Leaderboard

This was great info about those "finger cuts". Didn't know that, thanks! I am just on same market here as jgharding is. I am looking good russian lenses with a lot of flare and other lovely character to combine with my anamorphic lenses (iscomorphot 1.5x and kowa 8z). And on my buying list st the moment are Jupiter-9, Mir-1B and Volna-9 (already have a Helios 44-2). I have also read about serialnumbers that some years are better than others (manufacturing year are the first two digits in the serialnumber) like from 75-89 are good years or something like that.. Don't know might be just a haux old russian lenses are often hit or mis. Those are plenty out there but there is bad and good copies. Good luck with the lottery!

And here's the finished edit: I have to say that this works quite well, at least sufficient for my needs

Hey man! I have a set like that and I picked them all with m42 mounts since m42 to EF is a very cheap and common adapter. The longer focal length to match the set is the Tair 11A, 135mm f/2.8, 20 aperture blades, beautiful results. They have a few different versions but I think just the Helios is numbered (the one everyone loves is the 44-2). About the Jupiter 9 and Mir 1B, I've read somewhere that the ones with "finger cuts" ( http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3144/jupiter9.jpg ) in the focus ring have less coatings, while the regular, round ones ( http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/data/83/IMGP3762_2.jpg ) are less prone to flaring. These versions also have preset aperture, which makes them naturally declicked, while more modern versions have clicked stops (the Helios 44 for sure, since I had a few).

quoted in hopes that this will reach you nokker! i wanna learn more too! ive only run through these settings once to do a quick comparison with my note 5. ive gotten the most usable image information with the flat profile type on dark + light, the flat profile intensity on medium ('high' seemed to give the same image after post, harder to monitor on screen), and the noise reduction set to normal ꜛ hmm interesting, on my note 5 i havent gotten noticeably better results with the flat profile intensity set to high vs medium, 'high' seems like the same image with the contrast pushed down even more, have you liked the results of 'high' better? ill have to check out Cameringo~! has anyone else had a chance to use the cinema 4k app more? any thoughts/tips/tricks?

The Helios looks fantastic Tito. I wish you'd take some quick video of it with a 1.5x and 2x to see what kind of look you can get with it and a real anamorphic. Anyway, thanks for the vid.

WOW! So much hate for the 54 or the re-badged x1.33 version (yes its an Iscorama in all but name). On the good side, the prices for Iscorama's are dropping & you just can't live in the past, when you could off-load a plastic lens for £3k+. All Iscorama's have the same sort of character & the pre-36s don't flare that great anyways (what a gimmick!) - well not compared to other anamorphics out there. And now that dual focus attachments can be transformed into single focus, you can get a useable x2 anamorphic that is just as good, if not better than an Iscorama. And it is a myth that you can't get a MC lens to flare, you just have to plan a little & give it a little push in the right direction. IMHO I much prefer to be in control of flare, than it just showing up when you don't want it too. And just to be correct here, Tito has the rarest and probably the best of the Iscorama's - the 42.

It works well with the 24-105, but I'm struggling to get it working with the 18-35 correctly. I have updted the firmware on the lenses and it seems to work ok with the continous focus option, but not well with the one shot focus option.

The 18-35mm used to only work well with Dual Pixel AF at f/1.8, but Sigma have now updated the firmware so it works at all apertures (reportedly very well). So make sure you buy a unit with a later serial number - otherwise you'll have to update it manually with a dock or by sending it back to Sigma. The 18-35mm is undoubtedly the more "cinematic" lens. It really is like owning three cinema primes in one (in terms of image quality), and yes, even at 18mm you can get nice shallow DOF with moderately close subjects. If you're doing run&gun there's no denying IS is a big benefit - but the difference between f4 and f1.8 is significant. What about the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a compromise? A lot of professional C100 owners have sworn by that lens as "the one" for a while now. It's not as sexy as the Canon "L" or the Sigma Art, but it's a damn good lens. Also interesting might be to consider one of Canons newish image-stabilised, wide primes - I think they do a 24mm 2.8 IS, a 28mm 2.8 IS and a 35mm 2.0 IS. The 35mm I know is superb.

I plumped for the C100 MK2 a few months back. Love it. It is so easy to use and the image really does look nice. Yeah, it's not 4K but at this time and the clients I work for (weddings, events, conferences and web videos for businesses) who cares. I replaced my GH4 with it, no regrets at all. I can just pick up this camera and away you go, long battery life and due to the codec sizes a 64GB card can last me all day at a wedding. Lens wise, I have the Sigma 18-35mm (great lens), Sigma 24-105 and the Canon EF-S 18-135. I do find the Canon lens slightly softer but it works a treat with the Dual AF system and Face autodetect. I generally shoot in Wide DR, would anyone have any good picture profiles they'd recommend. For things like weddings, I prefer as near as possible out of the camera. I've still to actually try C-LOG properly!

Only company in the world thats ever wowed me with demo footage or pics are blackmagic. I learned a long time ago not to judge gear until Ive used it and that my preference is just mine. Just because I dont understand/like a product I dont go all mad about it. Recent example is the a7rii. You wont find me in any threads talking it down even though I was sceptical from day one and today cant think of one single reason to buy one. Because I get that others do, and thats all good.

The FSB 6 and 8 are close ... better to err on the heavy side for the mount ... a bit more resistance may yield a bit less shaky vid ... at least at my age that seems to work.... Yes panning I tend to rush things ... or so my Cello instructor contends.... Bob

yes, I have a panel with similar coverage. I just make it look good on this and occasionally reference on a more standard monitor. sometimes you need to make things look very vivid for them to work well on your average Joe's screen in After Effects you can apply a working profile that limits the colour to lovely disappointing rec709, for example

There is a 1.9x big mutha version out there that is for DLP use, bit too big and heavy for practical use on camera though! Cricriprod's 1.33x Isco looks far more camera friendly

and with a smaller squeeze factor it will highly likely provide better performance than the 1.5x units in resolution terms. This is as much an Iscorama as a MC Iscorama 54 IMO. Value wise, since it doesnt have the 'Iscorama' nametag you'll have to expect lower sale prices due to less demand. However, if this were a 2x version there may be a number of people here ready to remortgage their homes and pay 2x the going rate of a 1.5x unit..

Isn't the raw version of the x5 around 3 times more expensive? Wouldn't it be better to just buy a pistol grip gimbal for $500-600 and add the Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera for $995. Then you have something on a gimbal that can shoot raw for $1,600 instead of $5,500.

I am not an audio professional but most audio professionals I've encountered will tell that they prefer a wired mic over a wireless all the time and in general a boomed mic over a lav mic as well (Either shotgun or hypercardioid depending on surroundings). But sometimes you simply need wireless to get the job done. I have a G3 system and it gets the job done (Actually I've never, ever, had a problem with it) but cost me quite a bit but and if I was on a budget I'd look at Rode's wireless offerings, they are bulkier but they are easier to set up and use and priced really reasonably in my opinion. Sennheiser also has new equipment that is far easier to use but it is not cheap but will probably last forever. One investment I made is buying a set of adaptors for my wireless lavs that will let me feed them phantom power from a wire. This way if I'm on a shoot and I'm having problems with wireless I can still feed them into a mixer, or in my case a simple Juiced Link box. Sennheiser makes these adaptors for about $130 US each but there is a nice company in the UK that makes them for half the price as well. http://www.canford.co.uk/ The product I bought for my G3 kit is: http://www.canford.co.uk/Products/20-769_CANFORD-ELECTRET-MICROPHONE-ADAPTER-3.5mm-jack Also the stock lavs that come with wireless kits are nothing special, many folks update these.

But the problem is that people that are happy about it will be attacked. Just like you do now to iPhone users that are happy about getting 4k. It's not like they didn't know it existed in other phones. It's just that they liked the phone they had. And now when they have 4k, they are happy about it. I just never understood this phenomenon that happens all the time with smartphones, cameras, cars, computers, you name it. People get attacked for liking their new car by people upsetting some other car already had the same features. ..... ? It's just so weird to me that you react in this way.

I'd be inclined to suggest going full frame (a7s or a7r2 (or even a 5dmk3 raw hacked)), Even 1080p full frame, cropped to 4:3 and losing horizontal sensor resolution will outperform smaller sensors shooting 4k with most lens options. there are no anamorphic lenses that shoot with exciting apertures and that also resolve 4k resolutions on sensors as small as the sensor area the gh4 uses in 4k 4:3 mode. INFACT, most down even resolve 1080p onto a 4:3 provided by the gh4. I'd sooner shoot full frame, cropping the 16:9 unsqueezed image, and making use of a proper frame height and the associated fov and dof you need for anamorphic to be worthwhile. I think the a7s immaculate oversampled internal 1080p full frame mode (and associated DR, small file sizes etc), and a 2x anamorphic, cropped to 2.4:1 and losing 1/3 of the horizontal res is way better than pointless extra resolution where most lenses dont deliver anyway.

Sankor can be had for as little as $150 on ebay. If you're just starting out you don't need a mint one really. And any of the 2x adapters are all similar. Yes they are heavy and will strain the lens mount a little, but it really won't make a difference. The speedbooster makes for a great mount and the Nikon lenses are old style metal housing which is really strong. If anything you'll have a hard time focusing with the weight on the lens. But you have to dual focus anyway (one for the Nikon, other for the Sankor). Most projector lenses are a minimum of 40mm m4/3 (85mm full frame). You still might get a vignette on the corners. 50mm w/ speedbooster on the GH4 4K will come out to around 85mm FF equivalent so you'll be right there. If anything shoot with the new version 2.0 firmware for the GH4. Then you can use the new Photo 4K modes, and if you shoot 1:1 (2880x2880 square) then you can stretch and crop the image using the center of the lens. This will reduce the vignette quite a bit and maybe you can shoot wider. You can look up Luke Neumann on youtube and see his quick tutorial on how to use the version 2.0 4K photo modes.