Totally agree, but there may be the odd exception like the fully manual Voighlander 25mm f/0.95 which should cover the Scarlet in 3K and smaller modes.
Where is Panasonic in this game?
- Thread starter Phil1076
- Start date
Totally agree, but there may be the odd exception like the fully manual Voighlander 25mm f/0.95 which should cover the Scarlet in 3K and smaller modes.
Same sensor between the two cameras though. I believe at 48fps, it was S35. Of course, we're waiting for ours to show up, so I can't
confirm. But, even if it's smaller, I'll take the 3K and the 13.5 stops.
Yes, it's a pretty sure bet that everyone would take the 3K and the 13.5 stops of exposure latitude given the choice.
...But the issue was, are there any MFT lenses that might be worth the hassle of adapting to the Scarlet X ? And I could see a manual lens like the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 lens being adapted for Scarlet 3K work.
How did this happen ? I am curious if it was a manufacturing defect or something happened to the lens during a shoot.
Oliver Rush
Well-known member
My wants are a little diffrent... Though I am fine with the m4/3 sensor, I do kinda want something with an S35 sized sensor, that records 1080p to whatever recorder I choose through 10-bit HD-SDI (I could care less about the onboard codec, I am fine with AVCHD to keep prices low as long as I have HD-SDI), Low noise, 13+ stops of dynamic range, decent low light performance (I don't need stupid high 5 digit iso though, I know what lights are, I WANT MORE DYNAMIC RANGE), ability to TC sync with everything else on set, built-in NDs, short flange distance like the AF100 and F3 to allow adapting of diffrent lens mounts, and lots of tapped holes to attach things to. Also, improved highlight handeling and better peaking on the LCD for focusing. Make that for 7-10K and I am in.
AMEN. i keep wondering why people want that lowlight when a 13.5 dynamic range would be so much useful
traviswears
Well-known member
Agreed. Is that every going to happen? I was stunned at the lack of quality glass when I was considering the AF100. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Igelkott Film
Well-known member
Listen to what Jan says here, they are not interested in making nothing but the camera.
The glass is for the Lumix and will never be for the AF100
I'm not sure if it was this thread that Barry said the resolving power of the GH2 was probably mostly aliasing, it may or may not be the only thing but it sure as heck is there.
I've got some Zeiss Ultra Primes on the camera, just rolling footage on hair models from a show and the hair is crunchy. Not as crazy as Canon stuff, but it's there and I'm not a fan. Something like a Soft FX or just not using crazy sharp glass would probably counter-act that, and it would probably still grab oodles of detail elsewhere... but insanely sharp glass isn't a good combo for it.
It may be for the AF100? Not sure.
I've got some Zeiss Ultra Primes on the camera, just rolling footage on hair models from a show and the hair is crunchy. Not as crazy as Canon stuff, but it's there and I'm not a fan. Something like a Soft FX or just not using crazy sharp glass would probably counter-act that, and it would probably still grab oodles of detail elsewhere... but insanely sharp glass isn't a good combo for it.
It may be for the AF100? Not sure.
Perhaps the over-zealous OLPF on the AF-100 actually has a good side after all? Might you try that glass on an AF-100 hooked up to an external recorder and compare the results?
I actually MIGHT be able to do this if I can remember when I get back to the building. Maybe not with an external recorder, but straight out of cam shouldn't be a problem.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The hacked GH2 definitely resolves a lot, it's very sharp. And yes it definitely has aliasing too, depending on how sharp your lens is. And yes, the OLPF on the AF100 softens the image up some, and in the process it eliminates that crunchy aliasing and makes, arguably, more overall pleasing pictures. At least, that was the whole point of why they put it in in the first place. But no doubt, the GH2 can deliver a sharper image because it doesn't have that OLPF, and it definitely aliases quite a bit more.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
Kholi- is the hair something a pro mist would prevent? How bad is it?
It's pretty bad to me.
But it's a finer kind of aliasing that I think could pass. I'll find out tomorrow if the soft fx full helps.
Erik Naso
Veteran
The other day I took my hacked GH2 out for a quick shoot for a promo. It was only for a three second reporter shot that I wanted to insert into a sweeps promo. I shot it handheld with some movement and I got way to much jello than I like. Sorry folks but resolution isn’t everything. I got a great usable image but I also got a lot of rolling shutter as well.
So what did I learn? The AF-100 is a far better tool for moving images than the GH2. Will I use the GH2 again. Hell yes but I wont be moving the camera as much. That makes it limiting and I don’t like when my gear gets in the way of my vision.
So what did I learn? The AF-100 is a far better tool for moving images than the GH2. Will I use the GH2 again. Hell yes but I wont be moving the camera as much. That makes it limiting and I don’t like when my gear gets in the way of my vision.
That's what I've found as well... I've been doing some ultra-long-lens wildlife stuff lately, and gravitated towards my GH2 as being simpler to rig on a tripod-supported lens and also having that occasional nifty ETC mode. While it works fairly well in 720 modes, I've been very unimpressed by the jello in 1080... even the most macho tripod has a hard time taming this at 1000-2600mm.
I'd rather cobble together a frankenrig for AF100 and a big telephoto than have a good tele following shot turned into a psychedelic nightmare.
Considering that's an entirely EXTREME end of telephoto range, it doesn't seem like it's a problem for the 99.9999999%
That's like saying, "This camera sucks in low light. I walked into a closet and shut the door an it's really hard to see anything, even at the highest ISO."