Is it over for 2/3 cameras for production?
- Thread starter Bucknfl
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
No. I'm actually looking to rent four in the Los Angeles area. Event photography zoom lenses, of good quality, is lacking for AF100's. Give me some 2/3 fujinon lens goodness. I need really telephoto quality glass with servo zoom, for affordable prices. I guess you're right about lenses, kinda.
I guess we'll see, but perhaps if lens options improve outside of cinema realm, such as lenses for reality, ENG, and event work, I suppose it might take lots of shooters away from 2/3". However, it might be good for people shooting wildlife at a great distance and etc... having a tighter FoV will help stem insane losses of DoF.
I guess we'll see, but perhaps if lens options improve outside of cinema realm, such as lenses for reality, ENG, and event work, I suppose it might take lots of shooters away from 2/3". However, it might be good for people shooting wildlife at a great distance and etc... having a tighter FoV will help stem insane losses of DoF.
Benjamin Eckstein
Well-known member
I'd guess they'll still be made for a long time. Great for tv, news, reality. You can get fast zooms with big ranges. From what I gather, to make a fast 10x+ zoom for m4/3 or up would be VERY big.
But I think a change will happen eventually.
But I think a change will happen eventually.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Exactly... there are a lot of markets like news and sports where shallow depth of field is a pain in the rear end. I would never want to shoot football, basketball, or soccer with a 35mm or m4/3 camera. When I eventually get around to upgrading to the AF100, I'm keeping my HMC150 for this very reason since I shoot sports. 2/3's is a nice spot where you can still get kinda shallow depth of field, but not so shallow that it makes run and gun or situations with constantly changing focus difficult.
Dino
Veteran
There is still a big world wide market for all kinds of applications where 2/3" is the best approach, such as broadcast news, sports, documentaries, magazine shows, reality shows, most any live event(last I checked there weren't a lot of 55:1 zoom lenses for large sensor cameras). Our HPX2700 is busier than ever this year and I have to sub 3700's a fair amount. 2/3" ENG form factor cameras do a lot of things quite well--like hand held, studio configuration, my first choice for docs--just about any application where it must be right on the first take.
The new HPX3100 is a great value for the money--fantastic for green screen--at $19,950 plus finder, lens and P2 cards. So, while the days of $60K+ 2/3" cameras are numbered(except for triax or fiber based HD camera/CCU chains), 2/3" cameras have a future, just as 16mm cameras coexisted with 35mm motion picture cameras for decades.
The new HPX3100 is a great value for the money--fantastic for green screen--at $19,950 plus finder, lens and P2 cards. So, while the days of $60K+ 2/3" cameras are numbered(except for triax or fiber based HD camera/CCU chains), 2/3" cameras have a future, just as 16mm cameras coexisted with 35mm motion picture cameras for decades.
Shooter
Veteran
These attacheable servo motor devices are already available. It the lens for the native 4/3 thats the issue.
Use a PL Cine style lens with a Hayden or similar and you are golden.
Dino
Veteran
Yes, zoom motors are horizontal or vertical, rods mounted, actuated by a Microforce controller and have to be powered separately from the camera. Very common with Cine zooms.
Problem, besides the above, is that a typical 17X HD ENG zoom lens would be the equivalent of a 20mm-323mm for a S35mm size sensor. That's much like an Angenieux Optimo 24-290 T2.8--a HUGE lens that weighs 15lbs, has its own handle, costs around $80K. It could be smaller/cheaper if it is very slow, but ENG zooms are f1.8-2.8, typically, plus they have a built-in extender.
The physics of a large sensor zoom just don't work compared to a 2/3" ENG zoom form factor.
Problem, besides the above, is that a typical 17X HD ENG zoom lens would be the equivalent of a 20mm-323mm for a S35mm size sensor. That's much like an Angenieux Optimo 24-290 T2.8--a HUGE lens that weighs 15lbs, has its own handle, costs around $80K. It could be smaller/cheaper if it is very slow, but ENG zooms are f1.8-2.8, typically, plus they have a built-in extender.
The physics of a large sensor zoom just don't work compared to a 2/3" ENG zoom form factor.
Different formats exist to serve different needs. There were 1" and 1-1/4" tube video cameras, comparable to AF100, in service decades ago but they never became very popular for general broadcast production use.
2/3"/16mm is a very practical sweet spot format for general motion work that does many things very well and compact fast high quality zooms are just one of the major benefits.
For a personal motion camera that has to cover the broadest spectrum of field production styles, conditions, and genres 2/3" is my first choice. Anything from ENG to feature films.
2/3"/16mm is a very practical sweet spot format for general motion work that does many things very well and compact fast high quality zooms are just one of the major benefits.
For a personal motion camera that has to cover the broadest spectrum of field production styles, conditions, and genres 2/3" is my first choice. Anything from ENG to feature films.
Relative to this thread, in my opinion the 2/3 camera will die a slow death, not because of the larger chip cameras, but because of the smaller ones. For most documentary and/or news work, cameras like the Canon 300s are already beginning to replace the "Beta SP" types (even photojournalists use them for stills).
I have an HPX500, which I really like, but it's heavy and obtrusive. I've bought an AF100 for a particular upcoming project, but our film that is currently getting the most attention was shot on a little Canon HV40 - in HDV! Large chip cameras inhibit certain types of production, small cameras enhance them. I think in a very few years we'll see broadcast spec 1/4" cameras and AF type larger ones, with not much in between.
I have an HPX500, which I really like, but it's heavy and obtrusive. I've bought an AF100 for a particular upcoming project, but our film that is currently getting the most attention was shot on a little Canon HV40 - in HDV! Large chip cameras inhibit certain types of production, small cameras enhance them. I think in a very few years we'll see broadcast spec 1/4" cameras and AF type larger ones, with not much in between.
amosrafaeli
Active member
I'm shooting now a production for Animal planet, with the HDX900.
I have my own AF-100, but today After using a lot of times the edge of the zoom of my lens using also the extender
in order to get a proper shot of the Animal i'm shooting, that nothing can replace a long good zoom lens
on a 2/3 camera for this kind of job!!!
I have my own AF-100, but today After using a lot of times the edge of the zoom of my lens using also the extender
in order to get a proper shot of the Animal i'm shooting, that nothing can replace a long good zoom lens
on a 2/3 camera for this kind of job!!!
Mark Smith
Veteran
If some one wanted to have a camera with a sensor like a AF or F3 and have it be the centerfield camera for baseball do have any idea what a 70:1 zoom lens for that sensor size would look like?
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
Well, here's a normal 100x lens for a standard 2/3"..
(Not my pic)
- Mikko
(Not my pic)
- Mikko
Barry_Green
Moderator
Right, now consider that a 4/3 sensor is 4x as big as 2/3"...
A 17.5-70 zoom lens for 16mm film is about six inches long, 2" in diameter, and weighs about a pound. A Red 18-85 zoom for 35mm film is about a foot long, 6" in diameter, and weighs 10 pounds. Same basic focal length, it's 10x bulkier, and the relationship is about the same -- 35mm film is about 4x larger than 16mm film, and 4/3 is 4x larger than 2/3"...
So, yeah, a 100x zoom lens for 2/3" weighs 52 pounds, and it's about 2 feet long and a foot in diameter... so a version for 4/3 would probably be about four feet long, two or three feet in diameter, and weigh 500 pounds...
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Given what some of those 2/3 80x or 100x zooms cost, I don't even want to know how much a 4/3 lens would be...
olof
DVXuser Sponsor
I think variable chips are in our future.
You can then decide to use a 2/3" portion (not actually anywhere near 2/3", a leftover term from tube days) or 1/4" even for DDOF.
And go to 24x36mm or whatever for SDOF, possible even different ratios. Maybe even really wide formats w/o anamorphic lenses.
I think this will come in the next decade maybe sooner than later. But in the mean I think time the 2/3" chip will be the broadcast News and Sports standard, as well in a lot of narrative work.
But we are already seeing smaller and larger chips make an inroads and I think that will continue. So the 2/3" chip will become less of a standard, but still be real mainstream for a long time, and I don't think it will ever disappear, it really is a sweet spot for a lot of standard video production as other posts here have pointed out. SDOF has its place but it is not the end all.
You can then decide to use a 2/3" portion (not actually anywhere near 2/3", a leftover term from tube days) or 1/4" even for DDOF.
And go to 24x36mm or whatever for SDOF, possible even different ratios. Maybe even really wide formats w/o anamorphic lenses.
I think this will come in the next decade maybe sooner than later. But in the mean I think time the 2/3" chip will be the broadcast News and Sports standard, as well in a lot of narrative work.
But we are already seeing smaller and larger chips make an inroads and I think that will continue. So the 2/3" chip will become less of a standard, but still be real mainstream for a long time, and I don't think it will ever disappear, it really is a sweet spot for a lot of standard video production as other posts here have pointed out. SDOF has its place but it is not the end all.