Moire, ah man.

Personally while I get sharp images from the EX1 IMO the lens at the wide end is pretty poor, especially a little stopped down when it seems to fringe

Its very bowed making it look 'cheap' on buildings athough such distortion is less apparent in nature

IMO the EX1 chip regularly outresolves the lens

Id pick the FS100 with a good wide angle (not the kit lens) over the EX for wide images

I recently scored a nikkor 18/4 manual that puts my other wide lenses to shame, my other wide lenses are; the kit lens, Tokina 16-50, nikkor 14/2.8, the EX1 and a nkkor 20-35 to name a few

S
 
Last edited:
I'm more of a telephoto guy myself...the reason I'd ever be hesitant to go for the EX1 is because video cameras tend to have limited telephoto capabilities, and those auxiliary lens adapters are pretty crappy in my experience (yes, even Century) compared to actual lenses. Using a video camera for wide is out of the question, since I refuse to shoot something that isn't rectilinear.
 
Have you ever tried a S35 chip camera with a telephoto?

I was out playing with my 600/4 +1/.4conv today on the FS100.

The technical challenges in terms of framing without a zoom and managing the mass, rigidy, stability and focus are quite comical

The EX1 is my go to cam for longer shots than 200mm (S35) eqiv unless I was doing a very specific shot with time for a few takes

And the EX1 performs well at the long end optically

S
 
morgan_moore said:
The technical challenges in terms of framing without a zoom and managing the mass, rigidy, stability and focus are quite comical

The EX1 is my go to cam for longer shots than 200mm (S35) eqiv unless I was doing a very specific shot with time for a few takes

And the EX1 performs well at the long end optically

S
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Good to know the EX1 holds up optically on the long end!
 
We have a B4 mount for our EX3, and a canon 18x7.8 zoom with a built in doubler for long lens stuff... and a Ronford F7 to hold it up... not a small & light set-up.. but yea... far far better than a coke bottle on the nose of an EX1 tho.....

d
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
The EX1 is my go to cam for longer shots than 200mm (S35) eqiv unless I was doing a very specific shot with time for a few takes

And the EX1 performs well at the long end optically

S
Click to expand...

I used my FS100 with a canon fd 70-200mm f4 on it to film some surfing the other day, I was way up on the cliffs and was zoomed completely in and the images looked great (i'll get it up as soon as I can) beaches are quite possibly one of the hardest places to film anything and having the fs100 and being able to fine tune was such an advantage!
 
I have seen moiré on both FS100 and F3, and they are both low-pixel count sensors. Sony is notorious for favoring detail over anti-aliasing. I'm impressed how well Panasonic is handling it with the GH2, which has a photographic sensor. I suppose they put enough computing power into that one to downscale from full-rez in realtime.
 
TimurCivan said:
F3 will definitly do it.

Happens rarely, but it does happen. By product of being so sharp. Throw a HD soft filter to help calm the effect.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about one of the Schneider filters branded "HD" like Classic Soft, you would be advised to skip adding that to you F3 or FS100. That filter is optimized for sensors sizes of 2/3" or smaller. You'd be better off adding a standard Classic Soft (or other non-"HD" branded Schneider filter), which features lenslet dimples optimized for 35mm sized sensors.
 
moldcad said:
It most definitely is...
Click to expand...

I disagree. The images that come from an FS100 are superior to those of than an EX1, and not by a small or insignificant amount.

1- Use a proper monitor
2- Become intimately familiar with your camera and settings
3- Test

If you can do these things it is exceptionally rare that you will run into imaging issues/aliasing issues with FS100 or F3 that are not also present on any other similar camera.

If you do the pepsi challenge of a Sony FS100 (with a decent lens) and an EX1. With the FS100 there's clearly more dynamic range, color information and apparent detail, it's not even close.

In broad general regards to aliasing, is not always created at the camera level, it can be created optically, you can see using only your eyes. You can be darn sure if your eyes can see it, your camera will to.
 
Illya Friedman said:
I disagree. The images that come from an FS100 are superior to those of than an EX1, and not by a small or insignificant amount.

1- Use a proper monitor
2- Become intimately familiar with your camera and settings
3- Test
Click to expand...

The above 3 points are also relevant with the EX, so it doesn't change my opinion :)

With all the advantages of the FS100 picture, it's not as detailed and aliasing-free as the picture my EX1 can produce. The only obvious disadvantage of the latter is a much higher noise level.
 
moldcad, you completely missed the main point...

Illya Friedman said:
With the FS100 there's clearly more dynamic range, color information and apparent detail, it's not even close.
Click to expand...

To claim that the EX1 is making superior images, is akin to burying ones head in the ground. It makes it awful tough to see your monitor with all that sand in the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top