they want to compare it to full frame equivalent and whether or not they find the noise acceptable or not in terms of ISO performance.   If someone doesn't know the differences before plunking down $1000+ then they're an idiot. 

With respect to the simple math and examples, where are the errors? If it's not possible to point out an error with this math or images, what he says in the video is essentially correct:

1. Multiply focal length by crop factor: well known and the point of the crop factor for full frame reference.

That's correct but focal length as a physical attribute of the lens DOES NOT CHANGE in regards to what size sensor it's put on

 

1. Multiply aperture by crop factor: this matches his examples for apparent brightness and bokeh.

It will match the dept of field by doing that, ie 25mm f2.8 on a mft is will have the same dof and focal length as a 50mm f5.6 on a full-frame but the brightness is another story, keeping the ISO constant f2.8 is going to be brighter then f5.6, and forgetting about dof for a second if the full frame sensor has a f2.8 lens and the mft sensor has a f2.8 lens, same ISO the images will be equally bright. What the video is trying to do is match everything up to compare with full frame, ISO in regards to noise, DoF, brightness again that's fine to do all that but to say manufactures are being misleading for putting the physical specifications on their lens is wrong. It's not the manufactures responsibility to conform the physical attributes of their system in relation to a full frame system.  Some people don't care about the differences in dof and angle of view and those that do can easily calculate it.  

1. Multiply ISO by (crop factor)^2: this matches his example for apparent brightness and makes sense based on what ISO really is: gain; the square term makes sense for sensor area, and works for the examples shown.

Read my post above, pixel density matters greatly.  The guy makes a false analogy about rain water and buckets, saying if you put a bucket of water that 4x smaller out in the rain you'd have to leave it out 4x longer...that's 100% completely false!!!  If you took a larger bucket and a small bucket left it outside for 5 minutes and then poured it in a measuring vessel they'd have the same amount of water in them. The smaller bucket would be filled higher while the larger bucket would the water spread out across the bottom and not filled up very high but the volume of water collected in each would be the same.  If you left the smaller bucket out 4x as long you'd have 4x as much water assuming the bucket is tall enough to collect the water without overflowing.

 

 

Samuel (flaat profile creator) did tests and includes an FOV/DOF calculator which exactly matches what is in the video. He made this post in 2011: http://www.similaar.com/foto/doftest/doftest.html

No need to apologize but I don't think you have the technical understanding to know what you're talking about.  Please stop making yourself look foolish.  

 

Your argument is that (quoting you verbatim) "it it were an F/5.6, images would be extremely dark indoors."  And you're here calling people *asinine*?  Your understanding of how light passes through the lens and how the data is written to your memory card, and everything in between is probably beginner level at best.

 

Just because you are being loud, obnoxious and trying to demonstrate the little knowledge that you have about technology doesn't make you correct.

 

If you had watched the video and read what people are actually saying in the comments, (which you obviously didn't do) is that these small lenses and sensors are delivering *the equivalent of* lenses of higher F-stop numbers when it comes to DOF and noise, and by not making it obvious to everyday consumers, they are getting away with charging premium prices.  But you probably just glanced over it and didn't even catch the *when it comes to DOF and noise* part, and you're just trying to prove everyone wrong without listening to what was said first.

It's real simple does the lens itself physically change depending on what sensor it covers? I'll answer for you, not it doesn't.  The light being let in and striking the sensor is the same and focal length is the same, focal length being the distance from the focal plane to the optical center of the lens.  All that remains the same.  The video is trying to say Panasonic and Olympus is cheating when they advertise their lens as being f2.8 but that's not cheating the lens is f2.8 that's how much light it lets in, the focal length is 12-35 or 25 or 35-100 etc. because that's the physical attributes of the lens itself, again that does NOT change no matter how big or small the sensor is so long as the lens is big enough to cover the whole sensor.

Now trying to figure out the equivalent of everything is fine but impossible to do on a consistent basis to come up with a new standard.   In regards to ISO the video is trying to put forth that it's light on the entire sensor that matters when that's not true. What matter is pixel density and the technology of the sensor. The video annotation says the per pixel or pixel density has little impact,  that's complete and utter bullshit that's EXACTLY what matters.  The more pixels that cramped in an area the more wires are criss-crossing producing magnetic fields and thus producing noise, the higher the electric signal to each pixel sensor the stronger the magnetic field and the more noise is produced.  If you were to take a full-frame sensor and pack the same amount of pixels onto it as mft sensor has with 16mp then the full frame sensor would a lot more noisier so it's not the size of the sensor that matters. Perhaps today on average ISO 400 on a MFT is equivalent noise wise to 1600, perhaps? But what about next year, every year the sensor perform improves the GH4 performs better at higher ISO then the GH3, the GH3 is better then the GH2, etc. Same on the Olympus side. So that 4x won't hold up for long and IMO doesn't hold up right now not when comparing high-end mft cameras.

Play around with this here http://***URL removed***/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3/14 scroll down to the compare raw ISO noise section. PIck the GH3 and the Nikon 5200 or 5300 one's a micro-four thirds, the other APC-C. 16mp vs 24mp, now the APC-C sensor is 30% larger then the mft and how much larger is 24mp compared to 16? about 34%, so roughly the same. and what do we notice? The noise is pretty much the same through the whole ISO range. Different size sensor, about the same pixel density, same amount of noise so we can conclude that the physical size of the sensor isn't what's really important here.  And of course you can see how the sensor technology has improved, compare the full-frame Canon md mkII in the third column even though it's far less densely packed, but the newer Nikon and Panasonic hold up pretty well thanks to improvements in sensor technology from when the Canon came out in 2008 to when the Nikon and Panasonic came out in 2012.

Bottom line is no one is misleading anyone. If you're spending $1000+ on a camera system you better fucking be a consensus buyer.  You should know the differences in sensor sizes in regards to how it affects DoF and focal length equivalents, you should be reading reviews and comparing ISO noise.  Now you want to use this guys math as a rough rule of thumb when comparing sensors and lenses, go right ahead but to try to come up with some sort of new standard for the industry is asinine and impossible because it will change and fluctuate with each new generation of sensor technology. 

No, there IS more light hitting a larger sensor if both have a 2.8 lens but not more light per area.    The light hits all of the sensor at the same time so with a larger area there MUST be more total light hitting the sensor.  The SAME amount of light hits the same size area though.

A lens at f2.8 is letting in the same amount of light whether the light is hitting something an inch or a millimeter its still the same amount of light. A larger sensor sitting behind the lenses doesn't get more light then a crop sensor or a m43 sensor or any size sensor sitting behind the lens. 

From metabones:

 

 

 

• Does the Speed Booster® increase only T-stop of the lens leaving F-stop unchanged?

  This is one of the common misconceptions about the Speed Booster®. However there is a contradiction right within that assertion since T-stop cannot be any faster than F-stop. It is not possible to experimentally observe a T-stop increase unless the lens has a corresponding F-stop increase.

  The logic of the allegation is that since the depth-of-field of the lens does not change, therefore neither does the F-stop of the lens (untrue). What had never been under any dispute was that the T-stop of the lens did increase, as could be seen with the increased exposure in the resulting footage or photograph.

  Before we clear up this misconception, let's find out why there is so much confusion in the first place. Focal length, maximum aperture and depth-of-field are physical quantities that are independent of sensor size. These quantities do not care whether a full frame, APS-C or m4/3 sensor sits behind the lens.

  Speed Booster® makes the focal length 0.7x shorter. F-number is simply focal length divided by entrance pupil diameter. Since the former reduces by a factor of 0.7x but the latter remains the same, F-number also becomes 0.7x smaller, or one stop faster. The F-stop increase is real.

  Note that a 35/1.0 lens (from 50/1.4 + Speed Booster®) will always have shallower depth-of-field than a straight 35/1.4 lens at any given distance.

I don't have time to watch the video but f2.8 is f2.8 in regards to the amount of light hitting the sensor whether it's hitting a sensor that's 5 inches or a sensor that's 1cm the same amount of light is hitting the sensor.  Now pixel size is a factor an APC-C sensor is about 30% larger then a m43 sensor but it also has about 30% more pixels per square inch (or whatever unit of measurement) so a micro43 sensor at 16 megapixels has slight smaller pixel then a 20.1mp canon and slightly larger pixels compared to a Nikon at 24mp.   But take something like a full-frame sensor like the MD MkIII at 24mp, compared to the apc-c nikon it's the same amount of pixels spread out over a larger area. And then you have the Nikon 4ds full frame with 16mp those pixels are HUGE and you're able to boost the gain a lot higher compared to m43 and apc-c where the sensor is more densely packed, which basically means full frame can take the same amount of light and use it better at higher ISO.  But at lower ISO say 3200 or 1600 and less set all the cameras m43, apc-c, full frame to same frame rate, iso, and shutter speed and the photos will all be exposed exactly the same.    Now depth of field is a completely different matter but has nothing to do with light transmission. tl, dr: the same amount of light is being let in through the hole regardless of the sensor size. 

As for speedbooster,what that's doing is taking the f-whatever lets say f2.8 taking that light and focusing it on a smaller area or smaller sensor....like a magnifying glass focusing the sun, so f2.8 becomes f2. 

Has anyone tried ColorGhear toolkit for After Effects? I was watching some of the overview of how it works on the website and it seems to produce pretty impressive results. According to the creator its specially designed with the limitations dslr codecs in mind and that using these tools you can push the grade a lot further without the codec breaking down compared to other tools....again according to the guy who made it. 

Awesome, thanks! I hardly ever check this part area of the forum as most of the activity is on the main forum page glad I went here this is a gem. 

A quick google search says they are broadcast lenses probably from a studio that went under with a 2/3 mount asking price seems to be between $450-$1500.

 

I am considering a change to the forum which would effectively see it closed but for a few selected members who have a proven track record of good posts. The forum would have a lot of exposure and readers. Like a 'second blog' to EOSHD that everybody can get something interesting out of.

 

If you did this what would be the criteria for new members to be accepted into the forum to be able to post something?

Instead of closing it off I would recommend the following:

1. A 30-day read-only period, figure if they're patient enough to wait 30-days after signing up they're probably not out to troll the site.
2. After 30-days the can only post a maximum of 5 posts per day to encourage quality over quantity do this until 150 posts are reached if they hang in there for that long they're probably going to be a good forum member.
3. Delegate some moderation powers to a few trusted and productive forum members like the ability to mark and hide a post as off-topic or even issue bans.