zlfan

z6 iii seems very promising, due to: 1. z mount shortest ff flange distance 2. buffer size, 14 bit raw 20 fps for 1000 frames (30 fps for ? frames, 60 fps?) 3. raw video 4. ibis at 8 cipa 5. 4k raw mode may be s35 for all s35 lenses

when you do stitching with gfx or other digital cams, the sensor, especially the stitched gfx 100 mp sensors out resolve the vintage lf lenses by many miles, only the latest rodenstock lf lenses have enough resolution to match. but they are expensive.

m43 or 43 is a cool format actually. ff camera bodies can be very small now, but the lenses are not so easy to scale down. m43 lenses are really cute. also, in the photo world, m43 especially Olympus cameras and lenses are used for birding or other wild life niches, which makes sense very much. 43 lenses are not so smaller than the ff or apsc lenses, but their iqs are great, especially Olympus shg lenses, very very beautiful iq.

I guess eventually you may accumulate several m43 bodies, gh7, chunky yet robust pro body, something like em10 v, small body with interchangeable lens mount, even smaller m43 body with integrated f1.4 prime lens, like Sony rx1. probably each format will have these several layers.

lf twich is not available to the p/s lenses. also p/s lenses can only go to +-8mm, ,y mire ef to m43 p/s adapter can go to +-11mm, lf technical cameras can go much greater ranges. you talked about film look on lf mf, you are right in the photo world, a lot of choice. but Hollywood movies almost exclusively use Kodak vision 50d 250d, 200t 500t. so film look on movies is very defined. r1mx etc are tuned for this film look. I have looked adapting DSLR or mirrorless on lf before. the main thing is you have to have the latest rodenstock lenses, which is about $5000 for one. kind of defeating the purpose using lf with its ample vintage lenses.

about lf or mf look, my personal experience on some historical photos by lf 8x10 technical cameras are much more elegant than those taken by modern phone or crop sensor cameras, on the same scene, buildings, streets, landscape. at first, I did not know why those historical photos are so grandiose, now I think large format contributes to it, also the camera movements help.

thanks for the long reply. all true. regards,

handhold 100 mm on m43 is actually pretty good. I have several 50 mm standard primes. if they are stable enough for video use, it will great. em5 og is tripod like at 25mm, monopod like at 50mm, 100 mm is not stable enough for video work.

seems to me currently the best choice is s 5 2 x. I will follow up with s 5 3. if it incorporates gh 7's features, I will pull the trigger. I have a collection of mf lenses with different brands, formats, and mounts. I think l mount is ok for almost all of them. I hope s 5 3 has ibis similar to gh7 om1 ii.

I tried steadicam. I have a steadicam merlin. the problem is the difficulty to balance. also, I can not do camera angles I like. but if only for flow movements like walking or running, the footage is very pro like.

you are totally right, according to my research on ibis.

I have em5 og, 4 stop ibis

my purpose is to adapt my ff manual focus lenses on this camera for handheld shooting. I know gh7, om1 mkii are good for ibis. but they are maybe only good <100mm. or can they stabilize lenses of 200 mm well?

I get it now. even though people are experienced, they look for different things they like or they emphasize. for example, some one may emphasizes motion cadence of 24p much more than the blurred or jumpy panning, he then focuses on 24p even using thin codec cams. probably he avoids the panning so that to cover the weakness of the cams. I emphasize on clearness of the panning, and I like to do panning, so I use external recorder for thick codecs, and prefer 30 p or 60p, to avoid the bumpy panning. another example, some one emphasizes 3d looking. actually Zeiss c/y 50 mm f1.7 is a very 3d looking affordable lens. sensor size does not contribute much to the 3d looking. so he assumes that there is no mf lf look. I emphasize on the whole image, like tonality, gradation, etc, so I can see the difference. it is good to understand others' perspectives, as sometimes there is no reason to argue at all. but, hey, let's make up something so we can argue and talk. it is fun to debate anyways. lol.

thanks for the info. good to know.

you are an open mind man. I think you are very good to work with in a team, which is a critical factor for a successful dp career.

i agree with you that mf lenses like mamiya are different from hassalblad ones or pentax ones or bronica ones. but larger sensors have smoother tonality, this is for sure. i put my mf lenses on kodak 645 pro and on 5d3 and on apsc cams. kodak 645 pro image just is a totally different level. very noticeable.

in terms of sensor, in the photo world, I think the best sensors are from kodak. fuji super ccd sensor is also very unique. unfortunately, they are not available to the video world. Sony F3 sensor is outstanding, f5 sensor is also very good. but canon c300 sensor is good too, and 5d3ml (c100 mk 2 is little bit lower). so are r1mx epic-x. it is hard for end users to assess sensor quality, as there are other factors kicking in like aa filters, olpf, raw acquire method, etc. I can say that go pro 12 sensor is just at consumer level. you can see that clearly once you try to get good color from it. I suspect Panasonic m43 sensors are also consumer level. Panasonic varicam line cams have excellent sensors.

24p is just a frugal choice. nothing more. in the current era, action packed videos or movies with 24p is just no go if you don't acquire with uncompressed raw. once you pan the camera, even c300 f3 f5 which are considered good cinema or high end doc cams, you see blurred footage. only ml raw give me clear panning. r3d cams are close. 24p with thin codecs is just a joke.

it is interesting to see people with good hands on experience have different opinions. I don't know why. people argue if there is ccd look. both sides are experienced. I was curious and jumped in. I tested myself that ccd actually renders magic in certain light conditions. then I bought dozens of ccd cameras. in 2012, when af100 just came out, people argued about if avchd is as good as prores. both sides were experienced. one guy was even in bbc's avchd committee. I tested af100 with nano flash at 280 mbps I-frame. nano flash footage has wider dr, smoother gradation. I guess that I will stick to my user experience. will see later if there is something more.

a lot options

I can also say that mf lenses on ff or apsc cams have different looks than ff lens on ff cams. The major disadvantage is a little bit loss of sharpness from the former one, but there are many gains. i actually like mf lenses on ff or apsc cams much better. some of my best shots were taken by a hassy 80 mm f2.8 on an apsc cam. all are manual, including the exposure. the exposure meter does not work in this configuration. yet it gives one of the best images i have ever seen.

Also, when 5d2 and 7d just came out in 2009, I spent nights and nights watching almost all of the videos on vimeo shot by these two cameras. I can tell you that they are different, even with the same crappy in stock codec. 5d2 footage just shows some magic eye-catching things there, the color, the gradation, that magic touch that 7d2 footage is lacking. 7D2 footage looks dry whereas 5d2 footage looks juicy. In other words, full frame vv look exists.

do you do development and print by yourself at home, or send to print shops? i ask this question, because improper pp may be where the mf or lf look disappears.

Interesting. You don't believe that mf or lf look exists? This is totally against my experience. I mostly shoot photos with ff and apsc/apsh and 43/m43 cams. When I use Kodak 645 pro, the look is so distinct and so much better, I am happy in heaven. I did not believe that mf or lf look exists. My user experience tells me that it exists.