Leaderboard

I remember @Emanuel raising the possibility of using Micro Four Thirds glass on Fuji cameras. Well I asked RAF Camera to make a prototype for EOSHD and here it is. So in past year I have been experimenting with a lot of M43 glass on the Super 35mm sensor of the Fuji X series cameras. We see beyond the usual 2x crop image circle! Here's what I found: - X-T4 has a Micro Four Thirds 2x crop mode in the menus. So you can use anything on that, basically. - The adapter doesn't have any electronics capabilities (maybe later?) so I have only been trying manual focus lenses - Voigtlander super fast F0.95 primes look lovely on a Fuji! - Some M43 lenses even cover the entire Super 35mm sensor - X-H1 is 1.7x crop in 4K so that works well, as it is closer to the 1.86x crop of the GH2 or multi-aspect sensor Panasonic bodies - The affordable Meike cinema lenses work brilliantly as these are all Super 35mm lenses just different mounts (they come in Fuji X-mount versions and Micro Four Thirds, with same optics for both) - SLR Magic stuff very tasty with it especially on the X-T4 in 2x crop mode - Focus to infinity is fine (sometimes slightly over even) So I am wondering, how much interest would there be in an EOSHD branded adapter for Fuji X cameras, that enables you to use Micro Four Thirds glass? This is the only adapter in the world of this type. I have been wondering how many of you have both Micro Four Thirds mount glass and Fuji cameras, maybe you switched but didn't sell all your GH5 lenses? Maybe you are just curious to turn your X-T4 into a GH6? Or interested to discover the unique images made from one of your exotic Micro Four Thirds mount lens on an X-H2S? Also rather than buy separate lenses for Fuji and Panasonic you can use one set on both systems (as in Meike 25mm T2.2 for instance!) If there is enough interest in the adapter I'll put RAF on notice and finally start that Indiegogo up!

The reason they work well on the Z6 is it has one of the thinnest filter stack on a full frame digital camera. The thinner that glass, the better for old lenses.

One way of answering this question is to check how many stops above middle grey the R7 can record before clipping versus another camera, let's say the S5 or C70 1. Use a target that's lit with constant even light. I shoot a white monitor screen at night, slightly defocused, and with a lens and aperture that minimises vignetting 2. Set your exposure on the camera so that the waveform reads at whatever the middle grey value for that profile is. For CLog3 this will be published somewhere. 3. Slow the shutter speed until you reach the clipping point on the waveform. The number of clicks divided by 3 is the number of stops you get above middle grey. For the S5 I think you might get around 6. For the R7 I'm going to guess that it will be around 4. Maybe the C70 gives more? Another very quick way of checking R7 vs C70 is bringing in some CLog3 clips from the C70 into Resolve and seeing if the clipping point on the waveform is higher.

Good to know. I know of one photographer who claims that the best Sony camera for vintage glass is the first-generation A7s, the one before they added image stabilization. I have the A7iii and have been happy with it (never use it for video, though); I am intrigued enough about the original A7s that I might get one to see. The photographer I'm referring to says that about half the shots in this album were with the A7s; the other with Leica M9, all using vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/street And most of the shots in this album were with the original A7s with vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/bts

I'm holding out for an M2 Mini, which seems like it should be on the not-to-distant horizon, either later this year or sometime next. I'm still using a 2013 trashcan Mac Pro for Resolve, which still works fine, but it won't be compatible with future versions of Mac OS. I love the Mini form factor (I have a 2014 i5 Mini as well) and since I'm only editing HD footage I think the Studio would be overkill.

My user experience. The above frame grabs are from this video, shot in harsh sunlight all the way. Just a simple 8bit REC709 transform from 10bit Clog3. Plenty of headroom to play with for what one might like the final look to be. And suitable for an HDR version. Sorry there are no beauty queens, but then there are no ugly highlights either. Did I do something wrong?

I'm sorry, but the harsh highlight conclusion is wrong to me (overblown!). I have shot with the R7 for more than a week - two months. I have found the dynamic range to be quite good, and the handling of highlights on par with the R5 and the S5 - which I have also shot with. And the fx3. In the posted video it is clear that many clips have blown highlights - in the the very first clip the crown is blown. The highlights are harsh and ugly indeed. Blown highlights, however, are from overexposure - from clipping highlights when shot. Clipped highlights are not recoverable from any camera. They are caused by the videographer not watching the highlights and thus overexposing. There are blown highlights all over the video (including in faces). Yes, the video shows "harsh" highlights, but blown highlights - clipping - is never a fault of a camera. Let me show you two frames from a video I shot today in Clog3 on the R7 with the kit lens. They are from the worst possible scene - a man with dark skin wearing a bright white shirt facing a bright afternoon sun. There are no blown highlights on either the face or the shirt or any other bright white part of the clips. The clips are not underexposed. My "grade' was simply using the IDT transform in Resolve, from Clog3 to REC709. In all my experience I have not noticed any difference in the handling of highlights from the R5 or my Panasonic S5. And, yes, I could push up the luminance more with plenty of room - nothing is clipped in these shots. Skin tone is right on. Bright spots on the face are not blown spots. I'll post the full video when it is ready on YouTube, so you can see I am not cherry picking. The video was shot in harsh, bright sunlight and has plenty of highlights.. It does not look anything like the posted video from the OP.

Excellent write up, but I think the 18-150 does have IS but u can only switch in the camera as there is no switch on lens (same for ef-m one which I had). I hope Canon can fix the wobble like it did with R5/R6 cause that really improves wide angle on handheld.

Shit! It's Mr. Creosote!!

This is the biggie from my point of view. I have that MFT Meike cine lens and use the waaaaffffferrrr thin MFT>E mount adapter to use it on my A6500 because, as you say, the lens is really an APS-C lens anyway. Giving it triple duty with this adapter would be fantastic.

Been living in France for 20 years, this is my first trip to Southend-On-Sea (UK) in some time. It was a freakishly hot day in March 2022 and the rising heat was playing havoc but yet brought a certain charm to the shots. The Panasonic S1 and the Sigma 150-600mm is a heavy combination but it's great for long candid shots. Shot in V-Log. https://youtu.be/RklH4m1JjYY

IBIS to me is meant for handheld work. I don't use it in place of a tripod or monopod. IBIS gives me freedom that a monopod or shoulder rig doesn't even moving around. If I'm not in a rush, or need a static shot, I'll always go with a tripod or monopod. But if I'm literally running and gunning, like I do for weddings or my sports work, good IBIS is so vital to getting good looking footage.

I sold my A7S III and got the A7 IV instead. For me it has a bit more mojo. Colours, and the new sensor at 30mp. Can shoot S35 and S16mm crops without killing the image quality. 10bit, better codecs than A7R IV. Low light pretty alright, at the ISOs I need it, but not A7S III level. I am curious to compare it to my S1 next and see which wins the image quality battle in video mode. There are a LOT of variables though which makes these things a bit more tricky than in GH2 vs 5D Mark II days