NAB 2024 - Rumors and Wishes

And I may be wrong to assume it's capable of even that, as the specs aren't announced for the 17K, just the Cine-12K. Another thing I heard, or think I heard in Grant Petty's announcement address is that there is not enough room for internal ND on the 17K -65mm model. And it's still smallish pixels of 2.9 μm although stated as 16 stops DR and RGBW CFA.
 
I’m sure if you throw on a BM Assist or some other SDI recorder you can get 1080P as needed. These models are URSA “Cine” for a reason even though broadcast would look pretty cool in 17K medium format. Until we hear more that would be the clear 1080P solution.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Because the R5 is better for stills than any Canon EF bodies, and I want to use the RF 28-70, and I prefer RF mount, as I said. I'm just saying it can complicate things, depending on one's setup, such as mine, which involves using both EF and RF lenses on an RF body. I'll take the tradeoffs and complications, but I'm also not one who goes around singing high praises for the RF mount, especially for video since I'm mostly using EF lenses along with cinema lenses in EF or PL for video. Maybe I'll change my tune if or when I get the RF 24-105 2.8, but aside from that lens I don't see big advantages with the current RF lens lineup for video.
Click to expand...

I'm using R5c's right now specifically because I prefer the RF zoom lenses. The 24-105 f/2.8 is my ideal lens and takes the place of about three L zooms that I would otherwise need. The problem is that it requires a new ND solution and I have some magnetic nd filters that saves time when I'm in a hurry. I also have the 15-35 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 to round out the set.

But I still have my full set of EF lenses and I have the Kippertie Revolva that stays on the cameras for those situations. I can't really imagine a time when I would mix EF and RF lenses since they require both different mounts and different ND solutions and different use cases.
 
My big change from a year ago was thought through.

ef - fit canon arri and others. No need for rf.

but rf lenses are tight - just stickier af and vr

the throws it all up in the air because rf is not such a versatile system.

but we have 28-70 2 and 24-105 2.8 two very appealing and inique lenses that doubtless the skinny flange depthe helped to deliver and we wknt see in ef.
 
Assuming those lenses are sharp wide open thay do offer genuine alternative to primes

which is not something the ef 24-105 offers!
 
Apparently it’s still very likely we’ll see new cinema cameras from Canon this year.

I’m referring to this post from Phil Holland on instagram where he states “Canon is being oddly quiet for reasons soon to be revealed. A few things coming which will satiate those who have noticed the low tide. That’s the best I can say about that currently.”

Interesting commentary from someone who does tend to have more inside info than most.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
Apparently it’s still very likely we’ll see new cinema cameras from Canon this year.

I’m referring to this post from Phil Holland on instagram where he states “Canon is being oddly quiet for reasons soon to be revealed. A few things coming which will satiate those who have noticed the low tide. That’s the best I can say about that currently.”

Interesting commentary from someone who does tend to have more inside info than most.
Click to expand...
Canon has registered 4 new cameras. 2 video cameras and 2 mirrorless cameras. Per Canonrumors.com:

A fourth unreleased Canon camera has appeared for the usual communications certification. This brings us up to two cinema/video cameras and two EOS R series cameras that will likely be announced in 2024.

We expect the announcements to start in May.

ID0174

  • Cinema/Video Camera
  • Registered April 19, 2024
ID0179

  • Cinema/Video Camera
  • Registered February 4, 2024
DS126928

  • EOS R Series Camera
  • Registered March 29, 2024
DS126922

  • EOS R Series Camera
  • Registered February 4, 2024
Click to expand...

 
ahalpert said:
Yea unless you like f/1.4
Click to expand...
I dont like 1.4.

On mirror film cameras, especially ManualFocuass seeing a thin DoF when focussing and compossing had value before the iris stopped down to make the exposure.

Today 1.4 lenses are pointless with 6400 ISO EVF fullframe cameras.

A lens that is sharp at 2 is all one needs, but historically 2.8 zooms were soft at 2.8 and popped at 4. So a 2.8 zoom meant usable 4,A 1.8 prime meant usable 2. So a Sharp at 2 zoom is a ... gamechanger

Last week I was on my 24-70 and 50 1.8 and really the 28-70 /2 could have stayed on the whole job.

The canon 50 1.8 has siht autofocus which makes the 28-70 even more appealing

Usually I think of 28 zooms as poor because they are not wide enough for RnG but for more gentle work a 24 is a bit distorting and a 28 is sensible.

So I want.. 24-105 2.8 for RnG and a 28-70/2 for more stylish corporate.

Then all the primes can go out with the trash.
 
morgan_moore said:
I dont like 1.4.

On mirror film cameras, especially ManualFocuass seeing a thin DoF when focussing and compossing had value before the iris stopped down to make the exposure.

Today 1.4 lenses are pointless with 6400 ISO EVF fullframe cameras.

A lens that is sharp at 2 is all one needs, but historically 2.8 zooms were soft at 2.8 and popped at 4. So a 2.8 zoom meant usable 4,A 1.8 prime meant usable 2. So a Sharp at 2 zoom is a ... gamechanger

Last week I was on my 24-70 and 50 1.8 and really the 28-70 /2 could have stayed on the whole job.

The canon 50 1.8 has siht autofocus which makes the 28-70 even more appealing

Usually I think of 28 zooms as poor because they are not wide enough for RnG but for more gentle work a 24 is a bit distorting and a 28 is sensible.

So I want.. 24-105 2.8 for RnG and a 28-70/2 for more stylish corporate.

Then all the primes can go out with the trash.
Click to expand...
Great. More f/1.4 for the rest of us.

It's a little silly to draw a line in the sand between one f-stop and another. There isn't a a momentous difference between any two adjacent stops.

But on wide shots, I'll generally take the DOF as shallow as I can. It's rare for me to stop down on wide shots but common for me to do so on macro and CU/ECUs.

I also think that people's preferences are swayed by whether they are shooting actual scenes where you need to have multiple characters and planes of depth in focus. Or if, like me, you more often shoot hero objects/people and there is almost always a single focal point.

Anyway, the RF 50 1.2 trounces the 28-70 at f/2. See for yourself - https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

So, I guess it depends on your definition of sharp and how high your standards are.
 
My standards are low :)

Somehow I found 2k Skyfall to look ok. What a loser I am.

On the sharpness test what is the difference one we a viewing in a compressed video format? probably none. But it is interesting to see.

Of course there is no correct answer - every tool works for the person that needs it.

I just feel the gap is closing.

When I started in 1854 the 80-200s and other zooms were so awful that using a fast prime instead had real value.

Now I dont feel wider than 2.0 really is required to isolate (or draw the eye to) subjects unless one wants a specific dreamy look
 
I always take a zoom lens over a prime. I value the flexibility and I don’t like the risk of getting dust on the sensor and the hassle of swapping primes, different nd filter sizes etc. Once compressed and recompressed by hosting service the image gets soft regardless of the lens. I’m more interested in the big picture. Generally speaking lens sharpness debate are forum fodder.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
My standards are low :)

Somehow I found 2k Skyfall to look ok. What a loser I am.

On the sharpness test what is the difference one we a viewing in a compressed video format? probably none. But it is interesting to see.

Of course there is no correct answer - every tool works for the person that needs it.

I just feel the gap is closing.

When I started in 1854 the 80-200s and other zooms were so awful that using a fast prime instead had real value.

Now I dont feel wider than 2.0 really is required to isolate (or draw the eye to) subjects unless one wants a specific dreamy look
Click to expand...
Of course, my tongue is firmly in my cheek. You can use whatever you like.

I remember we had a big thread with Papert and Mitch talking about how high-end zooms were on par with primes these days, or even technically superior. Like the $30k Fuji Cabrio. Er, maybe it was the pricier zooms that really took the cake.

I don't think these stills zooms that cost the same as a prime or two are really in that league, though.

Not that it necessarily matters. For some people/scenarios, having usable IQ with an adequately fast/shallow stop is all you need.

But for me I think I get a prettier image out of my primes, both because of IQ and DOF. And that some clients have explicitly noticed.

As for the question of whether minute differences in "sharpness" matter -- well, they certainly do if you're cropping. I don't crop most shots in post, but when I do I could go up to 200%. And it could be from a corner.

Wider than f/2 is not that shallow on a wide shot. But sure, for medium and closer it can be a dreamy look. I happen to use that look often. But for CUs at 200mm even 2.8 can be too shallow for me. And for macro shots I'm usually at 5.6 or 8.
 
I forgot what we are talking about and why!

I guess a couple of things..

-28-70/2 24-105/2.8 and (sony) 20-70 are new zoom lenses which present a step forward to the traditional 'trinity' (of 16-35, 24-70, 70-200+some primes). That is interesting - trinity owners may need to stop and think,

-I wonder if youngters realise you can make a good living with sub $200 lenses.

-I wonder if youngsters realise how much the size and mass of sub $200 lenses will save thier back.

-to me a fifty is a thing for your back pocket, not a thing that should take half a peli case.
 
For example I do one wedding a decade (my mothers cousins daughter is next!)

At weddings (last one was my key grips mum!) I spend time twiddling beteen the 24-70 (at 4) and 50 at 2 .. if I were a regular wedding tog I think the 28-70/2 would be a thing to have.

If I were a paparazzi the 24-105 might be on the map.

If I were a sony shooter maybe I could move from trinity to 20-70 and 70-200

To me 10 lens changes saved on a day is a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top