AF100 + 14-140 low light equal or lesser than ex3 or hmc150 etc

Already prepaid that bad boy at PhotoVillage, just waiting for it to come in. F0.95, with true manual focus and (by all reports) razor sharp... I originally didn't think I would need it, what with the pancake and all, but then I did the math and found out the Voigtlander lets in over 3x as much light as the pancake! So yes, it's ordered, cannot wait! :)
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't know where this idea of "no fast zooms" comes from. Olympus already makes two f/2.0 zooms, and those are way faster than anything you'll find from Canon or Nikon for full-frame or APS-C. If you want a fast zoom, you want 4/3 or m4/3.
Click to expand...

None of them are proper VIDEO lenses pros are used to.
I am sick and tired of using those plastic,photo zoom which do not have proper controls-that includes LUMIX Zooms. Anybody making some money from Video should consider PL zooms like RED 17-50mm t2.9 until somebody like Canon or Fujinon will design basic Video zoom for af100 . :love4:
jiri
 
No PL mount zoom is a proper video lens either!

At least the lumix 14-140 makes an effort. There is no lens out there, anywhere, for any camera, by any manufacturer at all, that covers a larger-than-2/3" chip and works like a video lens.

Honestly I don't get it. People complain that there are no fast zooms for 4/3, when in fact the only format that has fast zooms is 4/3. Then they complain there aren't video style lenses when, again, m4/3 is the only large sensor format that has anything even remotely resembling a video lens! Sheesh.
 
Barry_Green said:
No PL mount zoom is a proper video lens either!

At least the lumix 14-140 makes an effort. There is no lens out there, anywhere, for any camera, by any manufacturer at all, that covers a larger-than-2/3" chip and works like a video lens.

Honestly I don't get it. People complain that there are no fast zooms for 4/3, when in fact the only format that has fast zooms is 4/3. Then they complain there aren't video style lenses when, again, m4/3 is the only large sensor format that has anything even remotely resembling a video lens! Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Barry ,
PL mount zooms give You good old basic controls with CONSTANT T-stop.
If someone wants to save money buy Leica 2.8-5.5 14-50mm instead of Lumix.
The only LUMIX i would consider is 7-14mmk f4.0.
Boys and Girls buy PL zoom in meantime and it will last You "lifetime". Good glass is as important as camera. Then you can always use Your PL Glas on Sony F3 or Red Epic :happy:
 
Barry_Green said:
Already prepaid that bad boy at PhotoVillage, just waiting for it to come in. F0.95, with true manual focus and (by all reports) razor sharp... I originally didn't think I would need it, what with the pancake and all, but then I did the math and found out the Voigtlander lets in over 3x as much light as the pancake! So yes, it's ordered, cannot wait! :)
Click to expand...


Wow, 3X as much light should make a big difference! Glad I bought one too. Barry, where did you hear it was razor sharp? I have read that fully open it tends to make subjects glow. Does the sharpness come when the lens is stopped downa bit?
 
avro said:
Barry ,
PL mount zooms give You good old basic controls with CONSTANT T-stop.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of what PL zooms do; I've bought and used my share! :)

And only some of them give you a constant t-stop. And not one of them acts like a video lens (which was what we started this discussion on, right?)
And all of them cost 5x to 50x as much as people seem to be willing to pay for an SLR-style lens.

If someone wants to save money buy Leica 2.8-5.5 14-50mm instead of Lumix.
Click to expand...
Okay, you say that the advantage is a constant stop, but then you recommend a lens that ramps a full two stops. I don't understand why you think that's acceptable? Why wouldn't you just get the Olympus 14-35, which is much faster and a constant f/2.0 throughout the zoom range?

Boys and Girls buy PL zoom in meantime and it will last You "lifetime".
Click to expand...
Yes, it will. And it will also be nothing whatsoever like a video lens. No image stabilization, no autofocus, and no servo zoom. So nothing like a video lens.
Buying good glass is of course a great idea, although it's expensive. I have spent a ridiculous amount of money on glass this year...
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
I'm well aware of what PL zooms do; I've bought and used my share! :)

And only some of them give you a constant t-stop. And not one of them acts like a video lens (which was what we started this discussion on, right?)
And all of them cost 5x to 50x as much as people seem to be willing to pay for an SLR-style lens.


Okay, you say that the advantage is a constant stop, but then you recommend a lens that ramps a full two stops. I don't understand why you think that's acceptable? Why wouldn't you just get the Olympus 14-35, which is much faster and a constant f/2.0 throughout the zoom range?





Yes, it will. And it will also be nothing whatsoever like a video lens. No image stabilization, no autofocus, and no servo zoom. So nothing like a video lens.
Buying good glass is of course a great idea, although it's expensive. I have spent a ridiculous amount of money on glass this year...
Click to expand...

Sorry Mate,
meant Leica f2.8-3.5 14-50mm...it also has Manual Iris.
About AF on Video Lenses, i am not sure about that. I own one(Canon 6.7x19) and it does not work well-prefer Manual anytime.
At the moment there is no Broadcast Video Zoom for AF100.....Sony are releasing 2 broadcast Video lenses for F3 in next few Months.
Panasonic should talk to Fujinon,Canon or Leica(since they own some of Leica) and design 2 Broadcst Video Lenses for AF100, one Wide one Long and CONSTANT F-stop 2.8 for BOTH.
In the meantime this is the best solution:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._50mm_f_2_8_3_5_Vario_Elmarit_Aspherical.html

http://www.red.com/store/lenses/product/red-pro-zoom-17-50mm-t29-i

http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/category39_1.htm

http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod222.htm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Voigtlander-VM-...mera_Lenses&hash=item2eb2058ef8#ht_500wt_1156

Take Care Barry,
we must have Dinner in Sydney one Day:Drogar-Happy(DBG):
Regards Jiri
 
So even though the 14-140 is a light hog, it seems I'll probably get some good use out of it for event work, and it might be nice to have for film stuff as well.
 
Nektonic said:
So even though the 14-140 is a light hog, it seems I'll probably get some good use out of it for event work, and it might be nice to have for film stuff as well.
Click to expand...
Might be tolerable with some Neat Video noise reduction on it. But check out the f5.8 shot against the f1.7 shot, and you'll see that that 3200 ISO is giving up a lot of the "goodness" the AF100 can deliver. The 14-140 is probably the most events-friendly lens, but there's no substitute for light, so the fast Olympus lenses might not have OIS or autofocus, but they're two to three stops faster. That's the difference between +18dB and +0dB! It does make a huge difference.

But only you can judge, by looking at the footage, if you think the +18dB footage is acceptable for your purposes. And if you think it might be borderline, then try running it through Neat -- Neat Video is really rather magical.
 
Is it technically possible to put the olpf on a wheel like the nd, so that different areas of the sensors can be optimised. Knock it down to 2/3 for long zooms for the event guys. Hell why not make it 1/3 compatible for when you need to match the look of an existing video camera, and then you'll have the ultimate one camera to rule them all. At 1/3 you could use that 6-80 f1.2 super 8 zoom, but it would still not be very wide, like 24mm at 4/3.

Maybe on the AF200.
 
Barry_Green said:
Might be tolerable with some Neat Video noise reduction on it. But check out the f5.8 shot against the f1.7 shot, and you'll see that that 3200 ISO is giving up a lot of the "goodness" the AF100 can deliver. The 14-140 is probably the most events-friendly lens, but there's no substitute for light, so the fast Olympus lenses might not have OIS or autofocus, but they're two to three stops faster. That's the difference between +18dB and +0dB! It does make a huge difference.

But only you can judge, by looking at the footage, if you think the +18dB footage is acceptable for your purposes. And if you think it might be borderline, then try running it through Neat -- Neat Video is really rather magical.
Click to expand...
Neat Video in fact does save the day. I ran your +18db footage through it and it looked quite nice.
 
Barry_Green said:
HMC150, wide angle, +9dB, wide-open f/1.6: http://www.mediafire.com/?c6qk8v795ax1oqa
AF100, wide angle, +18dB, wide-open f/4.0: http://www.mediafire.com/?jl41s3x7yt2hbq6

HMC150, telephoto, +12dB, wide-open f/2.8: http://www.mediafire.com/?p959373ua15m5z8
AF100, telephoto, +18dB, wide-open f/5.8: http://www.mediafire.com/?v77nvo4h2qbhx4d
Click to expand...
Hi, Barry, thank you for sharing that, just a small note:
The 2nd link actually points to the HMC150 41mm clip (00001.MTS) while the 3rd link (00002.MTS) shows the AF100 in wide angle at f/4.0...
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Do they? Most of the Canon DSLR performance is due to having a faster lens. Most folks I know say they wouldn't want to push the Canon any faster than 640 ISO -- which is only 1/3 stop faster than an HMC150 at 0dB.

And back to the original point -- wanting Red MX performance from a DSLR or AF100? That was indeed an outrageous expectation. The Red One's MX sensor upgrade alone costs more than an entire AF100 kit (including lens).

You can expect Red One sensitivity/grain from an AF100, but not Red MX.
Click to expand...

Thanks for setting me straight. I usually shoot the Canon's at 800. I guess I should bring down the ISO a little. As for the RED MX, the ability to shoot high frame rates and at higher resolution probably adds to the cost of the upgrade a little. Plus the MX chips is over a year old now. Anyway, enough ranting just wish it was more than 400 is all.
 
Wow, I tried Innobits Purifier and it don't look nothing like Neat...so was your reposting after processing through Neat, what does the original look like for comparison...that is since you reshot it? Thank you again for going to the effort of showing these demos!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top