Matthew Marshall

I think Canon even mentioned it in press if I recall correctly.

Ok lets be fair here, The FS700 is huge with the accessories on rail for raw. A most ungainly thing. Regardless I think what it really comes down to is the business. Canon, is cameras, picture cameras. They are, they always have been. Its the basis of their business and what they cater to, specifically like most of their competitors, consumer cameras. Accessible, easy to use from film up to when they first started making film cameras, but also good quality. Their business model is frankly different than Sony who has their hand in all echelons of technology and even the high end production cameras like the CineAlta. As such its an old holdover from film. EF is Canon, FD was Canon at the time. Picture Film cameras lived and died by their mounts. Setting theirs as EF from FD with autofocus and electronics and removing the bayonette mount is their claim. Canon is EF and for film, PL, thats mainly because if they didnt at least try to meet the standards of the industry nobody would use it at all. Sony doesn't have this holdover, well yes ok they have the Alpha aka the Minolta AF which was bought when Minolta closed its doors. It was bought, they didn't develop it themselves. Now they have the E-Mount okay, thats all good, they developed that but they don't live and die by their mount. Its not synonymous with their name like it is with Canon EF. Sony does all technology, not just pictures and video. They dont profit just from lenses and cameras. They profit from their various branches and overall sales and consumers in their brand name... Sony. Sony glass doesn't have this huge long history like Canon has and a bitter rivalry with other manufacturers and "survivors" *rip kodak*. I mean even on a film production level Canon PL cinema has to compete with Zeiss, although there are other contenders in there as well. Hence the easy adaptation. Plus, rather smartly, they dont need to invest nearly as much R&D to lenses. Compared to what Canon and Zeiss probably invest. So they invest in the tech, the cameras, the 200fps bells and whistles and 4k, built in ND filters. To make the picture on very expensive highly R&D lens look great and satisfy the consumer in price. Plus Canon, they don't have as high end a quality camera as the CineAlta or the Arri. Sony has made movies, funded movies, had professionals paid by their company to make them and also are privy to their tips and advice and suggestions first hand from working on a movie production in house. Canon doesn't have this, at least not as closely integrated as... hey, im paying your checks... what works? Not to mention their other branches. Sony is a survivor and a competitive one. Sony Gaming survived the Sega Collapse, the introduction of the Xbox and the rivalry with Nintendo. Theres Sony music and the music industry, has so far survived the collapse of CD (ok thats a stretch but whatever just go with it XD) Here ill add a TL;DR To be frank, Sony can take some risks, add those features on. Add a bulky peripheral that may not be what everyone needs, but if you want it, hey have at it. They've survived alot. Canon, again, lives and dies by their lens, their cameras and thats it. You screw up, and dont make a return for all that R&D? You have nothing else to fall back on. I mean what else. I suppose their printers, however Fuji still has that cornered as far as im concerned. Anyways its not this way for Sony. Ok that was alot longer than I wanted it to be sorry everyone.

I just cant help but think that all the Panasonic LA7200 needs is something like a focus module so it can be adjusted for different sensors and lenses. Something that replaces the existing back, add two more lens elements behind the existing back element. Adjusts them all to make it fit right. Plus a seperate ring for close and far focus. I dont know. something like that.

Eh I dont know... I mean, Apples target market when it comes to Filmmaking is Medium to Medium High range. I mean most production studios and motion graphics companies use Linux for the turnkey. So really, looking at that generally most people in those ranges dont have a perfect workstation system. Theres alot of lost profit from Apple when it comes to Hackintoshing since, higher end custom made workstations are generally cheaper with better performance compared to the Mac Pro (Ok fine, according to most people anyways). Regardless, it may simply be a thunderbolt to SSD drive issue. Perhaps a firmware thing with the dock through thunderbolt and the install. I have a firewire to Thunderbolt adapter and its touchy as to if it decides to work or not, not to mention the peripheral i used it for was never update so it doesnt work. Also, based on the lack of a warning message I dont think Apple knew or would want the flack from the community as a byproduct of sneaking that in there. I would hit up Buffalo support first on this to be honest although there is probably little they can do. Might just be more of bug than anything else. Possibly throwing the security kext protocol while a drive bay with slightly incompatible firmware due to thunderbolt code changes ("tweaks) on Apples side. Otherwise, if you want to go the evil corporation route, im sure its more a primer, to get it in peoples heads that hey your SSD may not be supported so you may just want to get that Apple drive, and make sure its big because you may not be able to boot from a 3rd party one. You know, issue a statement that of course its not, fix the problems, but it gets out to the masses that it is. That little worm of doubt wiggling at the back of your mind, precursor to full denial of external SSD booting. Which is fine at that point because, well there are errors anyways, and by then the hardest of the hardcore fanboys will have already begun to rationalize it. Not saying i've ever owned any computer other than an Apple computer. I haven't and I've always been a fan at least until recently. I dont know, its lost its magic... In any case, i'd stay tuned for this one. However Mr Reid has good reason to react the way he did, as does anyone whos bread and butter relies on the systems and oh so delicate data. Plus if no one makes a fuss and that is what they are doing, preparing and testing for it, well... that pretty much gives them the go ahead to just do it as far as Im concerned.

If possibly and if anyone has the lenses. Would someone be able to do a comparison between the Canon 16-35 2.8L and the Tokina 11-16 on the LA7200? Id be very interested in that. It appears though it may be because its was 35mm just at the focal length with it starts CA Plus i was using it at pretty fast speeds since it was dark out.

Yes yes, ill have footage up if it helps. There is some, at least from the raw stills.

I had it on the BMCC with a Canon EF 35L for the taking lens.

Trying to understand / fix the LA7200 to make it clearer, less CA, sharper and more usable. Building a lens from other lenses to attempt to do this. In any case, im trying to understand what is causing the issues in general using the LA7200 on DSLR or Blackmagic cinema camera. Is it because of the sensor cropping then? The LA7200 was designed for a 4:3 sensor crop therefore it will not work correctly on the BMCC, or larger sensors? Or is it simply a design flaw overall of the LA7200 , poor lens design / poor coating If it is a crop sensor issue, what is happening on the LA7200 to cause issues because the sensors are larger crop. Is the back lens element simply too small, where the image is being projected against the taking lens too small therefore when desqueezed you see parts of the image you really should not? i.e. the taking lens and the sensor is capturing too much of the la7200? By adding a diopter behind it does that then, make it larger i.e. projects less of what is seen from the front of the la7200 to the sensor? Or is it more complex than this. I have tried using a diopter behind the LA7200 i think its a Tokina 0.5 Not sure. I mean it says No 0.05 so I dont know at this point. In any case it does not seem to help. Just trying to understand, thanks anyone that can help.

I wonder if you would still get the benefits of having it behind a lens. For instance integrated neutral density filters vs front mount ones. Although integrated neutral density filters are generally found just in front of the sensor.

Anybody still keeping this up? I have what I think is a Tokina 0.5 diopter. Not sure, its a No 0.05 i believe ill have to check it but ive heard the 0.25 is better for clearing up CA on the LA7200. Not finding much on ebay these days.

Marshal VLCD-70MD

Ive been working on this with my LA7200 realize topic has been quiet, but getting nominal success with the LA7200 just got to fit the thing together right. Issue right now is that its a telephoto lens with non fixed front focus. Making work arounds trying to attach to non moving elements further in the lens.

I have a question regarding the LA7200, basically in order to focus you would to move the back lens element or front. Would that be correct? Would it be possible to allow focus by adding another lens element behind the flat back lens element. Not sure how the image is presented by the square back of the LA7200. Im currently in the process of modifying it and frankensteining the lens with old junked vintage lenses to make it one whole lens that does not need a taking lens. Just want to make sure I have the physics right. Thanks in advance.

See they have some videos on Vimeo showing it. It has its limitations but its slick. Slides right over fitting anamorphic to allow focus. Makes it look like all one lens at the end.

Hm checked out a 50mm lens element. A Minolta. The thing is thick. Quite a bit thick. Not going to work its highly telescopic. I think the 28-80 wasn't nearly as telescopic because most of the telephoto elements were in the center part. Side note, may enable infinity focus on a Minolta adapter with the current FD element. Need to get myself an adapter.