meanwhile

He said E5. Not EM5. Different! With (WARNING!) damn all experience, but as a frankly terrific researcher wrestling with similar problems, on your budget I'd get a G85 and spend the money saved on good manual focus lenses, all of them from the same maker. And I'd budget about $500 on lights and maybe $1000 on sound gear. Plus a very good video tripod with an even better video head. With all those costs, there really isn't room in the budget for a GH5. Otoh, if you're willing to shoot without the need for follow focus, then you don't need those manual lenses. Most of all, don't neglect the sound gear and learning how to use it. Audio is much more important than people think and much harder. Make sure you understand things like room tone and presence. Also, you don't don't say what genres you've shot. If you've not worked with soft boxes or some equivalent, then you need to fill in that gap. You should make sure you understand stuff like placing reflectors and flags.

Those are really interesting questions, but need a thread that will attract people with knowledge of Cinelike-D and camera profiles. So maybe they need a thread titled something like "Cinelike-D: When shouldn't I use it?" Because that title will attract the C-D experts? And then link it here, so people finding this thread in the future can get that info easily? Thanks for the magnifier suggestion, btw! I thought I'd some more resources here for people finding this by google

Actually, the thing I appreciate most is that thanks to the time people have taken with me here that I realise how ignorant I was! Focus especially is an area where I would wasted ages doing the wrong thing. Now I can jump a stage where I might have wasted days, then, if I decide the limitations of my stills lenses are too great then I know exactly what lenses to buy. And instead of wasting time trying to make sense of different light reviews and then maybe buying the wrong ones, thanks to jonpais I know which reviewer to look at. (And I've already learned from that reviewer that Apurture are an especially safe bet for good CRI cheaply, which is my first priority.) So now I can go out and shoot without wasting time. Except - no joke - it is pouring down outside...

The sources quoted had to wait a month or more. So, not really much of a counter argument, yes? Not that it would be even if it was widely true. Who wants to do a shoot with their hideously expensive camera and find out that it is junk because the focus alignment drifted again? Focus alignment should stay aligned. Or failing that, it should be easy to check and easy for the user to re-tune.

You'd have to have a real fetish for polishing, yes. The Lecia Q made more sense - if only the FL had been 35mm and there had been X100 style converters for 28 and 50, and the Leica QA problems had been fixed, that would have been a formidable camera. Of course, it was effectively a full frame Panasonic. Which leads to the thought that one day Panny could disrupt the fullframe market.

This is, of course, completely gaga. Yes, you can synthesise more levels of detail. But they are a lie and no one wants them. More than that, no one has worked out how to synthesize computer graphics that are convincing on this level. The idea of a Canon 5Dvi actually generating this code is so nutty that you should be wearing an anti-squirrel hat for your own safety. Two more things about ML and cameras - 1. ML algorithms generally take a long time to run. And the more complex the task and the better the required result, the more time they need - and generally this relationship is a steep geometrical curve. So even if this tech existed, which it doesn't, why the devil would you try to run it at a high frame rate in a portable battery powered device? It's like a man who fell off a bridge in Paris. In. Seine. 2. Camera sensors hate heat - because it equals noise. The best IQ in any reasonable size stills camera comes from the Sigma Foveons and part of the reason is they are designed as radiators and screen resolution etc are compromised to keep heat down. Running a complex ML algorithm at video frame rates would be an unprecedented processor load, meaning unprecedented amounts of heat from the CPU. So even if the tech existed, why would you do it??? Seinely - sorry, sanely - you wouldn't. You'd take nice raws and then compress using this tech on your PC. ..Honestly, "balloon juice" is being kind.

Everyone ships some de-centred lenses. Or at least lenses that are de-centred by the time they reach the customer. The problems with Leica are - - You're paying a huge premium for quality and service - Their quality control seems to be worse than everyone else - Their service is much worse than everyone elses. Compared 6 months of waiting for a faulty Monocrom to have a component replaced, with no communications, to Nikon's shutter replacements. Or again https://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130826_2-LeicaM240-freeze-reset.html Everyone ships some de-centred lenses. Or at least lenses that are de-centred by the time they reach the customer. The problems with Leica are - - You're paying a huge premium for quality and service - Their quality control seems to be worse than everyone else - Their service is much worse than everyone elses. Compared 6 months of waiting for a faulty Monocrom to have a component replaced, with no communications, to Nikon's shutter replacements. Or again https://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130826_2-LeicaM240-freeze-reset.html Everyone ships some de-centred lenses. Or at least lenses that are de-centred by the time they reach the customer. The problems with Leica are - - You're paying a huge premium for quality and service - Their quality control seems to be worse than everyone else - Their service is much worse than everyone elses. Compared 6 months of waiting for a faulty Monocrom to have a component replaced, with no communications, to Nikon's shutter replacements. Or again https://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130826_2-LeicaM240-freeze-reset.html

By fiddling with the site I managed to see a larger version of the lily pad shot. It was horrible - way below a good phone camera. Things has sharp edges by lower contrast detail was covered in melted wax.

Has any Sony had un-fixed problems as one as the ones Leica actually "fixed"? Not that I've heard of. And isn't shipping a majority of lenses - simple 50mm primes, not even complex zooms - below standard a problem? And a focusing system that constantly drifts out of adjustment and can only tuned at a service centre with a lengthy wait? I think most people would say so. Afaik, Leica are the leaders in unfixed problems. If you're using their core product you have a substantial and irreducible risk of losing entire shoots due to focus problems and there is no way that the camera can be fixed to remove this risk. None. Everyone ships some de-centred lenses. Or at least lenses that are de-centred by the time they reach the customer. The problems with Leica are - - You're paying a huge premium for quality and service - Their quality control seems to be worse than everyone else - Their service is much worse than everyone else. Compare 6 months of waiting for a faulty Monocrom to have a component replaced, with no communications, to Nikon's shutter replacements.

Put an ebay arca grip or sugru on the front of the camera and more sugru on the back where your thumb fits. Problem fixed. Did you read about Ming Thein's problems with Leica? I think 7 out of 8 copies of the same lens de-centred or with a malfunctioning iris? Have you seen the posts from Leica owners who have to wait months for simple repairs? Honestly, so not a problem for me... I really hope they don't: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/264856-leica-repair-wait-times/ https://petapixel.com/2016/04/11/30-years-photography-ive-never-service-experience-like/ ..Initially I believed that perhaps my eyes entering their 4th decade were responsible for these missed shots, but it turns out these missed shots were due to a badly aligned focusing mechanism along with a lens that was also focus shifting.This was a service issue that required shipping the lens and camera back to Leica to calibrate for an additional $300 and a month away, out of my hands... when it came time for the Monochrom to be serviced, I’ve not been able to get it back within anything close to a reasonable amount of time. The Leica Monochrom camera has been undergoing service with Leica for literally six months now. Say that with me… six months… SIX MONTHS! It turns out the problem is due to a defective sensor cover glass, and it is not just me that is inconvenienced by this. I understand that this may be a difficulty for Leica that is not entirely their fault as they outsource production of sensors to another company. But what Leica absolutely owns about this is their relationship with the customer. This product was clearly defective and Leica’s solution is simply to keep people’s investments for half of a year or more. No offers were made to reimburse costs, or offer of a loaner camera until I raised hell 5 months into the process. Nor, to my knowledge, were any offers made to treat Leica’s customers with respect by offering refunds or exchanges for working models. https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/06/qc-and-sample-variations/ My experience with hand-assembled cameras and lenses – namely, Leica – has been less than stellar. I’ve gone through six samples of the 50/1.4 ASPH; one was mechanically defective – it threw an aperture blade on day two – one was astigmatic; two were just soft – one I suspect had a slightly too-short intermediate helicoid, the other perhaps elements that skewed slightly in all directions; only the first and last were ‘good copies’ – i.e. elements were aligned, the mechanical bits didn’t break, and the lens generally performed to expectations and in line with the theoretical MTF chart**. The thing is, short of the broken aperture – if you didn’t handle more than one sample, you wouldn’t know that the one you have was defective. Leica quality control levels are waaaay below those of Panacanikony as evidenced by, say, Lensrentals.com reports. So overall no, I'm not impressed by Leica once sending some filters that they bought for a fraction of the store price. And more importantly, Contax was always the cool 35mm rangefinder company...

I *do* have a background in exactly those subjects. Seriously. And, no, your work history on your linkedin page does not show any evidence of competence in anything other than basic C programming. And while I have't treated you in a way that flatters your ego, I have been perfectly polite. And, no, I haven't used any ad homs. Here's the biggest point of all, which I was holding back to spare you embarassment: raw is a specialized recording media, not one for transmission - that's what jpeg is for. You make raws so you can make jpegs of different qualities, fiddle with the image etc. The people whose work you have grossly misunderstood are claiming it as a possible replacement for jpeg. So where on earth did you get the idea that it could replace raw??? The point of raw is that it is lossless and includes more data than the eye necessarily needs to see. The work you so grossly mis-understood is a form of lossy compression. It is not, by definition, a potential raw replacement. For you not to understand this shows you not only don't understand the technology you are talking about but that you don't understand what raw is. On a video forum where you have made almost 2000 posts... (And no, I don't feel like sharing my real world identity with someone who, to say, the least, seems like a compulsive balloon juice drinker.)

I would. I really don't need someone to tell me that. The stuff I want is the boring but non-obvious that takes hours to learn by experimentation but a minute if you find the right information. In video, both 180 rules are good examples. And the information I've picked up about trying to manual focus my AF stills lenses. Oh, Japan - why dost thous provoke my desire but refuse it's fulfilment? This is Season 2 of PASWG all over again... However, I can see at least two ways around this that I want to try 1. Just shoot with cuts that don't need changes in focus; limiting, but it must work and I don't have to buy extra lenses 2. Shoot with dof to spare, use back button focus and a dfd lens and keep hitting the back button - it won't be perfect but it might keep me happy for now ..I had stills shoots set up for today and more tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to play with this until next week. Now to work out how to get my cat to cooperate...

My impression was that 4K doesn't matter for pros as much as a delivery format as a shooting one. It gives you room to crop in post, stabilise, supersample - even to extract two povs. But perhaps the people I talked to weren't typical?

And the D4Darius video was entertaining but not really useful. It was mostly either high level "values" stuff I can take care of myself or impractical advice like re-wallpapering the rooms I'll be shooting in. He also said to always use manual focus but didn't give advice on what lenses to buy or on techniques - and the next video I watched was a Parker Wallbeck where he shot a wedding to Godfather standards and used nothing but AF...

I meant that there was as much truth in the claims that this tech can replace raw as there is juice in a balloon. (What with balloon's being notably juiceless if operated correctly..) This is true in the sense that we can't do very much, yes. However by your phrasing you've tried to imply inevitable progress. This is not how competent people reason or argue: if they believe there is a definite reason you should expect progress in a field, they state it. In this case, you are expecting something especially ridiculous - that ML can come up with a compact description thousands of times more efficient than those currently used for generative computer graphics. Which, honestly, is silly. Ok: I've told you I've actually done research in this field and you expect me to have my mind changed by the most childish possible example. Does this make sense? (Hint: the answer is NOT "yes"...) ...Arguing that because we can generate pretty fractals we can use ML to replace raw is like saying "I can grow pretty blue crystals in copper sulphate solution! Therefore if collect the juice from the Sunday roast for a few weeks I can clone a human being in it!!!" One thing has nothing to with the other. Thinking that they do requires a level of intellectual resolution so low that - well, so low that I actually can't come up with a useful phrase you'd be likely to understand. ...You've also responded to an argument that ML systems can't reason surpass human generative graphics by showing examples of human generative graphics. This is also silly. And it's even sillier because another point I made was that human created generative graphics don't do hair or skin well and you've shown examples of robots(?) It's fine to be excited by things, but speaking as someone who actually knows this field, then - for the benefit of everyone else, not you - this ain't gonna happen!

Thanks, Mercer. Are there any more zooms like the Tokina I should consider? A linear focus in the typical kit zoom range would be great - something like a 17-55mm.

Speaking as someone with a background in the field: balloon juice. >> however the compression quality is very high): However, the image quality of the cherry picked example is very poor. Question: if a render farm can't produced realistic skin and hair even from the most optimal of description, how do you expect a fraction of the processing power using a much cruder description to do a better job??? It defies common sense. ...There are possible (emphasis on possible) application areas for this technology, but replacing RAW isn't one of them. The tech is possibly workable where extreme levels of compression are needed; the problem is that when you need higher quality then the demands of the algorithm rise exponentially.

That's an excellent point. Otoh, m43 filters are small, which will keep the cost down. And I've had positive experiences with cheapish Zomei filters in the past. Otoh again, I'm in the NW UK, so blocking out light is the least of my problems... Thanks - very useful again. ..I've read some of your posts; we should talk about ETTR some time. I'm historically an ETTRer myself, but since picking up a Sigma Merrill as my main stills camera I've become aware of http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html Merrill shots have a uniquely filmic quality because they avoid highlight spill - but ETTR with a Bayer should maximize it. So now I'm shooting a Bayer again, I'm going to experiment and see if I should be more cautious. Re. the Oly, I got the impression that the mechanism gives repeatable focus in way other m43 lenses don't... Wait: https://suggestionofmotion.com/blog/panasonic-12-35mm-vs-olympus-12-40mm/ the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has a special clutched focus ring that provides linear focus control and hard stops (i.e. the focus ring stops turning when it reaches either end of the focus range). Compared to most native lenses, this means that the Olympus will focus to the exact same points when you turn the focus ring from point A to point B, regardless of how quickly you turn the ring. I was willing to settle for something less ambitious than getting filmic files at this stage... But the first 30 seconds were so funny and charming I'd now watch it even without your recommendation. (Does anyone else get a Rocky & Bullwinkle flavour from this?)

What mode did you have the stabilization in???

For anyone finding this by google in the future - DSLR Video Shooter Very useful on lights as I think jonpai said, also ok on basic lighting technique and some other gear https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmA0XxraDP7ZVbv4eY3Omg (Note: Apurture seem to be very good on CRI. If not spelling) Dugdale: I found his website completely useless. There may be useful info on basic technique there, but if so it is buried in a hotchpotch of other stuff. Focal length reducers: Much less useful than I hoped. They reduce FL by 0.7 before the m43 35mm equivalence factor comes in. So a 50mm takumar becomes about a 70mm lquivalent ens, and you can forget finding lenses to use as real wide angles. Additional lens option At least one Oly m43 lens seems to have real manual focus - the Pro 12-40mm . True of the other pro lenses as well???

Well, firstly you identified being creative with enlisting other people. Once again, you don't waste other people's time because you haven't developed skills yet. Wasting their time is how you lose credibility. Anything you can do alone to prepare first should be done alone. Secondly, being creative within the above limit is fine - but, no you can't just be creative. Being creative uses neurons and sometimes you need to put 100% effort into mastering the technical skill. If you're not doing that some of the time, you're not pushing yourself enough. Thirdly, real creativity is rare, even for people who are creative and a deep understanding of the technical part of what you do is an essential basis for it. Most people aren't being creative when they think they are. They're just goofing around creating something godawful and only. The Ikea Effect stands between them and committing suicide out of shame. (As evidence I quote 99% of the content of Model Mayhem and 99.9% of Kindle originals.) People playing around can do "creative" stuff 100% of the time; artists have to practice.

Having gone from zero to shooting trade with professional models in a year, I completely disagree with this. The people who succeed at anything at a high level are the ones with the discipline as well as the imagination. You don't win the superbowl just by entering: you break down what you need to get good at into practice drills that let you focus on one skill as much as possible. You never fumble with the camera or for a technical answer in front of the talent because you've shot street scenes in every lighting condition. That's how you build credibility and get a bigger "crew" next time - by being amazing the first time. And then you look for an area where you can do something better than everyone else in a way that means something to you and you practice that until it is perfect - and that's what style is built on. ...But most of all "100 PUSH UPS 100 SIT UPS 100 SQUATS 10KM RUN EVERY SINGLE DAY". Thanks - that does defuse the temptation...

That's a little ambitious for me right now, but thanks. I'll probably spend the next couple of months filming street scenes and my cat. (If you like Kurosawa, you should try to see the opening episode of Kill La Kill - it's like Kurosawa speeded up three times. And the ghetto areas of the town a lot of the action takes place in look to me they used Stray Dog as a reference.) On the subject of cheap but workable gear, is there a good alternative to the zacuto magnifiers? preferably something that still allows me to use the screens ability to tilt? Although thinking about it - 1. I'd lose the touch screen 2. I'm in the NW UK, so problems with the sun will be bloody rare anyway.. Also, I don't normally suffer from GAS, but I'm so tempted by the f0.95 V'landers..

@Gregormannschaft That's so useful - thanks. You guys have helped a lot - jonpais saved me from a lot of frustration trying to manually focus those fly by wire lenses! I thought the Metabones was the only tolerable focal reducer - again, that's really interesting. Especially as I love the Takumar look - that's one of the reasons I was thinking about the Tiffens, to get that from modern lenses without too much time in post. I've got to say though "Lens Turbo II" sounds like some Shopping Channel product from the 80s. (It's *always* the 80s on the Shopping Channel...)

"That's a vile accuracy"... C-mount lenses look confusing and problematic... I'll dumb down my focus all the way - shoot with back button focus on the AF lens and forget about anything fancy. Is that the best thing to do with AF lenses? And I'll maybe try follow focus with a c-mount lens or my Takumar, then get the lenses jonpais suggested - or the Voightlanders ? - if I get interested enough.