GH5 Point me to the cheapest and fasters anamorphic setup on GH5 please??

C

CustomerGH4

Well-known member
Hello,
I want to get into anamorphic shooting but I dont know where to start. I have GH4, GH5, Leica 25 1.4, Rokinon 12 2.0, Oly 45 1.8, Oly 30mm 3.5.
What MFT lenses I need to buy to shoot anamorphic? I get that they are expensive... but the cheapest ones?
Or maybe some adapters to use with one of my current lenses?
Please somebody just point me in the right direction.

Big thanks for any replies!
 
CustomerGH4 said:
Hello,
I want to get into anamorphic shooting but I dont know where to start. I have GH4, GH5, Leica 25 1.4, Rokinon 12 2.0, Oly 45 1.8, Oly 30mm 3.5.

Or maybe some adapters to use with one of my current lenses?
Please somebody just point me in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Anamorphic capture is a vast subject, if only because there are so many options when using adapters. People's reaction to the images the options deliver are equally vast. What kind of aspect ratio do you want to end up with? If you go with 2.35:1, a relatively cheap and good starting point is using one of SLR Magic's 1.33x adapters with an appropriate taking lens, which you already have. The following is footage shot last year on a trip to Europe using the GH5, the cheapest SLR Magic 1.33x 40 Compact ($500), with the really cheap Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (on sale at times for $150). All the footage was shot hand held.

https://vimeo.com/album/4743782

To get a different look just change the taking lens, making sure it conforms to the adapter's requirements.

But as I said, there are so many options. Dedicated anamorphic lens for MFT start at around $3000 each.
 
I've played with adapters for years and have never considered them...even the ones that don't require dual focus...to be practical solutions. Too fiddly, many gotchas. Fine to experiment with, maybe okay for a low budget/low pressure music video...but nothing important.

The cheapest dedicated, all-in-one anamorphic lenses come from SLR magic. These are solid lenses with decent image quality and a real anamorphic look. The widest of the three is 35mm (70mm equivalent) so there is that limitation to keep in mind. You can rent the whole set for under $500, and I really recommend you try before you buy. Many people desire the look, but don't actually like shooting it.
 
They are that cheap to rent? I've never looked at the price for rental so that's a bit surprising.
 
Greg_E said:
They are that cheap to rent? I've never looked at the price for rental so that's a bit surprising.
Click to expand...
Yup. I don't think we are supposed to link to non-sponsoring sites, but the big online rental houses have them for +/- $500 for 3 days.
 
Cheapest? Shoot and crop in post.

Yes not exactly the same thing but keep in mind many older affordable anamorphic lenses are not great glass. Shooting with a high quality spherical lens and cropping can sometimes yield finer raw detail then what anamorphic from a more affordable lens can provide. There is resolution and then there is acutance.

I know there is an aesthetic quality to anamorphic but really ask yourself is it something your story absolutely needs to be successful. There are a ton of big budget high earning Hollywood movies that shoot and crop in post and never touch anamorphic. Just something to keep in mind. Anamorphic does not always equal instant success.

If you are really serious about it consider renting. Lots of movies rent when the need is there and renting will provide the quality that buying would likely not deliver.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Cheapest? Shoot and crop in post.
Yes not exactly the same thing....
Click to expand...

Not, not exactly the same thing, and often by a large margin


Thomas Smet said:
I know there is an aesthetic quality to anamorphic
Click to expand...

More than just aesthetics. There is a perceptual component that anamorphic lenses deliver due to the curvature of the anamorphic elements

Thomas Smet said:
Anamorphic does not always equal instant success
Click to expand...

Well, yes.....

Thomas Smet said:
If you are really serious about it consider renting. Lots of movies rent when the need is there and renting will provide the quality that buying would likely not deliver.
Click to expand...

The first part of this is statement is absolutely sound. The second part is suspect. Renting or buying, unless you are talking about the very expensive exotics, will have a much smaller impact over a stellar story, great acting, and inspired lighting. Low cost quality is available. It just depends whether it conforms to the creators personal vision.

Anamorphic shooting requires a slightly different approach, and again, while renting is an absolutely good option, for the cost of one and a half rental periods, one can own something that provides a great learning experience, the ability to practice at any time, experiment with the different aesthetics and focal lengths of swappable taking-lenses, but also allows for making some stunning images if that's what a budget demands. If the budget is there, go rent. But the accumulated experience with low-cost ownership will only benefit the whole process.

And I'm now going to make some folks faint at the following heretical notions. There is something to be said for the stealth factor of the lens system I suggested, and autofocus and GH5 stabilization (gosh, I really did say those things in the same breath :shocked:) open up many creative possibilities for anamorphic shooting.
 
stoneinapond said:
Anamorphic capture is a vast subject, if only because there are so many options when using adapters. People's reaction to the images the options deliver are equally vast. What kind of aspect ratio do you want to end up with? If you go with 2.35:1, a relatively cheap and good starting point is using one of SLR Magic's 1.33x adapters with an appropriate taking lens, which you already have. The following is footage shot last year on a trip to Europe using the GH5, the cheapest SLR Magic 1.33x 40 Compact ($500), with the really cheap Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (on sale at times for $150). All the footage was shot hand held.

https://vimeo.com/album/4743782

To get a different look just change the taking lens, making sure it conforms to the adapter's requirements.

But as I said, there are so many options. Dedicated anamorphic lens for MFT start at around $3000 each.
Click to expand...

Woah, thanks for videos.
Question, how do I know it conforms to adapters rquirements?
 
Thomas Smet said:
I know there is an aesthetic quality to anamorphic but really ask yourself is it something your story absolutely needs to be successful. There are a ton of big budget high earning Hollywood movies that shoot and crop in post and never touch anamorphic. Just something to keep in mind. Anamorphic does not always equal instant success.
Click to expand...
I would venture to say that many people who want to shoot anamorphic do it for the aesthetics first not primarily for "making money" or for "being successful".
 
Last edited:
While true that it does yield a unique look, I think that sometimes shooting anamorphic is fetishized, even beyond the "look," sort of in the same way that is happening with film.

The spherical shot you actually get is better than the anamorphic shot you miss. You need to ask yourself if the 10% difference in image is really worth the 90% hassle difference. If you don't know the answer to that, then you really should rent and test in a real-world environment before committing.
 
I was watching something on Netflix the other day and noticed that they were using 1.33 anamorphs to produce a 16:9 output. There is something to be considered about this. Since this was a big enough budget series to afford high end lenses (Shannara series by MTV/SpikeTV), it was odd to notice that certain areas of the image had degraded PQ (mostly tops and bottoms of frame). This is the same thing I've noticed with my "cheap" adapter trying to get 2.35:1. This again points to you really need to test for yourself.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
Question, how do I know it conforms to adapters rquirements?
Click to expand...

I've only had experience with SLR adapters, so I'm not sure if the same applies to other versions, but as a rule of thumb, the anamorphot 40 requires a front optical element size (NOT filter size) that is 40mm or less. The 50s (whether 1.33 or 2x) can be used with lenses that have a front element of 50mm or less.

The advantage of the 50 is that you can use faster glass. The advantage of the 40 is that it is smaller and in the case of the Compact produces excellent auto focus with supported lenses (lenses that communicate electronically with the camera), but requires slightly smaller apertures.

The only other criteria that is important is the depth to which the front element sits in the housing. Macro lenses generally sit a way back and may not be suitable.

Your Pana 25mm will definitely work with a 50 and may well work with the 40. It's just a simple question of measuring the diameter of the front glass.

There are a host of videos that help explain things at the following link (click the video tab on any of the adapters).

http://www.slrmagic.info/category/Anamorphic+Adapters

And in the interest of full disclosure, while there are a couple of my videos featured there, I have no formal affiliation or monetary interests with the company. They just like my work. :beer:

Hope this helps.
 
joe12south said:
While true that it does yield a unique look, I think that sometimes shooting anamorphic is fetishized, even beyond the "look," sort of in the same way that is happening with film.

The spherical shot you actually get is better than the anamorphic shot you miss. You need to ask yourself if the 10% difference in image is really worth the 90% hassle difference. If you don't know the answer to that, then you really should rent and test in a real-world environment before committing.
Click to expand...

Apart from being a little condescending, the figures you quote a completely made up and do not necessarily reflect reality. In fact I would go as far as saying that working with the Compact, the chances of getting a successful shot are dead even. On top of which, similar images can be captured in an anamorphic aesthetic that you simply cannot get with spherical lenses.

I think with the forward motion of the technology, the only argument you can make is, does the resulting IQ conform to your personal vision?
 
I asked people to point
Me to the fastest way to start shooting anamorphic, most answers say that dont do it. I did not ask for if its worth it or not, I asked what the fastest way to start doing it is! I did not buy a camera that can shoot anamorphic if it was not my plan to use the feature!!!
 
stoneinapond said:
Apart from being a little condescending, the figures you quote a completely made up and do not necessarily reflect reality. In fact I would go as far as saying that working with the Compact, the chances of getting a successful shot are dead even. On top of which, similar images can be captured in an anamorphic aesthetic that you simply cannot get with spherical lenses.

I think with the forward motion of the technology, the only argument you can make is, does the resulting IQ conform to your personal vision?
Click to expand...

- Yes, there are certain looks that are very hard to approximate without true anamorphics. How many of them materially impact the story you need to tell, versus visual masturbation? More than 10%. Doubt it.

- No. The chances are not dead even, even for an advanced anamorphic shooter. Even with the very best anamorphic rig you have less choice and more complications. You end-up making compromises. (One example: getting a quality wide angle shot in a tight interior with an anamorphic.)

All that said...I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from trying it. Obviously, it has its place. (I've worked with anamorphics off and on for almost 30 years now, as both a director and a shooter.) But there are a bunch of shooters chasing a "cinematic" look, and they think that anamorphic is that sprinkle of pixie dust missing from their shots that will make their videos of walking around at night and their backyard look like a movie. It will not. It will look like their backyard with more visual anomalies.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
I asked people to point
Me to the fastest way to start shooting anamorphic, most answers say that dont do it. I did not ask for if its worth it or not, I asked what the fastest way to start doing it is! I did not buy a camera that can shoot anamorphic if it was not my plan to use the feature!!!
Click to expand...
This is an Internet forum. If even one of the responses is vaguely on topic, you're doing great!
 
Fast way, on GH5? the SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33 series. I have the 40, non compact model. This one has an integrated range finder. I have used it with the following native lenses (will auto focus thru the adapter)
Pany 20mm
Oly 25 1.8

Adapted lens:
Nikon 50mm

All work fine for that adapter which is primarily made for MFT cameras and a less than 50mm ffe lens.

Check out Lawton Meyer on Youtube:

 
spgreen65 said:
Fast way, on GH5? the SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33 series. I have the 40, non compact model. This one has an integrated range finder. I have used it with the following native lenses (will auto focus thru the adapter)
Pany 20mm
Oly 25 1.8

Adapted lens:
Nikon 50mm

All work fine for that adapter which is primarily made for MFT cameras and a less than 50mm ffe lens.

Check out Lawton Meyer on Youtube:

Click to expand...

This is the fastest way and probably the one with less "messing around". I'd go with the SLRMagic 50 and maybe the rangefinder for focus (variable diopter). I have an old Century 1.33x that I've messed with, and several "good" diopters to help with focus. But I haven't played enough to get a real workflow going and it took some adaptation to get it to mount to my lenses. Spend the $1000 on the SLRMagic and see what you see. I bet you can also rent it before buying to decide if it is really what you want. Real anamorphic lenses would be great, but you better be making money off of them to own them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top