QuickHitRecord

The AJA Cion might be better. And I know that you talked about ignoring the weight, but that camera looks like it would be a nightmare to lug up a mountain. I think that it would severely limit what you are able to get!

I've been very happy with the Edelkrone FocusOne Pro.

I don't know anything about these games, but I appreciated the film. That shockwave from the explosion at the end looked like it should have ripped him in half.

This is worth a look:

Here is a neat little trick for using lenses that have rotating filter threads with height-adjustable matte boxes: If you don't already know the inner diameter of the opening at the rear of your matte box, measure it with calipers. Go on eBay and order a lens hood with an outer diameter that matches your measurement (I got mine from a seller called mkstudio-us; they have a chart of all of their lens hoods, complete with inner and outer diameters as part of each listing). This will attach directly to your matte box. Now measure the outer diameter of the frontal lens body. If it is significantly smaller than the inner diameter of the lens hood that you just purchased, then you're going to get a light leak. To correct this, purchase a step up ring to screw onto the filter ring of the lens that also has an outer diameter of less than the inner diameter of the lens hood. You don't want them to touch, just to be as snug as possible. If you really want to protect yourself from a light leak, or you need some room for a focus gear, then you can also purchase an additional lens hood to screw into the step up ring (but make sure that its outer diameter is less than the inner diameter of the first lens hood). Mount your matte box to your rods, clamping your lens hood, and screw your step up ring to your lens (add your second lens hood if you bought one). Push them together, so that the lens hood is resting on the step up ring. Adjust the height of your matte box until your step up ring has enough clearance to turn without making contact with the lens hood. The inside of these lens hoods is ridged and matte black to absorb light, so it seems to work pretty well. I like this solution a lot more than attempting to use conventional "nuns knickers" because there is no friction, and it's better than sticking to round filters because any slight marking or dirt on the glass can become distracting when it is rotated.

Zach, I think that it looks sharp. Nice work.

At least they could have offered internal 8-bit 4:2:2 XAVC-S with this camera. That would have saved a lot of people having to buy an external recorder, which can easily bring the price up to a stone's throw ($1000) of the FS7.

The upgrades are minor, but nice to have. I am disappointed that they didn't upgrade the codec. I'm not really sure yet why someone would choose this over the new Sony FS7, which offers internal 4K XAVC 10-bit 4:2:2 (up to 60fps) for $2500 more. What I am really curious about is what this will do to the price of used C100s...

A little update on my current project, the Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5. I gave it a "leverectomy" and opened it up to declick the aperture. After I removed the ball, I spent a few tense minutes trying to get the aperture ring to control the iris again. Fortunately, I got it working again. This was my first time opening up an AF lens and I was surprised to see that the mechanical functions on this lens are tensioned by tiny springs. I am not sure how common this is, but it seems like a likely failure point! Adapting this to my 5D3, I had to loosen the locking strip on the adapter to accommodate the lens. Also, the lens is a little off-kilter once it's on the camera, angling about 30 degrees towards the non-dumb side. But this will vary by adapter. I only had the chance to do a quick test on my 5D. Looking through the optical viewfinder at a grid pattern in photo mode, I saw distortion at all focal lengths. It's really bad at 24mm, but considerably better at 28mm. I'm not sure if modern Pentax lenses rely on in-camera distortion correction, but it seems unlikely that this lens would since it is from a third party manufacturer and made for so many different mounts. As usual, shooting video in a 16:9 ratio crops out the worst of the distortion. I plan to compare this to the Canon 24-105mm f/4 and see how they stack up in terms of distortion. The nine aperture blades seem to be rounded, which is really nice. And it's so nice to be able to push past a 100mm, all the way to 135mm. But I can't get too used to this, because there are plenty of things that I don't like: the lens has a short 50 degree focus throw, it is NOT parfocal, and there is a major exposure shift when I zoom the lens, even when I'm locked in at f/5.6 or higher. To make matters worse, I can be at the longer focal lengths (like 135mm) at f/5.6, and then turn the aperture ring back to 2.8 -- and get a boost in exposure. In short, you really never know what aperture you are working with, since the controls seem to be on an exponential scale. To sum it up, this lens does not look like it is shaping up to be is the solution that I hoped it would be. I'm going to test it against the Canon lens mentioned above, and then figure out what I am going to do next.

A really good implementation of H264 can look almost as good as (or even as good as) ML raw right out of the camera. But when you try grading the footage, you'll find that H264 is highly compressed and not meant to be altered. Personally, I would never buy a camera based on the possibility of a firmware update (manufacturer or third party) that would unlock new possibilities.

That was my thinking as well. 24-135mm on full frame translates to an S35 focal range equivalent of 16-90mm, which is pretty close to that Fujinon Cabrio that everyone wishes they had. There's also a cheaper (and more abundant) Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 that is supposed to have a non-rotating filter thread, a non-shifting focus ring, and a manual aperture if you get the Pentax or Nikon mounts, but I don't have that one.

It extends quite a bit. 60mm or so. But the focus and zoom rings do not move, so gearing them is possible.

I have it in hand (very cheap and plasticky build quality) and I'm debating whether or not to do the K-mount to EF surgery. It doesn't look like the motion of the aperture would be hindered. I'd simply be shortening the protruding lever (I would love to find a way to do this without cutting it). As is, it is already very responsive to the aperture ring. Can you elaborate on what you mean about the max aperture? The alternative to the "surgery" would be to hunt down a Pentax camera to demo the lens. Unless I am mistaken, the Canon 35-135 has an internal aperture control only, and extends significantly when zoomed which means that you can't really use it with a follow focus.

It should be getting in tomorrow. I'll let you know. I have high hopes! Here's what the good folks over at Dyxum had to say about it: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-24-135mm-F2.8-4.5-Aspherical-IF_lens130.html

Can you share the link?

I've stumbled across something that might be interesting to Full Frame and S35 shooters in particular: the Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5. It's a relatively modern lens (from around 2000) so it will have the benefit of modern coatings. Optically, it seems to be well-regarded, though the lens construction is not supposed to be anything to write home about. What's interesting about it to me is that the front filter does not rotate while zooming or focusing, AND it has a manual aperture (if you get the Nikon or Pentax mount versions) -- this is really unusual. The Pentax version allegedly focuses in the Canon direction too. Declicked and treated as a constant f/4.5, this could be a decent poor man's cine zoom.

@Zach Be brand agnostic. Shoot with every camera you can get your hands on (without buying it) and it will become pretty self-evident what works best for you. Weigh the expense and downtime related with switching cameras against the improvements that you will get. Sometimes it will make sense to upgrade, and other times it is smarter to stick with what you've got for a little longer. No one can answer these questions but you!

Wow. Are you always this charming? Or did you just spend a chunk of change on a Sony A7s and feel the need to justify your purchase by ripping on other cameras and the people who use them? Yes. Except that mine doesn't seem to count because it's not in line with yours.

Huh? THIS doesn't make any sense...

I work with the C100 and 5D3 as well. I rented an A7s for a shoot a month or two ago and found that I didn't care for it (form factor, interface, menus, using Metabones adapters, etc). In fact it gave me a whole new appreciation for my Canons. Definitely rent one before making that jump.

@juanamorphic Do you see the part in the title of this thread where it says "no advertising"?

Are you saying that RawMagic is not able to process your MLVs without the corresponding .R## files? Because that has not been the case in my experience.

It does look pretty good. Better than I would have expected for sure. But at this point in the game, I don't really understand the frustration with the ML workflow and file sizes. Why not just use a program like MLRawViewer to quickly and non-destructively color balance your shots, apply a LUT if desired, and export to ProRes 22 or ProRes LT? Sure, it takes some time to process your files. But at least that way, the massive MLV raw files never even have to touch your hard drive, and you've got a cleaner starting point. Also, media is getting more affordable. I was surprised to see that KomputerBay 256GB 1066x CF cards have come down another $100 and can now be purchased new for $300. Unfortunately, there is no hack for the lack of an opposable LCD screen on the 5D. In my opinion, that is the most frustrating thing about the 5D3.

I can't speak from the photo side but for video we're at the cusp of several new technologies: 4K, h265, IBIS, and ultra high-sensitivity sensors, to name the main ones that I can think of. Buying a camera with one of these new features now would mean buying a company's first implementation of this new technology, and experiencing all of the bugs and quirks that go along with it. The 2nd Gens are always a lot more solid. Also, it shouldn't be long before we start seeing affordably-priced cameras that can offer two or three of the four; maybe another year or so.