AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, what you say is true. They can offer one body along with an included lens. This would be fine as long as the included lens was not a "throwaway" in terms of quality and had all the functionality of a fixed lens.

Having a fixed lens version would maybe allow for some economy of scale and get decent optics that are made for this sensor exclusively at a better price.

How would this camera be different from the other cameras, well it would have a much larger sensor. How else should it be different? a lot of us are looking for a video camera feature set with the capability for shallow DOF. To me, this camera is like an HPX-170 or an HMC-150 with a large sensor.

With regards to using other lenses. I was in this camp until I realized the camera will have a 2x crop with 35mm still lenses. This basically takes all of my Canon "L" lenses way too far from their intended use.
 
2x Crop from Full Frame Photography? Then you may want to get a 5D MKii...

Otherwise, it's pretty close to Cinema 35mm. If I remember properly, Most of the Canon L's (especially the zooms) perform better at the centers. Using them on the AF100 almost ensures you're gathering with the best portion of the glass, anyway.

Food for throwing.
 
This is a true fact about the lenses being better at the center. But when I said 2x crop maybe I should have said magnification. I do have a MKII. And one of the best things about FF is that the lenses are at their true mm.

This 2x might be fine except for wide or ultra wide shooting. My 24-105 will be at 48mm at it's widest barrel-distorted extent. Shooting ultra-wide lenses just to get wide-tele shots will be a compromise with regards to geometry and perspective.

Sure it can work, but I would prefer a lens that was designed for this magnification. For instance where 85mm on the AF-100 would represent the same great focal length for shooting people with regards to geometry and body proportion as it is in the 35mm world.
 
Bassman2003 said:
This is a true fact about the lenses being better at the center. But when I said 2x crop maybe I should have said magnification. I do have a MKII. And one of the best things about FF is that the lenses are at their true mm.

This 2x might be fine except for wide or ultra wide shooting. My 24-105 will be at 48mm at it's widest barrel-distorted extent. Shooting ultra-wide lenses just to get wide-tele shots will be a compromise with regards to geometry and perspective.

Sure it can work, but I would prefer a lens that was designed for this magnification. For instance where 85mm on the AF-100 would represent the same great focal length for shooting people with regards to geometry and body proportion as it is in the 35mm world.
Click to expand...

An 85mm m4/3 lens will look quite similar to an 85mm EOS lens. They will have the same geometry as an 85mm with the FOV of a 170mm.

The 14mm end of the Panasonic 14-140mm works quite nicely as a wide angle...no significant barrel distortion, just normal wide angle distortion. I actually like the look of it more than my 28mm on my full frame cameras.

Also remember crop factor cuts both ways. Yes it is annoying for the wide end, but it also means you throw out the nasty edges of most cheaper lenses which lets you not spend huge amounts more money on glass that's only real advantage is the edges. It also means you can have fast telephotos (at least in terms of FOV not spatial compression) for much cheaper. A 100mm f/2.8 becomes a 200mm f/2.8 (again in terms of FOV). A 300mm becomes a 600mm! :D

It'll be interesting to see what kind of glass they make for this thing.
 
Here goes the glass thing, again!

I never really think in photographic terms, anyway. I go by S35 or RED, which tells me that an 85mm on the GH-1 will behave more like a 92mm.

That means I need to have an 11-16/2.8 Tokina, so that my widest angle will behave like an 18mm/2.8.

While that's not wide enough for my insane tastes (Hahaha) it'll do for every situation.

Speaking of glass, owning is going to be a doozy. If Pana/Leica relationships breed fairy priced and SPEEDY primes (We're talking T1.3's or at the very least T2.0's) then I'd be hard pressed to try and keep my wallet from munchin' on those suckers.

A matched set of primes is instrumental and, if I can't get that, then owning is just going to be nonsensical.

I'm considering an old school Vario Sonnar S16mm Zoom, 18-85mm or a PL mount Cooke Zoom T3.1 18-100mm.

This is definitely why I'm interested in what Sony and Canon have to offer, dealing with the wide-angle and needing the speed's a bit of a doozy.
 
Your right. It is great for tele work, but most of video work is done on the wide end to mid-tele.

I would have to see it in practice. But I know I do not want to shoot people with my 24-105 at 24mm, even if it is using the center of the lens.

My hope was that a fixed lens (or an interchangeable model with a supplied lens) would be matched for the camera. I think resolution could play a part in this as well. If the sensor is not needing to resolve 21 megapixles for example, maybe some gains could be made in other areas of lens design given the lower resolution needs. I am not a lens expert, but there seem to be compromises at every step and maybe a lower resolution output (1080p) would make it cheaper or easier to get a great image without distortion etc...
 
Bassman2003 said:
Your right. It is great for tele work, but most of video work is done on the wide end to mid-tele.

I would have to see it in practice. But I know I do not want to shoot people with my 24-105 at 24mm, even if it is using the center of the lens.

My hope was that a fixed lens (or an interchangeable model with a supplied lens) would be matched for the camera. I think resolution could play a part in this as well. If the sensor is not needing to resolve 21 megapixles for example, maybe some gains could be made in other areas of lens design given the lower resolution needs. I am not a lens expert, but there seem to be compromises at every step and maybe a lower resolution output (1080p) would make it cheaper or easier to get a great image without distortion etc...
Click to expand...


I'm with you on the Wide work. These days, experimenting, I'm trying to live on a 28/2 with NDs strapped to the front. I really like the look when composed properly.

Telephoto's good, but most of the work's at the wide end.

only thing about a fixed lens is that it'll probably have to be slow. And, one of the ends will suffer, per usual.

We'll see what happens, though! So many glass options out there, I'm not sure which way to play it.
 
If we are talking lenses. The olympus highgrade and superhighgrade series are some of the finest lenses ever made. Check some reviews they perform superbly even wide open (I've tested some of them and they are great). If I was to buy the af100 the superhighgrades (f2 zoom lenses!) would be my first investment after the camera. If I was on a budget i would buy the highgrade ones that are 12-60 and 50-200 which are also wonderful lenses. I think its weird that not more people have acknowledged these lenses as they are truly better then at least half of nikon and canons pro lenses. So if could wish for one thing it would be that olympus and panasonic teamed up and made cineversions of these lenses . Even if the were twice the price they would be a bargain compared to regular cine lenses.
 
Teodor Miljevic said:
If we are talking lenses. The olympus highgrade and superhighgrade series are some of the finest lenses ever made. Check some reviews they perform superbly even wide open (I've tested some of them and they are great). If I was to buy the af100 the superhighgrades (f2 zoom lenses!) would be my first investment after the camera. If I was on a budget i would buy the highgrade ones that are 12-60 and 50-200 which are also wonderful lenses. I think its weird that not more people have acknowledged these lenses as they are truly better then at least half of nikon and canons pro lenses. So if could wish for one thing it would be that olympus and panasonic teamed up and made cineversions of these lenses . Even if the were twice the price they would be a bargain compared to regular cine lenses.
Click to expand...

I will be looking at these two:

http://vistek.ca/store/CameraLenses/236316/olympus-ed-1435mm-f20-swd-zuiko-zoom-lens.aspx

http://vistek.ca/store/CameraLenses/223088/olympus-ed-35100mm-f20-zuiko-zoom-lens.aspx

Both are very well reviewed and are native 4/3 lenses.
 
Teodor Miljevic said:
If we are talking lenses. The olympus highgrade and superhighgrade series are some of the finest lenses ever made. Check some reviews they perform superbly even wide open (I've tested some of them and they are great). If I was to buy the af100 the superhighgrades (f2 zoom lenses!) would be my first investment after the camera. If I was on a budget i would buy the highgrade ones that are 12-60 and 50-200 which are also wonderful lenses. I think its weird that not more people have acknowledged these lenses as they are truly better then at least half of nikon and canons pro lenses. So if could wish for one thing it would be that olympus and panasonic teamed up and made cineversions of these lenses . Even if the were twice the price they would be a bargain compared to regular cine lenses.
Click to expand...

Could you tell me which Canon or Nikon lenses did they "outperform"? Can you point out to a direct side by side comparison? I could not find any material to back up your claim, so I am interested. The only way to truly judge lenses would be comparing shots taken in exact situation- side by side.
Nikon and Canon produced for years finest glass for the cameras, so I would be interested how Olympus (which so far was not know for the highest quality) would look in a direct side-by-side test. Remember that these lenses cost 2 times more then any Canon or Nikon!
 
Are those two varifocal or parfocal?

One of the key differences for me between video lenses and still lenses is how annoying it is in many situations to shoot video with a varifocal lens.

Unless the camera can compensate by loading up a lens profile and drive the focus motor to compensate while you zoom... Olympus' E-10 and E-20 did that, albeit with a fixed lens.
 
strangways said:
Are those two varifocal or parfocal?

One of the key differences for me between video lenses and still lenses is how annoying it is in many situations to shoot video with a varifocal lens.

Unless the camera can compensate by loading up a lens profile and drive the focus motor to compensate while you zoom
Click to expand...

Good point. I might have read that all our prosumer cameras (HMC150, etc.) use a varifocal lens with electronic focus correction --- which explains why none of them have direct, mechanical lens rings but instead freely spinning rings that drive motors.

Lens-making is such a black art to us. I really, really wish there was a professional lens designer somewhere that I could ask a string of questions, to see what can be done in a set of size and weight constraints.
 
SLR gear tests:

Olympus 14-35mm f/2 ED SWD Zuiko Digital
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13

Make sure you take a look at the full-frame results if you want to compare roughly the same FOV of the lenses between the Canon and Nikon full-frame systems and the 4/3 system.

Take a look at the APS-C results if you want to see how the Canon and Nikon lenses would look on roughly the 4/3 system - just with a narrower FOV than the Olympus lens.
 
The DVX100, HVX200, and HPX170 all have parfocal lenses. I've never used any of the HMC cameras to compare.

Usually, a parfocal lens becomes bigger, heavier, and more expensive than a varifocal lens.
However, the other important factor is how big a sensor you are trying to cover.

Therefore, it's much easier to design a parfocal lens with a reasonable size, weight, and cost, to cover a 1/3" sensor, than it is for a 4/3" sensor.

That also applies to zoom range, which is why it is often the case with video cameras that the smaller the sensor, the greater the zoom range.
 
combatentropy said:
Good point. I might have read that all our prosumer cameras (HMC150, etc.) use a varifocal lens with electronic focus correction --- which explains why none of them have direct, mechanical lens rings but instead freely spinning rings that drive motors.

Lens-making is such a black art to us. I really, really wish there was a professional lens designer somewhere that I could ask a string of questions, to see what can be done in a set of size and weight constraints.
Click to expand...

EX1 has a direct mechanical lens ring.
 
http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?magazine/0708/stoo.htm~top.main_hp

"On the second Bourne movie, there wasn’t as much available. So on this one, I went out and got every kind of lightweight zoom I could find. I even had a couple made. I found two Nikon digital lenses and sent them to ARRI in Munich, where they were transformed into lenses that would work with the ARRI film cameras. One was a 28-70mm and the other was an 80-200mm, both T2.8 because they had to be fast.
03.jpg
“I’d say that 80 percent of the first unit photography ended up being shot on those two lenses,” Wood says. “The 80-200 worked all the time, but we had some problems with the shorter one. ARRI subsequently decided to develop these lenses, and they are in the process now of making ten of each.”
The filmmakers also made use of a 15-45mm ARRI-Zeiss zoom lens, an Optimo-Angenieux 28-70mm zoom lens, and an older Century Precision 28-70mm zoom lens. “Today, the zoom lenses we use are brilliant,” he says."
 
strangways said:
SLR gear tests:

Olympus 14-35mm f/2 ED SWD Zuiko Digital
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13

Make sure you take a look at the full-frame results if you want to compare roughly the same FOV of the lenses between the Canon and Nikon full-frame systems and the 4/3 system.

Take a look at the APS-C results if you want to see how the Canon and Nikon lenses would look on roughly the 4/3 system - just with a narrower FOV than the Olympus lens.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the info. After reviewing the links you provided looks like none of the 3 lenses really "outperforms" the others. In this case what it comes down to is the price. And unfortunately for Olympus their cost is much higher then the competitors (we are talking 300 bucks minimum).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top