Shirozina

I was being sarcastic.......

Fd lenses are ideal for the Sony A7 series although you have to choose your glass carefully as some are better than others. All of the fixed lenses are good whenstopped well down and have very good frame evenness I.e sharp right out to the frame corners unlike a lot of similar vintage and even contemporary lenses. Wide open they are mostly low contrast and ' dreamy' but this can be attractive but Bokeh can be harsh and so they make good ' landscape lenses' Outright resolution is not exceptional so I would caution their use on high density aps-c and M43 sensors? Most of the zooms are mediocre by modern standards ( as are any of that era) Any L glass is good but they are command high prices and are not such bargains. They are plentiful and cheap on the used market due to their non compatibility with the EOS mount. 

I have a small collection of cans; Sony DMR 7506, Sen HD25-2, AKG 701 and Grado SR80. If I want to listen to music I'll grab the Grado's as they are sweet sounding but not very accurate - classic Hi-Fi vs sound production choice. If I was forced into mixing with headphones I'd choose the 7506's - no they may not be the sweetest sounding or most detailed but like studio monitors if the mix sounds good on these it's a good mix. For recording in the field the HD25's are unbeatable but not particularly because of the sound but because the split headband means they don't slip off your head when you look down at the field recorder and they are tough and comfortable to wear for long periods. Bought the AKG's on a whim but the best thing I can say about them is they sound inoffensive. I know there are some fantastic sounding cans out there but for mixing and sound production this isn't actualy that useful. NX10 monitors became studio essentials not because they sounded good but because only a good sound mix worked on them and it ruthlessly revealed poor production - if your mix sounded good on these it would sound good on anything. I'd think you need the same from cans and the 7506's do this as well which is why 1000's of audio pro's still use and trust them.

I have a small collection of cans; Sony DMR 7506, Sen HD25-2, AKG 701 and Grado SR80. If I want to listen to music I'll grab the Grado's as they are sweet sounding but not very accurate - classic Hi-Fi vs sound production choice. If I was forced into mixing with headphones I'd choose the 7506's - no they may not be the sweetest sounding or most detailed but like studio monitors if the mix sounds good on these it's a good mix. For recording in the field the HD25's are unbeatable but not particularly because of the sound but because the split headband means they don't slip off your head when you look down at the field recorder and they are tough and comfortable to wear for long periods. Bought the AKG's on a whim but the best thing I can say about them is they sound inoffensive. I know there are some fantastic sounding cans out there but for mixing and sound production this isn't actualy that useful. NX10 monitors became studio essentials not because they sounded good but because only a good sound mix worked on them and it ruthlessly revealed poor production - if your mix sounded good on these it would sound good on anything. I'd think you need the same from cans and the 7506's do this as well which is why 1000's of audio pro's still use and trust them.

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like the laws of optics are new and still being worked out so why are people still arguing over 'equivelence' and some magical reality bending properties of MF lenses......
 

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like the laws of optics are new and still being worked out so why are people still arguing over 'equivelence' and some magical reality bending properties of MF lenses......
 

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like the laws of optics are new and still being worked out so why are people still arguing over 'equivelence' and some magical reality bending properties of MF lenses......
 

Extreme narrow DOF has very little use if you are actually shooting a film as opposed to posting clips on the internet to make people go WOW! Most of the time you need more not less DOF. It's not like the laws of optics are new and still being worked out so why are people still arguing over 'equivelence' and some magical reality bending properties of MF lenses......
 

Picture style 'portrait', set sharpness to -3 adjust contrast between -3 and 0 depending on the contrast ratio of the scene. Set Zebras to 100+% and don't clip important highlights. You can't go below 100iso so if you want to shoot with wide apertures you will need an ND filter unless you break the 180deg shutter rule.........

Using 'FS5' settings on my A7s  -  filmic and natural but with phase to zero and not the listed gamma Curve (Am I allowed to reveal my choice of gamma curve?). On my A7r2 I'm using the recommended set of settings but not as keen on the results so far as it's all a bit less 'organic' for my taste but maybe I need to experiment a bit more.I have been previously shooting the S-Log on both cameras to an external recorder and even though I can grade it pretty well now in Resolve I just can't help thinking that why not just get it right in camera........

To the OP - forget doing pans if you are on such a small budget and get a sturdy stills photography tripod with pan and tilt head. Once you need to pan it gets very expensive as the legs have to be super stiff to resist twisting which causes backlash / bounce at the end of a pan (The best for this are the twin tube designs) and a proper fluid head to get the smooth motion and be adjustable to a range of speeds and camera weights can't be engineered cheaply.

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

I am merely stating fact.  There is no absolute correlation between dynamic range and bit depth -- they are two completely independent properties.
 
Yes.  That is how binary math works.  However, that has no bearing on how many bit depth increments are (or should be) mapped to a signal/dynamic range.
 
 
The number of "steps" mapped within a signal/dynamic range has nothing to do with the scope of that signal/dynamic range -- that is the point.  This is a simple concept/fact.
 
 
There might be an older machine vision camera with those specs, but it is an irrelevant request -- there are plenty of cameras featuring multiple bit depths yet with only one dynamic range.  The dynamic range of these cameras doesn't change because the cameras' bit depth changes.  Again, bit depth and dynamic range are two completely independent properties.
 
Also, subject/location contrast has nothing to do with a camera's dynamic range.
 
Standards and their calculation have nothing to do with the basic fact that bit depth and signal/dynamic range are totally different properties.
 
Furthermore, dynamic range is so independent of bit depth that many systems (including numerous cameras) have incredible dynamic range with absolutely zero bit depth.

Motion blur - what do you expect when you wave a camera about with a 50th sec shutter

Log should not be exposed to the right - it needs exposing to place the tones in the scene in the correct place on the log curve. ETTR is for RAW. 

Olympus 43 12-60 2.8-4 is a very good lens on this camera. Very high resolution, very little distortion or CA as it was not designed to be fixed with an embeded profile like the later M43 lenses. 

Sony's own catalyst browse software has the fastest "official " way to deal with slog footage. It's a free download.

Use the up and down buttons to  change the aperture. Use the manual focus on the lens and the peaking feature + 1:1 magnification to focus. I never use the IRIS or FOCUS buttons for setting either of these parameters. Plenty of info out there about how to use this camera inc instruction manual. For better control use a separate EVF which has scopes and profiles to help with exposure. It would be nice if they introduced  scopes / histogram with a firmware upgrade...........................

You want the shallow DOF look so stick with full frame and get a 5d3 and experiment with MLRAW. Getting shallow DOF from M43 requires expensive and exotic fast glass and even then it's debatable if it actually convincingly achieves the 'full frame look'. I doubt the GH4 will have significantly better DR than the GH3 - Panasonic claim 1/3 stop better DR for RAW and this may translate into nothing for video. Stills quality from a 5d2 is better than from a GH3 (speaking from owning both) so that's another reason for you not to jump. I've moved my video capture like this 5D2 - GH3 - BMPCC. I actually hate shallow DOF cinema style and so the BMPCC suits me perfectly. Once you have used 10bit 4.2.2 in post you will never want to deal with 8bit 4.2.0 again if you can help it. For stills I still use the Canon system although I may get a Sony A7R and eos adapter as Canon don't seem in any hurry to update the 5d3 to competitive levels of DR or MP......