Finally Bloom's review!

mcgeedigital said:
It is and it is nonsensical to use FF analogy when talking about cine-style camcorders.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% - it's just the debate rages on as everyone is comparing apples to oranges (I think that's the saying!).

It's just that FF has been the driver in the HDSLR evolution/revolution - so people who have only ever used DSLR's (or are learning the craft on them now), presume that's the benchmark. If we're comparing FF to 65mm then yes - but, I think as many of us agree, it depends on which system you're comparing the results of.

Everyone wants to get all the benefits of one format on another - and the reality is that won't happen (for a while). The AF represents an interesting new route to creating 'stonking' (as Mr Bloom would say!) images... and really, that's what it's all about. :cheesy:

I remember shooting on cameras in the late 80's (for broadcast) that would make people weep at the quality in comparision to the tools/kit we have now. :cry:

It's all relative - but the 'lens fixations' that have developed since the 35mm adapter/DSLR movement started, seem to confuse issues as cine lenses are different in so many ways to stills.
 
Homunculus said:
well what other cameras are 'full frame' other than 5dmkii? I thought that was the only black sheep?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know that it's a "black sheep", but ...

Yeah, the 5DMK II is about the only "full frame" camera on the market that does video. All the others (7D, 550D/t2i, 60d, GH1, GH2, D90, etc) are all APS-C or smaller. The 1D Mk IV is larger than APS-C, but smaller than "full frame".
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, I don't know that it's a "black sheep", but ...

Yeah, the 5DMK II is about the only "full frame" camera on the market that does video. All the others (7D, 550D/t2i, 60d, GH1, GH2, D90, etc) are all APS-C or smaller. The 1D Mk IV is larger than APS-C, but smaller than "full frame".
Click to expand...

Nikon D3s is full frame but at 720P. All will change to 1080 by the next rev.
 
I don't understand the whole full frame photo vs film discussion. I mean, who cares - the only thing that matters is what delivers optimal performance for what you need. If I need the best possible low light performance and the widest possible FOV (without fisheye distortion etc.), then that's what I need, and I don't care if the FF on still photos don't correspond to the frame size of 35mm motion film blah, blah. I don't care. What I care about is what gives me what I need, and there's no point that I can see in getting hung up on what is called what and what historically was what. The only question in my mind is what lenses will be available and at what cost.
 
Actually, I think the "reality shock" came from an earlier misunderstanding drawn from the Glass thread... It was stated there and thus we were under the impression that the increase in focal length was to be 1.18 and that the 20mm would act like or look like the equivalent of a 24mm. Now we find that it will actually double in aparent focal length to appear as a 40mm. This is a fairly significant shift in the perception of what folks are envisioning as they try to cobble together a lens kit in preparation for the release. This does not diminish my enthusiasm, it does however give pause and re-direction to the process. I'm so glad I was able to see the review... thanks so much to Phillip for providing the test info.

I don't think the comparison to "35mm still" film is limited to this forum... you will find it typically listed as a standard of comparison widely used wherever focal length is discussed... as in 50mm equals "normal" view even though filmmakers know that still 35mm (longways on the film and 8 sprocket holes) is twice the area of a movie 35mm film frame (sideways across the frame and 4 sprocket hole area).

So, moving forward... may we say that 25mm equals a "normal" lens in this new micro 4/3 environment? That would serve as a standard of linguistics for everyone to lock onto and move forward from there.
 
I agree. A 25mm lens equals a "normal" lens in the micro 4/3 environment especialy when it comes to movie making discussions.
 
Trust me... I had a lot more to say which is along the line of what you just said...I just decided to hold my tounge. :) But yeah....you're right.
 
Multi-Media said:
Actually, I think the "reality shock" came from an earlier misunderstanding drawn from the Glass thread... It was stated there and thus we were under the impression that the increase in focal length was to be 1.18 and that the 20mm would act like or look like the equivalent of a 24mm. Now we find that it will actually double in aparent focal length to appear as a 40mm. This is a fairly significant shift in the perception of what folks are envisioning as they try to cobble together a lens kit in preparation for the release. This does not diminish my enthusiasm, it does however give pause and re-direction to the process. I'm so glad I was able to see the review... thanks so much to Phillip for providing the test info.
Click to expand...

Dude. This is a total misunderstanding of crop factor. No one ever thought it was one thing and then discovered it was something else.
Some people compare the m4/3 sensor to s35 film, and some people compare it to the 5D Mk2. There was no "What, they told me it was one thing and then I found out it was something else".
You just heard two different points of view.
 
OldCorpse said:
I don't understand the whole full frame photo vs film discussion. I mean, who cares - the only thing that matters is what delivers optimal performance for what you need. If I need the best possible low light performance and the widest possible FOV (without fisheye distortion etc.), then that's what I need, and I don't care if the FF on still photos don't correspond to the frame size of 35mm motion film blah, blah. I don't care. What I care about is what gives me what I need, and there's no point that I can see in getting hung up on what is called what and what historically was what. The only question in my mind is what lenses will be available and at what cost.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's great. So just use a 5D?
I don't know if you are doing this or not, but please don't complain that the AF100 doesn't have a FF sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top