A Cam For All Seasons

[combatentropy]

For the past year, I have been working out in my head, and on paper, the ideal balance of features in a camera. I'm interested in what you think: http://combatentropy.com/a_cam_for_all_seasons

This is definitely "paperware." I don't plan on making this myself. Just want to get Sony, Panasonic, Canon, or somebody to make one to these specifications.

[bilgami]

Is this a sales pitch to the camera companies? do they do that?

[mcgeedigital]

I'd buy that camera.

Unfortunately, the big camera companies will never make it, because it will comptet with their "big iron" cameras.

[combatentropy]

Is this a sales pitch to the camera companies?

Yes, but I am not sure the best way to send it to them. If we gather enough support here, maybe they'll listen.

[combatentropy]

I'd buy that camera.

Unfortunately, the big camera companies will never make it, because it will comptet with their "big iron" cameras.

Sony and Panasonic -- with their EX1 and HVX200 -- have features that might cut into their ENG line. But they made them anyway, likely because they hope that even though the camera returns half the profit, it will sell twice as many. In fact, they likely sell more than that.

But a company that doesn't have that issue at all is Canon.

[Huy Vu]

Well, the truth is you can't have a camera that's perfect for everything, even on a theoretical level. For example, a camera with full 35mm sensor probably wouldn't have a built in lens. It'll just be prohibitively expensive to make a quality one (a zoom lens at that). It'll have to be interchangeable lens mount so that it's compatible with other cinema style lenses.

Also, a camera capable of such short DOF is completely useless for event and documentary work, because there isn't a first AC alive who can do that kind of complex focus pull on the fly. The RED camera, for all of it's feature, would be useless to film weddings, for example.

[combatentropy]

a camera with full 35mm sensor probably wouldn't have a built in lens. It'll just be prohibitively expensive to make a quality one.

Nonsense. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm



Also, a camera capable of such short DOF is completely useless for event and documentary work, because there isn't a first AC alive who can do that kind of complex focus pull on the fly. The RED camera, for all of it's feature, would be useless to film weddings, for example.

Even though its sensor is smaller than the ones in cameras used by wedding photographers?

[Huy Vu]

Nonsense. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm



What's your point? That's a cheap zoom lens designed for still cameras, not even constant aperture (f3.5-5.6). I wouldn't even use that on a 35mm adapter; sharpness would be shot to hell, you lose focus as you zoom in etc. A camera with a true 35mm sensor deserves a cinema grade lens that doesn't breath, CA and can maintain back focus. Try looking up how much some of those costs.




Even though its sensor is smaller than the ones in cameras used by wedding photographers?

Why are you comparing a video camera with a still camera? The DSLR all have multi-point autofocus that makes it easy to get instant focus even with a shallow DOF. But they're STILL cameras, you don't have to worry about keeping focus as people move. Try pulling focus on a RED through an entire ceremony, where people can move anywhere without prior notice. Most of your shots will end up a blurry mess. Shallow DOF isn't the end all solutions, that's why you'll see a lot of 2/3'' cameras being used for live events, even on the high ends.

[combatentropy]

Huy,

Your post holds a lot of disinformation.

If you had read the top two reviews of that lens (www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm), www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm (http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm)), you would have seen that these professionals were very satisfied with it. Lenses made for still photography, especially those by Nikon and Canon, are by no means cheap junk. Panavision at one point had Nikon make their lenses (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1230). Anyway, if they're sharp enough for 6 or 8 megapixel, they're sharp enough for 2. If you lose focus while zooming -- even a cheapie -- then the lens has something wrong with it. Do you know how to keep focus with a zoom lens? You must zoom in all the way and focus, then any zoom lens should keep its focus throughout. If it doesn't, there's something broken about it. The same with back focus. And while a Canon lens may have more chromatic aberration than a Cooke, it also doesn't cost $50,000. And your statement that such a sensor "deserves" a better lens is actually backwards. A larger sensor could get away with a lesser quality lens. Two megapixels spread across a 35mm lens are lot more forgiving than the tiny pixels of a 2-megapixel, 1/3" chip: imperfections in the lens cover more pixels, because they're smaller.

Your argument against a Super35mm chip's shallower depth of field falls short, too. With what size chip would you be comfortable using for documentaries -- 2/3", 1/2"? Then for the same pixel count, you are shrinking each pixel at 6-10 times. That means each pixel gathers 6-10 times less light. That's a loss of about three F-stops. F/5.6 on a Super35mm chip is like F/2 on even a traditional professional ENG camera. So depth of field is a wash, and that Nikon lens that funnels down to 5.6 when you zoom doesn't look so bad after all. For the same lighting situation, if it takes F/2.8 on a 1/2" or 2/3" camera, it should take only about F/5.6 or F/8 on my Super35mm camera. Another nice thing about Super35 is that you are more likely to use the sharper F-stops of your lens. A lens's widest F-stop is generally fuzzier than its middle F-stops (and I'm not talking about depth of field, but of the sharpness measured on a test chart).

Furthermore, wedding photographers, although taking stills, are still in a run and gun situation at weddings, and many of them (at least used to) shoot with medium-format cameras, which are 8 times the size of Super35mm -- 8 times! The reason "you'll see a lot of 2/3" cameras being used for live events, even on the high ends" is because that is all they have had to choose from. With cameras like the Red coming out, there are more choices, but the 2/3" cams are, so far, still more agile and ergonomic.

[Huy Vu]

You're not comparing apples to apples (i.e lenses design for film vs. lens that are design for still photography), which have very different requirements. A "good" lens for still photography might not necessarily be good for video, for many reasons. In particular, the argument that "if it's sharp enough for 6-8 megapixel, it's sharp enough for 2" doesn't have any relevance in the video world. That's simply not how resolutions are calculated on cameras. A simple example: The JVCHD110 has native 1280 x 720 pixels on their chip. The HVX200 has 960 x 540 pixels on its chip. So the HD110 has "more" pixels compared to the HVX, but is it's picture anyway sharper? The answer is no, as have been verified by many sources. Effective resolution is NOT just pixel counting, that's not how it works. The lens indeed play a role, and you bet you'll see a major difference between lens that have been optimized for film vs. lens that are made for still photography.

And that lens you linked to, even by still photography standard, is hardly top of the line. I'm not sure if you're aware, but some still photography lenses aren't design to hold focus through the entire zoom range, because that's not necessary for still photography. And I'm not sure what you're basing your arguments on when you say that a larger sensor can take a lower quality lens.

As for the live event situation, again you're not comparing apples to apples. We're talking still cameras vs. video here. Still photographers don't CARE if their subject moves because they're snapping a moment in time. So your comparison of "medium format" cameras don't have a basis. For a videography it's unacceptable for your subject to go in and out of focus while your AC tries to adjust. The only advantage that you get from a larger chip size is increased light sensitivity, as you said. Sure, stopping down the lens will lengthen DOF but we're talking live events here. The bride and groom suddenly decides to walk slower or stop at a different spot, you need someone to pull focus. Have to move the camera to follow them? You need to pull focus. That's difficult enough on a controlled set where you're able to set markers, it's downright impossible on a live shoot. And what about ENG work? Who's pulling focus for you there? You NEED cameras with large DOF like 2/3'' chipper in these kinds of situation.

[dory_breaux]

and then we can all laugh at you when everything keeps going in and out of focus.

[combatentropy]

The only advantage that you get from a larger chip size is increased light sensitivity, as you said.

That is the least firm part of my argument, honestly. I'm not sure the math is that clear-cut because, yes, larger sensors still normally have shallower depth of field. Maybe larger sensors mainly just get better dynamic range.

I just think you are going crazy over something that is not that radical. Event still photographers still have to follow focus. 2/3" videographers still have to follow focus. Manually.

If the view screen has peaking or some other focusing aid, it would be even easier.

[Huy Vu]

I just think you are going crazy over something that is not that radical. Event still photographers still have to follow focus. 2/3" videographers still have to follow focus. Manually.

If the viewfinder has peaking or some other focusing aid, it would be even easier.

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask. Have you had any experienced pulling focus before? Either on 35mm camera or smaller cameras using 35mm adapters? This is not meant as an insult, I ask only out of curiosity.

2/3'' camera have VERY generous DOF. You can easily compensate for whatever focus error you made and they're very run and gun. DSLR nowadays have multi-point focusing system that makes it very easy to get accurate focus, even with large chip size, which is why all modern still lens are automatic focus.

Working with 35mm style camera is an entirely different story. Every time you move the camera things go out of focus, because the DOF is usually only a few feet. It's not a matter of adjusting focus "on the fly," although with experienced AC you might be able to do that. I've went out alone to shoot scenes with a 35mm adapter equipped camera before, and what I found was that the blocking had to be kept VERY simple, because if anyone moves from their mark, they're out of focus. It's a curse of short DOF. So thinking that you can somehow adjust focus as you go with a 35mm sensor camera is just fantasy; it's nothing like a 2/3'' camera.

[combatentropy]

I've went out alone to shoot scenes with a 35mm adapter equipped camera before, and what I found was that the blocking had to be kept VERY simple

I can't argue with your personal experience (nor do I want to). No, I have not shot video with 35mm depth of field. I have shot a lot of still photography with greater-than-Super35 depth of field (remember, a 35mm film still camera is a lot bigger frame size than Super35) and some with a Super35-size (APS-C) DSLR.

I agree that shooting Super35 at like F1.2 would be hard. I don't think it will normally be too hard with middle F-stops like F 5.6 and mild focal lengths (like 25-85 mm).

Super35 is just one aspect of my design. If you don't like it, fine. You don't have to use this camera -- if it ever comes out, which is not likely -- and even if you do use it, you don't have to use it for weddings.

[Huy Vu]

I agree that shooting Super35 at like F1.2 would be hard. I don't think it will normally be too hard with middle F-stops like F 5.6 and mild focal lengths (like 25-85 mm).



Still cameras, as I have repeatedly said, have different challenges than shooting live video. There are mechanisms built in to help you achieve good focus that are simply not possible on a video camera. In video, most DP don't shoot wide open anyway because you lose quite a bit of resolution, so most of it is between f4 - f5.6, which is the usual "sweet spot" for the lens. You'll be surprised how hard it is to pull focus with a 50mm even at those f-stops. You need to set precise marks for the actors to hit and for the AC to follow. Sounds simple, but it's not. It's a skill. I highly recommend that you watch this video, where a professional AC demonstrates pulling focus on an 85mm lens with a moving subject (not wide open). Note how difficult it is to deal with unexpected movement, and how tightly they have to block the scene.

http://www.freshdv.com/2007/09/freshdv-film-school-the-art-of-pulling-focus-part-3.html

[combatentropy]

Still cameras, as I have repeatedly said, have different challenges than shooting live video. There are mechanisms built in to help you achieve good focus that are simply not possible on a video camera. In video, most DP don't shoot wide open anyway because you lose quite a bit of resolution, so most of it is between f4 - f5.6, which is the usual "sweet spot" for the lens. You'll be surprised how hard it is to pull focus with a 50mm even at those f-stops. You need to set precise marks for the actors to hit and for the AC to follow. Sounds simple, but it's not. It's a skill. I highly recommend that you watch this video, where a professional AC demonstrates pulling focus on an 85mm lens with a moving subject (not wide open). Note how difficult it is to deal with unexpected movement, and how tightly they have to block the scene.

http://www.freshdv.com/2007/09/freshdv-film-school-the-art-of-pulling-focus-part-3.html


I watched the video (first few minutes). First, I would not be holding my camera like that. I would hold it just like a Sony VX2000, with my left hand free to turn the focus. I just think that would be easier than this poor AC trying to focus with his little tool beside the camera.

I've heard you over and over say it's too hard. My experience with the depth of field, even though I am taking stills, just tells me otherwise. In fact, as long as you're comparing still and video, I think it's easier to follow focus a continuous shot with a video camera than to point-focus-shoot, point-focus-shoot.

I also began shooting video 17 years ago and have done it full time, with a variety of cameras. So I may be wrong, but I am just not convinced it's too hard.

[Huy Vu]

I watched the video (first few minutes). First, I would not be holding my camera like that. I would hold it just like a Sony VX2000, with my left hand free to turn the focus. I just think that would be easier than this poor AC trying to focus with his little tool beside the camera.



As someone who has tried to hold the camera like you do and focus the way you described, that's simply isn't possible. For simple motion, maybe, but complicated movement is simply beyond one person's ability to handle. Can't operate the camera and pull focus at the same time. You need an assistant whose full time job is to check whether things are in focus or not. And that where that "little tool" comes in.

It's called a Follow Focus and it actually makes you life 1000 times easier, because pulling focus from the side is much easier than doing it from the front, which cause your shots to wobble and takes your concentration away from actually operating the camera.

Taking the handicam camera approach and trying to apply it to a 35mm sensor camera just isn't possible. I learned that the hard way. There's really no way for me to explain it to you further, but trust me when I say that after about five minutes of trying to do it yourself (in a 2-3 hours event), you'll be begging for an AC and a camera with greater DOF.