Zach Goodwin2

New video I made:

You are in Miami? I am in Alabama, and you are below my state.

Well then, the Sigma Art series of lenses and some of their other lenses will do fine as a replacement of tamron, since all I would need to do would be to use in body stabilization for the prime lenses and optical stabilization for the zoom lenses. Good, so now there would be less worrying about messing up with certain movements and I can still get good auto-focus. Now, the amount of takes would be less and so there would be a great film made in less time with less stress placed on the actors.

I wish the newer g2 tamron lenses were compatible with the Canon C series line of cameras. If the lenses were compatible, I can imagine the image stabilization helping out a lot with funky pan and tilt, odd crane movements, and the difficulties of using a shoulder rig all being helped out with this lens. I can especially imagine when someone would be getting their muscles a bit stiff and vibration-reduction would help out.

I have seen anamorphic smartphone lenses.

I found out that the brass adapter for the EF mount is best suited for the situation and I made a list of OM mount lenses I could use and these will be my back-up lenses and are a lot easier to replace than Edmika FD: OM 50mm F/1.8 (I already own) OM 85mm F/2 OM 28-70 F/2.8 (I already own) OM 70-210 F/3.5 OM to EF Brass adapter

I may go back to buying the Edmika mount lenses though. It's just that I'm sort of impatient with the guy along with many others. He recently brought back up his website.

Thank you all for your support. I have decided to go with trying out one Nikon lens and as an added note I already have a back-up lens, which is my 28-70 F/2.8.

What happened was that the lens was on a dresser and the mount chipped off with the lens when it fell between a bedside and the dresser. The mount broke off and the lens is fine though.

Now then do you all have suggestions for a lens mount adapter that would have a better lock system than the fotodiox one where if you focus on the lens it falls off?

Alright well so far I found Olympus OM lenses to be a good alternative to all of this, but their lenses are not as sharp as the Edmika mount FD lenses only slightly softer, but that is alright. As long as it is not too much soft it won't be so bad.

Edmika closed it's doors and their mounts aren't as reliable as I once thought. I only have a broken mount 35-105 F/3.5 after my camera slid and fell on the ground. Can one of you all help me find an alternative lens for this list of lenses in M42, Old Nikon Mount, and Olympus OM Mount? As for the zoom lenses I am looking for, I'd like there to be a constant zoom aperture, meaning that the aperture does not change if I were to zoom with it. nFD 135 f/2.8 nFD 100mm F/2.8 nFD 85mm f/1.8 nFD 50mm F/1.4 nFD 35mm F/2.8 nFD 28mm F/2 nFD 24mm F/2.8 nFD 35-105mm F/3.5 macro nFD 70-210mm f/4

I'm getting nikkor lenses from now on, either that or Olympus lenses. Maybe I would get m42 mount lenses. I understand the quality of Edmika mount FD lenses look great, but at the moment the lens mount chipped apart from my camera and it fell on the floor. The rear of the lens is made from undurable plastic. Another complaint I have is that it takes too long to get it perfectly just right to mount the Edmika mount requiring a screwdriver with the right amount of precision and timing on a lens. The guy who sells the mounts takes too long to ship the lens mounts as well. The Edmika mounts are only good if you are using them for a short amount of time as over time they wear out. I do not recommend Edmika any more.

Well, Sammy the Sock turned into a serious drama.

New photo that I took with the Canon T2i Edmika FD 35-105 F/3.5

I see, well what are your thoughts on distributing directly through Amazon and Vimeo?

What's a 4-wall?

Before the rise of video in the 1980's people used to buy film and project it in their homes as well as mostly for the time being people went to movie theaters like they were theatrical plays as a gathering to watch an entertainment. Ever since home video was around, more and more companies made movies straight to DvD, yet from what I gather they don't do so well opinion wise and financially wise. Now with the advent of internet video, people more often want to get their films from the internet, yet they'd rather get the A-list Hollywood films that were in theaters more so than B-movie youtube films. Another thing is that I don't know that many people who go to film festivals or who are familiar with independent films? When making B-movies, could you profit more and get just as good as a critiqued reception and financial gain from going straight to video just as you would going to theaters?

New Sammy the Sock video:

New photo I took with the Edmika 35-105 F/3.5 Canon T2i.

I think I may know how: where and when you place the subject, the camera angle, and how much you show and how much you don't show.

In movies I wonder is there a technique or a way cinematographers could influence the performance on the actors in a better way, for example: high, medium, and low angles? In editing they would use "montage" editing instead of continuity editing to help save a performance. I personally would like to know how a camera man could do it based on the choice of lenses, lighting, and depth of field, and at a cheap cost and with the least amount of equipment. More specifically, a natural way of influencing a performance first as being a cinematographer, before bringing in the wide variety of lenses from 16 to 300, the lights, the gel paper, and all of that.

Here is one dark selfie of me:

New photo taken with Edmika FD 35-105 F/3.5 Canon T2i,