Nikkor

There are many options, let's say pentax k3, nikon d7100, fujifilm X-T1 and quite a few more. Of course, if you handle expensive canon glass the 70D can be an option if you need to have long reach. But for a person who spends 800$ on a camera that expensive glass is usually out of the question, why would you want to use such a camera anyway if you have the money and there are excellent teleconverters. Maybe you can think of a reason and in that case the 70D would be great, but it just doesn't come to my mind. Btw you should try the extra dynamic range and lowlight performance. I bet you didn't know that dynamic range is used for something more than correcting a wrong exposure, give some raw files a try and see how they hold up and look more clear.

For stills the 70D is totally overpriced and outperformed by any aps-c camera from the last 4 years.

I would love to be able to download some ungraded flat samples to see how well they grade (lowlight and daylight). Same shot with the A7s in log would be a great comparison.

Always try before buy, go into a shop with your own card and try it out there.

I guess so, if there is no difference between the close focus and infinity setting the lens can't change the focus distance, that's why it won't focus.

If its europe 1/50 or 1/100 should do fine.

On 43rds rumors I read that with the hack you loose the crop in videomode, maybe you could check that out.

Nikon was the top dog in 35mm cameras until they screwd bigtime in the 80s by not taking serious Autofocus and canon took over their market.

There are several versions, I have this one that's slighly less golden but it's short. It's has the inscription f=75mm-2.95in and came with such a taking lens screwed in. I know there are versions that are longer. It cost me 90€ last year. Here two samples with the nikkor 135 f2 DC (it works fine until 85mm, you also can use a 60mm on FF but you will get vignetting until you crop to 2.35:1 or a little less and you need a lens with a small front element)

The ultra star I have is about the same size and weight as the sankor 16d, it just has a larger diameter.

See if the front element moves forward and backwards when you turn the focus ring. If it does it should be working.

What taking lens are you using in these shots?

I have the glass but I won't buy this one (I have the d800).Low light performance is still the same as on the d800 (lineskipping) so it's still 2 stops worse than the 5DMKIII. They have fixed the color noise with some fancy processing but this seems to produce strange artifacts when you start going over iso 3200-6400.

Professional version of the A7s sensor?

Seems like the isco ultra stars also perfectly fit (70mm).

Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. But obviously this hypothetic 4K camera will be just that, 4K. No real log modes, no 10bit, some shitty codec,etc... bullshit alert:

I think nikon's offering would record it internally and probably oversampled. But that thing will come in 2 years or so...

I'm not a plus member and I could download the 4K once I logged in with my free account.

A sensor with a extremely high pixel density, where pixels have different sensitivities,more than 3 different color filters, and accept light from any angle. This would give a very good color accuracy,resolution, dynamic range and it would return some of the look that has been lost due to deep sensors.

Ehem,you can also have 2.35:1 by using less negative height (cropping) but you will loose resolution, so they used the hypogonar to gain negative space.

Rofl, new marketing techniques? I guess it's another case of "pay peanuts and get monkeys", welcome to the new economy.

Very impressive, in every aspect. Built in ND and it's perfect.

They will only rent the camera by themselfs, not even sell it to other rentals. It's very unlikely that medium format glass prices are going to rise because of this.

The differences from Fullframe to smaller formats aren't as big, it seems like the benefits grow exponencially as you increase the sensor size (have a look at large format stuff). I can imagine that the differences you see come more from bad optical quality rather than from different dof behaviour. Anyway, I think it's interesting and I'd love to see some samples of yours ;) And medium format firms won't use a focal reducer for many reasons, being the lack of mirror the primary one. An aspherical speedbooster should give enough quality. Oh, don't forget about the cz 80 2 ;) Anyway this deserves it's own thread, this one is about the ARRI.

That's pseudo science and you know it.The focal reducers may introduce aberrations, but they just modify the trayectory of the rays behind the lens, the lens in front and the real objects don't change. http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_focal_length.html Same lens design, twice the size, twice the focal length. If you put a focal reducer behind the second one the focal length will change, the lens and the angles and the entrance pupil will still be the same size. The look doesn't come from some magical property inside the number 80.