M Joel W

The Witch for instance used the look around room to frame for 1.66:1 and some other indie movies have alternate aspect ratios, too. However, the main intent of the 4:3 license is to shoot anamorphic (4 perf frame resulting in a 2.66:1 image you can then crop to 2.4:1). I believe the upgrade David is referring to also requires a hardware upgrade. I strongly suspect even the 16:9 Alexas would be 4:3 capable and are basically crippled.

The Schneider 138mm achromatic diopter set is all I can think of that fits that bill but it's quite expensive. In my experience regular macro lenses of decent quality don't degrade the image that badly. They might just add a bit of CA. But this is all above my pay grade, like well above it. I just researched this a bit when I bought a set of Series 9 Schneider diopters I later sold.

I tried to buy a set of these: https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/200767-custom-schneider-138mm-achromatic-2pc-diopter-set But got them in series 9 instead of 138 by accident. But I actually had a set of four achromatic diopters and they were incredibly heavy and thick compared with my close up lenses of lower quality. Lindsey Optics has close up lenses too but I also doubt they're achromatic. I think Leica or Zeiss have expensive and heavy/thick models. What are you using these for? Which lens? There might be models with smaller diameters that serve you better. Or it might not be necessary. I have cheap 95mm (non-achromatic) diopters for my square front lomo, but that lens isn't exactly optically pristine to start with. Century has some with smaller front threads. What lens do you want to use these for?

At that size (and price) I strongly doubt they're achromatic. They would be a lot thicker and more expensive if they were. I think.

Apparently Chris Probst has been using the 35mm AF f1.4 Minolta lens as a substitute for the 35mm K35. But what substitute is there for the 18mm? I was looking at the Canon Scoopic attachment but it requires focusing into Macro mode I suspect past the 24mm FD L's close focus. I only need S35 coverage.

I don't need aperture control. I plan to shoot all these lenses wide open and use NDs. (Until I can get them rehoused.) Edit: okay maybe when a question gets this esoteric it's time to pay someone to rehouse. But that would be many years down the road so I would like to find a solution in the interim. 3D printing would be fine.

I'm probably the only person in the world looking for this. But until I can afford to have them rehoused, I want to put my 35mm f1.4 Minolta AF lens on my Alexa with an FD mount so I can use it with my FD L lenses.

I would try more stuff before you buy it. Fwiw I think the FX6 looks great but have never worked with it. Varicam35 has a beautiful image but slight magenta cast to skin tones (slight might be generous) that isn't always flattering but otherwise I think it's amazing. I really like the F3's image but the internal codec is garbage, love the F35's image, personally have had really bad experiences with the F5 and F55 though they improved them after launch. Imo there is no easy way to know exactly what you need because if there were one right answer here everyone would own that. But imo – for the money a used EVA1 is the best thing going and the FX6 plus Sony GMs is the best thing going probably a step up (I haven't used them, just love how they look). And the Alexa Mini LF is the best camera on the market if money's no issue or you want to rent something.

A lot of this is using huge soft sources, make up, post beauty work, etc. Beyond my pay grade but presumably book lights, breises, etc. For still photography this is easier since strobes are a lot cheaper than hot lights, and they melt hot boxes a lot slower too. Generally tungsten stocks are more flattering on skin tones, a bit more toward green (like the Alexa imo) whereas daylight stocks might go a bit more toward magenta on skin, which is less flattering particularly on caucasians imo. I think underexposing or overexposing depends on what look you want. For film I like how overexposed tungsten stocks look printed down but there is a lot of debate even here whether you want to use an 85 filter or not. I guess for me I'd shoot 200T with an 85B, overexpose just a bit, and blast the place full of soft light. I am probably the last person to ask lol but figured I would chime in anyway because I can't help myself.

How much did it go for? I was in the market for a 416 for a while and almost bought one.

Looking to adapt some cheap lenses (specifically a 90mm Macro probably) to PL mount. Is this possible? Maybe with an M42 adapter intermediary? Doesn't need to be great mechanically, it would be for macro photography specifically. Open to M42 too so long as it can convert to PL.

The P6K Pro looks like a great option but I have yet to use one. With the highlight recovery (which is disabled on ArriRAW) the dynamic range is nearly Alexa-level. The original P6K has a great image but some weird quirks with infrared pollution (and relatively minor issues with aliasing) – the Pro should fix the IR pollution issues with the built-in NDs. That looks like a great choice to me. Absolutely not right for my workflows but it looks like a great choice and I often mistake P6K footage for Alexa footage (except P6K footage is sharper).

Yeah, I agree with Tyler. Friends of mine and friends of friends have been signed to big ad companies based on spec work. Vimeo has been a good platform even when festivals aren't. You have to get started somewhere. If you want to break out from the path that you're on (even for an AC looking to be a DP for instance), the easiest way to do something new is often to do that for yourself. That aside, the image quality from a $1000 kit now is remarkably close to the image quality from a higher end one. The $4000 Alexa's image isn't THAT MUCH different from a $1400 P4K, but kitting out the P4K is gonna cost 10X less. On top of that, the really expensive short films I've seen produced rarely do better than the somewhat more affordable ones. I can see dropping money on spec work, but dropping $14k before you have any experience seems foolish to me. I'd go with a $3k or $4k kit to start with. And maybe to end on. I have a lot of high end gear, but kind of regret buying any of it sometimes.

I don't really rig it up but if I were using it on a shoot I'd rent more AKS. Reflectors and some inexpensive Arri fresnels (and daylight balanced LEDs) is a nice kit. Lots of good lenses available. I like old Nikkors. You need an ND filter set (or variable ND) of course. All this gear talk is funny because there is so much of it online, but at the high end no one cares as much. The most successful directors and even DPs will say "I dunno, I think it was K35s?" "Panavision Super Speeds, but because the PVintage wasn't available" etc. I used to think that was kind of flippant of them but it really doesn't matter as much as we think it does. It's a bit like asking a chef what brand of food he uses – it doesn't matter much to the chef so long as it's good enough, but we sometimes feel like using it will turn us into a chef? On the other hand the stuff I work on professionally is 95% Alexa and I have found myself really fond of certain lenses, unsurprisingly including the Cooke S2/S3s and Canon K35s. I wish I had a set of S2/S3s. The Primos, C series, etc. are my favorites too. The F35 has a GREAT image fwiw. In some ways I prefer it to the Alexa. Kinetals only cover S16, and the 9mm only covers 16mm. So that would be okay for the crop mode in the P4K but not for an S1. And that might be a good option too? But probably not since those are old lenses and might need service or repair. The FD lenses are really not bad at all (I prefer them to Nikkors usually) but they are massively overpriced right now and they can have mechanical issues. I'm the DIY type but I think it's worth shadowing someone or getting on a bigger set before dropping $14k. Personally I wish I had an Amira and Cooke S2/S3s. I have an Alexa and Schneider vintage lenses instead. They're fine but the Cooke Speed Panchros are imo where it's at. I would also be too afraid to take them on a shoot due to their value so maybe the Schneiders are okay. ? Cooke doesn't automatically equate to magic btw, I don't like their anamorphic lenses personally and the s5i seems clinical to me. I like the S4i and S2/S3, 20-60mm t3.1 zoom, 10-30mm t1.5 zoom, and the new S8is I think look nice to me too. Vimeo is great because you can look up gear and see how it looks, but even then you need to train your eye a bit because you're STILL looking more at the cooking than the ingredients to extend the metaphor. You could see something with a color grade you like and think "oh I like that lens" and it's not that lens at all, or just a composition that's nice, etc. The video you posted looked great but there it's from a talented team who has a history of nice looking work. I'd start REALLY small with a little Arri kit and an S5 (they're like $1500 now) and some Nikkors and ND filters. Then try to get jobs on bigger and bigger sets. And eventually see where things meet the middle. Or hire a crew. I'm trying to do that more myself.

In my day 800 ISO wasn't considered slow. ? Fwiw I own an old Alexa because I work in post and mostly shoot for a hobby. I'd rather be bogged down on set a bit for a few days than have to relearn all my workflows. I like the image from the newer Reds, but it's too much work to adapt to the workflow. I do disagree with Greg a bit in that an Alexa Classic (the Plus is heavier but not much) and a battery and lens isn't insanely heavy. It's only when you rig it out with a large zoom and AKS that it gets truly unwieldy. That said, I'd prefer an Amira or Mini ergonomically. And I kind of feel like no one (except a rental house or thriving business) needs to own an Alexa of any sort. For my paid work, even in post, I almost always shoot with an S1 6K HEVC and use a plug in to convert V Log to Log C. It's not as good, but it's awfully close. I used to own an EVA1. That was the happy medium. The image from that camera is beautiful and it's very small.

This is another good point. Arri's products seem to hold value a bit longer, but they also cost a lot more. The lens market (and film camera market) I agree with someone else is another story, though. I almost bought a set of Cooke Speed Panchros – and kind of wish I had. I almost sold a 7-63mm Canon zoom and set of FD L lenses and am so far glad I didn't.

It means buy exactly what you want once rather than a cheap imitation then upgrade later. I might agree. Except when you're starting out it's a lot harder to know just what you want!

The EVA1 is fantastic and underpriced but older S35 cinema glass is more expensive than full frame in some cases. But an EVA1 with old Nikkors or a Sigma 18-35mm produces an incredible image even if it's harder to find a fast wide (the 20mm f3.5 Nikkor is gorgeous but slow). That is what I would get but an S5 isn’t bad either (I prefer the EVA1’s color but they’re both so good) and has more lens choice. The F55 is imo worse than the F35. Which is weird but I just don’t like the image much at all. It’s been improved since early builds imo and raw is fine, but the F5 I found really underwhelming and it got better but imo the A7S3 or FX6 make more sense even if they don’t look like F35 footage either. I don’t think 4K matters much unless it matters to your client, frankly. If you’re the client, it doesn’t matter. P6K looks great too, great image. In 2011, the Alexa was leagues ahead. Today it's shocking how close you can get even with a P4K and Nikkors.

For a documentary like that the Fujis (or I also like the S5) and a slider should be fine. For a three-person team a smaller kit like that seems appropriate and nothing in the image there couldn't be captured with prosumer equipment from a technical perspective. That might be easier to capture on an S5 than on a Mini LF and the image isn't as different as you might think: The guy who shot that video you linked to was one of the early hot shots at dvxuser and I think got signed based on his early work on the dvx100, which was beautiful. I think the link you sent was to something shot on the F35, which is an incredible camera still. And if you were literally getting that crew together again today I'd probably recommend an Amira or Mini LF. But the crew is what matters, the guy who shot it has a really great eye. I'd either hire him or go with an S5 and cheap old vintage lenses seem popular with over-sharp camera and aspire not to recreate what an experienced team put together with more gear but to get like 80% of the way there and gain experience along the way. The more you work the more you'll know what you'll need later on. But in general I think it would be easier to start a little smaller because some of these larger cameras are expensive and battery-hungry. Fwiw I just bought an Alexa and Cine-Xenons and wish I had bought an Amira and Cookes I think. But that's a hobby for me. I have an S1 for professional work. I find the Alexa easiest to work with of any digital camera in post – and the S1 easiest in the field. The image is not as different as you'd think. Were you already set up and established doing that kind of thing I'd look to an Amira or Mini LF today but again, if you were, you'd know what you wanted. I'd get a much cheaper kit. Or even just the camera body and a few lenses and rent out the support gear as you travel.

I own a lot of higher end (and impractical) gear and something like the S5 (or I have the S1 which does 6K internal recording) gets remarkably close. In some ways even better. I do think the Amira is a viable option, or maybe the Komodo, but otherwise agree with Aapo the way to go is an S5 or A7S3 etc.

I think you're putting the horse before the cart a bit. You want a really different kit for a small DIY shoot than you want for a bigger set. Or even one movie vs the other. Most of the time I think Alexa is a good choice, K35s are valuable I think because they are a nice look on Alexa, but if there were one right answer everyone would be using the same thing. (They kind of are, though: Alexa.) The difference between an A7S3 and Venice, I think, is in small part image quality, but far more than that it's how one is designed for an individual to shoot high quality video and the other as an A camera for Top Gun 2. The Venice has a great image btw. Even lenses are this way. What's the difference between Nikkors and rehoused Nikkors? Ergonomics. And a ten times price increase. I agree with Aapo completely about camera bodies. Not trying to start brand warfare because I like the image from the latest Red cameras but "obsolescence obsolete" ended up being the opposite – an upgrade path you had to keep buying into to stay current. To me the easiest answers to how quickly cameras diminish in value is buying cameras that last (like a 416 or maybe a Mini LF – but having a concrete business plan whereby the value is greater than just renting) or are cheap enough to be replaceable. The difference in image quality between an Alexa and mirrorless used to be a lot. Today it's not nearly as much. More ergonomics. I would say I don't see the appeal of a follow focus unless you have a first AC but unfortunately for me I actually do need one I think for some of my lenses but I wouldn't invest in less than the best there, Arri AKS or similar. I have an MFF-1. But I also just wouldn't buy AKS until you need them. Imo unless you have a thriving business or a plan with which to build one, grow in real time with the projects you are on. (Then end up with an Alexa lol.) Until then, what kinds of things are you shooting and with how big a crew? What look do you want? Easier to give specific advice. The cheaper cameras like an S1 or fp or A7S3 or P6K and cheaper lenses like Nikkors can get you like 95% of the way to the image quality from a cinema camera on top of which they are much much EASIER to use without a crew.

Rule has a 416 kit I think but it's not cheap. Du-All probably has some cameras for rental in NYC. Some local film schools might have Aaton or SR2s. I have an Aaton outside Boston but it lacks a video tap and needs a CLA.

I've always taken S16 focal lengths to be 1/2 their S35 equivalent, even while realizing this is imprecise. On the other hand, I feel like 16mm film has significantly less resolution than 35mm film (or digital) so there's a tendency to go for a slightly tighter focal length. I think the Scoopic has a 12.5mm-75mm "normal" zoom and the K3 a 17-69mm zoom. Whereas to me 20-60mm is more "normal" on S35, implying 10-30mm should be on S16. (And hey, there's my dream lens, the 10-30mm t1.5 Cooke I can't afford!) I find digital scans much sharper than analogue prints, so to me that mitigates the softness a bit and reaffirms my 10-30mm love. Unpopular opinion probably, but at your budget level I'd buy something like this: https://www.adorama.com/kfc06315.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw9-KTBhBcEiwAr19ig3NQNFTFMcgjGAQRpcTsTYv5dnCZa8wY_czkDFjnKjWE6siFFSB0FhoCIPUQAvD_BwE&gclid=CjwKCAjw9-KTBhBcEiwAr19ig3NQNFTFMcgjGAQRpcTsTYv5dnCZa8wY_czkDFjnKjWE6siFFSB0FhoCIPUQAvD_BwE&utm_source=adl-gbase-p And a 16mm f2.0 and 10mm f2.8 Nikkor mount Rokinon or something. The 14-20mm Tokina l think looks ideal but it's gelded. If you can get your hands on a cheap 11-16mm PL Tokina, that seems okay, too. It's interesting (to me, maybe no one else) but on digital I think I'd love the look of super speeds. Whereas on film, U16s. On either, 10-30mm t1.5 Cooke. If I can't afford it and I still love it, I'm pretty sure that means it's not bias but unrequited love. ?

I'd take Dom's advice over mine here fwiw. A few signature primes seems like a good choice just expensive.

My background is in vfx but more toward the DIY side than higher end material. I believe the Signature Primes don't breathe much – if I had the budget I think that's what I would gravitate toward. The Ultra Primes I think would be a great choices if you weren't shooting FF. I imagine the distortion, vignetting, etc. toward the edges past the intended coverage area would be difficult to replicate in comp and you'd effectively be limited to S35 or 3.2k. For matchmoving and planar tracking, etc. You might end up with some frustrations. I was just working on a Sony Venice job shot with Master Primes in FF and it was useful because we were cropping for delivery but the corners looked weird and I didn't do any matchmoving but imagine it might be an issue there; it was at times for tracking and compositing too but also helpful for tracking in some cases since it was effectively look around room. It looked fine once we cropped but took a little getting used to working that way. I'll just say it was sort of non-standard. And I wouldn't be inclined to work with MPs or UPs except in 3.2k or 2.8k ARRIRAW. But if you're just shooting S35 or 3.2k then I guess there's nothing wrong with UPs. Imo the CP3s are not bad. They're optically ahead imo of popular "vintage" options out there, and they also flare less, which might be why they're less popular in some circles than their Contax forebears to have a more "organic" feel. They're also more consistent lens-to-lens. However I believe they breathe pretty heavily. I wouldn't look toward FD Ls or Leica R for vfx tests (but that's just me) – I believe they breathe a lot too and the whole point of them is the "organic" look to the footage. I will say that given a set of K35s or a more modern lens with diffusion, I would much rather composite in footage shot with the vintage lens; diffusion makes keying and rotoscoping annoying. The Ultra Primes do breathe quite a bit and have some distortion, though. I remember the 40mm in particular breathing heavily, having to track scale during a rack focus, and having a bit of barrel distortion too. The Signature Primes might be a LOT cleaner. Those are.... outside what I get to play with. I'd talk with your vfx sup more about this. I do remember the UPs breathing more than expected. The Otus range might have potential. No idea how much they breathe. But 28, 55, 85 is a nice kit (on FF) imo.