Thread: Sony PXW-FX6

Page 31 of 63 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233343541 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 627
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,242
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Nate Weaver View Post
    28-80 is my guess. And then of course 70-200.

    It’s like Zeiss all over again!
    Ugh. I hope it goes all the way to 24! 24 is wide enough for most situations I encounter but 28 is not, so those several millimeters save a lot of shots and lens changes. (Not that I'll be dropping $6k for one anyway )


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Grug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,195
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Donny 123 View Post
    But presuming its rehoused lenses ,like the 16-35.. would it not be more likley to be 24-70 and 70-200.. either way they are going to way too front heavy for a fx6 hand held .. or even on many tripods.. ? .. a new 28-135 (albeit cheaper and more plastic ) ,but being 24-120 mm FF, with better manual functions would be better .. IMHO
    The shoulder mount thing really isn’t a big issue if you just put a v-mount battery out the back of the camera. I’ve got about 3kg of lens/mattebox/follow focus on mine, and I can get perfect balance even with just the native LCD at the full extension of its cable.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,294
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Nate Weaver View Post
    28-80 is my guess.

    24-70 (F2.8/T3) I suggest as they are just getting the glass from the stills lens

    Also not 24-105 (F4-T4.5-5.6-in reality) as too slow and too hard to make without tromboning.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Nate Weaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,212
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Ugh. I hope it goes all the way to 24! 24 is wide enough for most situations I encounter but 28 is not, so those several millimeters save a lot of shots and lens changes. (Not that I'll be dropping $6k for one anyway )
    24 in S35 or FF? 24 in FF is like a 16 in S35.

    Also, $6k for a Sony lens is almost throwing money away. Only a good buy if it solves very specific problems somebody might have, and can amortize and double or triple your money on your own jobs in a short (3-4 year) period.

    And right, I forgot the 16-35 was a “re-mechanics” of an existing design. 24-70 will surely be it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,242
    Default
    24 in FF. 24mm is lovely wide in FF. I used an 18-270 in S35 quite a bit and frequently found it to be insufficiently wide for both cramped doc situations and for scenic wides. 16 in S35/24 in FF is the ticket IMO


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Grug View Post
    The shoulder mount thing really isn’t a big issue if you just put a v-mount battery out the back of the camera. I’ve got about 3kg of lens/mattebox/follow focus on mine, and I can get perfect balance even with just the native LCD at the full extension of its cable.
    Thats good to hear .. these cine zooms are pretty big and heavy .. the 16-35 is the smallest !..


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Default
    Its come up in another forum that the production models of the Cine 16-35 have the zoom going to wrong way .. ie like the stills version .. !


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    985
    Default
    But is it like the 18-110mm where the mechanical/servo action of the zoom can be physically reversed though a physical switch and rotation reset process? A feature that quite a few people are unaware of with the 18-110mm.

    EDIT: Just discovered it can be:
    https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/09/...nt-servo-lens/

    Chris Young
    Last edited by cyvideo; 01-18-2021 at 06:50 PM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Default
    [QUOTE=cyvideo;1986855811]But is it like the 18-110mm where the mechanical/servo action of the zoom can be physically reversed though a physical switch and rotation reset process? A feature that quite a few people are unaware of with the 18-110mm.

    EDIT: Just discovered it can be:
    https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/09/...nt-servo-lens/

    Yeah but these photos have the markings going the right way for a cine zoom.. but a guy posted a picture of one he had bought ,and the markings ,and the zoom direction go the "stills " camera orientation .. ie the opposite way to every other cine zoom .. why even build them like this ..Cine Line right ? .. you can reverse the remote control motors anyway .. there is no switch on the body .. presume FW update but thought it was a fully mechanical zoom ?


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    701
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Donny 123 View Post
    Its come up in another forum that the production models of the Cine 16-35 have the zoom going to wrong way .. ie like the stills version .. !
    Looks like not only the zoom but also the focusing is wrong way.

    EDIT: actually I'm wrong.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 31 of 63 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233343541 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •