Lens Noob Zone - Simply Questions and Answers

Barry_Green said:
I did that test on the 7D (I think it was the 7D...) I put up a $1500 Zeiss ZF against a $30 Zeiss Jena I got off ebay. As far as resolved detail goes, they were identical. The ZF had a lusher, more contrasty image, the Jena was flatter. But could probably be corrected out in post.
Click to expand...

I spent HOURS looking for that chart last month. Can you send it to me?
 
Barry_Green said:
In terms of final image, not all that much, as far as rendered detail goes. Where you'll see the difference is in flare control, for example, or in contrast and color.

In terms of mechanical build, there's huge differences. Not just in the iris (although that matters; cheapo lenses might have a three-bladed iris and some ugly triangular bokeh, whereas the Zeiss Compact Primes have a 14-bladed iris for nearly perfectly circular bokeh). There's differences mainly in the focus ring, in how far it travels and in how it feels. A cheap 50mm lens might have a lame focus ring with 20 degrees of travel, total. Which makes it extremely difficult to finely focus it. Whereas on something like the Zeiss ZF's, they have focus travel more like 300 degrees of delicious silky smooth nicely-dampened focus action. It's a world of difference.


I did that test on the 7D (I think it was the 7D...) I put up a $1500 Zeiss ZF against a $30 Zeiss Jena I got off ebay. As far as resolved detail goes, they were identical. The ZF had a lusher, more contrasty image, the Jena was flatter. But could probably be corrected out in post.
Click to expand...

Reiterate... On a 7D :P
 
Right -- that test was specifically based on the VIDEO MODE of that camera, because I was trying to get to the bottom of how much better the better glass gets you, considering that the camera can't resolve that much anyway. So the question was: do you NEED to spend BUCKS to get great results from these cameras? And the answer, I think, is "hell no." :)

But you still may want to. I love my ZFs, but I just sprung for a full set of Compact Primes because the mechanicals are sooooooooo much better. There's a lot more to it than just the end result. For some people, "the end may justify the means" but to some of us, life is a journey, not a destination, and the journey of using the better/proper gear is just so much better.
 
Thanks guys - so better lenses will bring less barrel distortion, chromatic abberation, that sort of thing - but it won't make anything sharper. That is very good news for indie filmmakers.
 
Aneurysm said:
Question:

I'm used to the focusing method on fixed lens video cameras: zoom all the way in, adjust the focus ring, and then zoom back out and adjust your framing. However, in reading around on the forum I found out that this is not how it's done with photographic lenses. So, how does one focus on a subject with these types of lenses? Use the distance markers on the focus ring? Eyeball it on a monitor?
Click to expand...

I get the impression that there are going to be a lot of confused and disappointed "video" shooters who embrace the AF100 under the mistaken belief that it is the latest must-have camera, but it is really not for them.
The AF100 is specifically and openly being marketed as primarily a cinema camera - that implies cinematic production methods and values are to be taken as a given for users of this camera.
That means several things:

Manual focus pulling
Measuring focus distances, or using a good field monitor, or both
Manual focus rings and non-servo zooms
No OIS for anything but a limited selection of m4/3 lenses
Manual iris/ISO/shutter is the norm, not the exception
Use of ND in order to maintain desired aperture/shutter

I suspect there will be a massive learning curve for the many wedding and event videographers who are keen to jump on the "cinematic look" bandwagon.
There are going to be a lot of annoying and frustrating noob questions regarding cinema techniques, but hey - that's what forums like this are for.
There are going to be a lot of "guns-for-hire" ENG/Event/Commercial/Industrial shooters who will discover the AF100 is not the all-encompassing solution they thought it would be, not without learning several different mutually-exclusive techniques for their different markets.
You won't be able to use the AF100 to shoot a bridal waltz on a dimly lit dancefloor and expect hassle-free focus the way you could with the low-light champion Mini DV cameras, conversely you will be able to shoot by candle light with a fast lens and excellent manual focus pulling skills.
Neither will you be able to shoot a horse race on a long lens and expect the camera to do all the work for you - the AF100 simply isn't targeting that market, although with patience and study you will learn the skills to shoot action using cinema (as opposed to event/ENG) techniques.
I suspect the surf/skateboard/BMX/extreme sports market will love the AF100 - they already love the cinema look and mastered the skills long ago on their DVX's and XL2's - sales of cheap used Nikon manual fisheyes will skyrocket.
Music video shooters will love it - the older ones came from 16mm/35mm and the younger ones strive to emulate them, so it's a no-brainer.
It's the events/ENG shooters that really worry me - I'm dreading seeing the internet awash with complaints from shooters who can't achieve the ease of use and run-and-gun functionality that they are accustomed to, because it will take a huge amount of skill to adapt a cinema camera to such uses.
Mind you, the old-school 16mm news shooters and Woodstock-era events shooters will probably love being taken back to the "good old days" of one-man geurilla cinema-style.

Having said all of the above, I applaud anyone who choses to embrace the cinema look which the AF100 can provide.
I despise interlaced video - to me it belongs in the 20th century and should only be used for live broadcast, the news, and cheap soapies.
So my respect goes to anyone seeking to improve their skills and their product by chosing the AF100, just make sure you understand what it won't be good for as well as its strengths.

that's my $0.2c
 
Lyris said:
Thanks guys - so better lenses will bring less barrel distortion, chromatic abberation, that sort of thing - but it won't make anything sharper. That is very good news for indie filmmakers.
Click to expand...

Yes, generally this is true, but it depends on which lenses you are comparing and the camera they are on. For the MOST part, indie filmmakers using decent - good lenses on DSLR quality imagers or similar will experience less of a difference. For example: A 'great' lens won't be necessarily sharper than a 'good' lens when being recorded to certain format usually those more limited. However, a 'good' lens compared to a 'bad' lens can have disparities in sharpness. A DSLR is highly compressed HD... compression (And resolution) which can retard the ability for differences in lens sharpness to be resolved. Barry's findings are completely accurate, but as these lenses are used and compared in concert with larger resolution, less compressed imagers, higher amounts of detail could be resolved and reveal differences in sharpness.

On that note, there are other lens qualities that can effect the illusion of sharpness that isn't, in fact, sharpness. Sharpness, in my opinion is the ability for the lens to correctly bend the incoming light rays to the sensor with great accuracy. But sharpness can appear to be greater or weaker by perceived contrast, focus fall off, and etc.
 
Last edited:
I have the 5D + EOS lenses. I realize that with an adaptor I can put an EOS lens on the AF100. I'm wondering, though, if it works the other way around? If I invest in micro 4/3 lenses, can I put them on my 5D?

I searched Ebay. The only adaptors I could find are the Canon to micro 4/3 adaptors.

I'm not even sure what kind of image I'd get from placing a micro 4/3 lens on the 5D.

Just curious.
 
No, not possible. The flange focal distance is too short, you'd have to actually mount the 4/3 lenses inside the 5D's body. And even if you did, you'd get circular vignetting all over the frame.
 
whats with the naysayers?

whats with the naysayers?

It seems there is a wide range of experience levels around here which is what makes it a nice resource in the first place, but sometimes frustrating.

I think I'm in the middle somewhere as far as my experience and this thread is what I'm looking for since I've just ordered a GH2 and looking to finally delve into HD after waiting way too long. I can't hold off anymore since I'm freelance and work is slim and so many clients expect you to own your own now and won't pay for rental for a professional ENG setup, heaven forbid a Cinema setup.

I understand how lenses work, and was a film snob when I started many years ago, but since getting into doc and TV I was blown away when I tested the original DVX in 24p and jumped on it. It looks like a ragdoll now and I still shoot with it, but I can't wait for any portable Red, and the AF100 is just too much for me at the moment despite the superior audio ins.
I've done lots of reading about lenses but it's pretty daunting since I haven't had the luxury of interchangable lenses for a while, and when I did it was for short periods with what the client could afford to rent.
I'm getting the GH2 with kit 14-42mm and also the pancake 20mm to start with, but I'd like to use some older lenses.
Suddenly I'm faced with almost endless choices, and this new 4/3 format. First I'm trying to understand if I'm correct that I DO need the Panasonic made 4/3 to micro 4/3 adaptor before I get any other adaptor if I want to use my old olympus OM/ c-mount/ screw mounts, etc. Any of the old screw mount lenses are called m-42's, correct?
I can't find the Panasonic adaptor anywhere, but I guess I need that first before I bother looking for other adaptors unless there are somehow adaptors that go direct from OM to micro 4/3.... or m-42 to micro 4/3 ? etc. Is there an adaptor besides the Panasonic branded one that will get me from 4/3 to micro?

So maybe my years of scraping by on low budget doc films and low balling reality tv shows and indie films makes me a second rate DP or a "event videographer noob" to some of you who get more high brow commercial work, but I still don't think it deserves some of the pretentious rants that people like to chime in with here.

I do operate all manual controls (not much need for a zoom or autofocus) and I understand how to get pretty bokeh, but sometimes diving into interchangable lenses that cost more than the body is pretty scary, when you have clients that want top notch HD material without a price bump. They don't even know themselves why they want it most of the time (when it's for web, especially). Finally the prices are coming down enough to let us with crushing overhead catch up and shoot HD for the internet that is just barely catching up bandwith wise to display it.

Can't we just share this new hardware horizon without making harsh judgements, there are plenty of really creative people out there making bar mitzvah videos with rickety old pd-150's and even some hacks shooting really bad music video's with tricked out Reds, and pretty soon they might all be using the same little HD cameras with whatever lens fits. I won't claim to be more one or the other. I just think we ought to help each other and keep an open mind;

i.e. : on a site like this it's best not to explain why you shouldn't use autofocus or zoom or why your story or lighting needs to be good first before you worry about camera models - unless that's the question that was asked. Thats why there are so many threads here. I wish people could learn some from the measured wisdom that Barry is so good at.
Just saying...
I would put an 'emoticon' here but... no.
 
Paul V Doherty said:
Having said all of the above, I applaud anyone who choses to embrace the cinema look which the AF100 can provide.
I despise interlaced video - to me it belongs in the 20th century and should only be used for live broadcast, the news, and cheap soapies.
So my respect goes to anyone seeking to improve their skills and their product by chosing the AF100, just make sure you understand what it won't be good for as well as its strengths.

that's my $0.2c
Click to expand...

Great post and I consider myself one of those people who needs to LEARN some new skills to really take advantage of my new AF100. Before the af100, I had a Sony DV camcorder, Canon hv20 and then a HMC-150. Great cameras and I learned a lot but I quickly see that Af100 is a different beast which requires different skills. The biggest being the Manual focus pulling. I realize it will take a lot of practice to get good at it, but many people on this forum have shown what beautiful results can be achieved when the AF100 is used correctly.

And yes, expect more annoying noob questions in the future from me and many others. :)

Thank God for forums. ;)

Simon
 
I got an old Pentacon auto 4/200 MC, M42 mount, but I don't have M42 to m4/3 adapter.

Questions:
1) Can I use the following configuration: AF101 + DMW-MA1 + M42 to 4/3 adapter + Pentacon auto 4/200 MC?

If it works, then
2) how about vignetting?

Thanks.
 
One comment imjday.

Focal Plane is usually the plane at the film or sensor. Not the subject.

Nice V/O quality BTW.
 
right you are shooter, i've debated whether to do an explanation of how it works with convergence on the sensor/film, but haven't come up with a visual way to demonstrate it while also being clear. i will add a note though about that technicality, thanks for the comment!

btw the crop factor vid is recorded with a shotgun mic close up, and the others have just been with a lav. and i usually edit in a little bass so i sound a little more pleasing :)
 
TheReverend said:
Question:
On a lens such as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, how does Image Stabilization work with AF100? Would that be a desirable feature for shooting with the Af100?
Not yet, maybe when the Birger mount comes out. Maybe consider the Nikon 80-200 f2.8, it is every bit as sharp and cheaper than the 70-200, and I would also consider that you would mainly want to use this fairly heavy and long lens on a tripod making image stabilisation not so important.

Question:
Do autofocus lens features on non m4/3s lens work on the AF100?
Not yet, but maybe with the Birger mount but I suspect you will find auto focus from a stills lens almost useless on the AF100 as it will be noisy and relatively jerky.

Question:
If a lens doesn't have a manual aperture control, the only way make the lens aperture usable is to have an adapter that has aperture control, correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you buy a Nikon mount I would suggest a G compatible as all nikon lenses will mount onto it and you control the aperture of a G lens through the mount. Canon you may have to wait for the Birger.

in regards to optics and manual focus
From my short experience with Nikon lenses on the AF100, professional lenses are much easier to manually focus and zoom than the cheaper consumer lenses. I have tried 18-70 f3.5-4.5 G lens and find the pro 14-24 f2.8 G lens much easier to manually focus and zoom. It also has the added advantage of minimal extension or retraction of the lens when zooming making it easier to fit a matte box on rails. The pro 24-70 f2.8 G does have more movement but the pro 80-200 f2.8 has no zoom movement at all (whereas a 70-210 f4-5.6D almost doubles in length when I zoom). Having a constant f2.8 aperture from 14 to 200 is also pretty handy.
You can still buy a good range of new prime manual focus Nikon lenses and of course 2nd hand but I would seriously look at the Olympus f2 14-35mm. I suspect that one lens would be on your camera 80% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top