richg101

It is indeed anooying they hindered the camera by making it specially good at using short back focus glass. Since medium format ffd's are usually more than 60-70mm the angle the rays are hitting the sensor are far from ideal. However i think if its the difference between the iq250 (£20k) or the A7R (£1.5K) I don't see any comparison unless I was shooting product work for Ferrari or similar. I'm pretty certain my A7R and the X-Act2 (+ Schneider lenses) will murder 90% of what the typical guy who offers product photography under their umbrella photography service is using. Where that technical camera comes into its own is for shots that take a long time to adjust back and fourth - its really nice to be able to work with a big lump of machinery with a lens on one end and a little a7r on the other

that speed booster is doing wonderful things. Nice to see the gh4 being exposed and treated properly. the dr looks great. I'd love to see a follow up test with a human subject in medium and close shots with the lenses at f2.8 - f5.6. - the type of aperture at 50mm that works well for slight human movement in frame while maintaining complete facial focus but with good defocus on show. These type of shots will highlight the differences (if there are any to be seen) between a bigger sensor or smaller one.

The high mpx full frame sensors around now are incredible for archi work needing perspective control since they open up more movement capability with smaller medium format solutions. I have made a custom mount to allow the A7R to be used on a medium format technical camera:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/melting_bloke/sets/72157641407451984/ not a fun camera for creative stuff, but amazing for technical work

I think it's certainly lacking the 'look' I associate with film. but that's due to a lack of exceptional lighting, cinema lenses, cinema grip, oscar winning talent, art dept, make-up, travelling budget, a tarrantino type director, colourist, sound dept , etc etc etc, and the rest of the heaviness and weight added to a real cinema production. The issue is that everyone sat at their computer desks on their high horses reading these sites actually seem to think they will one day be shooting features like Pulp Fiction and Dead Man's Shoes, when in reality they'll never shoot something like this test will never be on set during a shoot for the BBC (which usually pale in comparison to true Hollywood imo), or even a tacky washing up liquid commercial for real TV channels. We've finally got to the point where the dream of the everyday consumer being a real film maker is killed due to there no longer being any more excuses. Naturally these muppets expecting to buy a camera and to turn into a film maker overnight are clutching at straws with their flippant remarks related to the film. That said, personally I think Panasonic may have made a big mistake having this as a centre piece when advertising a consumer camera since it gives the consumers too many opportunities to pull apart the actual film making and creative decisions. I think if they had shoved some of those lovely Cooke morphics on the front and done a technical test like the one shot for Cooke in london, with lenses wide open the comments would be a different story. Let these fools carry on talking. It's all they can do.

indeed. since the focal reducer comes into its own when the wider fov and a shallow dof are desired, the benefit of the pronounced centre sharpness and these fov/dof aesthetic qualities tend to lend themselves better up close since they draw the viewer into the detail you are directing them to via dof and centre sharpness. Aim the lens at a tree at infinity and the CA will appear greater and edge sharpness will appear degraded, however this is more to do with the fact that the lens itself (rather than the optical quality of the focal reducer) is no longer having as much of its edges cropped away. 9 times out of ten, if you see CA on tree branches or telegraph poles in the distance its because the actual lens is wide open (in which case the ca would already be there before the focal reducer adds its degradation in the corners). It should be noted that using a lower power focal reducer (such as a 0.7x rather than this special version which is stronger) will yield overall better image quality at the edges when wide open since more of the lens image circle remains cropped away - as everyone knows, the image quality of a lens mostly degrades at the edges when wide open with softening, CA and darkening. Use of wide angle medium format lenses (40mm, 50mm) and a focal reducer will yield good results since the image circle is that much bigger, you're staying within the better portion of the image circle and also compressing the resolving power to obtain better lpp/mm numbers.

the issue causing confusing with relation to dof and fov with different sized sensors is that people make the assumption that a bigger sensor gives you shallower depth of field. This is actually incorrect. The depth of field of a lens never changes with sensor size, but rather the field of view changes with the depth of field remaining the same. The effect is a wider field of view with the same depth of field. As a result, on a bigger sensor you can use a longer lens and get the same fov, and thus create shallower dof for the given same field of view. rather than removing crop factor, the focal reducer is simply changing a lens for a bigger format into a lens for a smaller one. on a typical speed booster of 0.7x your 50mm f1.4 full frame lens turns into a 35mm f1.2 apsc lens. on this 'special' m4/3 focal reducer it'll change your 50mm f1.4 lens into around a 28mm f0.95 m4/3 lens

get caught up in radioactivity and it only leads to trouble...

Rollei qbm is an easy remount - you can do it yourself. the leitax mounts are stainless steel and take 5 mins to fit. infinity with no problems

did they turn on a filter to add moire and softening as well as a 3 stop removal of dr to the bmpcc? Something is not right on this test. My pocket might be a nightmare to use, but it certainly looks better than this.

Lets stop talking modern lenses and talk real lenses. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CARL-ZEISS-Distagon-for-ROLLEI-HFT-35-1-4-35mm-F1-4-lens-/171312671882?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27e307ec8a build up a complete set of these. 35, 50 and 85, remount with Leitax, and you have optics made in West Germany, of the same quality as those used on real Hollywood films in the 70's. With still phototgraphy capabilities yet to be bettered by modern lenses.

indeed. the pocket is acting as the 'Brain' of the system. however, I can safely say the warranty is well and truly null and void! System is force cooled, IMAX cameras were a big influence to the body design. Like a homage to the look. It's glass filled sintered nylon so lightweight but very strong. Force cooling, V-lock battery running everything, sd card slot on the external body - coupled to the main PCB of the pocket, Was gonna just be a box that would be rigged, but I decided to design it as a stand alone unit. Fixed at 800iso and 180deg shutter, raw. The user interface of the pocket is so horrific I thought i'd disregard it all together and stay 180degrees and base iso. effective imaging area is 65mm horizonal. - 10mm wider than medium format. lenses:- Hasselblads and modified large format aero recon lenses. will shoot a test later this week.

Come on man. You seriously think I was being serious when I joke about the skills involved in fire safety?

On a serious note. Iscorama's, iscorama 36, 43's centavisions and 54's made between 1960-1989 are rated at the highest radioactivity of all lenses ever produced. Dangerous levels thought to lead to impotence in men. According to a bloke at my local fire station he is recommending owners send all iscorama lenses manufactured between these dates to the Dog Schidt Optiks radioactivity decommissioning outpost where they will be carefully disposed of.

Rubbish thread. When my house is burning down I'll call for a fireman. I won't call upon one to carry out careful experimentation relating to things beyond their capabilities. I seriously doubt some bloke covered in soot, wearing a firemans hat and rubber boots with a radioshack geiger counter, chatting to you during a fire station open day can prove everyone else wrong.

I believe it was the iscorama 2002 that was a leica taking lens. but the 2002 probably has the same optics up front to this.

if getting radioactive poisoning is what it takes to use interesting glass I'll take the risk thanks:) If someone told me to eat the lens you mention, I'd give it a go as long as it was medium rare and not overdone. a couple of button mushrooms, some chips and maybe a side garnish of horseradish sauce. - And if anything I'd end up more healthy. Boom.

Sorry guys. Took the test down, but will be shooting another next week. the system has been being transfered into its new bodywork - influence from the Imax cameras:)

The A7S has everything I'd have wanted from a stills/video machine - until I got hold of the A7R. Now I couldn't live without the 36mpx sensor for stills (in particular the post processing capabilities such a resolution allows). If the A7S had internal 4k and a professional codec it would be a harder decision whether or not to sell the a7r and upgrade. but to me as someone who finally enjoys taking images on a digital camera (thanks to the A7R) I find the 36mpx sensor the winning decider here. If i need to take a picture in the dark I'll use a tripod. When Sony introduce the upgrade to the A7S (probably 2 months after the A7S is shipping) I imagine it will be something worth waiting for. At the moment the A7S is too crippled by the marketing team.

Wake me up when the guys currently using Phase One and Schneider primes start using this shite. I'll hang myself. Technology to mask lack of artistic flair and creativity. So boring IMO

though something that has been discussed many times before, since this is a new camera I think it was good that Julian posted this. I am familiar with the issue - particularly as a avchd user mac. I wouldnt have expected it to show up on the gh4 but since it has, why not make a discussion about it. eoshd is read by many - a lot of which might see the gh4 as their first dslr camera worth investing in for video use as well as stills. I see the gh4 as being something that will be embraced by both pros and people with less knowledge about this type of thing. The number of videos I've seen shot by guys with Sony cameras using avchd that look digital and nasty is amazing - all because they are not aware of the issue and don't know how to rectify it. I'd imagine this would be a good topic to start discussion about getting the most from footage shot on the gh4 - since the gamma tweek is one such process required in the signal chain

Ordered:) cant wait, but my wallet will become even lighter after reading I imagine.

wide open, an 80mm f2.8 medium format lens will transmit more light onto a full frame sensor than a full frame lens of the same aperture/focal length. almost all full frame lenses show vignette wide open on full frame, but the vignette on the medium format image circle is cropped away when used on full frame so the illumination is more uniform. in the centre of the frame you will see exactly the same exposure, but the edges will be different by a stop or more. Edge image quality will also be worlds apart - the medium format lenses delivering better quality due to being used within their sweet spot. I use Hasselblad and Schneider medium format lenses on the sony A7R because I often like to position the subject at the edge of the frame, while keeping the lens wide open. Only with the medium format lenses do you get really good results at 36mpx at the edges when the lens is wide open. regarding iscorama use on medium format, you'll only see light loss and related issues from step rings if you use them on medium format sensors. the crop factor negates any adverse effects. finally, As i have said a few times, medium format lenses only tend to deliver 'creative' looking images when on big sensors/film surfaces. when on smaller sensors you loose the aesthetic benefits such as that awesome wide fov and shallow dof obtained by a longer lens delivering wider fov due to the bigger imaging area (80mm on medium format = 50mm on full frame). The main argument against using medium format lenses is that some will say they are not as capable at delivering a fine enough resolution in 'line pairs/mm'. - due to not being designed to compress all the information into such a small area. I know for a fact that my schneiders out perform my hasselblads drastically in terms of resolution when used on full frame, 36mpx. Once on medium format imaging areas this difference is less noticable. It is worth reading up on lens talk in the view camera / bellows type technical camera user forums since this subject is easier to discuss in the domain of 8x10" frames! Schneider make a range of 'digitar' view camera lenses which aim to address this issue by delivering way more line pairs per millimeter than typicakl view camera lenses - which would suggest there milage in this discussion.

lovely man. You need to make another nice family vid with this setup:) @Lucian.. The TRUMP58 has enough room to fit a iscorama 36 or iscorama into the front cavity - this was part of the design criteria. Rob has a extension tube to allow the rama to be mounted into the trump in the same way it would mount to a ff58 iscorama optimised. biggest aperture on trump or ff58 on oval 1.5x is f2.8 biggest aperture on trump of ff58 on oval 2x is f3.5 However, since the ovals are still as tall as an f2 round aperture the depth of field is almost as shallow, even though the aperture is a smaller area. Vertical dof is shallower than horizontal dof in simpler terms. The rama inside a trump makes it a little awkward to align the iscorama, and it looks strange too - since the two buttons are harder to access, but its not a real problem. I do intend on machining a iscorama rehousing specifically for the trump58 - giving focus gears but havn't had time.

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Centascope-x1-5-anamorphic-adapter-rare-and-special-/291120769622?ssPageName=STRK%3AMESELX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=XrgMKq55CukhyqUfQ1W2OcklrKE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc