tupp

Thank you for the reply, but I am not sure that I have made my question clear. I am not talking about the shutter -- I am referring to the lens aperture (fstop). SLRs (and most DSLRs when shooting stills not in "live view") have the aperture (not the shutter) always wide open for focusing and framing. Then, when the shutter button is pressed, the mirror goes up, the aperture stops down to it's desired setting and the shutter opens and closes. So, my question is: Can Panasonic mirrorless cameras do the same -- can the aperture (not the shutter) on the lens of a Panasonic mirrorless camera be always wide open for stills until the shutter button is pressed? Anyone who has a Panasonic camera and lens should be able to easily tell what actually happens to the aperture by looking through the front element of the lens when the shutter is clicked. Set the shutter speed to 1 second, set the aperture to it's smallest setting (f11-f22?), and click the shutter. It should be obvious whether or not the aperture stops down during the 1 second exposure. Of course, this process will not occur in "Constant Preview" mode. Thanks!

All of them Thanks! Are the Panasonic cameras actually keeping the aperture physically open, or are they just boosting gain/iso?

Does anyone know if any other Panasonic mirrorless cameras (G7, G85, GH5, etc.) can also keep the aperture open when focusing for stills?

Wondering if anyone knows if the exposure simulation on a G7 or a GX85 or a G85 can be overridden to give a usable EVF/LCD when shooting stills with manual studio strobes. On some mirrorless camera, the viewfinder/LCD goes dark when shooting with manual strobes, as the iris must be closed down for the much brighter strobes. DSLRs don't have this problem, as one can just use the optical viewfinder. Thanks!

Canon EFs have good, clean glass, but keep in mind that, because of their electronic iris, you might run into some situations in which using those lenses will be frustrating or nearly impossible to use. If you want to do an aperture ramp during a pan, you might be operating from a camera menu and/or a touch screen. Very annoying. Also, certain adapters (namely tilt) will not allow any aperture adjustment with an EF lens. So, unless you have handy a spare Canon body or spare powered EF adapter, you are "SOL" if you want to change the f-stop. The same drawbacks apply to most other lenses with electronic irises.

I use mostly open-source (free) software, and GIMP is my main image editor. I don't use LUTs, so I cannot give details, but I do know that GIMP supports LUTs through the G'MIC plug-in. I have heard of another GIMP LUT plug-in, but I can't remember its name. There is also an open-source LUT converter called LUT_TO_LUT. I use open-source Darktable as my image "developer," and I am fairly sure that it also accepts LUTs

Some Nikkor lenses will not work with the Metabones EF speedboosters, when using a Nikon-F-to-Canon-EF adapter. Those EF speedboosters have a flange surrounding the front optical element that is positioned slightly forward from that front element. The protective metal "tongue" on the back of some of the Nikkor lenses hits this forward flange, thus preventing the lens from being mounted. Also, keep in mind that EF speedboosters are about 30%-50% more expensive than those with other mounts.

Send the XL-1 to Liam.

And so much money has been wasted and so many failures in the process too...... There are certainly a lot of "failed" movies, but none of those failed because the director/DP/producer never interned in electric, grip nor art department. A friend of mine used to key and best grip for John Toll, ASC, and he has a story about one time that he was scouting for a commercial on a remote road with Toll. Toll turned to the key and said that the road needed to be flagged overhead for 1/4 mile of it's length. The only way that they could get the shot without big stands in the frame was to use telephone poles. So, they had to find a utility company that had a huge machine that could install telephone poles for 1/4 mile along the road, and they used those poles to fly the enormous solids. No doubt, the shot turned out great. However, I would wager that Toll only worked in camera dept. during his career, and probably only briefly as an AC. As a DP who has spent a fair amount of time in electric and grip, I probably would have tried something more feasible, but perhaps less effective. I don't know if I could even give that same instruction to the key -- I would have at least hesitated. Greatness often comes from blissful ignorance. That's great! You must be good to have gotten a scholarship. When I attended, they didn't allow mixed majors. I have been called a lot of names, but never that! Thanks for the kind word! Those people would cry if they knew how little tuition was when I attended -- and, at the time, we all thought it cost a fortune!

In a few cases, it might help (especially if one is a producer), but having practical experience in a lot of the set details can be a hindrance, as one might limit efforts to what one thinks is practical. So many great have things been accomplished by those who were completely clueless to the impracticality of a challenge. Directors/DPs/Producers should not run the set -- that's why we have ADs! The director especially should concentrate only on acting and telling the story with the camera (along with the DP). He/she shouldn't have to concern himself/herself with most of the practical details. Nice to know that a fellow alumnus is on the board! I consider it more of a professional design school rather than an art school. Most of us were pursuing a profe$$ional education when I attended.

As others have stated, attending film school can help in networking and in quickly learning basic filmmaking concepts. The importance of the networking advantage cannot be overstated. However, if you just started film school and if you want to get set experience by working on a third-tier level (electrician, grip, set dresser, 3rd AD, etc.) on a medium/large set, it would be wise not to let anyone know that you are a film student. Film students are notoriously lazy, presumptuous set workers, and most department heads would sooner hire an enthusiastic novice right off of the street, rather than having to contend with a "privileged" film school attendee. If you are a film student and find yourself working on set at a third-tier level, make sure that you do your specific, minor job to the best of your ability, and do not try to always be around the camera, director, DP, jib, etc. Always go through channels -- avoid talking directly to the director, DP and producer. Also, do not criticize any decisions made by the director, DP, producers nor any department heads. If you aspire to be a director, DP or senior editor (like most film students), there is something to be said for limiting your third-tier set experience, as dealing with the details of such jobs will take you away from focusing on the fundamentals of telling a story through moving pictures. Same thing goes for frequenting forums such as this one -- if you want to direct or edit, avoid spending a lot of time learning about camera feature minutiae -- don't laboriously concern yourself with trifles such as rolling shutter, IBIS, DR, CRI, etc. As a director, your main focus should be getting a performance out of the actors and effectively telling a story on film (digital).

That's just a little FPN.

Just a suggestion: it is usually a good idea to the include location and contact info within promo images.

If you are using the camera primarily for stills, you might be happier with a DSLR. There is an advantage to shooting stills with a optical viewfinder, and then viewing the shot immediately afterward, and then making adjustments. One's concentration is forced into a step-by-step process. In other words, the disconnect between the viewfinder and the LCD image helps when assessing the photo just taken. Plus, an optical viewfinder works well in low light, especially if you are using strobes (without modeling lamps). Also, DSLRs tend to have longer battery life, because there is no need to have the LCD and sensor constantly on and energized.

I dub thee "Mr. Softie." That's a fundamental truth. Also, the closer, the more the diffuse value of the subject penetrates the highlights, and the more dramatic the fall-off.

The invisible man:

Have you ruled-out the possibility that your image editor/viewer is interpreting the profile metadata from the raw files?

Hence, my salad analogy -- sometimes one uses an monitor or EVF, or not, sometimes one eats salad, or not. I disagree here. A lot of shooting is done with clients and directors, and video village is usually a necessity in such situations. By the way, use of an EVF or a monitor is not mutually exclusive. In fact, when an EVF is in use, there is almost always at least one monitor somewhere for others to see the shot, even on-camera. The EVF is for the operator and the on-camera monitor is for the focus puller and/or director/DP, along with another monitor for the client (in video village). Multiple monitors are commonplace on medium or larger shoots.

Why would one search? How is one supposed to know that you might have made some earlier comment? You can directly link your posts: Not much additional helpful info in these posts to add to the vague negative comment already in this thread. Can you be a little more specific? ... Was the loupe off focus? ... Was the color and resolution so far off that it couldn't be used for framing and focusing? ... the viewing angle didn't work with the loupe? ... was something defective? ... etc. Also, where is your Feelworld EVF now?

That's like asking, "do you eat salad." I use a monitor (and eat salad) on occasion, and frequently. When one is shooting with a client or with a director, a monitor is usually necessary (at least with the main camera). A client/director monitor is usually 7" or bigger, and it sometimes gets some sort of video village, anti-glare set-up or a hood, especially if it is at a daytime exterior. When possible, it is nice to have a huge monitor next to the camera for the focus puller. If I am shooting solo, I prefer to travel extremely light, so I generally use the camera LCD and a viewfinder (loupe) and jettison the monitor. I use the weight savings to carry extra lighting gear. Also, with no monitor (nor EVF) mounted to a cage, I can use smaller, lighter tripod/head. I recently shot pick-ups with a director who was cool with such a minimal set-up.

I should have guessed that from the title of the thread, "EVF for Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera." I have no idea how bright the Feelworld viewfinder is (nor do I know the brightness of other viewfinders), but here's a possibly useful info tidbit: a viewfinder doesn't have to be as bright as a monitor, because all of the ambient light is eliminated once one puts one eye to the eyepiece.

Thanks for your opinion. Can you give any details as to why you think it is a waste of money? Yes. They have their place -- especially if you want to frame and focus in bright sunlight, which is the primary purpose of a viewfinder. Not sure what you are after. You don't accept a 3.5" viewfinder, yet you accept a 5" monitor.

In an earlier BMMCC thread, I posted links to this Feelworld viewfinder (US$219) and to this Feelworld monitor (US$139). Both of these items are spec'd to handle a 1080P, 60fps/59.94fps signal through HDMI, so they might work with the BMMCC's 60P output.

The GX80/85 is a great camera, but look at the size of the glass on the LX100 compared to that of the kit lens on the GX80/85. That is one fast, super-sharp honking piece of Leica glass! I might get the LX100 just for the lens.

The Manfrotto 502 head might be easily modified with other clamps, as it appears that the dovetails can be removed with four allen screws. Perhaps your Sachtler head can be likewise modified, if the extra 3/8" is too tall for you. What is the model number of your Sachtler head?