C300: Client Lens Complaints!

JPNola said:
PureD- I think you are limiting yourself creatively with your aversion to in-shot zooms. Or, to be more blunt, with your snobbery in regard to zooms. ( we're friends, so I can say that to you. :happy: ) My EPK clients generally love zooms because the zooms can make the production seem more active, fast paced, and dynamic. And they like that the BTS doesn't look like the film that the BTS is documenting. They want the BTS to look like BTS, to have a distinct style and look that is unlike the film, one that distinguishes itself from the film. Most often the EPK clients want the film to look filmic and the BTS to look like BTS.

Were I to be of the mind that I don't do zooms in BTS and only do "filmic" shooting, some of my EPK Producers would likely return volley with something like "dude, you ain't shooting a film. You are shooting BTS. You ain't Emmanuel Lubezki or even the next Emmanuel Lubezki. You ain't even listed on the call sheet. So get over yourself already. "

Again, I think you limit yourself creatively by having an anti-zoom mindset. There are so many types of in-shot zooms that can be creative statements. The snap-zoom, the stutter-zoom, the reveal-zoom, swoop-zoom, "urgency zoom" that starts out medium paced and rapidly increases in speed, etc.

While infrequent, there are feature films that use in-shot zooms. Films such as The Big Short. Is The Big Short not cinematic because it uses in-shot zooms?

While addressed to you, this isn't directed solely at you, PureD. I've seen others on this forum pooh-pooh zooms and treat zooms as if they are beneath them. And my response to that is "dudes, get over yourselves already."
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my posts, I'm not a snob against zooming, I just don't do it much, to me, it's not how I shoot coverage. My main run and gun lens, the 18-135 STM IS, is useless for this, it does a refocus lag thing every time I do anything but a very slow zoom. I will eventually buy the CNe 18-80, then I will be able to do the zooms and make them usable. I will say as a producer, if I hire a camera op or DP and tell them to get me coverage of a subject, if they go out and only give me continuous moving shots with zooms and no static wide, medium, CU, reverse, reaction, that would drive me crazy as an editor. But if they gave me coverage, and in addition, zooms, that would be great variety to choose from in the edit bay. Like everything else, it's all in how it is done and how tastefully it is done. I like snap zooms, stutter zooms and push-ins and slow reveals. Me not using them much now is more a limitation of my gear than me not liking to do them.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
That said, Dan, I have the 18-80 and it's not that special. Clearly the solution is the 17-120. :)

I just bought the Canon 30-105 T/2.8 as well in addition to the 15.5-47 I have, so the 17-120 is next on my list. I like zooms.
Click to expand...

You're Killin' Me Smalls! The 18-80 is special when you are coming from stills lenses, but yep, the 17-120 is the man. Nice zoom collection you are building there.
 
Liam Hall said:
Funny, last year I shot a BTS on an art house feature doc (think Koyaanisqatsi) and had the direct opposite request from the Producers; they wanted the BTS to punch above its weight and have a cinematic look of its own.
Click to expand...

My main BTS client wants this type of coverage and look, she does not like "the BTS" look at all. She specifies that we shoot only Canon, Arri or RED, only 24p or 60p for slower motion, never 30p or 60p used as 60p, she loves good glass and a classic documentary style of coverage. I have two clients lately, her and the producer I shot the music documentary in Brazil for who specified that all of our interviews were to be shot with a wider, more cinematic frame, no CU or ECU framing, frame them from the waist up or wider when you can, no multiple camera, no sliders. Both clients have told me they don't want "TV" looking coverage. I take that to mean, TV coverage is full of hyperactive, roaming camera, with lots of snap zooms, unintentional looking focus hunting, etc. I've done that type of coverage that Rob describes for years but at least a couple of our clients are stepping back from that style, they want carefully chosen, classically beautiful compositions with some moving camera/handheld style thrown in but not the hyperactive "The Office/Modern Family" style.

Personally, I recall that style evolving during the NTSC SD days because we were shooting in such low resolution that in order to actually see a subject in detail, wide shots didn't have enough resolution to show detail so the shooting style evolved to this hyperactive verite style. I even shot a BTS piece when I worked on NYPD Blue that detailed exactly how that style evolved and how they shot it, we did it at Panavision in Woodland Hills on their little stage, we had actors, a set and one of the show camera ops, the director and DP. It was fun and a little hilarious to see this hyperactive style with Panasvision film cameras and lens packages that weighed perhaps 60lbs, on the camera ops shoulders. The funny part is that when the switch to HD came, many predicted that the hyperactive camera style would evolve back to something more static, locked off since "HD had so much resolution that you could see detail and small things in a static, locked off wide shot." Today that sounds funny because even with 8K, people seem to be obsessed with always moving the camera with a Steadicam, Gimbal, Slider, Drone, Crane, Jib or on the shoulder. I am still of the opinion that a moving camera is an effect. Really effective when it is motivated and more effective when it is set against more static compositions. What I hate is the "constantly roaming" camera style that many seem to favor. I work on shows that are largely handheld, Homeland, Prison Break, 24, yet even within those more action oriented shows, the DPs and directors generally have good taste about when and how to use movement to tell stories more effectively. A lot of this stuff also comes down to style.

I have been shooting racing boats on the ocean lately, you would think that it is all movement, therefore the cameras would be moving all of the time. I am purposely trying to mix in static frames in my coverage, I like wide shots with the boats entering and exiting a static or relatively static compostion sometimes. Of course, this is mixed in with Go Pros on the boats, drone footage, etc. that is usually moving/tracking. But having every composition with the camera moving becomes really boring to me.
 
Eric,

Thanks for sharing your experience with the 18-80mm. It's one of zooms I've been considering, but you've highlighted issues I feared might be present. It still offers a lot for the price so I haven't given up on it yet, but am even less certain I'll add one to my kit.

If Fuji's MK zooms came in a EF-mount I'd have bought the 18-55mm already, & have a preorder for the 50-150mm.
 
Last edited:
I have the 18-80mm. A couple of thoughts. The servo grip works great. It is very smooth. All of the rings are very smooth. You can do a single finger zoom snap zoom or slow creep without much issue. I also wonder about having the zoom motor turned on while manually controlling the zoom. It acts a bit like a flywheel on slider, but I'm not sure if it is actually good for the motor. It is lighter than the 70-200 II f/2.8 IS. It is a fantastic lens for use on the C300 II. It balances correctly and you can hold the camera from the zoom grip and operate the camera with the left hand, although I think I wouldn't do it without the Zacuto baseplate, lens mount, and right angle cable. In fact, I think the Zacuto right angle is nearly a requirement for this lens. The C100 has the problem with the lens in that it is easiest to operate the camera from the hand grip using the function joystick. I really wish that they had added a function joystick to the servo grip because it would make the C100II/ 18-80mm combo a great handheld camera using the EVF. I'm guessing the C200/18-80 combo will be near perfect for a run and gun camera.
 
puredrifting said:
My main BTS client wants this type of coverage and look, she does not like "the BTS" look at all. She specifies that we shoot only Canon, Arri or RED, only 24p or 60p for slower motion, never 30p or 60p used as 60p, she loves good glass and a classic documentary style of coverage. I have two clients lately, her and the producer I shot the music documentary in Brazil for who specified that all of our interviews were to be shot with a wider, more cinematic frame, no CU or ECU framing, frame them from the waist up or wider when you can, no multiple camera, no sliders. Both clients have told me they don't want "TV" looking coverage. I take that to mean, TV coverage is full of hyperactive, roaming camera, with lots of snap zooms, unintentional looking focus hunting, etc. I've done that type of coverage that Rob describes for years but at least a couple of our clients are stepping back from that style, they want carefully chosen, classically beautiful compositions with some moving camera/handheld style thrown in but not the hyperactive "The Office/Modern Family" style.
Click to expand...

Can we see any of these works?
 
combatentropy said:
Can we see any of these works?
Click to expand...

Bunch of coverage on Homeland S3, S4 but not sure if it is on YouTube? They used to give us DVD box sets of the seasons with our work on them but now, I am told they won't even be doing a home video release of seasons moving forward. I would get in trouble if I posted them because it is content your are supposed to buy but it wouldn't surprise me if others have ripped the Blurays and put them on-line.
 
puredrifting said:
Yeah, I know. But to play Devil's advocate, they were on an insane timeline, the uploads to NY were taking forever and they needed everything yesterday, so I get it, when every second counts. Kind of like cutting news that is going to air in 20 minutes.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on the Pacquaio vs Mayweather fight for showtime and broadcast affiliates. lmao
 
Eric Coughlin said:
...
I just bought the Canon 30-105 T/2.8 as well in addition to the 15.5-47 I have, so the 17-120 is next on my list. I like zooms.
...

Before buying the lens I'd thought you could take the servo piece off (not the grip, the actual servo). I unscrewed various screws to take it off, but found it was still connected by electrical wiring which didn't seem wise to try to figure out how to disconnect that, so I figured that the servo grip is supposed to stay on, which adds to the size and weight.
Click to expand...

I have a friend that uses the 30-105, mostly on an F55, and he loves it. But he says it's heavy.

The servo grip IS completely removable on the 17-120. The bad thing about removing the grip is the iris is then completely undamped. ZERO resistance. You can almost breath on it and move it.
 
NMSK said:
This won't really help you in low light, but it's a shame you don't have the Nano USM version of the 18-135 as the powerzoom controller from Canon could be the perfect solution without spending a lot.

https://store.canon.com.au/power-zoom-adapter-pz-e1.html

$220 and it attaches to the lens in seconds. Aside from the obvious 18-80 solution, it could serve you well if you were open to exchanging your 18-135mm to the power zoom variant.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention this, and I don't think anyone responded to NMSK's post. Would this not work for you? It's cheap enough, even if you have to get a new model of the 18 - 135mm lens.
 
BrandonT said:
I was going to mention this, and I don't think anyone responded to NMSK's post. Would this not work for you? It's cheap enough, even if you have to get a new model of the 18 - 135mm lens.
Click to expand...

I just bought the 18-135 Nano USM and the PZ-E1 power zoom adapter today. I'll receive it on Monday and have a gig on Tuesday where I'll use it with one of my C100 cameras. I'll report back here how it went.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
That reminds me, I need to watch Wayne's World.



What are they gonna do, put you in prison for ripping Prison Break?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you have worked for the studios Eric but let's just say a huge part of their operating budget goes into their legal departments. No way I would jeopardize future work with them by doing anything against my contract or NDAs I have signed.
 
The PZ-e1 and 18-135 IS STM is useful, but it has all the drawbacks that you might expect of a lens that costs 10x less than the 18-80. The servo function only has two speeds, comes to an abrupt halt, and you can see the iris step slightly as the lens zooms. Other than that, it is a pretty nice combo and it is certainly more useable than trying to do a manual zoom with the lens. You also can't do any really fast zooms, but that is probably better to do without a servo anyway.
 
cpreston said:
The PZ-e1 and 18-135 IS STM is useful, but it has all the drawbacks that you might expect of a lens that costs 10x less than the 18-80. The servo function only has two speeds, comes to an abrupt halt, and you can see the iris step slightly as the lens zooms. Other than that, it is a pretty nice combo and it is certainly more useable than trying to do a manual zoom with the lens. You also can't do any really fast zooms, but that is probably better to do without a servo anyway.
Click to expand...

Let me fix the last part there... Other than being completely unusable for a "live zoom", it is a pretty nice combo...
 
I do a few network TV shoots, so I do like my servo zooms. I have many clients that want me to do zooms. I like servo zooms, but then, I came from the Beta SP TV news days.

You gotta give it to Sony, they've provided servo zooms for their FS5/7 line of cameras. Even though they might not be the best, they work good enough. In fact, I almost always have the 18-105 or 28-135 on my FS5. I rarely use primes, except for sit-down interviews. The servo zooms are just too practical not to use.

Because of the abilities of the C200 and EVA1, I might be switching over to one of these new cameras (I'm leaning toward the EVA because of the timecode port). The bad part is, the lack of affordable servo zooms. I guess the closest out there is the CN-E 18-80, but it's a lot more expensive than the Sony offerings.

OP, if you can swing it budget wise, you should consider getting the CN-E 18-80. It satisfies some of your clients' needs and you might find it useful enough to keep on the camera. If I had the budget, I'd certainly have one in my lens kit.

On counterpoint, you can pick up a used fixed lens camera for less than the price of the CN-E 18-80, perhaps the Canon XF-305. Hmmm....
 
Run&Gun said:
Let me fix the last part there... Other than being completely unusable for a "live zoom", it is a pretty nice combo...
Click to expand...

Seriously, if you are stuck doing a live event with a stills lens then it is your best option. The next closest option is a 24-105 f/4L with a geared ring and a zoom controller and the 24-105 is going to change exposure if you aren't at f/4. It also doesn't have the range. It's a budget solution to a problem created by using the wrong tool for the job- a large sensor camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top