Cinegain

Hum, mmmkai, then I guess you'll just have to wait for the man himself and in meanwhile keep digging.

You mean this? http://www.eoshd.com/2015/11/sony-vs-canon-colour-science-does-this-explain-the-difference/ Or... Via https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&q=eoshd+andrew+gamut

Only... my thing is. I come from a M43 background... have a couple of Nikon-mount lenses and vintage stuff. So I would be able to adapt a bunch of things, sure. But what would I get for this Sony to have some electronic native mount glass, that would be great for both stills and video, benefit from these excellent AF features, which is preferably small in size (no need for fullframe glass with an APS-C sensor either) and not over the top expensive? -- I guess the Sigma 24-105mm F4 would be a nice contender (needs alpha -> E-mount adapter though). Or an affordable Tamron f/2.8 zoom combo. Sony's zooms aren't much faster than f/4 anyways or then cost more than the camera. -- Do we know yet how well the AF works with smart adapters and lenses of other mounts?

Sure. The Nebula 4000 started all of this, but was kinda iffy to work with, I mean, one of the reasons you might pick up one of these is because a mechanical glidecam takes too much practice. But this in turn takes way too much digging into balancing and tweaking of PID settings. 'Ain't nobody got time for that'. That's why I skipped the Nebula at first and waited for better days to come. Of course we had the Freefly MOVI that boosted the triple handle (2x sides, 1x top) gimbal stabilizers... then DJI came out with the Ronin and Ronin-M. Then we had everybody doing these kinda of things, especially the GoPro/smartphone ones. Feiyu Tech for example really jumped on that one. Then we started to up the controllers to 32-bit and dual IMU. One of the latest things is including 'encoders'. We get to see a lot more toolless designs for easier set-up. Slowly but surely it's getting to the point that you can bind-n-fly sorta say. DJI also released the Osmo, one of the first to really have a ready-to-go character, but from what I've gathered it needs to mature a bit more still... any one of these solutions for that matter. I was really impressed with that one Pilotfly H1 video where they followed the kid on this little train. Motion looked so fluid, organic and effortless compared to for example the Nebula 4000 which always seemed to have some mechanical correction going on, kinda throwing you off and distracting too. Don't know. I know Dave Dugdale went with the Pilotfly because it's nice and low profile. Doesn't attract too much attention and is one of the lighter solutions. I kinda like that too! At the moment people seem to enjoy the Beholder one. I've seen good things with the MinisturdyFlight as well. There are a couple of things I really think are important: organic movement (latest and best tech!) easy set-up (maybe self balancing, you put it on a plate and mount it, the handheld gimbal will move the plate to a neutral position) no arm bracket on the left of the camera, but moved to the right. This way a vari-angle screen can still flip-out! low profile: compact & light, yet able to carry a little load remote control (perhaps even motion control system possibilities like Kessler's Cinedrive) battery life support price! Still don't have any of these solutions, because I don't think they're ready for prime time quite yet. But it's getting there. The next generation of Pilotfly handheld gimbal stabilizers could surprise us. It will probably have encoders. And atleast from what I get from the picture... it might be the case that you can get one gimbal solution, to be 2 stabilizers. With the 2-in-1 unit you can use it as a pistol grip handheld stabilizer as well as to configure it in a Ronin-M kind of way. Actually, closer inspection shows one is branded T1 and other H2, so probably two separate units. They did seem to have swapped the arm bracket to the other side as well, allowing vari-angle screens to flip out. At some point someone will come out with a terrific solution that does most things well... and with all these rapid advancements I think it could be any day now.

Try the auto color as well and then add some slight adjustments, it doesn't even do such a terrible job. Just turned a little too green and contrast for my taste right of the bat. But it's a nice additional trick you could use. Nighty night!

From the original ungraded one. Messed around in photoshop with color balance for RGB values individually for highlights, midtones and shadow. Then add another adjustment layer for exposure. Just eyeballing. It's nicer if you actually do the grading in FCP/Premiere or Resolve with waveforms/scopes, but since it was a still I went for quickly adjusting it that way. Indeed it was more of a recovery according my taste of what I feel the scene might've been like. Taking in as well a gloomy cold winter day and trying to convey that feel just a little. But yeah, I fell in love with the GH2 and am still true to Panasonic MFT as my main choice of gear. Although that might change soon with the arrival of the A6300 which I'm really tempted to get. I never worked with Sony material before, so it will be interesting.

Dunno, looks kinda off (here). I'd personally like it more somewhere in this general direction:

Yes, that's true! That only works for the framing. You're now comparing the same lens set-up, but the sensors are not aligned in the same plane, resulting in different compression indeed.

That's because people are mixing depth of field and exposure and making false statements about them. Also, they want crop cameras to adhere to fullframe camera behaviour, although you could just as easily state you can conform fullframe to crop cameras if all you want is make them identical. Just bear with me: [> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, regardless of sensor, you will get an evenly lit picture on either of two cameras Next, we will define two cameras to compare. We'll be comparing a fullframe sensor camera (1.0x, no crop) against camera with Micro Four Thirds sensor (has 2x crop). For ease of comparison we give these two imaginary cameras the same megapixel count and shoot the same resolution video with it without additional crops. [> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, to get the same framing between the two cameras, you'd have to use a lens half the focal length on the 2x crop body Illustration intermezzo: Say, we use two identical 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses at 200mm f/2.8 on both cameras as our starting point. The image circle is the same for both: 200mm f/2.8. For this example we just assume that in the illustration above the circular image on the left is what the lens gives off at 200mm f/2.8. The 35mm fullframe sensor uses as much width as a squared sensor can get out of that circular image, capturing most of the scene. The cropped sensor crops in on that image circle (which, as we can see, doesn't affect the image's brightness in any way). So, we said that for our example we use a 2x crop camera to compare to. Looking at the pictures at the same physical dimensions, we notice that the image of the cropped sensor looks zoomed in. So in order to get back to similar framing we will have to use the lens at a wider position for the 2x crop body (or move the entire camera back in opposite direction of shooting until the framing is the same, but this is inconvenient and may not always be possible). Luckily we're using a 70-200mm zoom lens, so for the crop sensor we'll adjust the focal length to half of that we've set on the fullframe (200mm f/2.8), at 100mm f/2.8. Let's continue: [> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, with the same framing (two different focal lengths), the 2x crop body will have a deeper depth of field compared to a fullframe camera We're now using the lens on the 2x crop body less zoomed in, meaning we are decreasing the subject isolation and increasing the depth of field [> At the exact same ISO and shutterspeed, with the same framing (two different focal lenghts), the 2x crop body will match the depth of field with the fullframe camera having its lens selected to a full stop darker Pinching the aperture on the lens mounted on the fullframe camera to 200mm f/4 will result in a deeper depth of field to match that of the depth of field with the 2x crop sensor camera that's at 100mm f/2.8. However. Pinching the aperture on the the lens will make the image on the fullframe camera darker... leaving only the one on the 2x crop sensor exposed properly [> At the exact same shutterspeed, with the same framing (two different focal lengths), with matching depth of field and the fullframe body with lens one stop darker than the lens on the 2x crop body, you'd have to increase the ISO on the fullframe camera with one stop to even out the exposure again Luckily earlier on we would assume both sensors were made up out of an equal amount of megapixels. However, the fullframe sensor is physically larger than the cropped sensor, giving each individual pixel better light gathering capability. Kinda of like solar panels and their better efficiency when they're bigger. So upping the ISO doesn't have to result is terrible noise per se THE LESSONS LEARNED (hopefully) A lens is a lens. F-stop = f-stop. Cropping in on the image circle a lens gives off does nothing, absolutely nothing to the brightness. A crop sensor camera doesn't record f/4 brightness with a lens set at f/2.8, that's just bollocks! For the same focal length used, the crop sensor will have framing that appears 'zoomed in'. To counter this you have to either step back and create more distance between you and your subject, or the more convenient solution: use a wider lens or a zoomlens at a wider position When you want to equal the framing with the different sensor cameras at the same place using different focal lenghts you will create a difference in perceived depth of field To equal the depth of field you either have to pinch the aperture on the lens that's attached to the fullframe camera, or brighten the other one (this might not be possible) To even out exposure you have to work with the forbidden love triangle that is: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture (additional influences: external lighting, (variable) ND filters) In the end I think we're all on the same page. Just some people have poor wording or might just misunderstand the concept a tiny bit. Which is no problem as long as they get it right within their own world and others in theirs. Now, it's well past midnight and I've been up for way too long, so I hope I've jotted down everything the way I meant. If you feel I'm in the wrong somewhere, I'm open-minded enough to accept essays in my EOSHD Inbox and rectify this comment according my newly acquired knowledge. But you really got to bring it to make me a believer... Now let's get back to that Sigma, ey?

Yes. I wonder, though. Who is this for? The professionals would most likely shoot fullframe. If they're into sports and wildlife photography, the crop does help with the tele reach. But how much tele can you get out of 100mm? Besides, my understanding is that like the 18-35mm f/1.8 this does not have optical image stabilization. So I wouldn't really see this fit in with the pro stills shooter? Unless, they are dedicated to their APS-C camera and wouldn't mind to shoot something else... like portraits with it. Seems like a great option for that last application. People who already have the 18-35mm f/1.8. With which they target the mass consumer market for a serious up in quality from any kitlens with great sensitivity. So you kinda got your semi-wide 18mm to the 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm f/1.8 all in two lenses should you get the new one as well. My problem with this. Is this is for the mass consumer market. Maybe someone who picked up the T6s/760D... are they really going to drop 1499 USD on a lens 2x the cost of their camera kit or almost 2.5x the 18-35mm f/1.8? One without image stabilization? I don't know. I don't really see it. For us video shooters it would be way nice. The range, the sensitivity, the consitency with the 18-35mm f/1.8. Having only 2 lenses to shoot 85% of more of what you shoot. We're used to rigging things up, we don't mind the lack of IS neccessarily. What we perhaps do as well mind, is the price. I mean, I would've said that at 1.5x the 18-35mm f/1.8, coming in at just below 1000 USD, they would've sold me on this. 1499 USD?? I don't know. It seems a little stretch. But yeah, it's one of a kind. Still as sexy as I first thought, but I did gain some perspective reading and thinking about it. Not sure.

Your statement was about brightness and illumination. And that statement is just plain wrong, nothing we can do about that. But if you want me to break it down for you You're contradicting yourself. You say it has a depth of field of a f/1.8... yet we agree that the f/1.8 depth of field would be the associated depth of field for that crop sensor. So if you do want to bring in the 35mm equivalent, on a 2x crop sensor it falls just below f/2.8 (whole stops are: f/1.4 - f/2 - f/2.8 - f/4 - f/5.6 - f/8), perhaps if you take into account the video crop, sure: ~ f/2.8. Nothing to do with brightness. No. In light terms, it is illuminating like a f/1.8 regardless of sensor. But perhaps casting an equivalent depth of field associated with f/2.8 on fullframe. Again. That's not what you said. But even if up to that point everything was correct... How exactly is a f/2.8 (even speedboosted) ever faster/brighter then a f/1.8 lens? And the f/1.8 lens might act as a f/2.8 depth of field equivalent to 35mm, but the f/2.8 would be f/4. Even speedboosted wouldn't come anywhere near f/2.8 again.

Nah, we just look at a lens in terms of brightness. You like to compare for a same depth of field situation. Which is fine... if you say that's what you want to do. Which you didn't in that quote.

The thing is... you said: and it's actually the other way around. In light terms, illumating a 2x crop frame sensor by e.g. a f/2.8 lens results in a 35mm equiv. depth of field that would be shot at f/4. So, if you want to shoot for the same look you have to shoot the FF at f/4 and the 2x crop frame sensor at f/2.8. Sure, I think we can agree on that. Now... if you don't give a jolly gosh darn about equiv. depth of field and just shoot the lens as is, with the exact same settings, except you switch the lens in between shots with each lens at its widest aperture: the Sigma at f/1.8 and the Canon at f/2.8, the result will be that the Sigma illuminates a brighter image onto the sensor. The Sigma is clearly the faster lens. Then again, no surprise as it's f/1.8 VS f/2.8. Like TRM said 'Light gathering, not bokeh'. Besides, 2x crop isn't APS-C, so what stops you from speedboosting the Sigma as well?

Exactly, had the same argument with Tony myself, but these people can't be convinced. I mean, I can crop in on a photo taken with a fullframe sensor and it's just as bright as the rest. Why would a crop sensor work differently? Hint: it doesn't.

Ah! Great to see someone already in love with this lens. I've got to admit, it was andy lee (of course) who kind of planted the seed that put the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 on my radar. Found a nice Canadian fellow to ship me a new one, which came in just before lunch. Had some errands to run, so I hope I can put it to the test in the next few days at least. Supposed to have APO qualities and it does appear to be parfocal too! So, it's fair to say that the initial impression was a good one! Thing is built to see some shit and the rendering is kinda nice, takes the edge offa brittle 4K, although perhaps not really squeezing out the optimum performance of this baby at the f/2.8 I'd wish to just leave it on. I was about to try Zeiss primes now, but this is like a 50mm, 85mm and 135mm f/2.8 in one. Speedboosted and voilá, Hollywood vibes. It's a nice alternative to the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D, which is gorgeous and the better performer I think, but the Tokina's wider range might appeal a little more. All for a fraction of the costs of a Zeiss primes set or the Sigma for that matter, although, I guess in the end the Sigma probably has a fair enough price... the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO isn't far off and the Sigma is a f/1.8.

Yeah, the article didn't convert currency and I didn't bother to convert it myself, so I wasn't expecting 1499 USD/EUR quite yet until I read another. Also... I didn't see a mention of optical stabilization, so I take it, like the 18-35mm it has none? Things are starting to look a little grim, not to take your name in vain, Grim. I don't know... resorting to a speedboosted Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 (that cinemodded goes for 4499 USD) might not seem so far fetched after all...

Casey Neistat, I presume.

Pretty sexy! -- Would be nice to have both the 18-35mm f/1.8 and 50-100mm f/1.8 making use of that advanced AF system... but I have already the 18-35mm f/1.8 in Nikon mount, because: M43. Will Canon e-adapters work better than let's say this Commlite Nikon one? http://www.commlite.com/en/product_show.php?id=205&img_sl_lm1=upimg/2015112012350794.jpg&title_lm=E-Mount%20Ring&title=CM-ENF-E%281%29 . Because I'd still prefer the Nikon mount: still gives you the cheaper options for dummy adapters and lens turbos with M43 (BMD Micro Cinema Camera for example) and adapts then natively to D5300/D5500. Although having the A6300 will probably render those cameras completely useless anyways. I just don't want to go the Canon route if I don't have to. I see no future there.

It's money well spent, I take it.

Atleast it's not sci-fi looking like the KS-1. Doesn't keep them from having some weird ass ideas though:

~ https://www.facebook.com/pilotflytech/ H2?

Maybe they'll avoid releasing it in its current form altogether. Instead of trying little workarounds to make it work better, maybe they'll just update the sensor/processor to a completely new one that just does it well right from the get-go. Nice bonus would be: new sensor is capable of pushing out 4K and they managed to work something out with a firmware upgrade on the Video Assist, so now you can record 4K externally? A guy can dream...

Didn't even think about using it as is without the video assist. That would suddenly make it a whole other fun way of shooting indeed. Although, I haven't been shooting on film back in the day, so I'm no natural at figuring out if with ISO800, 180°, f/2.8 I'd be over- or underexposing for any given situation. There I've come to heavily rely on the in-camera exposure meter and histogram unfortunately. That said, indeed, I'll probably be selling off two of my BMPCCs to get one of these. The option of global shutter is awesome and the battery upgrade is more than welcome! Plus, you can really use it as some sort of action cam too. Just add some GoPro adapter and you can use it with all the GoPro accessories and mounts. I don't know, I'm more excited about this little camera than the expensive 4K stuff from any given manufacturer that's not shipping out yet. Except perhaps the A6300. Might be a cool combo those two. One for the solid image and the other if you'd need the 4K and slowmo capabilities. Two little cameras, roughly the same price, other applications, but might be a perfect synergy.

Isn't it alternating between ISO sensitivity per each frame and then joining that together? And I believe the other ones with that mode had to fall back to 720p... - What Jimmy said, lol.

Does it also do focus? Like the Aputure DEC additionally? Because, I'm not sure who'd need a powerzoom. Isn't that more a broadcast kinda thing?