Leaderboard

  modern nikon is probably the most unexciting thing in the world.  When they get their focusing rotation round the right way I am sure people will get more interested.  

I'd like to see this paired with that excellent-looking NEX-5N cinema cage. I can't wait to acquire a speed booster for my NEX-7. Double my focal length collection, gain a stop across the board and attain FF DOF and FOV? 600$ is a steal.

http://vimeo.com/57901943   Buy the E-mount Metabones Speed Booster - $599 for Canon EOS lens adapter, $399 for others   The Metabones Speed Booster adapter brings the full frame look to Sony mirrorless APS-C and Super 35mm E-mount. (Indeed it will bring the Super 35mm look to Micro Four Thirds but not until March).   It also gives you an extra stop of light. F2.8 becomes F2.0 and F2.0 becomes F1.4. F1.2 becomes a lightning fast F0.90.   It would appear the full frame sensor is now rather pointless. Is there a catch, a trade off in image quality?

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2013a/nr130121mfourthirdse.jsp   This would suggest an active m43 mount is coming soon.

Now I have my Panasonic GH3, I'm looking for the ultimate versatile microphone. (and found out I had to take a university degree in sound recording - getting though all the information available on the web  :P )   Good I nearly got through all the info about sound recording. So now I know there are different kinds of microphones with different pick up patterns for different situations and don't really know what to pick. Because as it happens I will be on the road and have to go as light weight as possible. So I need one mic for in- and outdoor, ambient and interview sounds. The Pana has a 3,5 mm plug. Also it would be handy if the battery would be AAA or AA.    - Any suggestions? - Or any experience with the Senheiser MKE 400? - Is it very stupid to use a digital Recorder only, like such as the Tascam DL 100 or the zoom H4N  or even the zoom H1? I can lug those in directly and place them above the camera or lay them at my sound source and sinc later on. I'm still searching the exact pick patterns of these digital reorders but the zoom has adjustable mics of 90 degrees.   Thanxs for helping starting up!

Hi there good people of this forum...   I fullishly sold my beloved GH2 in hopes of buying the BMC camera. I got a work in the mean time to shoot webisodes and I need camera quickly, but don't want to spend too much money as I have very limited funds for that damn BMC whenever it comes.   I know that t3i and t4i are not amazing cameras any more, but they are dirt cheap at the moment and are good enough for the kind of work I m doing at the moment, and from the research I have done I believe that t3i is better only because MAgic Lantern is fully working on it. Am I right here?   I have been looking into Sony NEX 5r and NEX 7, but I have absolute no experience with these cameras, which one of the two is better and how do they compare with EOS t3i/t4i in image quality?   Please let me know your thoughts.   Thanks!

"In no way is the Metabones adapter giving us a poor man’s full frame image here."   Uh oh... just wait for it. :)  You know this is going to be the talk of every indoctrinated 5D fanboy on the planet. "Don't let those speed-booster shooters fool you... they're not shooting on REAL FF cameras!" Anyone want to take bets on when the "real full-frame look" cine-meme will show up? I say 2 months.

  the slr magic lenses for m4/3 actually have this type of speed booster within them.  they're just the same as a f1.4 full frame lens with a reducer (like the speed booster) in them  they dont cover full frame, and have too short flange focal distance so cannot be used with this type of adaptor anyway..

Roger Cicala does still photo resolution tests on the Speed Booster.  You can see how it improves resolution in the center, as well as the SB's intentional sweetening of bokeh wide open with a bit of uncorrected spherical aberration.   http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic   He's going to also try it out on a Canon 50/1.0 just to see what happens, even though the adapter is not designed to work with lenses faster than f/1.2.

According to Metabones, the maximum aperture of the lens being adapted, mostly due to space constraints, is f/1.2, resulting in approximately f/0.9.  Roger Cicala over at Lens Rentals is going to try a Canon 50/1.0 on it just to see what happens.     http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic   The Speed Booster white paper talks about the Kubrick NASA/Zeiss f/0.7 lens, BTW, which used a focal reducer as well.

i still use one, cos the chicks dig it :P    its one of those old analog sekonic ones from when i was shooting film,....   i still use it because i like to have a base reading off of which i can fiddle with, and when i find what i want to expose for, i dont have to faff about with the trial and error to get what i want, even though it doesnt cost anything on digital.   i find i work faster if i meter, then decide if i want to go up or down, then set and shoot, as opposed to shoot, nah a bit more , shoot, nah a bit more , shoot , ah ok.   i:m probably wrong and it's actually more time consuming, but i like not having to rely on the camera,..   this is probably me being old fashioned, but i once read someone say that photography is everything that happens before the shutter opens, and i'm inclined to agree.

  Out of curiosity, did they use your PL-to-M4/3 adapter and camera or did they test the LOMO+taking lens with their own equipment?

He was asking about whether or not the guide was worth it and voiced a specific concern that was giving him pause.  You should have stopped at "yes", IMO, the rest was off-point and kinda all over the place, not particularly helpful.   Aside from a handful of folks on this forum the audience is mostly folks with an expensive hobby.

I saw this tripod: http://www.adorama.com/SIBSRT2005.html: holds 26 pounds   And this one:http://www.adorama.com/SIBSRN2004.html: holds 33 pounds   ...and was curious if anyone had experience with them and thought they were any good?   They both seem to hold a good amount of weight and fold down fairly small and seem like the best of both worlds.   I'm trying to find a tripod that could hold a fluid head, possibly the Accratech leveler Andrew likes, and even a slider on top, and yet somehow be portable enough to put in a backpack.     Update: I ended up getting the Sirui N 2004. It can fold down to 18" for storage. One of the legs can actually become a monopod.. It weighs about 3.5lbs...and yet can hold 33 pounds. 6 year warranty.  It was $184 on Adorama. Not cheap for just legs, but to me it sounds like everything you would want for a travelling tripod.

I think I know what you're referring to.  That 2.66:1 example image from Blade Runner, when this isn't an aspect ratio appropriate for any presentation of the film, amiright?  I'm pretty sure Andrew just cropped a screen grab to illustrate this unusual, but still pleasing, aspect ratio that you get simply as a mechanical result of combining the 1.5x options out there with the fact of our current 16:9 taking limitation.     In fact the externally seen picture (external to the guide, seen elsewhere on the site) I'm referencing is taken from the section of the guide that does this, placed in between an example showing the mechanical result of combining a 2x lens with 16:9 (3.55:1) and one of the 1.33x lenses and 16:9, which only coincidently (and therefore lucky for us) produces the most common aspect ratio of ~2.35:1    Using the Blade Runner imagery to illustrate these examples, rather than something unfamiliar from someone's VIMEO test footage, was an author's choice to make the math more relatable.  At least that's what I took from it.     Regardless, I find myself referring back to both of his guides all the time.  In the case of the anamorphic guide it's worth it just for the research he's already done on virtually all of the types of lenses that pop up on ebay, each with their own personalities.  This guide could potentially save someone thousands of dollars.  However truthful the sellers might be this guide allows a potential buyer to skip the costly experimentation and potential disillusionment or disappointment.

M4/3, at least the GH2, is going to be bigger than S35.  It's going to be closer to the FOV you get with a 1DC shooting 4K, almost exactly like a RED Epic shooting 5K, which is between full-on, full-frame and S35.   More excited yet?

[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/?licb=0.9907206244158986]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/?licb=0.9907206244158986[/url] Anyone have a chance to see this yet?  It opens is select theaters in the USA today (23rd) and my husband and I can't wait to see it - the choreography looks incredible. [url=http://youtu.be/PkULMOFpuCo]http://youtu.be/PkULMOFpuCo[/url] [url=http://youtu.be/ffm5S_JWIKQ]http://youtu.be/ffm5S_JWIKQ[/url] We all know hacked GH2's have better picture quality than an AF100 - so if these guys can pull off a decent movie for a measly (considering) $1.1 mill - there really are no excuses these days.  Fun stuff !!!

thanks for the test Andrew.  A true comparison between real full frame and aps-c was what we all needed.  I am amazed at how much the images look alike.  If anything I thought the branches on the trees in the first shot were sharper on the nex7!  and nex7 was iso1600 vs iso 3200 for 5d!  WOW!     Assuming the shot of the olympus camera was at f2.8 on the 5d and f2.0 on the nex7, if you set the lens to f4 on the nex 7 it will be effectively as bright as the 5d set to f2.8.   so at the same brightness, with the cameras set at the same iso, shutter, but with the nex's lens set to f4 and the 5d's lens set to f2.8(assuming the lens had a manual aperture ring), the depth of field will be less shallow on the nex7?