kye

On 10/26/2026 at 4:54 AM, Emanuel said:

https://petapixel.com/2026/09/22/vivo-x500-series-smartphones-take-photography-extremely-seriously/

 

Maybe the iPhone 19 or 20 will go LOGIC?

I'd consider upgrading if that was the case....    but with my 17 Pro I now have Prores and Apple Log, so the images now look like they're from a camera and not from a phone.

I've ordered the Beastgrip 1.55x MK2 lens, and I also found an adapter that I can mount my Neewer 1.55x onto, so that will mean I can test it properly on various lenses.

I have no idea which lenses these will work on, but combined with the 2x digital zoom of the GX85 or the continuous digital zoom of the GH7 any coverage issues should be able to be overcome.  
You'd think that cropping would make the FOV too narrow, but actually it's perfect because with a 1.55x stretch factor it makes lenses far wider, so cropping narrows them back up again, and cropping also lowers the resolution of the final image, but that's fine because we're interested in a flawed and character rendering, not clean soul-less images, so it's potentially an advantage.

Given that coverage might be an issue, this might really suit the GoPro ILS as well.

20 hours ago, J S H said:

The 1.55x has never looked this good on previous iPhone models. The adjustable aperture of the 18 Pro seems to make a huge difference in the overall detail and IQ. It also carries through on the video side and makes focusing much simpler.

The 1.55x was always pretty dreamy wide open and is even moreso on the 18 Pro, since it has a faster lens.
 

I have never tested it seriously on any of my other cameras, because it won’t cover full frame (whereas the 1.33x seems to if you find the right lens). But I suspect the 1.55x would actually work great on a M43 or APSC sensor. 

Here is another iPhone shot from this evening. There were a few raindrops on the lens, which created some interesting artifacts. 

Very clean results.

I'm actually looking for a much less clean result, but with more character.  In today's anamorphic world large clean sharp anamorphic lenses are becoming common, whereas large vintage anamorphics are mega-dollar collectors items or are being snapped up by rental houses and only available for hire.
Dirty and compromised smartphone adapters might be the 'hack' that gets characterful images back into our hands, but in a cheap and compact package (thus this thread...).

1 hour ago, J S H said:

Here are a few shots with the Beastgrip 1.55x lens on the 18 Pro Max. These are both at F4. The adjustable aperture makes a night and day difference with the 1.55x especially for open gate stills/video. 

Wow..  they're not optically perfect, but in the grand scheme of anamorphic adapters (and especially vintage anamorphic adapters) they're on the clean end of things for sure.

I'm now back to contemplating pulling the trigger on the 1.55x....

19 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

With the ILS, it's recommended to shoot at 1/200s or higher with a lens above 12mm (from what I hear). After, if you're bothered by the lack of blur, you can add it in post. At 12mm or wider, you can just follow the standard 180 degree shutter rule.

Regarding the GX800 and the ILS, they are different beasts, with the ILS producing far superior detail in RAW (from a 50MP) sensor as long as the SS is high enough and provided you actually nail focus. Lumix lenses are usually sharper too but usually not faster when it comes to lenses with OIS; the exception being the Leica and Lumix 42.5mm's. So, that higher shutter can be made up for with faster manual focus glass. There are other shortcomings with the GX800- not great 1080p, 4k for only 5 minutes (sometimes 2 and unpredictable), and disastrous audio. The colors are amazing in the GX800 though with way better customization for that. The G100D might be a more fair comparison to the ILS. It does offer a lot too (EVF, fllip out screen). However, the readout on the sensor makes it very limited IMO and the EIS-only is unusable in 4K... decent audio though. Still, that camera is far bigger and I think that's what the ILS is all about.

There are so many trade-offs here it's impossible to actually discuss all of them in any sensible way, that's why I suggest simply trying them yourself, as the proof is in the pudding.

The recommendation of 1/200s is 4 times shorter than 1/50, so the recommendation for 13mm and 11mm lenses are vastly different despite the focal lengths being quite similar.  I understand this is a generic recommendation, but that only works for generic people, and I have never met any of those before!

I'm assuming your statement about the ILS producing more detail in RAW is about still images?  That's a whole other thing than video and these tradeoffs all go completely different since the modern standard for getting sharp images seems to require a shutter of 1/5000 or faster, if I go by the fact that people are photographing action sports and seem to want sub-pixel sharpness instead of their images representing the fact that there is any motion involved at all in the scene.

Anyway, I'll leave you to your assessments, but I can tell you that if you shoot video on a potato and upload it to YT at 480p with a 180 shutter and compare that to video shot on the BM 17K URSA with a 45 shutter and uploaded at 8K, there will be people who prefer the 180 shutter just because the motion is so important to them.  This is perhaps a drastic example, but a more practical one would be why anyone at all still shoots on 16mm.  It is completely technically inferior in literally every regard, and yet, people still pay a huge amount of money for the pleasure.

Sigma FP ii...

So far it's not even up on Sigmas website, so no idea about codecs, but it does look like it does a 10-bit LOG internally, so at least one of the "gaps" in the OG seems to have been addressed.

It's probably not the camera for me, but definitely respect to Sigma for trying something with the FP and continuing support for the concept.

5 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

The tests I showed had blur with a shoulder mounted camera at 180º shutter angle. I tried a few shorter angles and determined that 90º was okay. Shorter shutter angles had too crisp motion. 

Interesting.  I'd imagine that a shoulder mounted rig would be quite stable in most circumstances, especially from the micro-jitters of smaller camera rigs.  

I've also found that shutter angle is a bit of a strange thing, where in some scenarios you want a larger angle and other scenarios it doesn't matter that much.  Often this was related to how large the motion was in frame and how visible it was (e.g. if it was a hard high-contrast edge or softer).

The output quality matters too - when I was testing my GF3, which does (IIRC) 1080p at 12Mbps (or similar) the shutter angle on many shots didn't really matter because the motion on a 180 shutter was comparable to the resolving power of the final image (it looks like quite compressed 720p footage) so for lots of stuff it didn't matter at all!  

12 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I'm sure IBIS will do better. However, when I look at the footage up to 50mm, it looks decent if you have the right SS. You have to remember I'm replacing a GX800 (2017 tech). The ILS isn't really in the same league in terms of capabilities (especially audio and slow motion). Both cameras are better when using a tripod of any kind. The GX800 didn't have any IS other than optical in the lens and the video (even 4k) was more susceptible to moiré and aliasing. The ILS is effectively lighter with way better IS than the GX800- that's why I'd get it. I do like the Flip-up screen on the GX800, something I wish the S9 would have.

Here are some thoughts from someone who actually purchased the camera like me: 

I guess it's a tradeoff:

• The more your hands shake during filming the blurrier each frame will be (motion blur) and the more stabilisation that happens after that the more that there will be motion blur in the footage without the associated camera shake and it will just look like random blurring (like the lens AF was pulsing, etc)
• The longer the shutter the more motion blur there will be in each frame
• The higher the resolution of the final result the more visible the intermittent blurring will be (ie, it will be more visible if you sharpen the footage on a 4K timeline and it will be less visible if you apply lots of image softening and grain)
• The higher your standards the more sensitive you will be to random blurring and to shorter shutter speeds

For some people they're super sensitive to shutter angle, so are very intolerant to that.  If they are also sensitive to blur and are going to sharpen the footage and publish in 4K then they will have to hold the camera a lot steadier to meet their requirements.  
For people that don't care about shutter angle then just have super-short shutters and you'll have great results.
For people that want longer shutters but are going to soften the image a lot in post, or will be using much softer lenses, then they can afford to have shakier shooting because the random blurring will be far less visible.
For people that don't care about the motion in the image then they can be happy despite the fact that other people would be very unhappy.

In this sense it's impossible to know how you'll find something by just listening to other people.  Tonnes of people think that some of the modern Sony and Zeiss lenses are "soft" and I think they're completely insane, but that's just different taste.  In this case you probably have no idea how shaky your hands are compared to the next person, and there are no metrics that we can use to compare.

From my experience of OIS and how I shoot, I'd get FAR FAR sharper images from the GX800 than the ILS, because the amount of camera shake I would have is easily enough to make the frames blurry but less than most OIS lenses can compensate for.  In this sense it's not about the camera specs, it's about OIS vs not.

9 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Does anyone have experience with Gyroflow? I'm not certain, but I think you might need to shoot with the intention of using it as SS needs to be upped a little.

It's stabilisation after the exposure is made, so it will be subject to the same blurring as in the video I posted above.

Depending on how much stabilisation is required and what your shutter angle is, it might be visible or might not.  I'd highly encourage you do some testing to work out if it will meet your quality requirements.  

Great looking images but the EIS isn't a substitute for IBIS or OIS - you can see in this footage the image gets blurry at random times...

I think this mostly kills this camera for me at least.  

If you're hand-holding then either you use short-shutters, or you use 180 shutter but need to stabilise BEFORE the exposure, rather than stabilising AFTER when the frames are already blurry.

8 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Please let this not be some letdown like a security camera or some other crap

You don't like security cameras?

No need to be insecure...

Apparently the Metabones SB accepts USB power in, it can be powered by the camera itself, and it can power a lens and has a wheel that can change the aperture of the lens..  and because it has power that means lens OIS will work too!

@newfoundmass this isn't a MFT solution but it does allow some electronic lenses to be used - not sure if you have a metabones and other lenses lying around perhaps?

It's great to hear that the people doing real work have taken the time to build a custom look for themselves.

Just another reminder than the muppets on social media aren't really representative of how real people use cameras.

On 10/15/2026 at 5:18 AM, Alt Shoo said:

@kye

 I’m really shooting it regular, I guess? I’m not doing anything fancy other than trying to remember which way on my focus pull is far or near. Which gets annoying because of the lens changes. Lately I’ve been shooting it court side at NBA games, just using my iPhone 17 Pro Max as a monitor and the Media Mod without any other attachments for the audio. 

The lenses are carried in a small camera bag separated with thick paper towels to limit the clanking and potential scratching and I have a manual blower to remove any debris. 

I shoot in GPLog most of the time and I prefer to shoot in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Even though the Mission Monitor app allows the user to apply LUTs for monitoring, I usually like to view it flat (for me it makes it easier to see the focus peaking) or with the standard profile color LUT.

My intent is to film and publish a super high quality film, run & gun style with this camera. Only using the bare minimum of equipment from lighting to sound. I know it can be done, especially with the examples you shared and what those directors used. I have a story. I just need the actors who are willing to participate in this project for food and travel expenses. I will split royalties once it’s up and available. 

Sounds like a capable setup!

I'd imagine you just setup the camera with the right codec and frame rate and exposure time, then you're just using the lens and filters to expose and focus?  That was how I was shooting with my BMMCC and it was great, not having to navigate camera menus or anything.

I bought a bulk lot of drink can holders (which are just fabric covered foam) and found they're great for putting lenses in to protect them from each other, so if you want to upgrade your paper towels that might be an option.  You could super-glue them together if you wanted to make something with a bit of shape, sort-of a very DIY custom camera-insert.

22 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

@kye

I actually put together a little lens kit for the ILS.  My Mission Kit consists of the Brightin Star 10mm fisheye, 7Artisans 10mm, TTArtisan 17mm, and the 7Artisans 25mm, 35mm and 50mm. Trying to keep everything small, lightweight and affordable without sacrificing too much in image quality. I don’t wanna hijack this thread, so I’ll post a video I made briefly going over the lenses  in the dedicated ILS thread.

Awesome!  

So often people just talk about gear but I find myself spending far more time thinking about the camera/lens/filters combo and how it interacts with the subjects and techniques I use when shooting.

I'm keen to hear how you use the kit when out and about shooting in uncontrolled and difficult situations.

17 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

@mercerits trendy to be a lemming 🙄. And that’s what a lot of personalities on YouTube are doing and once someone enters with non NPC thoughts and actions, you’re berated. That’s what stopped me from posting things on YouTube and social media in general, but I’m getting older and I have worthwhile years in the industry. I sure as heck can voice my thoughts and opinions and shouldn’t give a rats a$$ about what people say. 

If watching camera YT has taught me anything, it's that there's no such thing as bad attention.  In fact, if you can stir up some haters, then your videos will get more "engagement" and you'll do better in the algorithm.  The two 'personalities' on YT who keep starting arguments with each other are all the better off for the controversy.

So I say...  post away!

Anyone who brings some experience and/or some nuance to the table will definitely be ahead of the pack, especially for camera-related content.

19 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

This is exactly why smartphones and smaller cameras like the GoPro Mission 1 Pro ILS are so appealing to me. You can move quickly, stay discreet, and still capture great images. I put together a great nimble kit for this project and I’m actually planning something similar with the ILS in NYC, grabbing shots in some premium locations to give the production a much bigger feel without a big crew or footprint. And I’m definitely grabbing some long and discreet shots. 

What lenses are you using for the ILS, what rigging / supports are you using, and how are you finding them to shoot on the street?

On 10/7/2026 at 8:14 PM, Dthgrnds said:

Old post, but I guess it's worth keeping it alive. I got myself a BMMCC for cheap, but I've never really managed to work with its color science. I come from a Canon background and is used to material I get from the EOS M running Magic Lantern. 

Any suggestions on what I should try with the BMMCC?

BMMCC still has the magic in it, so definitely worth getting to know it and how to get the best of it.

I always shoot Prores on it, rather than RAW, but my node tree was:

1) CST from BM Film Gen 1 to Davinci Intermediate
2) Grade in Log space
3) CST from Davinci Intermediate to rec709-A

The default colour science is quite film-like and has a pretty heavy "look" already in it, but it's worth experimenting with different processes to see what you like.

As I'd imagine you're shooting RAW, you'll also be using the RAW panel which I can't give advice on, except try different things and see what you like.  There are "correct" colour spaces etc, but in colour, if it looks good then it is good, so just try stuff and see what you can find.

Maybe @mercer can give some advice on making the BM really sing?

Definitely agree..  especially considering that if you really want to push the image around, you can convert it to LOG and make changes and then convert it back again.

4 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

A current experimental build for the EOS-M that I am working on. My goal is to turn the M into the only camera that offers crop modes in all of the major motion picture film formats.

Very cool!

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

It seems sharp enough for me, easily resolving a 4k image. Remember, I'm only using the sweet spot of that lens. Others have notice vignetting, and corner softness- not the case when using just a fraction of the image circle. However, I notice back-lit subject will have a strong chromatic aberration (purple) at f/1.4, but it goes away at f/2.8. It flares a little too- a bonus for me. The usability is absolutely great though.

Great to hear it's working for you.  I've long suggested that the cheap Chinese lenses are a lot like the high-end vintage lenses from the SLR film camera days - both had simpler optical designs and simpler coatings.  The only challenge is how good the lens is wide open, but if it's enough for your application then you're all good!

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

Thanks. Yes, I really don't have too much time to fuss around with the files- make it look good to my eye and then off to the next one. I just do a few exposure adjustments.

Same for me.

I have saved power grades for each camera that convert from camera colour space to Davincis log space, and a few Timeline power grades that apply a few variations of film emulations.  I just pull all the footage into a timeline, apply the power grades, and then adjust exposure on any clips that need it (I use ETTR so this is normal for me) and mostly I'm good.  The wider DR of the GH7 and iPhone 17 Pro means that the images are less crunched and therefore respond nicely to a film emulation contrast curve and so need a lot less fussing than the GH5 ones did.

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I got a whole new set of ND filters. The reason being that I haven't had much luck by using VND's on small/pixel dense sensors. Bad things happened when I put my VND on my old camcorder. In the end, I'm going for 55mm and using step-up rings to get there. Why 55mm? Most of my Konica glass uses that with only a few exceptions. Anyway, I got the K&F Nano-x ND4, 8, 64, and 1000 set. They should do the job and still manage decent quality from a 50MP sensor.

I standardised on 58mm filters as that's the largest size that fits most of my lenses.  Actually about two thirds of my lenses have that size natively and for the ones I use a lot that don't have that I bought dedicated step-up rings and just have them permanently attached.  
I have a K&F Concept True Color Variable ND2-32 (1-5 Stops) as my main vND and recently bought a NiSi IR ND8 (3-Stop) fixed ND to stack on it if the 5 stops of the K&F aren't enough (5 stops is enough for full-sun at F5.6 but wider apertures than that will require more).  I wanted to just buy a nice 5-9 stop one but I have a Tiffen? 4-stop filter and when I paired that with the 1-5 stop I got all kinds of IR pollution on the iPhone, so I knew that anything more than 5 stops needed IR filtration too, and I couldn't find anything that had it.
I had to buy an 82mm one for the front of my Sirui anamorphic adapter, but got a cheaper Neewer 1-5 stop which seems to work ok, although that one I only shot at night and colour fidelity is less important for that stuff.
I also bought a few lower-quality 1-9 stop vNDs in specific sizes for when I wanted to keep the lenses as small as possible, so I got a 46mm one for the 14mm F2.5 pancake lens which lives on my GX85, and a 40.5mm one for the 17mm F1.4, which I had thought might be a good low-light lens for the tiny GX85 Super-16 setup but I haven't shot anything with that combo yet.

Funny how people end up with similar solutions!

34 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I was only able to muster a few shots today. I'm actually not sure what I'm more impressed with: colors and look with log and FilmConvert Nitrate + Hazy; or, my MacBook Air's (M5) ability to cut through the footage and watch in realtime. Initially, I wasn't that impressed with the Natural or Vivid profiles, but the Log looks great to me with FilmConvert. I need to try more.

The ILS did very well with handheld shots at 17mm, given it's only electronic stab. I will have more lenses next week to try out. Unfortunately, I didn't have a ND of any type to test on this lens (who make a 40.5mm thread anyway? That's stupid). Anyway, next week, I'll have more stuff, including the media mod their new microphone kit. I know it sounds like I'm going all-in with GoPro, but I definitely think they're on to something. I'm quite impressed with the ecosystem too. No need to go through the anxiety in choosing between 5 different cameras either. You want wide- get the mission 1 pro or a Loawa lens.

Nice images.  Once you get files beyond a certain quality then the film emulation can do the rest.

How are you finding the 17mm F1.4?  Sharp enough wide open for you?

In terms of filter threads, you can get filter-thread-adapters in that size.  I bought a tiny vND for mine, which was really cheap because of the small amount of glass required!

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

10 mins max? I only ever test these things in real world scenarios so no stop watches etc...

30+ Celsius. Usually direct sunlight which must add what, another 10 degrees? Why da fuck did they insist in making these things black?!

This makes sense to me.

I figure there are two scenarios they design cameras for:
1) Recording outside in bursts, in aircon for longer takes, size and spec over thermal management, customers get big image in tiny size
2) Rock solid professional performance from integrated fan, customers pay for the reliability

Unfortunately the third scenario is missing from the market:
3) Decent but not cutting-edge image (4K max) in very small size

25 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I get that could be an issue, but for my use, being able to use modern lenses would've been advantageous. Putting a GoPro style camera into tight spots with some of the small M43 lenses would've been really, really nice for my work, especially with the slow mo capabilities. I'm not trying to use vintage lenses for sports, or soften the image, ya know, but I'd love to be able to put a tiny camera behind the backboard of a basketball hoop or attach it to the ring post of a professional wrestling ring and get footage that doesn't have that action camera look.

I guess without it having electronics in the lens mount there's no using an AF lens even in manual mode, because focus and aperture both need power.
I can't think of any way to get power to the lens either, without it coming from the camera.  There used to be that trick of connecting a lens to a camera with lens controls and setting the aperture, then putting it on a camera without them and using the mechanical MF controls, but I guess that's not really possible either.

With the right lenses I think you could get the shots you want, but it would mean buying new fully-manual glass, which obviously isn't ideal.

It takes me back to the "what is a tiny camera with good image quality" question that has been asked over and over again because it doesn't have a good answer.  Hmmmm.

There's a counter-culture online of (young) people shooting with early digicams etc, and the way they talk about it is that they're going for an alternative aesthetic to the clean modern digital look that's now in every smartphone and has become the 'default' look.

Personally, I've been pushing how small a video camera can be, and it has brought me to the same place - deliberately choosing very poor video quality.  

I've been using the Kodak Charmera for travel, which is the size of a construction-workers thumb, because it's so small no-one really takes it seriously when shooting in public, and also because it doesn't attract thieves etc (unlike a large ILC or new smartphone).  But I'm also resurrecting my old Lumix point-n-shoot for roughly the same reasons.

I've started to think of the Charmera as a sort-of modern Super-8 camera - a much smaller and lower quality camera for amateurs.  If you apply some film emulation then it can take away some(!) of the digital nasties but I'm guessing some people will prefer the unmodified low-quality digital look.  In a sense it's a 'worst of both worlds' situation as it clips like digital but also has the low resolution of film while simultaneously looking sharp and harsh - applying the film emulation rectifies some of these issues to create a hybrid with some limitations of both looks.

Here are some stills, both ungraded and also graded with a modified version of my Super16 film emulation, and some sample footage to get a sense of the motion (it's truly terrible).  However, the more I use this camera and look at the footage the more it grows on me.  I can't say I like it, but as I get used to the look it strikes me more as a look rather than deficiency.

Here's a warts-n-all montage of some shots I took.  I was mostly walking around while rolling, but at 45mm FOV with no stabilisation it's pretty jittery anyway considering it weighs about 30g / 1oz so has almost no weight to prevent micro-jitters.  If this was a real edit I'd smooth over a lot of the rough edges like sound pops and clicks etc, but this is a realistic look at how it performs.  The issues do lend it a certain charm (like in the name!) I think, and it's the imperfections that give something character, so logically this must have a lot of it!

I'm still constantly thinking about how to get better results from it, but being so small it's hard to modify the setup at all without drastically diluting its biggest advantage - the size.

Anyone else experimenting in the very shallow end of image quality?