Leaderboard

if low light is your main shooting scenario I'm certain the bmpcc and speed booster 0.58x has the edge - particularly if you want deeper dof. a native iso of 800, increasing to 'quasi 2500iso' when used with the speed booster is only matched by the a7s - which IMO doesn't touch the bmpcc for out and out image quality. The pixels are rather large on the bmpcc - almost as large as those found on the a7s as it happens. add the incredible 275% gain in transmission from the speed booster and it's a no brainer. zeiss 35mm/1.4 on pocket + speed booster will provide the same fov and double the dof as a 5dmk3 with a 50mm/1.4. but the 5d will need to be running at 2500iso in order to match the bmpcc running at its native 800iso. even pushed to 1600, the bmpcc holds up. to match this a 5dmk2 will need to be running at 5000iso. if a 5d user wants to match the dof of the bmpcc setup above he'll need to close the aperture down to around f2 meaning iso needs to be ragged to 10,000iso! when you start adding the sigma 18-35/1.8 into the equation, the bmpcc literally kills anything a 5D user would need to use in order to match the out and out usability of the bmpcc+sigma+speed booster in a real low budget shooting environment. The bigger the sensor, the longer the lenses, the shallower the dof, the higher you need to push iso, or the more light you need. since this is not a forum full of guys with budgets to light for the 5dmk3 at f4-f5.6. The BMPCC + SB0.58x is definitely the best low light camera at the moment

The second season of Broadchurch is up on Netflix, so I have been watching. And after a while, I found myself thinking "what beautiful images, what talented cinematography, what great color." No matter what you think of the content of the show, it is made by incredibly competent people. Apart from some annoying, intentionally-jerky handheld work, there is great composition, some amazing tracking work and focus pulls, great control of light and beautiful colors for people and landscapes alike. And the lenses are just beautiful too - there is a lot of shallow depth of field work, and the backgrounds are soft and creamy and not distracting. Generally, the images just "pop" in all aspects. So I googled out of curiosity, and it was shot on Alexa. But after a while longer, I began to feel... oppressed by all the imagery. And that is what I wanted to start the topic about - the aesthetics. Broadchurch has all the things that people on this forum often talk about positively, and that I would take as positives too - the intelligent and creative use of shallow depth of field that comes with big sensors, color that is vivid yet "real," and an organic "film-like" image. You won't see any clipping or noise on this show... If you haven't seen it, you can pull up a few minutes online and see what I mean. It can be any few minutes. I am trying to reflect on this oppressiveness I am feeling, because it is making it hard for me to watch. And I am wondering if anyone sees/feels the same. The best theory I have is this - on color, it is like living in an eternal "golden hour." The colors are absolutely lovely, but you wish sometimes they would go away - they are asking too much of you in their loveliness. On the shallow depth of field: the work is incredibly proficient, but sometimes you wish you could just see the scene and decide where to look, and not have your attention dragged around the scene by the decisions of the director and cinematographer. Again, you wish it would go away and ask less of you. Maybe it is just me, and I am just odd. But I am wondering if anyone else has had this feeling, on this or some other film and their aesthetics. It is great, in many many ways, but in some way (for me, at least) it is "too" great. I would aspire in my dreams to produce images with a fraction of the quality of those in Broadchurch, but I find myself being distracted by them and not wanting to watch.

Was shooting some stuff with some Azden dual wireless mics (330LT) and kept getting popping on one set. Dave Dugdale gave up on the Azdens after a few minutes so in frustration I ordered two sets from Audio-Technica System 10 (chose over Rode system and Sony because they output both balanced and un-balanced--which I might want for a professional camcorder situation). While I'm on B&H I figured I'd get the Tascam DR-70D so I might get one channel from the Azen and the two from Audio-Technica. I was about to put the Azdens up for sale then figured I'd give them one more fiddle. I moved the frequency on one to the opposite end of the other and, voila, they now work perfectly. I know, why didn't I do that in the beginning? Lying in bed I wondered, how difficult to slate the LX100 to the Tascam? Turns out, it isn't difficult at all. I've half-heartedly tried to sell the LX100. Something keeps drawing me back to that little camera. The 4K from that small size downsamples to crystal clear 1080. Anyway, the short of it is the Tascam DR-70s have internal mics and, with the LX100 (or any camera) firmly screwed into it, tapping on one will create a SLATE sound in both. The Tascam also has a slate tone you can send to any camera with an external mic input. I plan to use that with the A7s. BTW, B&H got me the stuff in a day. Amazing company. They often include free stuff with purchases. With this, I received some Sony audio software. Another interesting thing I learning in doing this is with the Sony XLR-K1M, you can set the gain to one thing (say low) in one channel and (high) in another channel coming from the one shotgun mic. How cool is that! It's a similar thing you can do with the Tascam. Once you set the gain of one mic properly, you can record another "low" so that if something really loud happens, you have some audio that you can use, which isn't distorted. Thank you to Andrew for running this blog where I can share this tip!

Plot twist, this is all a marketing scheme to get people knowing about the NX1 ! Check this forum for example, 10 out of 20 threads are related to the NX1/Samsung !

It is a pretty special camera. Those f#@&in batteries though. Stoked for the Canon batteries on the Micro.

Interesting that you are favouring an MFT camera for stills. I recently sold my D810 and bought a GX8 for 50/50 stills and video. I was concerned about the sensor size, but for the commercial documentary style stills I take, its fine. The key is the stabilisation. My keeper rate has gone up and having such a small camera with a brilliant lens like the 12-35 is a joy. The video from the GX8 is excellent too!

The spread of strengths across the camera industry is driving me a bit nuts. Only Blackmagic do cheap affordable int. 10bit ProRes. Only Olympus do effective stabilisation. Only Panasonic do cheap 4K in Micro Four Thirds cam Only Fuji do a film-inspired shooting experience (although Olympus run them close) Only Sony max out the specs and do a full frame mirrorless camera Only Samsung do a really responsive fast ergonomic DSLR-style mirrorless camera Only Canon... I mean only Magic Lantern do raw video. The A7S II is closest to the perfect camera but the handling is just...so soulless. Currently I am thinking of keeping hold of the E-M5 II as a stills camera, second to the NX1 and A7S II as my main video cameras.

I’ve been struggling this year to understand color. I come from a strictly digital-upbringing. I have shot some film, but I never understood color timing or even learned how to look critically at color – at skintones, at greens, blues, and red. And I wondered why I would spend so much time trying to understand it, when I could be spending time practicing lighting and finding angles and watching inspiring films. But now I kind of get it – since the 90’s – one shoots film, then one digitizes it in (Digital Intermediate) then you would color it in CINEON colorspace (which is flat like log, very similar to the flatness of Arri log-C) and then send it off to film print. Right now it’s Kodak 5283 or 5293 which respond to blacks, dynamic range, all that differently. So you would choose a stock to shoot on, digitize it, color it, then send off to a film print. So colorists have been involved digitally since the 90’s on all major motion pictures shot on film. They would have LUTs – or look up tables – to emulate the film prints, so they could see what it will look like before they print it. And also, to keep it consistent when it would go off to DVD or VOD or Blu Ray – so the film looks the same everywhere, with tweaking. So I started to use Filmconvert to grade my footage that I would shoot as flat as I can with my cameras. First, it was the Sony F3 and now mostly the Sony F35 and Red One and sometimes the Alexa. Filmconvert keeps it in REC 709 colorspace, which is the standard for TVs and online. Filmconvert was great, but the curves were aggresive and I found using Alexa dci-p3 worked best with slog1, not just slog2. Anyway, I found out later to lessen the film curve, raise highlights, etc. Then Visioncolor came along with their luts that got highly popular – especially the M.31 lut. I liked it, but it was a little too stylized. This is when I started to learn resolve. Before I just used Final Cut Pro 7 and the three-way color corrector. Resolve I didn’t get for a long time, but read a tutorial by Hunter Hampton and started to understand it. I also started to mess with DSLRs more fully and learned how to play in RAW there. All helping out with shooting on Red and understanding its own RAW and why to use Redlog over their Redgammas, to have the most info to play with, out the bat. And I learned that Red Cine-X was just a simple program that existed before Resolve was made free, and it was good, but Resolve is a lot more customizable. Then Visioncolor Impulz Luts came out. And Hunter said it was as close to film as you could get. I messed with it, didn’t understand it. But now I do. You take your footage, and if you are working quick, add a FC (film contrast lut) or a VS (visionspace) lut that has less contrast or can mess with a FPE (film print emulation) lut – that I think brings down the highlights too much. I would learn to go slog to cineon, then start coloring with the filmstock I like (I like 250d and 200t and 500t a lot – 50d is a little too wild in the blues) – and then once that is good, go off to a Film Print – 2383, 2393, or their custom Film Contrast 1 or Visioncolor or even Fuji print. And that gets you a good look. Anyway why is this important? Because now I can shoot on a log or raw camera, and build a lut, and make sure that the lut looks good and that the final image is going to look good. No more guessing with shooting flat and finding out later there is too much noise in the shadows or the skintone, how it reacts to light and color looks odd and off. In essence, it’s What you see, what you get, which is in some ways an improvement over film. You know for sure, pretty much, if the image is good or not. With film, the mystery and magic of course is there and it looks the best – how it handles skin and highlights and light, and those dancing frames and how unpredictable, but hey, I can’t afford to shoot film. No matter what people say, shooting digital is cheaper and you have less chance of screwing it up. Especially if you own the gear already and shoot pro res 4444 vs some insanely uncompressed codec. The world of digital doesn’t look as nice as film, usually. But sometimes, if you have the right colorist, it can. Watching the trailer for San Andreas, I thought it was shot on film. Same with the Age of Adeline. Adding power windows, using lenses that have pop and circular rendering of faces. Using cameras that have nice motion. It gets you there, kind of close. It’s not always perfect, but I still think the DP and the Colorist can make a film shot digitally look better than a film shot and colored poorly on film. I still wish for more and more advances in digital camera technology that can have the randomness of film – the highlight smooth-roll-off – the sharpness and how it renders faces – I don’t want companies to give up and call it a day. But, hey I’m not an engineer. I’m just a guy trying to figure things out. Here’s a clip of how they digitally graded “Oh Brother Where are Thou” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg

Haha, this is gonna drag on for a while! They really should be saying who this "official" source is though and the context of the email back and forth. An "official source" could be a sales rep who has no idea and has just answered no to the question "Are media reports true that Nikon is allegedly buying Samsung's NX technology"? A healthy dose of scepticism is required.

Samsung denies the deal with Nikon ! http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/official-statement-samsung-denies-nikon-is-buying-its-nx-camera-technology-66626

Spot on review. As a video shooter I'm in the camp of it's "just good enough." If the IQ was any weaker I'd probably go to another cam... But I do love the 5-axis for what it lets me do handheld. Since my gigs are for the web, the IQ is perfectly acceptable. Also, the colors look good to my eye. Btw, the bat grip w/headphones is great. Not only for the audio, but the ergos of it really helps shooting.

So heres my few first shots with H265 native : There is aparent banding (on the last image) however, somehow I "feel" the image is different, it seems to have less sharpening artefacts, and less shadow artefacts than the converted prores file. Working with these however, seems like a wonder...fast workflow, and no hassle converting.

"Investing in lenses" is a fairly common expression. No need to ridicule the man just because he thinks differently than you.

Would you consider selling the diopters separately?

I don't know what I would do without the Cineon LUTs now. I use them for a starting point on the GH4, C100, and BMCC.

Last week I was able to pick up the G7 on sale, and I know a few others had as well, so I was just wondering what settings people were using. With my limited time with it, I have mostly used Cinelike D, with everything turned down. Here are a few grabs from my first outing:

Very interesting tugela. Now let's come back to reality. When using a speedbooster you are in the case where you have a lens that has an image circle larger than the one needed to fill the sensor. The speedbooster "takes that circle and compresses it", this means the aberrations will also be scaled and you end up with more resolution. It will not be as good as using a bigger sensor, but it will be sharper than using the lens without the speedbooster. http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf check fig 21 for a real world sample You don't have to thank me, just say something coherent.

You can always take a stills photo to check focus.

I am not a tech head, but I think it might be the codec or something. There is no reason why these lenses... Your FDs or my MDs wouldn't have enough resolution for 4K video. With the G7, I am having no issues with old c-mount TV lenses.

A fascinating and insightful thought. I haven't seen much of Broadchurch myself but I think I had a similar experience when watching Tree of Life. The imagery is mind-blowing, delivered through artisan cinematography, but I actually found it exhausting to watch because every frame demanded your attention. It was also a tiring mix of fluid shots and sharp cuts. I found its portrayal of life, especially the growing up scenes with the brothers, wholly truthful and evocative in places, but the continual movement of the camera and breaking from abstract to real was overwhelming at times. I would liken the experience to reading a literary novel or visiting an art gallery. You can gobble up the craftsmanship of each paragraph and painting for only so long before you get art indigestion. I watch such films and read such books to learn, but when the art overwhelms, or is stronger than, the story then I start to lose interest, nay, get angry. This may be the problem with Broadchurch, that the visual art is drowning the story, which is made all the more difficult for someone like yourself who is tuned to spot beautiful cinematography.

Imo, if there is any 'deal' among Nik and Sam it's the other way around. Sam is much more powerful and could 'acquire' the right of using Nikon name on its cameras to be released in Europe and USA. That'd be exciting.

I started with Muted, and ramped up the contrast & saturation, then shifted the white balance colour hue away from green.

I would love that D7300, Ebrahim. Flat picture profile & codec are very nice on the Nikon cameras. One observation... Did anyone notice the excitement go up a notch with the mention of the word "Nikon"? It just goes to show the power of branding and gives you a clue as to why Samsung sold so few NX1s. That spec of D7300 would break the internet. People would sell the mum for one. In fact it already exists with the NX1 and you don't have to put up with a flappy mirror in the way, only the Samsung logo tarnishing it.

As a guy who shoots stills on Nikon for a living, I can unequivocally say that if Nikon releases an NX1 with no other changes than to fit it with an F mount, I will be down to the store that day. As much as I like my speedbooster on my GH4, it's still nothing more than a stopgap to let me use my Nikon glass with my GH4. If Panasonic made lenses with a look that I like as much as Nikon's, I'd sell all my adaptors and go native. The difference in weight is completely immaterial, knowing that I can mount any of my lenses and it being 100% reliable is by far more important. Maybe Nikon can keep the NX mount for consumer versions of that camera. But if Nikon is releasing a professional line of mirrorless cameras, F-mount or bust!

hahahaha @Tito Ferradans my thoughts exactly! Looks like diopters specifically for the iscorama! In my 7 year love affair with the iscorama I have never once seen these - a +0.5, +1 and +2 matched set of what look like they may be doublets!

Unlike Sony & Canon, Nikon do not have to protect their overpriced high end video camera systems and make an awesome affordable cinema camera that everyone want one . They already have the best photo Camera and it is time to make the best video camera.

The add-on grip for the E-M5 II has the headphone jack in it. Perhaps you might do some research and mention that instead of just being trite.

LOL. I'm definitely not a banker and I plan to shoot with these lenses for the next few years until my NX1 is a relic. I didn't buy them for a monetary return on investment, but I did expect the NX system to live on so I could continue to use these awesome lenses with new Samsung NX2/3/4 bodies for years to come. It's disappointing that Samsung took that option away and tied the useful life of these lenses to my NX1.

Or if you can somehow manage to scrap up $400 at the time, you will be able to buy a used NX1 off ebay probably and continue using your expensive lenses.

Ed, have you tried the Aces workflow in Resolve for the F35 or other cameras with an available IDT (sgamut to aces and slog to linear) and if so, what was your opinion? http://www.filmscientist.com/blog/2015/01/29/film-scientist-aces-workflow-revisited/

Here's the actual section of the email, there are no secrets here so I see no reason why not. Does the camera output clean video in 4:2:2 or 4:2:0? I've been seeing both quoted and just want to know for sure. 4:2:2Also, when it converts the sensor feed into H265 internally, does it use 10bit or 8bit colour depth? I noticed the ProRes app converts it into ProRes 422 so just wanted to check. Judging by the smoothness of the colour gradients in the video clips Samsung uploaded it looks like it could be 10bit, please confirm? It's 8bit when recording internally. The image quality is much smoother and better because of the new codec (H.265). It has much better compression ratio than H.264.Will Samsung release a benchmark app to test how long the conversion time is? For example, the user selects a resolution/ frame rate and clip length and it can predict how long it will take? It will take about 5 minutes to convert for 1 minute clip.Rumour has it that the camera can output 7K video at 30fps or 1080p at 120fps (in theory). The UHS-2 card slot has enough bandwidth to send that footage to a card so between those two thing it could happen. Maybe. In a future software update? This is not have been confirmed and we can't comment on this.

Photographer and videographer Mathieu Stern attached a french plastic camera lens from the 50s, the Photax Heanar type V, to a Sony a7II... with a couple of rubber bands. His article: http://mathieustern.com/2015/11/shooting-a-video-with-a-1950-plastic-camera-lens Watch the results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nMOeJlnlcI

A speed booster in front of an APS-C sensor allows the sensor to utilize almost the entire image circle of full frame lens -- that means you are getting the full resolving power from that lens, plus you are getting shallow DOF on wider views, plus you are gaining about one stop in exposure! If you use full frame lenses on smaller sensors without some kind of speed booster or focal reducer, you are just throwing away resolving power of the lens. Also, as many have stated in different ways, shallower mounts on the camera allow a lot more versatility.

Yes. That's right! Professionals never use speedboosters/focal-reducers! Likewise, professionals would not care to have a mount that takes tilt-swing/tilt-shift adapters nor adapters that allow behind-the-lens filtration. Furthermore, a professional would never want a camera that can be adapted to Canon EF, Nikkor and PL (and almost anything else). I mean, think of all the pros who own Canon and/or Nikkor glass -- why would such pros ever want to be able to go to a rental house to use high-end PL lenses? .../s

Ok so for you it's better a thicker, possibly heavier camera, able to take ONLY F lenses? Where are most of the advantages of being mirrorless then? ;-)

This camera needs light. I mean, A LOT of light in Slog2. The RX10 II only does Slog well if it's very, very bright. And I AM CRAZY!!! I don't regret it at all. I took a massive risk filming the video with a new, untested camera. The great thing was, we only had 6 hours to shoot it and the camera versatility really helped. On further projects, I got detached from the camera as I couldn't get the aesthetic I wanted (sterile lens and small sensor). Went back to the GH3 and the image + adapted FD lens is superior to the RX10 II (non-technical, just how it feels). Got rid of both my GH3's and RX10 II's and now have the A7S II. The A7R II is now on the way (multi-cam purposes). Not had enough time with the A7S II but impressed so far. All in all, you can make professional video quite easily with the RX10 II. It just comes down to what you want as an artist. Unfortunately, the camera was the wrong paintbrush for me. Although it will be right for some!

With all do respect to Nikon they can buy all the patents they want. The NX tech will be useless without the designers and developers that made it. Does Nikon have anyone that REALLY understands UHD 4k? Or what about h.265? Buying the patent doesn't give you the knowledge and real insight just the right to use the patent. My point is that Nikon COULD have made a NX1 camera long before Samsung but chose not to or was technically unable to OR was afraid. How does a handful of patents and blueprints fix that? Do you REALLY think Nikon is going to make a touch interface as good as the NX1? Are they just going to tweak what's already there? Will you see a nikon mirrorless with Bluetooth/Wifi and NFC that is not intentionally crippled in some blatant way just to "protect the top of the line?" I mean the Nikon 1 line is the "Call me maybe" camera equivalent. It's FAR FAR fetched but what I hope is that Samsung is not selling but partnering with Nikon. Nikon gets $$ for its brand and Samsung would get a know name on the NX line and they are taken serious and start to move. There would have to be more than that to it like a solution to lenses (or lake there of) issue in the NX line. Some of the Nikon AF patents would help the NX# out as well. Nikon would want some of the tech to filter into their other line. I do own an NX1 and both PRO S lenses. It is an amazing camera. Everytime I use anything else it feels like putting down a chainsaw and going for an axe. Then when I pickup the NX1 again it's like sitting in a proper Italian sports car. It feels right. It's not just fast it corners well. It's fun to drive. There are details here and there that just make it right. The 4k video is AMAZING. I also have a Panasonic DVX200 and the NX1 has SO MUCH better quality and color in the video. Samsung you stole my heart... you really did.

Keeping the nx mount would be the wisest move. Compatibility with great s lenses (small for what they are) and small pancakes, with many mf legacy lenses, thin body. So a big range of existing and great native and legacy lenses. A nx to F intelligent adapter would make things just perfect. A huge range of bigger but good lenses. The best of both worlds.

Well, now that everyone bashed the NX1 for its codec, it is not for sale anymore... It was really easy to see that it was only a matter of time to see premiere handeling H.265, but no, everyone turned down samsung offer without understanding its value, or even trying the NX1 (I am not talking about you Andrew, but much more about no brainers playing "I know it all" like its ever been through history of technical evolution). I hope next H.264 DSLRs will be understood for their real value thanks to this codec. Anyway, lets hope that thanks to this native editing possibility blackmagic, nikon, canon, panasonic, red and more, much more companies, will handle this codec for what it was trully averagely made for, I mean 16 bits 422/444 and 120i/s in full 4k rec 2020 (at least 35% more color space than P3/dci). It is indeed the real game changing fact about filming. This codec was made for a united new generation color space from shooting to viewing, processed to handle preview, color correction, theater/tv/Blu-ray UHD/internet from hd to 8k and more diffusion at the same time with more powerfull color we have ever used until now in digital cinema. So, no more upscalling down scalling, changing codec through the editing process to the final render for a bit of time... untill better capapbilities come to use... At least, it could produce the cleanest 1080p high framerate 10bit 444 ever seen in rec2020 in low prices DSLRs ! Raw is still in DCi at max to this day, so try to imagine the use of new rec2020 processors in big cinema cameras. It gives you an idea why the whole cinema industry prices for sony FS,red and others put down their prices in 2015. New generation is on its way. 4k was a good thing, Rec2020 in 16bit will be amazing. Try not to destroy camera values by saying anymore that you prefer crappy H.264 possibilities over it.

Re: BMPCC low-light performance, let's break it down this way. The Pocket's native ISO is 800. Using a Speed Booster, you gain 1 2/3 stops of light, effectively bringing that native ISO up to 2500. Since most of the Pocket's DR lies in the shadows, it can easily be pushed 2-3 stops in post with acceptable results. (Ctrl+F "underexposure." https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/06/director-of-photography-blackmagic-cinema-camera/) Therefore, using the same full frame lenses, you can shoot the Pocket at an effective 10,000-20,000 ISO with acceptable results--the same or better than the A7S in S16 mode, according to Ebrahim--but with the added benefits of 10-bit 4:2:2 and RAW. I don't claim the Pocket is the best low-light camera out there, but it's much more competitive than sensor size snobs would have you believe. With fast primes and a Speed Booster, the BMMCC should perform like a champ in most any environment.

I have the same problem as you. I have the A7R II. But I can't be satisfied with still quality of 7D, 5DII (had both) and even 5DIII (had it also). As far as I am concerned I love A7R II still quality. What I hate is lenses, ergonomics and long exposure noise which are big issues for me. I love it too for video. My ideal set up would be a D810 for stills with a 14-24 for landscapes and a 85mm for portraits. And an A7S II with let's say 35/55/85mm for video. But this is too big, and too expensive. There is not a solution yet. A7R II was close thanks to its photo/video quality but still missing. 5D4? Probably no 4K, not even HFR.... D820? Probably not before 1 year, probably 4K but will it have clean 120fps..? Then we are left with the DSLR problem for video : lack of EVF and nice focus peaking, tilt screen, ... I would just love a 5DIII body, with Canon menus and ergonomics and Canon lenses, with an A7SII video spec+quality and a D810 still quality. All of this without the mirror, with an EVF and all sony video functions. AM I the only one to wish for this? All of this tech is existing in cameras today, so it is not the moon to ask... But I have the feeling it won't come anytime soon.

I so often see worries from people regarding AF capabilities on the A7 range. Personally I think when you have a camera with the capability to punch in (auto punch in with sony FE native lenses) then AF is completely pointless. Ask anyone who uses the loxia zeiss lenses (35mm, 50mm and now a stellar 21mm), completely manual focus, and someone who has invested time into learning how to do things properly, they'll take the loxia over any oversized, flawed canon lens - flawed and bigger than it needs to be due to needing to be designed to avoid the mirror box. I do believe the sony 55mm fe lens outdoes the sigma art in every respect when we're getting to the nitty gritty and actually using it on the stunning 42mpx sensor. Conversely I often look at the price of the FE lenses and am amazed how well priced they are.. the 28/2 is a perfect example. The A7R2 and that 28mm will smoke anything on offer for canon use on a canon camera.

Just bought one too, but I'm keeping a 6D for some still jobs.

MDMA is about empathy above all else. A feeling of warmth and closeness and intimacy and caring in situations where those emotions either don't exist or they exist in "lower doses". Difficult to depict in isolation. But - and I think this is critical - easy to depict by way of contrast. Before, during & after. There is no dramatic perception change or distortion of physical reality. It's subtle. It's emotional: "I love you now but I won't tomorrow". Maybe "love" is too strong. "I care now but I won't tomorrow"? It's easy to hold hands with someone whilst taking mdma. Easy to hug. Not even necessarily sexual. Music & sound? Not convinced. It's a peaceful time of silent caring. Soft edges. The (dance) music is the same. But these things are quintessentially personal experiences which are difficult to characterise or bind by generalisations. Tim

MOKIM, I recommend doing a step-by-step documentation of disassembling & reassembling the lens — as well as labeling of all parts and taking measurements (distance between the glass elements, e.g.) — before doing any modifications. "Measure twice, cut once" as the saying goes. Good luck with the mod, please post your progress!

BOLD, After reviewing the info and your posts from page 1 showing with the green arrows and viewing the "COOKING ANAMORPHIC LENS" video and other videos, It seems to me that the idea here is trying to get the two lens, front and rear closer to achieve closer focusing. I think the images with the green arrows tells me that we do not have to cut the B&L in half like Cooking Anamorphic's video, instead looks like we can modify the B&L by cutting maybe an inch off more or less the front outer element housing where in your photo shows the gap between the inner barrow and outer barrow with green arrow and cutting the same off the bottom of the inner barrow that holds the front glass so there is room to push the front glass further down, last thing to trim down would be the area with the two side screws are so everything can be reassembled. Will anyhow I think this is what I'm going to try to do and will also try to document back here with photos of the project. Oh and one more thing, this looks like it can be done with a pipe cutter, clean with no mess like a saw

Here's a photo of my B&L attached to the camera

MOKIM, I'm so glad this thread has been useful! I'm gratified to see all the great information people have contributed. My own progress has stalled as life/job stuff has been taking priority but I will get back to my anamorphics in the next few weeks and post more info/progress when I can. I have a couple B&H's I have to get back to first, and hopefully by the time I'm done tinkering with them, Jim will have some more B&L info too I am very eager to see his rehousing results!. Cheers, |. . | .|

This is great information, BIG thanks! I just purchased the same lens of Ebay and was searching all over the web for info and this has to be the best posting so far, I am gonna follow your findings and repeat some of what you are doing, can't wait to see more of your results

Also Jim for re-housing the glass, have you considered painting the sides of the elements flat black to reduce internal/barrel flare? (This may be moot if the housing you are planning is already black)