Andrew Reid

Well for a start a Kowa is $300-400, and the Iscorama is 10x that at $3000+ That is a reason. Also the Kowa is sharper at fast apertures than the Iscorama and vignettes a bit less so you can go slightly wider. Flare on the Kowa is better than on the multicoated (MC) Iscoramas. Quite evenly matched vs single coated Iscoramas. The only thing holding it back was the shit focus. Unusable. Iscorama acted like a normal manual focus prime lens. But still the Iscorama isn't as easy to focus as a normal lens. Usually the ring is a bit too stiff and travel is way too long for quick focus changes and run & gun. No gearing for follow focus either. A Kowa with Rangefinder should beat the Iscorama for focus AND match it for image quality... I am about to shoot with it so will find out as despite Van Diemen taking away one of my Iscoramas for what seems like a million years now, I still have my other Iscorama 36 MC to play with.

I find that compared to the 1D C 4K and Canon cameras shooting raw, most others tend to have trouble rendering warm hues on green trees and cool blues instead of grey. They all seem to have more capability to pick up greens (largest part of wavelength and important for resolution) than the more subtle reds and blues. I don't know if it is a colour science or image processing thing or a hardware difference on the sensor as well... but for example the NX1 on Standard definitely has a GH2-like green bias and doesn't look the same as the Canon 1D C 4K on Standard, let alone in LOG.

Hear that sound? It is sound of Iscorama owners rushing to sell their lenses on eBay.

Looks tasty

Rolling shutter isn't non existent in 4K but it's definitely less than on other cameras. Puts in a very respectable performance there. Best to explain with images so please wait for final review. HDMI is uncompressed 8bit 4:2:2 4K on both the RX10 II and RX100 IV... Yes 4K HDMI on a pocket camera

RX10 II footage is now shot and all done. Got the RX100 IV as well so will be doing review of that. So expect final part of RX10 II review today or tomorrow.

Shame it was deleted. Felt very helpful to finally have a date to go off. And nice to know I have a doppelgänger! --- Why are Panasonic handling the V-LOG situation so oddly? What is the indecision all about? Very strange.

Well done for defining "opinion". I am proud of you! When a situation is bad you have an opinion about it being bad. When a situation changes and is good, your opinion of it also changes. Amazing huh! No sign of that happening yet though re: Canon. Haha I agree. I think their marketing teams are trying to cover up for the weak side of each product (though the stills from the GH4 are a LOT less weak than video on the Canon rebels)

​It depends on the individual lenses. Some in the Zeiss range are actually much better than their Canon L equivalent. Hell even Sigma destroyed the Canon 35mm F1.4L with their version recently. A lot of the Canon L lenses are decades old now. Yes they are beautiful but some of the models are long due a replacement. If you take the Zeiss range as a whole especially the Otus and Batis lenses they DO blow Canon away in many ways. We are talking orders of magnitude here and sometimes it doesn't make a massive difference in the real world but the highest end Zeiss glass - OTUS - yes that is definitely currently a step ahead of Canon's equivalents.

Yes correct. Yep and gives them hard stops as well. Canon L lenses stand to benefit a lot from that! Correct. This is use I am most excited about on a personal level. Yes basically gives a proper cine focussing ring to any lens, even if they have no focus ring at all like the Nikon 1 series stuff. ​This one is right up there with Speed Booster as a game changer. Absolutely love the concept. Let's hope it delivers enough performance to make good on the promise. I wouldn't expect an entirely free lunch, i.e. as pin sharp at F1.4 as the prime by itself, but when you take into how much it could change, a staggering amount, I'm willing to accept some trade offs to get it, especially if it means turning this into an Iscorama beater with butter smooth cine focus & 3ft close focus for a mere $600...

​Yes those too and anamorphic are main uses. But really it could get up to all sorts of tricks. Depends on the user.

​That is because it is new sir.

Front thread is 82mm and yes it does rotate so you would need to put on a normal ND filter not a variable one. The front of the Iscorama, etc. rotates anyway though so it's not a step back from the top-flight anamorphic solutions. Definitely a step up and I can't wait to see what the Kowa is like with it. Kowa 8Z is easily a match for an Iscorama for image quality and character.

​Why does he need proof? He says he prefers the Zeiss look, it's an opinion. Subjective. Proof not required!

I have just received my SLR Magic Rangefinder which is a groundbreaking concept. It transfers focus away from the main lens focus ring onto a dedicated buttery smooth geared 240 degree cinema lens focus ring and attached to the main lens like a screw on filter. With the main lens set to infinity, focus is done purely through the SLR Magic Rangefinder. This means that the awkward to focus Kowa 2x anamorphic lenses are now as usable as an Iscorama. It means Nikon glass can finally focus the 'right' way! It also gives closer focussing abilities for lenses that have a long minimum focus distance (like the 2m of an Iscorama anamorphic) and prevents the focus breathing inherit in all non-cinema photographic lenses. Read the full article

​Thank you. That will be promoted to the blog front page in a moment.

​I don't have the Shogun any more. I now have the Odyssey 7Q+ Review of that coming soon and yes there will be an A7S comparison in 4K vs the others with that soon also.

​Aye... it is horrible. Wrong look for that kind of thing.

​Really? How do you know? FYI Rodney Charters (24, Dallas) is proud owner of my GH4 Shooter's Guide. He did his research like many other DPs did.

​My first stills camera was a Casio compact in 2000. An Olympus one after that. Then my first DSLR in 2005. From 2008 onwards though, the choice was between optical viewfinder and live-view. Because I am of the digital generation, not the 1970's single lens reflex era I gravitate towards live-view. Mirrorless cameras have always done that better. Less black out, quicker shot to shot times, more responsive and more nimble. The Lumix G1 was a game changer for me in terms of stills. I found myself taking better shots because of it. Before that everything was at eye level and with AF. With live-view I could accurately manual focus and shoot from more angles. You can't really manual focus at F1.4 through most mid-range DSLR optical viewfinders... You really need a Leica M for that. I used the original G1 like a poor man's Leica. It improved my photography no end. An optical viewfinder with AF is only better for sports and very fast reaction stuff, maybe some street photography situations, although Bresson didn't do to badly with his Leica So here we are in 2015 and DSLR shipments have fallen dramatically, as the old-hands are satisfied and new hands keen to hold a screen out in front of them, regardless of AF or MF. Canon have made an effort to improve live view with cameras like the 70D and dual-pixel CMOS AF... unfortunately the blank out and general shot to shot sluggishness of the 70D shows they did not succeed very well. Also notice the huge uprising of people using vintage lenses from eBay... these are all better on mirrorless cameras... again it comes down to being able to accurately manually focus through an EVF in live-view, rather than through an OVF or sluggish live-view with mirror temporarily flipped up.

Please man, do not take the article literally!! It is SATIRE! I am amazed how many people switch off their sense of humour and irony when reading text on a computer screen, taking it all as literal and explicit. Maybe it is the lack of vocal tone infliction or something else. ​If someone is really interested in filmmaking, they would not spend $1649 on a cardboard box con trick. They would have to be really stupid to do that. They would buy the separate pieces cheaper on eBay and spend the rest on the ACTUAL FILM.

​Not sure if you are joking or not But obviously Vitaliy would be the wrong choice. First of all Panasonic need someone with broad appeal to consumers, a celebrity Hollywood filmmaker or TV filmmaker. Give one to Louis Theroux for example. Secondly Panasonic need an actual shooter. Vitaly does not shoot. He rants politics on a BBS. And finally, there's no point preaching to the converted. The GH2 hacker has a small loyal following of existing Lumix users. He is not going to win Panasonic many more new customers, just maybe convince the old ones to stay interested.... or at least he would do if he came out with another hack rather than another anti-US bullshit Putin rant

​Of course Arri are top dog in the professional film industry as in the top end of it... But don't under estimate Cinema EOS's impact in the professional VIDEO and broadcast industry. C300 is one of the most rented cameras by video pros of all time and the BBC use it on a regular basis for run & gun on flagship programs. The C300 is the Shallow DOF ENG king. And to be honest it isn't the right tool for the job. A smaller chip is. I don't like being unable to see the background in a news program or a documentary. You lose the sense of location and all the handheld roll and yaw make me sick when combined with shallow DOF. The BBC should go back to proper ENG cams.

Oh and will have some 1D C sample MOVs to download in next article. It is about how the Samsung NX1's 4K image compares to the 1D C. Was quite an eye opener

C'mon dude...12 out of your 13 points refer to stills!! ​Let's narrow it down to video, because it is obvious which is the better stills camera if you want build quality and AF! 1D C is Canon's stills flagship 1D X in all but the badge. So video... A7S has better internal full frame 1080p resolution, as it isn't binned, comes from a full sensor readout. The APS-C modes (Super 35mm) on both the 1D C and A7S are quite equally matched for resolution BUT I much prefer the colour out of the 1D C in rec.709 and in Canon LOG it is far easier to grade than A7S in Sony LOG. You say battery life is an advantage of the 1D C.... Only for stills. In 4K video mode it chews through batteries like a hungry dog in a sausage factory. And these are massive batteries, 5x larger in physical size than the ones the A7S takes!! It is not an economical cool running camera at all for video. The native EF mount does have its advantages for Canon users. But the metabones errors are mostly fixed now and the A7RII will even sort AF out. I don't class the A7S's size as an advantage for video... prefer the weight of the 1D C... it is tiny compared to an FS7 or C300 and lighter, but it is not too light like the A7S, so you can use it handheld without as much jitter and it just feels more stable in general. Shame no articulated screen though. The ergonomics are very basic for video... but also, I like the simplicity. Stick a loupe on it. Hit record. Very fast and direct access to ISO, shutter, aperture, IS on/off switch, etc. FS7 is much more complex and slower. For low light shooting, the video output of the 1D C in 4K mode is actually slightly better than the A7S in 4K over HDMI. But the A7S's internal 1080p is a bit better once you get past ISO 12.800. It can hold on for a couple of stops longer before falling apart. How much you will need those crazy high ISOs in every day situations though, there is some question. Where the 1D C mainly excels over the A7S for video is purely that organic image. It is less electronic looking, better colour, internal 422 and of course the lovely resolution of 4K without the need to bolt a bulky recorder on. That was my main reason for buying it for video. Other reasons were stills-camera related (I wanted to sell my 5D3 but needed to keep a full frame Canon body for stills & AF). Where the A7S excels over the 1D C for video... quite a few areas really, but not the BIG one of the internal image quality. 4k 422 Canon LOG at 500Mbit/s thrashes 1080p 420 SLOG at 50Mbit/s. But if 1080p is your bag and you can expertly grade, the A7S image can be lovely. The A7S has the advantage of more video suited ergonomics - built in EVF, articulated screen, focus zoom while recording, focus peaking, etc. It has advantage of price. It has advantages of mirrorless lens mount, it's more adaptable. Works with PL lenses with simple adapter. Works with Leica M stuff. We are talking really high end lenses here that 1D C isn't privy to at all. Also the media is cheaper and it needs less of it. Files much more efficiently compressed. It doesn't really have a dynamic range advantage for video though despite the sensor specs showing a 2 stop advantage at DXOMark for raw stills and without SLOG the rec.709 colour is horrible looking compared to the 1D C's 4K shot on Standard or Faithful for example... Canon's colour science for both LOG and Rec.709 is hands-down superior looking, but I have no idea WHY! Don't forget the A7S has that creatively interesting 120fps in 720p so that is another notch for the A7S. Will be VERY interesting to see how the A7R II internal 4K compares to 1D C. It isn't likely to beat it. It is likely to get close. But now with the used price of the 1D C and price of a new A7R II kinda meeting in the middle, Sony can't exactly claim the price advantage any more like they could with an $2000 A7S vs $12,000 1D C. Going to be an interesting few months.