Thomas Hill

Yep, I couldn't give a shit about 6k, just give me IBIS, flippy screen, better battery - the 30 minute limit removed, full size hdmi, and an easier 10 bit to edit would be icing on.the cake but I don't want anything that will push the price too high. The  XT3 is a great camera that just needs a few improvements, big difference to Canon who are finally coming out guns blazing after all the crap they've been serving up these last few years.
The R5 sounds like it will be a great camera too but at a much higher price with big heavy full frame lenses required. I much prefer the sleak svelte Fuji system

Some still available on the bay https://www.ebay.com/c/15018574957

Thanks! We were walking to a location one shooting day and an impromptu shot came up, rather than extend the monopod, I stuck it inside the pocket of my hooded sweatshirt and that worked a lot better than my laziness thought it would... the tape measure pouch was bought the next week at Home Depot.

Shit, that's a good idea.
Great write up and fantastic images. If do decide to sell that lens again, holler.

Yeah the prices of some are just plain silly.     There is a bit of myth/legend about the first FD 24 1.4 though.     I guess they probably did not make too many of them and while optically the same (I think) the first version has an extra blade  so i guess many of those are really for collectors now.   
 Then there is the fact that no one else made a 24 1.4 for a very long time (even now there are not that many....just the 2 FD versions, the 2 EF Canon versions, 1 Nikon, 1 Sigma and 1 leica (edit and the new Sony) and maybe one or two others at most and most of them have come in the last 10 to 15 years or so).     I really did love the 50 1.2 L but I like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 even more though I still regret selling the FD 50 L.     
I wish my 85 did not have the dissolving bearings thing too and I think the three lens set of FD Ls 24/50/85 is pretty special still and differs from any other legacy lens set in all having those large hand ground aspheric elements.     A few more from the 24 (the first stopped down a fraction, the second wide open as is the third)

I have had this lens for ages.   Not something I have used a real lot but I do love it and think I am going to use it as the only lens I use for a few weeks.
Mine does not have a build date mark (that I can find anyway) and is a battered old copy externally but nothing wrong with the glass.
A small lens for the speed.    Is actually usable in a pinch for landscape infinity shots though much better stopped down or close in.  
Has a large hand ground front aspheric element.
 
On Sony it also works great as a super fast 2x zoom for jpegs and video.
Well worth getting if you can get one at a decent price (there are some that are at collectors prices on Ebay).
Just snaps walking around.   wide open and 5.6 at distance.   Close in at 1.4 and again at 2x clearzoom.     I took a photo of a friend I met that i would love to post but do not think she would appreciate it. Will have to find a nice stranger to shoot and post as well as video from it.

First I'd like to say that I appreciate that the Lenses sticky thread is now it's own Sub-Forum. It really allows members to post more specific topics and it allows readers to ignore topics that may not be useful for them.
With that said, @noone had a great idea creating a topic with one of his favorite lenses... so I figured I'd follow suit with one of my favorite lenses...
Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s
As I started writing this brief, real world review, I realized that this lens represents a larger story of me as a filmmaker as it chronicles the highs and lows of my life since I started shooting my film...
So what started as a brief review morphed into a much longer story. If you don't have the time or inclination, stop now.
For those that are still interested... here we go...
I love fast, wide angle lenses. They offer shallow depth of field while allowing you to get close to your subject. And a fast 35mm straddles a wide angle FOV and a normal FOV making it almost the perfect full frame, focal length for my style of filmmaking.
This is my second copy of this lens and truth be told... I've almost sold this lens a half a dozen times over the past year.
My first copy I bought when I started shooting my film. I had a simple game plan... the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS lens for daylight and the Nikkor for lowlight.
Here are a couple frames from the first shots I took with the lens for my film.


For some reason I decided to go a different route for my lowlight shots and bought a Canon 35mm f/2 IS lens. In most ways, the Canon is a better lens, but it lacks the charm of the Nikkor even if it did match my zoom a little better.
At the time, my film was moving along at a steady pace, so I decided to keep the Nikkor for a different, upcoming film...
Well...
Life had a different plan, like it often does, and some unforeseen medical issues in my family slowed production to a near grinding halt. With those medical issues came some unforeseen financial issues and I was forced to sell a bunch of lenses. For a brief time I thought I'd be forced to sell my camera as well, but I luckily made it work.
Before I sold the Nikkor, I decided to take it out for a final spin. Here are a couple frames from that last day with the lens...


By this time, I was also forced to sell my Canon zoom and my Canon 35mm f/2. Over the next 6 months I raided my closet to test any and every lens I had that could work for my film. Luckily, during that time, I found a Canon 28mm 1.8 listed on eBay "For Parts" for peanuts. Needless to say, I won the auction and found another one of my favorite lenses born from need.
For the next 6-8 months, the Canon 28mm 1.8 lens became the only lens I used to shoot my film and at the time, I couldn't be happier with the results. But I still missed my Canon zoom and my Nikkor 35mm 1.4.
Last year, I came into a little extra money and immediately sought another copy of the Nikkor and after a few weeks, I found one.
With the extra money in my account, I took the opportunity to test a bunch of lenses I couldn't otherwise afford but always wanted to try. I tested some beautiful lenses but being a hobbyist, I needed to contain my obsession and build a couple logical lens sets.
I used the end of my sporadic shooting days to test a lens. My method was simple, use my main actor as a model in the same locations I was shooting my film.
Here are a few frames from those tests...




After hours of deliberation and footage, I finally realized that I don't change lenses that often and I grew to like the idea of a single POV, from a single lens, as if the lens' FOV represents an invisible narrator's eye. I used my feet to zoom and put together a simple rig consisting of a closed monopod with a tilt head and a tape measure pouch clipped onto my belt. The bottom of the monopod fits snuggly inside the tape measure pouch giving me a stable image with a handheld-like flexibility.
During these tests, I realized that I had way too many lenses and could easily shoot a short film a month, for well over a year, and never reuse the same lens...
What was I thinking?! I am just a hobbyist with no delusions that I will make the next great indie film. 
This was getting out of hand.
So I set up a final round of testing and narrowed down my keepers to a grand total of 5 lenses with the only "set" consisting of my Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L and my Canon 28mm 1.8.
At the time, I even contemplated selling the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 one more time to keep with my minimalistic utilitarian approach.
 But after some careful thought, and some good advice from some other EOSHD members, I decided to keep it. Although I was still unsure if I needed the lens, after a recent go at some of the footage with my mediocre color skills and my crappy monitor, I came up with these frames from one of my test shots...


Although, I realize that none of these shots are particularly spectacular, but each one represents something I like about cinematography and tells a story about my life over the past 3 years.
Sometimes the gear we buy is more than just tools for the stories we tell... they become part of the story... part of the journey. Maybe I am being too sentimental but when I look at these perfectly imperfect images taken with a perfectly imperfect lens, I remember the moments that brought me from then to now and what I learned during that process...
This lens taught me that my equipment is better than I am. I learned that I don't have to shoot everything wide open and that I probably shouldn't if I ever want to pull focus on an actor walking. I learned that some lenses have a vintage look when wide open, but when stopped down can look crisp and modern. But most importantly, I learned that I need very little to make a movie and gear is the least important.
If you're interested in a more technical review, I recommend Ken Rockwell's review of the lens. He gets into the nitty gritty of the characteristics of the lens. I feel he's a little too hard on the lens but everything he writes is dead on accurate...
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm
For me, I can sum it up in one paragraph...
The Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s lens has a warmer tone and when shot wide open, the images are dreamy, a little soft with a ton of coma on the edges. Stop it down to f/2 and it cleans up a little. By f/2.8 it's like you're using a different lens and that lens is as sharp as a knife. It's like having two lenses in one with both being sharp enough with a bunch of character.
So there you have it... thanks for reading. 

First shot with my new Meike cine lenses (25 and 35mm). It's just a sequence for an actress demo reel. Really satisfied with these new lenses.
Pros :
- great color rendition and contrast.
- almost no focus breathing.
- long focus throw
- the aperture ring is not linear (exposure adjustment is much easier and precise)
- build all metal
- price
 
Cons :
- 25mm is the widest focal length for X mount. (12 and 16mm cover only MFT sensor)
- 50mm and 65mm will be released later, but doesn’t yet exist in X mount.
- very sensitive to side flare.
 
The wide shot with the 25mm
Close shots with the 35 mm + black promist 1/4 filter
2000 ISO

This is sounding way more like an X-H2 than an X-T4. 

1) True.
2) Well, the LCD screen is so bad, it's probably a good thing that the LCD screen doesn't flip out. Helps prevent you from being blinded by the sun reflecting off the mirror-like LCD screen surface of the a6500.
3) Actually, a6500 has a mic input (but no headphone jack) and the preamps are pretty good. Not spectacular, but pretty good. And the a6500 also has the multi-interface shoe so you can use a Sony mic in the hotshoe and connect directly that way, since you know as well as anybody that the BEST mic placement for good audio is on the top of the camera

That's why I said GHx and SxH cameras. 
 
If you care about photography so much that a moderate hit in quality in extreme conditions bother you then buy a Panasonic G9 / S1R instead 

I think the SL2 is a sleeper for video. I have been looking at more footage and its like a Panasonic S1R done right. I love a lot of what Panasonic does but sometimes their image is just...to clean, and hence suffers from that digital look SooC.
The SL2 doesn't do that aggressive noise reduction and with L-log and Leica color mojo the footage looks incredible. Biggest downside is moire and the just awful AF.
Blackmagic is incredibly organic looking as well. But their cameras are just..butt ugly and build quality has been hit and miss and of course no AF. The price is right, so we can't have it all, I guess.
This leaves Canon. IF Canon released a capable 4K60p camera with DPAF and their wonderful (and easy) SooC goodness it would be a huge hit. I rip on Canon a lot but I would buy that camera and sell my Panny gear because of the sheer convenience and reliability of SooC goodness and best in class AF that only requires a slight massage in post production.

The granddaddy of them all
Marlon

From the outdoor scene it's almost impossible to judge (too much handheld, too much background blur, too much out-of-focus shooting, lack of fine textures/details).
 
From the studio scene:
It can't be 1 (because the scaling/downsampling of small details/text is too clean compared to the Sigma's odd Bayer-to-Bayer downscaling); it's unlikely 2 (because details in this image look too artificially sharp, like it was shot with a conventional codec) It can't be 3 (for the same reasons as 1) It could be 4 - because the fine details are so blurry, just as with the 4K RAW from the 6K sensor of the fp. It can't be 5 (for the same reasons as 1 & 3) It can't be 6 (see above, although there's moiré in the fine details) It can't be 7 (see above) It can't be 8 (see above) It might be 9 because fine details are blurrier and showing moiré, but still too good IMHO So either 4 or 9, more likely 4.
 
From the overexposed studio scene:
4 looks likely, since the Sigma fp really has no log profile and no highlight roll-off to speak of when the image clips. 9 looks too good for being that overexposed... So I'd say it's 4. The weird flashing artifacts of the underexposed studio scene are an indicator of the fp as well, if this was shot with the old firmware.
 
- If it's 4 indeed, then it confirms what we already observed; that the Sigma fp has rather poor Raw video quality for a full frame camera and is significantly worse than the rest. If it's not 4, it would be a pleasant surprise.

Currently working on Project with S1 the colors and ibis is just bless some footage here ( Wip)
 
this was shot on S1 with 24-105 f/4 with ND  
Now imagine for sec this camera in Pro hands? (am noob)
Edit: Youtube compressed it sooo bad😪 on Davinci it looked so crisp and colourful 

While Sony had been aggressive in their marketing, I don't really think it is accurate to say "upgrading and selling every 6-12 months." If so, we would be on the a7S V by now.
Yes, there was a case when the a6500 was released about 8 months after the a6300, but that was - as far as I understand - due to the release of the a6300 release being pushed back because of flooding at the factories in Thailand. 
Also in that instance, the a6500 was not an update or a replacement, but viewed by Sony as a higher end model than the a6300. So unlike how the a7 II was and update of the a7, and the a7 III was an update of the a7 II, the a6500 was meant to sell at a higher price point than the a6300 and for both lines to sell continuously at different price tiers.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from Sony keeping their older cameras around for a long time. For instance, a6000, a6300, and a6500 are all still for sale, despite the release of the a6100, a6400 and a6600.
But yes, it was the plan of Sony to be a "disruptor" because Canon and Nikon were so entrenched as the market leaders - and because Sony A Mount sales were so bad - that they had to be innovative and productive in their camera releases.
BTW: In case ANYONE is wondering, no, I am not advocating Sony cameras (or ANY brand of camera) to anyone.  I have a hard enough time trying to figure out which camera is right for ME, let alone someone else

I swapped XH1 for XT3 for video in order to get:
60p 4K 10bit eternal.
The sacrifice was the superior build and handling of the XH1 and of course IBIS.
Just give me the spec of the XT3 with IBIS in the XT4 and my spec quest ends for at least the next 3 years.

Once upon a time, I had a K10d. Excellent ccd IQ plus IBIS, but no video at all. 
I would definitely give Pentax a shot if they would pull a Fuji and suddenly take video seriously. Or maybe get a cheap one for use with manual lenses, hmmm.
 

Once upon a time, I had a K10d. Excellent ccd IQ plus IBIS, but no video at all. 
I would definitely give Pentax a shot if they would pull a Fuji and suddenly take video seriously. Or maybe get a cheap one for use with manual lenses, hmmm.
 

I bought a Pentax K5 for our EOSHD cheap camera challenge. But I am lazy so I did not get round to editing the footage.
It's a charming little thing with 1080p MJPEG at reasonable bitrates and gorgeous colour
Ergonomics are nice... Still totally not a hybrid camera, but the RAW 16MP S35 stills quality stands up today even if video doesn't!
IBIS!
Crazy AF in live-view that ZOOOOOOMS the screen while wirring loud screwdriver in lens mount, and making me laugh.
Freakishly good build quality.
Excellent top LCD.
K5 users really got a lot for their money and I feel if it got any attention in GH1 days, it would have been a contender for image quality even in 1080p and surpassing it for stills by quite a bit.

Also recently got a GR III
This is a gem for stills, just wish the AF were faster.
Much smaller than X100F and RX1 II
And the lens is superb.

Speaking as a  former a7iii user, I can echo what others have said. You don't gain anything from recording externally with the a7iii. 
Really, the only thing that the a7iii has over other cameras is video AF.
It's a great camera but you're not going to gain much from rigging it up.

Pentax fanboys: Even WE have IBIS!

Pentax fanboys: Even WE have IBIS!

We identified the one and only Pentax user on EOSHD

Ha! Naw, just pointing out their one claim to fame.
But @Mattias Burling's videos make them look pretty good. The same way nearly every camera he makes a video about looks good (for photography).