FS7: Canon c300 guy here, can you school me on the FS6,7,9 options?

[JPNola]

Thanks, good info. I think dust on the sensor is the greater threat...

Yes, without a doubt.

I completely forgot when replying earlier- I have a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 that I trashed by aggressively cleaning the lens when there was something on the front element. The coating is worn off in the center of the lens and as a result it blooms ( veils? ) like crazy when shooting towards any light. I bought a replacement Canon 24-70, the damaged one has been sitting on a bookshelf because I have yet to look into having the front element replaced. In looking to learn what the repair might cost, I came across the following, the quote, and the argument it produced, might be interesting to you as it pertains to dust / scratches on lenses:

“ I don't really understand what the big deal is about a tiny scratch on the front element. It makes almost ZERO difference in IQ, and as long as you aren't planning on changing systems, it seems ludicrous to get bent out of shape over something that has no real consequence. Spending all that money over a tiny front element scratch... wow. If it was the rear element, I could fully understand.

Perhaps you are a bit over obsessive about things? It's not like you are just putting this in a case for a museum or something. This is an item that's MEANT to be used, and scratches happen. Nearly all my lenses have tiny imperfections on the front element, whether it be a bit of internal dust, tiny scratches, etc., but this doesn't bother me at all, as it makes NO DIFFERENCE in my day to day use.”

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4150778

fyi- I started out gentle in trying to get rid of the spot on that lens. Micro-fiber cloth, then Rosco lens tissue w/ Panchro fluid. It was resorting to using Kim Wipes that did the damage to the coating. I knew Kim Wipes are not intended for lens elements and have abrasive texture, but stupidly used them anyway and did so aggressively. I would not have done so were it an expensive lens. More expensive, that is. It was “just” a still photo lens. And they suck. :grin:

 

[LennyLevy]

^ Tamron lenses have excellent AF with Sony cams. Sony owns a piece of Tamron, so they share tech. I own the Tamron 28-75 and the AF is excellent on my A7SIII.

Are you talking about dedicated E Mount lenses ? I have tamron 24-70 f2.8 for canon EF and while it will AF on FX9 with metabones its slow and clunky. now I haven't tried to see if there are firmware updates for the metabones or the Tamron. Dows anyone know if that would help? No AF at all with the Sigma MC-11 adapter.

 

[NorBro]

I think there is a tiny bit of syntax miscommunication in this thread about AF.

Although some use non-Sony lenses for AF, they are still E-mount lenses.

Three major pieces of information to sum it all up (regarding AF):

(1) Sony E-mount lenses are the best.
(2) Third-party E-mount lenses are second best, but some may even be just as good as some Sonys.
(3) Any adapted EF lenses via any adapters are a waste of time (unless rudimentary AF is okay). And as mentioned by someone before, they wouldn't be taking full advantage of what these AF machines were built to do.

 

[scorsesefan]

Are you talking about dedicated E Mount lenses ? I have tamron 24-70 f2.8 for canon EF and while it will AF on FX9 with metabones its slow and clunky. now I haven't tried to see if there are firmware updates for the metabones or the Tamron. Dows anyone know if that would help? No AF at all with the Sigma MC-11 adapter.

Yeah, Sony e - mount lenses, not adapted.

 

[LennyLevy]

My sigma 18-35 F1.8 for canon EF seems to work great with the MC-11 adapter . I've heard good things about some other sigma lenses.

 

[scorsesefan]

"Even if you go with the FX6, I would not let AF compatibility influence lens selection. I’d shoot manual focus for most everything. When you go AF focus is no longer a stylistic tool. And you are more detached from the shooting / subject. Something about manually riding focus connects you to the subject, you are following their every lean, you learn their habits in movement, you are paying attention to such things where with AF you are less cued in on such things or not cued in at all. Focus is a tool in your creative arsenal. Think hard before surrendering it to automation. If you are trying to hold focus on an athletic event, sure, go to AF. But don’t surrender to it completely, is my advice. I’d rather footage with style that misses focus once in a while than vanilla footage where focus is always spot-on."

+1 IMO focus is a reflection and extension of your personality as a camera op and creative, not a computer's. I use it judiciously in very fast moving situations i.e. sports or vehicles on the street, etc. Otherwise I prefer MF...

 

[JPNola]

My Fs7 in lightweight-mode. Actually, the footprint was a bit smaller than what is pictured, because I did not have a wireless receiver riding on top. There were no audio-hops to cameras during run & gun. Just a little timecode sync box.





Nothing special there. Just giving the OP an idea of the physical size of the configuration I used when shooting a sports-doc.

 

[LennyLevy]

I hate to disagree with the esteemed Professor Moore, but the 28-135 is a PITA beast especially on a small camera. I would prefer an FX9 with a Sony 24-105 over an FX6 with a 28-135.
If you want something small couple the FX6 with the 24-105.
Likewise although Mr Nola seems to prefer manual focus all the time and I understand his preference, having an FX6 without AF lenses seems nutty to me for run & gun.You're simply going to be soft sometimes especially when you are somewhat wide and trying to keep a moving subject in focus. I've screwed it up in as simple a situation as a classrooom with a teacher who liked to walk - and i had a monitor.
, so its a trade off in style and you need to choose your weapon.

BTW The Sigma's are a great cheaper alternative to the Sony's.
I'm just testing my lenses today and the sigma 50mm AF Art is sharper than my Zeiss Milvus with considerably less CA. Frankly I'm kind of stunned.

 

[morgan_moore]

I dont know the Sony 24-105 but the 28-135 IMO is just not terrible. By not terrible I mean its got 'proper' manual focus, zoom feels sensible and iris doesnt mean using a horror wheel on the side of the camera. You can do an introducer shot and some CUs.The bones of a doco sequence. Whats more to want. Its not a beauty but is it solidly OK.

THe FX6/28-135 are basically what I wanted from day dot. I bought every speedbooseter, 17-50, 17-70, various 24-105s 18-200 a whole bunch of near miss gear that was rubbush both on paper and worse in hand.

Personally im totally in the AF camp for RnG. Maybe not using it all the time but certainly having it.

 

[LennyLevy]

I'm only talking size and handling with an FX6. if you like it fine. I find them heavy, big and therefore annoying . I haven't compared the IQ to 24-1205 though I hope to get to it today.
Maybe I could get used to it .
To me the advantage of the 28-135 is that its parfocal and has a longer manual focus throw that's not fly by wire. Granted - those are advanatges especially for meetings and events but not as much for R &G . For R & G doc I'd rather be wider and smaller.
But to each his own.

BTW - I'm talking Sony 24-105 not canon which I never liked.

 

[drboffa]

I dont know the Sony 24-105 but the 28-135 IMO is just not terrible. By not terrible I mean its got 'proper' manual focus, zoom feels sensible and iris doesnt mean using a horror wheel on the side of the camera. You can do an introducer shot and some CUs.The bones of a doco sequence. Whats more to want. Its not a beauty but is it solidly OK.

THe FX6/28-135 are basically what I wanted from day dot. I bought every speedbooseter, 17-50, 17-70, various 24-105s 18-200 a whole bunch of near miss gear that was rubbush both on paper and worse in hand.

Personally im totally in the AF camp for RnG. Maybe not using it all the time but certainly having it.

Not to hijack things, but are you finding you need support when using this lens on the FX6?

I used it on the Fs5 (often, but not always with support) and while I wasn't crazy about it there are some things I do miss (I was borrowing it—never owned it). It seems like a much better lens for the FX6.

 

[mcbob]

If I already owned a C300 mk3, I would not bother getting an FX9 let alone an FX6 or FS7. I’m a Sony shooter, am buying an FX9 because I’m having to rent them in frequently, but frankly the 300.3 and 500.2 are nicer looking cameras.

Now, the 300.2 is kind of soft and cumbersome to use, but the mk3 fixed a lot of that. Your director may have outdated information.

C300.3 + 18-80 or the trinity of 2.8L zooms… you’re golden.

Sony works well but (as illustrated here) has all sorts of weird caveats and workarounds. Focus by wire lenses, 70-200GM isn’t that great, odd zoom on the 28-135, strange frame size/rate conflicts with things like monitoring LUT capability, etc etc.


Usual thing to think about with the small crew approach:
Would you rather spend your production time getting used to the foibles of a new camera system, or using a system you already have intimate knowledge with and focusing your problem solving and creative juices on shot choices and story?

I do like Sony, but IMHO I don’t think moving sideways in systems is going to gain you much.

 

[LennyLevy]

I just did some lens testing today and while i haven't had time to evaluate much yet I was surprised to see that after I did the firmware update on my Mark IV metabones EF to E adapter my EF lenses all autofocused fairly well on the FX9. Not quite as well as native loenses or the Sigmas but much better than i expected . They did make a some clicking noises though . I tested Canon 70-200 f2.8 II, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 series I, and the sigma 18-35 f1.8. The MC-11 adapter worked on the Sigma , but the metabones was actually just as good and the MC-11 didn't work at all with the 70-100 and the tamron . All of which is a way of saying yeah maybe you coulkd continue to use the EF lenses on the FX9.

I have no experience with the C300 Mk III , but I don't see why your producer is making you use a camera you're not familiar with unless there is some major advantage. Is the FX9 a lot more sensitive in low light, noticeabloy more resolution with 6K downsampled? Otherwise the Canon should be fine. Better to use something you like and are used to. None of these cameras is perfect but they all take good pictures. I'm more used to people insisting on Arri or RED.

 

[icarusfilm]

The real solution is to work with the c300s that you have- first of all : you have them, you know your gear and also the c300 deliver a better image also the mk2 and 3 are Netflix approved. If it isn’t based on any real reasons besides what the director “Heard” or “Thinks” you should be able to work with what you have.


FONT=Century Gothic][/FONT]

I just did some lens testing today and while i haven't had time to evaluate much yet I was surprised to see that after I did the firmware update on my Mark IV metabones EF to E adapter my EF lenses all autofocused fairly well on the FX9. Not quite as well as native loenses or the Sigmas but much better than i expected . They did make a some clicking noises though . I tested Canon 70-200 f2.8 II, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 series I, and the sigma 18-35 f1.8. The MC-11 adapter worked on the Sigma , but the metabones was actually just as good and the MC-11 didn't work at all with the 70-100 and the tamron . All of which is a way of saying yeah maybe you coulkd continue to use the EF lenses on the FX9.

I have no experience with the C300 Mk III , but I don't see why your producer is making you use a camera you're not familiar with unless there is some major advantage. Is the FX9 a lot more sensitive in low light, noticeabloy more resolution with 6K downsampled? Otherwise the Canon should be fine. Better to use something you like and are used to. None of these cameras is perfect but they all take good pictures. I'm more used to people insisting on Arri or RED.