Don Kotlos

Nope just the FS5. http://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=samsung_nx1&attr29_1=sony_a7rii&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=4k&normalization=full&widget=270&x=-0.4366310115529286&y=0.21899116659745307

After some testing that I had done in the past, I ended up using something very similar. I prefer Cine2 for lowlight and Cine4 for daytime. Here is an old thread for A7rII profiles:

Rich the problem is, and I learned it the hard way as did Wolf, that you will end up with things not in focus and not acceptably sharp in both near focus and far focus distances. And it will ruin shoots. You can still use hyperfocal distances but you have to do the tests yourself in order to find them out because other than the sensor size they will be different for 1080p, 4K, and of course different resolution sensors for stills. There are some calculators that you can adjust the circle of confusion to match for what you find in your test and go on from there. But in my personal experience its very very hard thing to do when you want to get a shoot or grab an image. The technique that I have found works the best for large DoF is to place the focus at the distances that my objects are and close the aperture as far as light allows. Of course we have to understand focus distances and use them effectively and cleverly. So let's talk about your example. In the case that you have a subject that moves and you don't want to "not get the shot at all due to messing around backing and fourthing to get one aspect perfectly sharp, by that time the subject has clocked they're being captured and the shot is ruined." and you can't have a sufficiently large DoF or you don't want: "Our eyes don;t like seeing everything in focus anyway. it looks nasty." . What do you do? What do I do: Focus at the point where the person. Estimate if possible the range of distances that he is going to cover and adjust your aperture accordingly. As the person is moving adjust the distance while knowing that the DoF extends about 2/3 to the back of the focus point and 1/3 to the front. For a gimbal shoot I would set the focus at the thing that the gimbal is most probably going to be looking at. Let's say it is a face that is moving. What is the distance that this person is going to be at most of the time? 3m? What is the maximum and minimum distances that you expect him to be? 10-1m? Focus at 3m and adjust the aperture until objects from 1-10m are "acceptably sharp". Either have a very sharp monitor or use the focus peaking for that.

One thing that we have to do with high resolution digital sensors is forget about the hyperfocal distances. They exist from the film days where print sizes depended on film size and should not be used today when critical focus is important. Just focus on the object that you want very sharp and adjust your aperture to extend the acceptably sharp objects. Here is a nice article: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/hyperfocal_distance.html

If your Cullman is decent enough (stable, accepts head), then you just need to get a tripod head for video. And for that money you can find pretty decent video heads. As Hans said, I would not buy a video tripod+head for that kind of money.

Instead of estimating the motion from the footage itself like a the warp stabilizer in Premiere does, the gyro provides the actual motion data that can then be used to stabilize the footage. It's never going to be as good as Optical IS or IBIS and it only works well with wide lenses and deep dof. Still nice to have though...

Noticed the same thing. Maybe it is coming from the A7Sii IBIS?

Its not about what is possible, but more what the specific adapter is capable of. We still have to wait, but judging from the picture of the adapter the entrance diameter of the glass looks about the size of the 50 1.4. I expect the exit diameter to be even less. But that's based on an image without knowing the actual size or optical design... So yeah f/1.2 could still be the case.

I don't want to ruin the dream but I doubt the adapter is that bright. My guess is that the diameter is not larger than f/1.4.

In general it's a great camera for small projects. I just wouldn't recommend it for heavy professional use as the OP is planning. This is one of the least mentioned feature and I have found it to be extremely usefull.

Rent the ones that you might be interested in. Gh4 will still be great even after gh5 comes out and can be had new for $900!

I would rent them before buying. Most cameras nowadays can be good enough for most typw of shoots. At the end its personal preference that makes the biggest difference.

Its great that they are willing to improve it. It's something that all companies should do. But I still find the camera way overpriced for what it offers. If I were to spend that kind of money I would either get the A7rii AND the a7sii, or do it right and get a professional camera made for the job.

I am extremely happy with the a7rii. Never had it overheat. I prefer the ergonomics over dslrs and battery is good enough. But that is for casual shooting. If I was shooting 11hours/day I would choose a different camera. Overheating, batteries, ergonomics are going to be a big problem for that type of shoots. Not even a a7sii will be good enough, it's where a professional camera makes a big difference. A gh4 could do it but if you have many projects like that an fs5 might be even better.

This is exciting! Other than the price/availability another important information that is missing is the brightness of the adapter. Metabones has this as maximum aperture.

The 16-235 is considered broadcast safe. It should be used in camera only when one is not planning to grade the footage. The reason is that it DOES change what is recorded, by reducing the discrete steps that the full range of intensities are recorded. When broadcasting the footage most of the times it is not important but during grading the footage will be more prone to banding. There should also be a flag in the file that some programs use to display the footage correctly. This is a bug in premiere and it is easily fixed by applying an adjustment layer with the levels increased. But adobe should fix it. Yes. Premiere (and most NLEs) work in 0-255 RGB mode.

The zoom is applied on the S35 image and then upscaled also for the 1080p. Since the quality of the 1080p in S35 is not that good, zoom should be only used in 4K mode. I did the test again in 1080p @ ISO 800: You can see that for 1080p the FF is the best and probably the only usable in this resolution. You can see that zoom and cropping of the S35 give you the same result which is not that good. I checked the rolling shutter in 4K and as expected it is the same as the S35 mode: I don't have any right now but other people have already uploaded some footage:

http://menexmachina.blogspot.com/2015/12/a7rii-m43cmount-lenses-with-cropzoom.html

You keep on giving. Cheers Benjamin.

It might help with the 4K performance. Also I was wondering whether it is better than transcoding to Prores.

Have you guys tried the Adobe's media encoder to transcode the H265 to cineform?

speedbooster will allow you to have a larger aperture but that will decrease your dof...

Its called CC 2015.1 so it should be any day now...

It depends on the viewing distance. see here: http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

Correct, to create an appealing B&W result you have to manipulate contrast in order to bring out the important parts of the image. If you don't then it appears "flat and lifeless". Color mixer inside camera or in post can get there much easier than with a true B&W camera that you *will* have to use physical filters and adjust contrast in post. The nice thing about setting B&W in camera versus post processing is that it is easier for the codec and you get much much better results like that. I had no problem pushing the E-M1 to the max iso (3200) like that, whereas with color you would get really bad resolution and macroblocking. Here is an interesting review of the MM from Ming Thein.