kye

Nice! .........and drive it to the store to buy all the Meike lenses!

Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 vs Veydra 50mm T2.2...... The Veydra has excellent performance: However, the right comparison to that is the Voigtlander at T2.2, which is part-way between these two curves: So, what we have is: The Veydra is the clear winner in the edges but the closer you go to the centre the lower its lead gets The Voigtlander can open up two extra stops (with declining performance of course) should you want/need that Assuming the Meike performs the same as the Veydra, it's significantly cheaper, but the Veydras are roughly similar Now, the question is .....does resolution matter? My observations about the Xeen seem to suggest that it doesn't. The Xeen is terrible wide open, but stops down fine: Of course, the Voigtlander at T1.4 kills the Xeen at T1.5 everywhere except the last little bit at the edge of the frame (remember that the Xeen is plotted across a wider scale), and the Xeen looked fine in the test above when stopped down. I don't have an equivalent MTF of the Voigt at T4 so can't compare, but here's one that shows that it keeps improving from T2.8 to T4: In fact it's gone past 'Excellent' and way off the scale! lol. There are other factors to consider as well, of course. Like colour rendering - No idea about the 42.5mm Voigt but my 17.5mm goes quite magenta when opening up the last two stops. Yes, these all lock me into MFT, although FF is just a fad, so I'm not concerned! I am intrigued to hear why it doesn't though - unless it involves using a TC to expand the image circle back to cover FF ??? What are "bi-nature rendering characteristics"??? There's nothing wrong with filming brick walls in preparation for shooting a film that will feature brick walls that for some reason must have them without any distortion, but in preparing for any other type of film, they're of almost no use whatsoever. Of course, for many of those shooting footage of brick walls, they get confused when you get to the part about "preparing to shoot" as typically the only thing they do shoot are lens tests. The Veydras on ebay I saw weren't that well priced, assuming that Duclos have stock (https://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/veydra-primes) and if the Meike really are the same as Veydras then they're really overpriced! I started with the tech as it was the first question in my mind, but I'm already digesting this and working out where to go next. The images in that review were just great! I do wonder about the curvature though, and wether or not it would just simulated in post with a blur or softening filter around the edges of the frame, plus some vignetting.

So, let's summarise. Lenses (*that I found the data for) tend to lose resolution away from the centre and have varying degrees of field curvature. They get better when you stop down, and even the best lenses wide-open aren't as good as cheap-as-chips lenses stopped down by even a single stop. (* although I couldn't find MTF charts for the Zeiss Master Anamorphic I found comments that the measurements are very impressive and they're sharp from edge-to-edge) Some of the classic lenses measure poorly (eg, Xeen and Zeiss SuperSpeeds) but visually they are not radically different to the best lenses. I'm not going to say that resolution doesn't matter, but what I am going to say is this.. I think the absolute levels of resolution probably don't matter much, but the overall character of it may, for example how the lens goes from centre-to-edge and what kind of issues (like astigmatism) it has along the way. Besides, even if it did matter, there are options around that do a very passable job. Many of the MFT ~40mm lenses were amongst the cine lenses in performance and characteristics, and the Veydras (when on MFT) out-resolve the CP.3s (on any sensor) and slaughter the CP.2s.

Let's look at what's on the table for ~40mm then. This article compares a number of ~40mm MFT lenses: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/ The Voigtlander performed very well, and despite being the worst performer wide-open (which is essentially an un-fair test), was comparable when stopped down to 1.4 which was wide-open for the rest of the pack, it was close to the top of the pack at F2.8, and drew for first place in how flat the field curvature was. I think this bears out the idea that this lens is around the performance of the other high-performance lenses at any given aperture, but can simply open up further than the other lenses. From the commentary in the article I think this isn't something that can be assumed however, so isn't a general rule. This article looks at the Konica Hexanon: https://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1902 The MTF50 shows that there is an absolutely huge difference when you stop down a couple of stops. This bears out in my experience.

This is the Zeiss CP2 wide-open at T2.1: This is the Xeen wide-open at T1.5: This is the Zeiss CP2 at T4: This is the Xeen at T4: To my eye, both look soft wide open and both look great at T4. Here's their MTF charts: The Xeen is quite obviously far worse than the CP.2 when wide open, yet the test shots appear similar to me. Or, at least, the difference in focal distance between them could account for the entire difference. Relating this back to myself, I find focus to be a hit-and-miss affair so there's not much point nit-picking at something I will almost never completely nail. Stopped down they both improve vastly, both in the charts as well as in the images. In theory the CP.2 has way worse performance due to much greater field curvature, but there's nothing in frame in the test shots, so who knows. I think the Xeen was the worst performing lens wide-open that I saw in the above articles, so not being able to see it in the test images is interesting. To illustrate a point, here's the $40,000 Zeiss Master Anamorphic wide open at T1.9: Not so high resolution either, although I couldn't find an MTF for this lens, the resolution of the others (at least in the centre where we actually have something in focus) is better at T4 than this lens is at T1.9, so this is simply a fact of life. What it does mean, however, is that wide-open resolution isn't the focus, it's resolution at apertures that you will shoot. Just for fun, here's a modified and re-branded Helios 58mm F2 at T4: It obviously has less contrast (the mod removed all the coatings to deliberately make it flare - which it does spectacularly) but the resolution is also there.

Let's look at resolution. Here's a bunch of resolution tests of the Zeiss CP.2, Zeiss CP.2 SuperSpeeds, Zeiss CP.3, and Zeiss Supreme Prime series. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-mtf-charts-zeiss-cine-lenses/ If you don't know how to read and MTF chart then go read some thorough tutorials and come back - warning: hanging with the brick-wall-photographers that think MTF charts are the scoreboard of their egos will rot your brain, consider yourself warned. My notes from the above article on the Zeiss lenses are that: With the exception of a few lenses (which are mostly wide or long) their centre resolution is typically between ~0.93 and ~0.5 when wide open Edge resolution typically drops off quite significantly and also may go through complex curves on the way (likely due to field curvature, but that wasn't covered in the article) The CP.3 series is typically much better than the CP.2 series, and the Super Speeds, which are a classic, are worse, although they're also at a wider aperture, which is a nice segue to..... This article looks at what happens when you stop down, and includes some other cine lenses too (Canon CN-E, Sigma Cine, Rokinon Xeen) https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-stop-downed-mtf-curves/ From this we learn that: Lenses sharpen up when stopped down... I mean, who knew! Edge resolution is still pretty poor and the Sigma looked completely rubbish (once again, it looks like field curvature) Lots of astigmatisms happening off-axis This article talks about best-MTF curves: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-best-individual-focus-mtf-curves/ This points out that these lenses are capable of very good performance across most of their image circle, so the issues in previous articles are to do with field curvature. So, let's talk about field curvature and taking the average best performance: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-finding-the-best-average-focus-point/ That basically says that if you focus so that the most of the subject is in the best focus then it'll be better than making the centre point completely in focus and not caring about the rest of the image. For a change of pace, let's look at the Fujinon MK 18-55 T2.9 lens: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/first-impressions-of-the-new-fujinon-mk-18-55mm-t2-9-cine-lens/ It's only a first impression and the MTF charts only show it wide open, but it looks like the other cine lenses with edge performance dropping off. This article shows that the Veydra Cine Mini Prime lenses are very good lenses with great resolution and very little field curvature, and they absolutely kill the CP.2 for resolution. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/veydra-cine-mini-prime-mtf-optical-bench-tests/ Here's one showing the Rokinon / Samyang stills and cine lenses: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-rokinon-samyang-lenses/ ....and finally here's an article about testing cine lenses, why they didn't do it in the past and why they started. It's interesting because it speaks to the concerns of cinematographers vs photographers but also brings in the topic of resolution and how when you've got a bunch of lenses that all looked sharp before and you increase the resolution some of them will still look sharp and others won't. Fun stuff. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/why-were-going-to-start-testing-cinema-lenses-and-why-we-havent-before/ Something that's worth pointing out is that not all lenses do get significantly worse towards the edges of the frame. While rare, lenses like the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 and f1.9 lenses are almost flat between their centre and their edge: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-nikon-prime-lenses/ After all this talk of resolution, I haven't yet talked about if this actually matters. I'll get there, I promise.

This thread is mostly for me, but I figured that I'd post it instead of just making my own notes as it might be of casual interest to someone. Read at your own peril - this will likely fall down every rabbit-hole available. Still with me? Ok, to catch up to where I am, watch and study these videos.... If you're not lusting after the $40,000 Zeiss Master Anamorphic after watching the first one then go watch them all again before proceeding. I've just sold my car (wasn't using it) so more money for lenses! I use a GH5 and own the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 which I really like, and I've settled on having a super-wide ~8mm and probably ~40mm lengths. The Voigt is pretty rubbish wide-open, but when compared to F2 lenses the Voigt is already stopped-down two stops when they're wide open, so if you're stopping it down a bit then there's real advantages, plus if I ever need the extra exposure (I shoot in available light so that happens sometimes) or want to have the shallow DoF (which also happens) then I can do that. I own the SLR Magic 8mm F4 which is an ok lens, isn't that great optically but isn't terrible either, but it's a drone lens so the ergonomics are completely rubbish. I also own both the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and Helios 58mm F2 plus an m42 SB. I am not a fan of the swirly bokeh of the Helios (although using it on MFT gets rid of the majority of it on the edges of the frame), and I used the 40mm wide-open on a recent trip and it did not perform well, to put it mildly. Soft as hell as well as all sorts of nasty aberrations. The Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 would be stopped down two stops when rendering the same image, so that's something to consider. I've previously identified that I wanted the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens and was happy with the Konica, but after the Konica had its minor meltdown I'm now wondering if I should replace it with the Voigtlander, or what I should do. Speaking with some pros on other forums about lenses, and especially the guys that know what they're doing in post, the advice was to capture the highest resolution image you can and degrade it in post, or use something like a Black Pro Mist filter. Before I spend any real money on some lenses I figured doing some real research and working out what I really want might be in order, thus this line of thinking and this thread. Next step is to study cine lenses and see what they are actually doing, even just as a reference point.

Looks good @BTM_Pix.... (the stabilisation, not the inclement weather!) I'd also suggest that if it makes that much difference then you can probably get more performance by adjusting it further. I did a series of stabilisation rig tests by having a path that I would walk through the house, so I'd make a change, do a circuit, make another change, do another circuit, etc. Then sit down and review the footage. Every clip began facing a mirror so it was obvious what setup was being tested in that clip.

Ah, well, if we're comparing RAW to compressed anything then it's a different ballgame! In terms of that highlight recovery - I'm not convinced. More likely the camera was shooting the first thing but the ISO settings that the camera recorded in metadata would have blown the image all to hell, then the NLE gets the file, applies the ISO blowing the highlights well and truly, then you adjust them down and voila - the signal that was recorded. This protects against camera operator error, but not if you actually blow out the image. Try shooting in full sun wide open without an ND at base ISO then try and "recover" the file... 12-bit won't save that!!

I tested it in real life, filming my own test footage, including pushing and pulling heavily in-post as well as doing only light grading, but the differences really weren't that much. I'm curious to hear what that difference is actually useful for, not just a subjective impression. Oh, and did you test the Canon 12-bit against Canon 10-bit? Otherwise we're introducing other factors into the question.

I'm curious how much extra you feel that 12-bit gives you over 10-bit? I definitely agree that 10-bit is a decent jump up from 8-bit, but when I was playing with ML I did a bunch of tests comparing 10, 12 and 14-bit RAW and didn't really see any useful differences above 10-bit. I'm not saying there was none, but I can't really think of when those differences would really matter.

Wasn't it meant to somehow integrate with their cinema cameras? Or be able to take their accessories? I recall it had some kind of accessory port and the implication was that you could take the RED accessories and rig up the phone, either so that the phone was attached to a camera or that the phone was the camera but with extra bits attached. So much of the promise was that it wasn't really a phone, but would actually be modular in some way? What was the port actually for?

I saw in a recent YT video by Mark Bone he mentions that he's using his monitor as a light source for the video. What CRI is a monitor likely to have if it's been calibrated and is of reasonable quality? Does the fact that it can produce the entire sRGB spectrum (or even a wider gamut) mean that the panel in it has a high CRI? I'm curious because I do camera tests every now and then and would like a powerful and high CRI light source, and if I already own a really large one then that would be very very handy!!

I'd be interested in reading about it. Partly because with all the hype, cryptic teaser media releases, and my general lack of interest, I still don't actually know what it is or what it does, apart from underwhelm people!

Same reason that they're not all screaming at Canon for lack of un-cropped 4K... Every brand has weaknesses, to expect otherwise is naive. I love it when Canon moves slightly, all the people that believe in pixies, santa, the perfect camera, unicorns, the company not driven by profit, and other mythical creatures all appear and emote all over the internet!!

Nice! Get a GH5, some half-decent lenses, and a smoke machine and you're half-way there already

Personally, I thought The Breakup with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston was so true to life that it was terrifying, but I somehow get the impression that's not what you're asking for.......

With only a week left to enter, how are we all doing? Who has films on the way? I have two lenses I haven't shot with yet, although one has an infinity focus problem that I haven't resolved, and no opportunities to shoot in sight... ???

I'm curious about why it has to be FF? I like the FF look, but with great lenses that is possible on APSC or MFT, and when you factor in the price of this camera, the best lenses money can buy aren't actually that much money.

Let the hype begin. ....meanwhile I'll be over here with my GH5, which even with a full set of Voigtlander f0.95 primes would still be cheaper ???

Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a college-age girl living alone on an industrial farm I would definitely keep a baseball bat next to my front door! You never know what the yokels will do when they get all liquored up!!

Yes, that holds up very well.. even with very subtle tones on her face there's no visible banding or artefacts (even on your upload).

Great tips - I binge lots of film-making and travel film-making on YT but these aren't tips I've heard before, so this is really cool. I like the idea of "intermediate" tips, most channels don't get past using a ND. Makes me wonder what you would consider an advanced tip!

Looks like something happened....