Recommendations?

[pryde]

You should join the Anamorphic Shooters group on Facebook (if you use it). Lot's of great info you can search through.

Pooli is a member there who has started rehousing anamorphics to make them smaller, lighter, and making it easier to rig up. His website is Pooli . ru

I'm sending him a Schneider cinelux to rehouse this week.

[heart0less]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

I figured I would just double focus for now, or maybe buy the FVD16 to split the investment up a little... but I hadn't realized the Rangefinder was that cheap.

Do you think the Rangefinder is good enough to keep with a 16D/Elmoscope if I choose to keep both set ups? Or do you think two set ups would be redundant?

IMHO, SLR Magic Rangefinder isn't worth it. 

I've had it for a while - just like you, I didn't feel like paying almost 600$ for FVD-16A. 

But man, it was one of my worst purchases ever. 

The scope I was using at the time was Ultra Star - it was as sharp and as contrasty as any of my taking lenses. Putting a Rangefinder in front completely changed that. 

It introduced some kind of glowiness to the image and reduced contrast a lot. Shadow areas also got some bluish cast to them. Bokeh wasn't oval anymore, it became smeary. 

What I'm getting at is: Rangefinder isn't neutral, it definitely introduces a look of its own. 

This video shows, what I have in mind. 

So I decided to let this one go. No regrets. 

[mercer]

5 hours ago, pryde said:

You should join the Anamorphic Shooters group on Facebook (if you use it). Lot's of great info you can search through.

Pooli is a member there who has started rehousing anamorphics to make them smaller, lighter, and making it easier to rig up. His website is Pooli . ru

I'm sending him a Schneider cinelux to rehouse this week.

The Cinelux rehouse looks slick. Let me know how it works out.

Even Pooli's 1.33x adapter looks interesting.

2 hours ago, heart0less said:

IMHO, SLR Magic Rangefinder isn't worth it. 

I've had it for a while - just like you, I didn't feel like paying almost 600$ for FVD-16A. 

But man, it was one of my worst purchases ever. 

The scope I was using at the time was Ultra Star - it was as sharp and as contrasty as any of my taking lenses. Putting a Rangefinder in front completely changed that. 

It introduced some kind of glowiness to the image and reduced contrast a lot. Shadow areas also got some bluish cast to them. Bokeh wasn't oval anymore, it became smeary. 

What I'm getting at is: Rangefinder isn't neutral, it definitely introduces a look of its own. 

This video shows, what I have in mind. 

So I decided to let this one go. No regrets. 

Good to know, thanks. It looks like I'll go with the FVD-16a.

Btw, if you get a chance I'd love to see something shot with your Cinelux and Series E 100mm. Even something in 1080p would be fine.

[heart0less]

On 12/2/2019 at 8:32 AM, mercer said:

Btw, if you get a chance I'd love to see something shot with your Cinelux and Series E 100mm. Even something in 1080p would be fine.

Here you are:
password: nik100e

Attention: experimental vibes!

The weather outside is horrible (though I shouldn't complain, it's December already) so I had to come up with something inside these four walls. 

All shot @ f/2.8

Fuji X-T3, Zhongyi Lens Turbo II, Nikkor Series E 100/2.8, Schneider Cinelux

[mercer]

@heart0less thanks, I really appreciate that!!! It looks like a great combo!!!

[heart0less]

You're welcome. 

It is a great combo - a little too tight for my liking (especially for indoors shooting), but if you put it on a 5D3, you'd get a bit wider FOV. 

(With ML you can go open gate [which means you can record in non-standard aspect ratios and use full height of your sensor], whereas I have to crop 6:5 out of 16:9 video, so I'm wasting a lot of sensor area.) 

[mercer]

11 hours ago, heart0less said:

You're welcome. 

It is a great combo - a little too tight for my liking (especially for indoors shooting), but if you put it on a 5D3, you'd get a bit wider FOV. 

(With ML you can go open gate [which means you can record in non-standard aspect ratios and use full height of your sensor], whereas I have to crop 6:5 out of 16:9 video, so I'm wasting a lot of sensor area.) 

Yeah, I'd imagine the 100mm would be pretty tight under those circumstances. Was that 1080p or 4K?

Have you ever used the 100mm with your 16-H?

I love the look from the Cinelux, it really has that sharp, crisp, "modern" look but it must be a beast of a set up? The Pooli rehousing is really interesting to make the set up a lot lighter, though.

Ultimately, I think I'd like a Kowa B&H and a Cinelux. The Cinelux is more feasible right now, so that may be my first scope. I may just go ahead and do the Pooli rehousing and save up for the Rapido 16a while I wait for the mod to be done. Eventually, when I have a little more money, I'll pick up a Kowa B&H.

With the GH5's current low price, wouldn't it be a good anamorphic option for you?

[heart0less]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Yeah, I'd imagine the 100mm would be pretty tight under those circumstances. Was that 1080p or 4K?

Have you ever used the 100mm with your 16-H?

4K.

Umm, you must've confused me with somebody else - I haven't had a single Kowa in my life. 
( :

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I love the look from the Cinelux, it really has that sharp, crisp, "modern" look but it must be a beast of a set up? The Pooli rehousing is really interesting to make the set up a lot lighter, though.

Yup, it's kinda big - but I don't mind. Pooli rehousing makes it only 180 g lighter. Not that much of a difference - at least the additional weight helps me keeping the rig more stable.
And even though both me and Pooli are practically neighbours, shipping the lens to him and getting it back would alone cost more than I actually paid for it.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Ultimately, I think I'd like a Kowa B&H and a Cinelux. The Cinelux is more feasible right now, so that may be my first scope. I may just go ahead and do the Pooli rehousing and save up for the Rapido 16a while I wait for the mod to be done. Eventually, when I have a little more money, I'll pick up a Kowa B&H.

There is one thing about the rehousing you need to take into account, though. It makes the anamorphic adapter fixed focus - meaning you WILL HAVE TO buy a FVD for it, since you won't be able to double focus anymore.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

With the GH5's current low price, wouldn't it be a good anamorphic option for you?

It would be a *perfect* anamorphic option, but:
a) like I said, I'm a hobbyist - there is no need for me to own two camera bodies - two systems actually,
b) GH5's price may have come down, but it's still more expensive than my X-T3 ?

[mercer]

21 minutes ago, heart0less said:

Umm, you must've confused me with somebody else - I haven't had a single Kowa in my life. 
( :

Sorry, I thought it was you that has a 16-H. So you have the Blue Star and the Cinelux? Which Cinelux do you have because the Super Cinelux that I am seeing do not have a focus ring, just the Hex Key focus adjustments. Yeah, I guess it's not too much of a difference but a half a pound is a half a pound and every little bit helps. And since I shoot in public places, the black scope is a lot less conspicuous than the shiny gold.

But I'm going back and forth anyway. I'll probably make a list of 3-4 possible scopes I wouldn't mind having and then jump on the best deal I can find.

Again thanks for your help! That 100mm Cinelux X-T3 combo looks amazing.

[heart0less]

29 minutes ago, mercer said:

So you have the Blue Star and the Cinelux?

Correct!

30 minutes ago, mercer said:

Which Cinelux do you have because the Super Cinelux that I am seeing do not have a focus ring, just the Hex Key focus adjustments.

The one with hex / allen key adjustments is called Cinelux ES aka flat-top. 

I own a version with protruding screws / knobs. I got rid of them and then fixed focus at infinity.

32 minutes ago, mercer said:

And since I shoot in public places, the black scope is a lot less conspicuous than the shiny gold.

Talking about public places.. XDD 

Shiny gold and flashy red - oh yeah. 

Quite beefy, ain't it? 

35 minutes ago, mercer said:

But I'm going back and forth anyway.

It may be tiring, but believe me, it's better than jumping at the first opportunity hoping it'll somehow work out. 

 

36 minutes ago, mercer said:

Again thanks for your help! That 100mm Cinelux X-T3 combo looks amazing.

You're welcome and thanks! 

[mercer]

@heart0less I imagine that your X-T3 looks tiny attached to that behemoth.

The projection lenses are a little tougher to decipher what is what. I also saw a Cinelux 2x with a focus ring. It looks more like a Blue Star. Which is bigger the Blue Star or the Cinelux?

6 hours ago, heart0less said:

It may be tiring, but believe me, it's better than jumping at the first opportunity hoping it'll somehow work out. 

When I first started shooting video, I jumped at the cheapest vintage lenses I could find. I think my first purchase was an RMC Tokina 28mm 2.8... not a horrible lens but nothing to write home about either. At the time, the thought of spending the money on Nikkors or Canon lenses made little sense. Needless to say, I wish I had taken the time to save up the money for better lenses. Of course, I did get some cheap gems... Pentax-M lenses are miniature works of art. I also learned a ton about different lenses because I researched every single lens available. Speaking of Pentax, I wonder how good those tiny 110 lenses would work as taking lenses on one of those 8mm scopes like the Yashica scope. The 50mm 2.8 110 lens is a really nice piece of glass. I can't use them on my 5D3 but on a mirrorless camera they could be great. They cover the sensor of the EOS-M, so maybe ML Raw anamorphic with those lenses would be a great combo. 

[heart0less]

53 minutes ago, mercer said:

I also saw a Cinelux 2x with a focus ring. It looks more like a Blue Star. Which is bigger the Blue Star or the Cinelux?

I think I know which version you mean, but to be 100% sure I'd need some pictures of it. 

Nevertheless, Cineluxes that feature focus ring are humongous. They weigh over 4 pounds. Not sure if that's what you're looking for. ( :

Cinelux is slightly bigger than Blue Star / Ultra Star. Like a 0.7 cm wider, 1.5 cm longer and 80g heavier. It's got bigger glass elements, though. 

56 minutes ago, mercer said:

@heart0less I imagine that your X-T3 looks tiny attached to that behemoth

It's not that bad!

I'll send some photos of the rig later. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I also learned a ton about different lenses because I researched every single lens available.

I know the feeling. 

Regarding Pentax - the 50/1.7 M is my current favorite, it may be the best nifty-fifty I have ever owned. It's tiny, fun to use and provides a great looking image. 

[mercer]

8 hours ago, heart0less said:

Regarding Pentax - the 50/1.7 M is my current favorite, it may be the best nifty-fifty I have ever owned. It's tiny, fun to use and provides a great looking image. 

The 50mm 1.7 is a great lens and so cheap. If you want to try some great Pentax lenses, the "K" versions were their first k-mount lenses after the Takumars and most of them are the same optical formula as their SMC Takumar counterparts without the radioactive glass, so no yellowing. The 50mm 1.4 is a beautiful hunk of glass.

[mercer]

I've been doing some research on the Kowa Prominar 2x lenses and I was wondering if all of the models worked about the same (other than the 8z, 16H, B&H)

I found an old post on DVXUser where a guy posted this...

"I have a kowa prominar 16 (not sure what exact model). The rear element is really really small (<40mm), however I was surprised when I tried attaching it to a nikon lens (55 macro) and discovered that it is not only beautiful and shows minnimal vigneting, but that it was way sharper than the sankor D and allows to focus down to 1.5meters."

He didn't mention what camera he was using, but based on his surprise of coverage with a 55mm, I assume he was using a full frame camera. Anyway, I think this looks fantastic, 55mm taking lens or not, so does anyone have any idea which model he could have used based on his description? 

That was just a screengrab from my phone, here's the link to the actual post...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?182386-Sankor-Kowa-Anamorphic-Lens-Discussion-and-Footage/page30

[Timotheus]

How important is (wide) coverage for you? 55mm on fullframe with this lens is hard to imagine, aps-c or smaller would make more sense. In general, chubby and short with big elements provide widest coverage. That's why the 8z variants (16H, B&H, Sankor Anamoprime) are so popular (mind the crazy edge distortion though). He is talking about a smaller lens (probably 16S or 16A).

The new Sirui might actually be an interesting point of entry too... cheap, sharp, good flares imo, compact, no rigging issues and single focus. It's just that the squeeze is low (1.33x) but perhaps an oval aperture mod might improve the bokeh. I am waiting for @Tito Ferradans's review. He will surely address it's strength and weaknesses.

[Julien416]

The largest you can have in full frame with projection lenses is, according to my findings, around 50mm with a Kowa 16h/8z. It will have funky distortions on the sides and will vignette heavily. 55/58mm would probably be the safest width. But anyhow, a single focus solution will be limited to around 75mm in full frame with the rectilux, and probably a few more mm with the FVD 16.

Use Tito's excellent anamorphic calculator, it's a time saver.

[Tito Ferradans]

If you have any specific questions about the Sirui you'd like to see answers for - and that haven't been covered in the recent myriad of reviews - let me know here. I'm starting my review today, with a first part to go up on Sunday. ?

[heart0less]

Is there any way to lock the alignment?

Many reviews and test footage suffer from misalignment and I'm wondering whether it's due to loose mount or is it a design flaw.

 

Could you compare it to anamorphic adapters?

[Tito Ferradans]

1 hour ago, heart0less said:

Is there any way to lock the alignment?

None on the lens. It's a single closed unit, no play anywhere.

1 hour ago, heart0less said:

Could you compare it to anamorphic adapters?

I don't have any adapters with me anymore, but I can compare with words. hahaha. I'll compare it to a LOMO 50mm Squarefront. ?

[heart0less]

@mercer

This sample shot was taken with Sankor Type-5E, which is believed to share the same optics as Kowa 16-H / B&H, etc - meaning: you can't go any wider.

No single focus diopter. Both lenses (Helios and Sankor) set to infinity.

Courtesy of Daniel Cai:

 

My dear god, these stills look fantastic..

 

The post you linked looks more like 55 mm on an APS-C sensor to me.