meanwhile

9 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

 

I wouldnt argue, that Imaishi is more interesting. Blocking is really relevant to the question you asked.

Blocking directly affects the amount of your stills technique that you can apply to video.

With certain blocking like out of Kurosawas arsenal you will not have to worry about steady pull shots.

 

It's impossible to argue (sanely) that Kurosawa isn't excellent. But it's interesting that he comes up so much more that, say, Kubrick or Godard. And also that while he is widely referenced I don't see any signs of people actually absorbing him as influence. But, as Crow T Robot said, I digress:

The point is that I wouldn't and didn't ask about blocking here because it's easy to find incredible books, articles and examples. The stuff I asked about is material I can't seem to get from books - how to work with very small consumer cameras like the GX80. Being told to look at a video about writing and blocking instead doesn't really help me with that.

An example of the sort of thing I'm wondering about is how to pull focus when shooting handheld or even whether I should. My guess after pulling over 500 shots is that it can work reasonably well with a focusing lever and something like a chest brace. But it would be nice to know instead of told to learn to focus by re-making Ran. 

10 hours ago, scotchtape said:

You mean you guys don't use camera backpacks or at least the padded compartments you can buy separately?

I use the tupperware+bubble wrap method for my stills gear. The (generic) tupperware goes in military surplus bags. Usually British Army S6 rubberised gas mask bags. Light, tough, waterproof fabric, cost next to nothing. I link two together with a connector when I need more space, then if I need more again I carry another bag on the other side. Bubblewrap outperforms any expensive camera bag insert for shock absorb in absolute terms or per weight. And the tupperwares are waterproof and keep the bubblewrap together. Better, cheaper, lighter.

Tripods and monopods I carry on a strap - use a cable tie to fasten a spilt ring to them. Reflectors ride on the strap of another piece of gear.

1 hour ago, jcs said:

While I agree with you the information posted on that site is not based on science and the points made are not valid, when one focuses most of their energy on attacking the character of the person vs. what they say

If you make an effort to spam the Internet with idiotic theories without making any attempt to research the subject you are ranting about, you are an idiot. Full stop. No one needs to be polite about this. If the guy had made any effort to actually learn the basics of the subject, no matter how incompetently, then he would have deserved some respect. But shouting as loudly as possible without making any attempt at gaining knowledge first deserves contempt. 

The very respect Roger Cicala is going to start testing cine lenses as well as stills ones -

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/why-were-going-to-start-testing-cinema-lenses-and-why-we-havent-before/

1 hour ago, anonim said:

There are serious discussion about modern sharp vs microcontrast lens trend.

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

The author of that discussion certainly wants to be taken seriously. But, no, it's a joke and he's incompetent.

The main reason modern primes have more elements than older lenses is the switch from digital to film. He's too bloody ignorant to know this and too stupid to any research, but film accepts light from any angle whereas the thick filter - often 4mm deep - in front of a sensor means that it only sees light travelling parallel to the lens access - because the filter consists of long narrow tunnels like a lighting grid. This change in requirements adds a lot of extra elements, especially to fast lenses. If you don't have these elements then, with a digital sensor, contrast goes down, not up as Mr Stupid thinks. (This is why people who want to shoot vintage wide angles have the filters on A7's thinned, even though it reduces performance in other ways.)

It would be one thing the silly man actually addressed the above and disagreed - but he's too ignorant to even know the basics of subject he's ranting about. This is example of

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

..Which, yes, was discovered by the character from Archer. (True story: I look enough like Trotsky that people can't tell us apart except from the nose. And he's dead. And the friend I sat next to during my masters degree turned out to look just like Hitler - only no one noticed until he put a piece of black tape on his upper lip. Which won't make seem relevant unless you watch Archer, but there you go.)

If it helps, I have a really good way of carrying any sort of gear like this so it is protected and quickly accessible without adding much weight:

- Buy a plastic food storage container - generic tupperware type stuff - slightly bigger than the whatever

- Line with bubble wrap held in place with duct tape; squash selected bubbles or add more wrap as needed.

..That's it. You can carry almost anything this way and if you've spent a little time on fit it will slide in and out of the container fast but by almost invulnerable inside it.

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

I'm fairly sure they're not. The ONLY similarity are reports that some batches used the same glass, but the other construction elements could be and most likely are entirely different... otherwise they would all fetch the Contax prices.

The same vintage lens price varies on whether the lens has an all-black finish or black and silver. So no.

Quote

If you want to go a little cheaper, there's always the Zeiss Jena M42 lenses. The 35mm f2.4 is another legendary lens. And the 50mm f2.8 is one of the cheapest, most stunning lenses you'll ever find. Pair them with a Turbo II and you're set. They also have a 20mm f2.8 that is very highly regarded.

They're really nice lenses but won't give me the FLs I want. The East German Pentacons are nice too, but there's the same problem. I need - well, want - at least a 28mm equivalent - and 24mm would be better. This might sound fussy, but that's stills people for you...This how I think of a wide:

Quote

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/03/11/pet-peeve-proper-perspective-practice/

They are NOT to ‘get more into the picture’ or ‘get closer’. That’s absolutely the wrong way to shoot, and will result in far-away looking and very, very boring images.

Why?

It’s all about perspectives. A wide angle lens has a wide angle of view, as the name suggests. This means, that things closer to the lens will be exaggerated in perspective compared to things further away; simply because the foreground subjects of a given size occupy a larger percentage of the field of view. A telephoto lens compresses perspectives; which is to say, a mountain 5km away will appear to be about the same size as one 10km away, because the angle of view of the lens is narrow, and both mountains occupy similar proportions of it – despite the difference in subject distance. It also helps that because of the higher magnification of a long focal length, your subjects are naturally going to have to be much further away.

 

 

A 28mm is for doing shots like this

..A 50mm with the same amount of subject would have had a tighter background without the strong diagonals and the subject wouldn't have had the distorted nose etc that cues a viewer that she is inside personal space. This shot is a Moriyama. Winogrand was another great 28mm shooter.

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

Not really... without a doubt the Contax Zeiss is the best of the bunch. 

I'm fairly sure that they're literally the same lens with a different name on. The sample variation due to lens history - bumps etc - is going to drown out any reasonable performance distances. The HFT and T* coating are impossible to tell apart - and often the Rollei branded versions were produced at Zeiss with Zeiss's coating -

http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/coatings.html
 

Quote

 

That lens is going to be big, heavy and unbalanced on the GX80 and you can always use your feet to zoom.

 

Foot zooming doesn't work. Trust me; I'm a stills shooter. If you move forwards to make Mr Stallone occupy as much foreground with your 50mm as  he would have done with a 100mm, he now has a different relationship to the background. Read eg

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/20/zooming-feet-not-zooming-lens/

FLs are a fundamental stylising choice for this reason. Eg Daido Moriyama is a 28mm shooter and Bresson a 50mm; DM is punk rock and HCB is a chamber quartet. If I need to balance a camera out with a heavy lens, then it won't be the first time. But focal length is fundamental.

16 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

 

If anyone does want to work on their blocking ability, I recommend Akira Kurosawa's work - it gave us Seven Samurai and Stray Dog, so you can't deny it has scope..

 

It seems with your approach in dealing with this topic and its arguments, you have named your best personal advises yourself by drawing

conclusions from the flaws you see in the arguments of others.

No. I've found the answers to the questions I asked useful.

What I've found un-useful is the suggestion that I should try to learn how to pull focus by making a film instead of before making a film, so I can make the film competently without wasting collaborators' time.  Anything I can practice without wasting an actor's time, I will practice without wasting an actor's time. To me this seems like common sense and good manners; I have no idea why some people object to this. 

Also, I appreciate the importance of writing, I just don't especially need to practice it, don't have time to practice it - you can only write so much in a day and I have a thousand words to do today - and when I want to improve my writing then I go to much better sources than Some Guy On Youtube Who Happens To Own A Video Camera. (As well as Egri I'd recommend Samuel Delaney's collection of essays. Although as far as I know he's never made a youtube video.)

I agree Kurosawa is excellent on blocking - although I'd argue that Imaishi is more interesting because he's learned to take Kurosawa's blocking and run faster with it. But blocking isn't really relevant to the question I asked, which is how best to adapt my stills technique with a camera to video - it's a much higher level activity that I'll worry about once I have exposure in the groove, steady pull shots, etc.

6 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Contax 50 1.7

Isn't this the Zeiss/Vlander/Rollei under another name? And it probably sells as a Yashica as well...?

8 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

I've been using my D750 with a Zacuto Z-Finder as a 'mirrorless', for stills, to focus MF lenses accurately. Works well and looks like you're using a Phase One from a distance. 

Won't fool an expert unless you pretend the camera has broken down after a couple of hours....

On 2017-7-28 at 0:08 AM, Arikhan said:

Guys, now as some of world's most famous and appreciated camera business analysts predict Nikon's death, it's time to sell your Nikon gear and Nikon stock. 

Ok: name one of those analysts...

1 minute ago, TwoScoops said:

Thanks.  I'll have a look. No I don't know a Bluesy.

Must be a coincidence - I checked and she mailed me about shooting commercial style shots for her book with some guy called Chris in the NW asking me to look at his port, and then I probably saw your igram for some other reason. Weirder things happen - I look like a clone of Trotsky, bar the nose, and I used to hang out with a guy who only had to put a piece of black tape beneath his nose to look like Hitler...

19 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

They are both made by Cosina, but not sure how close the optics are. I could do a test with Zeiss 85mm at f2.8 in FX mode and Voigt 58mm at f2 DX mode and try and match up the distance etc to see how close they look.

Thanks, but would be too much trouble for you - I'm willing to settle for being approximate on fl.

I'm sure I've seen your stills port - which is great - before. ...Did you recently shoot with a model who uses the online name Bluesy?  This is my stills port http://ilikeicicles.weebly.com/

57 minutes ago, cantsin said:

40mm hardly make a difference to the 35mm maximum focal length of the companion Sigma zoom.

I'd be using the zoom on a focal reducer and the other lens without. So the 35mm becomes a 24mm. A 40 would pair very well fl wise - but I'm buying a fast zoom and a focal reducer because I do want fast lenses - I live in the NW UK and for a lot of the year light is scarce here -  so the f2.8 loses points there. And Canon lenses have a strong look that I don't think meshes well with Sigma, although it is one I like a lot.

..Thinking about it, high contrast lenses are probably the best choice for shooting in overcast, which is standard for me.

13 hours ago, cantsin said:

My 10 cents on the topic: Concerning the question which 50mm lens best matches the Sigma 18-35mm/1.8, the answer can only be the Sigma Art 50mm; a close second is the older version of the lens, 50mm EX DG HSM, which is still a stellar performer and can be found for about $200 used (or $300 new):

 

That seems like a very good answer! Thanks.

14 minutes ago, Justin Bacle said:

You are right. What I was trying to say is that as long as the end result is good. No one cares if it was done with manual focus or auto 

No one cares about anything of the end result is good. But that doesn't help you when you are considering HOW to make something good. What does is looking at what techniques generally help with creating that result and mastering them...

So for -

- Practice focusing and focus pulls until I'm happy with them, shooting leaves in the woods

- See if I need to change my exposure techniques, ditto

- Learn sound

- Then re-make The Seven Samurai. Rather than learning how to pull focus by making the film. (On the subject of T7S re-makes, the best one imo isn't TM7 but "Samurai Seven" - an epic anime that was overshadowed by the above-mentioned Gurren Lagann.)

12 minutes ago, Justin Bacle said:

IMO, a good story and attention to detail is worth much more than the gear you're using  Who cares if you use manual focus or not,

I'm using a GX80 and a $50 lens, so that's probably one of the cheapest set-ups here.

And saying that "attention to detail" is important but that whether you use manual focus doesn't matter is why I didn't read the rest of your post...

Film has grammar. You have to decide what parts of it you want to use. A vast part of that grammar is inaccessible on current cheap hardware without manual focus. If you don't understand this, I have no idea how large a detail has to be before you will notice it. Really, we're up at the "Is the lens cap on?" level..

You can certainly choose not to use that part of film grammar yourself, but if you haven't realised that a choice has to be made and that someone else may choose differently, then - well, you're a person whose posts aren't worth reading. Imo.

And yes, story is important. But that doesn't mean that you should make it part of practising exposures or white balances right. Or waste time on kindergarten makework.

(If anyone does want to work on their writing ability, I recommend Lajos Egri's work - it gave us Annie Hall and Gurrenn Lagann, so you can't deny it has scope...)

So I went out and shot focus pulls in the woods with a 55mm Takumar on my GX80 with no added hardware except the Sugru grip I made for stills. Conclusions -

- I need an ND filter. Even in the NW UK, getting down to 1/50 with a wide open lens can be impossible without one, at least at this time of year. 

- As I expected, I need a focus lever

- I need more batteries - the camera zooms through them

- I need a grip that stabilizes the camera and supports the weight better while shooting manual focus. I'll try a different arrangement of Sugru, then a pistol grip, then a shoulder stabilizer if I have to

11 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

While you covalence, I do suggest you watch that jonpais video post closely and watch the decisions Brandon Li makes while creating his "challenge" shoot.  Try not to dismiss it.  There's good stuff there.

No, there really isn't. It's a badly designed piece of make work for reasons I lack the patience to explain to you. Oh - I'll try, the short version is that good exercises in skill building fit into the grammar of an activity.  To dumb it down, that exercise is like saying "Play a golf game wearing a blue scarf" rather than "Practice you swing for accuracy on a day with high cross winds." One limitation is random, the other is intelligently designed around the nature of the activity. A series of random exercises willing cover the scope of an activity by chance, will waste time, and won't build the feel for the grammar that gives the participant real insight. Example of good exercises in writing might be "Write a script using Shakespearean 5 act structure that lasts only ten minutes". Or "Write a character opposite to your own sympathetically and so that their POV is correct in the context of the story." Or "Plot a story where theme and antithesis are resolved in a way that leads to disaster for the sympathetic main character". 

More simply, it's a lousy way of getting practice in focus-pulling, and I don't need the practice in writing.

Quote

 Let's run with it:  I think most musicians will tell you practice is necessary, but nothing hones the skill and focus like an actual performance.

I'm now struggling to find a way of answering that doesn't imply I don't respect your intelligence. The point I have been making - which should be an obvious one anyway - is that the intelligent thing to do when starting a new activity is to break into components and then practice those components in a focused way, rather than following you suggestion of learning how to pull focus by re-making The Seven Samurai. What on earth made you translate that as "I intend never to do anything BUT play scales"??? 

Honestly, bizarre. Please stop wasting my time.

Otoh, any suggestions for keeping a handheld camera steady while focusing manually will be gratefully received. I'm hoping a pistol grip straight under the lens will help.

8 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

@meanwhile

The 1.8 Ultrons have a different design and different coating. The Rollei Planars and Zeiss ones share the same design and equivalent coating. @Parker s advise, I would second, CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7.

What is your favorite 50mm when you do photography?

 

I'm fairly lens agnostic. I need the Sigma, so I'm happy to get a match. The Zeiss style does appeal to me though, so I'm happy to go for a member of that family.

1 hour ago, TwoScoops said:

Voigtlander 58mm has similar contrast/sharpness from F2.8

I'm not great at vintage lenses, but hat's pretty much a Zeiss with another name, isn't it? The same optical design and coating, but a different factory?

Will a high contrast lens make focus peaking work better? That seems reasonable..

22 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

@meanwhile We had this discussion a while ago. The placement of the sensor in the mount is very similar to that of the Sony E series.

Speaking more exactly now, it's not the mount margin around the sensor that counts, it's the margin of the image circle. This a characteristic of the lens as much as the camera body. Did you measure that? What were the answers?

Also, if two image circles are "very similar" that doesn't mean much in this context. Eg a 38mm diameter circle may give 3mm of stabilization and a 35mm none. And the mounts and sensor placement may be identical.

...Give Fuji's extreme emphasis on telecentricity in lens design, it would be bizarre if the image circle had a significant margin.

What this story amounts to is a rumour from a rumour site with, as it's only claimed piece of evidence, an actual lie - ie that Fuji demoed a stablized XPro in the past. Against that, Fuji have repeatedly explained why they can't build a stabilized body - and that explanation matches their lens designs and generally makes perfect sense. So I really wouldn't set yourselves up for disappointment!

2 hours ago, Linus N said:

I really like my Canon FD 50mm f1.4. Sure, as the other forumites here are saying it's not as contrasty as the 18-35mm, but imo it's easily fixed in post. I find the image from the FD 50/1.4 really pleasing

The FD is undoubtedly a nice lens. But I'm lazy. And who wouldn't want to buy a lens called an Ultron??? (That's the Rollei version, I think.)

54 minutes ago, jcs said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7

Well, yes - a lens that old has to be cheap by now... NASA will probably pay me to take one off their hands.

21 minutes ago, Parker said:

You'll be hard-pressed finding a vintage 50mm that's as ultra-contrasty as the 18-35. Most vintage lenses have significantly less contrast than modern lenses so it can be difficult to get them match. That being said, I frequently pair a CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7 with my 18-35 and things usually turn out looking pretty good. Lovely piece of glass. 

When you said "contrasty" I thought Zeiss/Vlander/Rollei - or maybe Pentacon? Thanks, that's a big help.

25 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Well, of course stuff like this is interesting as well... http://www.43rumors.com/press-panasonic-announces-first-organic-sensor-with-global-shutter/ . But Lord knows when implementation is near...

You're very pessimistic about the X-T2s, that's in your own right. I'm more of the 'easy now... let's just wait and see' though. I'd like to be positively surprised. Like a fidget spinner, I'd first like to see for myself what it is about... I can't just tear it down just because I have the idea it would suck (although I'm now at liberty to say: it totally sucks). Like, the X-T2s is just a rumor now. They might've found a great solution to their lack of in-body stabilization.

IBIS consists of moving an image around inside the image circle. If the circle isn't big enough to move around in, that's it.

Quote

If you have a problem, you get creative and find solutions... that's how innovation works. It's how Canon came up with dualpixel AF for instance.

No, it really isn't how innovation works. Some problems are tractable, some are not. Arguing that because someone did X someone else can do completely unrelated thing Y doesn't really work...

3 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Sigma Art 50mm pairs really well with the 18-35.

Something cheaper and vintage???

I'm looking for something that would have the same focusing direction (so not a Nikon) and would have a similar look...?  I'd shoot the Sigma on a Turbo 2 and the 50mm unboosted to get a 100mm equivalent. 50 is ideal, but I'm open to anything from 35mm to 60mm.

It's possible that I might shoot the lenses on separate bodies, with GX80s being so cheap, so maybe the two could have separate WBs and other in camera settings. But close without that would be nice - although I suppose I could store per-lens settings in a custom mode.