FUJIFILM’s latest creation, the X-T30, is now shipping and although it has been sitting on my desk for quite a while, different assignments had prevented me from reviewing it up until last week. Now that the time was right to take a closer look at it, I’ve decided to fulfil one of my longtime wishes and see if I can come up with a small yet capable and very affordable solution for shooting in an “anamorphic way”. Something that won’t require me to break a savings account or ask for a loan… Interested in hearing more? Keep on reading.  FUJIFILM X-T30 It’s the end of April. The FUJIFILM X-T30 is sitting on my desk, looking a bit lonely. My last attempt to review it ended up being an SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine X-Mount Lenses Review. Not having enough time to shoot ‘Place for Grace‘ solely on the X-T30 made me ask for Nino’s help and shoot that story together on both, the X-T30 and X-T3, too. Some time has passed and my fingers got itchy. This little camera deserves a treatment and a review for itself, but filming with it might have ended up being “another FUJIFILM X-T30 review” and that’s what I was trying to avoid. Anamorphic Filming “On a Budget” Time to Fulfil an old Wish I love the idea of anamorphic shooting, but sadly, I don’t get enough chances to practice it. There are many reasons “why to do it” – primarily, because it is one of those things that can bring you a bit closer to a real cinematic look. On the other hand, real anamorphic lenses still cost a fortune and – no matter how we look at it – they’re barely accessible to the independent run & gun filmmaker. That’s where anamorphic lens adapters come into play. If you are on a budget and want to practice anamorphic shooting, those are a valid option. So, I have one of the smallest APS-C sensor and very affordable mirrorless cameras sitting on my desk – but how do I bring it to fulfil and old wish and shoot anamorphic looking video? Before continuing, a bit about the video capabilities of the camera itself, as I truly believe that FUJIFILM did a good job at finding the balance between camera size, performance and price of such a filming device. FUJIFILM X-T30 at a Glance (Video Recording Highlights) This very small camera can record video in MOV H264 file format up to 4K 17:9 DCI (4096×2160) resolution in various frame rates (24/25/30p) at up to 200 Mbps. Video is being recorded in 8-bit internally and 10-bit 4:2:2 externally via HDMI (micro connector Type D) when connected to an external recorder. It has FUJIFILM’s ETERNA film simulation picture profile and an F-Log recording option for greater grading flexibility and higher Dynamic Range (when compared to filming in ETERNA film simulation picture profile). External audio recording and monitoring is possible, too (recording via non-standard 2.5 connector and monitoring via USB-C to 3.5mm mini jack adapter cable, compatible with analog audio input/output in the USB-C Audio Adapter Accessory Mode). When filming in 4K, the recording time is limited to (approx.) 10 minutes per recording session and due to its small size, no IBIS (In Body Stabilisation System) can be found. The camera’s autofocus function is fast and accurate, most of the time. The touch screen LCD and EVF are both fine, considering the price of the camera, which is very competitive ($899 for the body only). Now, if you want to keep the camera extremely compact and add a fine lightweight stabilized zoom lens to it, take a closer look at the FUJIFILM XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ Lens. Alone it is being sold for $299 but when bought together with the X-T30 it will cost you $100 only! I also asked my colleague and our cinema5D lab test specialist Gunther Machu to contribute and test the Dynamic Range of the FUJIFILM X-T30. Here is what he had to say: FUJIFILM X-T30 – Dynamic Range Test and Explanation To start with, please take a look at how we perform our Dynamic Range tests by clicking here. In general, the Dynamic Range of the FUJIFILM X-T30 is almost the same as the FUJIFILM X-T3’s, which comes at no surprise, as the sensor and image processor are the same. The codec options, however, are different, as the X-T30 features an internal H264 8-bit recording, only. (As opposed to the H265 10-bit the X-T3 offers).  Because I am always interested in seeing how the internal Noise Reduction affects the camera, I have tested two scenarios: a.) with noise reduction (NR) turned to -4 b.) with noise reduction (NR) turned to +4 During my tests, when tuning NR to -4 (less noise reduction, hence, more noise), I got a slightly lower Dynamic Range figure. 11.0 stops of Dynamic Range to be precise for a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of SNR=2 (12.3 stops for an SNR = 1). Then, when turning NR to +4,  the results were the opposite. I got a slightly higher Dynamic Range figure. 11.2 stops of Dynamic Range at SNR=2 (12.5 stops at SNR = 1). So, 0.2 stops more Dynamic Range as the shadows are a tiny bit cleaner. As can be seen from the results, noise reduction going from +4 to -4 has very little effect on the final image. This corresponds almost exactly with the values we are getting from the FUJIFILM X-T3. From the below comparison you can see that we show the X-T3 with 11.2 stops of DR– a slight difference, which could be the case due to the different codecs (10bit H265 all Intra 400Mbit/s on the X-T3 vs. 200Mbit/s 8-bit H264 on the X-T30). Dynamic Range X-T3 vs X-T30 Affordable Anamorphic Option for All? Now we have a small, capable camera and a fine zoom lens costing less than $1.000. That’s when it gets interesting to me… Funny enough and completely unintentionally, I have to come back and mention one of SLR Magic’s offerings, the Anamorphot-40 1.33x. This modestly priced anamorphic lens adapter is a perfect solution for anyone who is on a small budget, yet in search of achieving a unique look. Furthermore, it can be attached PERFECTLY to the FUJIFILM XC 15-45mm lens, allowing for easy operation and not less important, taking advantage of the camera/lens fast autofocus capability, making it almost ideal for a “One Man Band” operation. Please make NO mistake. Optically speaking, this lens/anamorphic adapter combination is far from perfection, BUT the image quality and ease of use – considering the price point – is unbeatable. All you need for On The Budget Anamorphic Filming In The Field If I had to summarise my findings in one word, it would be “Freedom”… FUJIFILM X-T30 with the XC 15-45mm lens and SLR Magic compact anamorphic adapter The FUJIFILM X-T30: True, 8-bit internal video recording is far from being ideal. When shooting on the camera’s highest 200Mbps data rate, Macro blocking and banding is very evident, mostly on single color surfaces like a blue sky and skin tones. On top, the lack of IBIS is frustrating, especially as this size of camera cries for one, yet it is nice to use, mostly because it is not complicated and very “mobile”. (By the way, thank you FUJIFILM for releasing the latest firmware update and making the “Q button” much less sensitive to use). When it comes to the anamorphic filming experience itself, it is worth mentioning that there is NO “squeeze” option in any of the FUJIFILM cameras, including the X-T30, so framing must be composed with a bit of guessing. FUJIFILM X-T30, XC 15-45mm and SLR Magic compact anamorphic adapter The FUJIFILM XC 15-45mm lens: This lens is FUJIFILM’s most compact and lightweight zoom lens. Although the handling of this lens is average (for example, an unmarked electronic zoom is preventing one from knowing focal length positions), I was grateful to see it is sharp enough to produce nice images. Also, its aperture starting at f/4.0 (it is actually a f/3.5 on the wide side lens, but as you zoom in the aperture changes), meant I was able to reduce its soft image when lens aperture was wide open, so the immediate result was a sharper image. It should also be taken into account that the wider focal length of this lens (15mm) is not usable for our anamorphic purpose. As the camera does NOT communicate with the lens in order to give focal length values, I can presume it is being usable from 25mm onward. Simply play with the lens’ electronic zoom ring until the point of not seeing the “back frame” caused by attaching the anamorphic adapter, in order to bring you to a usable focal length starting point. On the positive side, when turning the camera OFF and then ON again, the last focal length is being kept in the camera’s memory – so there was no need to repeat this “zooming process” every time when switching the camera on . A word about the lens’ internal stabiliser: Of course it is very useful, especially as the camera does not support IBIS, BUT I find it to be a bit weak, hence, 95% of the shots in the above video had to be stabilised in post. FUJIFILM XC 15-45mm @f4 FUJIFILM XC 15-45mm @f5.6 The Compact Anamorphot-40 1.33x anamorphic adapter: I’ve already reviewed this adapter about 2 years ago and also tried to explain and highlight the benefits of using anamorphic lens adapters in general, but this time I felt that the combination of camera/lens/anamorphic adapter was simply right and indeed, creating a 2.35:1 image on the FUJIFILM X-T30 16:9 sensor camera was a pleasant experience. This particular adapter allows for the usage of the camera’s autofocus system (just make sure to turn its front barrel to “NEAR” if you get too close to an object, otherwise leave it on “NORMAL”). Also, from the optical point of view, as mentioned before,  f/4 should be the most open aperture to be used with this adapter, otherwise you risk a very noticeable drop in visual quality. As you can see from the exported images below, the more you close the lens’ aperture, the sharper the image gets. FUJIFILM XC Lens with SLR Magic anamorphic adapter @f4.0   FUJIFILM XC Lens with SLR Magic anamorphic adapter @f5.6   FUJIFILM X-T30, SLR Magic Anamorphot-40 1.33x Anamorphic Adapter (Compact) Conclusion All in all, I’m rather satisfied with the overall performance of this assembled anamorphic kit. For $1450, the results are fine. In fact, I’m not so sure if anything else but anamorphic mobile phone filming comes closer in terms of pricing and, of course, the achieved  picture quality is higher here. In an age where so much of what we see looks and feels like “more of the same”, this is an opportunity to deliver a bit of a different look, without breaking the bank or cropping the image in post and throwing away a lot of the recorded information. Bear in mind that an upgraded version of this modestly priced kit could easily be achieved by using the X-T3 instead of the X-T30. Using the even more capable X-T3 will instantly result in getting rid of banding and 8-bit internal encoding issues. Unfortunately, both the FUJIFILM X-T3 and XC 15-45mm lens are not being sold together as a kit, but in case we will identify requests for such a kit, we will surely let FUJIFILM and B&H know. Technical information: The above video was shot on a FUJIFILM X-T30 at 200Mbps, 4K DCI, 25fps, F-Log picture profile. Lens: FUJIFILM XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ. Lens adapter: SLR Magic Anamorphot-40 1.33x Anamorphic Adapter (Compact). Edited  on Adobe Premiere CC latest edition, LUT supplied by Lutify.me. Additional info about the SLR Magic compact adapter can be found by clicking here. The music used in the video above is courtesy of Music Vine. Get 25% off your next music license with code C5D25 (valid for one use per customer). Would you consider filming with anamorphic adapters or doesn’t it count for you if it’s not a real anamorphic lens? Share with us your thoughts in the comment section below. 

MASV 3 is an online service for transferring files. Not a particularly exciting topic, I know, but if you have to send a huge video file for delivery to your client overseas this might come in very handy. So how good is MASV 3? I’ve used MASV 3 for a couple of months now. It was introduced back in February (read our coverage here) and since I was a paying customer of the original MASV Rush and MASV 2.0, too, the pricing for my account was grandfathered to the old model of $0.15/GB (early beta adopter – this has nothing to do with cinema5D). The new model is based on $0.25/GB. So keep that in mind when observing the screenshots below. What is MASV 3? MASV 3 is a tool for transferring (huge) files around the internet. You can access the dashboard via your browser of choice, however Firefox or Chrome are recommended (I’ll come to that later). The USP (unique selling point) of MASV 3 is the fact that there is no limit in terms of file sizes. You could transfer a 136GB video file if you want. Try that with WeTransfer! But, and this a major point, MASV 3 is a pay-as-you-go service. You will be charged for each individual transfer, including a transfer of less than 2 GB, which would have been free if you had chosen WeTransfer for that one. Pricing Since there are a lot of options for transferring files out there – and many of them are free to use – the pricing is an important aspect. The pricing structure has been changed from 2.0 to MASV 3. In version 2 you had to pay $0.15 per user (client) and per GB uploaded. In version 3 you will be charged $0.25 per user and per GB downloaded. That means that if you had kicked off a 5GB transfer with MASV 2 but your client never downloaded it, you still would be charged $0.15 * 5GB = $0.75 for that. In MASV 3 this transfer is free since nobody downloaded anything. But if your client downloads that 5GB file you will be charged $0.25 * 5GB = $1.25. A transfer is active for 10 days and 3 days prior to expiry your recipient(s) will receive a reminder via email. This is a downside in comparison to an FTP server for example but this is just the way online services work. Otherwise, their servers would get crammed with old data pretty fast I assume. Workflow Using MASV 3 is really straightforward. Once you are logged in, you’re presented with a new transfer dialog. Just drag’n’drop your files into that window, enter some recipients plus an optional note and off you go. You also can secure your transfer with a password. Once the upload is done you get a transfer complete message and a confirmation email. Furthermore, you can send folders complete with sub-folders using the “add folder” button. The folder structure will be kept intact (only exeption: empty folders with no files in them will be dropped) and your client can download the entire package as a *.zip file. MASV recommends using the latest version of Firefox or Chrome for this to work flawlessly. In general, Safari is not recommended for uploading files since this browser comes with a feature which forces it to reload once the open page uses a significant amount of system resources. A friendly reminder to better not use Safari. This is the case while uploading files because MASV wants to get the job done as fast as possible. So you might end up with a failed upload due to an automatic page reload… Unfortunately, you can’t switch this off. Infrastructure MASV 3 uses a network of 160 servers worldwide (version 2 had 10 servers). With the server infrastructure scaled up like this, MASV wants to make sure your transfer speeds will always be at peak performance. According to MASV the upload speeds outperform many other services but of course, a bit of marketing is involved here. So please take the below graph with a grain of salt. In real life you will most likely get only a fraction of this performance since the upload data rates tend to be the bottleneck in modern DSL connections. For example, I normally get around 8Mbps upload speeds at home which is not great. Surprisingly I get around 18Mbps when using a mobile hotspot provided by my iPhone SE over cellular network. Brave new world! 5GB File upload from Ottawa, Canada on 1 Gbps connection using Firefox (source: MASV). So for me personally it really doesn’t make any difference whether I use WeTransfer or MASV 3, since my uplink at home is not capable of utilizing anything above 10Mbps. For post-production studios or companies that might be another case (or maybe I just need to upgrade my DSL connection). Features Since MASV 3 is based on a per-download pricing it might be a good idea to limit the number of downloads any given client can initiate. This feature has been added shortly after the launch of version 3 and I think it’s really a necessity to have a feature like this. Furthermore, in order to keep track of your expenses, MASV 3 offers a detailed summary of your latest transfers. In the screen capture above you can see that a 3.28GB file that I’ve uploaded for 1 recipient has been downloaded 1 time so far, resulting in a $0.49 billing amount. I haven’t limit the amount of downloads in this case. Here you can see a summary of all my recent transfers. I’ve sent out roughly 30GB worth of data in the past 6 weeks. Another nice feature of MASV 3 is called portals. With these you can offer your team mates or sub-contractors a convenient way to transfer files your way. All they have to do is drop their files in your created portal using a special link. You, as the portal owner, will be charged for the transfers just like a normal transfer. Furthermore you can brand these portals to your liking. The Future MASV 3 was written from scratch and it’s now based upon a brand new API. So, if you’re a developer you could make use of this extensive API and tailor MASV exactly to your needs. But you don’t need to be a software developer in order to benefit from this new approach. Over time, things like an iOS app for MASV 3, a Windows desktop app, a dedicated panel for Adobe Premiere Pro and Media Encoder and lots of other things will be released. Upload finished edits straight from your NLE to clients? This is pretty cool, I think. Shortcomings All in all MASV 3 is a nice service and it really works flawlessly. I only had a few glitches while version 3 was still in beta but after that everything worked as intended. The elephant in the room is pricing, of course. And yes, I think this is the one major disadvantage over other services. Since I’m still on a $0.15 basis the price is fine with me but I understand that $0.25 is another story. As you can see, all of my transfers are below 10GB so the fact that MASV doesn’t have a limit in terms of file sizes doesn’t really matters for me. But who knows.. maybe I need to transfer that 136GB file one day. I think for larger studios and production companies MASV 3 makes a lot of sense, for one-man-band individuals I’m not so sure. I like the interface, the simplicity and the straightforward approach. No FTP clients needed. You don’t even have to send an email, just upload your files and MASV will take care about everything. It’s really a WeTransfer-like approach. Just with more options and less limits. For smaller, sub-2GB, files WeTransfer might be the better solution, though. You don’t even need a login for that! Again, larger studios will like the ability to create portals for their sub-contractors, the monthly billing and all that but for individuals MASV 3 might just be a little bit too expensive. However, since it is a pay-as-you-go service you won’t be charged until you actually use it so that’s a plus. Sending off hard drives to clients is of course way more expensive than any online file transfer service. If MASV 3 is the right service for you depends on the amount of data you want to transfer over time and if you need features like portals for example. For me it just works. And if I don’t need it I don’t pay anything until I do need it again. Neat! links: massive.io Do you use a file transfer services? Which one? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

A head-to-head comparison of the features, color rendering and light quality of the ARRI Skypanel S60-C versus the new Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60. This is a guest review by director of photography and longtime cinema5D fan Scott Leslie. Learn more about him below this post! When Lupo agreed to this head-to-head comparison, I thought it was a pretty gutsy request. The ARRI Skypanel is the industry standard with great feature sets and an excellent build quality. That’s why it’s been so widely adopted. While the Italian company Lupo has been around since 1932 and making lighting instruments since the 90’s, it’s relatively new to RGBW lighting. The Superpanel Full Color 60 is their first 2×1 RGBW LED panel and it comes in well under half cost of the Skypanel S60-C. The question is: does it measure up? So, with the help of a Sekonic C 800-U Spectromaster Color Meter, I put both lights through test with interesting results. Build Quality The ARRI Skypanel S60-C is built like a tank with an aluminum frame a heavy-duty yoke and a really well made disc break mechanism for locking the tilt of the light into place. Because of its weight, it has a Junior Pin connector, so you’ll need a beefier stand with a Junior Pin receiver – like a combo-stand. Now the Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60 is made of technopolymer plastic reinforced with carbon fiber. Now, this isn’t your typical plastic but it’s a durable industrial material that is really robust. I’ve had a 1×1 Superpanel for about 2 years now and I haven’t had a single issue with it. The Superpanel Full Color 60 has a solid, although not as beefy of a yoke as ARRI and its breaking mechanism works well, although it’s not as heavy duty as ARRI’s. BUILD QUALITY WINNER: ARRI Skypanel S60-C Weight Comparison The ARRI Skypanel S60-C is quite a bit heaver. The head of the unit weighs in at 28.2 lbs and the separate power supply weighs 7.7lbs bring the combined weight in at 35.9 lbs. The Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60’s power supply is connected to the unit and the combined weight is just under 20 lbs. Having the power supply attached to the main unit is also much more convenient than having it separate. WEIGHT WINNER: Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60 DMX Support Both fixtures have the standard 4-pin XLR DMX in and out, but the Skypanel also has a LAN DMX port. DMX WINNER: ARRI Skypanel S60-C Front Diffusion While both instruments have a nice frosted front, the Skypanel’s front diffusion can be removed and replaced by thicker or thinner diffusion or even an intensifier that increase the light output by 50%. The Skypanel has really cleaver release mechanism that makes changing out the diffusion a snap. It also has an extra slot for adding accessories, like a soft box. The Superpanel Full Color 60’s front diffusion is not removable and there is no accessory slot. FRONT DIFFUSION WINNER: ARRI Skypanel S60-C Features: CCT, HSI and RGBW modes Both fixtures are basically identical with these modes. They both have a CCT mode, which is basically a dual color mode, where the Kelvin can be changed from 2800K all the way to 10,000K. Where most LED lights only go from 3200K to 5600K, the extra color temperatures on both sides are really nice. In the CCT mode, both the Superpanel and Skypanel also have a plus/minus green, which is really handy when matching to different fixtures or practical lights. The HSI mode allows you to quickly set the color of the light from red to yellow to green and everything in between. They each have a dial that adjusts the hue and a separate dial to adjust the saturation. The RGBW mode allows you to dial in specific RGB colors. FEATURES WINNER: Tie Special Effects Both lights have preset special effects but the Skypanel has many more to chose from, especially for film production. Lupo did inform me that they are currently working on more special effects, which should be out soon. SUPERPANEL FULL COLOR 60: Strobe, Party, Cop Car and Disco SKYPANEL S60-C: Party Effect, Candle, Clouds Passing, Club Lights, Color Chase, Cop Car, Exposition, Fire, Fireworks, Florescent Flicker, Light Strobe, Lightning, Paparazzi, Process, Pulsing, Television and Welding SPECIAL EFFECTS WINNER: ARRI Skypanel S60-C Additional Features The ARRI Skypanel S60-C does have some additional features that the Superpanel Full Color 60 doesn’t have, most notably the ability to dial in specific Roco or Lee filters. If you’re a DP or Gaffer that’s use to using Roco and/or Lee filters then this can be super handy. You simply dial in the filter number and the light will emulate the color. The Skypanel also offers, at an additional cost, a wired remote or wifi controller through Art Net. You can also set up a Master/Slave mode where the units can be daisy chained so that one Skypanel can control the color and output of other Skypanels in the chain. You can achieve the same result through using DMX with either the Skypanel or Superpanel. ADDITIONAL FEATURES WINNER: ARRI Skypanel S60-C Pricing The ARRI Skypanel S60-C is currently going for $5,850 where the Lupo Full Color 60 is $2,598. That brings the Lupo in at $3,253 cheaper. PRICING WINNER: Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60 Metering I used a Sekonic C 800-U to test the color rendering and output of these lights. First, in CCT mode with 0 Green, I meter the 2 instruments at 3200K at 1 meter. Now if you look at the numbers from the Sekonic C 800-U you’ll see that both lights are close to the 3200K color temperature. The Skypanel S60-C is almost 4,000 lux brighter, which sounds like a lot but equates to about a 1/2 stop. And they both have a tiny Green/Magenta cast. Lupo has a slightly better color rendering with an average CRI of 95.9 vs 95.3. Now when you look at the spectral distribution at 3200K, the Skypanel has a green spike where the Superpanel is much smoother and fuller. The Superpanel Full Color 60 looks much more impressive here. When we look at the color rendering by the numbers, for skin tone the important spectrums are R9, R13 and R15. It’s interesting to see that the Skypanel does score higher on R9 & R15, while the Superpanel is higher on R13. In aggregate, the Superpanel does score slightly higher. I also metered at 5 feet, 10 feet and 15 feet and received similar percentages. The Skypanel hovered at 1/2 to 1 stop brighter with the color indexes basically staying the same. Now when I tested the lights at 5600K, these are the results the Sekonic C 800-U gave me. Again the Superpanel Full Color 60 had a slightly better color rendering, but at 5600K it has a little more of a green shift than the Skypanel S60-C. The output of the Skypanel is now about 1 stop brighter than the Superpanel. I was disappointed by the Superpanel’s CCT number. The Kelvin temperature read at 6317K where it should be close to 5600K. The Skypanel’s CCT number was also a little high (5783K) but much closer than the Superpanel. At 5600K, the Lupo Superpanel’s spectral distribution chart again looks much better the ARRI Skypanel. At 5600K at 1 meter the Superpanel Full Color 60 has a higher combined CRI and scores higher on the skin spectrums (R9, R13, R15), making it the clear color rendering winner. I also metered the lights at 2800K, 4500K, 8000K and 10000K. Here is the master chart showing the results. These results are a little bit of a mixed bag. While the Lupo Superpanel Full color 60 consistently scores higher in color rendering and has much better spectral distribution, the ARRI Skypanel S60-C has an higher output of ½ to a full stop and it has a more accurate Kelvin temperature at 5600K and above. Real World Tests While metering numbers are great, I wanted to see the quality of light these produced on a subject. I alternated both the ARRI Skypanel S60-C and the Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60 at exact same spot (about 4’ away from the subject) and metered them both to the same output. For flavor, I added small bounce card, a backlight and a background accent light. Note: the background light is putting the projector shadow on the background, not the Skypanel or Superpanel key light. Here’s a side-by-side test with the Superpanel Full Color 60 on the left and the Skypanel S60-C on the right. As you can see that the quality of the lights are very similar, with both giving a nice soft key. Snapbag Octa 5’ Softbox I was also really curious to see how these instruments would work with my Snapbag Octa 5 soft box. This is a fantastic soft box that I really recommend for beauty lighting. Because the softbox is very large and is skinned with Magic Cloth, you need a pretty powerful instrument to punch through it. Both lights had plenty of out put for the job. Again, both instruments are very similar in light quality and they look great! Here’s my final score card: Conclusion In conclusion, the ARRI Skypanel S60-C’s specs and feature sets are a little more robust than the Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60 but the quality of the light is very similar. The question you need to ask yourself is: are you going to use the extra features, like dialing in Rosco or Lee filters enough to make it worth over double the price? Currently, B&H and CVP don’t list the Lupo Superpanel Full Color 60. We will update this post once they do, we have reached out to them.  Do you use RGB or RGBWW lights? What do you think of the ARRI Skypanels and the Lupo Superpanels Full Color? Let us know in the comments below!

Canon just announced the release of Sumire – a new series of seven PL mount cinema prime lenses.  Canon Sumire set Canon just announced a new series of prime lenses and we were lucky enough to put our hands on the Sumire 35mm T1.5, the first lens of the batch that was available for testing. By the way, if you’ve been wondering what the name Sumire (菫, すみれ, スミレ) means, then look no farther, it is a feminine Japanese given name and the name of a delicate flower. Here is the complete list of the new lenses, their focal length, model number, and T stop values: CN-E14mm T3.1 FP X CN-E20mm T1.5 FP X CN-E24mm T1.5 FP X CN-E35mm T1.5 FP X CN-E50mm T1.3 FP X CN-E85mm T1.3 FP X CN-E135mm T2.2 FP X Canon Sumire CN-E 35mm T1.5 But before sharing my observations, here is what’s new: Sumire Prime Lenses – Overview Canon already has a set of (EF mount) Cinema Lenses, but obviously they were looking into giving DoPs something extra on top of delivering cinema lenses with a new PL mount. Something that can bring an even more unique feel and look into a creative production. Their new offering will come with an interchangeable PL mount first and we were told that modification to EF mount (and back to PL) can be done by Canon Service & Repair Centre or Authorised Service Partner. Like their original series of Cinema Prime lenses, Canon kept the Sumire with having a fast T stop values.  Sumire will be compatible with any PL mount cinema cameras equipped with either a 35mm full-frame format sensor or a Super 35mm format sensor, including selective Cinema EOS cameras like the EOS C700 FF camera. Supporting an 11-blade iris ensures round and soft bokeh. All the lenses feature manual control and adopt the 0.8 pitch lens gears for both iris and focus rings. In addition to this, the lenses have the same front diameter (114mm) which also support 105mm screw-on filters. Focus adjustments can be made over a 300-degree rotation angle.  Canon Sumire CN-E 35mm – Light halo effect and noticeable chromatic aberration Sumire 35mm T1.5 – First look For the last few days I have been using the new lens on a Sony a7 III fitted with a Vocas Sony E to PL mount adapter. (Unfortunately we didn’t have a chance to stay within the Canon ecosystem and test it on a C700 FF, which would have been ideal, but we needed to stay small – and only the Sony E-Mount allows for adapting PL easily, not EF cameras). My most obvious initial observations: The new lens is very sharp across the entire image, BUT, when aperture is wide open there is a noticeable loss of sharpness especially at the corners. Stopping down a bit might be a safer bet. Breathing is really kept to a minimum. As Canon stated on their official press release, I can confirm that the image has a warm feeling to it. To my personal taste, it can be a bit too warm at times but it’s not an issue if you are manipulating your image in post anyway. What really sets the new lens apart from the original CN-E is the way flares and light halo are handled. Again, in my personal taste, flares tend to be a bit on the “wild side”, and this is something that has to be taken into consideration when on location. I’m very curious to see how other DoPs will react to that, but the lens certainly has a special “character” that many people are looking for. Chromatic aberration is certainly visible. A note about 300-degree focus rotation: If you are not familiar with shooting using such rotation, as a one-man-band this lens might be difficult to operate handheld alone. Follow Focus might be welcome here. I’m saying that just in case you find yourself working in the field alone with this lens… (People might be used to that kind of focus rotation from ZEISS Compact Primes.) The illuminated distance scale very welcomed and speaking of which, the lens minimum focus distance is reasonable at 28.5 cm (12ft). Should be straightforward to see all the markings in the dark. Canon Sumire CN-E 35mm next to Canon CN-E 35mm Sumire CN-E 35mm T1.5 in comparison to the Original CN-E 35mm T1.5 As I wrote above, flares are much more noticeable with the Sumire. (At times, and depending on the amount of lights entering your lens, the light halo effect can be strong). In regards to chromatic aberration, what really puzzled me is the fact that I could not come up with a concrete answer to which of the lenses have a stronger fringing. At times, the Sumire exhibited strong fringing and then on the next comparison shot it was the original CN-E 35mm lens that exhibited a noticeable chromatic aberration. When it comes to Bokeh, to my opinion both lenses show nice soft aesthetic blur mostly due to the usage of 11 blades which help keeping the aperture almost perfectly circular. We have to thank our dear friend and colleague Alexander Boboschweski for loaning us his original CN-E 35mm T1.5 lens for the comparison! Aperture design illustration – 11 blade on the right hand side. Image credit: Sony Key Features across the Entire Sumire Prime Series: Interchangeable PL mount with full-frame coverage Same unified colour tone as the Cinema Lens range Bright T-number and an 11-blade iris Reduced focus breathing 300-degree focus rotation Consistent filter diameter and gear positioning Canon Sumire 35mm sharpness – Left, T1.5, right T4.0 Pricing and Availability: Canon will start rolling out those new lenses shortly and one can expect to pay around $7400 per Sumire lens. While the price tag for many of the “original” CN-E lenses is around $4000, it is clear that Canon is targeting rental houses and not end users. Canon Sumire on the Sony a7III (With Vocas Sony E to PL mount adapter) Conclusion I applaud Canon for developing and delivering a lens which tries to be as sharp as possible yet has a very strong identity. When it comes to picture aesthetics, some will love the outcome while for others flare and general “light blooming” might be a bit too strong. I like the fact that the new lens is relatively compact, robust and its operation is very smooth. Its current price point means that it will be reachable for some via rental houses. If you are a Canon CN-E user, I do recommend testing the Sumire before choosing it over the original CN-E lenses. If you do so, please share with us your findings. I’ll be very curious to hear your thoughts. The music used in the video above is courtesy of Music Vine. Get 25% off your next music license with code C5D25 (valid for one use per customer). Have you worked with any of Canon’s CN-E Cinema Prime lenses before? How did you like the image and are you interested in trying the new Sumire lenses? Please share with us your thoughts in the comment section below.  

The newly announced MicroPrime X-Mount Lenses from SLR Magic are already being sold (see our news post here), and as we got A LOT of requests from colleagues and people from our filming community to test and review them, we decided to go a head and do so. Although this review covers the X-Mount version of SLR Magic’s MicroPrime Cine lenses, similar products with E and MFT mount options are available, too. For the complete list of  lenses (and mounts), please take a look at the chart further below.  SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine set – 12, 15, 18, 25, 35, 50, 75mm It’s the middle of March when Nino and I have concluded to go on a very short trip to N.Y.. As we wanted to maximise our productivity during the stay, we’ve managed to “squeeze in” a quick review. The original plan was to concentrate and review the FUJIFILM X-T30, but as we had exactly 4 hours blank to shoot the above story before rushing to the airport, we made the quick decision to “join forces”, use the FUJIFILM X-T3 as an additional camera and shoot this piece solely on SLR Magic MicroPrime X-Mount lenses, which we had brought with us. At the office, we have the entire set (12mm, 15mm, 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm), but for that particular journey, we took only 3 lenses with us (12mm T2.8, 35mm T1.3, 75mm T1.5), as our packing space was very limited. I still hope to conduct a complete and separate review on the FUJIFILM X-T30, and before continuing, here are a few words about working with that new camera. SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine lenses on FUJIFILM cameras (From left to right X-T3, X-T30. X-H1) FUJIFILM X-T30 This small, portable yet capable camera might be a sign of what’s ahead of us in the near future. It is very nice for what it is and for its price tag. Let me highlight some of its strengths: APS-C sensor size 4K up to 29.97P DCI recording (4096 × 2160) F-Log Eterna Film Simulation Up tp 200 Mbps Improved focus capabilities (Tested separately, as the lenses used for the above review are all manual) Capacitive touchscreen panel 120fps in Full HD Can record 4:2:2 10-bit via HDMI externally Direction lever (Or joystick in simple words…) Attractive price On the downside: Up to 10 minute recording time in 4K No H.265 recording option As the camera body is so small, there is no IBIS (In Body Image Stabilisation) A USB C to 3.5 headphone jack adapter is required to monitor sound and a 2.5 to 3.5  Jack adapter is needed in order to connect your 3.5mm mic If I had to summarise, the new FUJIFILM X-T30 is far more a mini X-T3 than the former X-T20 was a mini X-T2. A sentence about the FUJIFILM X-T3 It is our best mirrorless camera for 2018. On the bench: SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine 12, 35, 75mm SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine X-Mount Lenses (12mm T2.8, 35mm T1.3, 75mm T1.5) – Overview SLR Magic is known for offering our filming community well built, modesty priced lenses and the new MicroPrime Cine X-Mount lenses are no different. Any of the 3 lenses we’ve tested felt robust and easy to handle. Focus and aperture rings were both buttery smooth to operate. The markings (aperture and focus distance) on all lenses are clear and easy to read (those lenses have imperial measurements only and none are illuminated). If you have a set of those lenses, identifying the desired lens based on focal length is very easy, as the marking on the front part of the lens can’t be missed. SLR Magic MicroPrime lenses chart As you can see on the above chart, weight and length are kind of similar but not equal between all lenses (the new 12, 15, 18mm lenses are a bit shorter), and depending on usage and type of operation, it should be fairly easy to change lenses while shooting with a gimbal for example. Speaking of lens weight: paired with any of the new cameras within the FUJIFILM range – be it the X-H1, X-T3 or even X-T30 – the package (camera+lens) felt very balanced and easy to work with. Back to the lenses themselves, one thing that does make life easy, is the identical 82mm front filter thread size (so for example, in case of using a Variable ND filter, you’d only need to pack one). If you fancy filming anamorphic style, you will find the MicroPrime Cine lenses to be a perfect match to SLR Magic’s own Anamorphot 65 – an anamorphic lens adapter which we reviewed separately last year. The lens’ 85mm front diameter allows for a perfect attachment to the Anamorphot 65 anamorphic lens adapter.   Optical performance (PLEASE NOTE: Our resolution chart is out of the office, so I used a printed version in order to simulate my findings) The chart images within this article clearly demonstrate the differences in picture quality between fully open aperture and stepped down reading. If the results are not so clear, one should take a look down at the left hand-side, where the numbers are. This perfectly shows how the lens behaves.   One should remember that these lenses are similar to their E-mount version siblings. The reason I’m mentioning it here is because the lenses are actually made for full frame sensor cameras. From my observation, those exact lenses (just in X-Mount) do perform better on APS-C sensor cameras. I can presume that this is due to the fact that more of the glass centre is being used and as a result, picture edges are less soft. In general, if  you want to have these MicroPrime lenses perform optically better, try not to use them wide open. T/4.0 is kind of the sweet spot, where picture quality across the entire image gets better. The statement is valid for the 35mm and 75mm lenses we’ve tested. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the 12mm T2.8 version. I LOVE filming wide-angle shots and this particular new lens excited me and ignited my imagination, but in reality, it is noticeably soft and the bad news is, you will have to step down aperture as much as f/5.6 (or even more) in order to get acceptable across the image even results. Also, please bear in mind that the barrel distortion of the lens is rather noticeable. On a positive note: as this lens has a 12.5 cm (4.9 inches) minimum focus distance, it can serve well in some shooting scenarios. Speaking of which, the minimum focus distance of the 75mm lens is 79 cm (31 inches) and for the 35mm, it is 37cm (14.5 inches). To summarise, if you are aware of that lens’ limitations and sharp centre vs. soft corners are not an issue for you, I guess you will enjoy using it. Note on the above footage: 12mm is very wide and my 82mm Variable ND filter was vignetting when attached to the lens. This is one of those cases where I wish I had the STC In Body Clip Filter to help! SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine 12mm   MicroPrime 12mm @ T2.8   MicroPrime 12mm @ T4.0   MicroPrime 12mm @ T5.6 SLR Magic is certainly aware of the optical limitation of its new 12mm (and 15mm) lenses, so those 2 are sold for $100 less than the rest of the lenses found in the kit. SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine 35mm   MicroPrime 35mm @ T1.3 (See how soft the picture is, especially on the edges)   MicroPrime 35mm @ T4.0 (Lens sharpness is much better when closing down the aperture ring)   SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine 75mm   MicroPrime 75mm @ T1.5   MicroPrime 75mm @ T4.0 Lens breathing, Chromatic aberration and Focus throw  All SLR Magic MicroPrime Cine X-Mount Lenses have a 150 degree focus throw. This allows for easy, single-handed operation. When it comes to chromatic aberration, it was very evident that the 75mm T1.5 was the one to suffer most from this phenomenon, while testing the 3 lenses. Now, let’s talk about focusing. All the lenses within the kit deploy an internal focus mechanism, but as you can see from the samples below, the tested 12, 35, and 75mm all suffer from some lens breathing issues. MicroPrime Cine 12mm lens breathing sample   MicroPrime Cine 35mm lens breathing sample   MicroPrime Cine 75mm lens breathing sample Lens Flare, Bokeh and Overall Picture Aesthetic A lot could have been written in this section, yet please allow me to summarise. The lenses I’ve tested behave in a different way when their aperture is being wide open, in comparison to when stepped down to T4/T5.6. If you are after the “creamy look” – look no further. Film with open aperture and the combination of a relatively soft image, strong lens flare and even chromatic aberration will give a unique (vintage?) look. As I wrote earlier, a more balanced and clean/clear image (modern look?) is achieved by closing the aperture ring. When it comes to chromatic aberration, in my observation, all the 3 lenses tested suffer from that phenomenon, but the 75mm was the one to suffer most. Bokeh-wise, it is rather sharp along the edges and kind of smooth in the middle. So, if you have lots of lights at the background, those might not blend smoothly and even be distracting, though this is really a matter of personal taste. Some won’t like it, others won’t even be bothered. SLR Magic MicroPrime 35mm – Bokeh   SLR Magic MicroPrime 12mm – Lens flare   SLR Magic MicroPrime 35mm – Wide open aperture “creamy look” Conclusion SLR Magic’s MicroPrime Cine X-Mount lenses are very easy to handle and work with, and build-quality is impressive. In terms of picture quality: if you are looking for optical perfection or absolute sharpness, look elsewhere, yet if you are after a unique look and strong lens characteristics, these lenses certainly tick the box! For their price point, they are good value for money, BUT one has to remember that working with wide open aperture will result in a very noticeable deterioration of picture quality. If the maximum aperture of T4.0 is fine for most of the work you do, then those lenses might be right for you. My personal grief is the 12mm T2.8. As I wrote before, I love wide angle shots and although this particular lens brings interesting results, I still have to learn how to trust it while filming a real, paid project. Although FUJIFILM cameras are gaining popularity and momentum, X-Mount lens offerings are still limited and as I can’t really think of any other brand, which produces modestly priced “Cine” alternatives (I’m not talking photo lenses here) – considering the price vs. build-quality and optical performance – if you are on a budget, those lenses might be worth taking a look at. After all, it is not that we are filming charts all day long… The full range of SLR Magic MicroPrime lenses can be found at B&H and CVP About the above video: Shot with FUJIFILM X-T30 and FUJIFILM X-T3 (H264, 200 Mbps, F-Log). Lenses used: SLR Magic MicroPrimes (12mm T2.8, 35mm T1.3, 75mm T1.5). Edited on Adobe Premiere latest edition. Color corrected with FilmConvert. Thank you Dan Reichard and Grace Eline for allowing us to cover your story. Please visit the VALERIE FUND page and consider donating. Grace’s House will be open to the public April 25 through May 19, 2019. For tickets, visit Grace’s House Tickets. The music used in the video above is courtesy of Music Vine. Get 25% off your next music license with code C5D25 (valid for one use per customer). What do you think about SLR Magic’s MicroPrime lenses. Did you have a chance to use the E-mount or X-mount versions? Please share with us your thoughts in the comment section below.