Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!

[Barry_Green]

Now I'm even more confused Is the crop factor from FF35 not 2.0 then on the Panny 4/3?

It depends. Are you talking about in 4:3 still mode? If so, then yes it is.

But if you're talking about 16:9 video mode, then no the crop factor isn't 2.0. It's less. It's more like 1.89.

Are you meaning in terms of the width as opposed to the diagonal which crop factor doesn't really take into account so well?

Width of course, because the "ff35" frame isn't 4:3 or 16:9, it's actually 3:2.

 

[Barry_Green]

Not when shooting 16:9. To recap in general terms from the beginning:

A 35mm still (photography) frame (no soundtrack) is larger than a 35mm motion picture frame (w/ soundtrack). Since the folks here are generally more concerned with video, Barry came up with "Cinema Crop Factor" to be more relevant. Turns out that APS-C sensors are pretty close to 35mm motion picture frame size so they have a CCF of 1.

Now when the GH1 is shooting 4:3 it uses the standard m4/3 sensor size/area and therefor has a CCF of 1.25 (and a 35mm photography frame crop factor of 2.0). But the GH1 (and it appears the GH2 and AF100) are equipped with an oversize sensor, so when they shoot 16:9 (which is what most folks here do) it uses a wider area of the sensor which results in a lower CCF of 1.18 (and lower 35mm photography frame crop factor of ~1.91).

HTH - Mark

I didn't see this before posting my response, but thank you very much Mark, that's exactly it.

 

[Barry_Green]

To be honest, I agree that comparing APS-C to MTF is confusing, too many number to be multiplied and divided.

I compare it to the cinema frame, because the AF100 is a cinema-oriented camera, so I don't really care one jot nor whittle what the FF35 frame is. I'm used to working with the 35mm frame, so that is what I consider a 1.0. In that vein, an FF35 has a Cinema Crop Factor of 0.62.

The de facto is FF35 and should be everyone's starting point cause it's easier.

Only for still photographers. I'm not a still photographer, and I don't really care what lenses look like on an FF35. I care about what they look like when used in the cinema environment, and I know what a 25mm looks like on a 35mm movie camera, so now I know what it looks like on an AF100 (basically a little bit tighter).

Many folks are used to FF35, I know. But FF35 has nothing to do with cinema photography (unless you're talking about shooting in 65mm, which is about as rare as shooting in Super 8 for the big screen).

 

[heavyG]

I compare it to the cinema frame, because the AF100 is a cinema-oriented camera, so I don't really care one jot nor whittle what the FF35 frame is. I'm used to working with the 35mm frame, so that is what I consider a 1.0. In that vein, an FF35 has a Cinema Crop Factor of 0.62.


Only for still photographers. I'm not a still photographer, and I don't really care what lenses look like on an FF35. I care about what they look like when used in the cinema environment, and I know what a 25mm looks like on a 35mm movie camera, so now I know what it looks like on an AF100 (basically a little bit tighter).

Many folks are used to FF35, I know. But FF35 has nothing to do with cinema photography (unless you're talking about shooting in 65mm, which is about as rare as shooting in Super 8 for the big screen).

Exactly!

To me 'Full Frame 35mm' is the 3 or 4 perf pull down academy frame that is 21.9mm wide and 13.9mm high...

 

[Rick Burnett]

Ahhh! Okay. This makes a lot more sense of where the numbers were coming from and why I initially asked about the conversions because they've never really matched up to the calculations I was doing and I couldn't figure out what was going on.

I personally do not think in terms of FF35 stills either, but for that matter, all my video cameras in the past have been small sensor. The only larger sensor cameras I have used are the D90 (which I used so little, I honestly have no feel for the size), and the 7D which I absolutely know very well.

Every time there was mention of APS-C and 4/3 being so similar, not a lot of places have gone into extensive detail. I did know that the panny implementation 4/3 had extra pixels for 16:9 but what I was not also taking into account was the aspect of the FF35 and no audio, which honestly, I only really care about how the 4/3 compares to the APS-C and which now I am even happier with the updated numbers that you all provided in terms of the calculations, it is a lot closer which makes sense more in how you all have described the difference.

I just need to remember 1.18

 

[Gary Senda]

But if you're talking about 16:9 video mode, then no the crop factor isn't 2.0. It's less. It's more like 1.89.

This was a suspect I had. Mow you're confirming this to me.

The 16:9 diagonal of a 4/3 sensor is longer in 16:9, so the crop factor is less than 2.

Is it correct?

 

[take2visualmedia]

What lenses to start with?

What lenses to start with?

I've been watching news for this camera since it was announced. This will be our next camera. BUT I am new to the interchangeable lens world.

What would be a good set to start off with? We shoot commercials/corporate mostly...some documentary and concerts. I know there could be any number of lenses just looking fro a starting point.

Looking for a good zoom, wide angle, primes....any suggestions. I'm not familiar with what adapters would be needed for this camera etc.

 

[Stephen Mick]

My plan initially is this…

- Panasonic 14-140mm Micro-Four/Thirds Lens
- Complete Set of Zeiss ZF Prime Lenses (18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm) mounted with Nikon to Micro-Four/Thirds Adapters (Fotodiox)

Depending on when Birger releases their Canon EOS to AF-100 mount, then I'll add my…
- Tokina 11-16mm
- Canon 24-105/24-70
- Canon 70-200mm

Much of what you need depends on what you're planning to shoot. Given your needs (documentary and concerts), I'd look for a faster zoom than the kit lens, perhaps in the 17-50 f2.8 range. Then I'd take a look at adding some of the prime Zeiss lenses mentioned above.


--SM

 

[mjmcneese]

I'm thinking much like you Stephen. Except I doubt that I will be buying the ZF's. I found the 7-lens set for rent for $200/day.

I've already got a Canon Tamron 17-50, and the 50 f/1.8, so will probably just add a longer lens to my arsenal. Rented the 70-200 a few times ($30/day) and LOVE it for video. And then maybe the Panny 7mm...that could be a lot of fun.

 

[Aneurysm]

Not when shooting 16:9. To recap in general terms from the beginning:

A 35mm still (photography) frame (no soundtrack) is larger than a 35mm motion picture frame (w/ soundtrack). Since the folks here are generally more concerned with video, Barry came up with "Cinema Crop Factor" to be more relevant. Turns out that APS-C sensors are pretty close to 35mm motion picture frame size so they have a CCF of 1.

Now when the GH1 is shooting 4:3 it uses the standard m4/3 sensor size/area and therefor has a CCF of 1.25 (and a 35mm photography frame crop factor of 2.0). But the GH1 (and it appears the GH2 and AF100) are equipped with an oversize sensor, so when they shoot 16:9 (which is what most folks here do) it uses a wider area of the sensor which results in a lower CCF of 1.18 (and lower 35mm photography frame crop factor of ~1.91).

HTH - Mark

Finally! A Crop Factor explanation that makes sense to me! I think. Let's see if I have this straight:

When I go on the B&H site and look up the m4/3 14-140mm lens, it says that it's equivalent to a 28-280mm on 35mm, which I take to mean that the FOV is the same as a 28-280mm on a 35mm still photo camera due to the 2.0 CF.

However, the CF (or rather CCF in this case) on the AF-100 in 16:9 is 1.18. So the m4/3 14-140mm would have rougly the same FOV as a 17-165mm lens on a 35mm movie camera.

Am I correct in my reasoning?

 

[Stephen Mick]

Give that man a cee-gar! I think he's got it!



(Unless my math is bad.)

 

[Rick Burnett]

Someone needs to make some sort of hard to miss sticky on this topic. It's been unclear to me since the GH1 came out but I am GLAD I finally understand!

 

[powervideo]

Chris,

I have a Varicam and an SDX900, but mainly use the Letus Extreme and EX1R for commercials. I've used the GH1 on a music video and will be using it on a new music video. The large sensor look is definitely the go for TVC's and clips.

I have a variety of older Zeiss Contax lenses and some of the Panasonics which fill the holes in the Zeiss range.

Cosina C/Y 20mm 3.8
Zeiss C/Y 28mm 2.8
Zeiss C/Y 50mm 1.4
Zeiss C/Y 85mm 1.4
Zeiss C/Y 135mm 2.8
Yashica C/Y 100-300mm 5.6

Panansonic 20mm 1.7
Panansonic 7-14mm 4.0
Panansonic 14-140mm 4.0

The wide Pana zoom and 20mm help me with the wide angle shots and are cost effective, as the Zeiss Contax 21mm is over $2000 second-hand. I still need a 180mm Zeiss still and will probably going to dump the Yashica and Cosina. The just don't have thepunch of the Zeiss or Lumix lenses.

The manual lenses are fantastic in low-light and great for low DOF on commercials. They also work well with a follow-focus. But the Lumix lenses are also very useful in their own way. They are light, fast to use, very sharp and they auto-focus.

So my advice is to get a mixture of lenses (manual and AF) that can cover you for most types of work. Many people go for the older Nikons but I don't like the way they focus in the opposite direction to cine lenses. As for concerts, I don't think you can beat a good 2/3" ENG camera with a servo controller. :thumbsup:

I've been watching news for this camera since it was announced. This will be our next camera. BUT I am new to the interchangeable lens world.

What would be a good set to start off with? We shoot commercials/corporate mostly...some documentary and concerts. I know there could be any number of lenses just looking fro a starting point.

Looking for a good zoom, wide angle, primes....any suggestions. I'm not familiar with what adapters would be needed for this camera etc.

 

[BitMaestro]

I didn't see this before posting my response, but thank you very much Mark, that's exactly it.

Glad I could help. If you (and/or the other mods) would like me to write up a slightly more formal version to be stickied (is that a word?) just let me know.

The 16:9 diagonal of a 4/3 sensor is longer in 16:9, so the crop factor is less than 2.

Is it correct?

You're on the right track, but you have it sorta backwards. The diagonal is roughly the same because the imaged area/pixels still has to fit within the 4/3 format's image circle (or else there would be vignetting). Since the 4:3 aspect diagonal is already near the entire diameter of the image circle, the 16:9 diagonal can't be much longer (and is technically a hair--actually maybe less than a hair--shorter).

The reason the crop factor decreases is because a crop factor is a ratio/relation between two items and it's the other non-4/3 item that gets shorter/smaller (which is what I meant about having it sorta backwards). To the best of my knowledge, the GH1, GH2 and AF100 are the only interchangeable lens digital cameras that keep (roughly) the same diagonal (thus maximizing use of the image circle) when changing aspect ratios; all other cameras just crop the top and/or bottom of the sensor which obviously results in a shorter diagonal. (Note that this cropped sensor/shorter diagonal is also true for other cameras with (micro)4/3 sensors. e.g. G1, GF1, etc.)

HTH - Mark

 

[Bucknfl]

"As for concerts, I don't think you can beat a good 2/3" ENG camera with a servo controller. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

A servo zoom lense for the AF100 would fill the last piece of the puzzle.

 

[Thomas Kist]

Does anybody know if a Cooke 10.4-52mm Varokinetal (S16mm) could cover the AF 100 image sensor? I still have one in my cupboard and it used to be my alltime favorite zoom on S16.
Soft yet sharp!

 

[SantaCruzMichael]

telescoping zooms

telescoping zooms

The majority of the zooms everyone is planning to use are designed so that they extend and retract like Pinocchio's nose.
Which means, they won't work with a matte box and rails.

MAJOR problem for me.

 

[Michael Olsen]

The majority of the zooms everyone is planning to use are designed so that they extend and retract like Pinocchio's nose.
Which means, they won't work with a matte box and rails.

MAJOR problem for me.

One of the many differences between photography lenses and cinema lenses. And one of the reasons that cinema lenses are more expensive.

 

[Barry_Green]

Does anybody know if a Cooke 10.4-52mm Varokinetal (S16mm) could cover the AF 100 image sensor? I still have one in my cupboard and it used to be my alltime favorite zoom on S16.
Soft yet sharp!

The Super16 sensor is 12mm x 7.5mm. The AF100's is 19mm x 10.7mm. It is extremely unlikely that any S16 zoom will cover the AF100's sensor.

Sometimes zooms have more coverage the more telephoto you go, so maybe from 35mm to 52mm it would cover, but I would wager that it will not cover from 10.4 up to about 25mm to 30mm.

 

[Rick Burnett]

One of the many differences between photography lenses and cinema lenses. And one of the reasons that cinema lenses are more expensive.

Makes a great opportunity for someone to design a matt box and rail system that extends in and out with the moving lens.

Personally, I just use the lens hood that comes with the lens and have been VERY happy. I don't use a lot of filters and with the built in ND filters, I will be less likely to need them.