Rudolf

HaHa... nobody except of the knight! ;)

and how about something for filmmakers: http://www.logmar.dk/ "Why bother with film when XYZ company is going digital? We do not believe in digital footage, it's as simple as that. Our passion is not for "plastic like" colours and high definition marketing jargon over which sensor chip has the most amount of pixels (and least amount of bad ones), so you won’t see us developing a camera for this market, also the digital film camera market is already dominated by big players such as Panasonic, Black Magic and Arriflex so we wouldn't be able to "pack a punch" especially being number #400 vendor of a camera in this space..." :)

@elubes: Very valid input from an actual user :) Regarding the 54-36 comparison: I nearly can't see a difference - maybe it is just my old eyes...

Thanks for the link! I read both reviews and I am confused... Well, MFT charts are not the end-all for performance (only done at infinity focus) I think everybody who is more after a special look or 'character' (like most forum members) has an eye on color, contrast and flare... So it is more interesting to watch a side by side (the only one available): http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/889-nocti-slrmagic/ Make your own thoughts ... It is probably a lot about taste... I don't know... I have just too much spare time.

Rudolf... you are wrong! In the late 60's ISCO built a couple of plastic lenses... I think the aesthetics are a matter of taste: I am rather conservative and for a collector the mod is a sacrifice! (I have to think of a guy who "upgraded"/modified a Lamborghini Miura: I am not a fan of ralley stripes and rear- and front spoilers - okay I am mixing apples and oranges :D ). If you have something rare and special and old... it is nice to just keep it like it is. To improve a bad/nearly unusable shape (like tferradans) is the only good reason for a mod in my eyes. Otherwise go for the strong, solid ISCO 54! Great lens and cheaper than Isco + mod !!!

I was also thinking about this. But will not send it away for half a year and several hundred $$! Considering weight you are "upgrading" to Iscorama 54... ISCO built all their lenses and adapters of metal except their Iscorama (Cinegon, 36) for good reason: It was their approach to design a relatively light and easy to use (without gear) anamorphot. Van Diemen makes this obsolete. Tony Wilson mentioned that the interior remains the same in another thread... therefore it is likely that you don't get the protection you expect (A human being will day in car crash from a particular speed/energy - no matter how thick the armor is. The main arteries will tear apart) If an Isco will fell down it will be destroyed - with or without "upgrade". In contrary the Isco 42/54: They are bigger and had to be made of metal. My 54 for example has tiny dent (filterthread) from falling down (previous owner) but that had no effect on the functionality. I am sure a "Van Diemen-Isco" would still crack inside - but there won't be any scratches outside and you have a nice engraving :P But maybe I am totally wrong...? :unsure:

It's made by "Lanparte" I think Thank you for the guide: I had a quick read through and it gave me already some encouragement... which is great because I am little bit stuck right now!

John, thank you so much! You made my day! Also tried to hit the "like-button" a hundred times but this just caused Safari to crash... I am really grateful :)

Precise, Gábor :) Maybe I will just write Moller from now on (for economical reason) BTW The Company is 20 minutes from my house. I should pay them a visit and ask if there is some old stuff lying around... I forgot one thing about the 32/2 which is a bit anoying: Mounting filters is not so easy - I have no workaround yet. Xume adapter would be cool!

What is amazing about your new "toy" is the compact size (beside the great photos you posted)! That is unbelievable for FF... I am sometimes playing mind games about buying a new camera: The Sony is very tempting. The Oly has that great stabilization... (I don't think video looks that bad as many say). Canon would be cool for 4:3... Many ways to spend money :)

For me the GH2 was absolutely great! I never had any quirks and it was always reliable (I used the "Vanilla hack") Image is also very good "out of the box" for my taste. I sold it (bad idea) and bought the GH3 therefore. There are things which are also great about that camera: Get rid of AVCHD! 25/50p! Much better feel and weatherproof! Better photos (for my taste)! I prefer 2x crop (better/wider with anamorphics)! Dynamic range of the GH3 really is that much better over GH2. I recently captured video in very foggy conditions and later during grading I could make things visible my eyes couldn't see when I was shooting - that was really astonishing. But at first glance I preferred the image of the GH2 (still not sure what "cinematic" really means? I always thought for many it means "get as shallow depth as you can" but that is not my cup of tea because that is not so filmic)

GREAT! Wonderful you achieved this with the tiny GH2! You(!) obviously don't need super-expensive gear and lenses and, and, and... This is also encouraging for other people. I was recently thinking about buying Canon 5D... I will stick to my GH3 I think :)

Ah, forgot: Makes me also wish the sun could shine here sometimes for twenty minutes...

Very nice photos. When I see all these great photos I wish I had just a tiny little bit more talent Very good combo (Sony+Nikon+Möller=Wow!) but maybe you have a substitute laying around for the Nikon which focuses the "right" way so that you can rotate both at the same time (Möller and taking lens) - that is good fun either!

Macro tubes don't help!

What sort of research without actually testing the lenses ? ;) BTW there are many quite similar 16mm projection lenses (Eiki, Singer, Elmo...) I had a Sankor 16F. I liked it! You don't need rods. Believe the people: Buying Redstan clamp is much more fun (especially when you want to change the taking lens in the field!!!) the Moeller 32/2 is also great (I prefer it) and most times half the price

As far as I understood this was more about which lens is best for the Sony. Both lenses have been compared a few times last year and I am sure Andrew has read on or the other blog... The bloggers/testers come to similar results even on other cameras! Only downside of the Noktor seems to be less contrast and more barrel distortion (don't care: I hate portraits). I think that is absolutely astonishing!!! Actually the Noktor is F 0.92 (T 0.95) which means it is faster then the Noctilux! Also it is only little bit bigger! And has... NO (!) aspherical element (Noctilux has two and should therefore be better regarding ca ...) WHAT has SLR Magic done with the laws of physics? These dumb Leica designers just can charge money from the snobs... This is epic: They used to make toy-lenses and now they are at the peak within a couple of years. :)

I think the only advantage the Pany has is more beautiful flare but that is just a matter of taste... overall the SLR seem so much better! I thought the grain is from ISO?

Chris, congrats for breaking through this spiral of desire for gear! There is a lot you have written which is very true and is also a subject of debate in other threads ("is better/more expensive gear necessary for a good movie"). We want more, better and newer gear. This is also what this blog is about. There is at least one new camera or lens or whatever being tested every week... But it is also a lot of fun: to play with some new toys :) And they don't have to be always expensive: Although I have Iscoramas I bought a €100,- Moeller 32/2 which are usually very cheap and I really have a lot of fun with that thing... However I wish I will become a bit more sensible about spending money - like you! In any case very good food for thougth. PS I haven't seen the commercial in question but it can not be more annoying than the latest Star Trek !

Great! I learned a lot from the GH2 book (nearly everything I know about DSLR filming) and look forward as I bought the GH3 a couple of months ago and don't understand everything right I think  :)

Hi Bruno! You're right what I said might sound weird... :) I own several cameras and they often are very annoying with their quirks. Many S-8 cameras are not "tripod-friendly" which is really bad for example. And so many other things like viewfinder, beam-splitter strange batteries (Beaulieu) or no batteries (Nizo) and on most old cameras the lenses are really bad... you could count on and on... So, I just think it is better to use a modern camera with all the advantages with maybe old lenses (like Andrew and thousands others) to get a less digital look. I really like video and enjoy my GH2/3 but there is not substitute for film if you put digital "box" in an old camera that is why I think it is a useless approach. I still doubt that it is technically doable But who knows? maybe this could become great... than I will of course buy one (hate being dogmatic) So lets just hope for a great product :)

I have also been looking for a long time now... but they are really rare. Maybe I'll buy some Tiffen diopters they are much cheaper. I don't know about the quality though?

Please don't degrade Super-8 cameras to retro-toys for some geeks ! Design and ergonomics: I doubt Dieter Rahms would have designed the Nizo (which needs quicksilver batteries) like he did with todays technical possibilities?! Yummy 720p inferior Iphone quality out of a Nikon R10-tank or a trustless Beaulieu... great idea. The ergonomics of a Leicina is ridiculous But the Kodakchrome - Ektachrome switch is so coool. Unfortunately the designer still has no valid solution for the rotating shutter... film is film and video... I like both and both have its advantages! Today there is more different stock available than ever before... and the best thing is: You have to think about what you film. Film is expensive and has a different/higher value. For me that is big advantage in times of abundance and mass production! It is the same with music! It is harder and harder to find the beautiful underneath all the cheap crap.

Looks very good! Is it the gear or the talent? The SLR will for sure do the job for those looking for a modern, affordable and easy to use anamorphic solution. With that you can achieve low-budget anamorphic still looking expensive. Anamorphic shooting will loose its exclusiveness (if there is still any?). Strangely for me the flares of anamorhpics become more and more a downside and distracting. Also a downside of these easy-to-use solutions: They don't offer the fun of tinkering. It is amazing to see for example how Seb Farges is experimenting with the Baby Hypergonar! He really gets the best out of it now! Try this lens and that... which mounting solution? I also like this: It is like a hobby. I sold the old cars and now I just have my old cameras left... PS Is the fine grain from ISO?

I am a film shooter either but I have also added grain in the past to digital video when I ran out of money/film I was disappointed about the look. 99% percent want the filmlook and therefore older lenses are used and artificial grain or several filtersuits we all know. But sometimes film can be a very tough thing... ! Video is often more easy: Just go out, don't think about it and shot five hours and watch/cut it immediately...