Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by canonlyme

  1. 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 cranked all the way down, or if I should rather trust the in camera processing of noise if I will not target the noise in post anyway!

    I am going to keep the iso below 400 at all points. Looking forward to your answers and views, maybe even different ideas of handling noise apart from neat video in premiere or davinci light.


  2. 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 interested in that ? ), but I think I could make out he used the same range of lenses for all of his cameras. 
    This is what I think I could see: 35mm (don't know the aperture), 50mm 1.4 85mm 1.4  as well as 135mm 3.5, all nikkor f`s. 

  3. On 7/5/2018 at 4:42 PM, baksteen said:

    I get the feeling that fewer and fewer people are using ML. For me the flexibility of the raw files is the main reason to use ML, this paired with the 'fullframe look' makes it such a versatile cam that looks different than most with their 'video' look. 

    My guess is that most people can't be bothered with the workflow but any RAW format will require a lot of time, thats what you choose for when you shoot RAW. Using ML on paid shoots is something I'm entirely comfortable with. 

    To keep it going, some projects of mine:







    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. 

  4. 12 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

    Bringing two cameras at all times with you (even if you leave the back up in the car) is indeed a very solid plan!
    And I'm not just referring to a mechanical (or electronical) failures of a focal reducer, but also optical "failures" as well, what if you get a weird flare you can't be rid of, then it is handy to be able to swap out the focal reducer to a simple dumb adapter. 

    Wow, just wow, LensRental really does love to "cover their ass"!

    Tonnes and tonnes of pros uses a Speed Booster on paid shoots. 

    No wonder LensRental went overboard in their excessively cautious statement saying "the URSA Mini is not suitable for professional work". (which did a lot of damage to its reputation at the time)

    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... 

  5. On 6/24/2018 at 3:58 AM, IronFilm said:

    It is not just that a dumb adapter gives you more focal length options, but also it is important to always have back ups for when something fails, and this is a very cheap way to keep your ass covered. (it doesn't even have to be an outright failure that might encourage you not to use the focal reducer, maybe the glass in it is creating flaring you don't want)

    Same here, I like buying secondhand stuff from Adorama / B&H as they have a generous rating system I can trust. 


    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. 

  6. 7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    A dumb adapter costs next to nothing and is sometimes very useful to own as well so i highly recommend buying one as well. 

    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.

    6 hours ago, Axel said:

    I'm going to sell the Sigma 19mm. Sharpness and overall look is top notch, really on par with Sigma 18-35 Art (at least @f5.6), and that means a lot! But it has two and a half shortcomings:


    2½. Too short and lightweight to balance properly on Zhiyun Crane V1 without additional base plate.

    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 with the zhiyun crane m, primarily intended for smartphones??
    I read some people were using that one for gh5's and even sony's as it is much cheaper than the normal variant (i guess v2) and it can work fine until 800g or sth. like that. Just an idea and sth. I am looking into at the moment too.


  7. 6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    Unless you are going to use the GH4 with an external recorder (but why? Would be cheaper to skip the external recorder and buy a GH5) then I'd go for the G85 (wellllll.. the GH4's 96fps is another reason, but you get a heavy hit in quality when going from 60fps to 96fps)

    Can't you by hand enter in the focal length into the Sony camera? Like you can with Panasonics

    A problem with cheaper cameras is often they don't get as much talent applied to them (as the top notch guys buy more expensive cameras), thus very often in demos of cheap cameras you don't see their full capabilities displayed. 


    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 speedbooster with manual lenses,
    2   200 euro/dollars for an electronic viltrox 2 that supports some lenses or
    3.  600 for the metabones speedbooster, still loosing the sonys autofocus. 

    On the other hand you have the sony colors which in my opinion are not nice enough out of camera and you don't want to grade color too much with an 8 bit codec. 

    Also you should think about if all of these cameras deliver a picture that looks actually too sharp and digital, as a6300/6500 and g85 will deliver you crisp image, but it with modern lenses it will easily look "digital". Look into tiffen contrast filters for example. 

    If you are a run and gun type of shooter, buying the gh4 you would have to heaviliy consider buying a gimbal or you will loose time in post stabilizing every clip with warp stabilizer. 

    And finally, if you start turning in circles because every camera is missing one thing that the others don't (which I think is not a coincidence for panasonic with 2*crop, sony with overheating and color,  canon with nice skin colors but heavy prices), I would advise you to not loose too much time. 

    Fix your final budget (like 1400dollars), and write down the exact combinations you can get with different cameras including lenses and rigging. 

  8. 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 ? 




  9. 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 run into codec and therefore color restrictions, apart from IBIS your gh4 still is a far better camera in that context and has a mic jack too. Instead of getting IBIS and downgrade everything else you could even consider getting a small rig. 

    Do you want to shoot b-roll slow motion or 24fps? If 24fps, you can get the gx80 with 4k 100mbs, if not, the 60p 25mbit/s 1080p will not hold up well to any grading or even nice luts you already use.  

    Apart from that I think the mentioned nikkor zoom lense should give you everything you want, if you shoot manual like me. 
    For B-Roll, I would consider getting a rather close lens. 40-50mm with a simple adapter should serve you fine. 

    Last but not least,  two alternative ideas:
    Is the problem for you changing lenses, or changing all your filters (tiffen contrast, nd filters..) as well? 

    Get some kickstarter lens flippers you can wear on your belt, will save lot's of time and you can use the lenses you alredy have! 
    They have them from https://www.friidesigns.com/ or some simple ones for just two lenses: https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Gowing-Lens-Holder-Canon/dp/B00KYP0LK0. I met someone on event who changed his lenses lightning fast. Remember two lenses will always give you better quality than one with the same range. 

    If you have problems changing filters, I use XUME Magnets for like 80dollars total who are a life saver too and always impress people who don't know them.

    My final advice would be: Always consider if you can get what you want cheaper too, instead buying a new big thingi. Go simple and future proof, and invest in lenses, not cameras. :) The lenses you already have are quite nice and so Is your gh4! 

    What I use: Sharp vintage Lenses for the best look I can get. 
    Once I get a client that want's a sharper/clinical look, I will use my 18-35 1.8 that I kept, paired with a simple 50-70mm range, like you. 



  10. 4 hours ago, no_connection said:

    It kinda does not matter what format or sensor size since that is not part of the equation.

    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 (entrance pupil) diameter to focal length of your lense. The focal length is physically built into your lense and you can't simply call your 50mm m43 lense a 100mm ff lense, just to make sense of the equation. 

    Following the equation there are 3 ways to get equivalence in depth of field. 
    A. Take a 50mm 2.8 full frame lense and simply adapt it to m43 and it will still be a 50mm 2.8 lens, but the final image is not completely equivalent because of different/cropped field of view.
    B. Take a 50m 2.8 ff lense and use a 0,5* speedbooster (which I think does not exist) and put that onto the 2 times cropped m43 sensor and it will stay truly equivalent hence act like a m43 25mm 1.4 lense. 
    C Take a 25mm 1.4 m43 lense and put it onto your cropped sensor to get the same equivalence to 50mm 2.8. . 

    What I am still wondering is why people (as in my suggested video) are sure that a speedbooster will not change the equivalent aperture of the final picture. However I am sure that they do! A speedboosted 0,7* 50mm 2.8 ff lense must be equivalent to a 35mm 2,0 m43 lens, for example. 

    Correct me if I am wrong. I'm not really interested in knowing all technical foundations of how lenses are built, since I rather like to focus on using them :)

  11. 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 the crop factor is not as simple as stated in this article and by most of people. Watch this video as proof. 


  12. 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 FunctionP1100136.thumb.jpg.598bdf80e2e0f4331323062b1a93fb32.jpgP1100146.thumb.jpg.b0e0c06b4df8c6978b71980b69c7a33b.jpg

    Here are some AVCHD Full HD Framegrabs: 
    1. 24-35
    2. 35-70 macro
    3. 50mm 1.4


  13. @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. 

  14. @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

  15. @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, right? Also if it turns out that my gx80 will not allow me too shoot events nicely with my minolta tele lenses I'll probably get a cheap canon-DSLR for 200 bucks with a nice sensor to use with my Sigma + I own a 50mm sigma macro.  

    About sharpness and a suiting lens. I am be able to get hold of a 24-35 for 70 Euros until tomorrow.  Should I do it? I would than sell my 35mm for the same price, and while travelling be able to use the 24-35mm with zhongyi speedbooster for a 17-24mm panasonic-wise (does the zhongyi one work with it by your knowledge or might it hit the glass?), switch to a 35-70 3.5macro with a plain adapter (because it hits the glass) and also bring my 50mm 1.4 for bad lighting conditions. On the very end I would decide between the heavy 70-200 f4 and the lightweight 70-200 that wasn't that bad in comparison. 

    Picture shot in norway


  16. On 9.3.2018 at 1:00 PM, Matt Kieley said:

    Since I twice unsuccessfully tried to sell this Schneider Optivaron 6-66mm 1.8 on ebay, I decided to try it on the bmpcc, for shits'n'gigs.  I punched in about 200% on the footage and it's not as bad as I thought it would be. I'm curious as to how this will perform with the right c-mount doubler. I saw one test using the Computar doubler with this lens/camera and it looked like hot garbage, but maybe that's the doubler's fault. @cantsin any insights/advice on this?

    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

    On 8.3.2018 at 11:55 PM, mercer said:

    Here’s another video shot on the GX85 primarily with the MD 28mm f2... and a few shots with a Cosmicar 25mm f1.9 c-mount...

    Looking back at it, it’s way too saturated in most of the shots, but again, it should give you an idea of that lens on the GX85.

    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 seems like you caught a lot of dynamic range... Did you use/ can you recommend a filter?

    The moonrise kingdom idea also just reminded me of something else, which is sharpness that is used very subtle in that movie. I feel like many lenses are judged by their sharpness, even in minoltas line-up, and therefore the 28mm's don't get far too good ratings. But if you remember that digital cameras tend to give us too much ratings, in your video you can see the sharpness is more than enough (and nobody is looking at the corners). For product videography and model shootings it could be different, but that's not where I am headed. 

  17. 4 hours ago, mercer said:

    And finally yes, the 24-35mm is awesome. That’s one of the lenses I have up for sale that I regret selling before it’s even sold.

    Up for sale right now? Can you show me where? :)

  18. 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 is fair two say that for run and gun it won't the picture quality won't make a huge difference. I was going to sell the cheap minolta but than realized that it only weighs like 200gram, so one third of the other two minolta lenses. Because of that, I am thinking I should maybe keep it for the next travel film, because for run and gun it might be handy if I get sick of heavy lenses.
    I still might keep the 135 2.8 because its speed is handy for paid gis like indoor events. The f4 70-210 allows for great zoom flexibility while travelling with the same quality though. 
    Last but not least I am looking for the best wide lense. It would be really nice to have that option of a range of 20mm without hurting my tight budget too much. I have the 35mm and a 28mm with a bit of fungus so far. You can recommend the 24-35mm right? The prime 24mm might be to dear. 

    At the end of my shopping rally I have to look in the mirror and say: It's not about the gear :D 

  19. 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...