tweak

You weren't as you were commenting on the adapters I was talking about and you didn't even know which adapters those were exactly... You were right in your own head perhaps, yes. As you can read Raf has now discontinued that adapter so there's no point dragging on this pointless discussion. Buy whatever adapter fits your needs, just make sure you get it sent with tracking .

Did they remove that plastic dome? I could see that causing this issue.

Exactly.

Nice work, you should buy a lotto ticket.

Yes, but those characteristics/ differences are due more to sensor/ camera tech than anything else. You can match them if you choose your shots correctly, if the sensors produce a similar image it shouldn't be hard. Look up definition of "Aesthetics". It does exist, just not in the realm you're focusing on, which is perfect world equivalent focal length/ bokeh. It's also possible it doesn't exist to the degree you consider worth noting, it does however exist as long as FF sensors aren't M 4/3 sensors, or any other sensor for that matter.

Good for you, count yourself lucky .

You're wrong... this is the V2 Raf adapter. Yes to the untrained eye it probably looks like the kowa 35 version you had, but I can assue you if you actually use it properly and screw in that retaining thread that is now included and recessed into the adapter there is no way possible that your lens can fall off during alignment (or any other moment). I assume you have never had this adapter? I've had two for 16H (original and V2) and I will vouch for them fitting super snug to the mm and doing what I say they do. You are wasting time and money buying a Redstan for a 16H and if you're lucky you wont even receive your purchase. It's up to you, good luck!

This was the first try I had messing around with trying to simulate 8mm. Here's a video I edited a few years back now from footage I got my friends to shoot of me (who don't really know how to shoot) on a shitty handycam. I also like the crappy aspect of it, I think it's kind of a sentimental thing (it was my first camera).

Vx1000 is pretty timeless, also has a nice mic for skating. Liam, you like the shitty aspect? or just the deep depth of field aspect? As I was shooting ML Raw a bit lately with a very low res (small amount of sensor) and you can get some pretty cool deep DOF shots with that.

One lens is hardly something for most to base a whole kit off, I'm not doubting there's the odd lens that's good wide open at 0.9 (although I did mean stock, not magic speed boosted ). But then that also must beg the question; would it not actually be cheaper to buy the FF equiv in that scenario? I'd say most of the misunderstanding in this thread stems from; one group of people thinking others are saying equivelencies don't exist at all, whilst the other group of people are actually arguing that cameras with different sized sensors aren't really equivalent at this point in time regardless of whether the glass can indeed be spec'd equivalently in some regards. It's all what you consider acceptable I guess. But I know there's a difference between using my Lumix Vs 7d Vs 5d and equivalent lenses don't fix that problem. But it could well be that it's the companies way of up-selling you gear? I don't know, but the difference is certainly there and real throughout most brands. That's what I'm concerned with, not whether CGI's match up or not as I don't shoot with CGI's. p.s. Those other sites linked previous I read through all had a similar theme, people just arguing because they couldn't properly understand what the other was saying as it was mixed in with people who were genuinely confused or just completely wrong. Basically like talking in a loud club to many people at once.

Exactly. Sure you can imitate FF in some regards and even calculate what could be equivilent specs in some cases, but it's still never going to be FF for every aspect that FF is. This is why FF exists and this is why FF is still used, the proof is in the pudding. The real kicker is deciding whether those small extras you gain is worth spending your money on or not.

Open to proof showing me otherwise. But no 0.9 lens I've ever seen has amazing IQ wide open.

Sorry to tell you but - equivalency. FF is a just a scam .

Find them yourself I don't have time for that. They were on Ebay and his website, if it's not there anymore email him and he will make one for you.

Image Quality - an image of a decent known standard of quality, as close as you can get to professional cinema applications. By having to have your small sensor lens wide open at 0.9 whilst the FF lens is stopped down 2 stops you're never going to have the same level of IQ. Fact.

"There's no FF aesthetic, but here's the differences... but if you can make equivalences there's no differences"... hahaha.

All you needed to say and I agree, even if CGI tests do not.

I'm starting to assume you are just trolling at this point... "So no difference in sensor and no difference in lens."... that is exactly the difference I'm talking about between cams that these tests are negating . Either way I don't really care, I just find this interesting. I shoot with whatever I can afford and does the job to a satisfactory degree. Have fun with your Iphones and 4mm lenses everyone, FF is dead, APS-C is dead, M4/3 is dead, S16 is dead .

So does RAF , he actually makes 2 versions, one doesn't have retaining ring (I guess the one you have). (Also there are about 4 different versions of Redstan 16H clamp, so it depends which type you think Im talking about).

"When that happens the answer will be none", which means right now there's a difference. Lets not beat around the bush here, if there was no difference in FF or larger sensors Vs smaller ones then we would all be using S16 sensors or smaller and reaping the benefits of a more compact system. The truth is though, there is a difference in Aesthetics and even though all your CGIs don't prove it be so, it exists and it's known and telling people there's no difference at this point is just misleading. Yes in time it could be that larger sensors hold no more value as sensor technology advances, but I'd also argue that as the technology improves to make better smaller sensors the technology will also progress to make better larger sensors... only time will tell us the outcome, everything else is just speculation, we live in the present.

You're totally missing my point... by opening up 2 more stops your lens isn't even close to the IQ of the same setup on FF. I'm not talking about FOV or aperture size. Yes, and? That doesn't make it any less of a real thing, which is what this topic was about, real cameras not perfect scenario CGI tests.

@gatopardo and others - You're totally negating the sensor/ lens difference in all of this though, so what's the point of these tests? It's like saying "in a perfect environment" in scientific test, when no environment is ever perfect or exact... Yes, people stop down often on a 50 or other lens on FF because they want sharpness, but since they still have FF they still have that shallow DOF once stopped down... How are you going to replicate that on a M4/3 sensor? You can't. I tend to disagree with you on the diffraction/ loss of sharpness thing, but that's ok because you've also looked past that by stopping the lens down that far on FF you now also have very poor low light handling. On a smaller sensor you can keep the lens open and still have that deeper DOF with better low light I feel.

If the film industry is anything like the rest of the world (which it has to be), it's all about knowing and meeting the right people. Maybe you will have to move, or find a way to get closer to people who can help you achieve your dreams. Unfortunetly it's super rare that you will just be "discovered" in whatever thing you are into and make it work from that. All we hear about is the 0.05% of people in life who do make that happen somehow so it gives us unrealistic aspirations I think. I'm not saying don't try, I'm just saying you need to be realistic and do what you can outside of being a great director to reach the point you want to be at some day.

If you go to ML site there is great tools now for eliminating Pink dots, they work well. I don't bother really as i have a 7D anyway. For me the bigger bitrate made a difference in complex scenes and grading so I think it's worth having, especially now C-log is also an option.

True. The thing is who shoots a 50 2.8 on FF? Most people would have a 1.4 as a standard. I also see this discussion working both ways, for example the "S16 aesthetic". You can't use say a 50mm on FF and have as deep DOF as on S16. If you tried you would be stopping down the lens to the point that diffraction is simply destroying the image. It's also true in reverse for M4/3 S16 vs FF, if you want that shallow depth assosiated with FF, using super fast lenses at their wide open apertures on these smaller sensors (to get anything close) usually gives you pretty crappy results (Bad CA, Bad sharpness, Bad MTF etc.). That's without even getting into the benefits a larger sensor can give.