Leaderboard

I've finally received my lens today! The package arrived in not so good condition. A lot of scratches and tears but the contents inside was packed carefully. The lens and rod support work good. I feel the rod support could work better if it does not rotate easily because the screws aren't so secured. The Iscorama itself has some stiff focus movements around 1.6m - 3m not sure why he didn't fix that. Also he somehow made some scratches on the Iscorama label on the front part of the lens but that's okay. Even though it is a nice modification, if I would have a chance to choose again I wouldn't send my Iscorama to get modded!

Here are the two pieces I made today with the Sony FS7. This camera is going to be a giant hit. Everything about it is amazing. Charlie Chicken: Small Moments (180 FPS):

Yup. Art is created from limitations, not endless possibilities. Film is a medium used to speak a language, not a replicator of reality. Film and photography are the most confusing art form though, because unlike writing, painting, music, etc, cameras produce an 'indexical' image (like a footprint or fingerprint, a photo has a direct, physical connection to reality). But as soon as you frame something, edit it, grade it, choose a different lens, use a different camera, smile at your subject, ask a question of your subject, point a camera at someone who can see you are filming them, live in a society where cameras are omnipresent, live in a society where we act out our lives massively influenced by the videos we see on TV/online/in cinemas - subjectivity enters the equation. And where you have subjectivity, you have language, and where you have language, you have art. The lie that is photographic "truth" (e.g. Cinema Verite) has been exposed, denounced and thrown to the dogs. Video is not a footprint, it's a paintbrush. See Barthes (Camera Lucida), Mulvey (Death 24X a Second), Pierce, Tom Gunning, David Campany, etc, etc, for more ...

I have 2 of them- damn I love them. those colors are unmatched by any other digital camera.

I had recently 2 awful experiences as a buyer, with this quite new "shipping+taxes" option (or "Global Shipping Program") that eBay uses: I bought the first item and eBay's shipping company had it for days in their storage place, without never contacting me for delivery. I tried to contact them, and I had to pay for the call €5 (~$6.5), as they charge €1.34 the call, then 0.36/min and they have you waiting for at least 10-12min, without finally accepting your call, with the excuse that the lines are too busy and that you'll have to call later again... Finally, one day, they came to deliver, but without even ringing my bell, they put it (a signed-for shipment) inside my box... The second one, they never delivered any parcel, but their tracking status indicates that they did delivered to my hands and that they've put my name as the person who received the parcel... When I opened a dispute on PayPal for this, Paypal in dt time, closed the case, with the excuse that they can't help on this and that I have to find a solution with the seller!... In any other similar case, if the seller had shipped via any other carrier, they could ask him to show them (to PayPal) the proof of delivery, asking this from the shipping carrier... If the shipping company couldn't prove that they had my real signature, then the money had to be returned to me. But as this new company is eBay's (so & PayPal's) business, they of course closed their eyes, as they can't blame their own company. SO, I lost $273.76... I will NEVER-EVER buy any item from sellers that they are using this "Global Shipping Program" again! NEVER! I've found though that there are hundreds of others with similar, like mine, problems... If you are selling on eBay and you want to avoid any negative feedback caused by similar cases, never use this option again please. To be able to do so, please follow this next steps, to block this shipping option from your sales: Your ebay>>account>>site preferences>>posting and packaging preferences>Offer the Global Shipping Programme, then on the right hand side of the screen change yes to NO and save changes. By the way I have to say that, with this "Global Shipping Program", buyers are paying more on import taxes, than if they had to pay straight to their customs... That's all from me.

This is a promotional reel I've just made for the small videography business I'm currently setting up (one-man-band doing local community organisations, weddings etc). Everything in it was shot on low-end/cheap cameras, several of which have been discussed and compared extensively on this forum over the last year or two. To boot, other than the Tokina 11-16mm all of the lenses were each bought for under $300. After a couple of enquiries about the gear I used for this reel, I've decided to add subtitles to show each camera (and lens) each shot was taken with. Just click the 'CC' button in the Vimeo play bar to turn the subtitles on. I'd welcome feedback on my reel, but this is mainly posted here in the hope it might be of use to others: Sorry the subtitles aren't synched perfectly to each edit (it's not easy with Amara). You'll work it out though I hope ...

One thing I love about the a7s is the shallow DOF / Cinema look for video. However, I threw the 18-200 original silver lens on it yesterday and shot my daughter's indoor gymnastics. Full continuous AF, with a range equivalent to 27-300mm. It worked out fantastically! My 5 year old girl ran from one side of the gym up to our seats and it held focus very well (of course I was hard set at F/8, but still). How cool is it that this camera bascially doubles as a run and gun / camcorder when you need it? The OIS from that lens was simply...brilliant. Highly recommended for any handheld video. Face tracking works a treat, and so does object tracking. Never even tried these before as it's my only Sony lens. FYI Shawn

This is worth a look:

No you are not disabled, actually. Everyone who uses this forum is white, male, college educated, western, without disability, heterosexual and aged between 25-45. They have to be. Otherwise we'd always have to consider the possibility that the 'other person' has a worldview different to ours. Which would of course mean we'd have to be tolerant, thoughtful and open to the possibility that what might be true for us is not necessarily true for the other person. I mean come on dude, can you really see that working here?

Sorry to bring up a dead thread but didn't really want to make a new one. I had my GX7 fixed a couple weeks ago after the shutter just randomly locked up and wouldn't open again. Something to do with a circuity malfunction. It was out of warranty and cost me about £150 to fix. However it also fixed the dead pixels I had on the sensor :)

It's old news - F35's have been going at that price point for several years. I used one (A Genesis, actually) on a film, and indeed, it was a great image. Many of the films and television shows that I love the most from a pure image aspect are shot on F35. F35 color has always impressed me more than any other camera, for whatever reasons. That said, I have almost zero interest in owning one, even if it was free. My own work involves travel and moving around shooting B roll and interviews, with little or no help. Have you ever carried a kitted F35? It's not light, and it's not small. I'm not willing to get a superior image by sacrificing my back to the degree that an F35 would require. My clients wouldn't care either. I suppose if you had a studio and did a lot of work in one place, it might be attractive, or if you had a crew. Accessories for the F35 aren't super cheap or common either, so unless you're buying a kitted package, beware the actual price.

yes both the f3 and f35 become more and more exciting as the price comes down. I think it's the size/shape of the f35 that dictates it's look more than anything else since it has to be rigged up properly with real cinema grade gear to make it operable. also being PL mount means it's usually good glass rather than over contrasty canon EF lenses designed for still photography that get fitted to it. If RED didnt offer the EF mount option I think we'd see a lot more mind blowing RED footage since it would all be shot using real lenses. We'd see a lot less corporate stuff (which doesnt need to look like cinema, and when shot in a cinematic way it only serves to devalue the cinematic look-hence why hollywood are looking towards bigger formats to unlevel the playing field and give them the edge) shot on RED's if the users had to fork out for proper glass as you tend to when shooting in the F35. Also.. It seems as if people 'in the know' tend to be shooting on these beautiful relics and as a result they know how to use the gear to its best rather than chasing new technology to make them more bookable.

Hmmm, bit of a false equivalency retort mentioning the bmpcc, but it's the internet; no surprise. Par for the course. Your other argument is good. Tools are tools. Use what helps. At any rate, I use Panasonic cameras all the time. Adjusting the exposure manually is fast and easy assuming you know what you're doing. As you say, to do it otherwise is lazy. So, my assertion remains: the long established manual way works for a reason. Look, feel free to buy/use whatever camera you prefer for whatever rationalizations. I don't care much; only enough to note that many expectations of modern cameras seem kind of silly --especially when it's a complaint about a feature that I believe motion picture shooters should probably avoid anyway. One man's opinion. Good luck.

Here are some tests shots I did to see how stable I can be with the help of the internal stabilization in the LX100.

no the older ones as sharp just alot less contrast - shades of grey not solid crushed blacks - and they flare very easliy Zeiss made the 50mm and 35mm the 28 was Rolleinair made

Andrew you mentioned in your article that the LX100 is the best 4K small camera for aerial imaging. As I have mentioned in my post it is not as long as Panasonic does lock the AV & HDMI Out. So there is 2 things you could do: 1. change your article & mention that the LX100 does not work for aerial 2. or ask Panasonic and make pressure on them to change this in a fw update. We all know that the LX100 could do a HDMI out since it is the same engine like GH4... Im fine if the output is only 720p and with overlays, but we need a signal on the ground or the LX100 WILL NEVER be used for Aerial images on drones... Thanks for your udnerstandign, I really would appreciate your help in this... Thanks Igor

Yeah, you appear to be right, I can't seem to replicate that. Perhaps this wasn't the case to begin with and ISO200 coincidentally just happened to be sufficient when briefly testing that, making it seem the camera locked the ISO to match the lit scene and not dynamically adjusting the ISO to keep a balanced exposure when starting to pan away to something lit differently (the test was to see if the ISO (auto) changed throughout; it didn't, auto-locking an initial ISO was an unfortunate assumption, not tested for (apparently)). Although again I still prefer not to use any automated settings. I don't want to touch the shutter (flickering/motion blur), I know the aperture is not clickless (exposure jumps, losing set depth of field) and you can not add more light to f/1.7 (maximum aperture), in lowlight you don't want to cut more light with a ND-filter (it's like that one guy you know that wears sunglasses indoors) and if you're out and about doing some street stuff, you can't just add light to a scene (or do you just happen to always carry around a huge lighting kit?)... so I get the only variable left to touch and add light is the ISO. But then again, I also like to control noise and think it's rather noticeable if you change ISO mid shoot, but okay, you can make a creative cut to make it less obvious... but then again. You can also do it manually. Just 'feel' what the scene needs and just adjust any of the settings you'd rather not change. Sometimes I do not mind under- and/or overexposing during a clip when I know I'll be back to the initial settings a moment later (I find this rather natural anyways, on a sunny day with blinds closed at home, you won't magically adapt from in- to outdoors in a second, it takes a bit). It's different of course if the change lasts and you're still under- of overexposing. But again, then I just press a button, twist a dial and Bob's your uncle. Not really a that big of deal. Especially if you considered it for intial ISO and knew it wouldn't change automatically thereafter anyways. Would you really mind setting it? Do you think the auto-mode would be that much faster/accurate? Maybe due to funky metering it might jump up to a higher ISO than you think the scene needs (or a too low ISO). I don't know. I guess that more options and features is always a good thing and that (extreme) situations (where you need to start rolling quickly and adaptively, or an oppertunity could be left unused), might require certain wishes to be fulfilled, I personally can't really say I'm bothered by the amount of manual control.

If you're buying a camera in the $5k+ range, you're looking for a camerat that's going to help you book work. Camera purchases are usually bad investments unless you can pay it off within about 18 months worth of work. What sort of work would you normally doing where you'd provide your own camera? Maybe docos and corporates? Is an F35 practical for those, and are you going to make enough from those to cover the cost of the camera (say $10k+), recorder, lenses and also still be able to cover your own living costs and bills? That's the question you sohuld be asking yourself if you're thinking about investing in any camera. If you're doing narrative type stuff, do your clients normally have a budget to hire cameras? If so, why would you not simply hire a camera? If not, do they have a budget to pay you? If they don't, then is it worth buying a $10k+ camera to shoot it on..? The only other way to make money off a camera purchase is via rentals - if you have a RED or Alexa, then sure you're in a decent position to make money off rentals if you price your packages right. If not though, what's the rental demand for F35s? Is there any? It will usually depend on your market, but you should definitely look into it before you commit to buy. It certainly has nice images, that's for sure. But in the grand scheme of things I would say it's a nice option that you can rent quite cheaply when you have a low budget. I don't think I'd be investing in purchasing one. You can grade A7s images to get pretty close. The F3 on the other hand - if you don't care about resolution higher than 1080p; I know of friends/colleagues who are selling their old ones with the Sony primes it came with for <the price of an FS7. Which is pretty decent value if you ask me. An external recorder and you'd be good to go with three PL mount primes @T2.

The Sony F3 is another bargain. 444 output, great color, good in low light too... it's now $5k! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-PMW-F3L-Super-35mm-Full-HD-Compact-Camcorder-885-Hours-w-S-Log-Gamma-/331376366422?pt=Camcorders_Professional_Video_Cameras&hash=item4d27921356

What is with the strange distortion? I've noticed that as well. Makes any sort of panning or camera movement unpleasant aesthetically

"Get ready for this" - I remember liking that song as a little boy... Didn't expect to hear that song today :) I like a lot of what I've seen from the A7S. My main nitpick with that camera is the Sony color science. When I compare the Sony colors to the Nikon colors that I'm so used to - there is something odd with the color science of Sony Alpha cameras. I've struggled with trying to get same color and same white balance out of my NEX-5R as I do with the stills from D800 or the near ancient D200. Since the struggle is there with raw, movie mode and jpegs, it's some other processing characteristic of the cameras that is the issue. With raw stills I've found that no matter what I do, there's some kind of cast that just isn't there on my Nikons (not even on the old D200). Colors seem off compared to what I saw when I captured the still and compared to the Nikons not mattering how I adjust the white balance in Lightroom. If I shoot a portrait on D800, I find in most light situations that I can tweak it and say that is very close to what I saw with my eyes at the scene. In good light / low ISO, D200 is usually not that far from what a D800 can achieve colorwise, I can get fairly close to natural colors. What I find with the Nex, is that I either have a magenta cast for the whole face, or I lose the reddish colors that you often find in shadow areas of a face as well as the reds for lips. Instead, the whole face has a uniform yellow/brownish skin color and a lot of skin color nuances are lost. If I want skin colors close to natural skin color, I'll have to resort to a lot more post-work than just adjusting a few sliders in Lightroom. Also, in dramatic/high contrast scenes, containing higher dynamic range: you just can't adjust white balance and expect the shot to look good all the way from deepest shadows to brightest highlights. You'll have to pick best white balance for midtones + highlights, or best white balance for midtones + shadows. I assume Nikon does some processing to create a better color / white balance output for the full dynamic range in their processing that Sony does not. In Brandon's video, as well as in many stills and videos from Sony alpha cameras, I can recognize these color tendencies that I've struggled with: getting skin tones natural looking in a variation of light conditions, getting nature scenes in dramatic/high contrast light to not have extra color casts. Don't take me wrong on this one. I like the A7S and what it can do. But I'd really love it if it came with Nikon colors out of the box. My ideal camera at the moment would be some kind of mirrorless blend of D750 and A7S, although the A7S as-is comes close. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot why I got interested in commenting in the first place - great shots Brandon! I really like the camera movements, brings such a natural organic feel to the footage. Is it mostly handheld? Monopod? Are you using stabilisation in post? I need to learn :)

You need severe learning difficulties to struggle with the ergonomics of the a7s. I mean so severe you've got close to zero motor functions and need a full time carer. It's nearly impossible to struggle with the a7s. I love stupid trolls since they donlt even have the ability to upset people vie the internet.

I normally use canon FD glass on my gh4. I find them to be a very good combo with the gh4, I never have trouble with an "overly digital" look to my footage. there is a shop in my town with a ton of old lenses and they let me trade back and forth so I get to try and bunch of random ones out. I have a bunch of them but one that seems to have the most character to me is a Vivitar 28mm f2.5 FD mount. it has really cool lens flares and is very sharp wide open Ive also got a Sigma 35-70 f2.8 FD mount that I use with my anamorphic lens that is awesome I bought a Contax Zeiss 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 the other week from keh.com. I really like it and its pretty damn sharp for a zoom lens. It was only $313 in Excellent condition so it was a hard deal not to pass up. Ive got an RJ FD- m43 speedbooster as well. I have been very happy with it and that blue dot is not really much of an issue.

I believe it's the same. Looks like the same Chinese product is being sold with a dozen different brand names. Surely there can't be that many different manufacturers for those. I bet there's only one or two. I take it even that Camdiox one delivered in that fancy yellow box is pretty much the same thing... right? So I believe it's a matter of taste, price and logistics. Pick any one that suits you best, or pay more for the Metabones one. Or perhaps just a slight misintrepretation on your part. I said "out-resolving the sensor." Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. No doubt the Nikon lens mentioned is sharp, too, but that's not quite what I was referring to. I used 'too sharp' between apostrophes just as a reference to Andy's 'harsh.' I thought "out-resolving the sensor" and "video-y and dull albeit tack sharp" was clear enough not to be confused with sharpness of a lens. But fair enough, suppose that sentence was a bit confusing, after all. My bad. What I meant was that the higher the resolving power of the lens, the more likely you'll start seeing aliasing and moire of the sensor at some point. That point being where the lens out-resolves the sensor. Perhaps aided by a good enough speed booster. A sharp lens is just a sharp lens, nothing wrong with that, as you pointed out. As long as that sharp lens won't out-resolve the sensor, you'll usually end up with a sharp but reasonably pleasant look. I've thought that ideally a given lens and the sensor should sort of make a nice 'match,' too. This may be an over-simplified version of the notion, but nevermind, just to clarify my point. I don't wish to derail the topic with any further nit-picking. Suppose the bottom line is that there are several different reasons why people like to use legacy film lenses for modern filmmaking. It may often come down to matters of taste, but there's more to it than that. All the nit-picking put aside, what Andy's been saying in this thread so far seems to make a lot of sense.

it looks like the same but its very expensive !! get the cheaper one all these speedbosoters under extreme back light can flare and you get a blue spot - just move the camera 10 cm left or right until it goes!! .....easy....

Wrong headline. It should read "Apple Yosemite ends support for TRIM on some older third party SSDs." I know it's not as sensational or as clickbaity but it would be more accurate.

Héhé I am I am, I'm working on my creative film documentary "Womanhattan", I'm on editing now :)