SleepyWill

Spamming unrelated threads is really frustrating for other users. Please stop. You were heard the first time.

Not quite - the circle projected by the 200mm lens is large enough to cover a larger sensor, but the actual sensor is much smaller than the projected image. When the sensor reads the image, it only reads the bit covered by the sensor, giving it something similar to a digital zoom (though you'd be hard pushed to find a lens with worse resolution than your sensor, so no problems like you get with digital zoom) but you are very much still looking at a picture made by a 200mm lens. If field of view is all you are worried about, then yes, you can equate the 200mm crop frame with a different lens, but if you are also worried about how much space is in focus, how compressed the background is, how close to the camera your subject and the lighting on it is, then you really need to drop the equivalence because it will mislead you greatly.

Well, you could keep adding speedbooster elements ad infinitum onto bigger and bigger lenses, adding £500 a pop each time, but presumably the cost is going to get out of control very quickly, because it's not just the speedbooster element, but the larger format lens in front of it each increment - every m4t lens would actually be gathering for APC, every APC lens gathers for full frame, every FF lens gathers for medium format etc etc, sending the cost through the roof. The last group in every lens almost certainly does a very similar job to a speed booster, so you could think of them as already having them built in! I'm sure if, say Olympus thought they could sell a line of super wide fast lenses at £3000+ a pop, they would have already put them in to production! All in all, a separate adapter seems the best idea all round!

This kind of practice is standard in many industries. Is it anti-consumer? Maybe, but at least let me present an argument that hasn't been talked about yet - you're an electronics manufacturer, you have designed a range of products. Because your design team are competent, they have designed them to share as many components as possible. Now you have two products in particular in that range, they perform the same function, but one does it with 4 times as much precision as the other. You talk to your quality control team and ask, what grade of components does each need. The more precise product needs grade 1 components, say your QC team, otherwise we hit a 7.5% failure rate after 6 months of use which breaches our internal quality. The less precise does not exhibit a breach in quality failure if we use grade 2 components. So the manufacturing process begins. You specify a batch of whatsits which are the component in question and you manufacture them. It costs you £1000 for the batch and you get 20 grade 1's and 80 grade 2's. You send the grade 1's to the machine assembling the more precise product, the grade 2's to the other assembly line. Products get made and you talk to your marketing department. What can we sell these for, you ask. Well, how much do they cost to produce they reply - well, how do you price the whatsits? Are they all £10 each or should you skew the cost of production to represent the different grades? As you get 4 times as many grade 2's, maybe you should charge 4 times as much for the grade 1's, giving you a cost of £25 ish for the grade 1's and £6ish for the grade 2's. Now imagine you have 3 such components in your product, your precise product has a manufacturing cost of £75 vs £18 for the less precise version. Cost at retail £300 for the precise one, £72 for the less precise one. What happens if a canny customer works out how to unlock the precise settings on your cheaper, but "identical" less precise product. They get the £300 version for £75, but 7.5% of people who do this are going to break their devices in 6 months, an unacceptable failure rate to you. I'm not saying this is what is happening, but if you put yourself in the shoes of a manufacturer, you can see how decisions such as these are made and you can understand that the true reasons for them are a little more complex that pure profiteering.

Got to agree with the others - pop the $3000 into a business bank account (a free one!). Get out and shoot 3-6 demo productions, organise yourself as if you are actually working for a client. Find a local printer and get a couple hundred flyers printed and, bundled with your demo reel on cd, distribute to the type of clients you are targeting. Invest in the little stuff: clamps, gaffer tape, reinforced tape, tape that doesn't damage walls, clips, sandbags, pegs, card for flagging & bouncing, a cheap large diffuser (shower curtain), spare cables, etc etc etc. With the $2500 you have left, you will be able to rent or buy random stuff that you find you need as and when you need it! Your kit looks solid, though I personally would upgrade the tripod, but after you have produced your demo reel and have secured your first paying customer!!!

On the budget end, YN-600's are very good in their price bracket.

Depends on where the work is destined to be shown, anyone making video for youtube through to HD broadcast can probably make do with 2k monitors (EDIT: or less). If your work is for a 4k screen/projection then you should be reviewing the actual frames, not an electronic approximation of them mushed into a different resolution.

Thanks Clayton, I have significant memory problems and I had completely forgotten what the thread was about. It's people like you who make life for the disabled that much easier, you clearly have no interest in the camera, yet you suffered through the entire post and then the entire thread merely to help me out! Most people with no interest in the camera just ignored the post, yet you, Champion among men, Hero among lessers, God among sheep, Giant among hobbits, Poet among the illiterate, you sir are just amazing, wonderful and epic. I hope my gratitude makes up for the time and effort you otherwise needlessly and selflessly put in.

I've seen his work... it's fine, competent but his use of colour is certainly nothing to write home about, it's clean, crisp, clinical and.... yawn... devoid of any expression what so ever. Cinematography by numbers - if it wasn't so well lit, I would assume his portfolio was shot on "full auto". Apart from his medal of honour video, where he tries to do something interesting and lets just say, he's no Jeunet.

That was absolutely brilliant! The writing, the acting and presumably the direction, the camerawork and the lighting were all spot on!

Hehe, good on him - personally I wouldn't have the patience to schmooze the people with the money, which is why I have to work a second regular job just so I can pay my actors and crew for a day a week!

No, it's not - I made it! I just simply googled "tree", took the top 1000 images and combined them together. I wrote a simple little program to automate the process but haven't done anything meaningful with it yet, but "tomato slice" works particularly well, as does "banana" and "cucumber slice" (I had a food blog and used those three as the header). "Apple" is interesting as it is half apple logo's and half fruit:

There's definitely something going on in the saturation in yellow through to emerald part of the spectrum, and as pointed out, trying to correct this in white balance is going to desaturate every other colour, requiring further correction before an equilibrium is found which affects, and this is important - only those of us who don't like that look, which is the people questioning the colours of the A7s. In real terms, once we have a corrective LUT, which will take all of a day to make, the issues are solved forever, but of course, this pushes the colours which gives less room for grading, how much less? 5-10% at a guess, so it's probably only going to affect those who want to really make something stylised or are just learning and need to correct for camera handling errors in post. Shrugs, who really cares? It's a wonderful camera producing wonderful images that some people subjectively find gorgeous and some people find unnatural but a bit of post work can make the footage look just as you want, assuming you have the skill to use the camera and know what look you want before you pick it up and are familiar with it's tendency to boost the saturation of certain tones. I don't find the image immediately pleasing because of the issues I believe the camera has and I see it in nearly every video, but I am confident I can make the footage sing to my tune in post, so if I were in the market for a new camera, this would be a genuine contender for me and I would not dismiss it on its treatment of colours. But I'm not, so take my opinion with the same pinch of salt that it is given with - spent all day making a movie and spending time with my son, so haven't given it much thought, time or effort!

Calm down, from the way I read it, no-one is disputing your opinion, but rather the language that you use isn't making sense to others. You say that the colours look unnatural to you. That's fine. What is a bit odd is when you are politely asked what you mean, you get defensive. Can you help the people out who don't see through your eyes and interpret with your brain why it looks unnatural to you, using words to explain what you mean - treat it as a game of taboo or charades. You have to describe why you don't like the colours without using the word unnatural, because that is what people are not understanding. If it helps, let me explain why I think the A7S image looks unnatural to my eyes. It seems as if certain shades of green are being saturated more than others, resulting in strange saturation graduations. Where other cameras don't pump those particular frequencies, the saturation doesn't jump so much. I could be wrong, I never pixel peep, I am not in the market for a camera so am not researching it, it's just what I think I've noticed from the footage I've seen.

Unfortunately user Wibblewobbles on the Rockpapershotgun blog beat you to pointing out that I had said something that had been said before on the internet by some years. FYI, bluetack works. Maybe PB spied me using it successfully, as I have been for years ;) I do spend a lot of time filming in Brighton and London

Bluetack! Woohoo, I'm in the money...

That you have anthropomorphisized a perfectly good descriptive word is why I'm not going to talk to you any more about linguistics. Please re-read what you wrote - you defined dull as lack of interest and then called Bay's shots dull because every shot has too much interest. That's why it's important to not attribute human feelings to words, it gets confusing.

It's dull because it's a static shot of a piece of concrete. Remember the context in which we are having this discussion, people talking about finding shots taken from a drone from up high as being dull, because there is no dynamism in them. This is why I think you didn't understand my use of the word dull because I agree with everything you are saying! The shot is dull, and not only is that OK, it's preferable to every shot being MBay'd!

To me, this shot in Amelie is bland: '> and this shot is dull: Completely removed from the film they are in, they are boring, uninteresting and, well a bit crap. If I showed you those in isolation and told you they were made by one of the greatest film makers of our times, you might well call me names on the internet, de-construct them slowly to prove how wrong I was (the royal you). Yet they, in context are absolutely brilliant. We may very well be agreeing but using different words in different ways.

There are full frame e mount lenses which will illuminate the full frame sensor without an adapter, but using the crop frame e mount lenses will only illuminate the aps-c aspect of the sensor.

Fair enough - I didn't see what you had to work with, and I hope I made it clear that I do not view MB's style as anything positive!

I don't disagree with you, but it did make me laugh that you shared a link to a digital copy of the photo, which makes a point - that while film is beautiful, to reach an audience through the internet, you need to take a digital image at some point, through some manner of digital sensor, and if you loved that photo because you saw it on your screen, you loved a digital photo, not the original film!

I've said it before, the pocket is the perfect camera to learn cinematography on - but you wouldn't want to use it under pressure.

Just like there are some places in the house where I absolutely would hang a Kincaid over a Wyeth (Anywhere the kids have access to), not every shot needs to be the absolute maximum. Sure in isolation, that high static landscape may be dull but in a production, bland, dull shots are important! Go watch a Michael Bay movie, every shot is pumped up to the max, it is a breathless experience, he even one ups himself (bomb dropping from plane in Pearl Harbour vs Prime dropping from spaceship - two identical shots, identical movements, one has been pumped up even more!) - now obviously he wants his audience to be breathless, he wants to throw so much on the screen that the eyes see it but the brain can't process it all - it's what he does but immediately after you watch a bay move, go watch a hitchcock or a scorsese, notice all the bland, dull shots they use to give the audience a chance to shut off their visual cortex, to process what just happened!

Deleted post, I'll post when I have access to those screens again, suffice to say, no colour cast from what I can see (under terrible conditions)