Camera vs. Lens
- Thread starter Eric Coughlin
- Start date
The other week I shot a two FS7 camera corporate video with CN17-120 on one camera and Sony 18-110 on the other. Operational was way better with the CN17-120 but image quality was about the same. Then last week I shot another piece at the same location with a Canon 24-105 and it looked just as good. So yes I would pick a better camera if I want a better image speaking from my experience.
A few months ago, a friend and I were reminiscing about the old Soviet era cameras - more precisely, about their prices - and found a late 1980's Soviet clone of a Hassemblad medium format (Kiev 88CM), known appropriately in the West as Hassebladski. It cost 900r at the time or about half a year's wages for an average earner and still would have meant nothing because the Soviet MF film was of an abysmal quality and buying foreign made MF film was out of the question. In fact, most of the major Soviet features of the era were shot on the Soviet made film, which stunk as well.
Side story - I was watching ARRI's promotional clip of their LF's and, a part of the promo, they included a clip of a miniseries "Catherine, the Great", which came out on HBO a couple of months ago. Well, the 18th Century Russian Empire had no video cameras but it had plenty of artists who painted plenty of portraits of the royals. They took that as a foundation for the "look".
PS. "Vinyl" went for the fake 1970's everything and it looked like crap.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Its strange ive shot with the MK and I find them somehow anodyne.
Ive also seen some very competent drama 'crash' pulls clearly on cineglass that I find most distracting.
I think my 50 somehow has character which is partly the breath - the MK looks too TV somehow it might be the parfocality or the 2.8
Mitch Gross
Veteran
The variables in cameras can sweep wide and deep. The variables in lenses are there but within a more narrow range. Therefore camera is the more important choice.
But given that, I would really care about good lighting gear, nice sets, production schedule, etc.
But given that, I would really care about good lighting gear, nice sets, production schedule, etc.
G
Guest
Guest
After everyone gets used to lightweight auto focus, not sure how old manual lenses will do. Maybe the classic classics will retain some value.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
That's an astute observation. A lot of owners of wonderful, high end PL mount S35 only glass have seen their decades old high end lens investments suddenly bottom out in value
over the the last two years because of the industry's sheep-like response to thinking the only cameras to be considered from here on out are full frame. The same thing can and will happen
with AF eventually, it's just a matter of when. This industry, for supposedly being a hot bed of creatives, as far as gear trends, is one of the least creative, most Lemming-like I have seen.
Think about it, how many filmmakers would buy a brand new S35 only digital cinema camera today? I would, in a heartbeat,
but I'd bet the majority wouldn't spend more than a BMD PCC6K worth of money to do so. Imagine if the C500 MKII or FX-9
were S35 sensor, the industry would instantly blackball either camera from becoming a sales success.
The latest trend I've noticed is to go back to shooting film. Fortunately that's a trend I can get behind, I still think film, when lit well, can
look considerably better and more interesting than even the best digital cinema. Not as sharp or high resolution, but objectively
film still renders an incredibly appealing image.
I think you are correct James, the high end glass of today is going to be rendered effectively at least semi-obsolete and will sell
at bargain basement prices in just a few years because the trend is becoming AF and that will spill upwards to higher end productions.
They'll still have ACs and will use manual focus at least some of the time but I agree that AF will start making big inroads into higher
end production because it does some things that even the best ACs cannot do as well sometimes.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Ive been sayin MF glass is doomed since the launch of the 17-120
A/Cs may be less doomed as they will be needed to 'run' high end AF.
Of course an AF focus motor could suddenly bring MF glass back, causing a second boom once AF is well established!
A/Cs may be less doomed as they will be needed to 'run' high end AF.
Of course an AF focus motor could suddenly bring MF glass back, causing a second boom once AF is well established!
Grug
Veteran
The problem is still lenses. I'm very interested to see how Sony's new hybrid AF/MF glass works. What we really need is universal protocol that will allow for precise external FIZ control using the lenses' internal motors, combined with AF that can be switched on when needed. If it's not flick-of-a-button quick to swap between the two, it's always going to be a nightmare to use both on set. And proper sets will always need the ability to do precise MF at a moment's notice.
Perhaps another alternative, is simply an external protocol that can sync the cameras' AF systems with external Preston, Arri, Cmotion FIZ systems?
Perhaps another alternative, is simply an external protocol that can sync the cameras' AF systems with external Preston, Arri, Cmotion FIZ systems?
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
We already have outboard AF via the Preston Light Ranger 2, in use on many sets. It allows an AC to bounce between auto and manual focus seamlessly, providing a graphical overlay to aid with manual focus amongst other features. Panavision has been innovating by building internally motorized lenses for the DXL, but those have yet to appear from other manufacturers. Outside of weight and bulk there are obvious advantages to external motors as they can be easily swapped out if there are issues, and they work with any geared lens. It takes a considerable amount of torque to be able to motorize a large barrel zoom as fast as desired for a substantial focus rack and that can be exacerbated by temperature, so it makes some sense to be able to pick the appropriate motor for the task.
As far as relying on AF for narrative work, fully automated AF as we currently know it will never completely take over as there are too many choices of timing and speed to consider. What I think we may more likely see is a version of light field tech similar to what is happening in the newer iPhones where enough data is collected to be able to finesse focus choices in post, where the focus performed on set is a reference for dailies that can be fine tuned or revised later, similar to a shooting reference LUT that will be recreated and augmented in the color grade.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Interesting. I can see the value of an external AF system - it can be BOTH tuned to the needs of cinema shooting and keep value to those lenses.
Interesting you mention the iphone - it seems strange to me that dji cameras, and iphones seem to have additional lenses for gaining a concept of spacial position of stuff.. while of course FX9 C500 etc have one measly lens no different from a 1990s betacam or indeed a 1950s film cam
Interesting you mention the iphone - it seems strange to me that dji cameras, and iphones seem to have additional lenses for gaining a concept of spacial position of stuff.. while of course FX9 C500 etc have one measly lens no different from a 1990s betacam or indeed a 1950s film cam
Run&Gun
Veteran
If a camera manufacturer that is doing AF now really wanted to, they could make any manual focus lens "auto focus". Simply have a connection on the camera for a focus servo to attach to a manual focus lens like we do now, but the camera would be driving the external focus servo instead of the servos inside a still lens.