Jump to content

Timotheus

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Timotheus

  1. Dude, please stop dancing around. We (you included) were talking about recreating the same picture (dof and framing) from the same spot using different sensors. Also a fan of your YT reviews, but I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're trolling us here. But yeah, let's let it go...there's enough in this thread for everyone to make up their minds.
  2. Yeah, this discussion... opinions on facts :-/ For those interested, the Northrup video comes recommended. He explains and proves his point. For readers, Dpreview did an extensive piece on it as well, with 2250 comments full of confusion :-)
  3. So if I understand you correctly, there is no way to recreate the exact same picture using two different sized sensors from the same position? Nah...sure you can. Just give Northrup your 100 bucks :-) He made a few videos proving this point. The very example you posted is among the 'evidence' he presents, check the vid.
  4. @Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors. You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size. The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change. You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop). You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-) Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).
  5. Holding cameras in the exact same position, you can take the same (framing, DOF) picture with: a 50mm f1.8 on full frame a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C a 25mm f0.9 on MFT So there really is no specific aesthetic linked to a certain format, just math.
  6. But then we're talking $900 (G85) vs. $4000 (c100 ii)...
  7. Sexy gadget...Fotodiox also makes one, looks a tad more rugged: https://www.fotodioxpro.com/fusion-nd-throttle-auto-adapter-canon-lenses-to-sony-emount-camera.html Here's hoping for a MFT version...and it's a matter of time before they put in a focal reducer as well
  8. Out of curiosity: where did you find this? Or did you just happen to have it in your collection?
  9. Noob question I guess, but how exactly can you use this measurement? Cheers, Tim
  10. You got quite the rare lens there. It is highly sought after. Just google "baby hypergonar". Don't worry...codewords "anamorphic" and "cinemascope" are in the title; people who want to buy this will find your ad :-)
  11. Hey man. Check out Tito's FOV calculator; it lets you know whether a lens will (probably) vignette or not: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8615 wider than 50mm on S35 is difficult with a 2x stretch; 1.5x or 1.33x will give you more options (but obviously less oval bokeh unless you use an oval aperture). the larger the anamorphot's elements, the wider you can go with your taking lens. Hence the popularity of Kowa B&H/8Z/16H/Elmoscope II (all the same build and size). The SLR Magic anamorphot 2x-50 might also get you wider than 50mm but it's expensive and flares blue like crazy. to get a feel for flare colours, try to look up video examples online. The Sankor 16C you mention is nice and sharp, but has mostly blue coatings and thus blue flares. Also, you can ask a seller to take a picture of the lens under an angle with light source overhead to get an idea of the colour of the coatings. the coreDNA will introduce extra vignetting; ask around in this thread for user's experience listed mininum focus distance for the coreDNA is 0.7m; if you need more you can add a diopter in the mix or set both taking lens and anamorphot to minimum focus distance
  12. Will you let us know how you built it to be single focus? :-)
  13. Same here. The G7 was well regarded for budget-minded shooters. Look at what is improved: sensor stabilisation, weather sealing, clean HDMI out during internal recording, reportedly fixed shutter shock in photography and more. And all this for under 1K with great deals especially in UK. This camera deserves to be a hit. Not in the least to push manufacturer 's competition further (M5, anyone?).
  14. To be honest, no...you should be able to find a clean one for the same kind of money. Just wait a little or ask around in the 'anamorphic shooters' Group on Facebook if anyone has something to sell.
  15. There are no direct comparisons online, but the optical quality should be the same. Perhaps the 77mm vignettes at a tad wider focal lengths? Although this is probably only true when the rear elements difffer in size between the two versions...The front sizes are the same (82mm). Could be that the glass is exactly the same size, with only the mounting thread differing in size. Is this true? Damn...get them while they last then. Still for sale on ebay, B&H and so on...
  16. Check out the other current thread with the exact same question:
  17. Just weighing in on the 18-35: own it, brilliant lens. It is for APS-C camera's, so you can use it in crop mode on the a7s2. It then gives a FOV / DOF comparable to something like a 27-52mm F2.7 fullframe lens. Using the Clear Image Zoom function, the Sigma can also function as a normal / slight telephoto zoom! Adding a speedbooster won't help as the lens' image circle doesn't fill the fullframe sensor.
  18. Great. Final question then (I think ;-)). How much does minimum focus distance change? I believe the Rangefinder's MFD is approximately (a not-too-bad) 1m. What happens when the Tokina is included? Thanks again.
  19. Sounds good. Never heard about this setup, thanks for sharing! Effect on focusing is the same as without the RF? So 1/0.4= 2.5m as maximum focus distance?
  20. As the optical principle of RF, coreDNA and vintage single focus solutions (iscorama) is the same (variable diopter), I would be surprised if there are large differences in things like defocus quality etc. But that's an educated guess, could be wrong. I just received my 72mm RF, tested it briefly and yes, the blue blobs are easily summoned ;-) I do intend to try a cheap circular hood on the RF to see if it helps. At any rate, the thing is built like a tank and finally being able to more easily use my anamorphics will be a relief.
  21. Hi Caleb, could you elaborate on the purpose of putting the diopter in there? I gather close focus, but why not put it up front? Cheers, Tim
  22. Yeah, I think you made a good deal, even considering the scratch. So I'd take his discount and go shoot :-)
  23. Timotheus

    Photography

    For me it's been the other way around. My photography got more serious after buying a 70D and some quality lenses in 2013...then the cool video options on the thing (DPAF!) got me reading on DSLR video... Before I knew I got a collection of vintage glass (Takumars, some Russians and a set of anamorphics...so much for DPAF haha) and a G7, but way too little time...just have to take it slow, I guess. But coming here is easy, reading and learning. I like my niche...and this forum! :-)
  24. Brilliant. Wonder If this was always the plan, or that they realized their 'cine potential' after the 18-35mm became such a hit. These will be huge, if their pricing remains as competitie as it is in the photography world. Nice to see a 85mm make it on the list. That means the much anticipated 'photographic' 85mm is on it's way too.
×
×
  • Create New...