DSLR vs Consumer...?

[Kholi]

Again -- thank you.

So we're all agreed then? For web=based shooting we're all for GH-1?

(I'm still concerned about the recording time. That 5 minute crap with the D90 is just bogus. Though it might make sense as second cam if it drops in price dramtically due to the GH and D60X).

No way!! RED!!!

For Music Videos = GH-1. Heeeeeeee

Nah, but seriously, GH-1 is probably going to be the ticket. Barring raw Image quality.

Hey also consider that the jury is still out on FOV. If you don't really care about your wides then it's not an issue, but we're all still trying to figure out the FOV characteristics.

I'm still wondering if a 7mm is actually a 4/3" sensor based 7mm, or is it rated at 7mm for a 35mm Sensor?

I wonder because I'm addicted to wides, but others aren't so worried about it.

 

[Steve Castle]

No way!! RED!!!
I'm still wondering if a 7mm is actually a 4/3" sensor based 7mm, or is it rated at 7mm for a 35mm Sensor?

I wonder because I'm addicted to wides, but others aren't so worried about it.

Its 7mm, as in 14mm equivalent on a FT sensor. Below 10mm you're getting into fisheye territory with 35mm equivalent lens.

 

[Kholi]

Its 7mm, as in 14mm equivalent on a FT sensor. Below 10mm you're getting into fisheye territory with 35mm equivalent lens.

Steve, help me out.

So if @ 7mm = 14mm on an FT sensor, then what's my 11-16mm Tokina on the 4/3"?

This is one thing that confuses the hell out of me. I'm just getting lost and probably over thinking it.

It's a 22 - 32? Which means the 7-14 is wider than my 11-16tokina on the 4/3 but not wider on a FT sensor?

 

[holyzoo]

If you don't really care about your wides then it's not an issue, but we're all still trying to figure out the FOV characteristics.

I'm still wondering if a 7mm is actually a 4/3" sensor based 7mm, or is it rated at 7mm for a 35mm Sensor?

It's my understanding that it's roughly 2x crop factor, so 7mm would be 14mm equivalent.

My plan would be to get this for the wide:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030313panasonic7-14mm.asp

Sure it's f4, but it's an extreme wide zoom lens, so I don't care about shallow dof on it. But my concern would be the light loss. At least there IS a wide angle lens option though. Would be FAR worse on Scarlet 2/3!

 

[Steve Castle]

Steve, help me out.

So if @ 7mm = 14mm on an FT sensor, then what's my 11-16mm Tokina on the 4/3"?

This is one thing that confuses the hell out of me. I'm just getting lost and probably over thinking it.

It's a 22 - 32? Which means the 7-14 is wider than my 11-16tokina on the 4/3 but not wider on a FT sensor?

Yes, your Tokina will be 22-32mm on an FT sensor, 16.5-24mm on a APS-C sized sensor.

I'm not too familiar with the lens, but I think its designed exclusively for APS-C sized sensors? In which case, the 7-14mm will be slightly wider, but slightly slower.

 

[Kholi]

Yes, your Tokina will be 22-32mm on an FT sensor, 16.5-24mm on a APS-C sized sensor.

I'm not too familiar with the lens, but I think its designed exclusively for APS-C sized sensors? In which case, the 7-14mm will be slightly wider, but slightly slower.

Okay. NOW I understand. It makes sense when you explain it like this.

It's my understanding that it's roughly 2x crop factor, so 7mm would be 14mm equivalent.

My plan would be to get this for the wide:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09...onic7-14mm.asp

Sure it's f4, but it's an extreme wide zoom lens, so I don't care about shallow dof on it. But my concern would be the light loss. At least there IS a wide angle lens option though. Would be FAR worse on Scarlet 2/3!

Yeah that's the plan. it's also cheaper than the Zuiko version I believe.

So, it'll be a pair of GH-1's with kit lenses (14-140) and one Lumix G 7-14/4

Honestly, 4 isn't really that slow when you consider that you'll light, you have manual controls with shutter and hopefully ISO.


It's definitely workable and you're right, it would be FAR worse in the opposite scenario. Even on a 35mm Adapter setup.

I've used the 11-16 Tokina in several dark situations on the RED and it turned out fine. I wouldn't be discourged by the 7-14's F4 rating.

 

[Steve Castle]

Yeah that's the plan. it's also cheaper than the Zuiko version I believe.

So, it'll be a pair of GH-1's with kit lenses (14-140) and one Lumix G 7-14/4

Honestly, 4 isn't really that slow when you consider that you'll light, you have manual controls with shutter and hopefully ISO.


It's definitely workable and you're right, it would be FAR worse in the opposite scenario. Even on a 35mm Adapter setup.

I've used the 11-16 Tokina in several dark situations on the RED and it turned out fine. I wouldn't be discourged by the 7-14's F4 rating.

The biggest concern with ultra-wides in that range is that the optical flaws of the lens gets exaggerated due to the barrel-distortion characteristics and Angénieux-based retrofocal lens design. Things like vignetting, corner/center-sharpness, hazing, lateral color fringes, are much-more pronounced on wide-angle lenses.

Which means you really have to stop it down to get decent quality and sharpness. This is particularly a problem with full-frame cameras because the larger area captures lens imperfections. This is the reason why FX lenses like the new Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G are so highly regarded and is the current gold-standard in wide lenses; because it minimizes many of the inherit optical flaws at that focal range.

For instance, here is the vignetting characteristics of the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D prime (a ~$2k pro lens):

As you can see, even at f/2.8 you are getting severe vignetting. For this lens you really need to stop it down to at least f/8 to attain optimal quality. For cropped sensors, such as the DX, you are actually cutting out much of the flaws in the corner so you can get away with a lot more, but you have a less wide of a lens.

For the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4, the concern for me isn't the f/4 being the maximum aperture, but more important is the image quality at each aperture. If I don't need to stop it down as far to get optimal quality to me that's a faster lens. As I've posted in the other tread, the 20mm flange-focal distance is incredibly ideal for ultra-wide lenses because retrofocal optical designs and compromise doesn't need to be taken for µFT systems. I'm hoping that at f4, this lens produces superior image quality compared to other lenses at the same stop. But at the moment its far too early to tell. We'll have to wait for reviews...

I'm also personally waiting for Olympus to show their hand before I jump in.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

I'm not too familiar with the lens, but I think its designed exclusively for APS-C sized sensors? In which case, the 7-14mm will be slightly wider, but slightly slower.

Wait, so that lens is designed for 4/3 not APS-C.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't need to think of a 35mm equivalent because the lens is built to be a 7-14mm on a 4/3 sensor. Does that sound right? :huh:

 

[Kholi]

I've heard too many good things about the 14-24 that makes me want to talk someone else into investing in one. But I really love 11mm focal lengths. =(

I think we'll have to add a 14-24 to the arsenal... sheesh.

 

[squig]

i'm talking about exactly what i was talking about. please tell me what i got wrong because i don't get it. here's the quote you replied to, saying that his assumptions are wrong. as far as i can tell his main if any assumption is that the dof and bokeh sucks.

look, i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm saying that it's hard to discuss with you when every time i question what you say you change the subject as if nothing had happened. i guess i could be a little stupid, but if so i still think you should be able to express yourself so that even us stupid people understand.

/matt

and these are the days of our lives.....

 

[squig]

Wait, so that lens is designed for 4/3 not APS-C.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't need to think of a 35mm equivalent because the lens is built to be a 7-14mm on a 4/3 sensor. Does that sound right? :huh:

nope. It's still 14-28mm equivalent FOV

 

[Steve Castle]

Wait, so that lens is designed for 4/3 not APS-C.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't need to think of a 35mm equivalent because the lens is built to be a 7-14mm on a 4/3 sensor. Does that sound right? :huh:

I believe the 11-16mm Tokina is designed for a DX-sensor (Kholi probably knows more about this lens then myself). The 7-14mm is designed for a 4/3 sensor. If we convert it to 35mm full frame, its 16.5mm-24mm for the Tokina, and 14-28mm for the Panasonic.

The focal length is a physical measurement. Its the distance of the lens to the primary foci. It doesn't change based on the sensor/film size, converting it to 35mm equivalent is an arbitrary means of comparison.

For instance, its like saying an engine is "200 horsepower". A horsepower is a horsepower, its physical metric that is dependent on physics and thermodynamics. However, depending on the vehicle it "feels" different and functions differently. That 200hps in a pickup truck feels different from 200hps in a Toyota Corolla. Camera companies don't convert focal length for similar reasons. Also, the f-stop wouldn't make sense, since an f-stop is the focal length divided by the diameter of the lens. If all lenses are converted to an arbitrary point (such as 35mm film), the f-stop would no longer accurately represent the size of the aperture.

Not sure about that analogy, hope that makes sense...

 

[squig]

I've heard too many good things about the 14-24 that makes me want to talk someone else into investing in one. But I really love 11mm focal lengths. =(

I think we'll have to add a 14-24 to the arsenal... sheesh.

If you want what 11mm does on the D90 you're gonna need a 7-14mm on the GH1.

I've been thinking about it because I like wides too and it's not all that bad. See I like the barrel distortion for my style of shooting so I get to maintain that look but I lose 25% of the edges of my frame on the GH1. This kinda works well when I want the distorted perspective but I don't want all the background in the frame. I'm more concerned about the tele end because again I like the unnatural squashed look tele's give but it's going to be really hard to shoot with a 105 or 135mm unless I can get way back to fit everything in frame due to the extra cropping.

I want a real blade runner look so I'm even thinking of slapping on a panny anamorphic adapter. Jack has been playing around with one. How's that working for ya Jack?

 

[Steve Castle]

I've heard too many good things about the 14-24 that makes me want to talk someone else into investing in one. But I really love 11mm focal lengths. =(

I think we'll have to add a 14-24 to the arsenal... sheesh.

The Nikkor 14-24mm is a fantastic lens. However, it only shows its strength at full-frame. It'll be a 21-36mm lens on a DX camera, and you're really paying all that extra money for Nikon's lens design that reduces vignetting and edge-sharpness which would be cropped out anyways on a DX sensor.

In regards to the 7-14mm, we'll really need to wait for the reviews. Its a fairly large lens, larger then the 24-140mm, its also pretty complicated at 16 elements/12 groups with 2 ASPH/4 ED elements. On paper it looks impressive, and we'll find out in a little over a week when this thing is released.

 

[Kholi]

All great points Steve. I guess all this confusion could be defeated by starting with a larger sensor to begin with. Regardless, if the lumix 7-14 perfoms as well as the zuiko reviews I've seen I think I'll be satisfied with a 14 as my widest for video applications.

Won't be as grande as the 11-16 @ 11 regardless of scooting back to compensate, but it'll probably be more than acceptable. Statement pending reviews of production units.

Oh and the 11-16 is a dx application I believe. It covers REDS 4k 16:9 frame which rocks.

 

[squig]

The Olympus 14-35 f/2 sounds very cool, but it costs more than the camera! I'll be flipping burgers for months.

 

[dougspice]

The Nikkor 14-24mm is a fantastic lens. However, it only shows its strength at full-frame. It'll be a 21-36mm lens on a DX camera, and you're really paying all that extra money for Nikon's lens design that reduces vignetting and edge-sharpness which would be cropped out anyways on a DX sensor.

As far as I'm concerned, you're paying the premium to have a lens you can stand behind. If the D700 had video, everyone would be buying it, and all your DX lenses would be food for eBay. It's an interesting time for photo gear, and I'm curious to see what standards stick around, but I'd consider full-frame lenses to be definitely the safest bet. Of course, I also like to shoot a lot of stills, so I try to cover both bases.

Anyone tried the 18-200mm DX for video? Surprisingly excellent lens for stills, the only DX lens I'm even considering buying... but I haven't yet investigated how appropriate it would be for video.

 

[dougspice]

Won't be as grande as the 11-16 @ 11 regardless of scooting back to compensate, but it'll probably be more than acceptable. Statement pending reviews of production units.

Are you really shooting at 11mm very often? I guess it could make sense for music videos, but I'm having trouble thinking of many narrative applications.

 

[Lammy]

Are you really shooting at 11mm very often? I guess it could make sense for music videos, but I'm having trouble thinking of many narrative applications.

I imagine GH1 users will be doing it often, as that becomes 22mm.

So getting fast wides will be fooking expensive...

 

[dougspice]

Sure, but that's not what I was asking.