TheRenaissanceMan
-
Posts
1,503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by TheRenaissanceMan
-
-
I tried my old EM5 with the Pany 150-300mm. Didn't like it. Weird results. In cam stabilization was enough.
Those systems were never meant to work in tandem. Sony's OSS lenses are designed to work with 3 of the 5 axes of their IBIS.
-
You know, I wonder... and this may be way off the mark, but is there any chance that this sort of skin-tone argument is actually flipped in Japan? I mean, maybe the Japanese prefer Sony's color science to Canon's?
Anyone know anything about that possibility? Just curious.
Actually, there's a lot of truth to that. Apparently, the Japanese love cool tones the way we love warm ones. That's why back in the day, they preferred Fuji's subdued color palette to Kodak's somewhat saccharine warmth. So in that regard, the Japanese most likely prefer Sony color the way so many of us in the States seem to love Canon.
Honestly, if I were shooting video for clients, I'd use a Blackmagic camera in Video gamma anyway. An all-Prores workflow makes for quicker turnaround and better deliverables, and I have a very neutral starting point that I can tweak to the client's taste. -
Maybe not User Reviews, but I would love a subforum for buying and selling gear. Posting it with the news and discussions just seems awkward.
-
If the 5D mk IV "only" gets great 1080p with C-log.... It is still a big step ahead of Nikon and will likely be ahead of Panasonic and Sony, on overall image quality.
In what regard? Color is a wash. So is rolling shutter. DR favors Nikon. Canon's codecs are generally inefficient, so the file size to quality ratio won't be any better. Moire and aliasing is better on the D750 and D810 than any Canon DSLR besides the 1DC. Where exactly is Canon's advantage?
-
-
I have looked at the SLR Magic stuff as well. It is nice. But, since a speed booster and old glass will be less than $200, I think I'll stay on that pathway (for now).
However, maybe a few SLR Magic lens rentals in the near future would be worth the time and $$.
Fair enough!
If you're invested in FD stuff already, an FD 50mm is your best bet. It's a beautiful lens and will match what you already have. However, it is not usable at f/1.4. At all. I tried it at a concert once, and the footage was lousy with purple halos. Completely unusable. The Rokkor 1.4/50 is much better wide open if that's how you're looking to shoot. -
I've been pretty lucky with adapters as well, other than most focusing past infinity... The regular ones anyway. Do the Roxsen speedboosters focus past?
Not in my experience. I think they have a tiny screw to fine tune for infinity, though.
-
Nice stuff! How did the 10-bit out hold up in post? And how do you feel about the 50mm? Is it worth the money?
-
I have the 35-70mm f/4 as well. It's the only FD I got so far. That thing is surprisingly light (as in: doesn't weigh much). Unfortunately my FD -> M43 lens turbo arrived in pretty rough shape. The lens elements became loose on transportation and were full of scratches (you couldn't see through anymore), so I needed to replace the optical core, which took a while to get resolved (really ran into Murphy's law with that one). In meanwhile everything is lovely jovely again, but have yet to put it to good use. Nice to see mercer's test!
Ouch. Man, my luck must be amazing. None of the third party ebay products I've ever bought has given me a problem.
What portrait and M43 concerned. I do love the SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 25mm T0.95 as well for its bokehlicious look. Not so sure however to put it to use as a portrait lens. 35mm already seems like a more sensible range shooting with the 4K crop. Although I think the best portrait lens for M43 is probably the Olympus 75mm f/1.8. No hate for the longer focal lengths here. Of course, if you have limited space to work in, longer focal lengths will prove to be challenging and you'll have to compromise.
It depends quite a bit on your shooting style, but I agree that there's nothing wrong with longer focal lengths for portraits and close-ups. In fact, it's my preferred method of achieving shallow focus, as that's the Hollywood method and the look most people are used to. I simply recommended the 25mm because it was the cheapest way to get cheaper and wider, which is what Fuzzynormal asked about. I'd prefer the 35mm or, better yet, the 50mm f/0.95. Pricey though.
-
I find specs are most useful in indicating the intent of the camera. When we saw the NX1's specs--4K video, H.265, high frame rates, manual control--it showed us that Samsung had put serious work into making a competitive hybrid camera. When we saw the Blackmagic Pocket's specs--no frills, RAW and ProRes recording, S16 sensor size, small form factor--we knew they wanted to make a small, affordable cinema camera. Marketing ties into this; Blackmagic wouldn't tout "13 stops of dynamic range" and "the look of real digital film" if they were making a consumer camera.
-
If you're looking for a nice midrange FD zoom... Try out the Canon FD 35-70mm f4 lens. Metal construction, compact, constant aperture, parfocal and it has a reputation as being as sharp as a prime wide open. And even at f4, it has some pretty nice bokeh. It's often overlooked due to the 35-105mm, but let me tell you... It is nice.
Here's a quick and dirty lens test I did with the 35-70
Wow, nice test! Parfocal (or close enough as makes no difference), very little breathing, and that great low-con FD look.
I went with the 35-105, but now I'm considering replacing it with the 35-70. The 35-105's a nice lens and focuses relatively close but at the cost of being a fat as **** chunk of glass. Nice and fast on a speedbooster though, and that range can't be beat for run and gun.I'd like to try and go a little shorter and more "open" on the f-stop for interviews.
If you're looking for a shorter focal length with shallower DoF on M4/3, you might consider the 25mm f/0.95 from SLR Magic. It can be had for less than $500 used, it's incredibly well-built, and it has the nicest bokeh I've ever seen. A little low contrast and "glowy" at f/0.95, but better than the Voigtlander. It sharpens up nicely at f/1.4--and that's for stills. I happily use it wide open for 1080p video. If you'd like me to shoot some portrait tests for you, I can probably find some time later today if I can find a willing subject who isn't too hungover from 4th of July. In the meantime, here's a stills comparison against some vintage stuff and the Voigtlander. http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137:adorable-25s-25mm-f095-speed-lens-comparison-on-lumix-gh3&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
If you want a longer focal length, SLR Magic offers a 35mm f/0.95 as well, and the 35mm f/1.4 has amazing bokeh too. Take a look at Flickr and see what you think. I'm a huge fan of these lenses for video, and recommend them to everyone shooting M4/3. Amazing bokeh, good sharpness, fast apertures, decent prices, and they have this inexplicable 3D look that's incredibly cinematic. It must have something to do with its sharpness characteristics combined with low global contrast, but it produces the closest rendering to actual PL cinema glass of anything in its market. -
I've heard some horror stories about adapters and speed boosters for FD lenses. Luckily, I haven't experienced any problems with fotodiox or fotasy adapters, nor with my Roxsen speed booster. My advice would be to work gently, don't force anything, and contact the company for an exchange if anything isn't working to spec.
-
Thank you. You're absolutely correct. Shot a high DR scene at 200, 800 and 1600. All files identical.
Haha, great to hear we're getting the same results! :)
Can you elaborate more on what you're trying to accomplish in your landscape work, what tools you're using to expose, and how you're processing your files? Perhaps we can fine tune your method to help get you the results you want. -
Some cinema cameras, like the Bolex, Blackmagic, and Alexa, have only one native ISO. They use digital gain to "push" that data and produce brighter results for higher ISO values, but the RAW data never changes. It always captures at its native ISO on the sensor level.
Some cameras, like all DSLRs/DSLMs, Canon's Cinema line, and the Panasonic Varicam 35, have more than one native ISO. They use analog gain on the sensor level to change the way the sensor actually "sees" photons, resulting in better dynamic range and noise characteristics at higher sensitivities.
Hope that clarifies things.Here's the difference, Ebrahim. Some cameras apply that gain digitally, in software, and some apply it analog, on the sensor itself. Cinema cameras like RED and Blackmagic use digital gain for higher ISO's; stills cameras use analog.
-
That's the key sentence. 22-bit sensor data has to be mapped into a 12-bit file. You can choose which part of your data is squashed via ISO.
ISO values on the Pocket have no bearing on its RAW files besides giving you a different preview. Of I'm incorrect, please provide a source that clarifies how and why.
-
I read a lot of reviews of the blackmagic cameras saying that they actually have about 8 stops of dynamic range. The reason they still look so good is because they shoot in ProRes and Raw and hence you can push almost everything to look better.
Completely untrue. Low DR footage doesn't gain more DR from being encoded in a better format. It just becomes easier to shift that DR around. The Blackmagic cameras have between 12 and 13 usable stops, depending how you define usable.
-
While the crop could be overkill in 80% of the cases, I'd still want it as an option on nx1, as a digital zoom. It's actually a shame that they are not giving choice, on the high end body.
Totally agreed! The GH series has always had a very popular 1080p crop mode with excellent quality just in case you needed that reach, although the GH cameras could also use it for slapping small-format glass on there with no vignetting.
-
If you want a vintage lens around 50mm that's sharp at f/1.4, my highest recommendation goes to the Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 PG. Sharp as a knife wide open, great color and contrast, but with slightly busier bokeh than its 58mm brother. That one is softer wide open--kind of a glowy, fairy tale look--but it crisps up by f/2 and the bokeh's much nicer. both can be had between $50 and $75, and can be stuck on a generic Speedbooster for extra bokehliciousness.
Some of the Metabones SB shots I've seen have had busier/weirder bokeh than the lens on a straight adapter, but it's nothing huge if your base lens has nice OOF blur to begin with. Also, I must disagree with araucaria. There's no hard or fast rule on which focal lengths have the best bokeh because it differs wildly between different manufacturers' designs, and even between different designs by the same manufacturer! For example, Minolta's 85mm 1.7 has much smoother bokeh than the f/2. It's just something you'll have to research. Luckily, there's a ton of information available to those who know how to Google. ;)
I wouldn't worry so much about the exact equivalent f-stop calculations on your lenses. Smaller formats don't scale exactly to their FF equivalent counterparts. They render differently. Lenses around f/1.4-f/2 in the 50-85mm range will give you beautiful, shallow portrait shots if you know how to use them. -
Stacking adapters works just fine as long as you keep to the prescribed flange distance for that lens. If you have a Canon EF speedbooster on your micro four thirds mount, it is for all intents and purposes an EF mount and will work fine with any adapter that promises infinity focus on a Canon camera.
As for the Roxsen Speedbooster, you're in luck! I actually own that exact Speedbooster for my FD glass. It's definitely not useless on an APS-C camera; in fact, I like using Speedboosters to get double the focal length choices from the same number of lenses. For example, if I have a 24mm and a 50mm, that gives me a 24mm (24 on the SB), a 35mm (24 with straight adapter), 50mm (50 on the SB), and 75mm (50 with straight adapter). More flexibility, less weight. It also just gives you another aesthetic choice with your lenses--do you want the S35 look, or the VistaVision/FF look?
The Roxsen has performed fine in every situation I've used it in thus far. No issues with weird flare, strange bokeh, or softness on the edges. Just brighter, sharper, wider images. Then again, mine is for M4/3. You may get different results on the Sony.- amateurmike and mercer
-
2
-
Some cinema cameras, like the Bolex, Blackmagic, and Alexa, have only one native ISO. They use digital gain to "push" that data and produce brighter results for higher ISO values, but the RAW data never changes. It always captures at its native ISO on the sensor level.
Some cameras, like all DSLRs/DSLMs, Canon's Cinema line, and the Panasonic Varicam 35, have more than one native ISO. They use analog gain on the sensor level to change the way the sensor actually "sees" photons, resulting in better dynamic range and noise characteristics at higher sensitivities.
Hope that clarifies things. -
Do you actually want to change lenses, or do you just want better quality and shallower depth of field?
-
Unfortunately the Nx500 s35 sensor is a 1.54x crop to FF. The 4K mode is a 1.77x crop of that.
Total 2.72x crop when shooting UHD (Vs Photographic 35mm FF equiv.)
What makes the crop so high is the enormous 28mp resolution (the sensor is actually 30.7mp!), so taking an 8mp window of that really crops a lot.
If it were adaptable to s16 glass we might have accepted it and used it as a pocket camera v2, but the thing is we'll be using the dead center of FF & S35 glass, it's a very plain aesthetic shooting an actor's close up on the Tokina 11-16mm.
Samsung really disappointed me here because I love their images, so clear, lively and modern, I just wish it was full s35 2560x1440 as shown here
Yes yes, I know you wish they'd kept that mode. But without knowing what roadblocks they ran into in implementing it, we can't really blame them for not putting it in the production model.
Again, do you have a link to that? I checked a few places and got conflicting information--would love to see an official number from Samsung. -
Some good observations about the F3 and comparisons to the AF100, Red One, and Alexa. http://www.provideocoalition.com/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts
-
It's 2.75x (in 4K of course) Many S16 lenses will cover that image circle. No adapter yet for C-mount to NX?
Source? What I've read says a 1.6x crop of the APS-C sensor. 1.5 * 1.6 = 2.4
Sadly, I don't think an NX->C-mount adapter is actually possible.
Shooting with the Samsung NX500 - a pocket 4K cinema camera
In: Cameras
Posted
I haven't heard any complaints about battery life on the forums. No way to add USB mic, no mic input, the crop is inconvenient (though not crippling), time limit, no cinema profiles, no peaking during 4K, no EVF (compared to the A6000/GX7). The 120p/720 isn't bad actually, and they just recently put out a big firmware update.
It's honestly a lot of compromises. If you're using it more for video than stills, I don't think it's worth it. Beautiful as that Samsung sensor is for RAW stills, the NX500 doesn't deliver it in video. Sadly.