tupp

I don't even have FF nor MF. However, if you claim that there is absolutely no focus/DOF difference between formats and their respective lenses, then the look should be exactly the same between s16 and 11"x14". Do you think that a test between to such different format sizes would show no difference in focus/DOF look? Primes of different focal lengths should be used, as the focal point and aperture distance will not change when using the same zoom lens for both formats. I applaud you for taking the time and effort to make the comparison. Very few folks have the gumption to initiate and publish such tests. However, by using the same zoom lens on both images, you are essentially (and actually) using the same lens with the same look (and with the same focal point and aperture distance). Such would not be the case when comparing MF to other formats. Also, it is important in such tests to place objects in the frame at short and regular distance intervals from foreground to background. It is difficult to tell much from showing just one foreground object against a distant background (while using the same zoom lens on all images). Thanks for the link. I dealt with DOF calculations in photo classes, and it seems that he essentially is just adding the crop factor to that formula. I didn't read the entire page, but I think that he is just saying that the DOF range can be equivalent -- he does not seem to claim that the look of the focus/DOF is equivalent regardless of focal length and optical quality. He even mentions that larger formats almost always have larger aperture diameters (in mm) for a given angle of view (with a given DOF). I think this difference is a significant advantage for larger formats, along with the fact that one can use narrower f-stops on larger formats (to get a sharper focal plane) than a smaller format using a wider f-stop to get technically equivalent DOF.

Very nice! Glad to hear that Leica is receptive. Leica (Leitz) also makes two lines of cinema PL-mount lenses: the Summicrons, which run about US$100,000 for a set; and the Summiluxes, costing about US$260,000 a set (and which have a 2-year waiting list).

I would like to see such a test, too. However, why limit the test to two formats with close crop factors? If there is absolutely no difference in the DOF of different formats and if we can exactly match the DOF look between any two formats, then why don't we compare two dramatically different format sizes, such as s16 and 11"x14"? If what you say is true, we should be able to match the DOF look exactly between two such vastly different format sizes. I disagree. The DOF "range" might be technically equivalent, but it will look different in how the DOF rolls off and in the softness of the out of focus areas. Also, the flatness and sharpness of the focal plane will probably be different. Wait -- is there or is there not difference in formats in regards to DOF and background separation? Also, the format size doesn't really have anything to do with bit depth. I assume you are referring to what has happened historically. Furthermore, bit depth is not color depth -- bit depth is merely one factor of digital color depth, and resolution is an equivalent factor of color depth (in both digital and analog). If anything, the dynamic range of sensors has much more to do with photosite size than it has to do with sensor size, but there certainly are other variables that significantly influence dynamic range. Color depth in digital mainly involves bit depth and resolution. Format size in digital is irrelevant color depth (unless it influences resolution). Again, dynamic range has more to do with photosite size than it does with format size. Color depth in digital is determined by the resolution and bit depth. Agreed. That is one of the advantages we've mentioned of using lenses for larger formats that have longer focal lengths. The focal plane is sharp and flat.

Generally there are differences in the look of larger format DOF vs. smaller format DOF, even though their DOF range can be made technically equivalent. I can see differences in the examples given in the link provided by jcs, even though the author of that page failed to provide images that were anywhere close to full res. The discrepancies are more subtle when comparing images from formats which differ by a factor of only 1.5 (FF and S35), but the discrepancies often exist, nonetheless. In digital, the main differences appear in how cleanly the DOF, focal plane and blur/bokeh are rendered. To illustrate this point, let's consider two dramatically different format sizes -- ultra large format (11"x14") and S16. This is an early test of Gonzalo Ezcurra's "Mini" Cyclops DOF adapter with a 14"-wide ground glass. To me, the very shallow focal plane looks extremely clean and "solid" edge-to-edge, while the softer FG/BG blurs nicely and smoothly without abruptly going into complete mush. I don't think that a S16 lens exists that can give the same clean/solid look in a shallow focal plane with such a smooth, gently soft BG/FG. Just the same, one wonders about the potential of mounting the Kipon/Baveyes medium format focal reducer to a MetaBones BMPCC speed booster. Can't wait to see the results of that combo! Of course, when shooting a given film emulsion, the differences between format sizes are even more dramatic. Larger formats have less grain, more resolution and more color depth.

Not sure what is your point here. At any rate, Blackmagic, Panasonic and JVC don't make any DSLRs. Again, not sure what is your point. I agree with you on the advantages of mirrorless. However, I don't think most still photographers share that view -- they generally want the viewfinder. Anyway, many DSLRs have a "live" mode in which the mirror locks up. Of course, a lot of DSLRs have a "video" mode, too. I have never had an adaptor "fail." I've had cheap adapters that rattle, but they never caused any problems. The only problem that I have had is that my current focal reducer accepts Nikkor G lenses as well as Nikkor F lenses, so it has it's own aperture adjustment ring, which can inadvertently get bumped and change the aperture. However, one piece of tape and "problem solved." Well, I have done one or two corporate gigs with a few different cameras, and I would probably get a camcorder with a fixed zoom if I had to do such jobs on a regular basis. That choice has nothing to do with reliability -- it has to do with speed and ease of use. Zoom camcorders are more than sufficient for most corporate work, and there is no need to constantly change primes. You keep insinuation that using a variety of equipment can result in reliability problems and "surprises." I have been using a variety of cameras, lenses and adapters for a while, and I have no idea as to what you are talking about. Yes, there is a market for such consumers and newbies, and it is already thoroughly addressed by Nikon's existing product lines. Again, Nikon can make a mirrorless camera with a shallow mount and one could still use F-mount Nikkors. If you are concerned about "reliability" and rattle, Nikon could use a shallow mount and have an adapter that additionally "bolts on" snugly with a outer flange and a few screws (although that really would be overkill).

Again, using a shallow, versatile mount does not negate the use of their old lenses, and there is no need for a distant F-mount with a mirrorless system. So, (if they are smart) they might want to change that so that they have a compact, versatile camera that sells more units and that could "change the game." They would still sell "a ton of" lenses for their DSLRs. Making a fat mirrorless camera might not sell, and thus would not sell many F-mount lenses anyway. A shallow mirrorless camera would probably sell more. Blackmagic, Sony, Panasonic and JVC have been very successful selling cameras that make it easy for people to swap different brands of lenses. Don't know if the Nikon folks are smart enough to realize all of these points. Tell that to the pros who are using Blackmagic M4/3s cameras, Sony E-mount cameras and Panasonic M4/3s cameras with various lenses. By having a shallow mount, nothing is stopping consumers from using "whatever lens came with the camera." Nikon could make a separate lens set if they really wanted to, or they could just make a fancy adapter for F-mount lenses. Furthermore, consumers can keep using the pre-existing DSLRs and mirrorless and compact Nikon systems. Ultra Primes with a $1000 precision adapter aren't reliable? Also, if you are thinking of the still photo market, the still pros are probably not interested in mirrorless. I am afraid that they might see it that way, as most corporations these days are myopic, driven mostly by immediate sales and short-term bottom-line. In regards to pros who already have a bunch of F-mount Nikkors, I am one of those. I have seven Nikkor lenses and two Nikon cameras. Do I want a camera with a Nikkor F mount instead of with a very shallow versatile mount? -- HELL NO!!! I use lenses for their look and performance, so I want a camera that can accept as many different lenses and adaptors as possible! Not really. Not if they are smart (and not as desperate as you seem to portray them to be). Again, it is doubtful that most pro still photographers would go for a mirrorless system at this point in time.

Some have spent $4000 apiece for full frame Zeiss Compact Primes, and these folks use them with speed boosters on smaller sensors. Would you say that these folks are not professional because they cannot afford to use the lenses that were made for the specific camera that they are using? Should they throw away their CPs and speed booster and instead buy "proper" Lumix lenses for their GH4s?

Wish they had chosen Sony batteries instead -- larger capacities available. I used this XTPower battery on BMPCCs. The 9-volt setting is better than the 12-volt setting -- the higher the voltage, the hotter the camera/sensor.

It's not hard to understand. It is a very simple notion. Regardless, it is just an opinion, and there are a lot of valid and beneficial reasons why "professionals" use lenses with larger image circles than the sensor's diagonal. In that case, perhaps we should all just use cameras with fixed lenses optimized for the sensor. Not exactly. There certainly are tradeoffs. Some of the benefits have already been listed in this thread, but, in regards to sharpness on a given sensor, a good speed booster will give essentially the same resolving power from a lens as if one used it with a dummy adapter. So, the sharpness stays the same while one enjoys all of the speed booster benefits. Not really. However, again, if we follow this reasoning, we should all use cameras with fixed lenses. Furthermore, you might not be aware of this fact, but some professionals use certain lenses because they like the way they look.

So, now you are saying that Nikon should use the NX mount and that professionals should throw away all of their full-frame, Nikkor F lenses? So, professionals who own L glass should throw it all away and get EF-S lenses?

A speed booster in front of an APS-C sensor allows the sensor to utilize almost the entire image circle of full frame lens -- that means you are getting the full resolving power from that lens, plus you are getting shallow DOF on wider views, plus you are gaining about one stop in exposure! If you use full frame lenses on smaller sensors without some kind of speed booster or focal reducer, you are just throwing away resolving power of the lens. Also, as many have stated in different ways, shallower mounts on the camera allow a lot more versatility.

Yes. That's right! Professionals never use speedboosters/focal-reducers! Likewise, professionals would not care to have a mount that takes tilt-swing/tilt-shift adapters nor adapters that allow behind-the-lens filtration. Furthermore, a professional would never want a camera that can be adapted to Canon EF, Nikkor and PL (and almost anything else). I mean, think of all the pros who own Canon and/or Nikkor glass -- why would such pros ever want to be able to go to a rental house to use high-end PL lenses? .../s

If this rumor is true, I find it troubling for two reasons. Firstly, Samsung is a member of the open source Tizen consortium and Tizen is the open source OS used on the NX cameras, and Nikon is not a member. Samsung has binary blobs that deal with most of the cameras' functionality, but given that the OS is open source, there is hope that code/functionality could eventually be modified and enhanced by end users. I doubt that Nikon sees the potential of open source, and it is possible that they might even take measures to thwart attempts by end users to modify/enhance functionality. Secondly, consolidation is generally a bad thing for end users, in that it removes competition and innovation and breeds manufacturer complacency and hubris. There has been entirely too much consolidation/mergers in this and many other industries. The more players in manufacturing, the better.

@Gonzalo Ezcurra This rig is great! I hope you keep shooting with it and keep posting videos. Somehow, I missed your May 2014 post showing the "street" version. Did you remove the motorization? By the way, have you ever played around with the swing/tilt on the Omega View stage?

Thanks for expediting the release of the Micro Cinema Camera with your BMPCC order! Just curious: How much was the shipping from Paris to L.A.?

Probably there are many lenses that will give such blurred highlights. Here is a shot from a US$24 Fujian 35mm f1.7: This image came from this page, and here are some Ebay listings for the Fujian 35mm. Here is a screen capture from a test I did with a tilt/swing adapter and an old (1960s) Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens: It seems that the size, brightness and focus of the highlights affect their appearance as "soap bubbles." In the dragonfly example that you gave, note that there are two bright bokeh highlights on the left side that appear more like overlapping, solid, bright circles (rather than like "soap bubbles"). Their bright "rim" also appears to be thicker. In the tilt/swing example directly above, note that the smaller, more distant, out-of-focus and dimmer, green signal lights look more like soap bubbles than the brighter and closer (bigger), and less blurred headlights and signal light. So, ideally, the highlights should be small (tiny points) that are relatively dim and, of course, as out-of-focus as possible.

I have the Lilliput 5dii/o/p. It has peaking and false color, and it is inexpensive (US$239 on Amazon). Works great with the BMPCC. With a GH2, evidently the monitor must be set to "underscan" to get the entire frame. In regards to this monitor's cons, the colors aren't the best (nor brightest) I've seen in a field monitor, and the included lens hood is extremely delicate -- don't let anyone open nor close it who is not familiar with how it works. Also, the included battery died after a couple of charges, and Lilliput customer service here in the USA is not very good.

Of course, a lot depends on the "resolution" or graininess of the film stock. Off the top of my head, the two extremes on the film resolution scale would be two discontinued Kodak stocks from the still photography world -- Royal-X Pan (1600ASA, extremely coarse grain) and Technical Pan (25ASA, extremely fine grain). Royal-X in a 65mm format might have a resolution comparable to less than 4K. Technical Pan in a 65mm frame would probably exhibit a resolution comparable to 12K and higher, especially if it were pulled one stop. That certainly would be wonderful. Second to that, it would be great if someone made a medium format speed booster with highly optimized optics behind the ground glass.

The Canon EOSM2 with an 18mm-55mm lens is $297 at Amazon.

I understood that the focus changes when you stop recording. I was giving you some work-arounds in lieu of a proper NX1 solution from someone familiar with the camera/lenses. If there isn't a better solution, you could just focus after each time you press record or try covering the contacts with electrical tape, as I mentioned. Of course, you could also just use a manual lens from some other manufacturer. Be careful using peaking with tight apertures -- critical focus might not be where you would like.

Don't have an NX1, but, if there is a menu setting to disable auto-focus, you might try doing so. If you have a few seconds to manually focus after you press record, it should be easy to solve your problem, especially if you can use any of the NX1's focusing aids during recording. With one or two seconds, I can get critical sharpness without focus aids (years of experience focusing on ground glass). There is an easy trick to this that takes just a little practice, which I am happy to share. However, you can of course use the focus aids on an external monitor while recording. I prefer digital zoom over other focus features (such as peaking, or momentary auto-focus), because one can see exactly where critical focus falls on the subject, especially when using tighter apertures. Another possibility is to put a tiny strip of tape over the lens' contacts.

Not sure it's that simple. There certainly must be generally shared image processing methods, but, no doubt, some cameras process their images differently at various stages. Actually, I am not sure if their is an agreed-upon definition of "color science."

Some older light sources using low frequency ballasts will flicker no matter what you do (unless you can change the frame rate to jibe with the light's output frequency). There still remain fluorescents, sodium vapor, mercury vapor, HMI (magnetic ballast) that are driven by such low frequency ballasts. LED sources are also sometimes driven at lower frequencies and cause flicker.

A friendly reminder: Keep that infected lens away from your other lenses/gear. Don't put it in the same bag/case that you use to carry uninfected lenses/gear.

If I could collect a dozen of the 1000-krona bills, I'd get an NX1. It's all about the "Hammarskjölds!"