starcentral
Veteran
True, it was really one of a kind at the time from what I remember.
Wow 18 years ago, now I'm feeling old. :huh:
Wow 18 years ago, now I'm feeling old. :huh:
F5: Is it me or is SONY is making a flop with F5/F55?
- Thread starter vincent thomas
- Start date
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
The 14x4.5 is my go-to lens for ENG.
Check out Abel's FOV comparator. www.abelcine.com/fov
According to the conversions, the 19-90 is equivalent to an 8.1-38.2mm on a 2/3" camera. It's a 4.7x zoom....definitely no match for a 14x lens with 2x extender. Even though the F55 is nice, I still prefer 2/3" on certain projects for versatility alone. It all comes down to the type of content you are trying to follow.
Anybody tried the B4 to S35 adapter yet?
Last edited:
Nate Weaver
Veteran
Based on my experience with 2x extenders both in PL mount and on ENG lenses, I watch those adapters with a wary eye and a set of res charts.
I'm not a sharpness nazi either. But the last time I tried a 2x extender on PL, I said "won't be doing THAT again!"
It was indeed the rael deal. (At least at the time!
) I think the VX700 was the first ever DV camera to come out - albeit only just before the VX1000. They were very similar - but I think the VX700 was single chip, the VX1000 was three chip. And the VX1000 is the one people remember, the one people bought, the VX700 rather vanished without trace.My memories were almost of disbelief. Up until the VX700/1000 came along, then at this point in the market the recording system was either Hi8 or S-VHS, even VHS. It scarcely seemed possible that ANY digital video recording system could be in an (albeit expensive) consumer camera, let alone component and with full system luminance resolution! I remember feeding test signals into a BetaSP and DV deck and finding the DV deck easily outperformed the Beta. Add to that Firewire, the possibilities it opened with direct to computer transfer, lossless editing and although I too hate the term, then "gamechanger" really did apply to the VX1000.
Well - everything is relative! The front end quality may not have been that much of an improvement on Hi8 cameras of the time, but it was the DV recording system that really changed everything. In the consumer/prosumer market it marked a clear line between the analogue era and the digital.Looking back on it now, the video wasn't very good and the battery life was terrible and all, but come on, it was 18 years ago!
As far as the F5/55 goes, then Barry says " I really haven't liked ...... their {previous} codec choices, ....." Maybe - but now one huge point in the F5/55 favour is the flexibilities offered by MULTIPLE codecs, and that's especially true of the F55. From RAW, through XAVC (at varying resolutions, framerates and bitrates) through to XDCAM422. Some may wonder what the latter is even doing in a camera with so many arguably superior options? My feeling is that it gives these cameras huge versatility for an owner - codecs like XDCAM422 may not offer 4k, high frame rates etc, but they are far easier to deal with if you don't want to do too extensive post manipulation, whilst still being fully approved for broadcast. That's why it's likely to continue to be widely preferred for some jobs for a long while to come. Advantage to an owner is that you don't need to have separate cameras for different clients with different workflows and needs. Same camera, just switch recording codec, or at worst just hire a 4k back on a job by job basis and fit that.
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
I use the 2x extenders on Fuji 2/3" glass somewhat often (especially on the last show following federal law enforcement...close proximity sometimes wasn't an option), I just aim for a deep stop. I haven't played with extenders for PL glass, but I can imagine they are much less forgiving.
If I ever get my hands on the HDx2 I'll let you know how it goes.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
It's not about focus, just more about a crappy image. I'm not sure I see the point in using a camera that makes some of the best 1080p images around and putting severely compromised/adapted optics in front of it.
I understand it may be about trying to make one camera cover a lot of bases and leveraging a paid off expensive lens, but I'd look at the images on a very good full raster monitor before I forked my money over!
Myself, I'd just move over to good EF Canon lenses before I'd do the B4 thing. But that's just me
The EF lenses offer good coverage but how do you work with an EF lens on an f55 without an aperture ring? The rep from Sony at the F55 Sony event I went to was indicating the F55's were a good option for ENG style shooters but unless lens manufacturers start making super 35 lenses with comparable coverage to what we are used to then I can't see 2/3 inch going away.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
Optitek
brad smith
Active member
To get the zoom range you are talking about, you end up with something like an Optimo 24-290.......... 11kg (even then you still don't get the same zoom range as say a 22x). There's a really good reason 2/3 is a better format for alot of situations, 2/3 will be around for a while yet.
Sparky874
Well-known member
This is the thing Brad, you'll can't replace the flexibility and ease of use, and more importantly the mobility of using a 2/3 inch lens. I have a Sony PDW-700, Sony F3 and Sony F35 - and I would love to use the 35mm cameras on all jobs, but you just can't - it's not possible. Ao for a lot of sports events I work around, the 700 ends up on the shoulder - even though I'd prefer the SLOG look the other cameras offer.
Having said that, the 700 produces a great great picture, and if you desaturate a little the picture from it, esp on shots where the lens was pretty wide open - the look is very very close at times to that flat look we all llike.
The only other answer would be using the Sony zoom lens, which has a decent reach if not a little slow - but I am considering picking a used one up when I find one. Sparky x
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Even if I could live with the slow speed of the Sony zoom, I could never live with the exposure ramping. That is unacceptable in any professional lens and should be a deal breaker for anyone who doesn't use auto-exposure.
Also, it's a proprietary mount that currently only works on three camera models. Who can even say if Sony will even use the FZ mount again on future cameras. I'd be real cautious about investing in a lens with such limited resale value.
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
It's not about focus, just more about a crappy image. I'm not sure I see the point in using a camera that makes some of the best 1080p images around and putting severely compromised/adapted optics in front of it.
I understand it may be about trying to make one camera cover a lot of bases and leveraging a paid off expensive lens, but I'd look at the images on a very good full raster monitor before I forked my money over!
Myself, I'd just move over to good EF Canon lenses before I'd do the B4 thing. But that's just me
Right. Deep stop is for added sharpness & decreased fringing around edges (not the best image, but certainly a less crappy image). Again, that practice really only applies to specific B4 lenses I use on 2/3", NOT PL glass or B4->PL adapted lenses.
The ability to use B4 lenses is more of a muse, not a solution, which is why I already have everything from 11mm to 300mm covered in PL glass. If the product exists, you'd assume there is a demand for it or, at the least, that somebody has used it before. I'm not banking on it working (nor do I have immediate plans to test a unit out), but it would be interesting to see exactly how it functions and affects the quality & character of the image.
Last edited:
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
2/3" isn't going anywhere. The F55/Cabrio combo hits a niche that is going to work well for certain ENG-style applications (docu, reality, some news), but it is not going to replace the 2/3" format.
There is one thing that is being overlooked, as least as far as the theory goes. It's quite true that for equivalence, an s35 lens will be bigger, heavier and more expensive, almost certainly. But that's assuming an equivalent max f stop.
Build it with something like a max aperture 3 stops down (about f4.8 say) and you should be able to get the equivalent zoom range in a package similar to 2/3" lenses, at a comparable price.
"What! f4.8!!! You're joking!", you say. But remember that all else equal, a bigger sensor means a more sensitive camera, or put another way you can use higher gain levels without objectionable noise. So make a camera 3 stops more sensitive, and put on a lens with max aperture 3 stops less, and you're back to square one.
(OK, it's not quite that simple. Theory predicts that an s35 sensor should gain about 3 stops over a 2/3" due to being about 8x the area - but then expect to lose about a stop because it's single chip versus three chip. But that still gives such as an F5 a 2 stop advantage over a comparable 2/3" three chipper.)
If all your work is suited to a 2/3" type current camera, then yes, stay with it. The only reason to go with the F5/55 would be 4k, RAW, differing codecs etc. But if you want a camera for a mixture of work, it's feasible to imagine it used with fast primes for shallow dof uses, but with a small aperture zoom for typical 2/3" jobs. The fact these s35 cameras are so much more intrinsically sensitive than 2/3" means that smaller apertures than we're used to can be used without impacting too much on low light performance. It'll also help you back towards dof levels are more associated with 2/3" working.
I don't see cameras like the F5 totally replacing 2/3" for some types of work by any means - but for a freelancer who just wants one camera, don't write the F5/55 off for a lot of ENG jobs.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Nate & Taylor, feel free to give me a ring. I invite you to test the HDx35 and the PLx2 anytime. The HDx35 is an excellent optical device and the PLx2 is simply the finest optical doubler available.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Mitch, tiny diversion here but have you a sense yet on how the Alura 2x coming out next month will compare to the PLx2?
Nate Weaver
Veteran
Metabones adapts to smaller mounts like 4/3. Not sure what you mean.