Well...I feel like it's dumb because the fashions of the day are heading in the exact opposite direction (larger and larger sensors). So, in that sense, I dont think the market is headed there. There's no reason you couldn't use them for cinema.
Agree re:it being the new 2/3 though. Such a lens would be awesome.... 12-120 f/2.8 with great AF and IS
Results 201 to 210 of 324
-
11-20-2020 02:49 AM
-
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- nottingham, uk
- Posts
- 1,117
11-20-2020 03:00 AM
The Olympus 12-100mm f4 is the closest there is, quite a lump but I wonder how big an equivalent f2.8 would be
-
11-20-2020 03:35 AM
that olympus is only 1.23lbs and 4.50" long! great range. i mean, i suppose one could do with an f/4 lens in a pinch. if you have gh5s high ISO performance. what you really need, though, is the proper mechanics and servo zoom, etc. and a lanc controller port on the lens or the camera or something. and eND. and xlr inputs or a module. then you'd be cooking with gas.
and the whole camera/lens/aks package would probably cost the same as a Canon 18-80, which is a good lens but has an inferior range
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
- Posts
- 10,225
11-20-2020 03:40 AM
Remember that 'the 2.8' look on full frame needs 1.4 on MFT
A proper pro zoom would not be 4 which would have the FF F8 look.
Id say 2 or 2.8
It would have to be a proper lens.. or at least as good/bad as the sony 18-110 which is not a fine lens but is usable and affordable.
As soon as one gets onto a motorised fuji 2/3 or canon cn17 you know you are playing with a proper thing for grown ups to go to work with.
Ahalpert is correct in that that feel is what is needed maybe more than speed.
-
11-20-2020 04:33 AM
Well I think the question is if you're willing to sacrifice the look of a wider aperture for the sake of size and cost. Then for beauty shallow DOF shots, you pop over to your Noktons or a speedboosted lens.
My sony 28-135 tripod collar arrived (the used copy came without it) and I now have it mounted and balanced on the ronin-s with a7s3...still determining the best way to control zoom
-
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,472
11-20-2020 07:20 AM
At first blush, it looks like you are arguing in both directions at once, but maybe I missed some nuance.
If you want 4/3 to be the new 2/3, then you want a long zoom with a moderate depth of field. The 12-100mm f/4, then, is decent --- an 8x lens with a depth of field equivalent to f/2 on 2/3.
On the other hand, if you want 4/3 to match the depth of field of 135, then yes, you need a wide aperture, like f/1.4. But then you ain't never gonna have a long zoom range, not in a moderately sized lens anyway.
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
- Posts
- 10,225
11-20-2020 07:22 AM
Yep all the maths is adding up - 2.8 or 4 is probably the sweet spot
(for size and affordability)
-
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Posts
- 4,030
11-20-2020 07:42 AM
The DVC200 is the attempt at M4/3rds replacing 2/3". Imho, 1" is a better choice for production type cameras and to emulate 2/3". The CX350 has great characteristics for zoom range, noise and weight. I wish it had more DR but a more expensive model could be made. As Combat pointed out, one can not mix the two looks (ENG & EFP) and be commercially viable.
-
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,472
11-20-2020 07:48 AM
I would say, physically viable. They will always find a way to make things cheaper, but optical physics says:
- shallow focus
- long zoom
- portable
--- pick any 2.
1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
- Posts
- 10,225
11-20-2020 08:02 AM
Unless Im wrong.. (I dont follow them) the DVX200 and CX350 are flawed..
fixed lens
crappy codecs/bit depth
no log looks
1985 autofocus
THe GH5s is not hobbled like those. My single experience of the GH5s I thought the picture was better than my FS7
to me the idea would be..
-a grown up ish zoom for actuality
-some grown up well placed connectors
-do your fancy stuff with a 25 0.95 prime (interviews) or big scencs with a 9mm prime