FS7: Fujinon announce MK 18-55 T2.9 and MK 50-135 T2.9

Whatever - sensor greater than 1/3?

Ability to replicate s35 at 2?

Game changer?

Moire ridden low bit rate mush monster?

All fit. But a 5d 24-105 is extremely versatile picture making machine that is hard to replicate in s35
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Because I compared to a fullframe outdated camera? Simply I started with an EX1 that was not quite wide enough and had plenty of tele. I then went to the 5d/24-105 which offered a nice one lens solution range, after that I migrated to S35 to get a 'proper' camera with XLR ND etc (the PMW_F3) and then the to FS7, and ever since Ive been on the S35 format getting that 'affordable' one lens thing has been a problem. So I dont want hear any crap about FF35 not being a proper relevant format or suchlike.
Click to expand...

Simply because you introduced significant errors when calculating FOV of the lenses this way. I don't care what someone calls "cinematic", it does not mean anything.
 
Liam Hall said:
I thought all you had to do was shoot with a shutter at twice your frame rate and everything would look cinematic...
Click to expand...

That's not enough! You have to rack focus back and forth between two flowers in your backyard OR film your (new) girlfriend walking on a beach in slo mo with lots of sun flares.
 
Interesting that this debate comes back (as it should do) to story.

And that is indeed it. And there is a certain tradition of story telling using the moving image that is something like 'introduce' (orientate?) 'show' 'examine' as an edited pictorial sequence, usually done without jump cutting or crossing the line - it did start in cinemas and proliferated to TV and devices.

The audience crave this rhythm in the same manner they crave the 12th bar in a blues tune or perfect resolution in a mozart concerto.

Im sure the film schoolers know the title of this school of shooting/editing.

That certain tradition is very embeded from reality tears through to top end drama, via sport which even flashes a note on screen for camera angles that cross the line warning you that the shot is not cinematically traditional.

The 5d/24-105 allows one to tell stories in this manner with no lens changes, the EX1, allow telling stories in this manner with no lens changes, as does an FS7-F65-varicam-C300ii and 17-120 or debatably the Cabrio 19-90 or traditional 2/3 news camera, or even the Canon XC10.

Clearly the 5d XC10 or F65 with a Cabrio offer different trade offs in terms of cost mass and picture fidelity - but they all tell in that tradition with no need to cut to swap a lens, which is critical when recording real life, not repeatable drama.

It would seem to me that the new fuijis 18-55 and the 21-120 both dont fit into that tradition well. The first failing to 'examine' the second failing to 'introduce'

Of course one can tell stories with primes and lens swaps or multi camera shooting or by oners, POV, with a 600 or a 10mm, an iphone, pinhole camera or crayon.. but that cinematic tradition still rules many many 'shows' on screens of all sizes.

It is because these two lenses step outside that tradition that I find them 'challenging'
 
Last edited:
I also find it odd to divide these lenses at around 50-55mm as one lens can't cover the most used range. One could say challenging or just a poor decision from the manufacturer.
 
Or just maybe there are fundamental laws of physics involved when it comes to manufacturing optics at a certain speed at a certain quality at a certain image circle size.

Sam, I hear what you're saying but there is a ton of people, myself included, that don't find this challenging at all.

It is simply not a real world issue I face, where I am so unprepared for what is coming next - even with shooting actuality - that a 15 second lens change would destroy my shoot. Hasn't happened once in nigh on 2 decades of production across all manner of genres and strands.
 
The range of 17-55 has been a limitations sometimes when shooting and that's why I tend to rely on 24-105 as I need that extra reach. But that's just me and how and what I shoot. I'm sure the Fujis are the right choice for some. Just not for me. In fact I've put it on myself not to buy anything new the following year, so I'll settle on what I have.
 
Ben Scott said:
Or just maybe there are fundamental laws of physics involved when it comes to manufacturing optics at a certain speed at a certain quality at a certain image circle size.

Sam, I hear what you're saying but there is a ton of people, myself included, that don't find this challenging at all.

It is simply not a real world issue I face, where I am so unprepared for what is coming next - even with shooting actuality - that a 15 second lens change would destroy my shoot. Hasn't happened once in nigh on 2 decades of production across all manner of genres and strands.
Click to expand...

The physics challenge is clearly there. but one can surmise that a 24-105 redesigned for the smaller format would work. That lens does 'trombone' and that may not be an acceptable compromise for fuiji, although one may remember some Red lenses (and the first sony F3 zoom lens?) where trumboning did occur, but they had added a kind of hood built into the lens where that motion did not interfere with a matte box. Im also convinced that T4 is an acceptable compromise which would really help.

I remember a very specific situation - a rugby match - and I was allowed on to the field for 'the toss' and wanted to show the 2 captains as ref as introducer.. bash into the ref to 'heads or tails sir' and then bash out for the toss and ideally stage an ecu of the coin reveal. My total time allowed on the pitch was probablt 20 seconds..

Again not that we shoot weddings (but lots with a £4g lens budget do) there are loads of quick moments say car arrives (wide) and then MCU of bride exit the motor maybe swing to a reaction of someone watching ECU and then bash out for a walk to the church. Pile into the church disengage ND and repeat. Very fast stuff.
 
Nothing there a close focusing wide zoom can't handle. And so one including a macro function is pretty close focusing.

Ultimately a lot of the time you make it sound like you'd be better off with a Z-series camcorder which I guess it the successor to the EX line.
 
Ben Scott said:
..Z-series camcorder which I guess it the successor to the EX line.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the 'dream' is with one body to switch from 'mayhem mode' to '50mm art boy' or 400/2.8 slowmo boy when time allows, it is not to easy to get two bodies in a carry on, or to find a handycam with 400mbs and 150p 10bit slog, but the XC10 has that I think so indeed it is worth a look!

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Indeed, but the 'dream' is with one body to switch from 'mayhem mode' to '50mm art boy' or 400/2.8 slowmo boy when time allows, it is not to easy to get two bodies in a carry on, or to find a handycam with 400mbs , but the XC10 has that I think so indeed it is worth a look! S
Click to expand...

This interesting debate is close to my own heart, as someone who shoots feature theatrical obs docs that frequently demand both 'mayhem' and 'art boy' modes, and often switching several between them times within a few hours following a character! I concur with Sam that there are a helluva lot of moments that by putting down the camera to change lens, you may have already missed a moment that simply isn't re-creatable.

Just for the record, the closest I've found to the all-in-one solution isn't actually the 24-105, which I've always found horrible in terms of C-A and distortion (although I'm sure that with the 5D's H.264 tendency for softness in wide info-rich scenes the CA was hard to notice amongst that SD-esque squishy mess). Although I love constant-speed zooms, I've found the canon 28-300 F3.5-5.6 rather a productive long-term partner. It's constant F3.5 up to around 100mm, when it has it's first step-down. However, in almost any outdoor scenario, one can simply stick to F5.6 throughout (conveniently the sweet-spot of the lens at 28mm, which is it's weakest length otherwise), and have no exposure loss from wide to (seriously) tele. It's also borderline par-focal, with only the slightest tweak to bring 300mm in-line with 28. Of course, 28 isn't wide enough for everything, but what can ya do?

I hear both sides of the debate, but I must say I find Sam's position ultimately more appealing, simply because he wants what I want too, and I think he has good grounds to imagine it as techno-financially achievable!

But don't let me stop this post-marathon, gives me something to read on the tube... ;-)

jason
 
I once took an AC'ing job and it happened to be on 24-105mm lens and 5D. Yes, I'm an old school guy and back in my AC'ing days I pulled focus with a tape and scale. I don't consider pulling focus by the monitor a real substitution. To pull focus traditionally, it is a horrifically frustrating task to do on 24-105mm lens, even if you put scales and marks on the lens, they are gone as soon as you change the focal length even by an unnoticeable amount. Focus pulling by the monitor / yourself is not always a desirable method. Long story short: just because of the proper scale which does not drift once you change the focal length, the Fujinon leaves the 24-105mm photo lens in a dust, or rather - it leaves it in photographer's bag. Ask your AC and he'll throw the 24-105mm into the ocean with passion.
 
Last edited:
broughtonfilm said:
I once took an AC'ing job and it happened to be on 24-105mm lens and 5D. Yes, I'm an old school guy and back in my AC'ing days I pulled focus with a tape and scale. I don't consider pulling focus by the monitor a real substitution. To pull focus traditionally, it is a horrifically frustrating task to do on 24-105mm lens, even if you put scales and marks on the lens, they are gone as soon as you change the focal length even by an unnoticeable amount. Focus pulling by the monitor / yourself is not always a desirable method. Long story short: just because of the proper scale which does not drift once you change the focal length, the Fujinon leaves the 24-105mm photo lens in a dust, or rather - it leaves it in photographer's bag. Ask your AC and he'll throw the 24-105mm into the ocean with passion.
Click to expand...

Er yes exactly. Thats why there is interest in a more professional lens with this range. And frustration when close miss solutions are delivered. No one is praising the mechanics of that photo horror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top