anonim

I have to admit that clip from mr Read doesn't look to me so favorable for NX1 because of too much crushed black (probably temporal stylistic preference) that leaves a question about DR. But I have some other personal favorites of NX1 shots - simply, contrary to some other or of the most members, I'm continually impress with results of all modern cameras in capable hands, looking to all of them as flowers in the garden So, to be remembered or some sort of hommage  
 
 
 

I have to admit that clip from mr Read doesn't look to me so favorable for NX1 because of too much crushed black (probably temporal stylistic preference) that leaves a question about DR. But I have some other personal favorites of NX1 shots - simply, contrary to some other or of the most members, I'm continually impress with results of all modern cameras in capable hands, looking to all of them as flowers in the garden So, to be remembered or some sort of hommage  
 
 
 

It looks to me that it could be justifiably to have place here for separate thread strictly about revealing/understanding/evolving/learning ideas and behind-techniques of cinematic language.
Being myself a translator of Tarkovsky's books and calling for famous Bergman's quotes about Tarkovsky* as truly inventor of a new language, I found that this Sareesh Sudhakaran's post is great as introductory to movie as visual art with independent human-exploring language... So, if someone maybe have some similar insights, I'll be so glad to know and learn from them or read a comments and observations... about relationship between applied, deeply thought-out shooting choices or specific techniques with psychological (or aesthetic or metaphysical) artistic goals.
*"My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle... Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease... I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how... Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream... When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally."
 
 

I have to admit that clip from mr Read doesn't look to me so favorable for NX1 because of too much crushed black (probably temporal stylistic preference) that leaves a question about DR. But I have some other personal favorites of NX1 shots - simply, contrary to some other or of the most members, I'm continually impress with results of all modern cameras in capable hands, looking to all of them as flowers in the garden So, to be remembered or some sort of hommage  
 
 
 

History in general and recent history obliged us to believe in Chinese marketing even if it sometimes looks strange...

There is wonderful Angenieux 17.5-70mm f2.2 which is S16 lens - it covers GH4 without vigneting, so if you can tolerate some shadows and blur in the corner as artistic effects on 2x crop of GH5 etc, results could be majestic. (Older 17-68 and 12-120 are not S16, but 16 lenses).
If you work in more controlled condition, Zeiss 11-110 T2.2 is also S16 lens, but it is pretty big. Angenioux 17.5-70, contrary, is enough compact... (and probably only one lens I truly regret that I had too early in my passion for testing lenses and than sold it - I was so lucky to find, now it is so hard to repeat. )
 

There is wonderful Angenieux 17.5-70mm f2.2 which is S16 lens - it covers GH4 without vigneting, so if you can tolerate some shadows and blur in the corner as artistic effects on 2x crop of GH5 etc, results could be majestic. (Older 17-68 and 12-120 are not S16, but 16 lenses).
If you work in more controlled condition, Zeiss 11-110 T2.2 is also S16 lens, but it is pretty big. Angenioux 17.5-70, contrary, is enough compact... (and probably only one lens I truly regret that I had too early in my passion for testing lenses and than sold it - I was so lucky to find, now it is so hard to repeat. )
 

I wish you successful resolving... But, one of the reason I dropped  usage of adapted vintage lenses is painful trying to achieve infinity focus, especially (almost impossible) with wide lenses.

I wish you successful resolving... But, one of the reason I dropped  usage of adapted vintage lenses is painful trying to achieve infinity focus, especially (almost impossible) with wide lenses.

Maybe to try first with some dumb adapter? Try also behavior in regarding to f value... I'd rather say that problem is with lens.

I'd suggest Leica R zooms - I found that their construction is second to none except modern Voigts. They don't protrude, focus and zoom rings are incredible smooth, again only comparable with Noktons. If lenses are in nice conditions (and their long life  period is unbeatable) they achieved quality that is the most important to me but I don't know how to better explain it: cleanness. Simply, image without predominant tone/shadow veil. Most of vintage lenses has it - and although it may be interesting in effect, it is near impossible to remove it completely in grading to get proper initial/neutral/clean grading point.
 

I'd suggest Leica R zooms - I found that their construction is second to none except modern Voigts. They don't protrude, focus and zoom rings are incredible smooth, again only comparable with Noktons. If lenses are in nice conditions (and their long life  period is unbeatable) they achieved quality that is the most important to me but I don't know how to better explain it: cleanness. Simply, image without predominant tone/shadow veil. Most of vintage lenses has it - and although it may be interesting in effect, it is near impossible to remove it completely in grading to get proper initial/neutral/clean grading point.
 

I'd suggest Leica R zooms - I found that their construction is second to none except modern Voigts. They don't protrude, focus and zoom rings are incredible smooth, again only comparable with Noktons. If lenses are in nice conditions (and their long life  period is unbeatable) they achieved quality that is the most important to me but I don't know how to better explain it: cleanness. Simply, image without predominant tone/shadow veil. Most of vintage lenses has it - and although it may be interesting in effect, it is near impossible to remove it completely in grading to get proper initial/neutral/clean grading point.
 

I'd suggest Leica R zooms - I found that their construction is second to none except modern Voigts. They don't protrude, focus and zoom rings are incredible smooth, again only comparable with Noktons. If lenses are in nice conditions (and their long life  period is unbeatable) they achieved quality that is the most important to me but I don't know how to better explain it: cleanness. Simply, image without predominant tone/shadow veil. Most of vintage lenses has it - and although it may be interesting in effect, it is near impossible to remove it completely in grading to get proper initial/neutral/clean grading point.
 

Thanks for kind words... I had 12 1.6, 25 0.95 and 50 0.95, now I have just 10mm.
Frankly, I don't remember what I exactly did in these shots - I uploaded them just after shooting session, being in hurry to fulfill promise to one member on forum, who asked about look of SLRM 10mm.. so I was playing a little without luts, because I enjoy in process of grading-to-match - although there are (but rarely) very capable luts to help  ... After that I'm still slowly collecting other shots for planed movie and didn't yet return to grade them .
If you have 12mm, answer is simple - 10mm is simply better in all aspects than 12mm, keeping the same character. You certainly can't go wrong with 25mm if you need/like that FL (because you can get it with 17/17.5mm via ETC on GH cameras), it is perfect match with 10/12mm. But I'd say that 50mm is a hero: the most underestimated or the least known/discussed gem of SLRM line - especially if you primarily search for bokeh of high end vintage-type charm. I sold it just for the sake of testing equivalent Voigtlanders.
With SLRM's there's no need, I think, for any soft-filtering to tame inner software sharpening of m43 sensor - it seems to me that m43 Hyperprime line is some sort of actual "flagship" in cleverly thought-out in construction to revive milky traits of Leica R rendering (or that wonderful/strange 25mm 2.8 Distagon), and they menage to achieve it with great success.  But I always found that Andrew Chan is so extremely shy or non-aggressive in advertising.
I had metabones speedboosters and many many lens combinations - but finally choosing m43 system I dropped them. One of the reason is result that I got accurately comparing SLRM lenses with speedboster/Zeiss/Leica combination.

Thanks for kind words... I had 12 1.6, 25 0.95 and 50 0.95, now I have just 10mm.
Frankly, I don't remember what I exactly did in these shots - I uploaded them just after shooting session, being in hurry to fulfill promise to one member on forum, who asked about look of SLRM 10mm.. so I was playing a little without luts, because I enjoy in process of grading-to-match - although there are (but rarely) very capable luts to help  ... After that I'm still slowly collecting other shots for planed movie and didn't yet return to grade them .
If you have 12mm, answer is simple - 10mm is simply better in all aspects than 12mm, keeping the same character. You certainly can't go wrong with 25mm if you need/like that FL (because you can get it with 17/17.5mm via ETC on GH cameras), it is perfect match with 10/12mm. But I'd say that 50mm is a hero: the most underestimated or the least known/discussed gem of SLRM line - especially if you primarily search for bokeh of high end vintage-type charm. I sold it just for the sake of testing equivalent Voigtlanders.
With SLRM's there's no need, I think, for any soft-filtering to tame inner software sharpening of m43 sensor - it seems to me that m43 Hyperprime line is some sort of actual "flagship" in cleverly thought-out in construction to revive milky traits of Leica R rendering (or that wonderful/strange 25mm 2.8 Distagon), and they menage to achieve it with great success.  But I always found that Andrew Chan is so extremely shy or non-aggressive in advertising.
I had metabones speedboosters and many many lens combinations - but finally choosing m43 system I dropped them. One of the reason is result that I got accurately comparing SLRM lenses with speedboster/Zeiss/Leica combination.

Imo nice casual/involuntary showcases of Voigts 10.5/42.5 smooth rendering
 
I remember this one also - more about longer distance shots.
 

Playing with grading to be more canonesque... GH5 and SLR Magic 10mm.

I can speak about this from actual experience. Lots of random thoughts that I will assemble into a travel blog at some point...
I've spent the last year and a half traveling around the world non-stop, visiting 55 countries on 6 continents (my wife and I scraped and saved, sold our house and everything we owned just to make this happen). I've used a mix of Fuji (aps-c) and Sony (FF). I went with a mix of wide angle, standard and tele zooms with a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 equiv and then went with one fast prime at 28mm, my favorite walk around FL. My tripod is just a small Siuri CF travel tripod that weighs about 1kg for long exposure stills and static video shots, it also makes a nice faux-steadicam counterweight when shooting video and walking around. I've shot 30k stills and tons of video, most handheld, so IBIS or stabilized lenses are an absolute necessity for me.
Personally I'd ditch the gimbal and the fluid head and get an IBIS body. Seriously, when you go to places like any museum or the Taj Mahal they won't even let you in with a tripod or a gimbal, so avoid carrying unnecessary gear and the hassles of checking stuff with a crush of people waiting behind you. You can cut your bag weight in half just by doing that alone. The A7r2 or GH5 can be had for less than $1500 USD. Move to an IBIS body and a couple zooms with a fast prime. If you're sticking m43, I'd go with a Olympus EM1.2 or GH5, the 12-100/4 or the 12-40/2.8 and a fast prime like the 17/1.8 (or the Panny equivalents for dual IS), plus a cheap backup body (crucial). Last thing you want is to be in Namibia and have the shutter in your camera seize without another option to shoot the one time in your life you get to see a sunrise over the amazing sand dunes. I saw that happen to one person, ouch. Also two bodies means fewer lens changes and less dust, this is a big deal across Asia, Africa, South America, Central America, China and so on - because they're all incredibly dusty and it gets everywhere - so I never change lenses in the field, I just carry two bodies.
For everyday stuff the zooms are fine, if you're visiting landmarks like the pyramids in Egypt, Borobodur in Indonesia, the Forum in Rome and so on, you're limited to daylight hours anyway, so absolute speed isn't necessary and shallow DOF is silly when you're standing in front of one of the world's great landmarks. Getting there first thing when they open is more important -- always try to beat the crowds. Travel photography is less about subject separation and more about composition and when/where to finding the best light or best locations to shoot from.
Make charging as easy as possible, the fewer things that need batteries, the fewer chargers/adapters you have to carry. I carry a universal plug adapter with 4 USB inputs. My wife and I can charge a phone, iPad, my computer and my cameras on one outlet. Many places we only have access to a single plug, so being able to charge everything from a hub makes life a lot easier.
I carry the 70-200 with the a7r2 specifically because I spent a few months in Africa with multiple safari's and trips self-driving through wildlife sanctuaries, so I wanted more reach. Beyond that I mostly used the 16-35 (10-24 with Fuji) and the 24-70 (18-55 in Fuji). If you're not shooting wildlife you can probably skip longer FL's. For lowlight with Sony I have the 28/2, with Fuji its the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2.
Here are photo albums from most of the counties I've been to so far, I'm a little behind (47 of 55 posted so far), but you get the idea. All of my gear, 2 bodies, 4 lenses, a MacBook,a GoPro, a portable HD, Rode Video Micro, batteries, chargers and so on fit in a Lowepro Flipside Trek 450 AW. Total bag weight was 8kg and the bag fit on every plane (including small regional jets), train, car, bus, Tuk-Tuk and so on. 
https://www.facebook.com/pg/trekofjoy/photos/?tab=albums
Cheers
Chris
P.S. Things like extra batteries, chargers, cards, plastic bags for bad weather, a blower for dust (its really dusty everywhere that isn't paved, which is most of the planet), lens cleaning cloth and so on are a given. Plan accordingly.
P.S.P.S. Traveling and shooting weddings/events are two different things. I wouldn't try to gear up for extended globe trotting with the same gear I use to shoot events (something I also do). With events your total kit weight is less of a concern since you're not lugging gear all day, every day - trying to check it on flights (weight + size), fit in cramped overhead bins on trains and so on. The dual camera strap is what I use at events, I'd never walk around in India (or anywhere else) with one because of the attention it would draw from police and gawkers. Plus its not secure at all, you'd be ripe for a slash and run.
YMMV.
One last thing - budget for insurance. A few hundred dollars will cover all your gear for a year. To risk losing everything is unwise, shit happens. Be protected.

Looking back I owe everyone a big thank-you for using the forum and taking an interest in the blog, it is amazing what it has turned into with so little effort on my part  I think this place must be the only website on the entire internet without adverts. Long may it continue like that.
Got a GX9 arriving tomorrow... about time I did a review of something cheap with the big shift to high-end stuff. Let me know what you'd like to see in the review of it.

Sorry for suggestion, but because I'd say that I have some long and fertile relationship with ideas - maybe it does not have to be strict short... maybe in form of Movie-portrayal-notebook, with every page with different environment and subconscious message. Maybe combining modern and traditional elements in composition.. It is just important that it have some overal and unifying idea behind... Call it, for example, West in the Eastern faces, Gates to the secret spirit or so. Contemplate through faces/eyes and ambience about crossing and intersection of past and today... When finished, propose it to Vietnam government as another view of touristic glimpse instead of postcards and aerial shots.
And search for inspiration in movies of Sergei Parajanov...
Sorry once again for being free to suggest.

Ok than If you look the initial provided comparison in A. Read's article, apart of nominal/objective perspective equivalence it is also noticeable (as one poster already noted) that aesthetic impression of depth of field is not the same. Plans in perspective looks closer or further, so in one case there's impression of stronger 3d quality, or a even deeper background in whole. That is result of inner construction qualities of lenses - and that's the one of the reason, between others, why some lenses cost more and being acclaim as more precious. That fact I used as argument in statement that it is note quite correct to compare very high-end and very precise thought-out m43 lens with their cheaper FF contrepairs based only on the mathematically same DoF.
For example, Voigt 17.5 here used in comparison, as also others in the Nokton m43 lines, are extremely precise constructed to be able to provide specific chosen (and of course subtle) distinctive effects. It is as secret receipt of chosen accentuation and inevitable compromised weaknesses - on which distance image is most detailed with smooth back-and-side rollofs or bokeh nuances; which distance-sharpness to sacrifice to achieve wanted strong effects at other favorable distance; on which aperture and why lens get highest sharpness and where (center and peripheral distribution of sharpness); how to play with color shifting and contrast across aperture range; how to render (faster) movements vs static shots etc.  We can appreciate it or not, being exalted or not depends of taste and personally search specific attributes - but it is without doubt that very sophisticated know-how experience and long tested elaboration, as also higher quality glasses, are involved in construction of these lenses - so, are they really pricey or not, it is very disputable. Having opportunities to compare them with actual results of much higher price cine-lenses (apart of more technical traits as level of focus breathing etc) - I'd say that nowadays these voigts are very moderate or even cheap in price.
By reports and tests it looks that the same is applicable to, say, Veydra line, for their chosen and accurately aimed/provided qualities - some relevant testers claim that they are even better than Zeiss Primes, but double or triple cheaper.

Not take anything away...
I'd like to see an HDMI signal output during "6K" internal recording.
1920x1080p, just for a focusing aide...
PLEASE!

Agree. I remember that I was sold for usability of solo and solo+gimbal possibilities of IBIS after watched two brilliant examples, and after remarkable author encouraged and favored combined usage of both in the second example: "In fact I tested the camera on the gimbal with IS turned off and on and I expected that having it ON would make it worse because they would fight each other....however I found that the camera IS being turned on whilst on the gimbal helped improve the overall feel of the shot and took out a few of the minor jitters." 
 

Peak of image detailness and specific traits of rendering quality on Voigt m43 lenses is around f2-2.5 - see Shane Hurblut reports. Double with factor 1.5-2, that's even more shallow dof than mostly preferred value in today's cinematography (assuming super 35 as standard). Contrary, similar peak for most FF lenses is most often at about f4 or even at f8 with older generation lenses.
Another question is actual quality of these Voigts lenses and corresponding values - these are lenses quite in league with Zeisses (of course, the same Cosina manufacturer) which are mostly priced higher.
So, I think that comparing Voigts with cheaper FF lenses just because of simple dof mathematic is not quite correct - besides, there are also cheaper m43 solutions such as Mitakon or even SLR Magic with more players just in the game - Laowa or so.
Importance of shallow dof vs easier affordability of deeper dof in real narrative experience is so often and endlessly discussed, also here in different threads. With little bit of shame for repeating it, I'd just again note that, imo and im-practice, extreme shallow dof is simply secondary effect - because totally destroying environment discernibility most often is not in the favor of story. Photography has different preferences.
About light gatherings - the must calculated condition is to compare just sensors at least of the same generation, preferably of the same manufacturer. Than it will be clear that f stops provide approximately identical effects in m43, APSC or FF when sensor light reactivity is the same for all. Factors of bigger surface (FF) and lesser need for lightening power (m43) are mostly in compensating relationship.