Leaderboard

Nope. If you're stuck in that loop, another camera is not going to get you out of it.

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Personally this is the approach I am taking because there's always eBay to shift gear whenever you like, whenever it is superseded.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.

You know NX500 as a great little video camera that shares many of NX1's awesome qualities. What may not be obvious is that it can work as a great teleconverter. Using its APS-C sensor and 4K crop and placing its 4K footage onto a 1080p timeline, you can turn a 200 mm zoom into a 1,000+ mm ultra zoom (200 x 1.54 x 1.58 x 2.13 = 1,037 mm). I got an NX500 yesterday and thought I'd post some footage of birds on our street that I shot today with my Canon 70-200 L lens. Try it out if you have the NX500.

Remember that with the Ursa, you'll need a battery solution and (unless you already have an SDI VF) their $1500 EVF looks like a must-have. Throw in the shoulder kit and realistically you're around $8k for ready-to-run - still an impressive value though. The 4.6 camera really looks like your next 5 to 8 years worth of camera. Hard to say that for anything else on the market, but what else is coming that will be a must-have feature? 6k? 8k? 6k 3D? 18 stops of DR? 1000 fps at 6k becomes a staple of corporate videos and TV spots? Am I missing something or is it viable to think the 4.6k mini would get one out of the yearly "do I upgrade??" agonizing… I think I'd even stop reading reviews for at least three years.

Hey all. Been a lurker here for many years already and finally registered - mainly because of this little camera. I've been shooting with DSLR's since the beginning of 5Dmkii days (and started shooting with the venerable Sony VX1000 DV camera many years ago!), but have shot on every camera out there from BMPC to RED Dragon / Alexa. I wanted something small, light and non-obtrusive and the RX10 ii seemed to fit it all. Mine arrived on Friday afternoon and I went out yesterday and filmed some random images - mainly to test the ability of the camera (the narrative is piss poor!) So I focused on DOF, Latitude, variable frame rates as well as looking for moire and other artefacting. Here it is: https://vimeo.com/135201792 Everything you need to know is in the description of the video. Overall, I'm incredibly impressed with the quality of the footage coming out of it and my only gripe is the built-in kit lens which feels a little toy like. The images it makes are great, but I keep wondering how long that servo motor will hold out...time will tell. Any questions, ask away.

hello everybody! Yesterday I’ve been to the Southbank in London to shoot some footage and do a quick grade to see how the camera perform in a real world situation. I’ve also wanted to check how an adapted EF lens worked on the camera so i used a Canon 24-105 with a Metabones Mark IV. Apart from a couple of very wide shots everything have been shot handheld in S35 mode. (therefore apologies for the odd shaky clip!) I’m gonna due a proper write up in due course but for now some random thoughts: - Overall the camera have been an absolute pleasure to use: the ergonomic of the body is much better compared to the previous generation cameras, the slightly chunkier body provides a much better grip and the EVF is big and bright, the best I’ve ever used together with the Fuji X-T1 - Having an extra custom button and, most importantly, being able to assign the record to a button of your choice makes a big difference!! - Unfortunately some software limitations that i always found annoying in the a7s are still present, namely: the inability to set a custom white balance from the movie mode, the focus magnification which is way inferior to the one in still mode (only 4x magnification, sometimes in not enough to achieve a proper focus!), the inability to assign the S35/APS-C crop mode to a custom button and the bloody NTSC warning message! I really hope some (or better all) of these things will be fixed with a future firmware update! - Unfortunately the experience with the Metabones have been quite frustrating as usual… Like other users reported the focus performance in still mode is indeed impressive, almost on par with the one on a canon body but in movie mode things are very different: definitely much better than the a7s but not as fast as still mode, moreover i couldn’t get the camera to focus at all past 70mm, i don’t know if it’s a lens problem, an adapter problem or something with the camera but in the end i went back to manual focusing because it was super annoying! - I’ve tried to shot a variety of material to test the camera strengths and weaknesses and i have to say I’m even more impressed now after I quickly graded the footage with film convert (using the a7s profile since they haven’t released one for the a7r II yet). I once again had the impression that the camera is as good as the a7s in terms of dynamic range and the files are generally cleaner to start with because of the lower native ISO. This is completely unscientific and untested so take this with a grain of salt but there is something that i really like in the colours that I never experienced with the a7s before (at least not with so little grading work required) so i’m starting to wonder whether Sony improved the colour science on this camera.. again, totally unscientific and unsubstantiated, just a gut feeling really but I’ll definitely do some more comparisons to find out! - Real life usage confirmed the very positive impressions about the low light performance of the S35 mode.. the camera is remarkably clean all the way to the top ISO setting (and yes, there are at some shots in the clip that have been shot at ISO 25600!) Before last week if somebody told me that I could have shot usable material at ISO 25600 on a 42 megapixels still camera i would have laughed in their face! -I’m pretty sure that part of the great performance of the camera is down to the extremely efficient codec and there’s a shot in the video that i think show this very well: at 04:59 there’s a blue flag on an almost completely flat blue sky shot at ISO6400… while i was shooting i thought “right, this is the recipe for disaster: an uniform colour in the whole frame at high ISO with a compressed 8bit 4:2:0 codec, it’s gonna be the festival of banding!”… boy i was wrong! there’s not a hint of it, the file is clean as a whistle! Thanks for watching!

Never really understood why people care what other folk do with their cash!

Ahah, thanks mate! I'm not sure i have particularly steady hands so that probably means the stabilisation is pretty good indeed! :-) I'm not sure if SteadyShot works in conjunction with the IS in the Canon lens or not but the results are pretty good indeed! I wouldn't worry too much about the colours being muted, that is my choice of grading really! Some shots are a bit noisy indeed but keep in mind that I was on a f4 lens so the ISO i've used at night ranged from 6400 all the way up to 25600 in three shots, that's quite impressive if you ask me! Also i haven't denoised the footage, i got very nice results using the temporal noise reduction in Resolve on the a7s so i have no reason to believe it won't work as good on the a7rII. Last but not least youtube compression is quite severe so i wouldn't use that as a judgement of quality.. I've inspected the source footage quite carefully and it looked very clean and free of muddiness and/or macro blocking.

Agree. The URSA Mini should be compared to the FS7, C300 Mk II and RED Scarlet Dragon, if anything.

Basicially to get similar output you would need a a7rii with an odyssey 7q+ and would end up costing same as ursa mini. Also in 6 months the a7s ii will come out. So before you buy. Have patience. Wait for reviews. Dont blow all your money on the new toy. Issues of skew and jello. Look harder at images Rent and compare cameras. 3 grand plus is a lot of money.

10bit is good when working with log, shoot jps with a log profile and you can see the problems. Personally I want good compressed raw because it's actually a better way of compressing files (14bit per pixel vs 30bits per pixel (10bit 4:4:4))

Why the snarkiness?

@ajay I think you misread my statement! :-) AF performance in video mode with native glass is very good and it's much improved compared to the a7S both in terms of speed and functionality (now you can choose the tracking sensitivity and speed for instance) My issue was with the adapted canon lens which is not quite as fast in video mode and struggled at longer focal length, hope this clarifies your concern! :-) @Emanuel I read about the overheating issues Dan encountered, I haven't had any issues so far but i generally never record for more than 5-10 mins continuously so i can't say is not happening.. I will do a test and get back to you on this! :-)

Horses for courses. Not everybody wants a big professional cinema camera. No point in comparing the two in my opinion.

I'm in your camp on this. There are so many positives to what Sony is doing with these cams, but from what I've seen so far from the A7s and the A7rII i'd rather save up and spend the extra cash on the mini Ursa, if it ever comes out ;-) wink, wink. I love the low light abilities and small form factor of the Sony cams, and am super tempted to replace my D800 with an A7RII for stills/B Cam, but the image in BM cams trumps all sony cams to me. I know this is all in everyone's personal opinion, but to me image is first, all the other stuff, even if kind of a PITA is workable. I may change my mind as more comes out from this cam, as I don't want to be so stubborn to not see the reality, but I can spot Sony footage immediately, and that isn't that great of a thing.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/08/02/sony-a7r-ii-part-iii-5-axis-stabilisation-and-heat-issues-going-handheld-to-tell-the-story-of-a-london-busker/ So it will overheat in 4K mode unless you use external recorder, not that great if the only mode that gives you the good result (S35 4K) also have overheating issue. Better to wait for A7S II if you want reliable 4K continuous shoot

Hello dafreaking, thanks for your inquiry, I hope I can be of help to you. I'm not really sure about this, but as there's always software involved and adjustments made, I think it's a thing you just have to learn individually. The sensor size helps immensely, though, just using focus peaking worked relatively well for me. Andrew can probably say more about this. The zooming certainly is far from silent and will most likely end up on the audio track. Other than that I didn't find it too annoying, though. And since the lens isn't parfocal, anyway... Battery life is OK (few hours with a bit of recording here and there) and since the things are cheap, I don't see it as much of an issue. Best regards, Your unofficial Sony support

In the end, we never stop talking about these suckers across multiple threads, so I'm gonna try to compile as much information as I can into this one. As in most cases, diopters are cheaper than anamorphics, I ended up with a lot of them, from multiple brands and multiple performances. The key was never go where everyone else is trying to find. Got the classics too, but that was luck. Anyway, let's go to the undeniable favorite: Tokina +0.4 Achromatic diopter. My only complain about it is: why aren't you bigger?! My first lens was the LA7200 and I took quite a while to find the 105mm. The next lenses all had different thread sizes. I could filter the Hypergonar on 77mm or 86mm, the Kowa with 72mm, Sankor 72mm too, Isco 54 at 95mm or 86mm and had a plan of an alternative 86mm front for the Lomo Squarefront, which didn't go through. Anyway, if I started to look for all these sizes of diopters, I'd go broke. My salvation were the Series 9 filters. If someone isn't familiar with these, they come as unthreaded glass, that you put into an adapter that can range between 67mm and 86mm. That pretty much covers all lenses. I got adapters for 72, 77 and 86. The glass itself has around 83mm diameter. Tiffen Series 9 filters are not in production anymore, so you can pick them off cheap ($1-10), even though they're not so common. The adapters are a bit harder to find. After that, I went crazy on other brands as they showed up with decent sizes. Got 77mm Spiratones +0.5 and +0.25 for $6, 86mm +0.6 Fujinon, 72mm +1.25 Fujinon, 95mm +0.25 Pentax (for the 135-600mm Pentax Zoom), 82mm +0.75 Canon (1300H), etc, all very cheap. Some of them are real heavy, and I don't know if they're achromatics or single elements. The advantage of the bigger ones is, less vignetting, even when you go wide, and, the sharpness is increased, since you don't get corner areas. Finally, I found a couple 4.5" ones (around 114mm), that require special adapters, like Series 9. These adapters are impossible to find! I'm making a couple myself, as I trust threads more than tape. :P EDIT Dec 07, 2014 Why Look for Low Powered Diopters There's a common question going around, of WHY fraction diopters are better than full numbers, so I'm addressing that here too. Rich has a good explanation too >here. As you can see below in the math section, the numbers correspond to certain maximum and minimum focus distances. When it comes to anamorphic lenses, what is the most common minimum focus distance? Something between 1.5m and 2m (or 5 to 7 feet, imperial scale). Iscoramas have 2m minimum focus. Kowas, Sankors and most dual focus projector lenses are set to 1.5m minimum focus. For most shots, this distance is greater than the distance you want to put between the camera and your subject, which leads to being unable to focus properly - also, it's a pretty messed up distance for working indoors. What a +0.4 or +0.5 diopter does is turn this "near 2m minimum focus distance" into "near 2m MAXIMUM focus distance" (see math below, seriously), allowing you to frame and shoot freely indoors and much closer to your subjects. If you want extreme close ups, then you need to have stronger diopters, but a +0.5 is a key tool for "standard" shots. Achromats are also better, but they have their own explanation below too. Focus and Anamorphic Compression Another thing that relates directly to diopters is the lens compression. Most of our 1.5x or 2x stretch lenses only have that proportion when focused to infinity. Things change when you twist the focus ring. As you get closer to minimum focus, the less compression you have. 2x lenses tend to go towards 1.7x or 1.8x, Iscoramas get very close to 1.3x. When unsqueezing your footage, this compression disparity can make shots look different from the rest of the footage, as if it was shot with a different lens. In a technical level, it really was a different optical path. Using diopters you get rid of using the shorter distances on your focus ring and keep your compression constant throughout the shots. DISCLAIMER: I don't know how this relates to baby anamorphics, and this CERTAINLY does not affect focus through lenses since you don't change the distance between the anamorphic elements. //EDIT. Strength measuring: Fujinon: The first number is their maximum focus distance, the second number is the thread size. For example, a 16086 reaches 160cm at infinity (+0.6) and has 86mm thread. 190101, 190cm at infinity focus, 101mm thread. Canon: The newest series (250D and 500D) measures in millimeters their maximum distance. 250mm equals +4 and 500mm equals +2. The "D" stands for Double element. The older ones use the same measuring, 1300H = 1300mm, +0.75. There's also a 900H, 105mm, which is a like +1.1. When nothing is marked on it, good luck with testing the thing. It's usually not hard, but most of them have information lying around the web. Thread size: As well as regular threads, some are marked with a C after the number (mostly 86C, 95C and 105C), that means the thread on this filter is coarse, 1mm pitch. Our regular (fine) threads have .75mm pitch. There are adapters for these too, like the one below, from 86mm fine to 86C. http://www.ebay.com/itm/350325079425 Minimum and Maximum focus distance: Just realized that I haven't explained the math relating diopter strength and maximum focus range! Since most anamorphics perform better when focused closer to infinity, a diopter gives great help in "faking" it optically. A close up filter "sets" infinity just a couple meters/feet away, so anything BEYOND that certain point will be IMPOSSIBLE to focus. Of course, this will NOT follow the lens' focus marks. Infinity on the lens now equals the diopter maximum focus distance. Now, the numbers: S = diopter strength (+0.5, +0.6, +1, +2, etc) MaxFm = maximum focus distânce, measured here in METERS MaxFm = 1 / (S) Ha! I bet you expected something waaaay more complex, right? Some examples are never bad, so let's get to it. I'll use +0.5, +1.25 and +2 as sample strengths. MaxFm = 1/(0.5) = 1/(1/2) = 1 x 2/1 = 2 meters MaxFm = 1/(1.25) = 1/(5/4) = 1 x 4/5 = 0.8 meters MaxFm = 1/(2) = 1/2 = 0.5 meters If you live in a country where imperial scale prevails over the metric system, you just gotta do a quick fix to the expression. S = diopter strength (+0.5, +0.6, +1, +2, etc) MaxFf = maximum focus distânce, measured here in FEET MaxFf = (3.3 / S) Same examples from above, now in feet MaxFf = 3.3/(0.5) = 1/(1/2) = 3.3 x 2/1 = 6.6 feet MaxFf = 3.3/(1.25) = 1/(5/4) = 3.3 x 4/5 = 2.6 feet MaxFf = 3.3/(2) = 3.3/2 = 1.6 feet Regarding minimum focus distance, I'd say anything closer than half maximum focus distance is gonna look pretty bad already. With high power close ups (+2 and up), I'd say anything closer than 3/4 of your maximum focus distance is gonna be pretty bad already. Of course, this "minimum focus distance" image quality has A LOT of influence from the anamorphic. Also, achromatic diopters will improve almost everything you could imagine. Since I've just mentioned them, here's a list of achromatic diopters, with their strength, manufacturer, price range, etc. http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html Price range: Just for checking, here is a list of the most common lenses and their outgoing price. Tokina +0.5 72mm - $150 Kenko +0.5 72mm - $90 Tokina +0.4 72mm Achromatic - $350 Kenko +0.3 105mm - $350 Canon +2 72mm Achromatic - $100 Sigma +1.6 62mm Achromatic - $20 Angenieux +0.25 82mm - $330 Kinoptik +1 82mm Achromatic - $530 Foton-A +1 or +1.25 - $900 (GONE!) Tiffen +0.5 to +2 138mm - $50 and up Tiffen +0.5 to +5 Series 9 - $1-50 Tiffen/Kodak Series 9 Adapters - $20-40 Tiffen +0.5 to +2 4.5" - $10-50 (RARE)

My money was on Lumix/Panasonic to bring 10bit recording to the GH5... but it seems the DVX200 is only 8 bit, will they better their new prosumer model? Canon/Nikon seem unlikely to be first to push new tech and Sony seem to be staying put with 8 bit. Feels like the dream of 10bit in a DSLR/Hybrid is still a long way off. 10bit seems to be the last big sticking point. We are seeing 4K, we are seeing log, we are seeing incredible ISO... Yet 10 bit is probably as important a feature as any.

Because it isn't the 10bit you're liking. For a start your screen is 8bit. Secondly a typical 10bit camera like the Blackmagic Pocket has a wide dynamic range - you liking that and also the high data rate of ProRes meaning fine grain and very little compression so less colour data is lost. Also you are liking the look of an i-frame codec rather than long GOP and 422 over 420. All make a difference to the image. The 1D C proves that you can get amazing amounts of colour information out of a 8bit file. Hell, 42MP A7R II JPEGs prove this 10bit is massively overrated because people blame 8bit for stuff that is really the fault of heavy compression (banding) and sensor related shortcomings in DSLRs. If a line-skipping DSLR went 10bit tomorrow in a firmware update you would notice no difference. And as for grading, I have tried grading 8bit and 10bit from the same camera and you have to pixel peep ridiculously hard to see a difference. Raw makes all the difference for grading, it is a different ballgame. 10bit is not.

Matt. I bought my RX10ii in the UK for a lot less off eBay - £869 to be exact. I didn't pay any import duties on it either - maybe I was just lucky. I know I won't have a warranty for it locally in the UK, but I'm willing to take the chance for that kind of saving. The eBay seller gives a year's warranty and their service was good. I've just checked to see if they had any more, but it seems they're sold out at the moment. I was thinking about buying one off B&H, but they won't ship to the UK due to restrictions from Sony. I found it ridiculous that they want to charge £1200 for a $1200 camera? Just doesn't make sense - like Apple prices. At the price point of £1200, I think I would of rather bought a body-only A7s which you can now pick up for around £1300. (Then the extra cost of lenses and Meta bones etc makes it expensive!)

Because they dont want to.

0_0 You should seriously run a service.

New lens days are the best days A MIR-11 so I can get close ups with my Bayonet K3 as well as my M42 Model. Won't cover the "s16" gate but still worth it for the focus distance.

200mbps 10-bit is a far cry from uncompressed 14-bit DNG for file sizes and workflow. It seems to me with storage prices plunging lower and lower, double the files sizes for quadruple the tonal precision seems like a fair middle ground between 8-bit 4:2:0 and uncompressed Godzilla files. It's not "the holy grail"--no one said that but you--but it is a noticeable increase in quality. Funny how you put down the importance of higher color depth after spending an entire article beating on the NX1 for not being as good with color as your 4:2:2 camera. My money is on Samsung or Panasonic. The other important question is whoever puts a full sized HDMI out on their body. No, really. I think a lot of users don't even consider the 10-bit of the GH4 because micro HDMI is so breakable and easy to slip out during a take.

10 bit is a huge, huge leap... If the GH4 is still banding, then they must have screwed up their implementation or someone screwed up their tests. 10bit + a proper log is a very, very good balance of image quality and file size/workflow.

Magic Lantern already did... 14 bit raw. Medal goes to them.

The Kowa + Rectilux combination looks neat indeed! Is the SLR Magic a preproduction sample? Was it fully in focus here?

Buy buy buy! Feed the consumer within. Jokes aside, I find it scary how many people are considering investing such huge quantities of money in a camera which has its key selling points in still photography. I'm grabbing an A7R2 and will run it into the ground for the year its current, then sell it when the new model arrives. The fact that I can use the a7r2 on medium format digitar lenses on an X-Act2 camera for technical photography, and outperform guys shooting with phase one backs worth £20k, and the fact that i can shoot full sensor readout 4k video for lens tests, branding work and personal work the huge outlay is worthwhile. I lost about £500 selling my a7r and battery grip - which i had the day it was available. I used that camera day in day out and if I recall, two jobs paid for the camera outright. Even if I;d hired the camera for a year for £500 and not used it commercially I'd still be happy since i actually used it for enjoyment as well as work. My A7s will be sold the week before the a7smk2 is available. I'll lose money on the value, but the A7S has made its cost back ten fold. All of the occasional shooting work I get nowadays originates from work i undertook with a Canon 550d and a Nex5n around 4-5 years ago. I'd still shoot with the nex5n and get results that the client would be happy with. So to those guys suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome, or in most cases consumers thinking of laying down such a massive investment on a camera, be sure it's worth it. Will you be undertaking work that requires this tool? will you be fitting lenses onto it that will come close to delivering what is required to make the camera show its strengths? Do you need the item? £2500 buys an awful lot of good glass that will never devalue! You'd kit yourself out with a near full set of early Leica R's for that!

Whoa, why the hostility? This is a friendly community where we share ideas to improve each other's work, we aren't competing. If you have input that helps the rest of us, you're welcome to share. Having said that, you're mistaken in many ways. First, mercer here also got the NX500, and we're comparing notes on the effect of sharpness/contrast settings at default and at -10/-5, you likely didn't know that. Next, my goal is to cross cut NX500 and NX1 footage, and I'm checking to see if setting sharpness/contrast the same would help on that. And you can always get it sharper either in camera or outside (see below for a sharpened version of the same video), the point is to evaluate NX500's capability as a teleconverter, this is not a production video. Finally, it's great that you are happy with your video, but none of your shots go as tight as I went, which is the point of this thread. If you do have anything that goes as close, please post so we can compare apples to apples.

Exactly, not getting the Mini is probably a better way to cure GAS.

How would an Odyssey give you a similar output? Still 8 bit, still 30fps max in 4K, still around 12 stops, still 4K and not 4.6K...confused but I do agree with the sentiment, it is alot of money to spend and the initial paper spec excitement might not translate well into imagery (same can be said for the Ursa mini too)

Please continue all A7R II topics here:

I bought a Lexar too, the CFast 2.0 cards work "right out of the box" and I would recommend them to anyone who wants to have less trouble than I had. In comparison to what I paid for the Sony SxS PRO+ cards for my larger camera, even CFast 2.0's are a steal ;).

Its not a Macro but the m42 Jena 35mm f2.8 has a close focus of almost nothing, the ND bumps the subject if I have the Xume adapters on. Since its m42 you can also unscrew it and get closer (works on your 50mm as well). On my 10mm C-Mount I can unscrew and literally have the subject touching the glass.

Sweet images! And I probably like your taste in movies (C'est arrivé...). : ) Tbh I don't expect any of the fancy new Sony stuff to hold up for very long with all the IBIS, overheating and whatnot going on, but it's just too tempting convenience-wise. We'll see.

They're much more expensive and have higher write speeds (90 instead of 65), so I don't see why they shouldn't.

This is where Sony has an advantage, sensor development. Making their models obsolete might seem like a bad strategy, but what they achieve in the meantime is market domination. I think it is great to have companies innovate as fast as Sony. I was really tired of waiting for even simple things from companies such as Nikon, Canon, etc. I also don't understand why people buy cameras as an "investment", if the camera is not worth ( to you ) the asking price don't buy it. Maybe that will force companies to stop using this aggressive pricing model.

It is a good price. The lens is sweet! Very low contrast and kind to colors compared to some of my vintage 50mm. Love the wide but short design as well. What mount was it? (mine was $12)

That's the spirit! I really hope he, and you, are right. If you're able, could you please consider testing bulb mode, in non-silent mode, for the same thing? Also, Jim Kasson, on his excellent blog, has noted that the drop to 12-bit is typically only noticeable quite close to base ISO. So, 100 ISO appears to be the best setting with which to test, which probably almost goes without saying http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8586

great little lens.

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.

Be aware that fully electronic shutter drops the image to 12-bit precision. It's in the manual. Bulb, continuous, continuous bracket mode do the same. At low ISOs, this equates to about a 1-stop noise increase and a 1-stop loss in dynamic range. Bummer.

hi. thank you. here is the sony link saying 5minutes 4k limit : http://www.sony.co.in/product/dsc-rx10m2?hpid=dsc-rx10m2:model:hub:mainbanner

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.

The cheap Transcends U3 (95/65) work flawlessly. In terms of batteries I got cheap ones for 14 Euros from your island (Expro), no issues, either.

TONS more coming from RX10 II in the review. RX100 IV is a separate piece but I have had to work on that for past week, time which could have been spent finishing off my RX10 II review!

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.

Hello everyone! I'm a french film school student (however we don't practice often it's just mainly theoretical courses and film analysis) and we had recently to create a short fiction (we were to do around 7 shots). We had the plan with my teammate to explore an old abandoned coal washing facility and decided to make something with it, so here it is! Sound is important so play it loud Now some explanation. I don't have a lot of money, and our school doesn't have any gear to loan, so we made it a 0$ budget short ahah (well the only thing we paid for was the gas mask). For the prep we had only a few days, so we thought of a story, and we only did the storyboard for the first half of the short (until he enters the factory), as we didn't know what it looked like inside, and we had to improvise on set. It was really run'n'gunning as we only had 9h on location, and some shots are quite rushed... I shot it with a sony a6000 in AVCHD, with for the most part in exterior the sony 18-105G F4, then in interior the Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS and a Leica Summicron 90mm F2 (pre-asph, which I found in my dad's old camera gear). For the lighting setup we used an outdoor LED floodlight (which is what the actor is holding inside the factory) and a 200*160 5in1 reflector to bounce some light back. I edited everything and made the soundtrack on Sony Vegas, then graded everything on DaVinci Resolve Lite. I'm kinda in a love-hate relationship with it haha, during the edit and post-prod there was some moment I just wanted to delete everything, and I was noticing every little mistake or imperfections, but considering the time limitation, budget the result is fairly ok, and initial feedback was good so I wanted to share it more with people working in this field! I'd love any advice or feedback from you!

It's one thing to put together a good anamorphic rig, but you'll eventually have to understand widescreen composition. David Boardwell's video is a fantastic introduction to widescreen technologies and composition.