bjohn

MFT still offers some benefits to video shooters, especially greater depth of field, generally lower cost, smaller, lighter weight, etc. There's a good discussion about it in this thread: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=116781

That was what I was referring to; what I read (can't remember where) was that the LF has only been used in one major motion picture, although it's been making inroads in television. Maybe my source was incorrect.

That's because these are cinema cameras. Traditionally, cinema cameras do not have AF, are used under controlled lighting situations, and don't have IBIS. Cinematographers generally prefer full manual control and dislike IBIS (more organic approaches such as steadicam are preferred). This also sort of explains why they haven't released a full-frame camera, since full-frame is not a cinema format; I read recently that only one major motion picture in history has been shot in full frame. Full frame is making inroads in television, but slower to catch on in cinema. In general, the cinema world is slower to evolve; it's a different world from video. Of course, MFT is not a cinema format either but in the case of the BMPCC 4K I think Blackmagic saw value in increasing the sensor size from the Super 16 format of the previous Pocket while retaining the popular MFT mount.

I used a Kingston Canvas Select Plus card and it did indeed record up to 30fps raw but the card died completely after about a year. SD cards should last 10-25 years based on their specs so this was a disappointment. I bought two Angelbird cards and so far those have been performing well. No dropped frames yet!

That's not how it works, though. The green, yellow, and red colors in the waveforms in FCPX are showing audio playback levels. If you raise the clip's volume too high you'll see the peaks start to turn red in the waveform. It's not going to show you clipping on imported tracks: in imported audio you can spot any clipping simply by looking at the waveform itself: if the peaks look like they are shaved flat, they're clipped. There's nothing you can do to fix that (Izotope RX has a "declip" tool that attempts to reconstruct clipped peaks based on its best guess, but that's an option of last resort). FCPX's colored waveforms are really just another way of metering: instead of seeing a red indicator in the meter, you see the peaks start to turn red as you push up the playback volume. The only real difference between looking at these color-coded waveforms and looking at a meter is that the waveforms show you where the clipping is occurring. I suppose that's helpful: for example you can quickly spot the problematic peaks this way and then use automation to drop them down a bit so you have more headroom to raise the overall level.

Minolta made the first version of this lens (Minolta Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5) and according to the cinematograrpher Uli Plank, it's parfocal. The Minolta version is much more affordable than the Leica version; you would need a Minolta SR to MFT adapter or a speedbooster but the combination would likely still be cheaper than the Leica version. There's a good review (from a stills photographer) here: https://fourbillionyears.org/minolta-md-35-70mm-f-3-5-an-outstanding-lens/. Uli Plank talks about it here: https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92246-Minolta-Rokkor-Survival-Guide/page2

Apparently Hans Hijmering (the creator of the Rawlite OLPF) made some tweaks to his design of the Rawlite OLPF for original BMPCC and BMMCC last year and the new version doesn't soften the image as much as the old one did. I have Rawlite OLPFs in my two BMMCCs but not in my original Pocket and I'm tempted to get one now...although i'm also hesitant to invest more money in my old BMPCC; I've noticed some frame drops lately using media that always recorded reliably in the past and can't tell whether it's the camera's fault or the SD cards.

Worth pointing out that f8 or at most f11 is as high as you should go, otherwise you start running into diffraction softening on that small sensor. I lost a lot of footage when I was first starting out with the original BMPCC because I shot it at f16 and didn't realize the image would be affected so badly by diffraction; I've seen it at f11 as well but not as badly. ND filters are essential to ensure you don't have to stop down too much. There's a good tutorial on diffraction and sensor size at https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

The sensor on the Micro Studio 4k is not very good, especially compared with that on the Micro Cinema Camera.

This person has some of the nicest S1 (and also the best Sigma fp) footage I've seen anywhere; nicely shot and graded: https://vimeo.com/yasunariarai.

Are you able to get usable handheld shots with the top handle alone, or do you generally use a tripod?

Cool! And I'm assuming Panasonic cameras have a focal-length selection menu somewhere that I can assign to a button? For IBIS to work properly it needs to know the focal length of the lens you're using (at least this is true with Sony), and since I'm using old adapted lenses I have to tell the camera myself by selecting the focal length from the menu. Having that assigned to a button makes this potentially tedious task take a few seconds.

This brings up my question: I only use manual adapted lenses, so AF performance is not a concern for me. But I've got my Sony A7iii (which I only use for stills) set up for manual shooting with the custom buttons mapped to the tools I need at hand for shooting with these lenses: one button brings up the focal length menu, another brings up focus magnification, another toggles focus peaking on and off. Would it be possible to set up the S5 with dedicated buttons like this? I don't have time to go menu-diving when I'm shooting photos. The A7iii is great for stills but its video quality is so compromised compared with what I'm used to working with that it's effectively not a hybrid camera for me. I'm considering the S5 as a hybrid camera for travel when I don't have room to bring more than one camera.

There's an excellent guide to these lenses from cinematographer Uli Plank here: https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92246-Minolta-Rokkor-Survival-Guide The 85mm Rokkor Varisoft is kind a precursor to some of the Lensbaby lenses in fact! Also some useful reviews from Philip Reeve (from a stills-photographer perspective) here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/lenses/minolta-mcmd/

I think you'd like them. I shot this with the 55/1.7 Rokkor, wide open, with a Hollywood Black Magic diffusion filter to add even more glow to the highlights: Inuit carving by Brad Hurley, on Flickr And this was with the same lens, also wide open, at minimum focal distance: Backyard Art: Chardon et bourdon by Brad Hurley, on Flickr The 28mm is a little soft and has a very painterly quality to it: Hydro station and clouds by Brad Hurley, on Flickr I haven't used them for video yet as my cinema cameras are all Super 16-size sensors (Blackmagic Micro Cinemas and original Pockets) so they all become telephoto lenses. There aren't really any good speedbooster options that I'm aware of.

That's the one I was looking at...I'm just not convinced it would give me anything I couldn't get from the Minolta Rokkor 85/1.7 which has similar qualities: low-contrast and dreamy wide open, very sharp stopped down. Most of the Rokkors are like that, and have amazing bokeh and painterly colors, but they have poor flare resistance. The other Lensbaby I would consider using is the "Sweet" and also the Omni filters; the filters in particular could be useful. The Edge really doesn't seem much different from blur effects you can achieve in post, and the post-effects are adjustable in height, width, falloff/softness, etc; of course if you use the Edge you don't have to bother with keyframing. But I think that lens is probably going to be more appealing to stills photographers.

It really depends on which of the many Lensbaby effects you're talking about. I agree that duplicating the "Sweet" lens line look in post would be difficult (or at least a lot of work and not as convincing). But the "Edge" look is not so hard to duplicate in post; Resolve and probably most of the other NLEs have tools that allow you to selectively blur as much or as little of the image as you like, leaving other parts untouched and sharp.

The swirly bokeh only appears in certain situations and more reliably on full-frame sensors than smaller ones. I've gotten it with APS-C cameras but never on my Super-16-size cameras (it's a remarkably sharp lens on those cameras with gorgeous color rendering). Even on my full-frame camera the conditions have to be right for it to appear (typically you want it to be wide open with a nearby subject in close focus and a busy out-of-focus background). As for Lensbaby, I think you can achieve some of that stuff in post (especially the lenses with selective blur), but I like the look of the velvet line and might get one of those. You can achieve some of that same "velvet" look with older lenses like the Minolta Rokkor 85mm 1.7, which has the same character: low-contrast and flattering for portraits wide open, super-sharp stopped down. I had one for a while (it had a bad case of fungus so I only used it a short time) and took some amazing portraits with it, a look unlike any modern lens.

Spending more time with the 28mm, I'm thinking this would be one I'd choose for cinematography. It's not super-sharp, which is a good thing, and everything I shoot with it ends up looking like a painting. Barrage et Inukshuk by Brad Hurley, on Flickr Clouds over Montréal-Nord by Brad Hurley, on Flickr Daybreak by Brad Hurley, on Flickr

I really like the look of the Pro primes as well, but without a manual aperture dial they're pretty much useless for me. I remember reading somewhere (maybe from John Brawley, who remains an Olympus Ambassador) that there are no plans to stop production of Olympus lenses and the new lenses in the pipeline will still be developed. We'll see.

See https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110368 I always use separate batteries for monitor and camera. I know plenty of people use the same battery to power both, but it can be risky.

Agreed 1,000 percent. The so-called cinematic look is 99% about lighting; the camera and lenses make a difference but it's minor in comparison. This video in particular drives the point home:

I'll mainly use lights for documentary interviews and small (i.e. duo or trio) music videos. I decided to go with a reflector system; I debated between the three leading systems (CRLS, Dedo Lightstream, and K-flect, and went with Dedo since there's a distributor in my country. I got a small kit of reflectors in different diffusion levels and one small dedolight with the parallel beam attachment (which increases its output by about 8 times). It's pretty amazing. Only one light to plug in but I can get three- or four-point lighting by bouncing the beam around with the reflectors, no need for diffusion (the different reflectors have different reflectance angles ranging from mirror-like to very diffuse), and the reflectors effectively increase the distance from the light source so you get more natural falloff and take advantage of the inverse square law. My entire interview lighting kit, minus the C stands of course, can fit in one carry-on Pelican case. It's a great system. I could have/should have saved money by getting a cheaper light; that and the parallel beam reflector were by far the most expensive items. The reflectors themselves aren't very expensive.

I agree; I had the RX100 iii which was not a particular good edition of the RX100 series. The reviews I've read say the mark iv is better.

Because I've seen some footage from this lens that I like, but mainly because it's so versatile in terms of its low-light capabilities and useful zoom range. I'm not at all against sharpness and I'm not interested in emulating film; if I could afford it I'd probably be shooting with Zeiss Otus primes, which are very sharp but still have plenty of character. I think it takes time to get to know a lens and understand how to get the best out of it; I've only had the Sigma for a year.