Dude_ger Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Hi guys, with the upcoming gh5 i decided to switch from FF to this new format, and i am really looking forward to use the 4:3 mode (completely new to Anamorphic, but i worked at a cine rental and so i am somehow familliar with Lenses). So thanks to the great input from Andrew and Tito and some days research, my choice will be a Kowa B&H or 16h/8s with Rangefinder or the SLR Magic 2x with rangefinder. The Kowa seems to take wide opener apertures but is really hard to find, especially in Germany. So the SLR Magic will be my ringboy when it comes to production and i still did not manage to get a nice Kowa. So maybe you can help me out with some questions- When talking about min. focal length on the adapters, for example: FF:85mm, APSC:50mm and 4/3: 40mm, the 40mm is the FF equivalent, right? So i can go with a 20mm on the GH5 in this case? With the full sensor readout on GH5, what do you think will be the widest i can go with the Kowa and Slr Magic? I defenitely will go with some prime lenses in the future, but i also have a one hand gimbal and the first thing to buy is a light lens with OIS, so i was looking for a pancake, like the 14-42 or maybe 20mm. Someone said that a Pancake even works better with an anamorphotic adapter, will it be possible to mount them on the 14-42? (I know Andrew did it with the 20mm). Thanks so much for answers, and i am really happy to join the Anamorphic family (ok, one month still to wait for the camera...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Hey Dude! Regarding your first question, no, that is NOT the FF equivalent, but the cropped lens. You can use the calculator and most of your issues can be sorted out! www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go It doesn't have specs for the GH5 yet, but I'm sure you can work it out based on the GH4. Zooms are not ideal for many reasons, especially because of the design, which favors vignetting from the adapters. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_ger Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Thanks man, i love you Yeah i already tried the calculator, but with not being sure about the first point, it was let´s say.. difficult. So there´s no 2x adapter Lens which will allow to go under 80mm FF equiv. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 9 hours ago, Dude_ger said: Thanks man, i love you Yeah i already tried the calculator, but with not being sure about the first point, it was let´s say.. difficult. So there´s no 2x adapter Lens which will allow to go under 80mm FF equiv. ? lomo 35mm funkyou86 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Yeah, and a 35, 50, 80 Square Front PL mount will only cost you like $25,000.00 bucks. Gasp! But in reality, worth it. But easy to spend your money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 lomo 35mm fullframe ) Dr. Verbel', keessie65, funkyou86 and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_ger Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 Lucky you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 You can get away with full sensor coverage with the Helios (58mm) and a Kowa B&H. For 2.4 crop, I think you could even go as low as 40mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_ger Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 Ah, and here comes my misunderstanding thing angain.. So on a Fullframe you can go wider? Because 40mm on a 2.4 crop equals 96 on FF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timotheus Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Dude_ger said: Ah, and here comes my misunderstanding thing angain.. So on a Fullframe you can go wider? Because 40mm on a 2.4 crop equals 96 on FF It's the other way around. When using a smaller sensor, you have to use a wider lens to get the same FOV as a larger sensor camera. Using your example: shooting from the same spot with both a FF camera and a 2.4x crop camera you achieve the same FOV ('framing') when using a 40mm lens on 2.4x crop and 96mm on fullframe. (If you also want to achieve the same DOF, you have to apply the crop factor calculation on the f-stop as well). So if the widest taking lens for a given anamorphic is 85mm on fullframe, it can be around 50mm on APS-C and around 40mm on MFT...all giving more or less the same FOV! Reading up on equivalence is useful, check https://***URL removed***/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_ger Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 Yeah got it, somehow i thought Tito was talking about 58mm at FF. But Either 80ff or 40mft isn t that wide i expected one could go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 No, I really meant you can go as wide as 58mm for your taking lens on full frame, with certain anamorphics. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=9194 BUT you'll end up with a massive 3.56:1 frame. horizontal FOV of a 29mm. Or 40mm for a 2.4:1 crop. Equivalent field of view is 30mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgabogomez Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Yeah, the 2.4:1 crop is not a sensor crop in relation to full frame field of view, is the ratio the composed frame is, you know 16:9 is 1.78:1, cinema is 1.85:1 and wide aspect ratios go from 2.2:1 to "standard" 2.35:1, 2.4:1 and beyond to old CinemaScope 2.66:1 and cinerama 70 2.76:1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_ger Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 So we were talking completely different directions? I mean the sensor crop,for example gh4, smaller sensor, only half of the picture as on a Fullframe Camera. So that s where i am confused, like if 80mm on fullframe is possible, a Fullframe 40mm would go on gh4. But i don t know how a 16:9 and 4:3 "Sensor" behave in comparison, especially on the widest possible focal lenght. Tito you re most the time using a FF with 16:9, right? Would a 4:3 sensor allow wider field of view? BTW, did anyone hear about a ISCO anamorphic zoom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.