couple of nice tidbits from IBC

T

TomLenham

Well-known member
Just got back from Holland where Panny had a big stand - no real developments for the Af101, and no sign of a successor in sight, but a few bits of news:
1 - saw the new x series lenses, hated them. The 14-42 has no manual focus as we know, but autofocus is fast - it will be decent on a GH2. The bigger one (is it 45-175?) is extremely plasticy and light, weighed next to nothing and was too small IMHO, plus felt like it was really badly made - I'll be avoiding it. BUT the other ones round the corner (12-35 and 35-100) will hopefully be better. They weren't on show but Panny were more or less admitting the rumour - whilst not actually confirming it, when I asked if they'd be F2, they said "probably more like 2.8 but we'll see soon enough."
2 - Avid have announced that they're about to support AVCHD through AMA linking - great news, as no transcoding required (plus they gave a glimpse of a new interface which looks very nice). I love Avid, me.
3 - more on the Avid front - Atomos Samurai was looking very nice, and they're going to be adding DNXHD formats for recording as well as ProRes. Though if you have the money the Pix 240 is lovely.
 
I've alluded to this before, so I expect to get jumped on again, but it seems that Panasonic rushed to introduce the AF100 and then, basically, walked away. I've purchased many professional cameras over the years, from 35mm Eclairs to super16 Aatons to various Sony, Canon and Panasonic video cameras. Always after introduction there has been a few years worth of added and/or updated equipment and/or accessories. With the AF it seems that the post-sales support is virtually non-existent.

I, and many others, have constantly bemoaned the lack of a dedicated zoom lens for instance. With a large sensor camera, where a few inches in focus makes a difference, the horrible auto/still lenses are virtually useless because there is less than 1/8" barrel range from, say, 6 feet to 3 feet. And the available still lenses are either also auto, or were designed to cover a larger image, and thus are too big and heavy. The amateur wanna-bes all want auto everything lenses, but this was introduced as a "professional large sensor" camera. The answer to this has consistently been "Panasonic doesn't make lenses". But they' didn't have a problem getting good lenses on the DVX and HVX cameras.
 
I'd agree to an extent on the lens front - no-one worth their salt uses autofocus as we all know, but one imagines that whilst decent glass is a requirement on a fixed lens cam like the HVX, the Af101 can use virtually anything and therefore Panny don't need to worry so much about producing their own lenses; after all, why spend millions developing a lovely expensive lens when Zeiss, Angenieux, Cooke etc already have the market lead? As to post sales support, I'd disagree - I think Panny and others (through forums such as this and people like Jan Crittenden) listen very well, much more so than they used to. I was actually vox-popped by Panny at their stand yesterday asking how much feedback matters to end-users and how they could improve their manufacturer/customer dialogue. I gave you a good plug, Jan, but it didn't make the edit :) http://bit.ly/oftAYN
 
I agree to an extent, but answering questions at a booth is not providing needed hardware.. And believe me, I have shot three 10 minute documentaries, 2 regional commercials and footage for a long form feature documentary since purchasing my AF in late February and know from personal experience that Zeiss, Angenieux and Cooke do not have a zoom lens that will work with this camera - because if they did, I'd own it... I've even tried adapting a Cooke S16 lens with no luck.. The Zuiko and Panasonic lenses are a joke.. the only thing close is the Nikon, but it doesn't have an iris ring and focuses the wrong direction... Ain't right..
 
I know Mac and I don't see eye to eye on this, so -- permitting some smart-aleckyness, Mac, which Eclair lens did you use on your Eclair? And which Aaton lens did you use on your Aaton? :evil:

Point being, cinema camera manufacturers haven't typically made the glass that goes with them. They've always relied on Cooke, Zeiss, Angenieux, and now Canon and Fujinon to supply glass. Red (and, now, Sony) is fairly unique in being a camera & glass supplier. Cinema Products relied on Angenieux, Arri relied on Zeiss, and on and on.

Zeiss, Angenieux and Cooke do not have a zoom lens that will work with this camera
Click to expand...
Well, of course they do; I've used a Cooke 20-100 on it, I've used a Zeiss 22-154 on it, and Angenieux's Optimo Rouge line work on it fine. They just cost a lot, but they definitely all work, as will a LWZ. They're big and heavy, yes, but they certainly work.

Seems like folks are settling in on the Red Pro Zoom 17-50 as the cheapest cine-class lens at a decent speed, reasonable cost, and decent range. Or, if true cinema action isn't 100% required, a used Red Pro 18-50 or the DigiOptical 18-50.

And hey, I'm not telling you you're wrong in wanting what you want -- I'm just pointing out that you're barking up the wrong tree if you expect Panasonic Broadcast to provide the glass you're asking for. I mean, they've never made a lens for their 1/3" cameras, or for their older 1/2" cameras, or for their 2/3" cameras. Expecting them to start making 4/3" lenses seems highly unrealistic. Would be great if they did, but I think the effort-to-reward ratio is a lot higher in pursuing glass manufactures that actually do make lenses, such as the aforementioned Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux and Fujinon. And really, I think Fujinon is the most likely to deliver what we really want, because they have a long history of supplying lenses for Panasonic products, and they worked together with Panasonic to implement CAC (Chromatic Aberration Compensation), which really brought down the cost of lenses for the HPX500 and the HPX300. Fujinon understands making true cinema glass, and they understand using processors and electronics to communicate lens info to the camera so the camera can compensate for barrel distortion or chromatic aberration.

Canon could do it too, but even then, their less-expensive lenses always cost a lot more than the comparable Fujinons IIRC. So for an affordable, cine-style, reasonably-fast, pro lens, I'd say we should concentrate our efforts on Fujinon; I think they're the most likely to deliver what we want.
 
I think they get hung up in trying to make a lens that will work for everything -- and that's not what we want. If they make a big ol' S35 long-range lens, it'll be another Alura. But if they'll apply that technical wizardry that made CAC a reality, and do the same with barrel distortion and the other corrections that the AF100 camera body can do, then they should be able to make the lens a lot less expensive. And if they can custom design it for the AF100's sensor size, it can be smaller and therefore less expensive too, just like the Voigtlander Nokton is smaller than a Leica Noctilux and 1/10th the price.

May be a pipe dream, but it's the one I'm gonna try to push for.
 
Barry_Green said:
I know Mac and I don't see eye to eye on this, so -- permitting some smart-aleckyness, Mac, which Eclair lens did you use on your Eclair? And which Aaton lens did you use on your Aaton?
Click to expand...

Let me be smart- alecky in return.. in the 1960s Bolex introduced the Rex, an affordable professional reflex 16mm camera, which used a pelical prism instead of a mirror shutter. because the prism was thicker, standard "C" Mount lenses wouldn't work, so they developed a proprietary "Rex Mount".. Sound familiar? Within months of the introduction of that camera SOM Berthiot and Angenieux had Rex Mount lenses available specifically for the Bolex. In fact, the first zoom I ever owned was a 12-120 Angenieux in a Rex Mount.

As for the other lenses, they're mostly monsters, and you know by now that I'm talking about a pro-cine-quality lens that is light enough to be hand held, has a hard infinety stop, has an iris ring.. etc.

Admittedly, now I would even be happy with an auto lens like the 14-54 (which I do own) if it was constant f2.8, was parfocal, would talk to a contoller like the Foxy (I screwed up the one I use on my HVX trying to make it work) and "push to focus" at 24fps, which I always shoot. And I'd love it if Fujinon would fill this void because I really like the lens on my HPX500 - a lot - and have considered the Abel adapter. But that's a lot of cash for a 'work around".
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Mac, which Eclair lens did you use on your Eclair? And which Aaton lens did you use on your Aaton? :
Click to expand...

Sorry to be such a pest, and I'm not really arguing because we're all in the same boat, but (re: the above) as a trial lawyer would say, "never ask a question you don't know the answer to"...

As a matter of fact, my old Aaton is an LTR7 which I bought, with the Cooke 10.4-52mm zoom, from a British cinematographer. He told me that Aaton worked closely with Cooke (with his input as well) to develop that lens specifically for the super16 Aatons.

That's all I'm asking Panasonic to do, work closely with Leica or Fujinon or whoever to develop a similar lens for the AF.. It's in everyone's best interest.
 
Mac said:
Sorry to be such a pest, and I'm not really arguing because we're all in the same boat, but (re: the above) as a trial lawyer would say, "never ask a question you don't know the answer to"...

As a matter of fact, my old Aaton is an LTR7 which I bought, with the Cooke 10.4-52mm zoom, from a British cinematographer. He told me that Aaton worked closely with Cooke (with his input as well) to develop that lens specifically for the super16 Aatons.

That's all I'm asking Panasonic to do, work closely with Leica or Fujinon or whoever to develop a similar lens for the AF.. It's in everyone's best interest.
Click to expand...


I have a box full of great lenses for the AF100's I own and use every day - They do exactly what I want them to, and achieve the results I expect. When I need a fast powerzoom on a camera (very infrequently) I choose another camera for the job… one that has a list of other features also better suited to the job.

So if Panasonic never ever comes out with these fast / dirt cheap lenses I don't really care.
 
Mac said:
He told me that Aaton worked closely with Cooke (with his input as well) to develop that lens specifically for the super16 Aatons.
That's all I'm asking Panasonic to do, work closely with Leica or Fujinon or whoever to develop a similar lens for the AF.. It's in everyone's best interest.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I've asked Panasonic to work with Fujinon to develop something that we need too. Same thing. All I'm saying is -- Panasonic isn't the lens manufacturer, so continually blaming them for not making a lens is like blaming Dell for not writing Microsoft Office software. I say let's channel our efforts towards a solution that can actually work -- and targeting the lens manufacturers is where I think we'll get some results.

And you said that "within months" Rex mount lenses were available -- well, to be fair, do you remember how many months? I certainly don't, but I do know that nowadays we seem to suffer from a "compressed time" syndrome where our modern fast world seems to distort just how long things have been around. The AF100 first hit the shelves basically this year, 9 months ago, so it's not like it's been on the market for three years, it's only been out for "months", so it might take the manufacturers some time to engineer and design a whole new lens specifically for it.

That doesn't help us TODAY, I well understand that. Which is why I say -- if you need a solution for today, the DigiOptical is probably the best bet at the cheapest price that meets your requirements (pro-cine-quality lens that is light enough to be hand held, has a hard infinety stop, has an iris ring.. etc.). That's available today and has been for quite a while, and it's under $4,000. Or you can get the improved Red 17-50, which also meets those specs and has even better mechanicals, at under $6k. So it's not like there's zero options, there are things out there on the market now that will do what you're asking.
 
Barry_Green said:
I say -- if you need a solution for today, the DigiOptical is probably the best bet at the cheapest price that meets your requirements (pro-cine-quality lens that is light enough to be hand held, has a hard infinety stop, has an iris ring.. etc.). That's available today and has been for quite a while, and it's under $4,000. … there are things out there on the market now that will do what you're asking.
Click to expand...


I have the Digi-OPtical 18-50 & 50-150 in my kit - used them this year to shoot 150 ads for a National Canadian Retailer (Canadian Tire), through their ad agency (Taxi). Everyone is happy, and I have the contract for next year… Not once did someone on set say "That would be a great camera if there were lenses for it". Come to think of it none of the dozen or so other clients that I've shot multiple projects with the AF100 this year - or my 1st AC's have bemoaned some 'lack of support & lenses' from Panasonic.
 
"if you need a solution for today, the DigiOptical is probably the best bet"

I thought about that lens, but it's PL and heavy enough that it requires a support, which means a Hot Rod mount, which is another $1500 bucks.. And that would be okay, but it's so short that it would still require changing lenses, and that's problematic to do quickly unless all the lenses are PL mount. I shoot hand held without an AC. I'll probably spring for it, or the Abel adapter, if nothing else shows soon...
 
heavyG said:
I have a box full of great lenses for the AF100's I own and use every day - They do exactly what I want them to, and achieve the results I expect. When I need a fast powerzoom on a camera (very infrequently) I choose another camera for the job… one that has a list of other features also better suited to the job.

So if Panasonic never ever comes out with these fast / dirt cheap lenses I don't really care.
Click to expand...

Well, aren't we the lucky ducks... I have...

a 20mm f2.8 Canon FD
a 28mm f 2.8 Sumarit Leica-R
a 35mm f2 Canon FD
a 35mm f2 Nikkor
two 50mm f2 Summicron Leica-Rs
two 50mm f1.4 Canon FDs
two 50mm f1.4 Nikkors
a 50mm f1.7 Minolta
a 100mm f2.8 Canon FD
a 105mm f2.5 Nikkor
a 135mm f2.8 Sumarit Leica-R
a 45-90mm f2.8 Angenieux/Leica-R mt
two 28-85mm f2.8-3.8 Vivtiar/Canon FDs
an 80-200mm f4.5 Tokina/Canon FD mt
a 28-75mm f3.5-4-5 Gemini/Minolta mt
a 300mm f8 mirror/Minolta mt
a 350mm f4 Century Optics/Canon FD
a 10.4-52mm T2.6 Cooke/Aaton mt
a 12-120 T2.7 Canon/Aaton mt
a (rare) 15-150mm f2.8 Angenieux/Aaton mt
an (even rarer) T1.3 16-44mm Angenieux/Aaton mt
a 10mm Cooke f2/Aaton mt
a 10mm f1.8 Schneider/Arriflex-Cinegon/Arri std mt

and last - and certainly the least (although I'm probably forgetting a couple) - a 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 Zuiko with a Panasonic MFT adapter..

But I prefer to chose the camera I use by the LOOK I want, not the inadequacy of the equipment. And I certainly NEVER said anything about a power zoom! I don't want a power or auto anything.
 
Wow - I didn't realise that this was a contest where I needed to list all the lenses I own… If I was that kind of guy I'd be compiling it; but alas I'm not.
I will say this; as I was coming up I worked with some of the DP greats shooting Cars spots for the Detroit 3 as well as the lux European brands / and just over 25 of your Oh so coveted Superbowl spots - The truly great DP's could shoot something unbelievable with any lens you handed them, and the best I ever worked with had a set of piss poor 'B speeds' that shot some of the greatest BMW / Merc spots I've ever seen.
So the lens doesn't make the shot, the camera doesn't make the shot, the film stock / sensor doesn't make the shot: the craft of the DP makes the shot.

I think this thread has reached the point where I'm supposed to say that I like monkeys… or cheese.

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top