Thread: NO Sony Fs7!!

Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 344
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Ben Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,488
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Donny 123 View Post
    I mean the technology not the hardware ,yes I doubt feature films will be using $500 FE lenses .. thats wasn't my point but yes Sony are making Cine zooms with AF already that could quite easily be used on a feature film .. still relatively cheap around $6K..

    The 28-135? It's not a cine zoom. It just looks a bit like one. Until the FX9 and FX6 came out it was considered a failure of a lens. I won't bother to state the list of reasons why it has never (to my knowledge) ever been anywhere near a feature set except perhaps for BTS. And my point is that to do it with an actual cine lens is a magnitude of difficulty harder. I don;t know about the 16-35mm but I assumed that's all heavily corrected in-camera too.

    I'm not saying it will never happen. I'm saying the timeframe this turnaround in design/manufacture/iteration to get it right/adoption will take a hell of a lot longer than being stated here and I believe my 'there will be people living on Mars first' statement was not hyperbole but a rough assessment of how far along we are with both projects.

    EDIT: Oh the 16-35mm is a rehoused regular G Master 16-35mm f2.8 stills lens with focus gears on the barrel that you can't really use because it is focus-by-wire.

    EDIT EDIT: God why can't I leave it alone?
    Last edited by Ben Scott; 04-19-2021 at 04:22 AM.
    ----------------------------------------------------------


    My reel
    Website


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,588
    Default
    Sure, but the sony 16-35 only costs $5500. So basically only 5%-25% of the cost of a premium caliber cine zoom lens.

    And again, there's nothing about any of the contrast-detect, phase-detect, lidar, or stereoscopic autofocus/depth-mapping systems that prevents their use with regular focus motors. As is the case with the light ranger, cvision, and the Ronin lidar system.

    You can't leave well enough alone because focus control is a fundamental part of cinematography and even partly automating it would be a sea change, thus we're all invested in the outcome


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Ben Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,488
    Default
    Yeah but we are all fairly entrenched in our opinions. Some believe it will be happening v soon some feel it is a way off.

    And there's not really any more to it than that but I can't. Stop. Posting. Agh!
    ----------------------------------------------------------


    My reel
    Website


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Scott View Post
    The 28-135? It's not a cine zoom. It just looks a bit like one. Until the FX9 and FX6 came out it was considered a failure of a lens. I won't bother to state the list of reasons why it has never (to my knowledge) ever been anywhere near a feature set except perhaps for BTS. And my point is that to do it with an actual cine lens is a magnitude of difficulty harder. I don;t know about the 16-35mm but I assumed that's all heavily corrected in-camera too.

    I'm not saying it will never happen. I'm saying the timeframe this turnaround in design/manufacture/iteration to get it right/adoption will take a hell of a lot longer than being stated here and I believe my 'there will be people living on Mars first' statement was not hyperbole but a rough assessment of how far along we are with both projects.

    EDIT: Oh the 16-35mm is a rehoused regular G Master 16-35mm f2.8 stills lens with focus gears on the barrel that you can't really use because it is focus-by-wire.

    EDIT EDIT: God why can't I leave it alone?
    Your a bit behind the times again Scott .. Im not saying the 28-135 is a cine lens , and thats not a new lens thats for sure !.. they have a new range of 3 fully manual cine T3 zooms coming out .. 16-35 is out already and presumably a 24-70 and 70-200 will be the next ones .. did you use the living on Mars line when using LED lights on big feature films was talked about


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Ben Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,488
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Donny 123 View Post
    Your a bit behind the times again Scott .. Im not saying the 28-135 is a cine lens , and thats not a new lens thats for sure !.. they have a new range of 3 fully manual cine T3 zooms coming out .. 16-35 is out already and presumably a 24-70 and 70-200 will be the next ones .. did you use the living on Mars line when using LED lights on big feature films was talked about


    I spoke about the 16-35. It's a rehoused stills lens isn't it. And focus by wire.


    No, LEDs were always going to be the future I had LED fixtures from very early on.

    I'm not a Luddite. I'm not trying to hold back technology.
    ----------------------------------------------------------


    My reel
    Website


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,588
    Default
    Supposedly the focus by wire on the 16-35 is much improved. Of course, it could only ever be as good or worse for manual focus as proper mechanical control...

    But again, people seem to like the canon 18-80 a lot even for manual focus (and it's an AF lens as well). The 18-80 is effectively just one price tier above the 16-35 (considering that it's an S35 lens and not FF) and already it's a more capable unit (crash zooms, etc)

    I mean, I agree with everything you say about the disadvantages of autofocus and automatic lenses, in-camera correction, etc. I just don't think there's a bright line dividing usable and unusable kit. Certainly on a movie like Into the Void, they did s*%t tons of post stabilization and monkeying with the image anyway. Distortion correction or breathing correction are not off the table in post, especially if you have a very high resolution image capture. I'm not saying that would be my preference or my chosen philosophy. But hey my preference would be to still shoot on film yet I mostly shoot an fs7/a7siii combo. Even on digital at my price tier of ownership, my preference would be UMP and P6K as far as IQ is concerned. But there's more to IQ than just the sensor/codec
    Last edited by ahalpert; 04-19-2021 at 06:48 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Ben Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,488
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Supposedly the focus by wire on the 16-35 is much improved. Of course, it could only ever be as good or worse for manual focus as proper mechanical control...

    But again, people seem to like the canon 18-80 a lot even for manual focus (and it's an AF lens as well). The 18-80 is effectively just one price tier above the 16-35 (considering that it's an S35 lens and not FF) and already it's a more capable unit (crash zooms, etc)

    I mean, I agree with everything you say about the disadvantages of autofocus and automatic lenses, in-camera correction, etc. I just don't think there's a bright line dividing usable and unusable kit. Certainly on a movie like Into the Void, they did s*%t tons of post stabilization and monkeying with the image anyway. Distortion correction or breathing correction are not off the table in post, especially if you have a very high resolution image capture. I'm not saying that would be my preference or my chosen philosophy. But hey my preference would be to still shoot on film yet I mostly shoot an fs7/a7siii combo. Even on digital at my price tier of ownership, my preference would be UMP and P6K as far as IQ is concerned. But there's more to IQ than just the sensor/codec
    Everything is a compromise until you're making features basically. And then it's compromise of a different type..
    ----------------------------------------------------------


    My reel
    Website


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Scott View Post
    I spoke about the 16-35. It's a rehoused stills lens isn't it. And focus by wire.


    No, LEDs were always going to be the future I had LED fixtures from very early on.

    I'm not a Luddite. I'm not trying to hold back technology.
    Err no you said the 28-135 .. you didnt mention the 16-35 ?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Ben Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,488
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Donny 123 View Post
    Err no you said the 28-135 .. you didnt mention the 16-35 ?
    Read the top post on this page.
    ----------------------------------------------------------


    My reel
    Website


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Default
    Yes you edited it.. I just want you to keep posting


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... 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
  •