Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Wide angle reality check
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
I've owned and used a nikon mount 11-16 on a gh1. Also have owned and used 11-16 on canon as well. What do you want to know?
-
Originally posted by grimepoch View PostI use my 11-16mm all the time, but the problem I see with it in tight spaces is that if you don't have the camera locked down, the perspective distortion (not sure what to call it) that you get looks so unnatural and can subtract from the shot if you don't want that to be the focus. Look at the South video by Bloom, when he pans the camera on top of the building, you get that push pull effect as things come in and out of the center of the FoV. At 11mm I definitely get this, and for visual effects work it is a NIGHTMARE. I have to lock almost every shot down as the perspective changes make certain compositions a nightmare.
I've often felt that this is why you don't see super wide often on cinema shots, or if you do, the subject matter is very far from the camera UNLESS you are going for that distorted look (ie Gilliam's Fear and Loathing).
Granted, not all use is for narrative, and with that, I think there is a distinct difference in need that people need to consider. For people shooting documentaries or other sorts of projects, where there is no set, or ability to change the environment (like a cave or something), then these desires have real considerable application. A lot of advice or example tends to focus on one aspect of 'filming' when in reality, there are many applications.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by aguia View PostI have heard rumors on the photo side of a m4/3 12-60mm or possibly 12-75mm with a reasonably fast aperture sometime early next year from either Panasonic or Olympus.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by aguia View PostI don't consider myself an extremist but I can use all the wide angle I can get. Try shooting in the cockpit of a Cessna 206, or a verite' interview of someone in your typical 21st century office cubicle? I do this kind of thing on pretty regular basis, 14mm almost does it in 4/3 format, 11 or 12mm is almost ideal (2mm does make a significant difference). I have heard rumors on the photo side of a m4/3 12-60mm or possibly 12-75mm with a reasonably fast aperture sometime early next year from either Panasonic or Olympus.
I've often felt that this is why you don't see super wide often on cinema shots, or if you do, the subject matter is very far from the camera UNLESS you are going for that distorted look (ie Gilliam's Fear and Loathing).
Granted, not all use is for narrative, and with that, I think there is a distinct difference in need that people need to consider. For people shooting documentaries or other sorts of projects, where there is no set, or ability to change the environment (like a cave or something), then these desires have real considerable application. A lot of advice or example tends to focus on one aspect of 'filming' when in reality, there are many applications.
Leave a comment:
-
I don't consider myself an extremist but I can use all the wide angle I can get. Try shooting in the cockpit of a Cessna 206, or a verite' interview of someone in your typical 21st century office cubicle? I do this kind of thing on pretty regular basis, 14mm almost does it in 4/3 format, 11 or 12mm is almost ideal (2mm does make a significant difference). I have heard rumors on the photo side of a m4/3 12-60mm or possibly 12-75mm with a reasonably fast aperture sometime early next year from either Panasonic or Olympus.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bitmap Frogs View PostThat Tokina is a DX lens which means on the AF100 will be a 13-19mm. It's got mild-to-strong barrel distortion so careful with brick walls.
And I don't believe that spreadsheet is correct the sensor in the AF100 is wider than the actual 4/3 sensor in 16:9 as it has extra pixels on the left and right side to keep the diagonal distance consistent between both aspect ratios. So ignore the 16:9 box, and just use the 4/3 box as the diagonal is correct length for both aspects on the AF100.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheReverend View PostDX lens? Didnt know that... So not as good, but still
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bitmap Frogs View PostThat Tokina is a DX lens which means on the AF100 will be a 13-19mm. It's got mild-to-strong barrel distortion so careful with brick walls.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/37..._canon?start=1
If you look at the distortion it isn't that prevalent in the inside area of the lens. This should generally be cropped out by the crop to 4/3s.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheReverend View PostThe tokina 11-16mm at f2.8 is the ticket me thinks! I mean 11mm on the Af100 is quite close to 20mm on Full Frame. 2.8 is pretty good speed, a zoom, no fisheye, and it's affordable!
This video shows 5D at 20mm. That's freaking wide for film.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=d4aZ-2cOB2s&bmb=1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pms View Post"full frame" is used is not the case.
I am not such a wide-angle aficionado myself, am currently very much in love with my 50 mm Voigtlander Nokton. Yet: Wide angle applied in the right dosis at the right time can be the "Icing on the cake" for certain scenes. It's a bit like very distinctive tasting herbs - too much destroys the meal but applied carefully it can make things great.....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Julienmassie View PostI personally need wider than 20mm for
- Videoclip
- Documentary
- Verry small place run and gun, when you cant just frame everything you need whit a 35mm
- Special shot
- Inside cars
- Extreme sports
So i need to have this option right in my bag. Now i just dont know what to pick up.
- Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ( dam its slow but dam its wide ! )
Since i want to shoot street shot at night in busy city street ( Spoiler, like in japan ) you think that whit the the correct AF100 iso set-up whit this f4 lens i can put something up ?
Because we can see how it perfrom in day in this philip bloom test http://vimeo.com/16129196
But what about night ? at f4 ....
Maybe the elevator at 0.26 ?
This is not a camera that will solve all your production problems. It is a camera that brings a whole bunch of tools to your tool box. But you still need some of your old tools to deal with your production problems.
I like the interchangable lens idea for artistic look.
I will invest my money in to this camera.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by hjrt View Post
Also: why spending all the money on lenses with a large aperture instead of spending it on lighting?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by tipota View PostHi Julien,
the 4.5 mm is a real fish-eye so you get a circular picture on 35mm photo - maybe the cropping woud help a bit, but I think you still would have vignetting on a MFT sensor and the geometry of any picture you will get will be grossly, grossly distorted (okay for a hip-hop video though). Sigma do have a 8mm but that is f 3.5. Catch 22 again.
postscriptum:
Maybe this alternative works - try to get hold of some lenses build for 16 mm (check, for instance, if you find some old Kern Switar lenses for 16 mm Bolex Cameras - they should be rather not so expensive and are very fast - 10mm switar is 1.6!) shoot 1080 and crop to lose the vignetting. You lose a bit, you gain a bit, maybe.... but that's purely speculative on my side..... maybe it's zero-sum in the end...
postpostscritum:
Maybe this helps.....
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...QQ-HJwvNDobeEw
I am for not using the stand alone phrase "full frame" here.. I have no idea if you are talking 70mm or super16..all formats have full frame
and to think folks here first think of 35mm still camera when "full frame" is used is not the case.
Leave a comment:
-
The tokina 11-16mm at f2.8 is the ticket me thinks! I mean 11mm on the Af100 is quite close to 20mm on Full Frame. 2.8 is pretty good speed, a zoom, no fisheye, and it's affordable!
This video shows 5D at 20mm. That's freaking wide for film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4aZ-2cOB2sLast edited by TheReverend; 10-28-2010, 07:45 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
For budget users, the Sigma (8-16) is a real good alternative I think, despite its small maximum aperture (f/4.5). In general I tend to not really understand why wide lenses need to have such a large maximum apeture. For film or PAL video you'd use 1/50 or less shutter time as standard which is already quite long compared to photography. Now if you'd apply the shuttertime*cropfactor = shuttertime rule, you could go as low as the framerate for film/video: 1/24 or even 1/25 a second. Quite a long shutter time that can compensate for a smaller maximum aperture. Now I hear you saying things about motion blur etc: but the wider you go, the less you have since the ratio of movement of the lens compared to the movement of the recorderd picture is smaller.
Also: why spending all the money on lenses with a large aperture instead of spending it on lighting?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: