Just got a new camera - Sony F35

[Adamsenoj]

So if you were looking to pick up a minimal, cheap functioning package, would something like this work?

1. F35 on eBay (8k)
2. Sony ac-550 adapter on eBay (150)
3. PL Cp.2 lens on eBay (around 2k) (dont have any pl lens unfortunately, just canon and nikon)
4. Hyperdeck shuttle 2 (about 450 with ssd new)

Am I missing anything

Yes, I think you are indeed missing something. The big picture. Actually the big picture seems to be massively ignored through this whole thread. I've been mentioning it but, I guess it's all in the name of the dream.

Seems not to bad at about $10,600 for the camera used to film Real Steel.

See. This is what you (and many others probably) are missing. The F35 didn't shoot Real Steel.




Mauro Fiore did! As well as Avatar, The Island, Smokin' Aces, Training Day, Tears of the Sun, The A-Team and a whole bunch of other Hollywood big budget films. He's an experienced high-end DP!

On top of that, they used a F35, yes. But with Cooke S4 lenses recording 4:4:4 uncompressed to a Codex recorder! See the difference?
Then they took it through a very high-end post-production pipeline, had it color graded by a very high-end colorist and all worked and finished using the best professionals and workflow. Not to mention the multimillion dollar lights and equipment package at his disposal to get any look he wanted.

But nevermind. Yes, it was the camera head which is responsible for what you see on Real Steel. (sarcasm of course).

People keep saying the camera that shot Real Steel is selling for $8k and that you can get it "up and running" for just a couple more thousand. But they didn't shoot Real Steel with "messy" low end stills lenses and the F35 attached to a low end 4:2:2 Prores recorder on a shoe string budget. Can you get a F35 "up and running" with a couple thousand dollars? Well, I would say more like "kneeling and crawling".
You would be buying a single piece of a whole system that shot Real Steel. Which probably represents like 1% of the equation. Put a F3 in there with that whole system and under that DP and it would most likely has done just as well. Get it?

It just hurts any sense of reasoning to think about buying a high-end camera just to dumb it down with the cheapest accessories and lenses and think it's still the same camera that shot Real Steel. I guess it does feel good to be able to run around screaming "I shoot with the same camera they shot Real Steel". But it's not really true in it's core.

Just the Cooke S4s are already a whole different ball park. I have a set of Zeiss CP.2s and I tell you they are s*%t next to the Cookes, Ultra Primes, Master Primes etc. They are PL, yes, but they are just re-housed still lenses and the 50mm is a stinker! I often will just skip it and go either slightly wider or tighter. And this is the top end of still glass we are talking about.

This thread has constructed a hype around the F35 for independent people that is just illusive. It's a great camera indeed, specially if you can package it with great quality lenses, recorder etc. But by then it wont be such a cheap system anymore. And to buy a F35 just to ghetto the heck out of it, well, you might as well be shooting with a FS100/FS700/F3. So why bother? To say your camera shot Real Steel? Well, sorry it's technically a lie.

Sorry for the rant and I don't mean to be condescending or rude. But the hype has gone so high in this thread that delusion is kind of taking over. This is not a dig at anybody in particular or anybody who bought the camera or wants to buy one. If you have already a F3, Epic etc like some here and just wanted to add the F35 to your arsenal, awesome! One more tool and why not if you can afford it? This was just a reality check for anybody scrapping coins who can barely afford a F3 but is thinking of getting a F35 because it's the camera that Hollywood uses and thinks that's all there is to it.

But I digress. Rant mode out.

 

[Hunter Hampton]

Agreed 100%- except the f35s on eBay actually come equipped standard with aMauro Fiore in the box. No but in all seriousness, it is the person using the camera of course, but the camera still has a part in it, you can certainly push your limits further with a camera that allows it. Me personally, I just wanted something that looks like a 35mm filmscan, when Mac showed me the f35 and how cheap it was, it was a no brainer. Its not an end all be all camera by any means but it is stunning and relatively cheap- I think that's what this thread is about= you can look at film shot on the genisis or f35 and think "Its possible for me to achieve that" not that you can't make it look close on another camera or dslr, but that you can actually replicate the quality verbatim if you have the time and desire to.

 

[Sfernald]

You'd need a monitor. Either an hdmi monitor connected to your hyperdeck (won't let you monitor with luts) or an hd-sdi monitor connected directly to the camera. You'd also need to get a hold of a 4-pin xlr cable to connect the AC adapter to the camera.
And I guess you'd want some sort of rig, or a tripod that can handle the weight? That doesn't have to be too expensive, though. You can make a shoulder rig like Miguel's for less than $1000 in parts.

I have a zacuto zfinder evf and tripod and all that jazz. I assumed it would work, but now that you mention it I would not be able to plug it directly into the camera without sdi. Interesting. Also, my current tripod would probably explode under all that weight, lol.

 

[Sfernald]

Yes, I think you are indeed missing something. The big picture. Actually the big picture seems to be massively ignored through this whole thread. I've been mentioning it but, I guess it's all in the name of the dream.




See. This is what you (and many others probably) are missing. The F35 didn't shoot Real Steel.




Mauro Fiore did! As well as Avatar, The Island, Smokin' Aces, Training Day, Tears of the Sun, The A-Team and a whole bunch of other Hollywood big budget films. He's an experienced high-end DP!

On top of that, they used a F35, yes. But with Cooke S4 lenses recording 4:4:4 uncompressed to a Codex recorder! See the difference?
Then they took it through a very high-end post-production pipeline, had it color graded by a very high-end colorist and all worked and finished using the best professionals and workflow. Not to mention the multimillion dollar lights and equipment package at his disposal to get any look he wanted.

But nevermind. Yes, it was the camera head which is responsible for what you see on Real Steel. (sarcasm of course).

People keep saying the camera that shot Real Steel is selling for $8k and that you can get it "up and running" for just a couple more thousand. But they didn't shoot Real Steel with "messy" low end stills lenses and the F35 attached to a low end 4:2:2 Prores recorder on a shoe string budget. Can you get a F35 "up and running" with a couple thousand dollars? Well, I would say more like "kneeling and crawling".
You would be buying a single piece of a whole system that shot Real Steel. Which probably represents like 1% of the equation. Put a F3 in there with that whole system and under that DP and it would most likely has done just as well. Get it?

It just hurts any sense of reasoning to think about buying a high-end camera just to dumb it down with the cheapest accessories and lenses and think it's still the same camera that shot Real Steel. I guess it does feel good to be able to run around screaming "I shoot with the same camera they shot Real Steel". But it's not really true in it's core.

Just the Cooke S4s are already a whole different ball park. I have a set of Zeiss CP.2s and I tell you they are s*%t next to the Cookes, Ultra Primes, Master Primes etc. They are PL, yes, but they are just re-housed still lenses and the 50mm is a stinker! I often will just skip it and go either slightly wider or tighter. And this is the top end of still glass we are talking about.

This thread has constructed a hype around the F35 for independent people that is just illusive. It's a great camera indeed, specially if you can package it with great quality lenses, recorder etc. But by then it wont be such a cheap system anymore. And to buy a F35 just to ghetto the heck out of it, well, you might as well be shooting with a FS100/FS700/F3. So why bother? To say your camera shot Real Steel? Well, sorry it's technically a lie.

Sorry for the rant and I don't mean to be condescending or rude. But the hype has gone so high in this thread that delusion is kind of taking over. This is not a dig at anybody in particular or anybody who bought the camera or wants to buy one. If you have already a F3, Epic etc like some here and just wanted to add the F35 to your arsenal, awesome! One more tool and why not if you can afford it? This was just a reality check for anybody scrapping coins who can barely afford a F3 but is thinking of getting a F35 because it's the camera that Hollywood uses and thinks that's all there is to it.

But I digress. Rant mode out.

Buzzkill, lol.

No, but seriously I do think we all know this. I mean, it always comes down to skill. I play piano for example and I know there a tons of people out there that can make a half broken bar piano sound better than I could with a Bosendorfer Grande. It doesn't stop me from wanting one, lol. I know I will sound a hell of a lot better on the Bos.

It's exciting that these cameras are so cheap and could give you a different look than the others (f3, c300, etc) in the price range, isn't it? More choices is always better.

For me, the perfect camera would probably be one where I could leave the grip trucks behind and still get a cinematic image. Low light sensitivity and being able to "light" in post. Being able to design the lighting look you want afterwords. I can do it in still images. The stuff I can do in silver efex to black and white raw photos is just amazing. It really becomes half art and half photography. Are we ever going to get to the point where we don't have to worry about getting it in the can and so can do the actual production for pennies on the dollar?

 

[Adamsenoj]

Agreed 100%- except the f35s on eBay actually come equipped standard with aMauro Fiore in the box. No but in all seriousness, it is the person using the camera of course, but the camera still has a part in it, you can certainly push your limits further with a camera that allows it. Me personally, I just wanted something that looks like a 35mm filmscan, when Mac showed me the f35 and how cheap it was, it was a no brainer. Its not an end all be all camera by any means but it is stunning and relatively cheap- I think that's what this thread is about= you can look at film shot on the genisis or f35 and think "Its possible for me to achieve that" not that you can't make it look close on another camera or dslr, but that you can actually replicate the quality verbatim if you have the time and desire to.

And the money. You will not be able to replicated it without the money. No matter how good the skill alone is. You may get close, but not replicate it. But like you said, you can get close with a lesser camera too, so...

Hunter, I think you misunderstood my point.

Yes, skill is part of the big picture, but it's not the big picture. It wasn't all I was talking about. All the gear surrounding the F35 body also makes a huge difference, wouldn't you think so? I would say it's arguably more important than the sole camera body alone. Hence why I said a F3 with the same support (money+surrounding gear+DP skills) could do just as well.

Shooting a F35 with a set of Cooke S4 lenses and an Optimo zoom, all recorded to a Codex in full uncompressed 4:4:4 will make a considerable (to be conservative) higher quality image than shooting a F35 with used Nikon still lenses picked up from Ebay to a 4:2:2 compressed Prores recorder, no? When you consider this full uncompressed 4:4:4 will be put through the most advanced post-production pipeline to get the best out of it, and that the 4:2:2 compressed Prores will probably get the Premiere/FCP-After Effects treatment, it widens the gap even more. Then you need to remember that before the images even got to the lens it had all the lighting and grip equipment it needed to get it to look the best it could before it was captured by that sensor.
This is all even before we start to consider the skill of the people behind the camera and behind the "computers" in post-production.

It's the whole package that matters. Skill+gear+resources.

Like you said, you can certainly push your limits further with a camera that allows it and what people seem to be missing is that a F35 + Nikons still lens + Prores 4.2:2 will not allow you to push it as far to get the same quality as a F35 + Cooke S4s + 4:4:4 uncompressed. Most people seem to be thinking it's just the camera. Then there are those who see it's the camera and the skills of who's behind it. But how many see that it's the whole package? Who or how many buying the F35 at these prices will be able to run it at the same level they ran it on Real Steel?

I hope the point is more clear now.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Buzzkill, lol.

No, but seriously I do think we all know this. I mean, it always comes down to skill. I play piano for example and I know there a tons of people out there that can make a half broken bar piano sound better than I could with a Bosendorfer Grande. It doesn't stop me from wanting one, lol. I know I will sound a hell of a lot better on the Bos.

It's not about wanting it. Nothing wrong with wanting it, as long as you don't think you will sound as good because you have the same piano. Read my reply to Hunter..

It's exciting that these cameras are so cheap and could give you a different look than the others (f3, c300, etc) in the price range, isn't it?

Honestly, I'm pretty sure a lot, and I mean a whole lot of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between most shots done with a S-log F3 and a F35. And by that I don't mean just general audience. I'm including camera people too, specially in these forums. So much for a different look.


More choices is always better.

For me, the perfect camera would probably be one where I could leave the grip trucks behind and still get a cinematic image.

That my friend, will never happen and shows right there the problem. The probable reason you seem to be missing the big picture. The grip truck makes the images too. There's nothing that a camera that can see in the dark or post production "lighting" can do for you to replace it.

Low light sensitivity and being able to "light" in post. Being able to design the lighting look you want afterwords. I can do it in still images.

And it looks fake!

The stuff I can do in silver efex to black and white raw photos is just amazing. It really becomes half art and half photography. Are we ever going to get to the point where we don't have to worry about getting it in the can and so can do the actual production for pennies on the dollar?

Yes, if you do 3D animation. Live action? Probably never.

 

[Sfernald]

^Thanks for the responses. Interesting stuff and no doubt true. Still burning for a F35 though, lol.

 

[Adamsenoj]

^Thanks for the responses. Interesting stuff and no doubt true. Still burning for a F35 though, lol.

Oh, I know. It's a great camera and there's no reason no to "burn" for one.

 

[Sfernald]

Oh, I know. It's a great camera and there's no reason no to "burn" for one.

assuming price was around the same and all three were in your price range, which would you want:

F3, C100 or F35?

 

[bruceallen]

Like you said, you can certainly push your limits further with a camera that allows it and what people seem to be missing is that a F35 + Nikons still lens + Prores 4.2:2 will not allow you to push it as far to get the same quality as a F35 + Cooke S4s + 4:4:4 uncompressed. Most people seem to be thinking it's just the camera. Then there are those who see it's the camera and the skills of who's behind it. But how many see that it's the whole package? Who or how many buying the F35 at these prices will be able to run it at the same level they ran it on Real Steel?

I agree 100% with you on the idea that it takes skill + budget to get the look of, say, Real Steel.

I disagree 100% that Nikons and 4:2:2 to ProRes would be a huge limiting factor. Depending on the shot, I think the difference would be difficult to measure.

Luckily, guys like macgregor have plenty of skill. Production design / location / crew / lighting / grip / talent budget might sometimes be an issue. But then, skilled DVXusers have been known to plan around these limitations.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Adamsenoj]

assuming price was around the same and all three were in your price range, which would you want:

F3, C100 or F35?

Well, all of them are in my price range and at the moment I'm getting none.
I was close to pulling the trigger on a F35 but I pulled back for several reasons.

 

[Adamsenoj]

I agree 100% with you on the idea that it takes skill + budget to get the look of, say, Real Steel.

I disagree 100% that Nikons and 4:2:2 to ProRes would be a huge limiting factor. Depending on the shot, I think the difference would be difficult to measure.

Sure. If you are filming talking heads sitting on a chair in a studio, it wouldn't matter. Although I'm not sure why you would need a F35 for that.
But to make Reel Steel? Get the same quality and look? Yes, the Nikons would definitely be a limitation. First they are softer, second the 1AC would probably quit in the 1st day (be glad if he doesn't throw that nikon on your face) and you would have to get your cousin to pull focus on those nikons without proper scale and with a reverse focus throw. You would not be able to do any shots riding your iris. Then you wouldn't be able to have any of the elaborated focus pulling shots in the movie, which would limit your look. I could go on, but I guess you get the idea.
4:2:2 Prores? For that much heavy grading and heavy compositing, not a limitation?

Luckily, guys like macgregor have plenty of skill. Production design / location / crew / lighting / grip / talent budget might sometimes be an issue. But then, skilled DVXusers have been known to plan around these limitations.

There's only so much you can plan and stretch yourself before you stop lying to yourself and realize what you really need is that hard to come by cash.

 

[macgregor]

Hahaha this thread is getting funny.
While I agree that shooting a film with good nikon lenses might be bad in terms of ergonomics, quality wise it might not be easy to tell apart from most other lenses. After all, many film lenses (Panavision for example) use rehoused and collimated still lenses glass.
The Genesis and F35 used to record to HDCAM decks long before SSD recorders were out, and I bet prores HQ beats or equals HDCAM tape.

Sure, gear won't fix your lack of knowledge or talent, but we can't be naive neither here. A +$160K camera vs a 10-15K camera is a huge step up. Skin tones are something not measurable in specs for example. Sure your handycam could deliver 18stops of DR and a 5000ISO, but the aesthetics of the footage can't be measured. And the F35 is in a completely different league compared to those other cameras.
Yes, getting a F35 (or Alexa, or Epic) won't make your film look like Real steel (if that's your benchmark of a good looking movie). You need the talent, the knowledge and the budget.

And yes, Real Steel would look s*%t if shot on the F3. Much decent of course than any of us could do with that same camera, but that's like saying that Baraka shot on 8mm would still look great because they had an amazing DP and an 8K scanner to master the film.

And even if you cannot afford great gear to go with your F35 (or Epic, or Alexa, or whatever you want to throw in) that doesn't mean the footage will look like crap. Given you're not an idiot using the gear (log requires some knowledge to grade), I bet the same guy can produce much better results with a F35 than with a C100.

With what would you be faster around the track? With a 911 Turbo with cheap tyres or in a civic with awesome Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres? :tongue:

 

[mlysbakken]

+1

 

[Adamsenoj]

Hahaha this thread is getting funny.

Oh, it got funny long ago. When people started implying they can get the same results Hollywood does just with the camera head and a couple of run of the mill add-ons.

While I agree that shooting a film with good nikon lenses might be bad in terms of ergonomics, quality wise it might not be easy to tell apart from most other lenses. After all, many film lenses (Panavision for example) use rehoused and collimated still lenses glass.

Yes, Leica for example, which are a peg or two above Nikons. Also as far as I know they also re-coat their lenses, which makes a lot of difference. Like I said, I have CP.2s, which are rehoused Zeiss ZFs and they stink compared to Cooke or Ultras and Masters. And how many miles the ZFs run around the used nikon stuff?

The Genesis and F35 used to record to HDCAM decks long before SSD recorders were out, and I bet prores HQ beats or equals HDCAM tape.

First they recorded to HDCAM SR which is 4:4:4. Second, that got replaced by digital recorders a while ago. Third, I'm not sure Prores 4:2:2 can compare.

Sure, gear won't fix your lack of knowledge or talent, but we can't be naive neither here. A +$160K camera vs a 10-15K camera is a huge step up. Skin tones are something not measurable in specs for example. Sure your handycam could deliver 18stops of DR and a 5000ISO, but the aesthetics of the footage can't be measured. And the F35 is in a completely different league compared to those other cameras.

Sure. Of course. This not what I was saying. And this is very different from saying one can get the same results as Hollywood just because the camera head is the same. The camera head is the same and it's great. But it's a small piece in this equation.

Yes, getting a F35 (or Alexa, or Epic) won't make your film look like Real steel (if that's your benchmark of a good looking movie). You need the talent, the knowledge and the budget.

Yep, absolutely.

And yes, Real Steel would look s*%t if shot on the F3. Much decent of course than any of us could do with that same camera, but that's like saying that Baraka shot on 8mm would still look great because they had an amazing DP and an 8K scanner to master the film.

Come on. You should know better than make this silly analogy. The F3 to F35 is not the same as super8 to 70mm. Now it's getting funny, and ridiculous. An analogy here would be just out of place, but if you need one it's more like S35 vs Anamorphic.

And even if you cannot afford great gear to go with your F35 (or Epic, or Alexa, or whatever you want to throw in) that doesn't mean the footage will look like crap.

Who said it will look like crap? It has no reason to look worse than a F3 shot with the same lenses and gear.
But will it look like a high-end production such as Real Steel? Nope! And this was the point.

Given you're not an idiot using the gear (log requires some knowledge to grade), I bet the same guy can produce much better results with a F35 than with a C100.

Possibly. As long as it didn't come down to something like, having a crane shot with the C100 or a tripod locked off shot with the F35 because you can't afford a crane that supports the F35.
But yes, I would actually think that a F35 would look better than a C100 in the hands of the same guy, specially if he is used to shooting with high end cameras and not only handycams. But this again wasn't the point.

With what would you be faster around the track? With a 911 Turbo with cheap tyres or in a civic with awesome Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres? :tongue:

Well, depends how fast we were to go. Because your Porsche cheap tires would blow up before you got to the finish and it wouldn't matter that you took off ahead of my civic because you wouldn't make it to the finish.



You know what this F35 fable going on here is? Dream of californication.

 

[Adamsenoj]

While I agree that shooting a film with good nikon lenses might be bad in terms of ergonomics, quality wise it might not be easy to tell apart from most other lenses.

Reading this again, I can't help but wonder why you would say something like this. I was under the impression you did at least mid to higher end work? Meaning top glass? If so, how can you say that?
The difference is not just ergonomics. Some of the disadvantages of stills lenses such as nikons as compared to cinema lenses such as Cooke and the top tier Zeiss are:

Ergonomics
Build quality
Mount: they are fragile and will wear out quicker with the lens exchanging pace you have on a set in a daily basis.
Nikons have an inverted focus ring.
Clicked iris rings: Try riding your iris in a shot going from indoors to outdoors with that.
Short focus throw: yes you can add those ghetto rings, but it still sucks.
No distances marks that can be trusted, barrel too small to write your own.
They are marked in F-stops instead of T-stops, making it difficult to keep aperture consistence.
There are no matched sets
Breathing: Stills lenses breath badly!
They ARE softer than Cookes and top Zeiss. Hack they are softer than ZFs.
Chromatic aberration
They flare: no, not the blue anamorphic ones.


The last 6 ALL impact image quality. The last 9 will impact the end result.

 

[Oznimbus]

Its not very expensive to have a Nikon de-clicked. I had it done to my 50 1.4 & it works great. Cost me $40 at a local shop.... The tech looked at me like I was from mars when I asked him to do it though.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Oh-oh. Still lenses for motion picture fan here.

Modern Nikon lenses blow any cine lens out of the water optically.

What are we talking as modern nikons? The oversharpened for digital DX crap? What price range? How many talking nikons here are buying them instead of the older used ebay stuff?

Maybe MPs and the new Leicas will hold up but for one of these you could get two SETS of Nikons.

Maybe? You're a funny guy. Cooke S4 and up will more than beat them too. It's not only sharpness, it's the look, the character. More of an artist subject than a technician one. Thank God technicians are not in charge to make good movies, artists are. Can you image all the pixelpeepers debating forever and never shooting a single frame on a day? Hehehe. Just ask Roger Deakins which he would rather shoot, Cooke/Zeiss or nikon still glass, regardless of how marvelous the nikon glass may be, which in my opinion they are not.

With the smart mounts and drive by wire built quality becomes irrelevant- no more gears banging on the barrels.

Are you saying drive by wire is as good as manual focus for narrative???? Can't quite tell.

Other than that- you think that pro photogs don't abuse their lenses? They live in a dusty bag unserviced for years- yet they hold up. Otherwise Nikon would be out of business- simple as that.

Horses for courses. The workload on a film set is way different than what a professional photographer goes through in a day.

Now how about the advantages- like image stabilization-

One word. Steadycam. Think Hollywood survived this far without IS because they can't afford it?

metadata feed for VFX,

Oh boy. I thought you had used high end glass. It sends metadata to the camera.

weight(ever swapped 6lbs primes and 20+lbs zooms all day long?)

Of course. A luxury car will always weight more than a cheap small car.

and yes- the price.

Same as above.

Breathing- give me a break- Ultra primes at $12K a piece breathe like mother fu**ers, so do $15k/piece Cooke S4s.

Ok, UP do breath a bit, true. But nothing close to still glass, specially the old nikon stuff, which is what most buy on a budget. But S4s? Have you been using a bad sample? MP and S4s are great when it comes to breathing.

You want no breathing you need to get into MP and Summilux-c realm- $20K+ per lens- and that's for a prime.

Yep. sweet pieces of glass. I heard the new Schneiders don't breath either, but have never tried them.

 

[mlysbakken]

Adam, this is not meant to be rude, but as far as I can see you seem to have got stuck in a sentence that someone posted many pages back. It's not like this thread is implying that the F35 will magically give you high production values. The only one discussing that at the moment appears to be you.

And all this talk about stills glass being horrible: do you honestly think photographers don't require good glass? Since when are photos lower resolution than film? Ergonomically they're challenging and they breathe more, yes, but you make it seem like stills glass will destroy your images to a degree that people could just as well go about shooting on a 5D. Then why don't most photographers PL-mod they're cameras? I can promise you that an F35 with nikon lenses will look better than an F3 with the same lenses (But of course it won't look like Real Steel unless you have one hell of a lighting, set design and post budget). I prefer PL, but good stills glass is still good glass. Not everybody can afford the high-end stuff, but that doesn't mean they should stop making films.

And what is all this stuff about Real Steel, anyway? It's not the blueprint for a nice image. I know plenty of beautiful films shot with small lighting budgets and in natural light - now, is a great camera unneccessary in those conditions? If yes, then why do they keep shooting those films on Alexas and 35 mm? You've seen Miguel's test footage: That's plenty beautiful for me.

But I get your point. The F35 will not make the amateur a pro, and if someone makes horrible images with their 5D II, AF-100 or F3, then they'll probably continue to make horrible images on the F35. But if they make beautiful images with the aforementioned cameras, then what's going to stop them from making even more beautiful images on this?

 

[macgregor]

Hey guys, while discussing whether still lenses glass is good or bad is a legimit question, I think we are goong off topic here. So lets keep this thread focused on the sony camera ok?