webrunner5

A F3 shot right has a beautiful output for sure. And now they are going for peanuts.

I thought the lens fell apart in it or something like that? That would move it down my list also.

I will probably be a dead duck 15 years from now. Move it up a bit. ?

Well the big take away here is we have NO F ing clue what things will look like in even 15 years from now. Who would have Ever imagined a Smartphone 15 years ago, or half the stuff we just take for granted now. I bet unimaginable stuff will be around by then. AI has the potential to change Everything we know. It can be a LOT smarter than we are capable of ever being. It is going to be interesting to say the least down the road.

I agree completely. I have shot a TON of weddings. The Photographer is the one that sets the rules, and all of the shots, not the bridal party. They don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about Weddings. A Monkey could do them after awhile, let alone a Robot. They are repetitive, and predictable as hell. The Only difference was if they had 10 people or 200 people. The more people, which made no diffidence in hell, just more drunk bastards at the reception, the more I charged them lol. It was the most boring shit I ever shot after a few years.

Every bit of footage I have seen from it all looks like that. You must be the only one than can grade I guess. ?

Nice street photography.

It still has that Dark, crushed Blacks look to it. WTF. Depressing shit. It is like B&W that has been colored.

Unless it is the grade the Osmo looks pretty soft to me. Not fond of it. It has better looking colors, but that can be changed in Post on the Sony. Pretty hard to beat the new RX0 II for the money for this type of shooting.

They are amazing cameras. That was a wonderful short. Mercer will have one again tomorrow when he sees this video lol. ?

No, I think you are sort of sketchy on your analysis lol. I remember when I was in College and we had to take what they called unannounced "Blue Book" tests. If you wrote a bunch of rambling shit it really meant you really didn't know the answer to the question very well, or at all. It just brought back old memories is all. At least it made me smile. Thanks. ? And yeah I agree that they probably all use Different Encoders. Pretty much different everything's to be honest, even designs on another makers Sensor even, using some of their own secret sauce as they say. I doubt anyone of the big boys is just using off the shelf stuff with no modifications. If not the case all cameras would look alike, and none do. if you have weak processors you can't even take full advantage of what is even available on the sensor. So Tons of variables from each manufacturer which is probably a good thing than a worse thing..

?

I don't even have a link to DPR in my Favorites anymore. I have not even been to it for a Long time. Total waste of time as far as I am concerned. Sort of like visiting a Kindergarten class. I guess for the Photo side it somewhat works, but for Video, not so much, well actually hardly at all.. I do watch the Chis and Jordan videos once in awhile on YouTube, but they seem more geared toward 18 year olds than old turds like me. But that is understandable. At least they are a lot more lighthearted than the stiff upper lip, staunched, dead serious stuff from Barney and friends. Sort of reminds me of going to a funeral.

One thing that is kind of crazy about the ND adapter is that there is a clear hopefully, piece of glass there even when you have it set to zero just like any variable ND is. So if you want to take it completely out of the equation if you pull it out of the physical adapter there is nothing to fill or cover up the cavity. You have a open slot there, a buck naked hole. No the best situation to be honest, especially in adverse conditions. And then where to you store the ND Wheel assembly when you Do take it out to boot. Seems like a half thought out idea.

metering/exposure in video mode. You are shooting blind without a External monitor. Crazy stuff. Plus he is big on only 4.2.2 or better. 4.2.0 introduces a lot of Chroma noise, and artifacts. And not Broadcast standard.

Some Slo Mo video from the Ursa Mini G2. https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/6293-here-s-some-more-beautiful-slow-motion-footage-from-blackmagic-s-new-ursa-mini-pro-g2

Yeah that Double Fold seems to be a better option. The Samsung is too narrow folded.

I find to me, that most of the Z6, Z7 footage I have seen come off as Way to dark, too much Contrast and a lot of crushed Blacks. It is just not pretty like Canon footage looks like. Canon has a softer look to it, more Pastel. The Nikon stuff is Gothic looking and is Far from realistic. I am sure you can change it in Post but. I am just not a fan of it at all... YMMV.

Yeah 22,000.00 Dollars is sort of a factor of about 100 for me lol.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/04/12/foton-optics-m1-25-300mm-t2-8-cine-zoom/ https://www.dzoptics.com/en/ That 35mm f1.2 lens they have looks damn nice. No clue of the price? They have a lot of nice toys to buy. Interesting.

I use a small Magic Arm at times. I can't live without Magic Arms of all sizes lol. They are a must have I think. I have used a double male adapter and used it in Portrait position at times on a gimbal also. Kind of strange at first using in that mode but makes for a narrower package. You might get by with a small ball head also. I steal the one off of my Aperture lights at times lol. Hell I will use baling wire if I have too! I have a crazy amount of Camera, Video gear, not many cameras, but a shitpot full of adapters, cables you name it. But I have been at this a Long time. I am bad at buying 4 at a time what i need instead of one. I am pretty damn hard on equipment. Everything to me is a tool, I am not married to it.

I have this one with the handle. I don't trust the ones with springs when you are talking over a 1,000 dollar phones now. And it comes with long and short rods to hold the wide or narrow phones. Damn well made on top of it. And the case is a nice touch also. I have used the heck out of mine, no problems. I keep it in my glove box I use it that much. https://www.amazon.com/RetiCAM-Smartphone-Tripod-Mount-Hand/dp/B00S4NB2IY/ref=sr_1_15?keywords=smartphone+holder+with+pistol+grip&qid=1555389802&s=gateway&sr=8-15

You can probably use it. I used the Canon EF-S 10-22mm on the 5D3 by just setting it to 12mm before I put in on the body. It would vignette like hell on a full frame anyways at 10mm even if I cut the back of the plastic off the lens. You won't be able to use it at 17mm either maybe, so set it to 20mm and see if it works. Don't have the shutter set to anything but single shot at first to try it. It won't fit on if it is going to hit the mirror. It will be a tight fit to even put on at first. You may have to go higher than 20mm. Some text from this site. So yeah 21mm just like I suspected. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=796701 "Okay folks, I just played around with my EF-S lenses on FF to see how things would go. Overall, my impressions are extremely positive. The mirror, as it flipped up and down, swiped against the rear elements a few times as I tested out the extremities of how wide I could go with the 10-22/17-55. Turns out to be around 11.5mm on the 10-22 and 21mm on the 17-55. The rear elements are pretty darn tough as the mirror slams hardly made a mark (and when it did, it easily wiped off). For some reason I had thought that the focal range would be 'translated' on FF, but that's of course wrong. The ranges essentially stay the same, post cropping. If anything, post-cropping, you lose a few millimetres on the wide-end of any potential EF-S zoom. So with that said, that's pretty much the sole disadvantage with using EF-S on FF (besides the framing compromise one has to take). On the other hand, the advantages are notable. Firstly, if you use a single APS-C body and a single FF body whereby some of your EF-S lenses are your primary tools, you can rest easy that if your APS-C body fails during a shoot, the FF body acts fine as a backup. You just lose a few millimetres on the wide-end, but everything else is sweet. That's great for me, who'll be shooting a 5D/30D setup for a little while. Secondly, post-cropping, the pixel density of a current FF body is lower than that of an equivalent APS-C body, and this should inherently remain a fact for a long time to come. A case example is the 5D Mark II vs. the 7D or 50D. Hence using a 17-55 on a 5D Mark II would give you better local micro-contrast and sharpness than using the lens on a 7D or 50D. Notable. Thirdly, and very importantly, the advantages in noise. I'm effectively trading off a few millimetres off the wide-end for an extra 1-2 stop in high-ISO performance (i.e. 50/7D vs. 5D II). Very notable. Fourthly: weight. One of the closest relatives of the 17-55 designed for FF is the 24-70L. But it's much heavier. Of course, as already implied, the 24-70L would be able to go wider than a 17-55 on FF (usable FL, that is), but suppose we can negate this point. Note that the 24-70L doesn't have stabilisation either, so for now, the 17-55 on FF is gonna arguably be the closest thing we have to a 24-70 f/2.8L IS until Canon decides to release such a lens. So in summary, the 17-55 would deliver a similar output on FF compared to a 24-70L, but with stabilisation while offering better balance with the camera (since it's a lighter lens). So yeah, I just had a nice little discovery session. Importantly, I'll be looking forward to using the 17-55 on FF more often and taking advantage of the better image quality and high-ISO performance than one would achieve on a 7D or 50D, with the only real drawback the fact that I lose a few millimetres on the wide-end."

Looks pretty neat for a first try. Damn expensive, but..