New Camera Choice Quandary

morgan_moore said:
When we use cameras we all have our own list of 'givens' .. things that we think are critical to our shoot process.

The OP must work out her 'givens' and that will lead to the correct choice.

----

As for Canon being a mess - well to me a 'given' is the ability to have fine control of focus - that excludes IMO 90% of AF lenses.

At C300 money I would hope to rent proper cine glass for higher end jobs - not possible with the EF mount.

Another 'given' is when doing fast work is to have a zoom that can do a wide, a tight and a CU, 18-35-80

That option is only available in top end PL, or with a speed-booster and a 24-105 - EF mount allows neither. (or a 2/3 ENG lens and adapter - also not possible on EF)
Click to expand...

So you refuse to use autofocus lenses and that dictates your camera choice over EVERY OTHER FACTOR, and yet the one lens you find acceptable is the 24-105mm L (a prosumer autofocus lens) with an adapter. Makes no sense.

That's all I needed to know.

To each his own.

Fwiw, I do see the lack of a PL mount as being obnoxious, but given that I haven't used a camera with a switchable mount (Red, F5, etc.) that actually has properly calibrated flange focal distance without obnoxious shimming (and can rent an Alexa when I want PL mount lenses) it's an easy choice for me personally. Obviously, as we can both agree on, that's different for each owner/op.
 
Policar said:
So you refuse to use autofocus lenses and that dictates your camera choice over EVERY OTHER FACTOR, and yet the one lens you find acceptable is the 24-105mm L (a prosumer autofocus lens) with an adapter. Makes no sense.

That's all I needed to know.

To each his own.

Fwiw, I do see the lack of a PL mount as being obnoxious, but given that I haven't used a camera with a switchable mount (Red, F5, etc.) that actually has properly calibrated flange focal distance without obnoxious shimming (and can rent an Alexa when I want PL mount lenses) it's an easy choice for me personally. Obviously, as we can both agree on, that's different for each owner/op.
Click to expand...

Personally I use various Nikon zooms and primes, all manual focus - my go-to lens is the nikkor 28-85 manual paired with an 18 prime.

A 24-105+speedbooster has the ideal range but I find it pretty putrid to use.

This is large sensor image making and to me having a precise, tactile control of focus is, to me, very very critical to the shooting experience - so yes to some extent I'm very put off by a camera system 'locked' into overpriced plastic fantastic lenses.

There seem to be a school of people who are happy to focus wander or shoot everything at 17mm/F8, neither shoot style attracts me - sharp is one of my 'givens'

I know a lot of people bought into Canon glass in the 5dmk2 gold rush - but really IMO that was tossing cash down the toilet.

If I had a camera that took a speed-booster I would pick one up and love using it with my 28-85, as it would offer the ability to shoot entire sequences with no lens changes, but I don't at the moment as there are no speed-boosters made for the F3/5/55, there is however space in that mount to make one and I think one will come in time - the geometry of the EF mount means it can never be made.

Why a desire for a speed-booster? - it is so I can use manual zooms and get their intended range of FOV, unlike others I don't really crave fast glass - although I do have a 50 1.2 and some others.
 
morgan_moore said:
Personally I use various Nikon zooms and primes, all manual focus - my go-to lens is the nikkor 28-85 manual paired with an 18 prime.

A 24-105+speedbooster has the ideal range but I find it pretty putrid to use.

This is large sensor image making and to me having a precise, tactile control of focus is, to me, very very critical to the shooting experience - so yes to some extent I'm very put off by a camera system 'locked' into overpriced plastic fantastic lenses.

There seem to be a school of people who are happy to focus wander or shoot everything at 17mm/F8, neither shoot style attracts me - sharp is one of my 'givens'

I know a lot of people bought into Canon glass in the 5dmk2 gold rush - but really IMO that was tossing cash down the toilet.

If I had a camera that took a speed-booster I would pick one up and love using it with my 28-85, as it would offer the ability to shoot entire sequences with no lens changes, but I don't at the moment as there are no speed-boosters made for the F3/5/55, there is however space in that mount to make one and I think one will come in time - the geometry of the EF mount means it can never be made.

Why a desire for a speed-booster? - it is so I can use manual zooms and get their intended range of FOV, unlike others I don't really crave fast glass - although I do have a 50 1.2 and some others.
Click to expand...

Totally, vehemently disagree. Canon glass is very very sharp, and I say this having used most high end cinema lenses, many Nikon MF lenses (which I have a fondness for aesthetically, but most aren't that sharp), and the majority of popular high end Canon lenses. Dozens of Canon EF primes and zooms, the best (and not-so-best) third-party EF-mount lenses, Nikon MF primes, Zeiss Superspeeds, Zeiss CP 2s, Cooke S4is, Angenieux Optimos, Angenieux Optimo DPs, Panavision Primos, Hawk Anamorphics, Cooke zooms, Leitz Primes, Panavision zooms, and more... I've worked with them all and compared them all. I know my lenses.

I recent shot b cam with a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS against an Angenieux 15-40mm t2.6 Optimo and the Canon was acceptable at all stops for intercutting (although in our A/B test it did fall apart at f2.8 relative to the Angie at t2.6 when overexposed due to CA at the edges and less-sharp corners) and I find the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma to be sharper than most cinema glass. Both meet or exceed the excellent 28mm f2 and decent 24mm f2.8 Nikon MF primes and trounce the poor 24mm f2. Meanwhile the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS is on par with most long high end cinema zooms excepting that it breathes, but unit-focusing older Nikon glass breathes more than anything else (well, all unit-focusing lenses breath a lot!). Granted pulling focus is more difficult with EF mount lenses than with cinema lenses, sure, but using lens gears and small-ringed follow focus units (such as the Arri FF1, which has swappable diameter focus rings) mitigate this disadvantage considerably. Using lens adapters throws your witness marks out the window so that one advantage of MF primes is lost on non-native mounts. I don't know what you're talking about 17mm and f8. Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 is sharp enough wide open and if your assistant can't pull focus on it at 17mm f2.8, hire a new assistant and invest in proper gear, because that's an easy pull.

Frankly, everything you've written is crazy. Canon lenses are excellent in all respects except mechanics/ergonomics, and the proper follow focus such as the FF1 (with hard stops and small focus rings to compensate for freespinning focus wheels with short throws) compensate for 95% of the difference against manual focus lenses (and fwiw the CP2s and CN-Es are available in EF mount WITH accurate witness marks, making them MUCH better mechanically and optically than Nikon lenses with adapters).

Furthermore speed boosters, while cool, decrease corner sharpness and macro sharpness significantly. If you want what was intended natively, just pick up cinema lenses for your PL mount or EF-S lenses for your EF mount, but this is a poor argument. If I'm putting my 70-200mm f2.8 II IS on my crop camera, I know what field of view to expect relative to my Mark III, and the lens performs well for both stills and videos at APS-C/Super35 and FF.

Learn what you're doing and get back to me. I can understand choosing an F3 or F5 over a C300 any day... I can't understand doing so on the basis of EF mount lenses being poor relative to old Nikon primes.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm trying to prevent the spread of misinformation.
 
Last edited:
If you read you might not disagree

i never said canon glass wast sharp - it is.

i never recommend Nikon - I don't (focus direction)

the op is shooting solo no puller no mmf1 - on that basis the physical performance of the glass will contribute more to the shoot than a few lpi

As for soft edges on a booster - sure - unless you are going cine there are compromises.

the canon cams are great esp the c100 but IMO they just don't quite add up - just like all the cams below the f5 don't really add up to being versatile shooting tools..
 
Sorry to get heated and while I am not as impressed with the F5 based on my few weeks with it as you seem to be (nor as impressed as I expected I would be based on the hype), I agree it is a league beyond the C100 for versatility and it has technical advantages to its image (if muddily tonality in the shadows in SLOG2 and an obnoxious interface). It's a true "cinema camera" meant to be built out as such and offering great functionality in most respects once the kinks (unreliable timecode sync, weird battery glitches, awkward interface) are worked out and accessories built up appropriately. It is also three times the price, four or five times fully outfitted.

Pulling focus comes down to your AC and your own techniques if you don't have one on a given shoot. I have no problem with geared lenses and a good small follow focus such as the FF1; I would do better with a cinema zoom, sure, but good ones start at $20K (whereas an FF1 is pretty cheap!) and there are good EF-mount cinema lenses. If we were looking at best kit under $50,000 I would not recommend a C100, but I would have trouble putting together an F5 kit that's price-competitive with the FS100/AF100/C100, beyond which I'm just let down by the F5. It has not met my expectations... better than an Epic but nowhere near an Alexa as rumored.
 
Last edited:
I think, one of the interesting things, is that new, relatively cheap large sensor 'cinema' cameras like the FS100/700, C100/300
and F3/5/55, and RED Scarlet and Epic (ok a couple of these cameras are less cheap) has made everything interesting. Used
to be, if you were playing in this league, you would spend the money for a cinema lens. Now, you can 'buy in' for 5 grand at
the low end.....so you probably aren't going to spend 40 grand on the lens. So you have to accept compromises. On the good
side, most still lenses are plenty sharp enough. On the bad side, many have short focus throws that go from focused at 1 foot
to infinity in 2mm of focus throw, plus breathing, and electronic control that can mean certain lenses don't work with certain
cameras. On the other hand, geared follow focuses and adapters like the Metabones can help with some of these problems
at a cut rate cost.

I just worked on a show using C300's with the Fuji 19-90 F2.8. That lens was the beez neez and then some. I wish I could
afford it!!! It was so nice I bought the Sony 18-105 F4 hoping.....just hoping....that I'd get the low budget version for my
FS700. Close but yet so far. On the plus side, it DOES work just perfect on my VG 20, gives a really nice range, and great
picture as the VG20 compensates perfectly for the 'pillow' effect that the lens gives on the FS700. Again, compromises,
I hope (without too much true hope) that Sony can offer a firmware fix for the lens for the FS700. Point being, we like
to have the 'spendy tools' but want them cheap. When that doesn't happen, we all make compromises differently.


Some like to use the sharp Canon lenses with short focus throws, cause after all, they are so much cheaper
while still giving a great picture. Others, not liking the short focus throw, will go to all manual Nikon lenses
as they too give nice pictures for a fraction of the price. No one is wrong, people just have different priorities....
which is fine. Having options is good to my way of thinking.

By the way, there are speedboosters and there are speedboosters. The Metabones version of the Speedbooster is
developed by Brian Caldwell, a very respected lens guru. It seems to suffer much less from corner softness that
the cheap knock offs I've seen, it actually is pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Policar said:
Sorry to get heated and while I am not as impressed with the F5 based on my few weeks with it as you seem to be (nor as impressed as I expected I would be based on the hype), I agree it is a league beyond the C100 for versatility and it has technical advantages to its image (if muddily tonality in the shadows in SLOG2 and an obnoxious interface). It's a true "cinema camera" meant to be built out as such and offering great functionality in most respects once the kinks (unreliable timecode sync, weird battery glitches, awkward interface) are worked out and accessories built up appropriately. It is also three times the price, four or five times fully outfitted.

Pulling focus comes down to your AC and your own techniques if you don't have one on a given shoot. I have no problem with geared lenses and a good small follow focus such as the FF1; I would do better with a cinema zoom, sure, but good ones start at $20K (whereas an FF1 is pretty cheap!) and there are good EF-mount cinema lenses. If we were looking at best kit under $50,000 I would not recommend a C100, but I would have trouble putting together an F5 kit that's price-competitive with the FS100/AF100/C100, beyond which I'm just let down by the F5. It has not met my expectations... better than an Epic but nowhere near an Alexa as rumored.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed by the raw image of the F5 it seems to me 'proper' ie good enough for anything. For more down to earth shooting I think HFR* offer something and the punch in too - huge things over the C300 which I consider to be the same price - lots of money.

As for F5 minor quirks - sure - even the HF jack position on the F5 could have been placed better by using a blindfold person throwing darts at the camera im sure it has more 'quirks' which are really not acceptable on a 'grown up' camera, personally I was impressed by the F5 enough.. to buy a used F3. So not very. Overall I think 'brick' (F5) is a better form than 'christmas tree' (C300). Ive said multiple times I think the C100 is sweet - cheap - big sensor - XLR - ND - OK image.

Alaska mentions the low 'buy in' of large sensor shooting. Yep a solo op can afford the cam but can they work it under commercial pressure; lens changes, focus issues whatever? To me this is a challenging question. I really cant shoot solo S35 without everything being on my side, decent monitor, tactile focus. Sure I can do non critical B-roll but a tight head interview with a stressed exec - who will do it only once - I feel I need these 'aids' to be confident not to walk away with his ears sharp and eyes muzzy.

I think for the solo shooter there can be a good argument for just using an EX1 (pmw200 etc or the canon eqiv) for the money shots and maybe picking up some art B-roll with a large chip cam when the pressure is off- 35/2 and Nex5n or T2i?

I have certainly missed actuality shots with my FS100 that I would of got with my EX1 (which was in the van!) - That was working under a director that wanted large chip look, but also expected me to grab stuff in a manner that a 1/3 or 2/3 zoom camera op would have been able to. Effectively the pros and cons of the new camera style were not understood by the director.

And that is it. Picking the right tool for ones own job - to serve your clients is probably something that only you can come to, which is why I suggest the the OP should actually hang out with some operators to aid her choice.

Ive been on my own long journey trying to shoot solo S35, D90, 5d2, 7d, FS100, F3, canon glass, tonkina glass, sony kit zoom, and ended with the shocking, to me, conclusion that some (carefully selected) thrift store lenses served me best. Camera? Im still not that happy, but at least don't carry any debts or lease payments that owning a 300 or F5 would have implied.

Today I guess the C100 or a used F3+Shuttle are sweetest, the former is more agile, the second more appropriate for pushing ones cinematography to a new place. Also I think an EX1+DSLR/NEX5 is a good combo.

I blogged on my choice here BTW

S

*hfr offers two things..
-directors love it (right now)
-I find I can often handhold Broll at 50 and get nice cutaways that are smooth and done without sticks or rigging.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
I'm impressed by the raw image of the F5 it seems to me 'proper' ie good enough for anything. For more down to earth shooting I think HFR* offer something and the punch in too - huge things over the C300 which I consider to be the same price - lots of money.

As for F5 minor quirks - sure - even the HF jack position on the F5 could have been placed better by using a blindfold person throwing darts at the camera im sure it has more 'quirks' which are really not acceptable on a 'grown up' camera, personally I was impressed by the F5 enough.. to buy a used F3. So not very. Overall I think 'brick' (F5) is a better form than 'christmas tree' (C300). Ive said multiple times I think the C100 is sweet - cheap - big sensor - XLR - ND - OK image.

Alaska mentions the low 'buy in' of large sensor shooting. Yep a solo op can afford the cam but can they work it under commercial pressure; lens changes, focus issues whatever? To me this is a challenging question. I really cant shoot solo S35 without everything being on my side, decent monitor, tactile focus. Sure I can do non critical B-roll but a tight head interview with a stressed exec - who will do it only once - I feel I need these 'aids' to be confident not to walk away with his ears sharp and eyes muzzy.

I think for the solo shooter there can be a good argument for just using an EX1 (pmw200 etc or the canon eqiv) for the money shots and maybe picking up some art B-roll with a large chip cam when the pressure is off- 35/2 and Nex5n or T2i?

I have certainly missed actuality shots with my FS100 that I would of got with my EX1 (which was in the van!) - That was working under a director that wanted large chip look, but also expected me to grab stuff in a manner that a 1/3 or 2/3 zoom camera op would have been able to. Effectively the pros and cons of the new camera style were not understood by the director.

And that is it. Picking the right tool for ones own job - to serve your clients is probably something that only you can come to, which is why I suggest the the OP should actually hang out with some operators to aid her choice.

Ive been on my own long journey trying to shoot solo S35, D90, 5d2, 7d, FS100, F3, canon glass, tonkina glass, sony kit zoom, and ended with the shocking, to me, conclusion that some (carefully selected) thrift store lenses served me best. Camera? Im still not that happy, but at least don't carry any debts or lease payments that owning a 300 or F5 would have implied.

Today I guess the C100 or a used F3+Shuttle are sweetest, the former is more agile, the second more appropriate for pushing ones cinematography to a new place. Also I think an EX1+DSLR/NEX5 is a good combo.

I blogged on my choice here BTW

S

*hfr offers two things..
-directors love it (right now)
-I find I can often handhold Broll at 50 and get nice cutaways that are smooth and done without sticks or rigging.
Click to expand...


With a prores recorder, the C100's image is also "good enough." I've used both the C100 and F5 extensively. The F5 has maybe a stop to a stop and a half more highlight detail (at best) but uglier looking shadows despite overall better tonality. Worse colors subjectively on the F5. It's really not that different. The difference between the F5 and Alexa is still bigger than the difference between the C100 and F5.

Is HFR really that useful for doc-style shooting?

Where can you find an F5 kit for $5,000?

Since you can't, are you recommending an F5 or an FS100? Not sure what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is that the best image for $5,000 and best dSLR style form factor in any camera are both available in the same body if you're willing to sacrifice HFR and cinema-style rigging.
 
I agree the c100 is sweet.

Im not recommending anything - beyond a cam with ND which excludes the FS100.

To some extent I consider all of these cameras 'disposable' (minimal resale value in 24months) unless they offer raw - which to me is the source of 'proper grown up' images.

I would therefore be keeping it cheap, or buying into a camera 'ecosystem' that can grow into raw and has cine glass options.

Personally 'keeping it cheap' has worked for me. The F5 just didn't quite float my boat so I bought a used F3 for about $5k.

A (new) C300 seems nuts to me as it is neither cheap nor part of a quality ecosystem.

The FS700 is a quandary as it might shine with the o7q.. or might not.

--
HFR - I find it really handy for knocking off handheld Broll


S
 
Last edited:
I dislike the F3's ergonomics but with an external recorder it is one seriously nice camera. Great price/performance ratio and a contender except for how big it is and how awkward to use if you're coming from dSLRs. But if you want a large, cinema-style rig it's great, REALLY great.
 
Yes, used RED ONE MX, used F3. Now a new C100 might be 5K according to Rick Darge. So many good choices! No excuses.
 
Policar said:
I dislike the F3's ergonomics but with an external recorder it is one seriously nice camera. Great price/performance ratio and a contender except for how big it is and how awkward to use if you're coming from dSLRs. But if you want a large, cinema-style rig it's great, REALLY great.
Click to expand...

Totally. A built F3 (not to mention a Red!) are beasts. And that is why the OP needs to match the camera to her shoot style. There are certainly jobs where I would prefer a C100 to my F3.

S
 
No, I'm still here. Been reading all these posts but they kind of got a bit off topic . . . I think I'm going to go with a new af100a. ND filters, vfr, ergonomics, have some good lenses and would need to start over with lenses for c100, a few other things I like a lot. I'm hoping that, by getting a metabones speedbooster, I will have better low light capabilities -- if anyone is still reading this post, please feel free to comment. Oh, and I forgot to mention. The C100 - as it's priced right now - will cost me $2500 more - before lenses . . . . probably a little bit of a factor, huh? And, ya know, a lot of you said it, it's mostly what you "do" with the camera isn't it and finding work arounds for the bells that you don't have access to - well, unless you had more money to spend -- then, hands down, C300. Maybe next time?
 
With the Speed Booster you will gain a stop, and it will give you S35 FOV, but you won't be able to use your micro 4/3 lenses with it. You will also need to remove the support bracket from the Speed Booster for it to fit the AF100.
 
cathstrat said:
No, I'm still here. Been reading all these posts but they kind of got a bit off topic . . . I think I'm going to go with a new af100a. ND filters, vfr, ergonomics, have some good lenses and would need to start over with lenses for c100, a few other things I like a lot. I'm hoping that, by getting a metabones speedbooster, I will have better low light capabilities -- if anyone is still reading this post, please feel free to comment. Oh, and I forgot to mention. The C100 - as it's priced right now - will cost me $2500 more - before lenses . . . . probably a little bit of a factor, huh? And, ya know, a lot of you said it, it's mostly what you "do" with the camera isn't it and finding work arounds for the bells that you don't have access to - well, unless you had more money to spend -- then, hands down, C300. Maybe next time?
Click to expand...

Hi Cat, if you really settle on the af100a, wouldn't you mind to keep us posted on it's new functions and progresses ? Personally I'm looking for getting this one too, but the lack of reviews on it (af100a, not af100) and also the not so good reviews of the af100 is really having me some second thoughts about it. So, since you're an experimented filmaker/videographer and if you're serious about getting it, some people here, including me, will be really gratefull to have your input about it.
 
if anyone is still reading this post, please feel free to comment.
Click to expand...

It really sucks that your original camera bit it.....but looking at your work, I see no reason to deviate from the path of shooting with the AF100.

I think the price is right & if I were you, I would grab another one. Keep us posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top