Nikkor

If you blow up the image 3x (because when you want to compare images, you compare them at the same size), the dof will change. Because DOF is a concept that relies on the Circle of Confusion.

But Red Weapon users are very few in number and the market for medium format is very large in comparison (much larger than leica R). The prices will go up when there is the 5D equivalent of medium format (When the D3 came out, many lenses sky rocket, the 28 1.4 for example, because nikon had a poor new fullframe lens lineup).

I would invest in medium format glass Carl zeiss jena is the cheapest way to get a good medium format vintage look. But they aren't rare, so I dunno if they will get up in price once the affordable beasts come out.

That short certainly looks like film, but like for real not some shitty lut look (ok the highlights don't match, but it's digital so that's unavoidable).

You can always buy it and resell it, it sells fast.

Yes.

I don't think the lens is worth it. I might have a bad copy, who knows, but I don't like the rendering except for face closeups. It also has some sort of a cold look. I think any cheap 50 1.4 is the better choice.

The people in charge must me Spanish, that or Coreans share the same sickness.

In stills too? 2 seconds long sharp exposures with the gx80 sounds amazing.

How does the sony stabilization compare to this?

2-2.8 means it's f2 at 16mm and 2.8 at 50mm

Wideangle lenses are fucking problematic if you are looking for something cinematic. The mkIIs don't have the triangular shape if that's what you mean by not liking the bokeh.

Well, summer is almost here, can't wait for your film

I don't, I'm going into the opposite direction, nikkor-sw ,etc...

Well, the superspeeds are different than contax. They have what I call the seventies glow, something I totally love.

Seven years...

It's a super35mm lens, PL or arrimount. It does break the bank though. If I ever buy a s35 lens again, it's this one

kidzrevil, if you have some cash, get the super speed 25mm 1.2 mkii....

I wonder why anybody would shoot with that expensive camera, makes no sense at all, there is no difference between sensor sizes. btw, I don't believe in that special option, there was a time where almost everything was shot on film, TV movies looked good, now they look crap. People used to shoot fashion with Mamiyas 67s Hasselblads and 4x5, and magazines looked amazing, now they look like crap. The more awesome stuff, the better

If they make the electronics behind the sensor thinner it would actually look pretty well, like a nikon fe, for example. http://ohm-image.net/opinion/photophile/the-fujifilml-x-pro-1-vs-the-big-ass-slr

Well I think it still looks strange, but the slowmotion thing masks it.

Total bullshit, in every way.

With those specs anybody with some brain will say, ok, this is a good camera. On the stills side some better shadows, and that's it. But I honestly doubt it will happen.

The curve on the Kine looks flatter to me, maybe that's the reason why the face seems more threedimensional on the ursa. There is also this orange thing...

I still have some chinese lens-pills lef over, they make any lens 2 stops faster and 30% sharper but organic looking. PM if you want one. Payment goes over Western Union, I am currently in Dakar.