AG-AF100 lenses?

[Barry_Green]

I think Ilya Friedman wrote something similar at dvinfo. But this crop factor is comparing the GH1 sensor 16:9 image area to the APS-C chip sizes and Super 35mm image area interchangeably as if they were the same. This is a mistake. They're not.

APS-C and Super35 aren't the same, but APS-C (at least from the Canon) and 35mm cine are exactly the same. Well, almost exactly the same; APS-C Canon is 22.3mm wide, 35mm cine is 22mm wide.

35mm cine and Super35 are not the same, and shouldn't be stated as if they are the same. "flat" 35mm, which (last time I checked, years ago) the vast majority of films were shot in, is the 1.85:1 extraction of the "academy" aperture on the 35mm film frame. 22mm wide, 12mm tall.

Super35 is used for 4:3 television, or for widescreen productions (2.39:1) when one doesn't want to bother with using anamorphic lenses. It can be cropped down for 16:9 HD, and there's no real reason (for television origination) to not use S35, but it doesn't really give you much of anything over regular35 when used for television anyway.

It's only when compared to APS-C digital cameras where the 1.18 crop factor would be true

AND when compared to 35mm cinema film. Not Super35mm, but 35mm cine.

So unfortunately those people who have made heavy investments in cinema glass with edge to edge sharpness are not going to be using much of the image benefits that these kind of lenses can provide.

How do you figure? Only those who spent for edge-to-edge Super35 glass will be missing out on what that additional expenditure bought them.

 

[dadoboy]

I thought you were referring to s35mm, though on a re-read, you don't specifically refer to that format, just s35 lenses, so my bad.

It's a bit odd though seeing references to Academy 1.37 in some forums and posts as a comparison, when practically nobody but students with older school 35mm cameras shoots straight out Academy anymore. It's almost always 3 or 4 perf Super 35mm, or anamorphic 35mm, with DI done in both cases, so the case is never apples to apples when it comes to crop factor, though such a comparison can be made in a "classical" sense to the original academy spec.

APS-C and Super35 aren't the same, but APS-C (at least from the Canon) and 35mm cine are exactly the same. Well, almost exactly the same; APS-C Canon is 22.3mm wide, 35mm cine is 22mm wide.

35mm cine and Super35 are not the same, and shouldn't be stated as if they are the same. "flat" 35mm, which (last time I checked, years ago) the vast majority of films were shot in, is the 1.85:1 extraction of the "academy" aperture on the 35mm film frame. 22mm wide, 12mm tall.

AND when compared to 35mm cinema film. Not Super35mm, but 35mm cine.

How do you figure? Only those who spent for edge-to-edge Super35 glass will be missing out on what that additional expenditure bought them.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I thought you were referring to s35mm, though on a re-read, you don't specifically refer to that format, just s35 lenses, so my bad.

It's a bit odd though seeing references to Academy 1.37 in some forums and posts as a comparison, when practically nobody but students with older school 35mm cameras shoots straight out Academy anymore. It's almost always 3 or 4 perf Super 35mm, or anamorphic 35mm, with DI done in both cases, so the case is never apples to apples when it comes to crop factor, though such a comparison can be made in a "classical" sense to the original academy spec.

Yeah, 16x9 or 1.85 extraction is common, but still the aperture frame is still 1.37 on reg 35mm... but no one really is shooting 4:3 anymore now that HD Television is the obvious standard.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

So unfortunately those people who have made heavy investments in cinema glass with edge to edge sharpness are not going to be using much of the image benefits that these kind of lenses can provide.

Nothing is really unfortunate about it...

Sure if someone bought S35 projection sized cinema glass and only used it on a smaller sensor chipped camera, then they (the DP) would not get the full advantage of the excellent edge to edge sharpness of the lenses...

But on the other hand... you get the contrast/color rendition of the lens, smooth 300* area barrel rotation, accurate T-stop and focus markings, top notch coatings, minimal breathing, and the ability to use them with other camera markets such as the F35, RedOne, and Arri Alexa/D-21.

The lenses are top notch, professional and versatile. I'd rather have a lens for S35, than an APS-C sized lens. I wouldn't invest in APS-C for the long haul.

 

[dadoboy]

The really unfortunate part is I don't own a set of my own.:violin:

Nothing is really unfortunate about it...
quote]

 

[Zissou]

hopefully focus breathing is not a big issue, and they should be optimized edge-to-edge for the AF-100.

if it turns out to solidly compete against the canon HF 305 and Sony EX series in terms of sharpness, codec, etc, i would likely seriously consider a pair and lenses to replace some of the gear we currently use, but until i get to directly compare them, its all speculation. also no damn click stops; smooth aperture ring control is a MUST to me. i spent so damn much on glass and even more buying declicked lenses is not funny. that irritated me in photography, in this business it drives me mad, same with focus breathing. for photography is not noticeable, shooting video is so frustrating.

low light, i am not worried about at all. i dont understand the whole 'low light shootout' drama; really one should usually try to bring light to the subject to properly expose at a comfortable sensitivity range to acquire the best possible footage. ISO/sensitivity is like the needless megapixel wars in DSLR's; only beancounters really care and only fools measure a camera's capability in those terms. those that make their living with them know low light means bad shots/footage, and higher MP means less light and therefore more grain per pixel. would you try to sell something shot at high gain levels? doubtful. would you print a 30MP picture at full resolution? not likely. for those situations, one rents the hardware, marketing has so many people caught up in ISO/sensitivity and MP counts, when the average user/consumer will never really need it. in the long run, its the better option than buying the most sensitive or highest MP count cam out there. I dont think ive shot anything in DLSR's over ISO 800 other than VERY RARE occasions, and that is really pushing it for me; normally i shoot at the sensors' native ISO rating for best quality; thats what lighting is for. for insane MP counts, give me a 50mm f1.4 and ill take 30-40 shots, stitch them together in PS, and provide you with a 300MB file that you can print only on sail cloth. Examples below; first is a 32 shot merge at 12.x MP D300/50mm f1.4G ISO 1600 1/50 sec merge. second is a 93 shot D300/ISO 50 1/2xxx sec merge i forget the lens, either 50mm f1.4G or 24-70 f2.8 at 40-60mm (i provided only the raw merge work downsized dramatically, not the final prints i have sold).

I could have easily done the same with my 6.x MP D50, taken another 2-3 minutes and thrice as many pics, and gotten the same results. First shot is the bay of Villefranche, France, the day before the 2009 Monaco Grand Prix (which i shot/filmed at), second is some random day in January at Red Rock Canyon of 2010. I tend to overlap 40-60%; one doesnt take an equivalent 110MP picture of someones face to blow up for a panoramic shot. at billboard res, the first shot alone would be almost as wide as some skyscrapers of old; and really totally needlessly oversized. these are, really, overkill IMO, but i enjoy knowing i outdid myself with them. again these are not the final products but the direct unedited merged files, WAAAAY downsized.

 

[maranfilms]

Are the olympus lenses 4/3 rd. Just wondering, My wife has as e 500, with some decent lenses, I may be able to swipe from her. hehehe

 

[maranfilms]

i dont understand the whole 'low light shootout' drama; really one should usually try to bring light to the subject to properly expose at a comfortable sensitivity range to acquire the best possible footage

If you were a narrative filmmaker, and had to shoot in a situation where there is hardly a way to get light to the subject, you would quickly understand the need surrounding the " lowlight" drama

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

hopefully focus breathing is not a big issue, and they should be optimized edge-to-edge for the AF-100.

......

low light, i am not worried about at all. i dont understand the whole 'low light shootout' drama; really one should usually try to bring light to the subject to properly expose at a comfortable sensitivity range to acquire the best possible footage. ISO/sensitivity is like the needless megapixel wars in DSLR's; only beancounters really care and only fools measure a camera's capability in those terms.

Breathing is based entirely on the lens you use. Cinema-glass should be minimal if it's modern.

I think pixel counting is silly, but ISO is very important to me. Pixels are simply resolution... but ISO determines what lens-stop I can use, my lighting package, and more! Photographers have the luxury of locking off a shot and using long shutter speeds to get photos not otherwise available (not to mention native ISO's on photo cameras are simply ridiculous these days)... meanwhile cinematographers are bound at 24/25/30 fps. Which means even if we shot at wide open shutter, that's still only 1/24th or 1/30th of a second...

For the kind of work I do, and at that budget, shooting around 400iso at a T/2.8 is just about all I can get away with using 120v/20amp circuit lighting. If I want to shoot at a T/4 or do high-speed camera work, my lighting package has to increase all across the board... but higher ISO's allow me to do more with less... and that's amazing. I'm not a guy who shoots in available street lighting or wonders around a foriegn city like DSLR shooters... but I do value my camera's sensitivity, and like the option of using smaller, lighter, and a much more varied lighting package.

Pixels however, are whatever.

 

[Barry_Green]

The AF100 should be at least 320-400 ISO. That's the range a GH1 performs best at, and the AF100 should be at a minimum as good as that, and probably better, being 1.5 years newer.

Are the olympus lenses 4/3 rd.

Olympus makes a lot of 4/3 and m4/3 equipment, it's possible your existing lenses are m4/3, you'd have to look up that particular camera. If your lenses are 4/3, you'd need a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter to use them on an AF100.

 

[dcloud]

If you were a narrative filmmaker, and had to shoot in a situation where there is hardly a way to get light to the subject, you would quickly understand the need surrounding the " lowlight" drama

its a plus to be sensitive at low light but not really a requirement.. you still need to light your scenes. (and low budget is always an excuse)

 

[maranfilms]

The AF100 should be at least 320-400 ISO. That's the range a GH1 performs best at, and the AF100 should be at a minimum as good as that, and probably better, being 1.5 years newer.


Olympus makes a lot of 4/3 and m4/3 equipment, it's possible your existing lenses are m4/3, you'd have to look up that particular camera. If your lenses are 4/3, you'd need a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter to use them on an AF100.

Thanks Barry:thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

Just found a review, the E-500 is Four Thirds, not Micro Four Thirds. So your lenses would not be directly usable, but you could use them with an adapter.

 

[producer]

A lens like this would be great:

As posted on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fujinon-TV-Zo...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item4cee69c66d

I don't know how long that page will last, so I will copy its description here:



Highlights:
- 14-84mm (28-168mm FF35 equivalent)
- fixed f1.6 throughout (!)
- 2 x 5" (small)

Panasonic, make one like this, please.

Would someone post some pictures or even short video taken with exactly this lens attached on GH1, please?
How does this lens act on GH1 without ETC or ZOOM mode activated?
Thanks!