MattH

Incidentally, I wounder if you could check the rear of the 10-18 and see whether the rear element moves outwards past the electrical contacts at any point in the zoom range. (probably at 10mm is it furthest back). In other words, Is the ef-s hump just their for cosmetic reasons or does it actually protect a protruding rear element? The reason I am curious is because I am interested in its compatability with the BMPCC to EF speedbooster. Someone was able to modify the back of an ef-s 17-55 (remove its ef-s hump) and use it with the speed booster and reported no problems. However I have the ef-s 18-55 and can see clearly that the rear element does protrude past the contacts at 18mm. And I can tell from looking at photos of the speed booster that the speedboster element sits flush with the contacts. So even a modified the 18-55 wouldn't work without the lens rear element bumping into the element in the speedbooster. So it would be good to know if the 10-18 is like the 18-55 or the 17-55 in that regard, even if it is just to put the fantasy of modifying it to bed.

Great info! I look forward to seeing more of your findings.

Do you think a hood of some description would stop the flaring? The wider field of view is curious. It seems to have introduced some barrel distortion as well.

Full frame noise performance sucks balls, Crop rolling shutter performance sucks balls. Peoples grades of 8 bit slog2 will suck balls as the Cinema 5d video above proves. Please don't sell your cameras, this camera will be old hat in less than a month.

Unlikely due to the shorter flange focal distance of 1 mount compared to micro four thirds. 17 vs 19.25. I think the nikon 1 lenses are too fat to go inside the mft mount, so an adapter would add to the distance. I supose its possible that the lens can focus to more than infinity, and there might be some leway in the Rangefinder. I presume that one would have to make a bespoke adapter as no-one will have yet tried to put a 1 sysyem lens on a mft camera for the above reason. Im guessing that due to the control by wire one would have to conect it to a 1system body to set it to infinity and set the aperture. And that presumes the settings will remain when you take the lens off. Having said all that, i would love to see someone try it. Overall though it would probably be easier to go with mft lenses or a speed booster. I would. Like to see if the Rangefinder would go on and fullu cover a 7-14 or an 8-16 with their curved front element.

By milk black I mean that there is no actual black in the image, just grey. And so the shadows look 'milky'. This is due to grading choice, when the shadows from a log image aren't lowered with a curve, or when the black level has been raised. It's a look that I don't like. To me It seems like a failed attempt to be arty. And If people are actually seeing black on the video in question, I would suggest they turn the contrast on their monitor down.

What? They all specify specifically "not 23.976" without you prompting it? Or are they just saying they want "24p" or "perfect 24p". This is an important distinction given that most people don't know the difference. They may just mean 24p rather than 25p. But if it really matters to you, then it obviously isn't the camera for you.

If you really need 24p output then just conform to 24p. The speed increase and pitch increase will be utterly negligible. However, unless your content is being projected its unlikely you do need 24p output. For PAL you would need to conform to 25p anyway, so no difference in effort there. And to do a 3-2 pull down to 59.94 NTSC or 29.97 you need 23.976 anyway. So even real 24p would have to be confomed to 23.976

Is there a way to import a video file without dragging and dropping?

I suppose the lens will have to be calibrated with the rangefinder attached. Infinity without the rangefinder will not necessarily be infinity with the range finder. If the lens in question has a hard stop at infinity and has a large distance between its front element and filter threads, then there is the potential that infinity will not be possible with the rangefinder attached. However hopefully there is has been enough leway in the design of the rangefinder. And if there has, this would mean that unless the hard stop of the rangefinder can be adjusted, that most lenses will have to be set to less than infinity in order to achive infinity at the hard stop of the rangefinder. Yeah there is a high chance of any number of goofy things happening with vintage lenses and anamorphic. We dont know what is due to the lenses and what is due to the rangefinder. Absolutely! In terms of establishing the quality, we need full resolution still comparisons with still lenses at various apertures independently meticulously focused on a tripod. Plus, Im not entirely conviced by anamorphic anyway.

I don't claim to have a deffinitive answer to this, but in terms of brightness, rotating the lens front wouldn't change anything. However, a polarising filter would be effected. You rotate a polariser to acheive a specific look, and since this would change during focusing there wouldn't be any point using one. How this relates to a Vari ND is that a Vari ND is two polarisers together. You rotate one with respect to the other to adjust the brightness. Rotating both doesn't effect this primary purpose, however it does effect the secondary affects of polarisation characteristics. This may or may not be visible depending on the situation.

Weird. Never heard about this before. I look forward to seeing some videos. The focus breathing thing sounds too good to be true as well. It would be good to see a focus rack before and after. Can it work on any focal length providing the front element is flat?

​Thanks for the info. That's what I thought then. 100/120p is actually better quality than 1080 25p and 50p.

If you have access to an RX100 iv please could you confirm what the maximum record times are for 50/60p and 100/120p? (Or at least confirm if they go over 5 minutes). If they are doing a full pixel readout I would expect the limit to be 5 minutes like the 4k due to heat. No-one has yet discovered this information.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/133368059 This is an ungraded vs graded version. Just shows what a horendous lut has been used. It would take better composition and a better grade to really test what it is capable of.

​Not paranoia........... Sense!

​You are lucky. I bought 2 external hardrives for backup years ago and copied everything to both incase one failed. They both failed within days of each other. I will never trust Hard drives again for backup. Multiple optical disk backups is the only thing I am comfortable with. As for that gnarbox It only has 128gb storage. one would probably have to connect an external hard drive to it to get any decent storage, then it becomes a lot more complicated. Im thinking the best option is to just take loads of SD cards and take good care of them. Anything that could happen to your cards could also happen to a drive anyway. The only thing backup would ensure against would be card failure. Do SD cards even fail?

Price is one thing. But I think some people are attracted to the idea of not being chained by the corporate monopolies of Apple or Microsoft. The idea of never ending rent for adobe products grinds with me as well. But as you say, It seems as if we don't have all the same options available with linux, which is why most of us stick with Windows or Os X. Though I am very interested to hear about any potential alternatives.

Yeah the micro is on my radar big time also. Its only disadvantage is the lack of 4k. But in a way its also an advantage: What else records Global Shutter 10 bit log pro-res to an SD card.

Surprise surprise, doing a full pixel readout from a 16 megapixel area gives terrible rolling shutter skew. The full frame mode looks usable in shots with little motion, but with what chance of artefacts? This sensor is just not for us. You know something is wrong when you are buying a speed booster for a full frame camera. (Unless it was a medium format speed booster. That would be a different prospect. But alas it is not.) If you are set on this camera I would use the APSC crop for locked down shots only and use full frame for everything else presuming the artefacts are sparse enough. Just get a regular adapter. If you are using manual lenses then it doesn't even need to be smart. With the global shutter options that are available or will be coming available, I personally I think that it's bonkers to spend multiple thousands on such a high megapixel rolling shutter camera if your priority is video. Unless you are loaded.

​Yeah mac has cheap and powerful hardware and free software doesn't it.

New York. How convenient. Thanks for the heads up for people who are in the area. For those that aren't I thought I'd spare them clicking on the link.

​Its 24-200 full frame equivalent. Whenever they say 35mm they mean "full frame". What they should be saying is "135 format equivalent feild of view". People usually say "super 35mm" if they are refering to the cinema standard. Although that could be anything from crop factor of 1.4 to 1.7 depending on how loose you are with the definition. So it wouldn't have much meaning or make much sense to gives equivalents in super 35 for a stills camera. And I have never seen such an equivalent given. DPReview gives the "Macro focus range" as 3cm. I asume this is the minimum focus range from the front of the lens as opposed to the sensor. And I would guess that would be at the widest angle. The 135 format maximum depth of feild equivalent is about f7.5. The APS-C maximum depth of field equivalent is f5. Don't worry. 200mm f8 on 135 and 135mm f5 on apsc and 73.3 on " "one inch" type" will give you a blurred background.

​Yeah, the actual physical specification should be be given. In this case its an 8.8-73.3mm f2.8 lens. Any equivalents should be given afterwards in brackets.

​Its only bulshit for exposure. For depth of field its bang on. And for total light its bang on. Though I knew about equivalence long before that faddy video which is too long to even watch to see if it's correct.