BTM_Pix

If Panasonic didn't hate us then instead of producing the incremental LX100ii and GX9 they would've merged the two into one camera. And broke whatever weird collusion manufacturers had going on with not putting microphone inputs on compact cameras.

Another opportunity for a trip so another chance to test the Osmo Pocket and Freewell Anamorphic combo (4K/24p mode). I'm pretty sure now that I'm going to move to the Pocket 2 now as being able to use the anamorphic and ND simultaneously combined with the larger sensor and slightly wider native lens will be a worthwhile upgrade.

Osmo Pocket and LX100. IBIS,tilt screen and Cinelike D are big advantages of the GX80/85 but, for me, the (excellent) in built lens of the LX100 makes it more convenient to carry and use.

It was/is a pretty popular camera on here. You might want to consider putting my Cinelike D hack on it for a bit more flexibility.

If you are wanting to capture from a firewire port you'll need 3 cables/adapters From the camera you will need a 4pin to 9 pin Firewire adapter cable. (~ €8 ) That cable then plugs into an Apple Firewire 800 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter. (~ €35 ) You then plug that into an Apple Thundebolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 adapter and finally into the Mac. ( ~ €50 ) If you are wanting to capture from an analogue output from a deck then you could use a BM Analogue To SDI Mini Converter ( ~ €180 ) and then the SDI into the BM UltraStudio Recorder 3G ( ~ €100) which will convert it into Thunderbolt 3 to the Mac. The software that BM provide for the UltraStudio Recorder 3G captures into a range of fornats including 12bit ProRes and the unit also has an HDMI Input so may find a use for you beyond the initial job of transferring your old material.

The only common mount that is shallower than the DJI DL mount is the Nikon Z mount so there is the potential for there to be adapters for pretty much any other lens type. In the four years since it was introduced, though, I'm not sure there actually have been any? For this type of camera, I could certainly see the advantage of there only being four specific lenses (or more when this actually launches) as the firmware can incorporate preset balances for the gimbal to make lens changes quick and painless. How much an advantage the actual lenses themselves are versus a broader choice of focal lengths and speeds etc is less than certain.

The Sigma FP with its Full Frame 8bit RAW to SD card/12bit RAW to tiny SSD/External BRAW and ProRes Raw to HDMI/Removable and tiltable EVF/fully scalable lens options from tiny M mount to FF cine primes and all manual and electronic points in between has just jumped out of my jacket pocket and is screaming "are you not entertained ?"

I think one potential reason for the high visibility placement might be that, when it comes to microphones and the BBC, history has taught Prince Charles to make absolutely sure he can see where they are at all times.

Thank. But, of course, as usual, I will say that any resemblance to deliberate intent when I'm pointing the camera or randomly fiddling with sliders later is purely coincidental !

Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 VM III on a Sigma FP

Sounds like you've rolled your own then !

Not exactly a full blown holiday but had a few days away so took the Osmo Pocket and the Freewell anamorphic adapter to test this theory out and these are grabs from 4K/24p videos. It does OK and its certainly unobtrusive enough in terms of carrying it and using it without attracting any attention. The problem with the Mark 1 though here is that the FOV isn't quite big enough (which is something the vlogging/selfie crowd didn't like about it) so you can end up shooting low and up which fucks the verticals up. The Mark 2 with its wider lens and its ability to use ND and anamorphic simultaneously (its either or with the Mark 1) is now showing me a lot of ankle.

Here is an example from my Sigma FP shooting simultaneous JPEG+RAW stills with the JPEG on the top and the RAW on the bottom. The only differences are the expected ones regarding colour, contrast, WB etc baked into the JPEG by whatever profile I had active in the camera at the time. This next one is from yesterday on my LX100 shooting RAW+JPEG, again straight out of camera with the JPEG on the top and the RAW on the bottom. With this one we again have the expected differences from the JPEG profile but obviously from the RAW you can see the large amount of optical correction that the camera is performing to remove the distortion etc of the lens for the JPEG. From the point of view of operating the camera, this is irrelevant as it has happened before it hits the EVF or LCD so your framing view will be of the corrected image. In terms of the JPEG or if you are shooting video then, again, its an irrelevance as the corrections are baked in. For RAW files though, the corrections are not applied but they are only a click away in your editing software so, again, its no big deal. The problem would come though if you somehow managed to remove that lens and put it on a camera that doesn't have the correction built in. Which brings us to using MFT lenses on a Pocket 4K. I've just gone outside to do this quick and dirty illustration of a typical example with the Panasonic/Leica 12-40mm f2.8-4 on my Panasonic GX80 shooting RAW+JPEG and Pocket 4K shooting CDNG. On top we have the JPEG from the GX80, then the RAW from the GX80 in the middle and finally the CDNG from the Pocket 4K on the bottom. (* I was shooting 16:9 stills on the GX80 with regard to the JPEG but the RAW file is still 4:3) Ignore the framing and colour differences as it was just a quick handheld test but as you can see the in camera corrections have taken a large amount of the distortion visible in the RAW away when producing the JPEG. However, this is not the case with the P4K frame and without the in built correction the distortion is there in all its glory as it was with the RAW file on the GX80. Of course, you can perform the corrections yourself on the P4K footage when you are editing but its another step and will have to be done on every clip. There is also the penalty of the correction necessitating some degree of cropping in most cases so, unlike the cameras with built in correction, you will have to take this into account for your framing when shooting. The degree to which correction is necessary will vary a lot from lens to lens and obviously wider angle lenses will need closer attention hence why I would recommend checking each particular lens on the P4K itself before buying to make sure you are comfortable with it. I think the Voigtlander 17.5mm is quite popular on here with people using MFT cameras so if someone could do the same RAW+JPEG still on a GH5 etc then you'd have a fair idea of how it will behave uncorrected. I think a few people use it with the P4K too so that would obviously be even more indicative.

I think the LX100 is worth a look if you are looking to do street photography. It has a standard 24-70 FOV zoom range lens that is f1.7 at the wide end and f2.8 at the long end and, as has been discussed on here multiple times, its a great lens that happens to have a free body attached. Control wise it has dedicated aperture ring, shutter speed and exposure compensation dials so its really quick to use and, as they are more substantial than those of the GR, I prefer it operationally over the GR. You'll lose the thinner form factor of the GR by virtue of the size of the lens but the actual camera body is more or less the same and the LX100 is still on the plausible side of pocketable. It is certainly far more compact than even a small MFT body like the GX85 with an equivalent 12-35mm f2.8 lens on it. What you will gain over the GR is a serviceable EVF and 4K 24p video recording when you feel the need. The clincher really is the price in that, although they've gone up in price like most used products in the past year, you can still pick up a good condition LX100 mark 1 for about £250 or less. For context, that is way less than half the price of a used version of the 12-35mm f2.8 lens let alone the cost of an MFT body to mount it on. A word of caution regarding using the P4K with native MFT electronic lenses such as the Panasonic and Olympus etc is the amount of lens corrections that those MFT cameras do, particularly on wide angles. The P4K does not have any of those corrections so if you do go for a P4K check any prospective lens on the camera to make sure you are comfortable with the uncorrected performance of it.

Thanks. Its more a case of revisiting hard drives and finding stuff I'd been doing with the XT-2 before I fell out with Fujifilm ! Looking at some of it does make me think "well I've got all the redundant glass so maybe a used X-T4 at the right price might be worth picking up". But then I will inevitably think "Or...I could sell all that and use the additional cash I was going to send on an X-T4 and be a long way towards being able to get a GFX100S instead". You know how that goes. I think it is definitely going to be the holiday camera setup from now on if such a thing as holidays ever return ! The only downer is that you can't use NDs with it. But the new version they do for the Osmo Pocket 2 does allow that as you get small slivers of ND that mount magnetically on the rear of the anamorphic element. So, you know how that will go ! In general it isn't dramatic when it comes to flaring. But obviously if you point a torch etc directly at it then you will end up with more flares than a Northern Soul all nighter at Wigan Casino.

The cheap and cheerful Fuji XC50-230mm (mark 1) Frame grab from a 4K internal recording on an XT-2.

Sigma 50mm f2.8 APS-C Lens * * Fixed lens on the Sigma DP3 Merrill. 75mm FOV but easily enough resolution for 105mm when you need it. Quite decent macro performance too.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 APS-C Lens * * Fixed lens on the Sigma DP1 Merrill. 27mm FOV but with the resolution in the camera for it to be 35mm when you need it.

Please fuck off with the "inserting dubious link into my quoted message" stuff.

Sigma 14mm f4 APS-C Lens * * Fixed lens on the Sigma DP0. Shot in 65x24 AR on the DP0 and posted as an FYI for anyone interested in doing Hasselblad XPan style stuff without dropping £4K 😉

Osmo Pocket (mark 1) with the Freewell anamorphic adapter.

Here is a short comparison of them on a Sony Venice. They look quite different so if you happen to prefer the look of version 1 anyway then you are in luck financially.

Just buy a UMP12K and fake the multi cameras 😉

Please don't waste your time posting responses to this arsehole. His entire posting history consists of inserting those same dodgy links into threads that he has started.

Ah...oops !