kye

No external audio input.....  bummer!

Shot and edited this today with the setup I pictured above.  GF3 + 14mm F2.5 + Manfrotto pocket tripod.

Shot in full auto with manual focus (because there are no settings available in video mode except focus mode, and autofocus is sloooow and hunts a bit), editing and colour in Resolve.

The setup was a PITA really, the tripod either obscures the screen or the MF ring on the lens, which is focus by wire, the screen is fixed so good angles are almost blind, there's no focus assists during recording apart from a slider showing you where in the focus range you are (when you stop recording it shows a small 1:1 crop so if the focus distance isn't changing then it's ok) and it's so small it's hard to hold steady although the tripod actually helps as a bit of a handle.

Not bad for a metal body camera that came with two lenses, memory card, battery, charger, UV filter, screen protector, air blower, and many other things for under $450 about a decade ago.  Of course, we're now in 2018 and I'd rather a setup that was nicer to hold, use, and could be configured in any way at all

It takes great photos though, and has full manual controls as well as RAW in stills mode.  Pity about video mode.

Just now, Turboguard said:

Not a trained audio guy really. Know the basics, but can set audio levels and talk in some environments that I would assume would be what you’d try to do with it without external mics.

That would be awesome.  I generally just hold the camera a set distance from my head and then just say "back of the camera" "90 degrees" and "facing straight on" as I turn the camera around and that's enough to get an idea of what kind of rejection quality and handling noise there is.

I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum on this camera - if I get one it would be as minimal a setup as possible.  Potentially just the camera and one lens.

Thanks!!

36 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

If I get mine tomorrow I can do every single test anyone needs on here. I need to learn the camera so what better way than to take requests!

Could you possibly test the quality, directionality and if there's camera handling noise from the internal mics please?  I've got a suspicion they've done something very clever with them..

@mercer Yes, absolutely.  I'm not sure it's the lens that makes magic in that case, but it's still wonderful.  That was one of the videos I analysed when I was trying to work out how people shoot travel videos without IS, and I did note the tripod-like shots, which work for the tranquil style and pace of the video.

And so, I now extend my travel kit to the 14mm F2.5, Panny GF3 camera body, and Manfrotto tiny tripod!  If I also use my 256Gb SD card, with the ~20Mbps codec it will give me enough space to shoot however much I want, so no pressure to download footage each day  

That may be one of the smallest ILC with tripod setups ever!

@BTM_Pix I'm also one of these crazy film-makers that don't use every special effect in the book to try and jazz up dull footage with no storyline

One of the reasons I chose Resolve was that it was a basic editor but advanced in colour processing and things like stabilisation.  This is because my edits to date have only involved straight cuts and the odd dissolve (which I use as a scene change queue).  However, colour being so important it's great to have the tools really available - the colour performance of the other "all in one" packages is laughable, and stabilisation and other things like that to compensate for my shooting style and lack of skill

I don't own a drone either, and I'm not looking to buy one.

On 10/2/2018 at 9:40 AM, thebrothersthre3 said:

I feel like most people using an FS5 need the cinema camera layout not just the image quality. 

That's what I think too - it's a pity the manufacturers don't seem to share this view!

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Just paste the Vimeo URL and it will automatically embed

It also does that for images too - just paste the URL.

I discovered that by accident yesterday, it's very handy indeed!

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

If you're looking for something compact, versatile and with one eye on not being too far out of pocket if it gets stolen or breaks then......

You might want to consider a used DJI Osmo Plus.

I considered the Osmo camera some years ago - it definitely doesn't get the respect it deserves.  Cameras that don't shoot shallow DoF are almost automatically scorned online unfortunately.

However, after @mercer suggested I take a G85 to India and I was looking at lenses, I realised that I have an old Panasonic GF3 and 14mm F2.5 lens in the back of the cupboard that would be perfect.  The lens is a flexible focal length, and its F5 equivalent is close to the FF F4 Iook that I believe I want.  The GF3 isn't a camera to write home about (for video anyway - it takes lovely stills), but it's tiny and will do the job of letting me test my one camera / one lens theory.

Basically my theory is that having one camera and one lens with IQ that has magic will be better than a more flexible setup that is super flexible and can shoot almost anything but has no soul.  I don't think either the 14mm F2.5 or GF3 have magic, but at least this will be a real test of the concept of having a less flexible setup and see if it works for how I shoot.

What lens would you choose to use for the rest of your life?

What is your favourite lens?

What is the lens you would most like to own?

With the announcement of various new lens mounts what lenses would tempt you to change systems?

I'm increasingly realising that it's the lens that makes the magic rather than the codec or colour science, and my desire for shallower DoF than my XC10 can provide means I'll be changing systems.  What are the lenses I should be lusting after, and then trying to find a camera body for?

If you want to make a recommendation, I do home, event and travel videos for fun, so the results don't have to be saleable, but the lens should be relatively well-rounded.  Zooms are ok if they are magical.

9 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

It's funny you should say that....

I saw this in a shop at the weekend and you immediately came to mind !

It's a bit of a jack of all trades as its a monopod and also has three leg base but these are weighted so that its actually very stable as a tripod substitute.

However, they also fold up not only for shorter storage but also act as a counter balance for its other trick which as you can see by the handle is to transform it into a steadicam.

The monopod itself is carbon fibre which obviously makes it lighter in the bag but heavier on the wallet and there are a couple of versions of it for different camera loads.

I think the price is a bit steep but this was in MediaMarkt which isn't exactly bargain world for a lot of things. I had a quick Google and the aluminium versions of the smaller one as well as different manufacturers of it are a lot cheaper online.

Obviously, I couldn't try it out in the shop so have a scout on YouTube etc for reviews but it seems like it could be a useful product. 

Unless it's shit of course

You thought of me?  That may be a sign you should seek professional help! ???

That monopod did look interesting though, and I've contemplated a steadicam too.  I've never owned a monopod and I'm tempted to buy a super-cheap aluminium one just to 'understand' it.  

I analysed a couple of my finished videos and looked at every shot and thought about how I got the shot and if I could have used a tripod, and the short answer was that very few shots were tripod-compatible in the sense that either I couldn't get the tripod into the location (art galleries, museums, events, etc), the shot was taken faster than I would have had time to setup for, the shot required the camera to move, or the subject was moving too fast or too much during the shot for it to work.  There are some shots where a tripod would be great however, like pans of a nice scenic lookout, and these are the shots where I miss that next level of stabilisation.  In this sense a monopod would be great, especially if it was really light.

I really do struggle with equipment, and my next scenic trip is to India, which is with a humanitarian organisation to go and see the work they're doing as well as see a bit of the country.  As I'm not a professional I think I'd feel awkward showing up to see people who live in poverty with a huge camera and no reason for it other than it's a hobby.  I'm tempted to use it as a film-making development opportunity and just use my iPhone or perhaps something like the new GoPro because of the stabilisation.  I'm also a little bit concerned for the security aspects, and I'm also a bit concerned because whenever I do a tour of some kind the guide always sees my camera and thinks I'm a pro and asks me to send my finished video to them so they can use it for marketing - too much pressure!!  One of the reasons I like photography is there's no pressure..  If I only take my phone then I can use that as an excuse to limit expectations

In a sense, this thread is completely opposite to that - a modular cinema camera + cine lens + screen is a more professional setup, but once you have a camera bigger than a pocket camera I think everyone thinks you're a pro and the size doesn't matter much beyond that point

I also use those padded camera insert bags.

I put one at the bottom of my backpack, so that I can put things on top of it.  This has a few advantages:

• the bag doesn't look like a camera bag, so is potentially less attractive to thieves
• you can use different bags depending on the task (eg, a day bag vs a carry-on)
• by putting things on top of the insert (eg, a jumper) then it's not entirely obvious you have equipment in there, even if the bag is open
• you can open your backpack and put it on your chest and putting your hands in from the sides there's room to change a lens in there without it being directly exposed to rain / wind / dust or even being very visible that you're doing it, and you can do that while standing or walking too so it's really handy

At home I just put things in drawers from Ikea.  Drawers keep things from gathering dust unlike shelves or lid-less containers.

3 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Dear god, now a faster HDR is "a whole new camera"? Most flagship phones are doing it already (for a few generations), so a faster processors that can process a few additional frames does not equal "a whole new camera". HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it. Did Apple decide that the hardware cannot be improved? Are their engineers being beaten by Ive every time they suggest a little bit thicker camera module?

Maybe they should start an honest campaign - this is a small as hell sensor, so don't expect it to blow away your dedicated ILC. But we can blur the background for you, so there's that.

In a sense, it is a whole new camera.  A camera is really a sensor + lens + controller + post processing, and if the sensor is new, if the FOV is wider (it might be the same lens though), if the controller makes different decisions, and if the post processing is also significantly altered then that would represent a relatively significant change.  Marketing does tend to over-do everything, but it's not like they tweaked the settings a bit and called it a day.  

The article is interesting in the sense that Apple has basically departed from the traditional approach to photography.  The traditional approach to photography is that you expose once, and apart from your "colour science" the rest is about using the purist and highest performing elements - the best sensors lenses filters and everything else.  Computational photography says "screw that" and basically reverse-engineers the whole process of arriving at a nice image and ends up having taken a completely different route.

If you do traditional analysis on a device that uses computational photography then it won't apply, it's just different.

Computational photography is just getting started, so it's a bit early to judge.  In terms of your question - "HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it" the answer is that Apple took a ~$30 camera module, put it in a phone, made it the most popular camera on earth, and made zillions of dollars on it.

Go ahead and tell me they're wrong, but show me your world famous camera and fat bank account while you're at it, or I might not believe that you know better than they do....  ???

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Which is why you then need an Easyrig (or at least a shoulder rig, but that is limiting in various aspects, and still is not something you want to do for very long periods once it gets heavy). 

I should also say that I've contemplated buying a monopod, as this could be used as a counterbalance when hand-holding the camera, but would also take the weight and give me completely stable shots, which even though I hand-hold, is still the goal for maybe half the shots I shoot.

4 hours ago, noone said:

Oly has the 2 four thirds DSLR f2 zooms that can adapt to M43 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2

Sigma has the 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8 APSC lenses

Tokina has the 14-20 f2 APSC lens.

Sigma has the 24-35 f2 FF lens.

Those Olympus zooms are interesting, although they are only F4 equivalent.

I didn't know about the Tokina 14-20 F2 - that's an interesting lens although the zoom range seems very short!

The Sigma zooms are great for APSC because they're the direct equivalent of the 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 pro lenses.  In stills photography they're referred to as The Holy Trinity which is made up of the 14-24 F2.8, the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8.

But that's my point, there doesn't seem to be a direct equivalent for m43 of those lenses, which would be 7-11 F1.4, 12-35 F1.4 and 35-100 f1.4 

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Nope, maybe I should do a vlog with it?

Please do!  

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I bet the reason is : BOTH! 

Both is due to their cinema camera world view, and for cost cutting measures. 

Yeah, I agree.  Unfortunately for us!

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yeah. Even I am sitting on the fence about using this.  Do I want to go this far? 

I sympathise.  In a sense I'm at the next "tier" down from you in weight, but was wondering what a heavier setup looked like and how much heavier it can be without it becoming an issue.

In a way it's a compounding weight problem.  Adding 1-2kg to a camera might mean getting a larger rig, which will add a huge amount of weight to the setup, and also size, which means you need larger cases to carry everything around..  etc etc etc.

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

Parker Wallbeck is shooting this commercial handheld with a Red and beefy Sigma Art lens, but not all of us have got biceps like that!

I think I might have thighs like that!

Whilst out shooting one day I contemplated if I should buy some of those weights you strap around your wrists as a kind of training regimen!

3 hours ago, Shirozina said:

The main reason pro cinema cameras don't need stabilised lenses is not the weight but that with a global shutter camera movement is a lot less irritating / noticable. 

That would help, but I suspect it's the rotational inertia (weight at distance) of the setups, or that these cameras are normally mounted to something that makes the most difference.

4 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

But by the time you get to that point, then you can no longer hold it steady for any extended period of time. Which is why you then need an Easyrig (or at least a shoulder rig, but that is limiting in various aspects, and still is not something you want to do for very long periods once it gets heavy). 

Have been very seriously considering getting a knock of Easyrig from China to use with my Sony PMW-F3 rig.

Yes, I feared as much.  I just got back from a trip where my rig was the XC10 and Rode VMP+ and all I took was a wrist strap and I kind of regret not taking a shoulder strap as carrying around the camera while not using it got a bit tiring on the hand, and that rig isn't that heavy compared to what we're talking about here!

An easy rig is way beyond where I'm willing to go, personally. 

16 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Yes, the KineMON monitor (and power for it, uses an integrated cable like say RED/Sony/Canon do) is just a small 5" one you can clip onto the top of the camera. 
The battery is just a small Sony BP-U30 that slots into the KineGrip side handle. 
The whole thing is not too dissimilar in total size to what a large-ish DSLR might by like a 5D or perhaps D5 might be. 

That's interesting, thanks.  I just started a new thread partially inspired by your suggestion

18 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

And with 9mm f8 it is easy to get your subject in focus even with manual focus!

I've owned one myself for years. 

Have you recorded video with it?  I don't think I've seen any from this lens - only stills.

14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I’d pass on the KineMon if it’s only 500 nits.

I guess it depends on what you're filming and how good it is at focus-peaking and other assists.  If, like me, you're just capturing what happens, then keeping the composition and focus right can be enough, although I'll definitely agree that brighter would be better!

I shoot hand-held, but because camera shake isn't my aesthetic I naturally assumed that OIS and IBIS were the only solutions, but I'm now wondering if the weight of some of the cine lenses will be as good as OIS.

With rigs that have heavier cine lenses do you need OIS?

I was inspired by this video which has great looking output and looks (relatively) compact.

That setup looks like an XT-3 with Ninja V and MKX 18-55 cine lens.  There are lots of other options too, for example a C100 or Pocket4K with appropriate cine glass.

I am a little bit apprehensive of the weight too, considering that I carry my rig for hours at a time, although if it was something special I'm sure I could get some comfy straps.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

As well as the BMPCC4K, the Kinefinity Terra 4K is also smaller than a C100.

Even in a full rig with monitor and power?  That would be interesting to see, but still no IBIS I think!

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Stick with the Olympus 9mm f/8 Fisheye Body Cap lens! 

That lens is famous in street photography circles.

It is really wide, which is desirable.  There's a saying "if your photos aren't good enough then you're not close enough" so wide and close was the combo to have.

It is MF and has a mechanical control that your muscle memory can learn and then rely on.

It is F8 which is about right for the genre, anything shallower and you don't have time to take the shot, and anything deeper is probably too slow and doesn't have enough separation.  I don't know about eye-focus or anything with the latest cameras, but people with all types of camera would "zone focus" because acquiring focus took too long, not too long on certain cameras/lenses, but too long in any case.  This gives you MF that can be adjusted, which is kind of the best of both worlds.

It is soft, which is desirable because in combination with a bit of ISO noise, makes everything look like film, which is the right aesthetic.

It is cheap cheap cheap!!

I have been half tempted to get a Pocket2 with a fixed lens as a 'special projects' camera, in addition to the setup that I've been pursuing with a flexible zoom lens.  My thoughts were that the fixed lens would have to be a walk-around lens and would have to be special in some way, otherwise a zoom would be better because of the flexibility.  A Pocket2 with one of these on it might be a fascinating thing to see the output of.

9 hours ago, mercer said:

Yup, you must’ve been... or there aren’t “wrong focal lengths.”

Maybe he wasn’t looking for the same shots you were?

There aren't wrong focal lengths of course, only tools for a job.

I've been told many times that shooting with only one prime is a great way to focus yourself and really learn how to see what the camera sees before holding it up. I can also totally understand if someone really likes the feel of a certain lens and just wants to use that. 

I did my fair share of street photography, much of it with the 14mm F2.5 m43 lens and have shot enough now to also be able to 'see' a range of shots that are possible with a zoom lens, and frequently would walk into a place, shoot half a dozen or more compositions in my head before rejecting all of them and not bother to do anything with the camera even though it is in my hand.

In my case I'm looking to tell the story of the event or trip and so I really want to be able to capture anything I can see, unfortunately that would require something like a 10-600mm lens which is obviously out of the question. I can crop into the footage to extend the long end and also the viewer will also unconsciously crop when they see the bit of the frame with the action in it. I can also extend the wide end of the lens by panning or tilting which in a way creates a reveal, but if you're at the top of a mountain it's still a bit like looking at the world through the mail slot.

8 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think like a lot of gentlemen of a certain age, I have an attachment to 50mm as its what we all had as our standard lenses when we got our first SLRs and used them to shoot dinosaurs roaming in the local park.

I'm sure Google has a way of generating EXIF from any image so when they tire of snooping on us electronically and invent a way of physically sifting through our cupboards and drawers undetected they'll scan all those negs and slides from latter part of the 20th century and we'll find that about 75% of pictures were taken on a 50mm.

I never really bought into the 50mm being closest to what the eye sees - or at least concentrates on for want of a better expression - but its not totally far off.

I suspect its probably even less so now though for people who have grown up looking at the world through a 28mm equivalent on their iPhones as they have developed a wider (yet simultaneously narrower  ) viewpoint of what is standard.

Anyway, a couple more from the 7Artisans 50mm f1.1 at narrower apertures to balance out the previous glowfest examples of shooting it wide open.

 

You're probably right, but definitely hilarious! ?

7 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Cameras have pros and cons. All of them. We should all know that.

+1

And we should all work hardware to understand how we shoot and what our requirements are.

Of course, if they just go ahead and make a FF Arri with GH5 stabilisation in the body of a C100 we can all stop hanging out and making excuses and go make the best darn cat videos the world has even seen!

On 9/29/2018 at 10:05 AM, jonpais said:

A dissenting view to Lens Rentals, in which Lloyd Chambers criticizes the increasingly common habit of companies publishing charts showing MTF results without distortion correction applied, claiming that lenses can never achieve the same results with correction enabled, that certain lenses actually require correction in software (Fuji X in Adobe Camera RAW for example) and that correction actually hurts micro contrast.

The benefits of such software correction are obvious: cost reduction and the ability to design smaller, lighter lenses. The problem as I see it is when using lenses relying on software correction on a body without such software, like the P4K.

We are seeing some manufacturers allow disabling in-camera vignetting and diffraction correction and perhaps in the distant future a fn button can disable them all. But I still see Lloyd’s rant as a bit of a tempest in  teapot, since most if not all manufacturers’ charts are nothing more than idealized computer generated models based on fairy tale conditions. Which is where Lens Rentals comes in...

Really they should test them both with and without the corrections, but that would be too much work I'd wager!

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Idk, I have to agree with Mattias on this one. In FF, 35mm and 50mm are my favorite focal lengths... I could film an entire movie with either focal length if I was forced to use only one lens. And for aps-c,  24mm and 35mm FF lenses are fairly inexpensive and they both equate to 35mm and 50mm respectively. Logical choices IMO.

35mm equivalent is a very good walk-around focal length, so if you want flexibility but want the benefits of a prime then it's a good choice.

Yesterday I stood in line for the Pantheon behind a guy with a 6D, a 50mm prime and no bag (so potentially no others lenses). I have no idea what images he took, but my 24-240mm zoom was still not wide or long enough for many shots so I guess we were all shooting with the wrong focal lengths!

+1 for @webrunner5s post.

I side some testing of different apertures vs depth and discovered that I only need F4 equivalent to get the look I'm going for.

I also made a few videos at F2.8 equivalent and many shots were too blurred.

I'd recommend to anyone that they test out different settings and see what works for them. On FF going to F4 from F2.8 means the lens is smaller, lighter, cheaper and if it's a zoom is probably longer and also has OIS.

The footage does look pretty good, and assuming the stabilisation is done before the compression it will help to get the most from the limited bitrate.

Be aware that any official footage will be the absolute best possible, so ensure that you look at real-world examples too.

It does look pretty tempting though.

When is it shipping?