NAB 2024 - Rumors and Wishes

morgan_moore said:
I forgot what we are talking about and why!

I guess a couple of things..

-28-70/2 24-105/2.8 and (sony) 20-70 are new zoom lenses which present a step forward to the traditional 'trinity' (of 16-35, 24-70, 70-200+some primes). That is interesting - trinity owners may need to stop and think,

-I wonder if youngters realise you can make a good living with sub $200 lenses.

-I wonder if youngsters realise how much the size and mass of sub $200 lenses will save thier back.

-to me a fifty is a thing for your back pocket, not a thing that should take half a peli case.
Click to expand...
For sure, the traditional trinity has been upended

Sub $200 lenses? like the $2900 Canon 28-70 f/2?

Yeah, I mean, the cheap lenses available today are quite decent. But if you're going to use a lens for 5 or 10 years, why not invest in a good one? I use the same set of 6 prime lenses constantly. If I were more into zooms, I'd be using the same 2-3 zooms constantly.

The Canon lenses are still pretty heavy. Sony lenses are generally much lighter. Of course, with that probably comes increased breathing which they expect you to let the camera tickle out... I use breathing compensation and every other type of in-camera compensation they offer. The Sony 50 1.2 weighs .4 lb less than the Canon. The Canon 28-70 weighs 3.15 lbs. Are we talking about decreasing weight or decreasing lens changes?

Having a 50 in your back pocket... I mean, when I shoot weddings, I have multiple cameras on hand, each rigged on a gimbal with its own prime lens. Like a lot of wedding photographers do. It's a pain, but I think it's worth it. Certainly, the footage is better.

If you need to zoom, a prime is out of the question anyway.

Are primes obsolete -- that's two questions, isn't it? 1: do they offer extra juice? 2: is the juice worth the squeeze? From my perspective, if they still offer extra juice then they're not obsolete.
 
Sub $200 lenses.. like a 28 2.8 or 50 1.8 .. a couple or three of these small light lenses are good enough to make a living - folk forget that.

--

I guess im talking about lens changes per day.

The 24-70 is a bit meh. The 50 1.8 is a bit restricting.

So Im pedalling between them

A 28-70 2 could stay on all day killing them both (at a wedding, or other soft event.. 'hard' events need 20 or 24 to elbow past the 4.7mm toting 2/3 guys)

There might be another camera with a 70-200
or padalling between 70-200 and 16-35

I dont tend to do video with two cameras.

Maybe a 'locked off wide at the side' but not two dangling around my neck.
 
I am curious if the current vogue of flawed/soft "character" lenses for cinema is also represented in the photography world? Obviously there is always a niche for funky old lenses but on the cine side of things, I think it safe to say that the majority of "influencer" (gawd I hate that word) DP's are looking for lenses that aren't the sharpest. I don't follow still photography trends as much, but does this exist on a similar scale there? Are lens manufacturers bringing out modern product that replicate vintage lens characteristics?
 
CharlesPapert said:
I am curious if the current vogue of flawed/soft "character" lenses for cinema is also represented in the photography world? Obviously there is always a niche for funky old lenses but on the cine side of things, I think it safe to say that the majority of "influencer" (gawd I hate that word) DP's are looking for lenses that aren't the sharpest. I don't follow still photography trends as much, but does this exist on a similar scale there? Are lens manufacturers bringing out modern product that replicate vintage lens characteristics?
Click to expand...
Hey Charles, I do quite a bit of still photography but I'm certainly no influencer so maybe I'm out of the loop on things.

I feel like the stills world is more interested in the newest tech, the best autofocus, the highest resolving glass, etc. That doesn't mean there isn't some hip wedding photographer shooting bridals with a Petzval or the hottest advertising photographer doing street photography with point and shoots from 2005, but I just don't feel like "character" is as much of a thing with stills right now compared to motion.

It's just a lot easier in my opinion to add character to a still in post compared to video. So my personal emphasis is to get the cleanest, sharpest still photo and then I can pretty much do whatever I want, quickly I might add, in post-production. And then when the client changes their mind and you've went too far, you can easily pull it back.
 
Just from watching some of those hybrid channels that cover both - photo and video - over the years, the photographers were sometimes even crazier about their tech than videographers.

Definitely felt like most needed the latest and greatest with every new still camera and any kind of "character" was a no-no.
 
NorBro said:
Just from watching some of those hybrid channels that cover both - photo and video - over the years, the photographers were sometimes even crazier about their tech than videographers.

Definitely felt like most needed the latest and greatest with every new still camera and any kind of "character" was a no-no.
Click to expand...
The one outlier is probably Fuji and their film simulations. You'll find photographers going on and on about the look of those files and why it's special and that's very much a "character" thing vs. the clean modern look out of a high end stills camera from Sony, Canon, Nikon or others. I own a Fuji X100V myself and when I shoot it and pretty much only shoot jpeg and various film simulations instead of the RAW and post-processing those files.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I am curious if the current vogue of flawed/soft "character" lenses for cinema is also represented in the photography world? Obviously there is always a niche for funky old lenses but on the cine side of things, I think it safe to say that the majority of "influencer" (gawd I hate that word) DP's are looking for lenses that aren't the sharpest. I don't follow still photography trends as much, but does this exist on a similar scale there? Are lens manufacturers bringing out modern product that replicate vintage lens characteristics?
Click to expand...
From my observations of wedding photographers, there are definitely people using vintage, specialty, and manual focus lenses such as Voigtlander. But there are a few different types of photographer: the vast majority just use a set of L-series or GM primes (or the equivalent in their brand); a small number have a bag full of various optics and like to play around with their lens choice; and a small number are using zooms, but that's much more typical of a 2nd shooter/assistant.

When I first started shooting weddings close to 10 years ago, I was surprised that so many photographers were into the sharp, high-contrast look. I was expecting more dreamy, low-con. I think this may have been an Instagram strategy to get your images to pop off the screen.

Lately, I think there's been a bit of movement towards flawed imagery that has missed focus or camera shake. I think that's a Gen Z-driven trend for the sake of authenticity. (Similar to the "Gen Z shake" in TikTok videos where they start the recording before they even set their phone down. In contrast to the "Millennial pause" where millennials pause at the beginning of their video as if they're waiting for the machine to start.)

I think there's also an increasing number of photographers who eschew posed shots and details Tableaux in favor of candids.

All the while, medium format has been uncommon but marketable -- both digital and film. As well as 35mm film. But the folks I've seen shooting on film are almost always shooting digital as well.

Putting crystals in front of the lens for lighting/compositional effects is probably more common than using specialty optics.
 
morgan_moore said:
Sub $200 lenses.. like a 28 2.8 or 50 1.8 .. a couple or three of these small light lenses are good enough to make a living - folk forget that.

--

I guess im talking about lens changes per day.

The 24-70 is a bit meh. The 50 1.8 is a bit restricting.

So Im pedalling between them

A 28-70 2 could stay on all day killing them both (at a wedding, or other soft event.. 'hard' events need 20 or 24 to elbow past the 4.7mm toting 2/3 guys)

There might be another camera with a 70-200
or padalling between 70-200 and 16-35

I dont tend to do video with two cameras.

Maybe a 'locked off wide at the side' but not two dangling around my neck.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable idea for using the 28-70. I still don't think it's going to look as good as primes. And I think there's an advantage to having the wider aperture available.

I don't dangle the cameras around my neck. I put them in a side holster. The cameras and gimbals are very small so it sort of works. I've thought about using a quick release and harness system like many photographers do where the camera is hanging by something attached to its base or its metal loop. I'm nervous about it falling off, though.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I am curious if the current vogue of flawed/soft "character" lenses for cinema is also represented in the photography world? Obviously there is always a niche for funky old lenses but on the cine side of things, I think it safe to say that the majority of "influencer" (gawd I hate that word) DP's are looking for lenses that aren't the sharpest. I don't follow still photography trends as much, but does this exist on a similar scale there? Are lens manufacturers bringing out modern product that replicate vintage lens characteristics?
Click to expand...
I used to do photography but not recently but pros usually want sharp image and fast accurate af, since gigs like weddings depend on getting the shot.

There is a weird dichotomy between YT influencers and people working for a living in video and photography. Working people are more concerned with getting the job done and are too busy earning a living to make review/opinion videos. Either the gear is what they need or it's not and they don't care what others think. Where as influencers often the equipment is on loan or given to them and their job is create content. This can lead to the tail wagging the dog. It's hard sometimes to decern fact from fiction. They often end up being shills.
 
Sharp wasn't the dirty word in print that it became in digital, where sharpening introduced artifacts and aliasing.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
The one outlier is probably Fuji and their film simulations. You'll find photographers going on and on about the look of those files and why it's special and that's very much a "character" thing vs. the clean modern look out of a high end stills camera from Sony, Canon, Nikon or others. I own a Fuji X100V myself and when I shoot it and pretty much only shoot jpeg and various film simulations instead of the RAW and post-processing those files.
Click to expand...
Around 2014, I went down a deep rabbit hole with their simulations with one of their point-and-shoots. I was convinced I would never use anything else than Velvia, ha.

But, IMO, I personally wouldn't classify those as character and more of something with beautifully saturated colors and punchiness that some of those looks are known for.

But, I guess, you could also use one of the ones that lift the blacks and desaturate the image in some way and call that character. Maybe it's all character, art, IDK.
 
ahalpert said:
That's a reasonable idea for using the 28-70. I still don't think it's going to look as good as primes. And I think there's an advantage to having the wider aperture available.

I don't dangle the cameras around my neck. I put them in a side holster. The cameras and gimbals are very small so it sort of works. I've thought about using a quick release and harness system like many photographers do where the camera is hanging by something attached to its base or its metal loop. I'm nervous about it falling off, though.
Click to expand...

'Look as good as primes'

I see all trade off, fluidity of action, communication with subjects. I would suggest a 28-70 would look better than using two primes.

Maybe less lines per inch, slightly duller corner performance.. but images remembered and cherished by thier subjects.. the zoom will win.

-

Straps.

Usually I have none. Occasionally 'arno' camping straps.. $10 rock solid zero fashion.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I don't work in a scenario where we are switching lens mounts on cameras during the day, so I'm a little thrown where this paradigm where lens mounts are "left on a lens"--
Click to expand...

In my nikon lens canone ef rf world..

nikonF to ef are $15.

You must remove the mount from the EF camera to remove the mount from the lens.

In this situation if you have four nikon lenses for the day it is best to leave a $15 mount on each lense.

--

Then my two canons one is RF and the other EF. I have an EFRf adapter - this mainly lives on the RF camera Its taped yellow to make it easy to find as it is easy to leave it on the lens by a mistake.

I cannot advise on the perfect way to execute an EFlensRF camera move to RFlens to RF camera at this point. (where does that ef-rf now out of use adapter get put.. that is the question?)

--

In my days on nikon-speedbooster-sony .. the adapter lived on the camera providing a nice lens element to keep crumbs, sweat and sandstorm off the sensor when changing lenses.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I am curious if the current vogue of flawed/soft "character" lenses for cinema is also represented in the photography world? Obviously there is always a niche for funky old lenses but on the cine side of things, I think it safe to say that the majority of "influencer" (gawd I hate that word) DP's are looking for lenses that aren't the sharpest. I don't follow still photography trends as much, but does this exist on a similar scale there? Are lens manufacturers bringing out modern product that replicate vintage lens characteristics?
Click to expand...
Having done pro stils for a decade Ive been mulling this.

Clearly I have no idea what is going on now.

In the early days light leaks, fogged film and wonky lenses got me losing clients.

Now all these things are available as digital filters or even more covetted in actually shooting with a broken pawn shop Praktika which will deliver you influencer stardom.

From my POV I think around 2005 I realised that shots would look be 'less digital' if lens flare and grain were added in photoshat.

I added lens flare and grain in Photoshat. I still do.

My philosophy - no different from burning luts being an idiot choice today - was to shoot clean and then muzz up th image in post if thats what the client wanted.


My recent organic wool shoots my 1985 nikkor and tendency to flare has been doing things and being chosen over my efficient canon EF lenses. one lesson.. ive had less 'keepers' in manual focus.. so maybe go back to more digital destruction after AF aquisition.

Most expensive still lenses were expensive because they were good. Architects finding that bendy distortions on $300 nikkors didnt deliver and then forking out for $2000 rodenstock or other lens brands ive forgotton to cure the distortion.

--

in 2008 I concluded (after testing!*) that digital corrections were better for building/architecture photography than my expensive 28pc tilt shift lens. The goal was deep focus, good verticals and not fisheye walls. How quaint.

*to finish the testing story (which was serious).. while digital corrections were good one lost resolution. This drove me to getting a higher resolution stills camera (16mp). Today its still true in movies. 8k is pointless .. until you know 30% of the image is being cropped out in post.

S
 
Last edited:
There are two side stories..

Hasselblad seeking quality accurate images developed lens correction in post and meta data of lens used. A first for maybe 2005.

--

While lenses maybe not played too big on getting funky looks messing the emulsion has been in photography for years. Be that bleach bypass, crosss processing or putting your polaroid into a toaster and then crinkling the soft emulsion with your crack pipe.
 
morgan_moore said:
'Look as good as primes'

I see all trade off, fluidity of action, communication with subjects. I would suggest a 28-70 would look better than using two primes.

Maybe less lines per inch, slightly duller corner performance.. but images remembered and cherished by thier subjects.. the zoom will win.

-

Straps.

Usually I have none. Occasionally 'arno' camping straps.. $10 rock solid zero fashion.
Click to expand...
I've rented and shot a few photography projects with the 28-70. I kept it at f/2 the whole time (why else would you get it, if not to shoot at f/2???) and I did really like it.

To me the difference between that lense and the 24-70 2.8 is noticeable and desirable, at least for stills. I've often contemplated just selling all of my primes, getting the 28-70 f/2, and calling it a day. Unfortunately there are still some things I love about having EF lenses and adapting those to RF and I can't justify buying the 28-70 without selling some other stuff first. Maybe one day...
 
Nice report.

Its interesting.. I think it is not got the reach to replace the 24-105 for RnG work.. but clearly it is a consider to swap for 2-3 primes!
 
NorBro said:
Around 2014, I went down a deep rabbit hole with their simulations with one of their point-and-shoots. I was convinced I would never use anything else than Velvia, ha.

But, IMO, I personally wouldn't classify those as character and more of something with beautifully saturated colors and punchiness that some of those looks are known for.

But, I guess, you could also use one of the ones that lift the blacks and desaturate the image in some way and call that character. Maybe it's all character, art, IDK.
Click to expand...
You've been down a lot of rabbit holes
morgan_moore said:
'Look as good as primes'

I see all trade off, fluidity of action, communication with subjects. I would suggest a 28-70 would look better than using two primes.

Maybe less lines per inch, slightly duller corner performance.. but images remembered and cherished by thier subjects.. the zoom will win.

-

Straps.

Usually I have none. Occasionally 'arno' camping straps.. $10 rock solid zero fashion.
Click to expand...
No, you're saying you'll capture additional material with the zoom than you'd get with the prime. I'd say that what you get with the prime will look better than what you get with the zoom, primarily because of "rendering" and DOF rather than detail level. And I'd say not only that there's very little I miss on a wedding shoot from shooting with primes but also that I get so much more material than I need anyway that the lost surplus isn't missed.

Ultimately it's the same equation as always. Do you need to emphasize coverage and speed or image quality?

I've shot entire weddings on a 50mm. (Not the ceremony or toasts. Those get multiple cameras anyway, and a couple of them are bound to be on telephotos.)

But 90% of the day is a mix of staged and candid portraits. I don't miss much on a prime because usually there's some way I can compose the moment even if it's not the exact focal length I wanted. If the scene is too wide, I can do a pan; I can get multiple shots to reconstruct it in the edit. And I can zoom with my feet.

If I want a wide to show the epic setting then usually I'll want a 24mm or wider anyway and the wide end is also where zooms tend to be weakest in terms of distortion and rendering compared to primes.

I shot weddings primarily with a 24-70 for the first several years I did them and I've never thought about going back to a zoom. You may occasionally miss a shot opportunity on primes but everything you get looks better and I get way more material than I need anyway.

When I'm doing actual ENG-type coverage, which is rare for me, or when I need to do zooms, then I use a zoom. But probably 3 of the last 5 shoots I did on zooms I regretted afterwards not using a prime. The 70-180 could have been a 135. The 24-70 could have been a 50 on one shoot, a 24 on a different shoot. It was just a matter of realizing what I needed to get and committing to the choice.

One last thing about the DOF -- there's usually some shite in the background at a wedding that you don't want to see. An audience member at the ceremony on their phone. A bridesmaid making a jealous face during your first dance. A caterer setting a table. A dangling extension cord. They happen on every wedding and I'll take as much bokeh capability as I can get to get rid of them. That's a big difference between a shoot like this and a scripted drama where you control the background and you actually want to see it. I'd take f/1 capability on everything wider than 85mm if I could. It's not even a dreamy shallow look on a wide shot. Only crazy shallow on CUs.

I've put the tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 in my shopping cart many times but I always bail because I know I'd regret the quality difference. Nice lens design though.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
I've shot entire weddings on a 50mm. (Not the ceremony or toasts. Those get multiple cameras anyway, and a couple of them are bound to be on telephotos.)
Click to expand...

Same here, 35MM on S-35. Maybe not the entire wedding because I set multiple cams situationally.

But 90% of the day is a mix of staged and candid portraits. I don't miss much on a prime because usually there's some way I can compose the moment even if it's not the exact focal length I wanted. If the scene is too wide, I can do a pan; I can get multiple shots to reconstruct it in the edit. And I can zoom with my feet.
Click to expand...
^^^100%

One last thing about the DOF -- there's usually some shite in the background at a wedding that you don't want to see. An audience member at the ceremony on their phone. A bridesmaid making a jealous face during your first dance. A caterer setting a table. A dangling extension cord. They happen on every wedding and I'll take as much bokeh capability as I can get to get rid of them. That's a big difference between a shoot like this and a scripted drama where you control the background and you actually want to see it. I'd take f/1 capability on everything wider than 85mm if I could. It's not even a dreamy shallow look on a wide shot. Only crazy shallow on CUs.
Click to expand...

I'd not argue that masking the subject in post and blurring the background is as natural as a lens shallow dof but the tools have gotten strong, the result tunable and acceptable, and the ease of a digital fix fast and practical, with one added point; when you go shallow dof you're exercising a deterrence because you won't know if the background you killed was a problem.

I do like shooting the primes because they are faster and sharper wide open, but this difference is less than it used to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top