dahlfors

Reliability of SSD:s should not be affected by size. Every SSD has a few percent of extra storage to use for redundancy - if some blocks fail and can't be written to anymore, it uses the for redundancy/errors reserved space instead. Which means, even if some areas of the drive fails, it will be transparent to the user - the drives storage controller detects and handles the errors and uses the extra space when needed. However, the reliability of SSD:s varies among brands. Intel and Samsung SSD's have faired better than others in failure rate reports. I believe there are Crucial SSD's in iMacs, maybe other brands are used as well. If you're lucky, an SSD will just continue to work. If you're unlucky, an SSD is dead on arrival, dies suddenly within weeks, months or years. When that happens, it's often the storage controller on the disk that dies, the data will be recoverable - but likely at a high cost. So, if you're using a 1TB SSD for system, I highly recommend to keep the full system backed up to a hard disk. Should the SSD die, you can then just replace the SSD on warranty and use your backup to get everything copied to a new disk. Also, noone does as thorough and proper computer tech reviews as Anandtech, and Anandtech just reviewed the Mac Pro, comparing it to older Mac Pros, iMacs and Macbook Pros: http://anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013 In a short summary: the new Mac Pro has its major advantages when there is a lot of parallell processing power or GPU power needed. In everything else, it's not much faster than most other Macs - even slower for certain use cases.

Interesting stabilizer. Be sure to post more footage that you shoot with that one, I want to see! Do you think that stabilizer could take more weight, something like a D800 with 16-35mm lens (around 1.5kg)?

I think I might have mentioned it to you in some other thread: if you're considering the Sigma, also take a look at the Tokina 12-24 f/4. Edit: And on the other hand: If you already have a 24mm prime, it might not be too useful to have the range between 20-24mm - the extra 2mm at the wider end might be more useful on the Sigma.

And since Tony is in this thread as well... How should one store an Iscorama? I usually keep mine standing with the front pointing upwards, but I'm not sure if this is better or not. The reason I ask is because I dug up some older lens from 70s-80s that had been in storage for a long while and had leaked oil from inside. I think that lens had been stored with front down or possibly lying down - since the oil had leaked to the front of the lens.

I always keep a UV filter on mine, a Hoya if I remember correctly. The only exceptions is when I use ND / polarizer or such. If I get dirt or something on the front or would accidentally bump it into something, it better be the UV filter that gets dirty/scratched than the Iscorama :)

Yes. I don't think the LA7200 will be worth so much once the SLR Magic anamorphic is available. SLR Magic also has 1.3x squeeze, focus through and is much sharper at the edges.

If it's that soft in the corners at f/5.6, I don't think I'd want to see it wide open... :) When I got my nex to nikon G speed booster I figured: if I'll use high quality optics, I better not skimp out and get a cheap piece of glass in the middle of my lens and camera body. As I expected, I'm seeing a bit of CA with it in the really wide end on my Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lens. Not an amount that would disturb at 1080p, but which is visible in the full 16 Mpixel stills (which can be reduced in Lightroom). What really surprised me about the Metabones Speedbooster was the solid precise industrial feel of it and that quality feel makes me certain I made the right decision going with the real deal. Qualitywise, the Metabones speedbooster feels more like one of my Nikon AI-S lenses than my Nex camera, and hence I belive that the Speedbooster will far outlive my Nex camera.

Nex-5N is supposed to have least moire and aliasing of these. I got the Nex-5R with Nex to Nikon G Speedbooster. Beware of shooting in cities with such a camera. The moire can be horrible when it appears! I got my Nex-5R to use as a very portable allround camera for stills and video, in addition to the 1080p50 mode for slow motion. I got the Nex-5R due to the price - and because I read that some of the overheating issues of the Nex-5N were improved in the 5R. I found out that the 1080p50 slo-mo mode isn't too good - I can as well use the 720p50 mode on my D800 instead, and the image quality will probably be as good as the 1080p50 from the Nex. As a very portable full frame camera with speed booster it is nice though. A lot of the shots you wouldn't dream about doing with a large dslr is easily done with a Nex (Hard to access locations, placing the camera creatively..). So, as a B camera that might be handy. Replacing a 550D with a Nex is probably alright quality-wise. However, the difference between 1080p video from my Nikon D800 and Nex-5R (with or without speedbooster) is night and day although both use roughly as compressed formats. Somehow D800 saves all the details while the Nex compressed video just look wrong in comparison. With the Nex-5R I'd therefore recommend gathering as much as possible of the look while shooting, since it won't hold up too nicely for post.

Sharpness of lenses doesn't have to do with if it's new or old. Some of the older Nikon lenses are among the sharpest Nikon has ever made, but certainly not all - it depends on lens construction entirely and hence it depends on which specific lens you get - you can't generalize. Color and contrast on the other hand depends to a certain degree on age, due to the choice of coatings that were used. Most Nikon AI lenses are multicoated, but not all. Pre-AI/Non-AI lenses can have multicoating, but usually are singlecoated. All Nikon AI-S lenses and forward on are multicoated, with similar contrast and color as today's lenses. Only certain of the newest Nikon lenses have their specialized nanocoating. Anyway, the 18-200 should resolve good enough for 1080p video. For high-resolution stills it won't perform as well as other lenses. I've been doing that kind of backpacking around with camera too. The toughest part is to find a portable video tripod which actually can do smooth pans. Haven't found any such, but I use a really portable Velbon Ultra Maxi Mini tripod that is useful for doing fixed shots.

This is the sacrifice you make with these long zoom range lenses. 18-200, 18-300 - I think both of them have roughly the same performance. There's a 28-300mm that covers full frame, but personally I wouldn't bother with it either of these. I've shot with the 18-200 once and I immediately learnt that it isn't the lens for me, however practical it might be to cover that range in one lens. Hence, my budget recommendation that would cover the 18-200 range: - 18-55mm kit lens with VR and 55-200mm with VR. This combination will be sharper, and the 18-55 has very close focusing (near macro) capabilities. The 18-55 can be found for ~50 euro used, probably around $50-70 USD in the states. Due to that low price I bought one a few years ago just for closeup shots. The combination of these two lenses is still very compact and lightweight. Another interesting recommendation: - Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilisation, as well as the 70-300 VR. Both of these lenses cover full frame too. A bit more expensive choice. With this choice you can use larger aperture in normal range and gain 100mm reach at the longer. These alternatives are sharper and perform better than 18-200 at most if not all focal lengths. To tell the truth, in my 5 years shooting with Nikon glass, I don't think I've shot anything less sharp than the 18-200.

Indeed the GH3 resolves finer detail in the slashcam test.

I agree that the D5300 videos in this thread have looked soft, far softer than what my D800 outputs. But check out the EOSHD comparison of D5200 and GH3 and you'll see that the D5200 perform similarily to GH3: Hence, after watching the D5300 1080p video in this thread I'm left wondering what lenses these videos were shot with and if the focus was set correctly. And of course you can't compare it with C100 (which has 4k sensor for proper 1080p output) or 5d3 raw, but that's a whole different level of budget. BMPCC, around the same budget though, has more resolution than GH3 or Nikon cameras. I think you mean vertical resolution. 1920 pixels is the full horisontal resolution, which most of these cameras do resolve since they all read full horisontal lines but some of these above mentioned skip lines vertically. I believe D5200 should perform somewhere close to D800 in terms of how many vertical lines the camera resolves and the D800 has been measured somewhere around/near 800 lines. I believe the GH3 is in the same ballpark, while BMPCC can do a bit better.

Checked through the docs. I must congratulate you on this project, very good resource with the short info + images. Very handy. I see you've already added most info for the original Iscorama, so I didn't add the photos I had at hand. But perhaps I can contribute with the Ultrastar that lacked images and some info. Anyway, here is a few shots that I took of my original Isco when Rich matched the color of my DSO lens with it. You can use this gallery and the images as you wish if you find them useful: http://imgur.com/a/562Vf

Since you asked about sensor size earlier: STILLS: For stills, the Sony sensors (and Toshiba sensor, like in D5200) are excellent. The high dynamic range of the sensors will aid a lot in high contrast light (like when you want to keep detail in shadows while not having a white burnt out sky). My old DSLR had 11.5 EV steps of DR, while my D800 has 14 EV steps of DR and my Nex-5R has 13 EV steps. In harsher light the highe DR makes all the difference. In the shots where I would have needed to hassle with ND Grad filters to take down the brightness of the sky on my old camera - the Nex & D800 just capture all the detail. The majority of Canons, many of the Panasonics like G6 only have around 11.5 EV steps of DR still today - just the same as my 8-year old dslr. The GH3 has a bit more DR than the G6, which will be helpful for stills. This doesn't mean that you can't get good shots with lower DR. But higher DR makes your life easier when shooting stills in tougher lighting conditions. Hence for stills I'd always recommend a Nikon/Sony or any other camera with Sony sensor. (Also note: dynamic range decreases with any sensor as you go up to higher ISOs. The advantage in dynamic range usually disappear on Sony sensors around ISO800-ISO1000) VIDEO: Although I love the full frame aesthetic for stills, I often find it to be a pain in the ass for video due to the narrow depth of field. In my opinion m4/3 is an excellent choice due to this: when you want deep depth of field, it is easy to achieve thanks to the small sensor. When you want narrow depth of field you can either get a large aperture lens like the SLR-Magic / Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses - or a Speed Booster. The High DR capabilities of the Sony sensors doesn't really do much for 8-bit compressed video modes. What's more important when it comes to video is that cameras like G6 have very little moire or aliasing as well as high resolution. If you're a beginner, I'd recommend not to waste too much on a camera body if you don't know what you really want/need. Chances are you'll learn what features are important to you while shooting, and that you might want to upgrade in a few years time. When it's time for that, better camera tech will be available for less money. Lenses on the other hand can be a good investment since they don't get obsolete in a few years time.

There's the AI-S 18mm f/3.5, but they're usually a bit pricy. Pricy enough that you'd be better saving up for the Sigma 18-35. If you need something wide on a tight budget for Nikon mount, I'd recommend getting the Tokina 12-24 f/4 zoom (for Nikon DX / APS-C). Hard to beat the performance of that one for the price. Should be possible to find one for around 200-250 euro. Although it's a zoom, size is similar to a Samyang 24mm f/1.4.

I'm curious: what's the difference between early AI-S with that serial number and later ones? I got one with serial number in the 4000000 range. The 50mm f/1.8 AI-S is very compact - I usually keep that one coupled to the Speed Booster on my Sony NEX-5R. I also happen to have the 105mm f/2.5 and 200mm f/4 that you recommend. Not fully as compact in size as the 50/85mm lenses, but they perform well!

50mm: Nikon E Series 50mm f/1.8 are the smallest pancakes ever made by Nikon. The AI-S version of the same 50mm f/1.8 are slightly larger and heavier. A slightly bit bigger are the AF 50mm f/1.8D and AF 50mm f/1.4D. The only downside with the 1.4D is the ghosting/flaring in certain conditions - but it's rare. In most cases, I'd go for one of the f/1.8 lenses instead of the 1.4. 85mm: Nikon AI-S 85mm f/2. A slightly bit bigger than the above lenses, but still very compact. I simply love the performance of this lens, and you can find it for good prices on ebay and similar sites. Wide: I'd go with AF-D or AI-S 24mm f/2.8, or perhaps the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. All of these lenses are among Nikon's compacter primes and perform very well.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is Nikon's top of the line allround zoom for full frame sensors, and has the performance and price tag to match that. For a lot smaller price you get 24-70 f/2.8 lenses manufactured by Sigma or Tamron. Those lenses are not fully as good as the Nikon lens, but they're certainly not bad at all. And Nikon primes - You can use all the older Nikkor glass (AI, AI-S, AF etc) that is out there on the used market. Point being, you can certainly find good affordable alternatives from Nikon, Tamron, Tokina or Sigma for Nikon DSLRs - prices for lenses should NOT be the biggest reason to choose between those lens mounts (or cameras). If autofocusing in video mode is important on the other hand - that's a very valid reason to go for G6.

The look ain't that far from the style of some still photos I shot for a client a few years ago: '> - Sky was cloudy that day, basically like a large softbox of light. I added a little bit harsher light with a flash (maybe even two flashes) from below left. The #1 key to this look is to contol the light. For this certain look you'd also want a high resolution camera + lenses, preferrably raw files for post work (or possibly 10-bit prores). If you have a raw capable stills camera, take a friend of yours and light him either with a photo flash or some other kinds of lights. I think you'll get close to the look with a bit of experimenting. If you get the mood with a still photo, you'll know how to light it for a film as well.

Hmmm. Haven't seen this bit of information elsewhere. According to Nikon's own support forums you should be able to adjust the aperture in live view on the D5300: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/12/10/nikon-d5300-trivia-the-body-is-made-out-of-a-new-carbon-fibre-reinforced-thermoplastics-and-you-can-now-change-the-aperture-in-live-view.aspx/ Edit: Apparently one commenter clarifies it: "Yes, you can change the aperture setting (in Aperture Priority mode) but it doesn't change the aperture itself until you take a shot. So: 1: it is pretty limited 2: it's not new"

Such a topic would be great, although I'd suggest starting a separate thread for it. I've been shooting with D800 for quite a while, and there really isn't many online discussing issues/solutions etc.

I already replied to this in another thread last week: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3861-speed-booster-ef-lens-on-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/?p=46098

Have you tried viewing on some other monitors? Some monitors exagerrate certain colors while they downplay others. It's only in some certain shots where his color is off on my Macbook Pro and on my HP LP2475w monitor. On the other shots the skin tone looks correct (with his skin tone being a SLIGHT bit more yellow than the woman's). Looks like it is either 1) colour bouncing off something, or 2) wrong white balance on some shots. Canon seems to be praised for the skin colors all around the net. What I see up here in Sweden on the nordic skin tones, is that Canon stills & movies are oversaturated out of the box, and skin tones aren't people's true skin tones. It rather looks like they've gotten a fake tan painted on their faces and saturation upped a few steps. Some people enjoy that I guess. Personally I like to shoot natural/neutral colors, and that's where Nikon's profiles are closer, if white balance is set correctly. I don't have much experience with other kinds of skin tones though, people up here tend to be pale and tend to show up with their natural look, be it in h.264 clips or raw stills.

525MVB is heavy and very sturdy. I have the same tripod for my 503HDV head. Weight and size is a bit of a downside, it's not a tripod I bring with me when I'm traveling. However, it is stable in use and my impression is that it needs some serious beating to break it. I paid somewhere around 550-600 euro for my 503HDV head + the 525 tripod used, but in good condition. New price for 503HDV + 525 used to be around 7000 SEK here in Sweden, which is around 780-800 euro. So, the price of 390 euro isn't probably a crazy good deal, but an ok price.

Keep on posting more of these as they become available, I'd love to see more :) I loved the composition of that shot where she walks down the stairs while he hides behind the pillar - great composition with the wide aspect ratio. Also very cool environment, those are some crazy abandoned buildings! Are those to be found in Sao Paulo?