bjohn

Wow! I'm going to get some. That's about what I get from a Canon battery on my BMMCC and it's totally acceptable. With the earlier batteries, I had about enough time to set up the date and time, white balance, metadata, etc. and then changed batteries to do the actual shoot.

I know this is way off topic, but I read somewhere that the newest generation of Nikon batteries that fit the original Pocket have longer life: you can probably run the Pocket for a whole 20-25 minutes on one instead of the 10-15 minutes max that I got from my old ones. I just use a NP-F adapter nowadays; haven't used internal batteries in years.

Funny we were just discussing Octopus above; they just made this announcement: Following lots of feedback, we have decided to consolidate our camera development work so far into a new camera product better poised for ultra-low-budget filmmaking — an underserved area. Internal RAW. 5K+ resolution. True pocket-size. Under 700€. We will make an official announcement of the product in the new year. The current high-end 8K model is still in development for bespoke client camera requirements.

If I remember correctly, it's so modular that you can even choose what sensor you put in it. I've been following that project for a few years with interest but it always seems so close and yet so far. Now they say "Coming 2023" but I remember seeing Coming 2020, Coming 2021, Coming 2022 so we'll see when/if it actually happens.

On the one hand this sounds farfetched and on the other it might come true. It's farfetched because FCPX is still popular, especially in Europe in broadcast and advertising, and nothing holds a candle to it as an editor. Resolve's Cut page doesn't come close, and despite its lack of an audio mixer FCPX has efficient audio workflows once you understand how they work. Many people edit in FCPX and export the xml to do the rest in Resolve. Resolve, on the other hand, appeals to track-based traditionalists and I think there's be an exodus or at least a lot of complaining if Resolve ever adopted FCPX's layer- and roles-based approach, magnetic timeline, etc. There are a lot of FCPX haters out there, and a lot of people who abandoned Final Cut for other NLEs once FCPX was released. It's true that Apple hasn't made any significant updates to FCPX in a while, although personally I think that's a benefit because it's hard to keep up with the pace of new features and workflow changes in Resolve. Being Mac-only, FCPX is a reason to own a Mac and Apple would be dumb to give that incentive away. Same goes for Logic. Still, the apparent lack of resources devoted to FCPX and Logic does suggest that Apple's priorities are elsewhere and it might eventually offload them.

Haha, that's cool! The "follow focus" for focus-by-wire lenses may not work out too well, though; I've used that same feature on the One Little Remote and while you can focus pretty accurately with the dial, as soon as I hit the record button on either of my BMMCCs, the lens goes out of focus and you have to start over. This affects the Panasonic 12-35 zoom, which is the only focus-by-wire lens I own. Doesn't happen on my Pocket cinema camera, only on the BMMCC, and I've heard similar reports from other users. It actually used to work fine, but at some point it didn't anymore (I'm running the latest applicable firmware on all cameras, but this happened long after I updated firmware to the latest version).

True, the FX3 has made significant inroads in the broadcast market. But still it's weird to call these "cinema" cameras. They are not. Maybe they're better described as broadcast cameras but that doesn't have the same cachet.

It's pretty clear that this is being called a cine camera to give it some mojo, but its target audience is so-called "content creators" for youtube.

Moreover, how do you call something a cine camera when it only offers shutter speeds, not shutter angles, and doesn't display frame rates accurately (23.98 is displayed as 24)?

The pans in the video definitely look like image stabilization was on. It causes those slight hesitations. Image stabilization should always be turned off when panning or tilting; either use a tripod, a gimbal, or a Steadicam/glidecam for those situations and leave IS off (both in the camera and on the lens if the lens has stabilization).

The only challenge I've found is finding new media that can support 60fps compressed CDNG. For everything else the Angelbird cards that were tested for original BMPCC work (although they are very pricey). The cheap Kingston cards seem to work for many people but mine only lasted about 6 months. I fortunately have a good stash of the original SanDisk 64 gig cards that met the spec back in the day and continue to use those along with the Angelbird 128gig cards.

Do you have image stabilization turned on? Turn it off when panning or tilting, otherwise you can get herky-jerky lags.

I agree that there's no evidence of anamorphic lenses in those photos. If you like that photographer, you might want to check out Adolfo Rozenfeld, one of the world's premiere non-studio portrait photographers. He's based in Buenos Aires; uses mainly vintage lenses, on film cameras as well as Sony mirrorless. He also gives workshops; I took his portrait and lighting workshop last summer and it was brilliant (and very affordable for what you get). He's a great teacher. A lot of what I learned will help me in my video work as well. His photos look casual and candid but often entail weeks of pre-production (he visits people in their homes or asks them to send him photos, so he can plan color combinations and lighting). He spends a lot more time on pre-production than post.

What software do you use to process your photos?

It is indeed puzzling. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't decide to get an A7iv as my second camera for stills; I'll either get an original A7s or another A7iii. Almost all my lenses are from the 1940s-1980s; I only own three modern ones. All my lenses perform beautifully on the A7iii.

Based on BTM_Pix's post above, try repeating the tests focusing on the switch every time, using a tripod so the lenses are in the exact same position for every photo and you aren't changing the distance from the camera to the subject (as you get closer to MFD, the image will be affected). If possible, don't use focus peaking on either camera but use the punch-in feature and focus by eye to make sure the letters on the switch are sharp.

In every case, the A7iv photo appears to be more zoomed in; are you using it in APS-C mode?

I don't think that's it, since people use these and other vintage lenses on the A7riii and A7riv with no complaints. I wonder if the sensor stack was modified on the A7iv compared with the A7iii. I wonder if the use of focus peaking could also be a factor here, since it's not very reliable in all situations.

Are you shooting raw or JPEG? I've never shot JPEGs on my A7iii so I don't know if they would look different but raw has always been fine with the Minolta lenses. The only lenses that have given me any trouble due to the thicker sensor stack are wide-angle rangefinder (M mount and some LTM mount) lenses. I use a 35mm Canon LTM lens on my A7iii all the time with no issues, but I have a 28mm MS Optical M-mount lens that shows extreme corner smearing; that's due to the filter stack. I try not to go wider than 35mm. I haven't seen any reports of other people having issues with vintage lenses on Sony A7iv.

I only asked because some cheap adapters aren't quite the right length, which can affect focus but mainly at infinity (which is not what you were shooting at in your examples). The Rokkors perform beautifully on Sony A7iii so it's hard to understand why they wouldn't perform as well on the A7iv.

I've been using Minolta MC and MD Rokkor lenses for the past 3-4 years on Sony A7iii with no issues, most rangefinder lenses also are great on the A7iii as long as they're 35mm or longer; the wider rangefinder lenses (28 and wider) tend to have more problems with corner smearing and other issues related to the thicker Sony sensor stack. That's not an issue with the Rokkors of course. So if you're experiencing problems with Rokkors on the A7iv, it's due to that particular camera. It's not the higher resolution that's the issue, since plenty of people use Rokkors on the A7r-series cameras, which have much higher resolution than the A7iv. What adapter are you using for SR mount to E mount? The Novoflex is the best, although pricey.

I didn't mean to imply that stabilization was at play -- that guy prefers the original A7s because it's smaller and lighter (stabilization in the A7sii added a bit of weight and size to the camera). It's a different sensor than the later models, still 12.2 megapixels but not the same sensor technology. I have to say it does look great and I'm tempted, especially since the A7s is quite affordable on the used market. Hopefully I didn't just change that situation. 🙂

Good to know. I know of one photographer who claims that the best Sony camera for vintage glass is the first-generation A7s, the one before they added image stabilization. I have the A7iii and have been happy with it (never use it for video, though); I am intrigued enough about the original A7s that I might get one to see. The photographer I'm referring to says that about half the shots in this album were with the A7s; the other with Leica M9, all using vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/street And most of the shots in this album were with the original A7s with vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/bts

I'm holding out for an M2 Mini, which seems like it should be on the not-to-distant horizon, either later this year or sometime next. I'm still using a 2013 trashcan Mac Pro for Resolve, which still works fine, but it won't be compatible with future versions of Mac OS. I love the Mini form factor (I have a 2014 i5 Mini as well) and since I'm only editing HD footage I think the Studio would be overkill.

Does it actually have a S16 window or do you mean you can successfully crop it to S16 in post due to the higher-resolution sensor?