mercer

I agree, I just want more mirrorless options. I actually like DSLRs, but it seems that Nikon and Canon May introduce more video oriented features in a mirrorless. To add, at first I thought it was a bad move for Nikon to go with a new mount and make it more difficult for their loyal pros to use the lenses they’ve acquired over the years but since the flange distance is so small, it may have been brilliant in the end for choices. On the other hand, I think a FF Canon mirrorless absolutely needs to be in EF Mount.

This!!! Films are first and foremost a visual medium. Every film should make sense without any sound. Sure sound enhances the experience but dialogue and sound effects support the visuals. Obviously, an exception would be music videos.

One of the reasons Canon is King is that their Auto functions work really well. I know this post is about Raw stills but I’ve even shot with Shutter priority and ML Raw... with surprisingly okay results. I think if I had the time to really test it... Shutter Priority, +2-3 stops, in conjunction with AEL Hold, one push AF and an IS lens... the 5D3 becomes a P&S cinema camera. Btw, nice images.

The z Mount is interesting because of the flange distance. I hadn’t realized that the Nikon 1 Mount has a longer flange distance, so I assume they’re going to make an adapter for both their F Mount lenses and their Nikon 1 lenses, and possibly just use all of their Nikon 1 designs and production and put the new Mount on their 1 lenses. Also it’s very cool to see that a lot of C Mount lenses will work in FF with the Z Mount. Hmm. Also with Sony having IBIS, I assume Nikon will have to have it as well to compete early on with Sony’s head start.

But to quote Cinegain... I don’t think IBIS would/should have any affect on motion cadence.

@webrunner5 sorry I thought @Cinegain was referring to motion cadence as the way movement looks inside the frame, not necessarily camera movement, but subject movement... the fluidity of a person’s stride or a car driving down the street. I imagine it has to do with motion blur on a technical level but when it’s off, I notice it... sometimes it’s subconscious, but sometimes it’s a slap in the face. I feel it is a factor that helps make a moving image cinematic or not. Some cameras have it, others don’t. Sometimes it’s in the settings, I think. I noticed with the FZ2500 that it looked/felt better in all-i, true 24p, with shutter angle set to 180 instead of shutter speed set to 1/50th.

I think most people who can “tell motion cadence” usually notice when it’s not quite right. This is why it’s rarely mentioned in regards to actual cinema cameras.

Please do! Even with that basic post work, the images look so thick and juicy... cinema cameras cannot be beat. If I wasn’t such a run and gun shooter, I would definitely consider the F3... but I doubt I could go incognito on a ferry to shoot a scene while looking like a tourist. But for the price...and maybe double the price... the F3 is the best image around.

@TheRenaissanceMan nice... was that with the F3?

The two MC versions are optically the same lens... one would have a rubber grip (that’s the one I have) and one would have a metal, scalloped grip. I think there’s also an MD W which may be the same optically as the MCs and then the newest, smallest version which is the plain MD version. That lens is said to be different optically but they are still supposed to be pretty similar. Thank you, I’m in the US, so this is perfect. The seller told me Buchanan did the conversion, but I have a feeling he may have messed with it himself. Either way, the lens is in good condition otherwise and well worth putting some money into it to get repaired... if the problem isn’t too obvious to me when I open it up.

Hmm, I’ll have to look at my settings on FCPX... it’s possible I’m exporting as Rec709, Rec710... whatever it takes... lol. But I thought sRGB and Rec709 were fairly close? Thanks for the tumblr tip... I’ll look into it.

@kaylee I exported the frame from FCPX and saved it on my desktop and then from there I sent it via iMessage to my friend where it looks exactly like it did on my timeline. When uploaded here, through the site’s file upload option, it looks different... mostly more contrasty... which does affect the color a little... so to answer you’re question... in the longest way possible... I’m unsure how the site interprets them? Ok, so on IG it looks like it did on my timeline... so the site must do something to it. I guess I’ll have to find a hosting site... which I should do anyway.

Yup, this is one of the toughest things I have encountered. I just posted a couple screengrabs in a thread and I sent the same two screengrabs to my friend via iMessage. Now the ones posted here look a lot more contrasty than the ones I sent to my friend even though they came from the very same jpeg and I’m looking at both on my phone and they still look different. Ugh. And with the video in question here, the girl’s skin looks a little magenta but not enough for me to say it looks horrible. This stuff can be so frustrating some times...

Thanks, it’s an amazing lens, that’s why I’m so bummed by its issues. I was half tempted to open it up before I contacted the guy but I didn’t want another Mitchell Lens B4 war story... so I waited until I spoke to the seller. Now I’ll probably give it a go before I send it to someone else. The focus ring hard stops at it’s nearest point... like it should, but then at about 4’ or so it has a friction stop.... so I’m hoping it wasn’t aligned properly or there is something it’s getting caught on. The aperture I’m not too concerned about. If I can get it to work great, but what’s strange is it clicks into every stop, but no blades appear... I assume the spring wasn’t replaced or it popped off. But the good news is the glass is clean... So yeah, we’ll see. I was always curious about that Beck lens... is it supposed to be a good performer?

So, I was perusing eBay last weekend and found a copy of my favorite lens of all time... the Minolta MC 35mm 1.8 that was converted to EF mount. I was floored. I had sold that lens a while back because I didn't have a camera to use it on, but I really missed my Minolta lenses... especially that one. So I bid on the lens and won the auction. The seller has a very good rating and his communication was excellent but when the lens arrived this morning, it was not as described. The body was clean and the glass looked good but the aperture didn't work at all... which I was surprised by but okay with since I would rarely shoot this lens closed down... this is why you shoot with these old Minolta lenses. But then I quickly realized, that although smooth, the lens ring didn't turn to infinity and I was only able to get 4-5 feet out of her... Ugh... To make a long story short, I was horribly disappointed but the seller was great and we came to a mutual agreement and I kept the lens for a partial refund. I did have a couple minutes to go outside and take some shots. I did a quick Rec709 conversion and a couple exposure adjustments... So, my question is... does anyone know a good Minolta lens technician? And does anybody have any eBay war stories?

Yeah @mat33 really nice work. I just watched some of your DB videos and they look great. Was your B&W Video shot on that as well?

Iron, may I call you Iron, it seems like you are creating unrealistic scenarios to defend your position. I read your DOF argument the first time and it’s just... unrealistic... if you’re shooting in extremely low light, you will do what you have to do to get the exposure... faster lens and then step back to get the focus you want. It wouldn’t be ideal but that is the circumstance you are in... otherwise you would bring in lights and then the a7s would still have a two stop advantage.

I’m really not, I’ve been laughing this entire discussion. People get angry and protective about their cameras. And it makes me laugh.

Like @webrunner5 has already said, how often are you going to shoot in crazy lowlight for a scene without either bringing in lights, or using good available light? So for the sake of this discussion, deep DOF is kind of irrelevant... because if you were forced to shoot in very low light, you would shoot with the fastest lens you could find and step further back to get the focus. Honestly though, I didn’t want to get into this discussion, the GH5s is great with low light, but I don’t think it’s better than the a7s in low light... I’m sure there will be plenty of comparisons in the coming weeks to prove me wrong.

I thought we were talking a7s, why bring an almost 10 year old camera into the discussion? Of course, sensor technology and processing will be better 10 years later. Listen, I think what Panasonic has done with the GH5s is amazing. It looks really good in lowlight but let’s not get hyperbolic here. What the a7s can do with a single candle is near miraculous. @IronFilm

Except it isn’t, no matter how you justify it, FF has a two stop advantage over Micro 4/3. So in sLog on the a7s, native ISO is 3200 on the GH5s native ISO is 2500... with the 2 stop advantage of FF, that puts the GH5s at an equivalent ISO of 10,000... right out the gate. Plus any fast lens is also negated by the 2 stop advantage. Is there something I’m missing here, because I’m not following you?

No, I’m pretty sure his name is Mr. Fuzzynormal.

Haha, just keeping it lighthearted. The truth is this... every shooter has different needs or wants in a camera... sometimes it’s professional and sometimes it’s personal. I think Fuzzynormal, amongst others, have said it dozens of times... basically any camera is good enough nowadays. So whatever feature gets you up in the morning dying to shoot with that camera, then good on you and shoot with that camera.

It’s okay though... I added a winky face. @Emanuel I agree, no IBIS should have equated to yes internal NDs. That would have been an acceptable trade off.

Okay, fair enough... I’m... sorry you feel that way? But to be more fair... I could argue that you use people’s proper names in an attempt at some sort of paradoxical condescension...