Leaderboard

If you like crunchy chocolate-chip cookies, then yes, if you like 'em soft, then no :) Most lenses are sharp at the center. So like JCS says, more important if you're looking for sharpness at the edges. That's really where lenses get super expensive. Also, color control, different "color" beams diffract at different amounts to lens coatings, glass, etc., can make a big difference. Again, $$$s. Anyway, if your question is, should you shop for lenses based on sharpness I'd say no (unless you're doing architectural photography) A lot of professional photos are out of focus. However, they nail composition and lighting and post processing. I LOVE sharp eyes in a portrait, but I doubt most people care or notice that much. Exposure is probably more important. No matter how sharp your lens is, if you've blown out someone's cheeks, let's say, then the sharpness is lost. The dynamic range of sensors is never as wide as we'd like. In other words, sharpness can ONLY be judged if the exposure was nailed. So you might be better off investing your money in a spot-meter instead of sharp glass. Focus is also important (Duh ;) ). So the focus breathing of the lens is important. I just found some Topcor lenses from the 1960s and they have long breaths (or whatever you call it), so I like them better than the focus of some moderns Nikons. Blur, or bokeh, is determined by the diaphragm and optical construction. It's subjective, so you might like the blur better in a dull lens. If you buy Andrew's guides you'll see him talk a lot about old glass and their characteristics. He believes a lot of things go into the lens quality. Sometimes sharpness is of no importance. As everyone knows here, many of my favorite photographs were taken with a $30 old video camera lens. http://maxotics.com/?p=331 In short, when you see a photo that you think is really good because it's sharp, there is usually a lot of other things done right that make it so. Sharpness is just the most obvious aspect.

This was shot in 8bits on a canon c300 and has won awards,

Ok guys, I've just received the first response from anamorphic shop, their are quite busy finalizing their FM at the moment. They said that as promised they will give us the discount, they just need to work out how big it will be. They are going to contact me again this week and let me know more in detail. I will update you all, and of course I will not forget the requests that some of you asked. Cheers, in the meantime if anyone would like to join the discount list are more than welcome. Thanks!!!!

Hi. I just wanted to show of my latest short film STORM. I shot it on the Panasonic Lumix GH4 with Kowa/Bell and Howell Anamorphic Please let me know what you think. //eric

After much debate and tinkering with an attempted DIY solution, I've decided to add my name this this list.

I am far from a Canon fan, but really how come some people just resume a camera by it spec. When they go and market their job to their client, do they bring the spec sheet of their camera, or do their client care about the spec sheet. I see perhaps 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 10 videos of the A7s that is good. The rest the colours, more so with Slog is just ok to horrible. Just look at the amount of thread about how to .... try to get good colours out of the Sony's. For sure some can because they are good colourist but most are mediocre. Being a colourist is an art of its own. When you are more or less a one man band indie or freelance shooter, you have to be a shooter, an editor and now with Sony a good colourist. While Canon (I am a Nikon user) will provide you with a good image out of the box, just add a little contrast and saturation and you are good to go. No need to be an expert to at least get a good image to start with. For me since I got my D7100 (hopefully D750 in not too long), I thought that its the cameramen the limiting factor and no more the camera. If I cannot do beautiful image out of it, I won't with more expensive camera. The reasoning is simple if lesser camera like the gh2 have seen theatrical release, how can people devalue camera like the C100/C300 which are already much better. As shown here the C300 has been used in award winning Festival. One won the fucking biggest film festival in the world. So show us your masterpiece shot on your Sony A7s.

I think you can get about a hundred different suggestions, and they will all be covered by our preferences/shooting habits :) Anyway, for a thousand total budget, I would probably go for the lx100 + a couple of nd filters. I am partial to better low light performance, which you would get with this over the fz1000 (the chip is bigger plus the lens is faster), but it has limitations around profiles, lack of audio in etc. I know it was brought up that it has a limited focal range, but you can add a bit onto that if you shoot in 4K and output in 1080p, which allows you to crop in post (to in essence do a zoom). The good news is that there are many good options, and if some of you feel the bmpc is the best choice, or the gx7, that is great too! :)

This is definitely a 'put up or shut up' kind of thread. Challenges are non stop making a narrative. I just finished a rough cut of a short shot in the Imperial desert as well, and some things just end up half baked...excuse the pun. I haven't had enough nerve to post it here as I still want to fix a few things, but it's admirable for anyone that is willing to create something and release it into the wild. You gotta start somewhere.

If I had to guess, I think Andrew is always slating Canon because he loves his gear and the technology - and Canon have held back when everyone else hasn't. Because his site is named EOSHD and he owns lots of Canon lenses, he is frustrated with the company who were a great influence in starting this blog (I might be so wrong). The C100 MkII seems awesome for it's purpose. Anything more and you are looking at an FS7 (much more suited to my type of work). Cameras like the A7S and the GH4 are not 'alternatives' or 'better' than the C100 MkII because they have more impressive specs. The C100 MkII is a totally different tool for a people who need it's features and nothing more. I still make a living from my GH3. Nobody ever asks what camera I'm shooting on. They comment on the ideas. Just make stuff and use the most appropriate and helpful tools you can get your hands on. :D

Enough already with the slagging off on Roger Deakins. It's an embarrassing level of arrogance and ignorance. It's like saying as a painter you can't learn anything from Michaelangelo because he had all the Pope's resources at hand. If you think what makes him great are resources unattainable to you I suggest truly study how he does things. Composition, direction/shape of light, blocking are all tools he understands at a high level that are also available to the amateur. And he has the good grace to share much of his trade with you on his site for free. But regarding his choice for mirrored shutter, I completely understand as quite often, the level of detail he needs (he is shooting for 20-40 foot screens), just isn't present on an EVF. I shoot with Alexa's quite often and though it has the best EVF in the business, it's still doesn't render the detail you need to see for big screen shooting. Now consider Deakins operates as well, running back to monitor isn't always practical. That said, when it comes to a small camera like the A7s, I'm quite happy it's mirror less. It keeps the size way down. I also shoot a lot of stills with it, and the silent shutter has allowed me to get shots that I can't with the noise of a mirrored shutter. However, when I'm shooting more involved video work, I always use an onboard monitor because I find both its LCD and EVF insufficient for pulling / maintaining focus.

Can't say I am noticing any moire so far with mine.   Review soon.

I have been shooting and grading the GH4 for quite some time now, but I shot and edited a little piece earlier this summer that utilized the ML Raw possibility of the 5d mk3 and I think the robustness of the raw files is outstanding. A treat to grade anyway I want. I ended up with this grade from one of my favourite places where I live. I enjoy the Canon colors every time I see them. More is in the description.

I recorded so much footage back then that it was simply too much for a one film. Thats why I decided to make one more video. Enjoy :)

  You are talking about a huge REM fan here :) Buck's two latest albums, 2012 and 2014 are certainly worth a listen if you can find them. Vinyl release only!

  Pocket is a nice bargain for so little money but the A7S gives you far more. Far far more. In some ways $500 on the Pocket is $500 wasted by not getting something better. I had the Pocket on the same shoot as the A7S yesterday and hated every moment handling it. Dreary screen, poor ergonomics, too few features and no full frame look.