Timotheus

Haha...might get my G80 after all...that looks to be the exact same issue on the GX85 (from 4:37 to be precise ;-)) Which they obviously fixed (???) as demonstrated in the G80 vs GX85 videos...

Holy crap a 1000 pounds! Congrats indeed.

It aint cheap, but it is a price that you see more often. If you wait, you should be able to get one like this for cheaper though. Negotiating is also an option of course ;-) If you find a Kowa 16H or 8Z for this kind of money it is a better deal.

Damn, I was planning to get this too...Have good hopes this is fixable, but I want to see it happen before I spend the cash.

This looks more like a rebranded 16D or 16C, like Sankor made but they also came branded differently. Ask the seller if there are any numbers on the lens body. It will help identify the model. The one you show looks to be smaller than Kowa B&H / 16H / 8Z (which share the same build and size). Those are popular because of high quality glass and large lens elements that allow for somewhat wider taking lenses. Having said that, if the lens you found is in good shape and well priced, it can be a good start for shooting anamorphic.

Eh...it's in this thread, right!? http://m.ebay.com.au/itm/141997441693?_trksid=p3984.m1436.l2649&_mwBanner=1 (sold, but you can check how it looks)

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens. But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

I'm pretty sure Mattias didn't agree with what @bunk proves ;-) What kind of sensor differences do you mean exactly? Noise, bit depth, resolution etcetera? Sure there can be differences in technical picture quality, but as shown above: framing and DOF can be made identical while shooting from the same spot with different sensor sizes...by using equivalent lenses.

And, did you buy one? Seriously zero reviews online, and I'm also curious about this thing

Ah, what a shame...the video test is well done and clearly shows the issue. As the author from the video states in the comments, it looks like a 'tuning' problem on the IS...something that hopefully/probably? is fixable with a firmware update. @Hanriverprod sorry to hear your bad experience man, I had a 14-140 in the kit with my G7...toyish build and you could hear moving parts around when slightly shaking it. It did work fine though, so I attributed it to the plastic build. Great travel lens, but sold it because of the slow aperture and because I mainly use vintage glass for video. Hope your refund or switch for another model works out.

Dude, please stop dancing around. We (you included) were talking about recreating the same picture (dof and framing) from the same spot using different sensors. Also a fan of your YT reviews, but I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're trolling us here. But yeah, let's let it go...there's enough in this thread for everyone to make up their minds.

Yeah, this discussion... opinions on facts :-/ For those interested, the Northrup video comes recommended. He explains and proves his point. For readers, Dpreview did an extensive piece on it as well, with 2250 comments full of confusion :-)

So if I understand you correctly, there is no way to recreate the exact same picture using two different sized sensors from the same position? Nah...sure you can. Just give Northrup your 100 bucks :-) He made a few videos proving this point. The very example you posted is among the 'evidence' he presents, check the vid.

@Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors. You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size. The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change. You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop). You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-) Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).

Holding cameras in the exact same position, you can take the same (framing, DOF) picture with: a 50mm f1.8 on full frame a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C a 25mm f0.9 on MFT So there really is no specific aesthetic linked to a certain format, just math.

But then we're talking $900 (G85) vs. $4000 (c100 ii)...

Sexy gadget...Fotodiox also makes one, looks a tad more rugged: https://www.fotodioxpro.com/fusion-nd-throttle-auto-adapter-canon-lenses-to-sony-emount-camera.html Here's hoping for a MFT version...and it's a matter of time before they put in a focal reducer as well

Out of curiosity: where did you find this? Or did you just happen to have it in your collection?

So pancake lenses rule then?

Noob question I guess, but how exactly can you use this measurement? Cheers, Tim

You got quite the rare lens there. It is highly sought after. Just google "baby hypergonar". Don't worry...codewords "anamorphic" and "cinemascope" are in the title; people who want to buy this will find your ad :-)

Hey man. Check out Tito's FOV calculator; it lets you know whether a lens will (probably) vignette or not: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8615 wider than 50mm on S35 is difficult with a 2x stretch; 1.5x or 1.33x will give you more options (but obviously less oval bokeh unless you use an oval aperture). the larger the anamorphot's elements, the wider you can go with your taking lens. Hence the popularity of Kowa B&H/8Z/16H/Elmoscope II (all the same build and size). The SLR Magic anamorphot 2x-50 might also get you wider than 50mm but it's expensive and flares blue like crazy. to get a feel for flare colours, try to look up video examples online. The Sankor 16C you mention is nice and sharp, but has mostly blue coatings and thus blue flares. Also, you can ask a seller to take a picture of the lens under an angle with light source overhead to get an idea of the colour of the coatings. the coreDNA will introduce extra vignetting; ask around in this thread for user's experience listed mininum focus distance for the coreDNA is 0.7m; if you need more you can add a diopter in the mix or set both taking lens and anamorphot to minimum focus distance

Will you let us know how you built it to be single focus? :-)

Same here. The G7 was well regarded for budget-minded shooters. Look at what is improved: sensor stabilisation, weather sealing, clean HDMI out during internal recording, reportedly fixed shutter shock in photography and more. And all this for under 1K with great deals especially in UK. This camera deserves to be a hit. Not in the least to push manufacturer 's competition further (M5, anyone?).

To be honest, no...you should be able to find a clean one for the same kind of money. Just wait a little or ask around in the 'anamorphic shooters' Group on Facebook if anyone has something to sell.