noone

I'd like to see this designed with the image originating from an APS or full frame sensor.

Would be interesting.

Very clever idea and build.

makes me want to experiment and try an extremely poor mans version using a Polaroid 600SE and bits of cardboard.     Need a cheap glass focusing screen back first though.

I am just an old amateur who likes to photograph (and lately video) live music local shows.    This is mostly cover stuff.   I want to upload to You Tube but in order to do that realise I have to respect copyright (which is why I have not done that yet).    I just wish there was a simple cheap and easy to access way to pay a small reasonable fee to be able to upload the songs (I would do it with the band I am recordings permission too).     The couple of times I have asked about it, I have not even got a response from the record companies.      

The artists and record companies could make a mint from this.      At the moment, nobody sees it except me and the bands (probably a good thing for now anyway).  

This is used by a lot of people.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Note there is also a

circle of confusion calculator there as well.

Perhaps- I'm thinking it isn't as impossible as you may say. We have a 25mm f/0.95 lens which is pretty sharp open- its actually easier to make one that covers a smaller sensor since you don't need as much glass (image circle can be made smaller). That's why you don't see many FF lenses less than 1.2 and medium format below 2, however they are popular and plentiful in the size under them.

Possibly part of it but then faster (than 1.4 or so) lenses have not really been needed with full frame.

A micro four thirds 25mm f1 lens has slightly MORE depth of field than a 50mm f2 full frame lens (for a similar shot).

I think a lot of the fast m43 lenses started appearing to give  depth of field approaching that of "normal" aperture lenses on larger sensors for stills.

There have been a few faster ones for FF though mostly expensive and of course there will shortly be the Mitakon 50 0.95 lens available in Sony FE mount for well under $1000.     

I have a 180mm f2.8 Schneider Xenar I want to fit but need to fabricate a 6000 mount for forbes.  long lenses are lovely on the system.

 

MP?  what you mean?

 

Noritar is a lovely lens (for character).  it's not crazy sharp, but not soft wide open either.  The main reason for this lens is for the swirly bokeh on medium format - nothing can match it.  Since I am using it here on a crop sensor, the best portion of the lens is being used.  yet still ,wide open it shows its weakness.  A true challenge would be an 85mm f1.2 canon L on full frame against the 150 at f2.8.  I still think the hassy would have the edge in terms of overall zingyness of the in focus areas.  Anyone wanna give me their 85mm L lens?  Andrew?   :)

I have an FD 85 1.2 you can borrow.   You coming to Australia to pick it up or sending me the airfare to bring it there?

I think you would be right about the Hassy having the edge.   Still is fun to use the 85 and at 1.2 close up the DOF is way too thin for me to use much for video.

http://youtu.be/Pw0Go5ghcYA

Do you guys know any other lens other than Panasonic 14-50mm F2.8-3.5 OIS that Andrew mentioned in his latest article which has image stabilisation and is not as expensive as the native offerings.

 

Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and Olympus 12-40 f2.8 look good but they are out of my budget. Still the problem is that four third to micro four third adapters are not very cheap. They are some generic adapters on Ebay but I am not sure how good they are. I don't really care about auto focus but I would like to have image stabilisation. Any suggestion?

Panasonic's current list of stabilized lenses.

http://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/imaging/lumix-g-lenses.html?browsing=params&facets=T3B0aWNhbCBJbWFnZSBTdGFiaWxpc2F0aW9u&sort=Featured

EDIT that is the Australian site with Australian prices.

EDIT 2 for some reason the Australian site does not list the newest OIS lenses like the Nocticron 42.5 or the 12-32 kit zoom (listed but not in the list of stabilized lenses).

I am shooting a family Christening soon and have been asked to shoot some stills and video of the day to produce a DVD for all the family and relatives.

 

I am looking to use an external Audio recorder for the service which will be a totally new venture for me.

I have been recommended a Zoom H1 as a reasonably priced Audio recorder.

 

Will this meet my needs or are there any other alternatives that won't break the bank?

 

Many thanks

 

Phil

I like the Zoom H1.     Tiny little thing and you can use it as a on camera mic and record into it at the same time.

If you don't hit record while plugged in as a mic it will still record into the camera but as Maxotics said, don't forget to hit record to have the choice..

I am sure there are better but for the price and size it is great.

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. 

Ok yes I worded that wrong.    The same amount of light goes through the same size aperture.     The 24-70 2.8 lens gets more total light than the 12-35 2.8 because of the larger aperture (in terms of area) but because it hits a sensor with a larger area they get the same light per sensor area.    

EDIT    These discussions go around and around and sometimes I get lost as to which "side" I am on.

I think a lot of what is in that video is right but he does go too far.

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. 

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.

_{I think a lot of what he said is right but he goes too far.      These sort of discussions go on endlessly around the internet though.}  

  _{To me, two lenses for different formats (EG 12mm Olympus f2 on micro four thirds against a 24mm Canon FF) give roughly the same picture in terms of angle of view AND shutter speed (if both set to the same aperture and same ISO) BUT will have different depth of field from the same location.}

_{It is just as wrong to say they are NOT equivalent if you are only referring to depth of field and ignoring shutter speed.}

_{So regards the 12-35  2.8 he used to demonstrate against a  24-70 2.8, he is right to say that the 12-35 is NOT a 24-70 FF  equivalent in terms of DEPTH OF FIELD but he is wrong to say it is not a 24-70 FF equivalent in terms of using the same shutter speed ETC.}

_{Personally, I like having different sensor sizes for different angle of view  with the same lenses and like to have a different depth of field with different sensors.}

I'm a bit confused. The sony A7s is a full frame camera, but you don't have to use full-frame lenses to cover the entire sensor? When people are shooting with vintage lenses on the A7, are they using the entire sensor or just shooting in an APC mode? *scratchng head*

Most people are using native FE mount lenses or adapted full frame lenses from most systems (including some that can have autofocus and stabilization if available depending on the adapter).

In addition the a7 takes normal E mount lenses (same mount) and you can use them either in crop mode or normal mode with vignetting.     Crop mode means reduced resolution (around 10mp for the A7, about 15 I think for the A7R, wonder what it will be for the A7S???)        Some E mount lenses are useable in normal mode for at least some of the time.     The 10-18 for example for part of its range.

I don't have any E mount lenses (only one FE and a lot of legacy lenses) to see the difference in video between crop mode and  normal FF mode but from posts around the internet, videos shot in crop mode do not seem as good as full mode for the most part though.     Not sure what the difference is from the sensor.

Looking forward to watching and learning from this thread.     I know my way around for stills a bit but video is a whole new concept for me.

I don't think anyone, anywhere on earth, nay, in the universe, ever, remotely implied, that the speedbooster takes the sensor inside the camera body out, and replaces it with a larger one, that's manufactured in the speedbooster's optics.

This argument reminds me of people rudely attacking us when we say using a 50mm of an APS-C makes it an 85mm.

When we say the speedbooster makes an APS-C sensor a fullframe one, we mean it gives the same image as if the same lens was used on a fullframe sensor, and by the same image we mean the same image charcteristics:
-field of view and depth of field.

But that is how it comes off as (not always).      I think it gets confusing the way it is often worded/stated.

It is just changing the lens after all.      Seems a wonderful tool to have.

I like having a 50mm on various formats including 75mm angle of view on APSC.

A speedbooster does make the sensor virtually bigger, otherwise it wouldn't compress the larger image circle. If the speedbooster would be a perfect system, there would be no differences at all between using a larger sensor, or using a small sensor plus a focal reducer, so it's actually the worst example to talk about sensor differences.

Anyway, I don't think you are actually interested in discussing this.

Isn't a Speedbooster just a negative teleconverter?

Nobody refers to a normal teleconverter making a sensor virtually smaller so I don't get how this affect the sensor.       Surely it is just changing the lens?      I thought many lenses where made by adding a negative teleconverter to a normal lens?

.
 
I am still torn on what to use for an upcoming music video shoot. This has a set built in a basement of a tattoo studio and very little room to position the camera and we have a lot we want to obscure with focus tricks. The 5D Mark III in this situation would probably be the better bet.
.

Wonder what you will end up using?
FF with an 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 for stills ...would that work for video?

 

 

.

 

Also shooting style has a lot to do with it. Here the 550D is on a relatively slow-shutter speed and all handheld, with some great framing going on. Kendy's camera work here is like a high wire act. If you don't always get the framing emotionally connected with the mood and the subject matter, the slight of hand will be revealed the magic vanishes. If your shooting style is locked down, on a tripod, the 550D is the last thing you'd want to use, believe me. If your shooting style is more dynamic and flowing, then you'd probably be better off investing in drones and rigs rather than cameras anyway. Everyone is different.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, what cameras would be suggested for those who's shooting style is locked down on a tripod?

I know almost nothing about video and come at this from shooting stills.   

Thanks xenogears,

I am only intersted in a functional stabilisation and best image quality. Since you already own an A7s, can you recommend any other lens in the 24-105 price that could perhaps perform better and also have IS?

Also, in order to stay with the canon lens , are the extra $400 needed for the metabones adapter justified ? Considering I can sell it without losing any money.

What about the A7 kit lens.     It is not a constant speed but I guess you could use it as a 5.6 constant lens on the A7S with its crazy high ISO.

It actually rates very close to the 24-70 including being sharper in DXO's testing in some ways.   Stabilization is good.  You just lose 4mm at the short end and a stop at the long end (but a little faster at 28mm).     And it is native so no adapters.

I would not expect any of those lenses to score close to the A7R tests with the A7S. (the two Sony's drop a lot on the other cameras tested, the NEX7 and A3000).     Strangely they have not tested either on the A7, including the A7 with its kit lens (if they did that would give some indication of what it would be like on the 12mp A7S, or at least a rough idea).

100% agry with everything you said. 
Except that unfortunately sometimes you can't buy lens and body used (for EG A7S, with FE lenses) and will loose a lot after selling it 1 year later. 

But thats the game. 

That will depend on if the A7S does what people want and will be interesting to see a few months after its release.    There are a few A7 cameras for sale second hand but I don't think FE lenses (the few available) are losing money much.   

  Even the kit lens is quite good and the only FE lens I want.     The current A7 pair are used by many people with good manual focus lenses for stills (I like Canon FD L primes on mine), no reason to think the A7s will not be the same and those lenses can be used across formats.  

If someone else comes up with a full frame mirrorless  with AF for around the same price, things might be different.

I am a video novice and I know it is not ideal but I am happy with the A7 and the kit lens and FD primes.

Hi all,

I would like to use the Sony A7s for wildlife video work using my Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L IS and Canon EF 800mm f5.6 L IS.

 

Will they work?

 

Any issues I should expect? Vignatting? Autofocus issues?

 

Thanks,

 

Ofer Levy

Sydney

http://www.oferlevyphotography.com

Hi

Don't know how well (or if) they work but there seem to be a few different adapters and maybe there will be more by the time the camera is released.

Here is another just found via a search.    Be nice if there was a list of all the adapters that work with the Sony FE cameras.

http://www.deo-tech.com/