mercer

Yeah that looks great. I love the sloppy zooms and focus. It feels like genuine 8mm or 16mm newsreel and home movies. You should be getting some nice footage out of that mk iii of yours. Any footage to share?

I think when the original question was asked with the word quantifiable used in the question, Viet was looking for a link to proof, and I'm not sure that exists. Not to mention what I or you or Luke thinks is cinematic or what constitutes cinematic motion cadence is ultimately subjective because somebody else could comment that they believe VHS footage from a 1986 JVC camcorder is cinematic and the question then becomes... are they wrong? I believe so, but cinematic is an unquantifiable word that could mean one thing to you, another to me and yet another to Viet.

I also noticed more cinematic motion cadence with the BMPCC and GH4 shooting at true 24.00p with 180 degree shutter opposed to 23.976 and 1/50th shutter, especially using All-I.

This statement will always be the issue with this discussion. Motion cadence is a feeling a viewer or creator gets by watching the motion in the film. Unfortunately feelings are often indescribable. Just because motion cadence is not quantifiable doesn't mean it does not exist.

Hey Charlie, another little tip... get a YC to EF adapter for both lenses and leave them on the lens. There is a small lever mechanism on those adapters that can be a pain to take off frequently. Then just pick up two EF rear lens caps for the back of the lens. It will make your life easier when swapping out lenses.

Andy's samples are pretty good, will they not work for you? Also just so you know, that lens should be easily found in good condition for 50 USD or less.

Then you should be good to go with those two lenses. No the Nikon version is not more flexible, keep the Canon Lens Turbo and then buy some simple YC to EF adapters. I think they probably sell a YC Lens Turbo, but you'll get more distance with the Canon version in case you want to try some cheap M42 lenses et al...

I had the RMC 28-70mm... there may also be a constant f/3.5 version of that lens floating around. Anyway, I liked it. It has that cool Tokina low contrast look. It's built well like most Tokina lenses. I think Andy Lee posted some samples from it about 15 or 20 pages back. I also have the 25-50mm RMC which is a cool little lens as well.

You have the EF Lens Turbo I assume? With that lens budget, I'm not sure I would bother with the Pentax. I would look into Nikkor ai/ai-s lenses. They have a similar warmth as the Pentax but a lot more options for focal lengths. They're also easily converted to cine lenses with the Duclos mod. Check out the 24mm f2, 35mm f2 or 1.4 as your budget allows it, and the 50mm 1.8. All great lenses. Also you cannot go wrong with the Contax Zeiss lenses either. I briefly owned the Planar 50mm 1.7 and it was one of the best 50mm lenses I ever used. I couldn't afford any of their faster wide angles like the 28mm f2 "Hollywood" so I decided to sell the 50mm and go a different route. I have heard the Distagon 28mm f2.8 is a fine lens though and some argue the difference in price between the f/2 and f/2.8 isn't worth it... but the f/2 has some of the coolest rendering I have ever seen in a vintage lens and from what I've seen shot with it, it is worth the moniker "The Hollywood." Also some of the Yashica ML lenses were supposedly made with Zeiss glass and they can be had pretty cheap. Also if you want that vintage look with that Pentax build quality, look no further than their earlier Takumar line. The SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 is a gem and I really love both the 35mm f2 and the 35mm f/3.5. I never owned the 28mm f/3.5 but some say it's one of their best lenses. I did have the 20mm f/4.5 and the 24mm f/3.5 and they were both very nice lenses. And finally, Pentax made a 28mm f/2 lens that was supposedly designed by Zeiss and it is supposed to rival that of the Zeiss Distagon f/2. I think Andrew Reid wrote an article about it a while back. It's a rare lens but you may be able to find one within your budget. The Pentax forums has a really cool lens database that has tons of user reviews of lenses. It's mostly for Pentax cameras but since Pentax was such a popular camera back in the day, you can usually find reviews on a ton of 3rd Party lenses as well. Hope that helps.

Do Olympus lenses autofocus well with Panasonic bodies?

Nice rack focus 0:57... seamless.

I've never used the distagon but I am a proponent of keeping vintage lenses as a set. The Pentax-M lenses are great, they were the first set of lenses I purchased. And I went with the same two. Two questions: 1. What is your budget for lenses? 2. What camera are you using them with?

Now I really need to know what camera was used because the camera used to shoot that video is obviously capable of making intelligent, respectable, young women look like a couple of tarts.

In that video it states it's XC10 in the title and X1000 in the description and comments. That guy claims the mirror image is a shot he took of his friend from a different angle, so the shot of the guy in the mirror isn't the shot of the camera and operator used in the video... which is obviously BS.

Actually, I think I'm seeing a crease in his jacket and I guess the AS would be on the other side... I'm all backwards today. The video does look good though. But what camera is it?

Okay thanks, I was looking at it on my phone, so from this picture, it looks like the camera has an articulating screen... which the XC10 does not have. So it must be a fake.

Yeah, I don't know I had the grip backwards, so it would be in his right hand. I still think it looks like the XC10 but it could be a fake... but why? And like you said... if it isn't the XC10... then what camera is it because it does indeed look pretty damn good.

Oh the two extra is a byproduct of the ghosting... lol. Idk, it may not be, but it does look like it in the mirror. Either way cool video.

I didn't even notice the mirror shot the first time I watched it, but after seeing it, I definitely believe it's the XC10. If you look at the way he holds the camera, you will see the way his left wrist is twisted forward because he has the grip turned. Also his right hand is supporting the base of the camera. The way it is wrapped around it looks like the base is square... which it is with the XC10. Also the way he looks at the tilting screen. And finally the motion with IBIS is exactly how it reacts and looks with the XC10. As far as the ghosting... NYC streets can be very bright, so he may not have been at that high of an ISO, so the ghosting may not have reared its ugly head. And it also seems that not all cameras had the issue. I almost wish I never sold my XC10. Such a fun camera, just a little too pricy for me. I'm hoping to pick another one up later this year at sub-$1000 price range.

Yeah it probably is the XC10. It definitely has the same look the bokeh. Have you seen @BenEricson videos with it? They're in one of the two XC10 threads... unbelievable job... looks like 16mm.

Looks cool. Those Holga lenses always intrigued me. How does it look in 16:9 or 2:35?

I really like the vintage 8mm look. It almost feels like moving polaroids. Well done.

The contrast doesn't dial back in nicely in post?

Hi, that footage was Canon's official Log profile with one of Andrew's LUTS that comes with his package. I did not load Andrew's Log Profile onto the XC10... unsure if you can. Although I really loved the camera, it cost a little too much for me, and depreciated in value a little too quickly, so I ended up selling it. I do have some 4K footage from it on one of my hard drives somewhere.

Wow... those look great. That is some high quality video from an action cam. Was there any color work done to those videos in post, or is it straight out of camera?