zetty

Anyone got Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM?

I just bought one second hand and the focus ring has an awful uneven plastic friction feel, notably worse than a couple of other similar lenses I got, such as 85mm F1.8 USM (best out of the three) and 28mm F1.8 USM (quite bad but still better).

And while we're it, any good third party lens hoods for Canon lenses?

Can anybody advise please if Canon's 70-200mm F4 (first version, no IS) has hard stops with focusing?

On 5/28/2019 at 6:38 PM, Django said:

The 128kbps audio crippling inside S1/S1R is a good example of that.

Now, wait a little. Is that how S1 is recording audio?!

Interesting.. I wonder if there is any basis in need of phantom power for a decent shotgun? Ambient TinyMike is pretty damn good without it, still sounding notably better when recorded with external recorder than in-camera (GH4/5).

It annoys me when people say "XLR" as if that was a hallmark of good sound. It's just a connector, the sound quality is mic and ADC dependent. Certainly, there's no need for balanced inputs for such short cable runs as having the mic on camera, and even with all this, we should have long since switched to mini XLR.

On 3/28/2017 at 11:48 PM, dbp said:

Yep, same. Got the SLR-Magic MkII after rave reviews on bmcuser. Only downside is that 6 stops often isn't enough to shoot wide open on a sunny day, but there's really little to no hit on image quality, and the ergonomics are great. 

On 3/28/2017 at 10:56 PM, Parker said:

I like the SLR Magic much better (I have the original version, before they added the additional twisting polarizer thing on the front). But I just combined it with Xume magnetic filter holders so I can stick it on any lens I own in half a second, works fantastically. 

I am planning to get SLR Magic VND but I am a bit worried about two rings on such a thin body, doesn't polarization get turned accidentally when you just want to adjust the ND?

I have been using Hoya NDs for years and managed just fine, even though sometimes have had to compensate with a bit of aperture or shutter speed adjustment. However, with a longer run and gun project coming up with potentially frequent moving between indoor and outdoor locations, thought I should get a VND as an option.

Would the IR pollution be an issue for GH5?

On 3/14/2016 at 2:10 AM, aldolega said:

Lens ---> Collapsible rubber lens hood ---> ND filter.

Fold the hood back when you need to adjust the filter.

Wouldn't it work even better to have the collapsible hood at the end of the variable ND? That way you only need a single hood and ND is always visible/accessible..

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Practically every single serious filmmaking site scoffs at AWB and strongly encourages manually white balancing. But it takes me as long as a minute to manually white balance a shot, and even then, after all my efforts, my colors are still off.

Yeah, I have noticed that too, whitebalancing on grey card often gives a clearly inaccurate result. I found out the translucent lens cap is working better for this but most often I'll just dial it in. Haven't played around with the new AWBc yet, which is supposedly suppressing the prevalent reddish tones under certain conditions.

Something for @mercer

EDIT: apparently has its own topic here: http://eoshd.com/comments/topic/24803-improving-gh5-colour-comparison-with-5d3-raw/

Just now, Phil A said:

I wonder how much that will add in the end. I've seen quite a few sources that claimed that 400Mbps All-I is actually more compressed than 150Mbps Long GOP so the All-I will maybe give you slightly better motion & quality when there's a lot of movement but no image quality boost in most cases.

I tend to think it will up the quality a notch where it matters but it's all just guessing, cause the compression is such a complicated thing and there are so many variables in play.. Let's hope Panny's engineers know what they're doing. Meanwhile, there's also a petition making rounds: https://www.change.org/p/panasonic-introduce-4k-4-2-2-ipb-400mbps-and-fhd-4-2-2-ipb-200mbps-modes-for-panasonic-gh5

18 hours ago, Vesku said:

Does the GH5 minimum shutter speed and auto iso range/limiter settings work when shooting video?

I don't use auto but can confirm you can set the ISO range even while recording -- when you press the ISO button, one of the dials sets the upper ISO limit while the other the ISO itself, including switch to AUTO if so desired. I wish I could assign the dial by the LCD for the ISO adjustment, much like how it works on 5D, without need to press any button first at all. Right now, the dial does nothing in video mode and isn't assignable either.

On 01/04/2017 at 7:16 PM, AaronChicago said:

I'm curious about this as well. I had it set to 35mm with the Sigma 18-35 and the stabilization on the 18mm end was shitty. I guess you do need to manually change it?

So it's not getting this information electronically from the lens even with an active adapter? I thought it would have considering it provides full EXIF data..

9 hours ago, Orangenz said:

The strange this about this is if you are in A, S, or P modes and you adjust something else, like shutter speed, the same sort of rolling scale pops up but the zebras stay on screen. It's only with the exposure comp scale that the zebras disappear. Also, currently in P mode my dials don't do anything. It would be great to have one set to exposure comp just for P mode. Someone can learn me up on this please.

Well, it's the same when adjusting ISO manually. Pretty annoying indeed, as you have to go in and out of the menu to check for zebras.

I don't think Panasonic anticipated all this fuss about AF, so the settings and the manual aren't that well thought out.

Frankly, neither did I. Can't believe the % of attention this camera is getting that's going into this. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about AF even if it could be a nice extra. I rarely use gimbal and can live with deep DOF or keeping appropriate distance and just tapping on my phone attached to my arm when I need to refocus. Now, with IBIS (which is truly amazing) I'll use gimbal even less as I don't mind slight handheld look most of the time.

FWIW, I think the Panasonic's excuse for not implementing PD focus because it degrades IQ is bullshit though. I reckon it was a commercial decision they had to make as clearly there is a limit of R&D that can go into a camera at this price.

32 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Does the camera "see" these batteries when you use them?

Of course it does. What I am saying is that the metering isn't as precise or consistent but then just slightly so. I have had shit batteries like DSTE where the metering goes from 2/3rds to flashing red like in 10 minutes. I have another Patona double charger for GX85 and use a single power adapter from Ravpower to feed both of these as well as AA/18350 battery charger (it has three outputs, each rated at 2.4A). Pretty handy and compact setup.

13 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Sorry....can you clarify....did you buy a second charger because the GH5 charger is too slow, and if so, do you mind sharing a link to what you bought....also do you know per chance whether the stock GH4 & GH5 chargers are identical....I believe the batteries are...

I bought Patona charger that takes 2 batteries at the same time. It's USB powered and requires 2.1A input minimum, which I can provide with a dedicated adapter (mine is 2.4A and it seems to charge quickly enough, although I haven't compared the time with Panasonic's original charger directly). Also, I have found out Patona and in particular Dot.Foto batteries to be of better quality than the rest of generic ones -- in fact, they last almost the same time as the original, just somewhat less precise with determining of how much juice there's left. I think both of these brands are available in Europe only.

10 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

They literally put words I didn't say into quotes. What are they teaching you at school these days? Before jumping into conversations, take a moment, just a moment, to try and understand what's going on before injecting your opinion. Just google "quotes". Now I understand how fake news gets spread these days. I'm not going to respond to this anymore, because frankly, I think it's ridiculous. If you are still confused about how to use quotes just pm me. I majored in literature at the University of Michigan and have been writing professionally for over twenty years. I will attempt to explain clearly and succinctly the proper usage of quotes if you need me to, but I think we should stop discussing this here.

In my post I said:
your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc"

I don't see how one can misinterpret that as a direct quote -- even if I did use the quotation marks incorrectly, I also clearly stated "appeared to imply", denoting the following as my take on your words. I used quotation marks to separate the phrase from the rest of the sentence and somewhat in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

BTW, English is my third language and it would appear perfectly normal in my native one to use quotes to summarize, so apologies if I made a mistake here.

I got Beyerdynamic DT 880 Premium headphones and Focal CMS 50 monitors, two good bangs for the buck. Coupled with a decent audio interface/headphone preamp, both are adequate for editing mixdowns and even some music production, however with the monitors the room acoustics matter too.

The DT 880's have a few "sub-models" but all are decent -- a bit bright but so detailed that if you make your transitions smooth, you can be sure they won't be noted anywhere else. The CMS 50 monitors I use for both mixing and listening as I absolutely love Focal sound, previously owning a pair of Solo 6 Be (which for the editing purposes are a bit of an overkill).

Regardless, budget permitting, I always give my audio to a dedicated sound engineer for the final mixdown/mastering.

Hanriverprod, I disagree about misquoting you, can you quote me doing that?

All I was talking about is what your post seemed to imply, on both occasions, second time quoting word by word. That is my interpretation of your words, not a misquote.

As about the rest, in broad strokes I do live the life I want but I am constantly fighting against being pushed into compromises I find distasteful. I accept that's how it is but why shouldn't I express my discontent? I don't expect it to change significantly, nor I'm saying my hands are tied to do things differently, just speaking out about something I feel strongly about.

You are right about the blurred line between form and content, perhaps I did put it the wrong way. I also agree about building on tradition but come on, the "tradition" we are building on here has such a narrow scope, it's suffocating. There are the basics and there are gimmicks -- and right now I feel like we're riding on gimmicks. In other words, there is a very strong trend to focus on a certain set of values, which appear formulaic and superficial to me -- and in order to achieve these, filmmakers are happy to sacrifice everything else that would make a unique, rich story. In short, it's that the predefined form (aesthetic) largely dictates the content. And in many ways supply is also affecting the demand, making it more difficult to break the mould with something more unusual.

On 07/04/2017 at 11:16 AM, Hanriverprod said:

But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing.

Here is what you said and the "but" clearly implies it looks good because of everything but the camera. If several people have seen it that way, maybe it's worth considering it's not a misquote but rather a misexpression from your side.

10 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Don't worry I'm having a great day. But look how you started this conversation with me. You turned me into a wailing baby because I have a different opinion. And now again you are the one who literally misquoted me at your first post but now accuse me of doing it. I don't get it.

Well, your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc", so I think that was a fair target and frankly, I agree with a lot of what Andy says. However, I think you also have a point: even if you cannot express exactly what's wrong with the image, you don't have to, it's your perception why shouldn't you trust it. I respect that.

Myself, I am long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive.

BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.

1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

So you say that "because you are not frustrated with a current environment, why should you look elsewhere" and you tell my I am narrow minded? This is quite funny. 

With your thinking, you never move outside of your confort zone, never try something new, never evolve basically. I have the contrary thinking: always get out of my confort zone, and being not frustrated with something would never be a reason for me not to look elsewhere. 

I have lived and worked multiple years in 5 countries on 4 different continents, explored 40+ countries, explored all religions and most cultured and I have the same approach with what brings us here (tech and video): I have been in pocession of cameras from most camera manufacturers out there, used FCPX for months, Premiere Pro, and Resolve... I always give a try to what surrounds me. Exemples could go on but if anything you are probably a lot more narrow minded that I am, but thanks for the judgment and be happy on Winshit  

Jeez, should I now list the number of countries I lived in and my experiences of life to prove a point? :D

At the same time you are trying to imply that using a different OS is "moving out of your comfort zone".. Go figure. Your comfort zone must be pretty tight.

Narrow-mindedness doesn't stem from the fact that you have had broad experiences, it's from your notion that you universally know what's better for everyone, failing to acknowledge the different needs and approaches of other people. Clearly you didn't learn anything from your exploration of all religions..

33 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Before any one comes in the debate and tell me a Pc is better, he needs to own both. I have been for years on tons of different PC, currently owning one. And I have got Macs for the past 7 years too. So I can properly compare and not just say I was frustrated testing my GF computer.

Why should I, if I am loving the experience and have absolutely no frustration with it?

You are so blinded by your own experience, the view your are preaching is extremely narrow minded. If that's what MacOS does to people then no thanks, for that reason alone :D

There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to something as sophisticated as OS.

2 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Interesting. I use mac at home and PC at work. I can't believe the number of people still using PCs these days. The Mac OS is so much better, the integration with the hardware is in another league, the global experience (speed, bugs, viruses..) is a million time better. 

I would not get a PC even if it was the same specs for 10 times less money. The fact is when you want to buy a real equivalent pc (for exemple a PC that copies the MacBook Air, same aluminium, same battery life of 15h, ...) it's the same price yet the value goes down a lot more. What a joke....

Those are some loud words. I generally find MacOS and many of its structural implementations retarded and counterintuitive. Especially when it comes to system configuration and file management (which are some of the primary OS functions) -- I find Windows so much more streamlined, efficient and nuanced. And coming from Amiga before this, I hated Microsoft and Windows and wanted to like Apple/Mac (mid-nineties, around System 7/Windows 95 time). Both were lousy at the time but I found Windows to be more flexible and everything changed with the release of XP, from then on I have never had a reason to look back.

The whole stability thing is a myth -- in the older times, both systems were crashing like crazy (and MacOS even didn't have task manager long since Windows already had it), and nowadays, from Windows 7 on, it's been perfectly stable. My uptime is weeks at a time and the only thing that ever crashes is Firefox when they're on a lousy build. While I have no reason to not believe people when they say they have had more problems with PC and coming to Mac has been liberating, there is no such thing in my experience. Neither I have had virus for at least a decade -- and I don't even have an antivirus program installed other than the built in Windows Defender. So I tend to think it's those users who are the problem rather than the perceived OS inferiority.

Of course, I am saying all this from a perspective of Windows user (although I am still forced to use MacOS now and then for work -- and asked to troubleshoot theirs by friends haha) and I respect everyone's choice of whatever works best for them. But the high-horse attitude of people like Wolf33d can really trip me off

BTW, writing this on a 2012 Sony Vaio machine which has seen upgrade (not a clean install) from Windows 7 to Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 with no stability issues whatsoever and all drivers and software functioning perfectly.

I'd love to have a productivity battle including different tasks between myself and an expert MacOS user -- confident I'd win cause the Mac users only think it's so efficient and effective cause they don't know any better..

2 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Another user mentioned that Panasonic has said that if there is a demand to turn off NR completely, they will do it. Perhaps it's time to voice your concerns to Panasonic if ghosting like this is a problem for you.

Anyone knows what's the best way to get in touch with Panasonic regarding this issue?

4 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Stab, yes, you're largely correct. When you see the hand (sounds scary ;)), that is the IBIS, sensor-based system. If you couple that with a Panasonic OIS lens that is equipped to work with IBIS, then you get the IBIS2 and "DUAL 2" shows up in your VF/LCD. DUAL 2 is simply IBIS2...not sure why they don't call it that.

From what I understand Dual IS 2 is the next iteration of IBIS+OIS software, currently only compatible with these few new lenses. OIS lenses with pre-GH5 firmwares only support Dual IS 1 mode (like one in GX85).

Haven't had time to test any of this properly but all of my OIS equipped lenses only work in Dual IS 1 mode.