Leaderboard

Quotes like that annoy me as well because it's too easy when you have money rolling in left right and centre from professional video work to say "ah, throw that $12k 1D C aside I'll use it as a doorstop" and run out and spend another $3.5k on an A7R II. Way too easy! However for the majority of people $3500 is a lot of money and significantly more than a GH4 or NX1 and thus the deliberation needs to be more critical. When the Samsung NX1 came out Cinema5D basically rubbished it. The reason? Bad rolling shutter! Yet here with the S35 crop mode of the A7R II we have what looks like potentially even worse rolling shutter problems and they are practically mute about that... do I detect a Sony bias? Well I have seen Cinema5D's guys operate first hand myself, at trade shows such as Photokina and they do know a few Sony people and get cameras early. It is too easy to recommend something when you have the camera literally dumped on your desk by a PR company as well. I was offered a trip to the US to shoot with the A7R II by Sony and I turned them down. I was offered a demo unit by the US PR agency Sony had organising the A7R II marketing and I turned them down. On Wednesday 5th August I will walk into a shop, hand over my hard earned cash for the A7R II and if it is rubbish I will say so and take it back for a refund. The only reason I am going anywhere near Sony and their PR agents is that they have organised an interesting shoot the day before on Tuesday and it is a chance to get some decent footage. Most of what I say to the Sony people there will be about how it can be improved and what the most glaring flaws are, because that is what I regard as feedback... saying "wow buy buy buy" does not have any useful substance to it, it is pure hype. And so back to the topic... It's an open secret Sony want you to buy more than one camera! That's one reason why the launches are staggered like this. If the A7S II and A7R II came out on the same day you would be able to compare them and select the best ONE. As it is, this week if you need an internally recording 4K full frame mirrorless camera and can't wait for a mystery to unfold 6 months from now then you are obligated to buy the A7R II. Personally this is the approach I am taking because there's always eBay to shift gear whenever you like, whenever it is superseded. I am sure the A7S II will push video to even greater heights, 4K 60p and at least 250fps 1080p, much less rolling shutter, better low light, etc. it's a guess though and the A7R II is a guarantee of quality right now. However there's always the danger with waiting for the next model and upgrading in that you never appreciate what is right in front of you.

Today I realized I had footage from 14 different cameras at the "Building of Moire". And the last version of the video had 7, so every seventh it is Now the Test includes: Sony NEX5t Sony a6000 Sony FS100 Sony AX100 Sony A7 Sony A7ii Panasonic LX100 Panasonic HMC151 Panasonic GM1 Canon XC10 Blackmagic Pocket Blackmagic 4K Production Digital Bolex Samsung NX1

Still haven't had time to shoot anything for more than 30 min. Hopefully next week. So I took it for a quick run when I went to the store. Wanted to see how the XC10 worked under really bright conditions in C-Log using just the built in ND. The C-Log has a base of ISO500. No highlights where blown when making this video.

Hello! I haven't slept much last night but here it is, the α7R II low light test! (i also posted my initial thoughts at the beginning but feel free to skip to the test if you get bored!) The results are very surprising, whereas during the day i couldn't really spot a difference in quality between the FF and S35 modes things are completely different when the lights go down: the S35 mode is vastly superior to the Full Frame, they are not even in the same league! I don't know if that is only the result of the better readout from the sensor in S35 or there is some noise reduction wizardry happening in real time but the output from the S35 mode is way cleaner. And not only the S35 mode is cleaner, we're actually talking about α7S levels of performance! (at least up to ISO 25,600 which is the maximum for the α7R II) don't believe that? I included a low light shootout with the Queen of the night itself! In the end i decided not to include the 1080 samples because they're quite bad, way worse then the both the 4K modes so it's definitely better to downscale when a 1080 output is required. What else to say.. i'm very impressed.. this camera keeps getting better and better by the minute!! Today i'm gonna shoot some real word run and gun footage to see how the Steady Shot performs and how is the footage when graded, needless to say i have very high expectations now! Thanks for watching! ps. i just noticed how badly YouTube compression affects the video so I uploaded a better version here if you want to have a better look! http://we.tl/XBCZm1NsgK

Full frame noise performance sucks balls, Crop rolling shutter performance sucks balls. Peoples grades of 8 bit slog2 will suck balls as the Cinema 5d video above proves. Please don't sell your cameras, this camera will be old hat in less than a month.

Did lots of lens tests today during our morning walk. Haven't edited, will probably use it for a review. But I puled some frame grabs. Closest Focus at 24 mm (20 cm) Closest Focus at 240 mm (50 cm) 240mm Lets you keep distance (but of course less background). "Shallow" depth of field 24 mm f2.8 "Shallow"depth of field 80ish mm f4.0 "Shallow" depth of field 240mm f5.6

Perhaps the A7sII will also gain S-Log3 and 10-bit output..... yes please.

Well we can expect to see people unloading their A7Ss on ebay and the prices dropping pretty soon, as it seems the A7Rii will be a more balanced camera in a smaller form factor when shooting 4k.

I'm a geek inside and out. I want to see this movie and analyze the footage (with my defective eyes) with respect to the Arri Alexa 65. Probably take in this move within the week. If anyone goes to the movie, please respond on your thoughts on the image, ............and the movie. Cheers. According to Imdb: Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses Arri Alexa XT (visual effects plates) Arri Alexa XT M (aerial shots) Arriflex 235, Panavision B-, C-, E- and G-Series Lenses Arriflex 435, Panavision Primo, B-, C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses Panavision Panaflex Lightweight, Panavision B-, C-, E- and G-Series Lenses Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, B-, C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses

Am I the only one to find the greyish color skin to be kind of weird ??

Bold, not sure if you're already happy with what you got, but my week's review is about this lens. Check it at http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7723

Picked up a Tessar Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm 2.8 lens today for 20 euros at a Berlin market, perfect condition. Think that's a pretty good price, pretty stoked by how solid it feels. And it is sharp. REALLY sharp.

My point is: except for FF, it's not a slam dunk. Log on 8 bit 4:2:0 isn't exactly great, IMO colors are muddy because of it. This is even assuming NX1 won't get log itself soon. Low light is great for candle light test shots, but does anyone ever do any serious project, especially narrative work, based on low light capabilities rather than light the scene? For doc folks, would be good though. I don't know what you mean by codec, H.265 is an extremely efficient codec that makes great use of the bandwidth, perhaps you're talking about the need to transcode to ProRes? You'll need to do that with a7RII as well. Rolling shutter is just as bad on crop mode, if not worse, as I understand. IBIS and lenses would be a (possibly big) advantage if you use other lenses, but otherwise lens stabilization works quite well with Samsung lenses (though I don't know how it compares to the IBIS in a7RII). And don't forget that NX1 costs less than half of a7RII, which should be mentioned when you list the pluses. Bottom line, we can enumerate all the things on one side to make the advantages seem big, but as I see it, the only headline plus I see is the FF aspect, but as I said the colors on the other hand seem muddy compared to the vibrant colors of NX1, which for me trumps FF. Of course, I'm only seeing the test clips posted, and that's why I said we need to see more before judging.

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8586 Your humble opinion is factually incorrect.

Not sure why you say that. Sure, it is FF. But NX1 has pluses of its own: e.g., 120 fps in 1080p and true 4k (vs. UHD). At the end of the day, both are 8 bit 4:2:0 internal, so I'm not sure what the headline feature is for A7RII that should get everyone excited over above NX1. Against A7S, it'll be internal 4K; but against NX1, what? Comes down to FF, right? IMO, we need to learn a lot more about its performance and see real world results before passing judgment vs. other cameras. For one thing, I thought the colors are muddy in all the test footage I saw from A7RII so far.

Thanks again. : ) I'd also love the e-shutter for timelapse, always felt bad for the Nikon when I heard it snap every 20 seconds.

Yep I agree. If you look in the footage from my previous post around 3:18 you can see that motion is captured very well.

@agolex: in the description: Shutter Speeds: Various (Sometimes very High). Occasional use of ND Filter on the 50mm 1.4 to achieve 180 degree shutter (1/50). So looks like all the other shots are shot without ND's with high shutter speeds - that's what makes motion look bad...

@agolex You can download raw samples here: http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/sony_a7r_ii_photos/ Photoshop CC supports them. I tried a few and the dynamic range looks amazing - as we can expect from a Sony-sensor. I'm pretty sure it will be on par - at least - with the D800.

I would highly recommend the Fotodiox "Though E mount" it fixes all the issues with play and wobble

The Steady Shot is superb, so no problem in handholding. That limit is for the RX100M4, not for the RX10 for which the limit is as stated before 29:59 or something like that. I've recorded over 22 minutes in 4K and no issues.

This is one of the main reasons I'm steering towards a camera I haven't used before (URSA Mini 4.6k) instead of the FS7 for ownership. I like what I've shot with the FS7, but the menu system is absolutely terrible. I get a lump in my brain every time I need to change some settings. I'm not going to splash on the A7RII. Happy shooting to all of you who do

Weren't you recently singing praise for the 1DC used for $3500-$4000? And now in light of the new A7Rii, would not such a purchase be in question?

Not to mention prices on cameras. The latest and greatest people are talking about is $3000. If one instead where to keep the current camera. That $3000 would give a K3 plus 40 rolls of bought, developed and scanned 16mm Kodak Vision. IF you buy them 4 at a time. Buy 40 at once and you get it much cheaper. Then one can use the "old" camera for youtube, gigs and what not. And shoot that special project, short film, sisters wedding or what have you on actual film. That was atleast my thinking when the a7rii was announced. I thought "man $3000, I might as well start to shoot film". That also helped me to decide when needing a camcorder. No need for it to be cinematic or "film look". The film has plenty of that I'm waiting on the first batch from the labb. After that there will be some videos including a guide on how to shot film for free, yes free.

That would be an interesting direction to take the A7S II. I am sure it would be able to do an 18MP full pixel readout if it inherited the sensor architecture of the RX100 IV's 1" sensor and scaled it up to full frame with better cooling, heat sink, larger body. Therefore you'd have 30fps continuous shooting as a sports stills cam. Buffer memory is one of the most expensive parts of a camera and they always limit the size. However with CFast 2.0 cards you'd be able to write 18MP raw directly to the card continuously at 30fps. In theory 4K raw video would also be possible. The aim of speed kinda clashes a bit with sensitivity though... fast sensors are noisier because they generate more heat. So Sony may choose to limit the speed and extend ISO instead. Personally I'd call for a balance. I don't really need 4 million ISO that often You can count on better AF being part of the A7S II. Already on the A7 II and especially the A7R II it is massively improved. In terms of the A7S II I am expecting an evolution not a revolution but part of me prefers the NX1's body as a mirrorless camera that handles more like a flagship DSLR. I find Sony's ergonomics much improved over the NEX days but they are still too cramped and fiddly. Also please give us a reorganised menu system and a better function / favourites menu. I want to be able to have 4k / 1080p file format on the favourites menu like on my 1D C for quick access.

Andrew, And what if it is true? what if Sony gives you a a7rii like cinema 5d and you think wow it's fantastic and more than a7s, wouldn't you say it? I mean, we can split on those guys cause they got the camera early and give us a test, and split on them cause they say the camera is fantastic. It might just be that....

Looking good. I need a B cam for c100 that has cLog, wdr, and 4k. This is looking like a good option.

Got the WiFi going so I could instagram from the XC10. It's OK imo. I use mainly film for stills or my full frame A7ii. But if I'm out with the XC10 and see something worth capturing it will do fine. For journalistic work it's well beyond good enough.

That video is the Moire Bible!!! ;-DD

"Remember that the Super 35mm mode would also be able to benefit from the Metabones Speed Booster for an further gain in low light performance of nearly 2 stops." Huh? Nearly 2? I thought all the FE adapters were 1 stop, and only the Micro four thirds had an extreme speedbooster. I've been known to be wrong though as I HATE HATE HATE using adapters. This is for the micro 4/3rds - http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT3 - 1 1/3 stop. The Sony FE to Canon - 1 full stop - http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BT2 Where is the "nearly 2 stops" adapter for Sony?

Perhaps there won't be a A7S II...

Yeah, I did an extensive test once between 422, LT, and Proxy. There is a HUGE drop-off in quality from LT to Proxy, but not much from 422 to LT. If space is tight, may be LT is enough, but I would go with 422 for all regular jobs. For 420 8-bit video, HQ and above is overkill IMO. BTW, the lens I used is the "S" version of the 16-50, I just realized there is another version. This lens has given me amazing results, I got it with the NX1. I'm going to do a bunch of tests tomorrow, mostly on the big zoom use of NX500, for which I'll use my Canon 70-200 L lens (non IS version), which is also great. Lenses always make a difference, but IMO more so when it comes to 4K video, which is why I kept mentioning lenses.

I convert to ProRes 422, I think it's enough. And yes, you have access to the whole frame, which is why you can cut with 100% and 50% to simulate two cameras; keyframe the zoom to effect slow zoom; keyframe lateral/vertical moves to fake slider and jib shots; etc. For the fashion show video I posted, I only had the 16-50 zoom, and even at 50 I just about managed to cover the stage; but with this crop technique for example I was able to go real tight, and the models (all amateur event attendees and their kids) were very happy. Going to ultra zoom is the main reason I got the NX500.

Just checked to make sure I wasn't crazy, but my a7s does not have this much play... it has NO play. Something is wrong with that camera.

Don't you worry about those. I appreciate your contributions to the EOSHD forum, and I bet there's a lot more of us than just me! Cheers mate!

Love the Miranda 28 shots. I might have to pick that one up. Which mount/ version of the lens do you have?

^try both and see what you like better!

Hi Tito, Dan... Thanks for your comments. Although I only shoot stills, some of the info I've provided might work with film / video. The decision to go with diopters made from junk lens objectives was purely economic, since... being retired, I don't have much money to put into this activity. The results might be far better for those folks who want to try doing this with more "high end" cameras. I'm using a Nikon D40 and D60, both relatively poor (and limited) high ISO performers, so I'm stuck working at !S0 100 to 400. I've found that good junk lenses to scavenge front objectives from are those primes having a focal length of 100mm, or greater, or zooms having a top end of at least 200mm. Some lenses, certain Vivitars in particular, can be a nightmare to dissassemble. Sometimes a dead film camera having a non-interchangeable zoom lens can serve as the donor for a usable strong diopter. The delicate "surgical procedure" being performed below is to remove the lens from a long section of unwanted barrel. This particular optic is the objective from an old Olympus IS-3 DLX film camera that spent a few minutes in the surf at a local beach. Although the longest focal length is 180mm, it still works well, although the field has quite a bit of curve to it. It's used when I want critical sharpeness in the center and totally blown bokeh at the edge of the field. Reversed on the Isco it gives a field width of 28mm at a working distance of 6.5cm. I should mention that all my working distance measurements are from the subject to the longest part of the barrel left on the objective. In some cases the lens comes off easily, having a short length of barrel that serves as a built in lens shade when reversed on the Isco. Longer lengths of barrel have to be shortened to provide usable working distance... as with the lens above. Also, testing a junk lens objective and having it "bomb" on a particular primary lens is no reason to give up on it. Some objectives I've tried worked terrible with the Iscorama on my Nikkor-H 85mm, were buried in the back of a cabinet, only to be pressed into service later after being tested with the Isco on the 200mm micro nikkor and found to produce brilliant results. Anyone contemplating buying "junk" lenses to rob objectives from should "buy cheap" and not be put off by internal fungus, haze, or cracked elements... providing the objective itself isn't involved. Steer clear of lenses with bent or badly dinged filter rings that might not be able to accept a macro reverse adapter ring. Here's the "bowl" diffuser and "direct flash" shield I use. The UAC-2000 runs about $8.00 at big NYC stores. All the macro shooting I do is hand held... for a reason. Focusing in most cases is "problematic, with most subjects being live creatures going about their business, or inanimate objects being blown around by wind. Working free-hand alows me to constantly shift the camera, following the subject's change in position. I do have a favorite mop handle to steady my hands, or lean on in cases where I might become overbalanced and fall forward. Below is an example of a shot where I leaned on a stick and moved left and right "shopping" for the particular out of focus elements seen behind the spider. A very minor shift in camera position at high magnification can produce a radical change in background appearance. If anyone tries shooting anamorphic macro video, I'd really like to see it. Thanks!

Did anybody notice how the ISOs cleaned up at 4000 and 10,000 in S35? It was quite impressive. The noise would start to get fuzzy, then BAM! it would clean up. The reminds me of the Panasonic Varicam having two native ISOs. Could this be a similar happenstance? If so, then this camera is more surprising than previously thought. What else can Sony do to win me over more? I already own an FS100, maybe this is my chance to get something new? I hope so.

Here is a nice example of using the 4K format for zooming, cropping, etc. The large 4K size helps to add dynamism.

Congrats on the NX1. Great camera. That F2 zoom is good too. Get EditReady for $50 and it is pretty painless. RX100 IV overheating mainly in 4K on long shoots, not a problem in the 1080/120fps/240fps modes so far for me. I have used the RX100 IV as a 1080p camera more than a 4K one. It has the best 1080p of anything I've ever used. Like an FS7 but smaller sensor and 1/8th the price. Yes that 1" sensor does give you a bit of a flat image at times but S-LOG helps make it look cinematic if you're good at grading. Really helps get rid of the 'video' look to highlights, better dynamic range, smoother roll off, etc. Digital Bolex also has a Super 16mm sensor but it looks cinematic as hell because of the colour, grain, texture, so it is not all about shallow DOF and you have your 1D C for that anyway My footage from the RX10 II and RX100 IV is coming soon... it doesn't look like camcorder footage! I'll be interested to see how you get on with AF on the NX1. It is occasionally magic but mostly unreliable and doesn't do what you expect given the specs. Same with the RX10 II and RX100 IV though, continuous AF is really quite terrible in movie mode and HFR, but not as disastrous as it would be on a larger sensor like Super 35mm.... so approach with caution I'd say.

The EF-PL Mount for the C300ii might be included in the, "Canon Service will put whatever mount on it you want". https://youtu.be/-Oe2sZMWbvg?t=8m25s

Hi Bootsie... Thanks! Here are some quick photos of two of my shooting rigs, with an explanation for each pic. The image above shows my set-up for shooting with a high magnification supplemental lens reverse mounted on the iscorama, using the Isco on my Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8. The bracket is made from two strips of hardware store aluminum, drilled to allow mounting with a knob onto the tripod mount of the camera. The angle of the arms is adjustable to allow for different sized foil reflectors to be used at various close working distances. This is a special short-arm bracket for working very close to a subject when there's not much room to move around. The Iscorama has the back end (50mm Nikon mount section removed. Attached at that point is a 52mm to 49mm step-down ring. Onto that are mounted three empty 52mm filter rings to allow the Isco to be mounted on any of my primary lenses having a 52mm filter thread. This ensures that the protruding back element of the Isco compression module doesn't come into contact with the primary lens glass. This three ring "spacer" then serves as a convenient place to attacht an old tripod mount (upside-down) from a junk telephoto lens, which is used as an anchor point for a bowl flash diffuser made from the dish found in a particular brand of frozen dinner. The plastic diffuser has a moveable black piece that allows for soft directional lighting. This diffuser mounts atop the lens using the silver knob on the repurposed tripod mount. The ring resting between the two lenses is a 72 to 52mm step-down ring. All my supplemental lenses have been set up with 52mm rings to mount on the Isco, which is fitted with the 72-52mm ring. This simplifies mounting any of my add-on lenses onto the Isco. Plus, the Iscorama's filter ring is plastic, and subject to wear and possible cross-threading when I'm working rushed. The metal step-down ring saves the Isco's threads, and results in faster lens swapping. The larger lens on the left is the front cell from a junk Vivitar 28-210mm zoom lens... set up for reverse mounting with a macro-reverse adapter ring, and is incredibly sharp, but has a curved field. With the Isco mounted on the 85mm, it gives a "field width" of about 29mm at a lens-to-subject of 6.5 cm. The smaller lens on the right is the large "common objective" from an American Optical "Cycloptic" stereo microscope, mounted in a cell I've constructed from six empty 52mm filter rings. This mounts on the Isco with the front of the objective toward the subject... the same way it's mounted on the microscope. It's apochromatic, has a huge clear aperture of about 32mm, and gives a field width of about 40mm with some vignetting, at a lens-to-subject distance of a bit over 10 cm. Using a 2x teleconverter doubles the magnification and halves the working distance on all my supplemental lenses.. Here's the rig assembled with the Vivitar 28-210mm element mounted on the Isco.The two foil reflectors clipped to the threaded rods are adjusted to direct additional flash lighting to the diffuser. Behind the supplemental lens you can see the knurled rubber ring used to "lock" the Isco at infinity. This was scavenged from a junk lens and was the right size to work onto the Isco. It still allows the lens to focus properly, but totally protects against accidentally altering the focus. The 85mm is fitted with a similar band. Here's an oblique side view showing how the reflector support posts are rigged, plus how the diffuser is mounted on the old tripod mount. The reflectors can be mounted inside or outside the posts. The black clip provides more clearance for my right hand to operate the camera than clothes pins would, as used on the left reflector. Here's a bracket I've rigged for night photography. It's particularly useful for shooting when the Isco is mounted on my old 200mm Micro-Nikkor. The cross-bar prevents the arms from shifting position and is a convenient place to mount a small positionable flashlight used for focusing. This "focus assist" light is pre-aimed to provide illumination at the point of focus. The black "flap" is my "direct flash" shield, which mounts like a lens cap onto the front of any of my supplemental lenses. It's positioned to block direct light from the camera pop-up flash, or small speedlight, from striking the subject, creating flat lighting and overexposure. All shooting is done in the fully manual mode, usually at f/16 to f/32 (200mm Micro-Nikkor). Flash lighting is redirected around the end of the lens by the reflectors, which can be adjusted to vary light intensity and shadow angle from either side. The shield is made from a Raynox UAC-2000 universal lens adapter sold with several Raynox close-up lenses, but available for purchase separately. The black flap material is cut from a polypropylene plastic notebook divider. The lens mounted on the Iscorama is the objective from a junk Soligor 450mm lens... extremely sharp, and has a great flat field. It gives a field width of 12.5 cm at a working distance of 31 cm. Here's the night photography set-up all ready to go. This nursery web spider and nestful of hatchlings was taken in complete darkness with the rig shown in the previous photo, but with a bowl diffuser mounted on the lens instead of the light shield. The reflectors were positioned to direct additional light onto the subject. I have several bowl diffusers that can mount on a lens just like the direct flash shield, with the Raynox adapter. This last photo shows a partial inventory of supplemental lenses for using on the Iscorama, most being front cells from junk lenses. Although I have add-on lenses by different manufactures that are from lenses of the same focal length, they produce different "bokeh" and have variability in flatness of field, image color bias, and contrast. If you have any questions, need additional info, or whatever... just ask. Thanks!

Was anyone denying that a good sensor is the first step in achieving good image quality in video quality? No? Cool. Was anyone denying that some 8-bit codecs can be pushed more than other 8-bit codecs? No? Cool. Are people saying that higher bit depth is essential to getting peak image quality out of LOG files originally designed for 10-bit, like S-LOG? Yes. Posting examples of 8-bit C-Log footage proves nothing, because it's a much less steep faux-log designed for lower bit-depth cameras. So let's focus on some non-Canon examples.

Hi Julian... Thanks for the response. After a close family friend passed away years ago I arranged for the sale of his old Arriflex II-C camera, His Iscorama lens was given to me by his niece as a "thank you". I've used it for years, shooting slides, then shelved it when I "went digital". Several years ago I stumbled across the EOSHD website and it rekindled my interest in using it for digital work. It's only fairly recently that I've played around with it with the idea of adapting it for close-up shooting. I'm still not fully up to speed with it when working at close distances. The very shallow DOF at high magnifications is a problem, and working with mongrel supplementary lenses scavenged from junk lenses is "iffy" at times. There's a tremendous amount of variability in image quality when I mount add-on lenses on the Isco, depending upon which primary lens I'm using. Through quite a bit of testing I've created separate sets of supplementary lenses to work with the Isco when mounted on specific primary lenses. A few of my add-on lenses do vignette a bit, which is cropped away preserving the normal decompressed aspect ratio. I haven't run any focus / compression tests at anything closer than about three feet, but feel as you do, that if I leave the Isco at infinity there probably won't be a shift in the amount of "squeeze". Here are a few sample images, all taken using an old Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8... stopped down to f/16 or f/22, with a variety of supplemental lenses. The 85 and the Iscorama both have their focusing ring "locked" at infinity with wide rubber bands, focusing is achieved by moving the camera. Lighting is from either the pop-up flash, or a small speedlight bounced off foil covered cards or shot through a home-made bowl diffuser. Forget-me-nots, 85mm Nikkor-H, Iscorama, objective from a junk Soligor 450mm reverse mounted on the Isco. Orb weaver leg regeneration, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective. I really like the bokeh here (out of focus evergreen branches). Web repair, 85mm with Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective reversed on the Isco, with a Soligor 90-230mm zoom lens objective reversed on the 450mm. Bee, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscoama, with a Soligor 90-230mm objective reversed on the Isco, and a Panagor 85-205mm objective reversed on the Soligor. Freshly moulted Funnel Weaver, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, with the objective from a Vivitar 28-210mm zoom lens reversed on the Isco. Tiny fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and the objective from the Vivitar 28-210 reversed on the Isco. Baby funnel weaver with a fruit fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and a Raynox MSN-202 close up lens on the Isco. This add-on lens is mounted on an adapter ring that fits the Isco, not in the "snap-on" adapter supplied by Raynox. The results I've been getting with the Iscorama are very encouraging. It's been great for general photography, but seems to work well up close too. Shooting anamorphic macro images is great... but there are a huge amount of "throw-aways"... more than with using a macro lens without the Iscorama. Shooting extreme close-ups with the Isco is probably "pushing the envelope" a bit, but I'm getting enough decent images to keep me at it. I've been asked why I'm "wasting my time" with the old isco, and been advised that shooting wide angle and cropping might be easier. Having done that years ago... there's no comparison. I just like the look and feel of the anamorphic images better.

If the size of LX100 doesn't look impressing for the customer smile emoticon FOTGA rig, Zoom H4N, RODE stereo mic, RAM mount, LCD-V3, Opteka 58mm extention tube. There is no need for a belt to attach a follow focus. The follow focus blocks access to the focus mode switch.

Lol !!! These is my job:

I actually have one I've not mentioned before that JUST corrects the red shift issue https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1094036/Panasonic%20Orange%20to%20Red%202.cube

I guess we got that... but please, keep saying how you don't like this camera, you seem to enjoy it.