SIRUI announce new 75mm f1.8 1.33x anamorphic lens for EF-M and other mount

[melgross]

Do you mean EF to EF-M adapters? The other way round is not possible from a physics perspective. Similarly, there isn't any EF-M to RF adapter that I can find, and it would have to be only 2mm thick.

It can be done. Adapters like that have come out on occasion for various systems. But they involve optics in the adapter.

 

[Dragon]

Not sure I follow the wine tasting thing? Composition and framing is arguably almost as important as lighting, almost. That type of lens gives yet another option in the toolkit of controlling that, it isn't just as simple as none typical dof behaviour. Judging by your profile pic I assume you're a wildlife/birder guy though so perhaps you simply don't care about the myriad things video folks care about, much the same way there will be endless wildlife photo aspects that I don't "get" or care about you could likely list are VERY important to your niche that both photographers and intended viewers care about. Regardless of whether I know about such things they may matter to those with deeper understanding and interest in that niche.

People have different needs and just because it isn't someones bag doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. I guess that is what bugs me about photo forums in general as seems we often fall into the trap of because it isn't our area = wrong. Like the endless canon are wrong because I'm not interested in it sentiments. Some folks really don't see the appeal of discrete cameras vs what a phone is capable of if the extra control and options such cameras bring to the table is irrelevant to them, doesn't mean everyone on here is wrong.

Yes, I like to take pictures of birds, but I did spend a 40 year career designing and manufacturing video and audio equipment for the the film and television industries as well as overseeing much of the standardization of HDTV, so I am quite well aware of the "preferences" of cinematographers. I also choose to disagree with some of the more esoteric beliefs in that industry. I once had a customer for digital audio equipment who claimed he could "hear wire" (a reference to low oxygen speaker wire). A nice concept, but bullsh*t none the less. Similarly, many folks in cinematography community were and still are addicted to 24fps because they can "can tell a story while keeping the viewer apart from the action". Ditto the current fetish with turning off the motion compensation on TV sets (so they go back to 3-2 pulldown and the obnoxious intermittent judder that results in). Once again, this is fetish over physics and much like the more esoteric aspects of wine tasting. A good round of double blind testing always shows how much BS there is in that game, and that is not to say that there isn't a dramatic difference between wines, but rather that the tasting process often goes over the top. BTW the real reason cinematographers hang onto 24fps is because at that frame rate, their skill set is needed to manage pan and zoom rates to keep the judder from making the audience ill. At 60 fps, not so much, so in the end, it is really about job security. In my view, the subtle differences between shooting with a wider lens and letterboxing the result vs. shooting with an anamorphic when the final resolution is the same, fall in the esoteric wine tasting basket. Even in Hollywood, VistaVision pretty much won out over Cinemascope to produce essentially the same look without the anamorphics. This list, while neither entirely accurate or complete, gives you an idea of how many ways people tried to avoid using anamorphic lenses in the film era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_formats .

 

[HMC11]

It can be done. Adapters like that have come out on occasion for various systems. But they involve optics in the adapter.

You are right, of course. With additional glass in the adapter it is possible, although that would mean more weight and length in the overall lens+adapter package. Probably more expensive too as the optics in the adapter need to keep up with, say, L lens quality.

 

[Ozarker]

You are right, of course. With additional glass in the adapter it is possible, although that would mean more weight and length in the overall lens+adapter package. Probably more expensive too as the optics in the adapter need to keep up with, say, L lens quality.

Those adapters (with glass added) have a negative impact on image quality.

 

[kten]

Yes, I like to take pictures of birds, but I did spend a 40 year career designing and manufacturing video and audio equipment for the the film and television industries as well as overseeing much of the standardization of HDTV, so I am quite well aware of the "preferences" of cinematographers. I also choose to disagree with some of the more esoteric beliefs in that industry. I once had a customer for digital audio equipment who claimed he could "hear wire" (a reference to low oxygen speaker wire). A nice concept, but bullsh*t none the less. Similarly, many folks in cinematography community were and still are addicted to 24fps because they can "can tell a story while keeping the viewer apart from the action". Ditto the current fetish with turning off the motion compensation on TV sets (so they go back to 3-2 pulldown and the obnoxious intermittent judder that results in). Once again, this is fetish over physics and much like the more esoteric aspects of wine tasting. A good round of double blind testing always shows how much BS there is in that game, and that is not to say that there isn't a dramatic difference between wines, but rather that the tasting process often goes over the top. BTW the real reason cinematographers hang onto 24fps is because at that frame rate, their skill set is needed to manage pan and zoom rates to keep the judder from making the audience ill. At 60 fps, not so much, so in the end, it is really about job security. In my view, the subtle differences between shooting with a wider lens and letterboxing the result vs. shooting with an anamorphic when the final resolution is the same, fall in the esoteric wine tasting basket. Even in Hollywood, VistaVision pretty much won out over Cinemascope to produce essentially the same look without the anamorphics. This list, while neither entirely accurate or complete, gives you an idea of how many ways people tried to avoid using anamorphic lenses in the film era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_formats .

Oh don't get me wrong I know there is the fetishisation and "look cinematic" bs and like any crowd you always get those people but it isn't as black and white as it is all crap. The problem with ALL these things there is a grain of truth in it, just not always for the reason claimed more often than not. I don't think anamorphic aspects make things inherently better but they do indeed change framing and if that fits your needs better then it will make a difference. Much like square cropping photos to really suit some photos can really be the right call and not just gimmick. Even when it comes to to audio cable differences which has been proven in countless tests to be a myth but there can be something in it for poorly designed controls and people hearing a difference (objectively I mean since all cases hear a difference but in subjective cases it comes from listener not the setup), eg cables of much higher resistance isn't apples to apples, factor all that in and it's clearly impossible to tell apart but without it the slight volume bump has been shown to make some people find it sounds better, just not for the reason marketing sold them on.

I think 24p thing is good example when along with 180 rule etc it does seem to be what people find most pleasing, not too much blur but no sickness or looking janky but some folks act like it is inherent to that framerate when you can dial in shutter speeds to match that look regardless of framerate. Even dropping some mismatched stuff into timelines can still be matched without interpreting as different rate when dial in more echo in post or such things to smear it etc and folks wont tell the difference and claim it looks right. Most the "tests" of people comparing say 60p to 24p I've seen had been loaded by dialing in same settings and light level and then of course the 60p looks less like what most people find most entertainment they consume to look like and less pleasing as result.

I can safely say wine is NOT my thing and I dislike all the bs around it but imho this is somethign that doesn't apply here. I do think the different fov to dof and so on lead to very different images much the same way I reach for 85mm lens for portraits because 50mm framed the same exaggerates faces in a way I generally dislike. I do think it needs to be the lens is picked to suit the composition though and not anamorphic for sake of it regardless of what fits. Fwiw I don't believe in the "it looks cinematic" crowd especially since even in big budget cine world there is so much variance in look from way stuff is lit, the post done and so on to the point I don't think there is a simple 1 value in isolation (ie. lens choice) = overall generic look. My point is proven by the list you posted in that anamorphic is just another tool for particular framing and rendering, it isn't the only one nor always the right one but I don't claim that, quite the opposite. Same way I don't think JUST spherical lens with16:9 output is right. It depends and need factor in what you're after and some content and vision suits anamorphic lenses quirks.

I suspect we're on the same page in most regards reading the last reply just disagree on the value of how anamorphic lenses render scenes.