Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

8317 profile views
  1. I get .087 stops too but rounded up to .1. As I mentioned, I just rated at 800 ISO. Maybe it was something to do with fudging the over/under. Or just where something landed? I believe the camera has 800 ISO as an option, too, but 850 is considered native. Anyway, it's a nice camera!
  2. If I'm not mistaken 850 ISO is almost exactly 1/10th of a stop faster than 800 ISO. 857 ISO? But I just rated my camera at 800 ISO. 😕 So if you want to do things right my guess would be to correct by 1/10th of a stop. But in my experience the camera doesn't love underexposure and most photo lenses are slower than their stated f-stop so I just set my meter to 800 ISO and went with it. 😕 Edit: I don't really believe in ETTR but I do believe in slightly overexposing some cameras. I dunno, I don't shoot much anymore. I think you can find online where different cameras put middle gray and different log profiles place it quite differently. I really like the Canon Log image from the C100 a lot but do find the codec a bit thin in the shadows sometimes.
  3. Shot at 850 and metered at 800. The 850 ISO setting always seemed a little "off" to me. With the internal codec, shadows sometimes got blocky, and it was safer to overexpose than underexpose. And that is such a trivial difference anyway. I suspect most people using these cameras are overexposing more often than not. There's a whole school of thought (ETTR) that encourages it, but I don't buy into that. On the other hand, I used to rate the F5 around 800 ISO or 1250 ISO instead of 2000 ISO too.
  4. When I had a C100 I just rated it at 800 ISO. I was mostly using still lenses then though so I figured the t-stop f-stop difference was darkening the image more than the extra 50 ISO was brightening it. I notice when people shoot by eye on the C300 etc. they tend to overexpose (or maybe not I dunno) so I think overexposing a bit is fine.
  5. I think I was wrong about the aperture. It seems to be missing the rear module: http://www.company7.com/library/nikon/Nikon_0300f2.html Is that replaceable? The lens is in beautiful condition otherwise. Glass is super clean. @Dom Jaeger I've heard Panavision converted these. Did they use the original aperture or add a new one? I think Century Optics did too but I doubt they do anymore.
  6. I had a lens serviced at Duclos. Quoted $750 to clean oil in the aperture blades on a lens. But they seem to do really great work, and I suppose on the high end it's worth it. Du All also seems to do really good work and charges less ($90hr or so I think) but it drives me a little nuts that servicing cine lenses is so much more expensive than still lenses. But they seem to do good work. Another reason I kind of wish I'd stuck with Nikkors and my t2i lol.
  7. Thanks – any way to determine if it's one thing or the other? Also is it normal for the AB mount to be a little loose?
  8. I have a 12mm Mk 1 on which the focus rotation is stiff and a bit inconsistent. Makes me wonder if it took a tumble and got warped. Is this beyond repair? Also, I feel like with the focus ears you get more torque than with a follow focus. How crazy would I be to ask an AC to pull off the focus ear? These are for "home movies" but any S16 home movie is a little expensive.
  9. You might be right. I heard or read this somewhere, but it doesn't make much sense. Maybe it was in this video, but what he says is closer to what you said, the mtf (contrast) feels too high for digital whereas it's perfect for film:
  10. There's an interview somewhere on YouTube (can't find it now) that implies that OLPF on digital cameras actually sharpen up vintage lenses but make Master Primes, for instance, feel "over sharp." I think the vintage crazy is largely in response to digital, taking the edge off. On the other hand, I remember comparing cibachrome prints to digital prints from 135 and 6x7 slides and the cibachromes were so much softer. I think you can get away with shooting softer lenses on digitally scanned film because you can add contrast back in the DI and I suspect scanners sharpen a bit too in post (I don't know), regardless I think digital scans are usually a lot sharper than film prints. So S16 or vintage lenses on S35 or 2-perf etc. become viable again. I think you're good... the only thing I didn't like about Sigma Art is the green flare.
  11. The SSC coating apparently is on the nFD lenses, that's true, but it evolved over time to take on a less magenta and more reddish orange if I'm not mistaken tint that flares less aesthetically imo. Not sure how much difference it makes, but I have some newer nFDs (85mm f1.2, 50mm f1.2) and older (24mm f1.4) and the older one flares nicer, as did the SSC Aspherical FD I owned before. These prices have gotten so crazy across the board, though, imo. But I think people are looking for the K35 look and the SSC Aspherical line is as close as it gets, early nFDs perhaps next closest.
  12. Looking to upgrade my tripod. Will be used with an Alexa Plus. Vinten 100 looks the most promising based on 44lb maximum capacity and used price around $2000; but I feel that O'Connor is the gold standard. I am used to shooting with a Miller tripod, but it is not robust enough for my Alexa. Thanks. This is for personal work, so I'm trying to find the kind of gear that's good but maybe less desirable to clients or for rental but as a result costs less. Hence the Vinten is tempting. I don't make a lot of videos either so it needn't be as robust as an O'Connor.
  13. I think the aperture is intact? I'm assuming it's behind the rear element.
  14. There's also a 19mm Kowa that might cover IMAX: Edit: pretty sure it's a fisheye lens though...
  • Create New...