Timotheus

I'm not sure that wether or not someone commercialises their work is particularly relevant, if that's what you meant. I have seen low quality output from people who charge for what they do, high quality output from people who do not, and a lot of stuff in between. So I'm not sure that commercialising your work is a necessary pre-condition for being able to express an opinion. Nor is it necessarily a good indicator of quality. Hence, not particularly relevant.

Yeah, the pricing this guy keeps pushing is quite something :-/

ISCO only manufactured a couple of examples of this lens. And they were never released commercially.
It has a 49mm rear element diameter and a 95mm front filter thread. Which does beg the question as to why it was produced in the first place, given that the size and weight are pretty much identical to the Iscorama 54, and its successors, the ISCO 16:9 Video Attachment (1.33x) and the ISCO 16:9 Video Attachment I (1.42x).
I've got a little stash of rare ISCO stuff, including one of the prototypes for the original 1967 Iscorama (all metal construction and a 67mm filter thread). So if you are ever interested in parting with your special find, I'd certainly make you an offer.
And treat your lens carefully, because it's a little bit of German optical history...

Yeah...as a European this whole election and its outcome has been shocking, nauseating and pretty terrifying to watch. Here's John Oliver's take, for some laughter to go with the dread:
So yeah...fuck 2016.

The main reason for shooting 1.33x (actually, 1.344x would be best) is to get 2.39:1 output with no waste of a 16:9 sensor.  Shooting 2x on 16:9 and cropping throws away resolution.  Aside from these considerations, there is the aesthetic look that different squeeze ratios provide.  Many people dislike 1.33x because it doesn't look very anamorphic.  However, even 2x anamorphics don't always share the same look.  Rear anamorphics don't look anamorphic at all.  Zeiss 2x Master Anamorphics actually look more like 1.64x true front anamorphics due to their mixed front/rear design.

First impressions of playing with G85 along with the GH4 and GX85 today:
Noise. The GH4 is silent. The G85 is quieter than GX85. Maybe just because the body on the G85 offers more insulation, but the GX85 ibis "noise" was quite a bit louder. Now, I didn't notice this noise at all in real world filming earlier with the GX85 so the chance of noticing the sound from the G85 seems highly unlikely. In fact, I wonder how you would record the noise unless you tape a mic onto the camera body and block outside noise getting to it by covering it with tape. The noise is not the lens. It is coming from in the body. 
2nd, the stabilisation, well I'll put some of my recorded files together and see. My first impression, before examining the files, is that the G85 IBIS is definitely superior for holding the shot steady. For very slow pans it also produces incredibly stable shots. I think it did start bouncing around a bit more under more vigourous panning but I think this is a result of the better IBIS at each end of the movement. So maybe in video mode they might tweak the settings in the future but it's not a video deal breaker even like it is. 
Focus speed - instant. Shutter noise - silent? Definately wow factor there. Handling - very nice. Better placement of play button. Better grip, especially thumb location. 

Well,I heard these problems wouldn't have existed in the past if people bothered to turn off the stabilization.  Too bad people kept trying to use it forcing Panasonic to unnecessarily fix something meant for photos and still shots.  All joking aside, these in body stabilization systems are still no match for a gimbal.  People are trying to push the IBIS far out of what it was meant for.
I think the most common test that I see online when a new camera with IBIS comes out is people start walking with their cameras.  I bet Panasonic engineers would say "Whoa, hold on there cowboy.  What in the world gave you the impression that you can walk with the camera?  It's made for careful pans and still shots."

I just wanted to share that I've released an iOS app that is kind of like the pana app, but full screen and with some basic image controls; anamorphic de-squeeze (1.33x, 1.5x, 2x) and brightness / contrast / saturation for working with V-Log.
Here's the App Store link: http://bit.ly/scopes-ios-app
Video showing lag is comparable or better than pana app
 
Scopes app + GH4 + SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33x

 
Scopes app + G7 + Möller 2x
(G7 is not officially supported and needs you to start pana app first)

 
App Store link: http://bit.ly/scopes-ios-app

I agree about the waiting game. If they fix the IBIS in the G85 I'll probably be perfectly happy shooting with that, with an external recorder, through the end of the summer. And who knows what Sony will do.
If the rumors of the GH5 price being around $3K are true, I think that will put a bit of a dampener on the excitement for it. I think it needs to be no more than $2500. $2000 would be pretty killer. And at any of these prices, IBIS is a must.
If Sony does an 8-bit 4K60 A7III, at say $2000, or the A7S/RIII is 8-bit 4K60 at the same price as the current R and S, or goes 10-bit at say $4K, the GH5 may not be as much of a coup as it would have been all by itseld in Q1.

Holy crap a 1000 pounds! Congrats indeed.

I agree with Timotheus. I bought one for less than half that a few months ago (mostly plastic parts) from Germany; rebadge of Sankor/Singer 16D or Bolex 16F. Seems like a decent enough starter lens, but $300 is a bit steep, unless it holds some mind-blowing secret...

Hi everybody.
Quite hot discussion here now, so let me explain couple things myself.
V2 adapter tweak referring to is discontinued. It was made by personal order once when I thought Redstan is out of business, but it seems that I was wrong. So, we will not continue to make such adapters with retaining ring (that is really great idea, and it is sad that it wasn't mine :-) )
Our adapters are more simple and more risky. bzpop is correct - there is a chance of dropping anamorphic attachment with our adapters, so you need much more care using them. Positive side is lower price for those who using not too expensive equipment.
Flat spring bzpop referring to is not poor design. Purpose of the spring is protection of the lens body from damage by adapter screws. I tested this feature on many attachments already, and results are following: if you tight the screws just by you fingers, an attachment will not fall accidentally, but can be pulled out with not too much force. After you positioned it correctly, you need to tight screws bit harder using allen key. After this, you'll not be able to pull it out. So, this design is secure enough when used properly.
Thanks.
Raf.
 

i guess i will ill let you know how goes, also ill be selling my diopters for my 1.33x 50  .33 and 1.3 to offset the cost

FF can look like APS-C if stopped down. Crop sensors can look like full frame if the DOF+FOV equivalent is possible. Its all about the DOF at a given effective focal length. FF starts to become impossible to emulate with combinations like a 24mm at f/2 or 35mm at f/2 or 2.8 on FF. Those are magic. 

Full-frame isn't shallower depth of field. It is and increased possibility of obtaining shallower depth of field, which is not the same thing.
That and the possibility of having less noise in some circumstances due to larger pixels.
 

I remember Northrup being ridiculed here on this forum. JCS was the  one who came to his “defense” and made the article he linked to in his post one page back. It’s simple math, it’s how things work.
It’s not a coincident that Houdini, Max, Maya, SoftImage, Modo, Lightwave, Blender, you name them all will give the same outcome when you set up a camera test. They all use the same math from the beginning of 3D time.
Hollywood uses it to produces blockbusters. The test I made was completely clean but you can add distortion to mimic specific lenses and maybe even sensors (wouldn’t surprise me).
I’m not a lens specialist but I don’t think a 25mm F0.7 exists in the real world, yet I used it in the example above. But that is not the issue here.
The question was what are the full frame aesthetics compared to the others. And they answer should be the technical limitations we have to deal with in every day live. But those will be solved and when that happens, the answer is none.
Then the believers will start to point out the differences in characteristics of lenses and or sensors but like Gatopardo said they are there between FF lenses and sensors as well …and since there will be more computer generated lenses within time than vintage lenses, those differences will fade as they will all give the same dull characteristics and you won't be able to tell what camera or lens was used ...and I'm talking about consumer cameras as this is a consumer forum.

More example pics here: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens.
But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens.
But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

Ah, what a shame...the video test is well done and clearly shows the issue. As the author from the video states in the comments, it looks like a 'tuning' problem on the IS...something that hopefully/probably? is fixable with a firmware update.
@Hanriverprod sorry to hear your bad experience man, I had a 14-140 in the kit with my G7...toyish build and you could hear moving parts around when slightly shaking it. It did work fine though, so I attributed it to the plastic build. Great travel lens, but sold it because of the slow aperture and because I mainly use vintage glass for video. Hope your refund or switch for another model works out.

True. The thing is who shoots a 50 2.8 on FF? Most people would have a 1.4 as a standard.
I also see this discussion working both ways, for example the "S16 aesthetic". You can't use say a 50mm on FF and have as deep DOF as on S16. If you tried you would be stopping down the lens to the point that diffraction is simply destroying the image. It's also true in reverse for M4/3 S16 vs FF, if you want that shallow depth assosiated with FF, using super fast lenses at their wide open apertures on these smaller sensors (to get anything close) usually gives you pretty crappy results (Bad CA, Bad sharpness, Bad MTF etc.). That's without even getting into the benefits a larger sensor can give.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15efDoJJEaew-7WdoCDim5anYvbdSXnVjOH-RRD656Ws/edit?usp=sharing
Created a spreadsheet for calculating fullframe equivalents based on F-stop and sensor, it's a little messy I apologize. I'm not sure how to properly setup a google sheet document for public sharing (individual values) - if you do know please tell me so. I'm not a math guy so it might be off some.... 
I'm not sure if this is actually useful, I'm tired and didn't really read the whole thread
With this you can calculate specs on FF equivalent lenses for different sensors for the same result.
 
Please correct me if the maths wrong

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.
Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF
 






You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.
Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.
CinemaFile.zip

I'm not a troll .

Could it be a circle of confusion?