Leaderboard

Winning arguments is a waste of time unless prosecuting a lawsuit. Learning new things and helping others is time better spent. MF vs. FF can be tested with the same camera and lens (changing lens settings and post cropping), which will typically show that the sensor size isn't where any effect is coming from. Now the point shifts to lenses- cool, that could be helpful to understand for those thinking about getting an MF body to take advantage of lenses. However Brian Caldwell stated that the current top 35mm lenses are as good or better than MF lenses. Posting equivalence-matched MF-cameras+lenses to FF could be helpful in showing the strengths of the MF lenses vs. FF lenses. Even more useful would be showing the MF lenses can more cost effectively produce images than very expensive FF lenses (Otus etc.). This same argument is valid when comparing FF to m43: FF lenses are effectively cheaper to get super shallow DOF.

Hi So I borrowed a 100mm macro lens from a friend and experimented with acrylic colors, milk, water, oil and soap.. Shot it with my GH4, held by my precious gorilla pod and lots of duct tape! I have now entered my video into a contest. If you like it, I would be really really happy, if you'd give it a vote and maybe even share https://apps.facebook.com/dvxvideocontest/?video=16 Thanks!

An idea came to my mind. There are more and more companies designing EF to [other systems] intelligent adapters, but none designing one for NX. This is apparently due to samsung discontinuing its products. At least that's what a couple of those companies replied to me, when I asked about a future product designed for NX. That's the idea: would it be possible to ask them "how much" would it cost to develop and produce such an adapter, and try to fund it ourself, via a crowfunding campaign? Personally, I'd be ready to buy one, as long as it costs as much as the ones for - say - sony F cameras. What about you?

There's not much content shot with the BMMCC yet. There is tons of very black magic pocket footage however. The color it can produce is just on a different level.

I got a 7D recently just for photos with a heavy investment in EF glass, I already had a GH4 for video and shot almost everything in 4K. Since I got MLRaw installed on the 7D and figured it out I haven't even considered picking up the GH4 since... and the 7D raw I'm shooting is only 1066p, not even 1080p haha. GH4 has way more res, but the images are worlds apart, in comparision 7D looks like a film, GH4 looks like a camcorder (even when edited nicely). Made me realise how much I actually want a BM cam. :D

I traded in my GH4+Odyssey combo for a Blackmagic Micro and couldn't be happier. My days of wrestling with a camera to do what I want are behind me.

We were on our way to Grand Canyon North Rim recently when we spotted a herd of bisons. Lying among them was a lamb that I initially thought was sick or dying...turns out it wasn't. As we planned to hike I had my tiny Sirui 025X carbon tripod, and I was able to capture the lamb on my NX500 and Canon 70-200 f4/L. Turned out the zoom and NX500 crop factor were too much for the tripod in the heavy wind, soI had to stabilize in After Effects, but the end result was reasonably steady. Thought I'd post the clip to show that we CAN get steady footage even with small tripods like this with big zooms while traveling. Thoughts welcome.

For me resolution is nowhere near the top of the list of what makes a good image. When I compared the 4K NX1 and RX100iv to the 5Ds HD Raw, the Canon won. The BMPCC or Bolex runs circles around GH4s and Sonys, imo. Same thing happens with still cameras. Plus I don't know how many times I've done blind tests and not even the biggest 4K evangelists of this and other forums can tell the difference. Now, if we have HD vs 4K and all else is equal, both shooting Raw, wide DR, nice color science, etc.. Then 4K might come in handy. But its not needed for any of the work I do personally. Not until its a standard, and thats years from now. So with that said, I still buy HD cameras and have gone back and forth from 4K many times.

Hey Jason, I think 4K is good for some of us who need a nice HD image with consumer equipment. For Pros great Arri 2K, for indies Digi Bolex 2K is nicer than 4K from Panny and Sony consumer cams. But that Panny and Sony and Samsung 4K ist just so nice for us to shoot it with that affordable tech. Though the Big Screen shows every single digital flaw to the image, but digital projection on 20 feet wide screens looks nice with consumer 4k downscaled HD.

The interpoliation of frames - how it combines them and yes, sensor readout - but the smoothness of a frame into the next. That to me seperates cameras just as much as other things such as skintones. The C300 has a blockiness and harshness to it, to me that doesn't feel organic. Cameras I feel are organic in motion is the Canon 1dx, digital bolex, and blackmagic micro camera. The FS7 and the Ursa Mini 4.6k also feels blocky and unnatural. There is a science behind it all that I don't understand, I just know what I like unfortuately. Not to discredit these cameras - I have seen amazing things out of them. I just have a particular aethestic.

oh yeah, simple as that, paying attention to the infinity symbol on the monitor!! silly me Thanks a lot, Seb!

Here's a project I shot at the gliderport near San Diego with my NX1. 50-200mm Samsung lens, shooting handheld at 120 fps @ 1920. Normal Gamma. When I'm not going to grade in post, I set the settings as follows: In the still photo menu/Picture Wizard/Standard RED 1.00, G 0.96, R 1.00, Sat 0, Sharpness -10, Contrast 0, Hue 0. (Sorry about the tiny lint in the upper frame.) I noticed the NX1 did have a little shift in luminance when shooting right into the sun, but the overall sharpness (all was on AutoFocus) was very pleasing. I had a polarizer on the lens. I'd like to form meetup in the Los Angeles area to share results and settings. Let me know if anyone's interested.

just set on manual mode and focus to infinity... a little scotch tape can block the focus ring if necessary

I disagree, check the cutaway below. That's an e-mount lens through and through.

Yes. It was designed when Sony thought mirrorless should be small and compact and thus APS-C is enough. Fitting a full frame sensor behind that mount was both stupid and a engineering masterpiece. I think they could, but lenses would get even bigger. The small flange distance and the tiny mount diameter are giving the lens designers a really hard time. Yes. And IBIS does of course affect image quality. Very likely it's electronically corrected and people just don't care. Image quality from µFT, APS-C and full frame is more than good enough, so why even bother searching for the problems? Lol. No. Those G Masters are just in the same league as others (Nikkor, Canon, Zuiko, Fujinon have been for quite some time. And when it comes to aspherical lenses, Panasonic is extremely good too)

Cartel Land is CRAZY. Not only great looking footage but intense and nerve wrecking.

I think Sony lenses are gigantic for two reasons. Firstly lens designers have mainly been working with retrofocus designes for the last 60 years. Look at the otus line, even the 85mm is some sort of retrofocus design, it permits even illumination and resolution across the image, at the cost of complicated and large designs. Obviously there is leica and the rest of rangefinder stuff, but here comes the second problem, digital sensors still need telecentricity, so this leaves us with large lenses for the time being. But this will change once the mirror becomes a thing of the past (unless the focal reducer approach is so good that it becomes the norm and this needs long register distances.

There may be many reasons why the Sont Lenses are Huge. To begin with they resolve more pixels per sq cm of lens surface area. Canon's f2.8 lenses were unable to resolve the 50MP of their 5D S and R cameras and thus the f4 zoom was the recommended lens. I am guessing the huge lens is because if is pushing the maximum possible detail into every single pixel. I am guessing that for the same megapixel they would seem sharper than Canon and most likely Nikon too.

Overall, mirrorless is smaller and lighter, and as the rebuttal argues, most of the pictures in the original article uses the absolute biggest lenses available for the E mount, and compares them with average size, or smaller DSLR lenses.

That article sounds like it's written from the perspective of someone who's never owned a mirrorless camera. A mirrorless setup is most definitely smaller and lighter. Indeed, there are some situations (and Petapixel seems to have cherry-picked all of them) where the size difference doesn't really add up. But I can tell you, my A7s + Sony 70-200 is significantly lighter and certainly smaller than a similar Canon setup. As is my A7s + 24-70 or 16-35. I would suggest that in this particular case, the reason Sony mirrorless has taken off like it has, has actually very little to do with the fact that it is mirrorless. I would suggest that features like Full frame HD video downscaled from 4k with large dynamic range and Slog (and in-camera 4k!) is the main reason people bought it for video. Best looking full frame DSLR footage on the market (without hacking the camera). Huge MP counts, IBIS, and importantly, the ability to adapt lenses - particularly PL lenses (for video anyway). Yes, as the article says, adapters can be cumbersome or annoying, but that's the case with any camera system. If you buy a camera system partly because of the adaptability of the mount, you can't then complain about using adapters. Anyone who thinks the primary reason the A7 series is a winner is the fact that it's mirrorless isn't paying attention. The fact that it is mirrorless may allow some of these features to be available, but I think most people are buying for specs and features.

Welcome Michael. Per your example, in 1080p video the crop factor would remain 2x, so your 14mm lens would be 28mm. In 4K, I believe it is a 2.1x or a 2.2x, so your 14mm would be around 30mm. However, I believe there may be a slight, additional crop when IBIS is used, but I am not a hundred percent sure about that.

Ben, what CP do you use for the c300? I have been using Wide DR on the c100 and just adjusting contrast basically in post and have been thrilled so far.

Thank you for your post and reading 22 pages worth! The GX80 crop is 2.22. Your 14mm will become a 31mm in 4k. In 1080p, it'll a be 28mm.

The smallest medium format camera ever!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Century-0VS-07CV-HDS-0-7x-Wide-Angle-Converter-Sony-HDR-FX1-HVR-Z1U-W-O-Box-/351748782726?hash=item51e5dc7a86:g:2yQAAOSwiCRUfNMx You would have to write the seller...both mine are marked with a white sticky label that says for Z1U only...I believe it was a sony pro camcorder...on the wide end of the lens rim (outside) it's marked PRO SERIES HD 0.7X WIDE ANGLE CONVERTER CENTURY OPTICS U.S.A. A heavy optic...very high quality...these are new and a ridiculous price...changes every lens you put it on to 30% wider. I bought 5 or 6 cheap Chinese 77mm sky filters, removed the rear bayonet and used J&B Weld to glue the filter rings on after removing their glass....Buy more filters than you think you'll need..you have to build your mount up sufficiently to clear the rear elemant...Iuse it like this with my large Nikons and step up to 77mm with my FD's and Sigma 18-35 F1.8...hope this helps ...

Not saying they're not out there, because they are. Just commenting on the topic, the C100/300's are very popular where I live/work and in TV land, they're heavily used in scripted productions, unscripted productions and commercials. Just watched Cartel Land, at times its nuts. Basically all handheld run and gun (and sometimes getting shot at) with the C300 and a 17-55 lens for most of the shots.

Thanks Panny, yes the less I do modification in post, the more I feel good And yes I put infinity on the prime lens and focusing with the focus module. The very closed shots are taken with a + 3 diopter.

It doesn't make any sense for an A7rII to be used in this sort of capacity. In addition, the C100 has been out for longer than both the FS7 and FS5. The FS7 is gaining more and more traction every day. Keep in mind that the NFL were shooting film up until only a few years ago. If you like what you have, and it's reliable and works for you, what incentive is there to change? Plenty of prodcos and owner/operators who bought C100/300s when they came out that see no reason to switch. That doesn't mean something like an FS5 or FS7 isn't just as good a camera. In addition, it's an effort to change from one ecosystem to another, which means unless it's vital to you staying competitive, why would you go to all the trouble to change ecosystems? C100/300 is a great little camera. So is the FS7 and FS5. Both have their places, and serve their purposes. I hired F55s and F5s for a project I was shooting recently. I didn't want to hire C300s or C500s. Different projects, different people, different needs. Use what works for you and your project. Nothing is gained from camera or brand-bashing. Except you preclude yourself from using a potentially superior product based purely on some zealous brand loyalty.

They've never put out products with bugs like that before, and bungling such a widely anticipated release could haunt them forever. I'm guessing they'll put out a problem-free product at any cost.

I still like standard -5/-5/-5/-5, but might give you guys suggestions a try.

Many VICE productions are switching to the FS7, including a lot of their shows on their new channel VICELAND.

I am now doing groundwork for mods that will be a lot more advanced. This is why you are likely to not see any visible progress for a while. In essence I am trying to zombify the di-camera-app to enable bi-directional communications between it and my mod infrastructure, and to introduce the possibility to "drive" it from the mod runtime.. If successful this should allow many things, potentially including native UI integration, true BBAF, native integration of focus stack & focus pull, etc. etc. My plan is to make it an extensible and open framework upon which others might build on (e.g. Otto) to deliver things that work in coordinated manner with the native app, and that are aware of what the native app does. This will allow, for example, to have the UI permanently up to date regardless of what the mod does (as opposed to today where mods do not update the UI because they are independent of di-camera-app). NB. Nothing above is a promise or commitment and you do not see any timeline, do you? PS. I still covet that lens ;-)

I have installed version 5.2 on my NX1. Thank you very much Vasile! There are now slots for Normal bitrates so no I can use different bitrate setup for timelapse (eg. 320 Mbps), 4k30p (180), 1080p60 (150), 120fps (100-110Mbps),... Also activation of GUI via luminance button is great choice... I really do not see any downsides now! I am wondering what will come next... silent shutter on NX1 would be great ( I know it is very complicated - I saw your post to Marco od dpreview). However this already outperformed what I have ever expected from whole NX1/NX500 hacking project - custom bitrate settings for each resolution which runs without any waiting and so smooth... BIG THANKS.

Instead of reputation points, I am replacing the forum system with e-penis points from now on.

You don't seem to understand, I found the proof for something that was puzzling me, and I find it hilarious how people can't see the difference and act up all smart, that's the reason I don't share the proof. It's a sadistic way of humor, I know. Enjoy some more snapseed blur.

Agree on your medium format image observations, the look is truly special and different to full frame. The 4K from 50MP isn't impossible. Remember the A7R II for $3k does pixel binned 4K from 42MP. And it actually looks pretty ok, with less rolling shutter than the native 4K Super 35mm crop.

Germany, Swedish, Europe, all the same thing these days really

That's a joy to grade. Thanks for sharing!