Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by canonlyme

  1. I think the anamorphic is only squeezin to 1.33 / 2.35 anamorphic, right or wrong?
  2. thanks guys, I actually had the same issue with sharpening and it takes me so long to sharpen every clip with unsharp mask in post, next time I will film with more in camera sharpening!
  3. Hey guys, I am going to shoot in a cave and have borrowed a gh5. Normally I have noise redution cranked down all the way, but I don't do post processing including neat video and am not looking to buy it. In camera noise reduction seems to be always mentioned in the same breath as "neat video", but I haven't really found anyone comparing combinations of in camera noise reduction to using post processing and other forms than neat video, as well as comparing a camera with and without noise reduction. Consequently, I am wondering if I should shoot the cave with noise reduction cra
  4. Thought this might be interesting for you guys: I was at the Berllin Museum for photography this week and had the chance to see "Helmut Newtons private property" that gathered all his belongings shortly before he died in a car crash. (one of the most famous photographers of all time). At one point we could see the lenses he owned. Apart from some full format camera stuff he must have often shot with small handy cameras like the eos100d, pentax and nikon. Sadly the museum staff didn't put all the lenses the way that you could see focal lenghts and apertures (like nobody would be int
  5. I really like your shots, but I don't see any growth in dynamic range, at least I see a lot of shots were the mids are underexposed with proper exposure of the sky or the sourroundings overexposed with proper mids... Not like any mft or apsc can do better, but I would expect a bigger reward for using raw.
  6. Alright then, I'll think of you guys next time I bring my spare dumb adapter :). However when travelling run-and-gun I think I can't afford to bring my b-cam and will take the risk...
  7. Would not really count that for an argument. I don't see why a manual speedbooster should fail. By that argument, every run and gun-filmmaker would from no on bring 2 cameras, two microphones and two adapters. If it makes you feel more safe while shooting however, that would be another story.
  8. Sure, it's just that if you know you are going for a speedbooster anyway, you can save the 7 bucks for a dumb one, or at least buy one that doesn't hurt the lens threat. But you are right I guess with something like the sigma 18-35, some people here have the opinion a dumb adapter on m43 gives it an even better zoom range. I'm looking into that at the moment too since I have the 18-35, gx80 and no adapter yet. Hey man, I think it is funny you take that as a downside, because lightweight could actually be nice for you. Have you thought about just swapping your zhiyun crane v1 wit
  9. @Dustin I would advise you to directly go for a lens turbo speedbooster, if you want to save the cost for a dumb adapter. Glad you found sth. you like
  10. Agree with IronFilms points, but the gh4's 60p is much better than the g85 60 p. Unless you are investing in a recorder, the g85 25mbit 60p fhd won't be good enough for you if you want slow motion with high enough IQ for grading. (you will end up with something like 10mbit/s) vs the 4k 100mbit. Long story short, if you just need the crisp 24/30p 4k, the g85 will be fine, if you want to record sound externally the gx85 will even be a catch, but it also depends on your lenses. Sony 6300 is only 1,5 crop, whereas with the g85' 2 times crop you should add: 1. 120 euro for a lens turbo
  11. @kidzrevil Thank you, I also used a low contrast 1 filter, (3 is not needed because vintage does the rest). I read that you enjoy tiffens too ;).
  12. Here are my first screengrabs shooting on event with gx80+ vintage minolta set up. Lenses I used were 24mm 2.8 Tokina RMC and the 50mm 1.4 Minolta with lens turbo. Happy to say that they blended in quite well with each other, only for some shots I still remember which was which. The picture of the glasses was shot with the minolta, the other two were shot with the tokina which I got for 24 bucks ?
  13. Can anyone one recommend a good "dumb" adapter for the sigma? Would be interested too Maybe it can be smart too...
  14. Has anyone mentioned the tamron 17-50 2.8? That one could be nice and good for your budget. I think 2.8 is enough to shoot indoor events that are not well lit. Even though the lx100 is cheap, I don't see why you would consider that one over a used gx80 or not just keep your gh4 with a stabilized lense, for example 17-55 stabilized kit lense to begin with? I think you will be able to still sell the gx80 in two years from now by the way, and while you might have reasons to do that, you don't wanna loose the lenses you have, rather your camera. With both the gx80 and lx100 you r
  15. I'm sry but I don't think you are right. The idea of the equation ignores how the lens is built in order to make equivalence of the final picture more simply understandable. A ff 50mm 2.8 lens simply adapted to m43 will still act like the same 50mm 2.8. By logic, putting a 50mm 2.8 m43 lens on a ff camera, the lens will still act like a 50mm 2.8ff, only that you will get black borders (a narrower field of view). Saying that a 50mm m43 lens really is a 100mm ff lens instead, just so that you understand the equation better, is wrong. The aperture describes the ratio of aperture (entranc
  16. Well here is a trick question to you guys, because I think not everything that has been stated here from the beginning is true. When talking about final aperture on a lense, you have to include the fact of which format the lens was originally made for. Does a full frame lense of 35mm 2.8 change its aperture when you adapt it with a simple adapter (no speedbooster) to m43? No it doesn't, it will still act like a like 35mm 2.8 lens. And there is proof for that! If you adapt manual lenses the IBIS of the Panasonic m43 lenses only works smoothly when you set it to 35mm. Applying
  17. Took the lenses for a walk... and I must say so far I am not really happy with the 24-35, at least not wide open. Maybe it is lacking sharpness? The 35-70macro delivers much better in my opinion. Here I have some footage: 1. 24-35 Picture 2. 35-70 Macro Function Here are some AVCHD Full HD Framegrabs: 1. 24-35 2. 35-70 macro 3. 50mm 1.4 .4
  18. @@mercer The lens turbo as well as all lenses arrived. No problems of interference with 24-35, 35-70 macro and md 50mm 1.4.
  19. @mercer. I got the 24-35! Yes I have installed the hack, however I am not sure if I will really use it. I used something similar on the sony6000 and didn't get all the color back. To be honest I don't trust a small codec to capture all the informations when they are compressed. Still it is a nice hack! But natural seems pretty nice too. My picture was shot with the sigma 17-35 1.8 and an old canon 500d.
  20. @mercer you mean 35 1.8 over the zoom? I like the zoom because 24mm speedboosted is the least wide that I am okay with and also the 24mm is much more expensive than the 24-35 zoom. I'll give my feedback about which lenses fit with the zhongyi speedbooster once it is there
  21. @mercer Thanks for your answer. I'm going to downsample too. Well I chose this name when I first learned english as for can only me, which doesn't translate to anything :D ... and I have shot canon. This one I shot with the Sigma 17-35 that I still own.+ my 500D I gave to a friend. And sure, canon colors are really nice. But for video I would have just had to already pay too much for a heavy camera with bad codecs. But once I'd be able to afford one that shoots raw or a nice codec and gives me some versatility (maybe with the canons of the future), I'd think about it again. You shoot raw,
  22. How did you manage this amount of grain with such speed? Colors would be nice too. Looks nice for doing zooms like in the graduate, haha Mhm... I actually like it and would go for the same amount. The scenery is kind of wes anderson style (moonrise kindom) so in that case there would be room for even more. :D Looks quite cinematic. Colors are very important for me (and filmmaking) and because of those colors I am happy to go for the same look (not for sony)! It's like: Why should I paint on a bigger picture, If my colors are not as nice? Also the highlights are at a very good spot, it
  23. Up for sale right now? Can you show me where?
  24. Yes, they are photographs I will do 4k screengrabs once I get the speedbooster. I have got the MD50mm 1.4 version. So about your guesses: 1. Picture one and two are the cheap 5 Euro minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6 3. Is 5 Euro Soligor which I am going to sell. 4. Is manual minolta 70-210 f.4 (is it the beercan, even if it is manual?) 5. Is minolta 135 2.8 which should deliver similar/slightly better results two 4, but the picture is a bit unfair. Apart from sharpness, which is better with the heavier lenses, the 70-210 f.4.5 still allows to blow out of focus easily. So I guess it
  25. Not quite correct, but pretty good guessing ! Will explain if nobody else is giving his guess anymore. By the way, I am already quite happy with the way the minolta 35mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 render colors. I just did a quick edit. First pic is 50mm second pic 35mm. The 35mm made the already nice scenery 20 mins ago when the sun was going down even more beautiful. Incredible sharpness too.
  • Create New...