Ninpo33

This right here… Don’t waste your time trying to have a normal debate. Instead of admitting you were right about exposing more lens character at the edges with MF sensors he moves the goal posts and still says you’re wrong because “not ALL FF lenses look good on MF” You obviously never said that or claimed that but it’s a tactic people use to find ways to “correct you” after making a valid point. eatstoomuchjam won’t ever admit the might not know something and always needs to maintain the belief that he’s right. Either self esteem issues or simple EGO. It’s the same tired argument with the “MF Look” or something being “Cinematic”. Terms many of us understand and use but these idiots want to argue on an internet forum about how these aren’t a thing. Yet they’re on a full frame camera talking about how “technically” you could achieve the same look with Super 16. I’ve given up with most of the characters here, big waste of time.

Funny I’m not seeing any of your posts about the wonders of the GH7 but lots here on the Eterna. Funny that you would waste your time here when you could be getting the same EXACT look out of M43 and save a lot of money. After seeing your further posts below and remembering our previous exchanges I’m going to decline your invitation for further discourse. Your ego and style of cherry picking various “truths” makes it an exercise in futility.

Yes I agree. I’m ok with this strange little ZR as a sort of 1st gen beta to roll out the new cross pollination. Smart to make it $2,000 because it’s still very capable but it will allow them to test out all the features on content creators, and then hopefully roll it into pros later.

Just curious, if there is no such thing as a medium format look, then why do a lot of the great celebrated filmmakers choose to shoot on it when going for big tentpole films? The Joker, Dune, Revenant, Dark Knight, etc… Why go through all the trouble of extra weight, crew, expense if there’s nothing to gain over Super 35? Surely they believe there is a benefit. Why do you own a GFX 100ii?

“Useless” is a bit of a strong word LOL. Most real documentaries have an actual sound recordist on set so I see no idea why this wouldn’t make a great B-Cam to a big brother C400 or whatever. If it’s the R5ii sensor in there that’s a pretty sweet look and a very capable camera.

Yes, 100% Tokina made and these lenses predate the Kino and Komine partnerships. Vivitar lenses have a serial number system that will tell you which original manufacturer made the lens normally but these older 60’s preset versions predate that serial number system. I’ve researched them quite a bit over the years however and found information confirming Tokina. My 35mm is doing great and solid, maybe you got one that was not very well taken care of?

They are also really, really cheap. I think I paid $35 for the 135mm and $45 for the 35mm. The 85mm 1.8 is a rare one that is fast for a 60’s era lens and i use it to match with other similar era lens sets that never got a fast 85mm. Got that one for $150 so it was a score. There’s even a super rare 135mm f/1.5 “Vivitar Professional” In the set but pretty soft and overpriced, ($2,500) these days. The 135mm f/3.5 is super tiny. (pic 2)

Not as easy to find, but the Vivitar Preset lenses made by tokina in the 60’s are pretty sweet. Single coated and have circular aperture blades with smooth movement which work out well for filmmaking. As I mentioned before, stoped down to f/3.5 is fine to keep round bokeh on these but you still have f/2.8 as needed. Soft and dreamlike with great out of focus areas. Bodies are small and light and quite well built. Threaded T mount so easily adaptable to M42 or other modern mounts. I have the 28mm 2.5 (pyramid) 35mm 2.8 85mm 1.8 (rare) 135mm 3.5 and 2.8 200mm 3.5

Yeah, i did ok without it on the shoot but was worried the whole time. There’s no off the shelf solution but I took a chance on the smallrig clamp designed for Sony Cameras and got that one the other day. Worked out and it fits perfectly. Blocks the USB-C but i use a dummy battery anyway.

Did you even really read my post? I gave several suggestions and the OP never clarified or said his requirements were set in stone. Soft vs clinical, deep focus and circular bokeh right? There are a few ways to achieve that look. Most vintage lenses are soft compared to modern lenses. Does OP want REALLY soft? Why? Very easy to take a vintage soft lens and add a desired look in post for anything extreme. My vintage Yashicas and old Vivitars all have many bladed apertures and produce round apertures at f/2.8 so I get some low light benefits as I need it while still being vintage soft. But I can live at f/3.5 or f/4 as desired. So no, I wasn’t just waiting to talk, I was offering a perspective and fostering a discussion.

Had a fun time trying out my X-M5 micro cinema rig on a low budget, 3 day music video shoot last week. No overheating or issues of any kind shooting 6.2k prores raw in open gate mode to an Ninja V+. Insane what this little guy can do for an $800 purchase (body).

There are so many options out there with those requirements. Any of the major brands had some real gems depending on the era. Anything 2.8 will really clean up at 3.5 and still be vintage soft vs modern and clinical. 2.8 copies will allow you to not get jammed up in low light situations when you might need it but you can live in deep focus the rest of the time. I have the whole Contax Zeiss set and they’re a perfect blend of vintage and not too sharp. great color. Can be found cheap now. Also highly recommend the Yashica M42 stuff and Konica AR for cheap underrated options.

You first asshole.

One has nothing to do with the other. For all the things you are complaining about, someone else in Africa having a worse time could say YOU are also grossly exaggerating things. everything is subjective.