Julian

Hey guys!
 
So, I'm selling my last remaining anamorphics, and just keeping the two I like the most. The ones that are going away are pretty good, and rare too, one could say. They're all in great shape, no dents, dust, scratches or fungus.
 
 
--
 
UPDATED 05/16/2014
Thanks everyone, all lenses have been sold and I've only kept the Iscorama. Should look for a 2x stretch dual focus setup after a while, but right now I'm just glad people were so honest with buying the lenses I had. :)

I'm thinking, Pentax Q sensor? Super 8, probably quite fun to use, hope it is c-mount not d-mount!

Maybe to a hc Nikon luddite. To the rest of the population that sounds like a strange excuse, because
[a] The Nikon model with the best video features within the Nikon line, the Nikon 1, has an Aptina sensor
The Nikon model with the second best video features within the Nikon line, the Nikon D5x00, apparently has a Toshiba sensor. 
[c] Panasonic GH3 is using a Sony sensor, whereas the GH4 is using a Panasonic sensor. That doesn't stop Panasonic from giving great video with both models.
 
Surely Sony are not able to dictate the sales of all other sensor plants, let alone their usage in other manufacturers' products. It simply wouldn't make much sense. Sounds more like a fanboy conspiracy theory than a proven fact. That is, without any obvious enough evidence.
 
Besides, the Japanese camera makers are competitors, but they aren't really at a bloody war against each other. They do cross-license and allow each others' tech being used in other brand products all the time, without a need for any drama.
 
Meanwhile, no doubt this Nikon related topic will go on for a good four pages at least. Previously I predicted that the latest Nikon topic would go on for six or nine pages, but it's still going on after thirteen pages to date. Perhaps this one is likely to reach at least six, too, within a few days.
Carry on.   ;)

Hurlbut explained that he liked the C500's response to electric light at night.  In his tests it just looked more video-like to me than the Alexa but that's what they responded to.

the reality is that their D4s customers dont care about the lacking features you asking here, at all
as Thom Hogan said there is only 120,000 D4 out there, and most of them sport shooters who are not allowed to make video in events however. what I guess is that they concluded investing in video department, wont dramatically increase their operating income, so why bother? 

Did anyone really expect Nikon to step up and meet the expectations of video users? Name one DSLR they have released that has done this?
 
Nikon is playing to the stills shooters and stills shooter think that if a stills cameras video function is too good then it mustn't be a good stills camera. A lot of photographers are stupid and Nikon goes along with it.

A large majority of consumers are happy to play and watch poor quality streamed films/movies/TV, and still be thoroughly entertained, regardless. 

It definitely isn't a Sony. They told me it was a Panasonic sensor. It's definitely the one on the website or a close variant of that spec, because you wouldn't go to the effort of making a 4K capable sensor yourself (at huge cost) only to buy one from Sony. Panasonic are one of the few companies with their own CMOS manufacturing capabilities. Also physically the chip in the GM1, E-M1 and GH4 looks the same from close visual inspection.

I think over the course of many years, if Hollywood DP's shot on camcorders, and amateurs shot with film then everyone would be after the camcorder look.

*  Non-blown out highlights
*  Good shadow detail
*  Low frame rates
*  Scenes with low depth of field
*  Colors not oversaturated, and corrected to colors reproducible with film
*  Smooth gamma
*  Smooth camera motion
*  Good focus without mid-shot focus adjustments
*  Less obvious - picture grain
*  Images without over-sharpening
*  Wide shots without excessive lens distortion
*  Low on the "spoilers" such as moirés and aliasing
 
There is certainly subtlety to all this, though, and it has been an interest of mine why some digital cameras subjectively do better at the film look than others out of the box.
 
Having said this, I think 4K video may change the public's perception of what looks good.  They may see very sharp 4K footage as preferable over the somewhat softer "filmic look" shown today.  They may also like somewhat more saturated colors over time.
 
I was in a TV store recently with two identical model TVs, one over the other on the wall, and a woman pointed to one of the TVs, and said, "What's wrong with that one?".  The salesman replied, "It was calibrated."
 
Michael

I love it. I can't believe how smooth that combo looks, even wide open.

Hi anamorpholovers ! :)
 
A friend of mine gave me for few days the Zhong Yi Lens Turbo M43/Nikon, a cheaper cousin of the Speed Booster from Metabones :
 

 
What is it going to give ? 
 
Olympus OM-D E-M5 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo + Nikon 50mm f1.8 E Serie
 
More to come, any dream welcome ;)
 
 
 
 

Hello Forum!
I'm from Russia
This is my design - rig for BMPCC
 

Hi Sergey,
 
Those are super amazing stuffs! I'm very very very interested in buying your items but honestly since you're very very slow at replying emails (and sometimes just disappeared) and have a lot of bad reputations at REDUSER.net. I can't really think about buying directly from you.
 
Is there any way you could prove yourself?
 
With all regards!

I'm just post-processing some of the footage I took.  Unfortunately I had "Vignetting" control turned on in Magic Lantern so the colours are a bit weird, but it looks decent.
 
Will post soon :)

1 - you'll only use the anamorphic part. You have it unscrew the back lens and use your own taking lens so it doesn't matter.
2 - not sure
3 - only buy an isco if you can get a cheap one. Like €150/200. They are pretty heavy and cumbersome to use, although they are pretty sharp.

I'd suggest searching for a smaller Kowa. The prices can get pretty high but if you are lucky maybe you can find a good one for about €300.

Just want to share this moment :D
 
I used to ask this about a year ago whether it's possible to use a Lomo Roundfront Anamorphic lens in PL mount with a Canon camera with a PL adapter. Most people said that can't be done due to the mirror, the mount size, etc... So I've decided to order a PL mount adapter to give a try and... it works! Even with the squarefront one but just the 80mm.
 
There is no need to remove the mirror for most roundfront lens like 75mm, 100mm and 150mm and even the Squarefront 80mm because they have short rear part. But for the 50mm it has a bit longer rear mount so you need to tape the mirror.
 
Sample stills from the Roundfront 75mm can be found here.
 
Too bad, I don't work full time for filmmaking now. Otherwise, this would be even more exciting for me :(

You deleted your poor example I see?  and changed your username?  Come on man, why are you here other than to try and play devils advocate?  Your discussion was moot over at the cinematogray.com forums.  If you're going to come onto a forum signing up specifically to try and belittle enthusiasts of anamorphics at least have something to back up your bold statements.  Until we see you provide a direct comparison of your solution versus a well arranged anamorphic solution such as those i have mentioned, your debate is moot.      

I guess we just have to wait and see... going to run a bunch of tests tomorrow and see how close I can get. At the end of the day it's all about experimentation and having fun.

That's why I don't really care all that much.  I'm the type that would just rather use the dang things to make something interesting and call it good.
 
I mean, it's curious and cool to know the tech, but hardly a priority for making something artistic.
 
Good for you if you want to delve in though.  Lord knows I'm not inclined to be an engineer.

I wonder if Panasonic and Olympus came to an agreement when m43 was created. In order to not step on each others toes, Panasonic went for more video-focused cameras, whilst Olympus aimed at the pure photography market.

I think this should have been two different articles Andrew...

Absolutely. In fact, most of this article just re-covered the ground of Andrew's fairly recent "Dear Nikon" article. I was hoping for a more in-depth review of the actual camera. Not another generalised rant about why MFT cameras are great. I have a G6 and love it, and agree that mirrorless is the future, but my D5300 is getting more use ATM because I like the image so much. Often I don't find the Nikon quite sharp enough, but resolution is OK and the other qualities trump the G6 for me. The 5300 really is a pain in the neck to shoot with though.
 
There is a lot about this article that is right, but there is also a lot that is unsaid or unacknowledged. There are some things I'm very disappointed EOSHD didn't address and that I actually feel make this quite a misleading/lazy review.
 
My responses to the article are below, mainly adding up to my opinion that for everything the D5300 lacks compared to other similarly priced cameras, it makes up for in other areas - making it one of the best all round choices at the moment. Having said that, I do completely agree that in a year's time the level of detail on the 5300 will look slightly archaic, and the extremely frustrating interface design and feature set makes it extremely frustrating and probably a no-go for a lot of work.
 
So, addressed in article-order:
 
 
Quote
The D5300 comes into a world where video enthusiasts are shooting 4K on Panasonic consumer cameras
 
Er, not yet they're not. And the D5300 actually came out in 2013.
 
 
Quote
I just wanted to shoot nice 1080p, conveniently, for a low price with interchangeable lenses. The D5300 to some is $799 for a Super 35mm camera that shoots quite nice 1080p with no moire & aliasing problems, good in low light, great articulated screen – and free Nikon stills camera into the bargain.
 
Agreed. This is where I'm coming from.
 
 
Quote
I just cannot get over the…
Baby Photo Mode
 
This is all an important point, but not really a problem specific to the 5300. But agreed. Nikon are being stupid about their video mode, and so are Canon.
 
 
Quote
The LCD has almost invisibly faint transparent masking marks for 16:9
 
I don't find this a problem at all, once you're used to it. A small, small, tiny inconvenience.
 
 
Quote
Simply by repackaging the D5300 and redesigning the firmware, Nikon could make it 10x more useful for everyone in the world with an interest in shooting artistic video.
 
Again, agreed. Hugely frustrating.
 
 
Quote
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is $999 with a 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes codec, crisp detail and 13 stops of dynamic range. The D5300 does have a better screen than the Pocket Camera, which is articulated and it does have an APS-C sensor, 1080/60p in addition to the film frame rate of 24p and 25p, so it’s not all bad…
 
The Pocket has a very different workflow that a lot of shooters just aren't going to want, and is even more frustrating to use than the 5300 in many ways.
 
Quote
Neither can quite match the GH3 for detail in 1080p (let alone the GH4). I believe the trick Panasonic are using to give us such crisp 1080p on their cameras is to down-sample the sensor to roughly 2.5K and then oversample 1080p from that higher resolution raw image. The D5300 looks like the 5D Mark III’s stock video mode for resolution – it’s a bit mushy. You notice this the most when shooting in daylight at focus points between infinity and roughly 5 meters. Sometimes you don’t notice the softness much at all, so it’s not the camera’s main problem.
 
Agreed. Interesting theory about Panasonic too.
 
Quote
Standard or Vivid picture profile ... Whatever method you use the results after grading look similar.
 
FFS ANDREW WHY HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT FLAAT?!
 
 
Quote
Low light performance is very good, even with the focus assist zoomed in 2 levels you will find it difficult to see any noise on the LCD while out shooting in low light at ISO 800. The image maintains rich colour at high ISOs and on brighter areas of the image at high ISOs noise almost vanishes altogether. ISO 1600 and 3200 are perfectly usable in video mode and even 6400 and 12,800 are better than on many cameras at the same price, closer in fact to the Super 35mm sensor in the Sony FS100.
 
IMO this is the major strength of the camera. It is superior to the Pocket, even with Speed Booster, here - because the Pocket has very washed-out colours in low light that completely negate it's low-noise levels. I haven't had a chance to look at how the GM1/GX7 do in low light (and forthcoming GH4). I really hope the GH4 matches the 5300 here. That will make me really happy.
 
 
Quote
The punch-in focus assist is generally a bit slow to use and you can’t simply half-press the shutter button to come back out of it, instead you have to tediously reverse back out out with the ‘minus’ key.
 
Minor niggle and entirely wrong. Pressing 'OK' (centre button) brings you straight out.
 
 
Quote
The lens mount is way too restrictive.
 
Seriously, WTF? You go on about the graetness of the Speed Booster all the time. Pocket + SB = awesome. Nikon mount = grim.
But I agree that it's ridiculous the way Nikon cripple their low-end cameras for using their own glass.
 
 
Quote
with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 any lens you put on it automatically has class-leading stabilisation better than any VR lens in the entire Nikon range including their pro lenses.
 
This is the case with any camera other than Olympus - not just Nikon!!!
 
 
Quote
Last year’s D5200 has an identical image in video mode and costs just $400 used, which makes it hard to justify the D5300 if you don’t need 1080/60p.
 
On the surface this is true, but in actuality it is entirely, categorically false. The D5300 has none of the banding/fixed pattern noise of the 5200. This means far better low light performance and crucially, AMAZING DYNAMIC RANGE POTENTIAL USING FLAT PROFILES. I know that you know about this Andrew. WHY HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS?!?! A quote you made on our older D5300 thread:
 
 
Quote
EOSHD, on 16 Jan 2014 - 8:11 PM, said:
Today I bought a Nikon D5300 for review, and a bit of shooting, but mainly for the blog with intention of sending it back after.
Well, so far it is surprising me.
The dynamic range with the flat picture profile is really quite something. Head to toe with ProRes on the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. I'd put it at 12 stops. Very good colour and good shadows, and again good low light performance. The codec in 1080/60p seems ok so far too. The main drawback seems to be the cheap-mid-range Nikon ergonomics (not enough buttons and dials). Wish they had put this video mode (and articulated screen) in the D7100 instead.
But so far so good peeps!
 
Why didn't you address this in the article? You do know about this. DYNAMIC RANGE IS A MAJOR, MAJOR PRO OF THIS CAMERA. Far superior to any other low-bitrate camera in the price-bracket.
 
 
Quote
As of today, DSLR video is over. Dead. Kaput!
 
Er, I'd probably pick a GH4 over a 5D+RAW for convenience's sake and features, but I'm pretty sure I'll prefer the 5D image (?) and I think we'll be seeing just as much 5D RAW as ever, even after the GH4 is out. But yes, I hope in the long-run mirrorless is the direction we are headed in (and I believe it is too).
 

Quote
The lack of video features and 4K will put DSLRs at a very significant disadvantage on performance relative to the best mirrorless cameras this year.
 
Agreed.
 
 
Quote
To give you an idea of how antiquated the D5300 form factor is you still can’t change the aperture from the camera whilst live-view mode is engaged. Why on Earth not?
 
Agreed. Ridiculous.
 
 
Quote
But in the cold light of day for $1999 (maybe less by the time final pricing is announced), Panasonic offer us 4K video. At $799 Nikon offer us a Baby Photo Mode. Why bother with this crap any more? Really?
 
Ridiculous comment. $2000 is is over twice as much as $800. For some people that's a big difference.
 
 
Quote
Pros
OK video quality and very good low light performance
Better than Canon Rebels and 70D on image quality, for both video and stills
Pleasing colour straight out of the MOV files, richness of tone maintained in low light
1080/60p useful for slow-motion video when converted to more cinematic 24p frame rate
38Mbit codec avoids break-up in 1080/60p mode (only 24Mbit VBR in 24p and 25p mode though)
No significant moire or aliasing issues (though resolution falls short of being truly full HD)
PAL / NTSC switchable for wide variety of frame rates
Manual focus magnification has an ultra-detailed display mode (though painfully slow frame rate)
Quicktime MOV file format benefits (easy editing and access, thumbnail preview in Explorer and Finder)
Very nice smartphone standard 3.2″ articulated screen
The sensor produces immaculate stills quality for the price
$799
 
Agree with all of these, though it seems almost misleading for someone with the respect you have from your readers to neglect talking about dynamic range with the D5300. IMO DR is on-par with low-light as the greatest strength of this camera.
 
 
Quote
Cons
Charmless – looks cheap, bland shooting experience
Very poor ergonomics by Nikon standards
Extremely dated form factor
 
I really like the size, weight and shape of the camera. It is a pain in the backside to use though.
 
 
Quote
No real improvement in image quality over the D5200 in terms of video or raw stills
 
FFingF's sake!!! The banding is gone!!! That was THE major drawback of the D5200. You said so yourself when you reviewed that camera! At least bloody mention it!!!
 
 
Quote
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera offers much better image for filmmakers (13 stop dynamic range, 10bit ProRes 422) for just $200 more
 
The Pocket workflow is a very, very different proposition for some people, and it requires a much greater outlay in terms of gear and time spent in post. The 5300 is also a much better all-rounder.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with all of your other cons.
 
 
As is becoming standard Andrew, I have been very critical of you. As always I still have the greatest respect for you and your site (in fact I may actually just change my signature to say this ;) ).

I think this should have been two different articles Andrew...