Bioskop.Inc

Really nice! Your handheld work is absolutely fine & yes the Bokeh isn't as pronounced (might be a combo of x1.5, sensor & taking lens stopped down), but nothing that should make you feel that you haven't captured something really good.

The Zoom H4N was awful & the Tascam DR100 was a little better (did have quite a low recording volume). I eventually went for the Marantz PMD661 - it was a little overboard, as i had a proper mic & a field mixer, but as a back up its excellent. The problem is that al lot of these recorders just don't have great onboard mics etc.., so they're noisy crap.   However, if you get a secondhand mic & plug that in, then they can turn an H4N or DR100 into a butterfly! XLR inputs essential, as is Phantom Power, on a recorder.   Sennheiser K3-U/ME-80 - an old, low budget film mic, which sometimes comes with all 3 mic extensions (ME-80, ME-40 & ME20) & can run off a battery or phantom - under £100.   This was the best review site i found when i was looking for a recorder: http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-reviews.html   But as with all things you can go really nuts or just slowly build up.   If you're budget minded - you can pick up a small used 2 channel mixer, an old mic & plug it all into a small recorder - will all fit into a small bag which you have over your shoulder & the mic can be shotgun handheld or fixed to your camera. The quality will be sooo much better than onboard mics. All said & done £500 or less - if you're careful/patient looking for a bargin.

stumbled upon this - Pocket + Super-Tak 50mm + pistol grip   v.obvious that you need a 3 points of contact & not just a pistol grip, but it'll show you what this lens looks like...   https://vimeo.com/78101575

I've also found that you can get some strange effects when using an anamorphic, which you just will never be able to replicate with a spherical lens. But in the end there are just as many good films shot with spherical lenses, as there are with anamorphics - its an aesthetic thing, not a necessity. Oh, the horizontal flares are certainly not the reason i love shooting anamorphic, in fact i've spoiled some lovely shots with them & more often than not they look tacky or forced. Each to their own, if you don't get it, don't worry about it!

Well, i had the 50mm & sold it to fund more lenses - in good condition it can be worth quite a bit, or used to. My 55mm Super-Tak cost me £15 & its just as good, if not better IMO - sometimes hype is just that.   Russain lenses can be a crap shoot - there are a few good Russain ebay sellers who take returns, but i've never had to when buying from them.   If you can wait a week, my BMPCC should be with me then - i'll try my Super-Taks out on it & my Nikkor 24mm f2.8 (the latter being a cheap impulse purchase, but if its good then its Nikkors & Russains for me).

Yep, it will never go anywhere, its here to stay! Just look at how many films are filmed in anamorphic. Shit, even Scream 4 & [parts of] Spring Breakers (sorry!! young girls in bikinis filmed by Harmony Korine, no brainer!) was filmed this way! Killing Me Softly even used them - looked nice, but what a car crash of a narrative construction. The list really is endless & in the end its an aesthetic preference choice, regardless of the actual quality/worth of the film itself.

That's a tough choice!   As Andy has said the Yashica ML lenses are a cheaper alternative to Zeiss & are excellent.   I love the Super-Taks, but am a bit confused about your soft remarks - they have a razor thin DOF wide open, but are not soft by any means. There is a warm feel to them, but i find using the VisionColor profiles really helps with grading my footage - also you should be manually dialing in your WB & so you can make your footage cooler. The only other down point is that the 35mm i've got is f3.5 (but with the speedbooster it'll be better - for BM Pocket) & i'd sell the 135mm in order to get the 105mm - i'd even get rid of the 50mm to make some cash for other lenses.   Nikkors, well enough said, they are lovely lenses & you'd only need to get the 50mm pancake & perhaps the 85mm.   If not a really cheap alternative would be some russian lenses - they are my favourites & all have pre-set apertures (no click stops), producing perfect round Bokeh: Mir-24 35mm f2 Helios 44-2 58mm f2 Jupiter 9 85mm f2 Tair 11a 135mm f2.8   Personally, i'd keep/make 2 sets of lenses, so that you've always got alternatives/choice & you're pretty much on your way with the Nikkors & the Super-Taks. By your remarks, those are the ones that you seem to like best so go with your gut feeling & don't get swayed into starting a new set from scratch!

I ended up going for the Genus Eclipse & am very happy (v.good sharpness & pretty much 0 colour cast) - I really needed it to be 95mm, but the largest they do is 82mm & i had about the same budget.

@Rich - would the Iscorama 54 fit in the recess of the Trump and does/could it have a 77mm thread on the front? I'd buy it in a flash if this was possible, as i will still be using my 60D after i get the Pocket - I mean why wouldn't I?   I'm just waiting for the EF to M43 speedbooster & the Pocket (of course!) & i'll be happy to use a 58mm+anamorphic with the SB. The Helios 58mm is my goto lens & also my Helios 85mm - it just doesn't get any better than these 2 lenses. As far as a 35mm is concerned, I think the Mir-24 would be a good lens to adapt.   (Personally i've never bothered with the whole FF equivalent nonsense! On my APS-C I know the FOV a 58mm lens gives & that's the important thing - that's my sensor size & that is that. This is also made null'n'void by the fact that i've always got an anamorphic paired with my lenses). 

I'm so tempted to get this lens, but am about to get a Pocket cam & it pains me to say that i might need a wider lens!

He saved my bacon just before i shot my first short with an anamorphic - clamps & advice. Epic conversations to be expected, everything from conspiracy theories to cinematography to where ever you mind wonders! He's very trust worthy, but people have taken advantage of him & its a real shame. I bought my last anamorphic from him (& the choice of lenses he presented to me made it a tough decision), but being the upstanding man he is, i got a couple of diopters thrown into the deal as well - life saving! I met up with him a few times (in a coffee shop opposite GCHQ of all places!) & he's younger than you'd think, but he sure has some fine anamorphics! His side anamorphic project was very nice to use, even if the design/build was a bit basic.

I've found keeping to multiples of 100 - i am in favour of 400/800 & an ND filter if necessary. On the RAWHistogram i get consistently good results if it reads -0.4 (or there abouts, pushing it further sometimes) & use this as my template for all other settings (so in good light I will lower ISO, but in bad light will raise it, this goes for aperture as well etc... - as long as i still get the Histogram to read -0.4).

I'm not really seeing the noise either, but the ML team do suggest ETTR - more light will give more detail & cleaner picture. I've had really good results going for a higher ISO (multiples of 100), in combination with an ND filter. However, i have noticed that you've got to be careful at lower ISOs when adding contrast/sharpening in post - it does bring out some noise. Also, any noise you do get (& you'll always get some i think) is much more pleasing than H264 noise.   Try transcoding the footage to cinemaDNG & see if there's a difference.

Funnily enough i was recommended to buy a Canon by a photographer who'd heard they were being used by filmmakers, but had never used it on his 5D2 & still hasn't! I think sometimes we forget that they're stills cameras that can do video & not the other way round. On the flip side, some photographers have used REDs to take pictures, so go figure!

Try those Vimeo Weekend Challenges - they give you a good brief with which to work from & a deadline.

This is a good book to start with:   Cinematography: Theory & Practice by Blain Brown   Used to be on the reading list when i lectured at University, it also includes a DVD.   If you'd prefer a blog then take a look at the mass of useful info here (a Hollywood DP):   http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/

WOW! Looks like an early Iscorama to me! Damn, that must be worth a fortune now!

Well, i was nearly at that point recently, but got pulled back in & started to enjoy filming things again - anamorphic or spherical. Guess you've got a shed load of stuff & i agree if you're clearing house keep the smallest/best thing, but just remember that there aren't a huge number of 54s about, so don't let it go cheap. 

Yeah, this forum has become like that, but i was expecting a listing straight away after he got confirmation!

In the end its all a matter of taste & there's no right or wrong when it comes to what you like. If i'd known about the VanDiemen rehousing when i had a 36, i'd probably have done it just to make it bigger & stronger. However, it still leaves the issue of the 36 not being so versatile with a variety of possible taking lenses - i'm thinking future proofing here. I really do think that the MC on a 54 does produce a better quality image than its non-MC version & flares...well i kicked that habit ages ago in favour of out of focus creamy loveliness.   @frerradans - you'd get more $ for your pre-36 than you'll ever get for the 54 (Bad Rap Syndrome), but its not all about money & in the long run you will regret selling the 54. I don't miss my 36 (there's too much hype surrounding this lens), but strangely enough regret selling my Sankor 16D & consequently am hanging onto my Kowa B&H for photography.   If you want an Iscorama, then the 42 is probably the elephant in the room & always has been - but good luck finding one. I've only tried one once & well, it felt like i was in another world completely!

You have a good memory, sir! And yes, its a beauty, in perfect condition, which produces stunning images - not too sharp, but not soft, just the perfect resolution (I think the MC helps?).  I much prefer it to the 36 i had, it actually feels like a lens (just the right amount of weight) & not some plastic toy. And, you can use it with a wider variety of lenses. To me its the perfect Anamorphic - it has done me proud when filming or taking pictures.

Its just a big anamorphic adaptor, which you'll need to attach to a taking lens - its not an all-in-one lens (not sure were you got the idea it was in 2 parts). It is heavy (all metal, not plastic) & will need lens support/rods (as Rudolf mentioned), but it has the most character of all the Iscoramas. 

I think people are getting a bit fed up answering the same question & so you get the sarcastic replies.   Your Iscorama is a pre-36 version, normally referred to as a 1968 Iscorama (it came with a taking lens & will be non-MC) - look at the link Rudolf sent you, its under Models.

  Yeah for handheld it will be a pleasure to use & quite frankly, for a Doc, i don't think that will be of any concern to someone using it for that purpose, apart from perhaps saving shots that might have been lost with another camera. 

I just got the Genus Eclipse Vari ND (not to be confused with their older one) & am very pleased with it - no softness, the only colour shift it gives is a v.minor (& i do mean minor) warmth to images (which i like).   At the moment i'm using on a Canon & am waiting to use it on the BM Pocket - just hope it will look good on a BM.   Also, the whole walking from indoors to outdoors - either a pre-set aperture on your lens or a Vari-ND & you dial either down. Takes practice, but is simple once you get the hang of it.