Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Inherently, servo controlled electronic rear focus lenses are not parfocal, so a flangeback adjustment is a calibration that maps the focus plane to track the zoom range. On the EX1, you could do this within the service menu. On the PMW350 and other 2/3 inch cams, it's an expected adjustment so it's a menu or even external switch driven adjustment. You focus on a star chart put on the wall at each end of the zoom range. On the AC90, HMC40 et all, I have no idea. I just know that when I zoomed in on my neighbor's tree across the street and focused, after I zoomed back out it was out of focus enough to notice on the pc, although not bad enough to see on the LCD.
If you zoom with auto focus, obviously you won't see this problem. And it may not be wholly obvious unless you zoom from one end to the other with the focus near infinity. And I did notice on one particular zoom, the subject went out of focus as I was zooming, manual focus mode of course. Whether it's an issue with just my copy? I can't answer that. I doubt it but I would just be speculating. Ideally, mfrs need to make the flangeback adjustment available to the operator just like they do on pro cams like the EX and PMW.
The beach I've been shooting isn't in Texas, it's in the Dominican Republic. As for not suggesting an ND 1.8 or higher -- it's just not necessary. The camera is a relatively slow ISO rating to start with (ISO 40), and it does have a couple of stops of ND built in. A three-stop ND filter lets you get the shutter down to 1/60 while still being in the middle of the lens range (f/5.6 to f/7.2). That gives you optimal sharpness, without unnecessarily introducing IR contamination. If you went with a six-stop, you could maybe get the iris all the way up to f/2, but is that really desirable? With the small chips you're not really gonna get shallow DOF anyway, and opening it up all the way may just end up meaning introducing a little bit of possibility for focus error as well as increasing the proportion of infrared that gets through. Of course, if you're talking about something like a whitewater ND/IR filter, that's a whole different story and yeah, that might be a good choice.I am now a bit more curious as with your experience with the beach and being Texas and lots of sun why you wouldn't be going with a 6ND (1.8) or even another higher one too.
A circular polarizer can make a lot of sense with this camera. It delivers about a 1.75 stops of exposure reduction, which helps you bring your shutter speed back into an appropriate realm, and -- depending on what you're shooting -- a polarizer can make a significant impact on the quality of your shot. It can really deepen a blue sky, and it can remove the glare from reflective foliage; grass and leaves can look a lot better with a polarizer in place. But, it depends on which way you're facing and where the sun is, and that's the problem with polarizers. They work to different degrees depending on your axis to the sun, when at 90 degrees from the sun they're very effective, but when at 0 or 180 degrees to the sun, they're kind of worthless. So -- definitely I like to have one in the kit, but if I could only have a polarizer or an ND filter, I'd go for the ND filter because it's completely predictable in all scenarios, whereas the polarizer varies depending on the angle you're at, and how far you've dialed in its effects. If you can afford both, get both.Edit 11-4-21: When I was going over my order with B&H the Video Pro associate I talked to talked me out of an ND filter and instead was recommending an circular polarizer. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B-W-77mm-MRC-Circular-Polarizer-Filter-Review.aspx, because they have free shipping on most of their filters I delayed in purchasing one. I've read about this debate somewhere before and I remember NDs were a better option, I tried to argue for this, but he was insistent. What do you guys think? He was talking about the loss of depth of field with an ND. I told him I live in a sunny climate and that did not phase him either.
Yeah I personally can afford both. I really appreciate your input. I saw the posts about the IR thing on the BMCuser forum which makes sense.So -- definitely I like to have one in the kit, but if I could only have a polarizer or an ND filter, I'd go for the ND filter because it's completely predictable in all scenarios, whereas the polarizer varies depending on the angle you're at, and how far you've dialed in its effects. If you can afford both, get both.
A postcard for a free copy of Barry Green's new AC90 book was also included with the camera. I'll be sending that off tomorrow...
So I guess you can add me as one of the owners now. I have just purchased it from B&H. I can't believe what I have just done but besides it having many extra features over the X900, it should be able to balance better on my Sachtler FSB4 tripod and I should be able to put it to work soon. Now all I need is a bag.
Congrats! I am liking mine, but there is a learning curve for me since I have not used a similar model.
1) I just finally figured out how to the 3200/5600k settings. (manual page 40) You just lightly press the WB button (not press and hold).
2) I don't understand why there are A and B Color temp adjustments. (manual page 41)
3) I am getting skin tone problems. I was doing a shoot and the dark skinned (especially) skin details were muddied. I used skin tone detail off, but I am not sure what setting/lighting is causing the problem. I am noticing this in a variety of lights (just not shot folks in bright lights/day light yet.
4) Manual Pages 85 - 88 have way too many settings to play with. I need like a quick table to change these based on a variety of conditions.
5) I know I need Barry's book!