HockeyFan12

don't really know if it's really worth posting this, but i dp'd a little short by a friend with this camera. it's a coming of age film about an immigrant high schooler kind of finding his place in punk music culture. to be quite honest i'm not quite happy with most of the shots we've gotten, but i've decided to post stills of ones i like the most. maybe some of you will like the images. all done with the meike mft set if that's of any interest. i still think this camera rocks, even if it has quite a few shortcomings. 

Hyperbolin poop until it looks all the same, like poop.:) Anyway, I would love us to post more lil vignettes instead of searching significance in youtubepoop.
@SRV1981 I find CLog3 very easy to grade and Canon 10bit cameras are capable of great images. I find some A7S I and II very challenging to grade under unlit circumstances. Regardless their high light sensitivity they don´t provide nice colours easily, especially not in the LOG formats, coming from my experience. I once had a gig they gave me an A7SII for. I recorded Rec709, 400 ISO and codec still didnt hold up grading very well.
I imagine Canon R6 being a pretty cool camera. Cannot go wrong with a FX3 neither. Or with Lumix S5, if you want a "full frame" camera. So with your Canon R6 you are settled perfectly for some great colours. The little differences only matter when you are used to one of the profiles and plan on shooting with the other. When I rent a C300 II, I always film in CLOG3 and always do a black balance before shooting. Clog 3 is better in lowlight than 2 and easier to grade for me.
Slog from the  A7 III on is pretty good. Tiny difference only matter when doing high end commercials or films. Other than that all 10bit cameras put out a neat image. What´s more important under that buch of rather higher priced cameras is usuablitity, battery life and sturdiness. SLOG flavours on FS700, PMW F3,5,55,65:), FX6,9, FS5,7 is very different from the early photocams and a good format to record in, even in its 8bit alterations in the FS700 and F3. But with your R6 you have a great camera to enjoy, when it comes down to a nice image. cheers

The Alexa 35 should build up quite a bit smaller than the Mini for general shooting. The problem with the Mini is that it wasn't designed to be operated on the shoulder or even on sticks. It was a small body for Steadicam, Gimbal or Drone shots. Thus, to make it work, you needed to add a cage and battery plate but due to the design of the body, the battery plate is always quite far away from the back of the camera. The new Alexa 35 doesn't have this issue so should be a much better form factor despite the possible weight increase in batteries.
Battery plate directly mounts to new Alexa 35

 
Alexa Mini solution: (Not so Mini any more)
 
 

 
 

You are limited by the difference in gain between the high and low signals, the more gain the lower the saturation point, and there has to be a fair bit of overlap between the two signals to combine them properly. A balance has to be struck.
For a more technical breakdown on saturation point take a look at Jon Rista's post
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/600061-a-little-confused-about-full-well-and-read-noise/
 
Also take a look at Dual ADC audio recording which operates in an analogous fashion.

I've compared most of those cameras but not side by side (worked with almost all of them either in post or in person).
LOVE the EVA1's image but the LCD and ergonomics are terrible. I put a little loupe on the LCD as I like a minimal set up but it would be a pain to "rig up" traditionally.
I much prefer its image to the S1H actually. The colors are just better. It's not a world apart but it just looks better. Noisier though. C200 has a great image but the noise pattern is ugly and there's CMOS smear. It's just not the image I want.
P6K I've only worked with in post but it's a pain in some ways from what I can see but the image looks great too.
I think it boils down to ergonomics ultimately (and getting the right IRND filters for the P6K – or just getting the pro model) but both the EVA1 and P6K are capable of beautiful images, right on par with (or just a step down from) the Varicam35 and Alexa, which have quite different looking but really beautiful images too.

Hello all. 
In the appraisal of small mirrorless cameras, here’s a music video I shot, DP’d, edited, graded for Dit h artist Charlotte Wessels, ex-singer of Delain. 
Shot in SLOG3 and a bit of 2. 
Lenses used were Tamron 17-28, Tamron 28-75, Sony 24-105mm, Lensbaby Sol45, 7artisans 35mm and ProMist 1/4. 
Most of the video was lit with an Aputure 600d through 8x8 white diffusion and bounce / reflectors. 
Fire scenes lit by fire light only and a 2x2 silver bounce. 
Stick around for the credits. 😊
 

Thanks for the insight, but I'd read that with ISO invariant cameras the limitation was no longer from the noisy A/D converter and instead from full well capacity and photon clipping. (At least for the most part.)
It sounds like there is more to this story though. I actually don't know much about this and am curious how they achieved it.
Regardless, what Arri has achieved here seems nearly as unique in today's market as the Classic was ten years ago.

I have a very limited understanding of sensor design, but highlight dynamic range should be dictated by full well capacity.
Each photosite is like a bucket. It can only fill with so many photons before it overflows. The reason most of these current cameras are 500-800 base ISO is because they need to underexpose and dig into the shadows to distribute DR since the photosites are only so big and can only hold so much light before being saturated.
I suspect when the S1H shoots 640 ISO in V Log, the sensor is reading out the same signal as 100 ISO in another picture style. It's just digitally redistributing the dynamic range into the highlights.
The Alexa has about half as many pixels per square inch as the C200 (4K S35), S1H (4K in S35), Venice (4K in S35), etc. 
Its photosites are about half as big.
(2880X1620 = 4665600 photosites; 4096*2304 = 9437184 photosites)
So they should hold twice as much light (one stop) before overflowing.
Unsurprisingly, the Alexa has about a stop more highlight dynamic range than its competitors at base ISO.
The Alexa35, however, has pixels that are about the same size as the C200, S1H, Venice, etc. 
But it has 1.5 stops MORE highlight dynamic range than the Alexa Classic. So that's 2.5 stops more than the competition.
Maybe the base ISO of the Alexa35 will be 1600 to account for some of that (it underexposes and pushes an additional stop)? And the sensor design has physical improvements that account for the rest? Regardless, this puts the camera on another level from everything else on the market. But if its base ISO is 1600 that might explain it to an extent. Or maybe I misunderstand this and there are other factors like voltage involved? Regardless, this camera has already far surpassed my expectations. 

I've compared most of those cameras but not side by side (worked with almost all of them either in post or in person).
LOVE the EVA1's image but the LCD and ergonomics are terrible. I put a little loupe on the LCD as I like a minimal set up but it would be a pain to "rig up" traditionally.
I much prefer its image to the S1H actually. The colors are just better. It's not a world apart but it just looks better. Noisier though. C200 has a great image but the noise pattern is ugly and there's CMOS smear. It's just not the image I want.
P6K I've only worked with in post but it's a pain in some ways from what I can see but the image looks great too.
I think it boils down to ergonomics ultimately (and getting the right IRND filters for the P6K – or just getting the pro model) but both the EVA1 and P6K are capable of beautiful images, right on par with (or just a step down from) the Varicam35 and Alexa, which have quite different looking but really beautiful images too.

I know it's cheap used since I just sold mine but I still feel the EVA1 has possibly the best image under $10k new (Komodo might be better but feels like a lot more work).
It lacks some of the amenities and durability of its competitors and is just a weird product. But the image is amazing. 

I know it's cheap used since I just sold mine but I still feel the EVA1 has possibly the best image under $10k new (Komodo might be better but feels like a lot more work).
It lacks some of the amenities and durability of its competitors and is just a weird product. But the image is amazing. 

I guess to me the S1 is the ultimate in on set convenience and the Alexa is the ultimate in convenience in post. 
Increasingly I feel like I should have gone for the middle ground for both (P4K and speed booster XL) and left it at that but the last thing I need is to invest more money and time in another camera system.
Were I starting over I think I'd go for a P4K, speed booster XL, and a LOT of old Nikkors.
But I'm not sure I'm starting over. So I don't really know.

Someone shared this on dpreview m43's forum, I couldn't resist.
I have m43 to Sony E and Nikon Z adapters, so plan on using these adapted to FF.
Adorama back at it again with some Samyang/Rokinon price craziness, this time in the m43 mount
I thought $230 was low for the 24mm 1.5 last year, now it's at $150!
They have most focal lengths and some kits available.
The 135mm 2.2 is $140, the 50mm is $130

The 24mm, 35mm, 85mm kit is $350!
https://www.adorama.com/l/Video/Video-Lenses-and-Accessories/Samyang~Digital-Cinema-Lenses?sel=Lens-Mount_Micro-Four-Thirds
 

Actually you can choose the distribution of the split between highlights and shadows on your own with the Sigma fp. 
How much is above or below middle grey is a matter of the selected ISO value. Chart attached. But there is also a pdf floating in the internet which is called Sigma fp Dual Base ISO Technology. Which explains the behaviour better.
Basically the answer is, if you need as much shadow details as possible select ISO 100, if you need maximum of highlight details go for ISO 800.
Keep in mind the camera is recording ISO 100 even if you select ISO 800. So make sure you are exposing for ISO 100 if you do not want to sacrifice the quality by underexposing. And you have to dial back exposure in the editing software.
 

Some frame grabs from different focal lengths of the Tokina 18-200 EF boosted on an OG Pocket Cinema Camera.

Late version of the Minolta 35mm f1.4.



I like it as a middle ground between the 35mm f1.4 Nikon AIS and a more "clinical" lens like a Sigma Art lens or Rokinon.

Late version of the Minolta 35mm f1.4.



I like it as a middle ground between the 35mm f1.4 Nikon AIS and a more "clinical" lens like a Sigma Art lens or Rokinon.

Late version of the Minolta 35mm f1.4.



I like it as a middle ground between the 35mm f1.4 Nikon AIS and a more "clinical" lens like a Sigma Art lens or Rokinon.

Just bought a GFX 50R by the way 😆

I found the Sigma video not appealng in regards to the "vintage character" of the lenses. To me it was going over the lines. I would suggest buying some affordable M42 lenses, just like Andrew and the EOSHD cats have been suggesting as a valid choice since the existence of this beautiful site and forum.

True, but I'm not sure what you were referring to?
I've heard that most professional productions shoot Prores rather than RAW, and that RAW is typically only used by the big budget productions and by amateurs.  
I'm keen to hear more about that.  it makes sense to me, but my experience of the internet camera ecosystem (YT, social media, forums like this) and also of most solo-operators is that they're completely insulated from the industry proper, who interact in parallel discussions like liftgammagain.com, the CML mailing list, etc, and who have very different working methods and mindsets to the whole topic of making films.

What in the actual fuck

Wonder if Felipe used a Sony?
Fucking reprehensible.

I have had a LOT of 85mm lenses FD 1.2 L, Nikon 1.8, Sony FE 85 1.8, Sony A mount 85 2.8, Minolta 85 1.7 (I thhink?) and from a photographers point of view (not so much video), the GM is light years better than any of the others and I loved the FE and the FD ones.       I can not wait to find portrait victims and use it (and do a comparison test against other portrait lenses i have). 
The GM is expensive and does make noises when focusing (not as bad as i expected reading reviews but it is there) but is very sharp and 11 rounded blades make for lovely bokeh even stopped down a bit.

It's too long ago for me to remember accurately, but mostly I think they dried up.
Of course, in a lens it's more complicated because you shouldn't humidify them too much or you'll get fungus.  Also, when @PannySVHS says the rubber "dissolved" that's something I think is literally true - which is very different to rubber drying out.
It's probably a case of reading the advice from known good sources, which considering the level of completely wrong info posted all over the internet about it, I'd only get from lens manufacturers directly.