Leaderboard

Sorry to post my own stuff again but here's my latest pandemic lock down piece. Confined to my backyard.🙄 The FP continues to inspire.

I‘ve seen the prototype, while definitely not 20 stops by ARRI standard, it's still a huge step up due to the multiple gain output.

If you don't need 10-bit files, take a look at the X-S10 too. Coming from the m43 world, and amateur here too. Liking it a lot, much better than the midranges m43s (GX95, GX9, E-M10 MK III). Pros (albeit did not have much time to proper testing): - Very good colors; - Robust codec (8-bit 4k24 and 4kDCI with 200mbps data rate - the midrange m43 only goes to 100mbps); - Good AF in video - not Sony or Canon levels, but miles ahead from the CDAFs m43 (never tested a E-M1 II/III or E-M5 MK III). Filming my little daughter and the AF is almost flawless (thing that was impossible with the 3 m43 cameras that I told); - Punch-in focus DURING filming; - Focus joystick; - Lenses - the 18-55 f/2.8-4 is a gem. The little f2 primes are good, with VERY fast AF too. Cons: - IBIS is good, better than Sony, but the m43 ones are better; - Menus are kind of messy, almost Olympus levels; - When you change ISO, all the display indicators disapear - hence, you can't change ISO while looking at the histogram (or I did not find how); - No AF tracking in video; - Some problems with Face/Eye AF in video - if 2 faces are visible in the focus area, the AF system will jump between them; - Would like a little bigger LCD / EVF indicators (you have the option to make them become bigger, but it goes to the another extreme, too big and with few information); - Would like to have the dual electronic level indicators always on - normally you only have the horizon level indicator, you could assign a button to toggle to a dual level indicator, but it disappear after touching any button. In general, much better than the middle range m43 cameras . But I second the opinion to have a second look on the G9.

I suspect you know all of this already, but i posted it for posterity 😉

I think youtube is both a boon and burden in this regard. Boon in thats there plenty of footage available to view, however a burden in these guys are probably inadvertently pushing the prices towards the stratosphere, in some cases. I'm also adverse to some of the tactics some of them use that get mentioned on the forum from time to time. Still i'm old enough to be cynical about most of it, and i take a grain of salt with everything online anyway. I have a theory that a lens that was good for photography in its day, should also work for video. Except perhaps a lens that has bad ( breathing ) thats the only thing that springs readily to my mind. As theories go it might no be up there with Einstein's general theory on relativity, but for a jumping off point it works (for me ) anyway. Feel free to elaborate or build on my framework as you see fit 🙂 I think the internet is great for research, at times it can feel abit hit or miss finding those gems. I'm a long way from suburbia, ebay is my friend. Sadly i have no affiliate links for you to buy from 🤣. If i had a concern about a lens with ( say dissolving bearings ) i would send a message to the seller seeking clarification, so far, that strategy has served me well.

Am just relaying what I read from some Canon users. On these crazy DR claims (Canon aren't the only ones), when does this becomes false advertising? I start to lose respect for companies when they spin these figures, at some point they should be made accountable. If Arri has 14 stops of useable DR and the market leader (Arri don't feel the need to mislead), how do the others get away with their false claims?

that's true!the point is how much more i should spend..for a little monmey why not, otherwise you are absolutely right

So you want to spend more money so that you can then get a "XT4, rarely used"?? No, that doesn't seem like a wise way to spend money at all! Wait until you have "XT3, well used" first! Make the most of what you have currently, before thinking about spending even more money.

Just wanted to comment. this is probably one of the most honest article about the FPL. it is too expensive for me but I definitly see who would use such a beautiful camera. I moved last year from FUJI (that is just trying to milk its APSC users with 10year old overpriced lenses + new body designs that copy sony) to Sigma and got an FP with i-series, a 85 1.4 and a 35 1.2 and from day 1 where I shot some small videos with the FP and the 45 2.8 I knew I made the right decision.

I'd recommend you watch the whole video. It was rather eye-opening for me. His point is to gather data without any imperfections if possible and add value to his content through a streamlined image processing pipeline, regardless the camera used to capture. I highly doubt any viewer would ever see a flaw with his strategy. I'm aware that sharpness is not detail... and he covers that in the video too. Another major point is that no manufacturer is making a new human retina; therefore, the maximum detail has already been hit (even with 1080p!). Any more efforts at showing more detail would require sitting much closer to the content at which point you'd find yourself moving your head around to see the scene, taking you pointlessly out of the story. No viewer wants that.

We've certainly talked about resolution, and other Yedlin videos have been linked in this forum. I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered. Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.). One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images. Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos. By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match. Also, I am not sure that his resolution demo is valid, as he seems to be showing different resolutions on the same monitor. I noticed in one passage that he was zoomed in to see individual pixels, and, when switching between resolutions, the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image. Something is wrong with that comparison. To properly demonstrate resolution differences in regards to discernible detail, one really must show a 6K-captured image on a 6K monitor, a 4K-captured image on a 4K monitor and an HD/2K captured image on an HD/2K monitor, etc. -- and all monitors must be the same size and and same distance from the viewer. The only other demonstration that I have seen by Yedlin also had significant flaws. Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as how resolution influences color depth and how higher resolution can help transcend conversion/algorithmic losses and how higher resolution allows for cropping, etc. There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen. Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous. I would put the Panavision Genesis (and it's little brother, the Sony F35) up against an Alexa any day, and the Genesis has lower resolution and less dynamic range than the Alexa. However, the Genesis has a lush, striped, RGB, CCD with true HD -- 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups. Similarly, I recall that the Dalsa Origin demos showed a thick image (it shot 16-bit, 4K), and the Thompson Viper HD CCD camera yielded great footage. I certainly agree that there is a threshold beyond which higher resolution generally is not necessary in most cases, and I think that that such a threshold has been mentioned a few times in this forum. On the other hand, I don't think that such a threshold is absolute, as so much of imaging is subjective and a lot of SD productions are still very compelling today. I have shot a fair amount of film, but I would not say that the image quality of film is "better." It's easier (and more forgiving) to shoot film in some ways, but video is easier in many other ways and it can give a great image. Exactly.

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested. They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K. I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

Me and my friend are planning on shooting something over the summer and I thought this would be a good time to invest in a new lens. Right now I only have two kit lenses that came with the camera. What is a good lens that I can get that will be flexible enough to do most things in filming a short film? I understand that I will not be able to do the whole thing with just one lens. My gear: Nikon D5600, Nikkor 18-55mm and Nikkor 70-300mm https://snaptube.cam/. I am willing to buy a converter so if you have a good Canon or Sony lens please don't hesitate to drop it down there. I am shooting for a lens from $500-$800. Any suggestions would be super helpful!