New Panasonic MFT cine camera?

Mitch
Not only would a 2/3 lens cover with a doubler many have a doubler built in.
So they should work or maybe they have some baffle that would need removing?
 
morgan_moore said:
Mitch
Not only would a 2/3 lens cover with a doubler many have a doubler built in.
So they should work or maybe they have some baffle that would need removing?
Click to expand...

An individual lens may or may not have a mechanical blockage. And the internal doubler is designed to make the center of the image twice the magnification, as opposed to expanding the image to twice the size (actually four times the size). That means that the image quality may fall apart as it reaches to the outer edges of the MFT frame. Both factors are a big maybe as one would need to test individual lenses to know since they were never desiged for such use and may vary unit to unit. The good news is that a simple mechanical adaptor (no optics, relies on the internal doubler) is fairly inexpensive, so you can try it out.
 
MItch - the poor performance of this lens is due to its age and SD ness or due to some form of compensation for three chips?

Maybe a properly designed doubler would be 'cheap'

ENG lens on FS7 with glassless converter..

 
It would be nice to have a modern M43 zoom that can work at a lower light level than the 4/3 lens/camera systems.

If you're going to match the exact exposure levels and DOF of a 4/3 camera, then what is the point of going M43 in the first place? Sure, then you have the option to switch to a Nokton for interviews.

But I was kind of thinking that one of the primary benefits of a larger format was working with lower illumination levels. I was hoping there was a midway point (for the sake of keeping lens size down) between what you get with 2/3 and what you get with S35 T2.9.
 
Last edited:
That is a dream system to me - an ENG lens for actuality and a couple of .95 lenses for interviews and art on the same smallish body. MFT chip.

I think it could be highly portable.
 
Another, similar solution to the problem would be an 8K GH camera. The GH5 does extra tele conversion in 4K with an additional 1.4x crop - so, a 2.8x crop factor.

If it could do ETC in 4K with an additional 2x crop (as from 8K to 4K), you end up with the 4x crop factor of 4/3.

So you could use your ENG lens in cropped 4K (and probably get very high frame rates) and then swap to your beauty lenses and use the rest of the sensor for interviews or very dark settings, etc. Or you even have a speedbooster to bring S35+ image circles onto the M43 sensor area. By swinging lenses and adapters, you can have 1.28x, 2x, and 4x crop factors.
 
THis looks good - at 1lb five elements and designed for the job it should be better than the internal dubler.

ONe thing Im not up to speed on is the 2/3 lenses are (or are not??) landing the coloured light at different planes to function with three chips. (This would cause colour fringing on a single chip - my 'film' was abound with colour fringes amongst many abberations)

Maybe Mitch would be kind enough to chip in.
 
Combat - you touched on the hot button issue of "equivalence". You are correct and people just do not want to hear it. They want to see f2.8 on their lens. DOF is the only constant in the imaging world and it would be great if everything was re-tooled to reflect that - I just bought a 10cm DOF lens... But, it will never happen.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Combat - you touched on the hot button issue of "equivalence". You are correct and people just do not want to hear it. They want to see f2.8 on their lens. DOF is the only constant in the imaging world and it would be great if everything was re-tooled to reflect that - I just bought a 10cm DOF lens... But, it will never happen.
Click to expand...

Isn't DOF always a variable? Always dependent on FOV, imager size, focal length, subject to focal plane distance?
 
Depth of field is a product of: (1) f-stop, (2) focal length, and (3) focal distance.

Sorry, my last post was simplistic. Even accounting for f-stop, a lens for a bigger sensor would still be bigger and heavier, because of the greater focal lengths. Instead of a 7-140mm, you have a 14-280mm.

Now the interesting thing to me is that the physical diameter of the apertures would be the same. A 25mm f/2 and a 50mm f/4 both have an aperture 12.5mm in diameter. If you wanted that 50mm to also be f/2, then its aperture would have to be 25mm. That's double the diameter of the shorter lens, which is quadruple the area. That's why these lenses for larger sensors get big fast (I think). I'm not a lensmaker, and there seems to be many other variables. Some 25mm lenses are bigger than 50mm lenses, for instance.

All that to say, I think I largely agree with those who wish more was done with the 4/3 format --- not only by Panasonic but the other manufacturers. It is an open format, so more makers could have taken it up, and our lives would have been easier. Instead most continue to make their own lens mounts.
 
morgan_moore said:
THis looks good - at 1lb five elements and designed for the job it should be better than the internal dubler.

ONe thing Im not up to speed on is the 2/3 lenses are (or are not??) landing the coloured light at different planes to function with three chips. (This would cause colour fringing on a single chip - my 'film' was abound with colour fringes amongst many abberations)
Click to expand...
Yes, most B4 lenses were designed for cameras with three 2/3-inch sensors and a prism to split the incoming light into RGB wavelengths for each.

The better B4 mount optical adapters for single-chip sensors will correct for this design of the B4 lenses.

For example, IBE Optics makes B4 to single chip conversion lens adapters for both Micro 4/3 and Super 35 image circles, although they tend to be kind of expensive. The Micro 4/3 variant (model HDx2 Mark II) has a 2.2x conversion and sells for about $2500: https://www.ibe-optics.com/en/products/cine/optical-tools/converters/hdx2-mark-ii-10171

The B4 to PL mount adapter for Super 35 sensors (HDx35 Mark III) has a 2.7x conversion and goes for about $4300: https://www.abelcine.com/buy/lenses...nt-adapters/hdx35-mark-iii-b4-optical-adapter
 
puredrifting said:
Isn't DOF always a variable? Always dependent on FOV, imager size, focal length, subject to focal plane distance?
Click to expand...

I do not see it as a variable in its absolute form - usage. A FF camera with a certain f-stop lens at a certain FL & distance creates a certain amount of area in focus. Then take a different camera/lens and recreate that certain amount of area in focus. The two cameras might have different numbers and sensor sizes but the user/buyer can judge how easy for difficult it was for that camera/lens to achieve the area in focus.

Basically, f2.8 on a FF camera is not the same as f2.8 on a 1" sensor etc... One could easily see this if they were compared with the DOF number at the given aperture of f2.8 Sort of like a guide number for a flash. Very complex but as ISO improves, DOF will become pretty much the only separator between cameras, sensors and lenses.
 
davedv said:
Yes, most B4 lenses were designed for cameras with three 2/3-inch sensors and a prism to split the incoming light into RGB wavelengths for each.

The better B4 mount optical adapters for single-chip sensors will correct for this design of the B4 lenses.

For example, IBE Optics makes B4 to single chip conversion lens adapters for both Micro 4/3 and Super 35 image circles, although they tend to be kind of expensive. The Micro 4/3 variant (model HDx2 Mark II) has a 2.2x conversion and sells for about $2500: https://www.ibe-optics.com/en/products/cine/optical-tools/converters/hdx2-mark-ii-10171

The B4 to PL mount adapter for Super 35 sensors (HDx35 Mark III) has a 2.7x conversion and goes for about $4300: https://www.abelcine.com/buy/lenses...nt-adapters/hdx35-mark-iii-b4-optical-adapter
Click to expand...

The HDx35 was worth every penny I paid for it, however long ago that was, now. And I think it was even more back then. Maybe closer to $5K, if memory serves... I think at the time, the Fuji 19-90 was the only “ENG” option for s35 cams. But I think I’ve only used it a few times since getting the 17-120, several years ago.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I do not see it as a variable in its absolute form - usage. A FF camera with a certain f-stop lens at a certain FL & distance creates a certain amount of area in focus.
Click to expand...

Well, knowing the focal length and aperture is all you need to know to ascertain how much DOF it will have.

But yeah - I could see an additional figure being offered. A number that indicates how much DOF there is at maximum aperture and a fixed distance to make it easier for the buyer to compare. But...how often are people choosing between different formats anyway? If you're shopping options within the same format, it's irrelevant. And would they report the figure based on a fixed focus distance from the sensor or based on a focus distance that offers a medium shot of a person with that FOV.
 
Yes, it is more of a buyer's tool or a way to counteract some marketing. But as evidenced by Canon releasing f11 long lens primes, clean high ISOs are changing the game. Who cares if you have an f2.8 or f4 lens in terms of light gathering, DOF is kind of the only separator.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Yes, it is more of a buyer's tool or a way to counteract some marketing. But as evidenced by Canon releasing f11 long lens primes, clean high ISOs are changing the game. Who cares if you have an f2.8 or f4 lens in terms of light gathering, DOF is kind of the only separator.
Click to expand...

Eh....it depends on how clean you want your footage and also the lighting conditions you'll be shooting in. There will always be a penalty or at least a difference to pushing the ISO. Even the vaunted abilities of the A7SIII are heavily aided by noise reduction, which, of course, softens the footage.

f/11 will probably always be a daylight lens IMO. And the additional challenge is that if you're shooting stills of birds in flight, you really want to keep your shutter speed very high. I really think that the only reason they launched those lenses was because the faster variants are ungodly expensive, large, and heavy. But it just so happens that such lenses are often used in bright daylight conditions anyways.

I think people get a bit absolutist about things like - oh, now you can push the ISO so you don't need to worry about aperture. Everything is on a spectrum and there will always be a threshold for acceptability. On my S1 at ISO 51200 shooting HD 60p 1/120 f/2 on dark dance floors, there was an acceptable level of noise for the application (wedding films). But not for most narrative film standards and probably not for most documentary standards if you were shooting/displaying in 4K at large viewing sizes. I couldn't even acceptably film those scenes at f/4 or I would have stayed on my 24-105 the whole time.

But sure, it becomes easier and easier to use a slower lens.
 
ahalpert said:
Well, knowing the focal length and aperture is all you need to know to ascertain how much DOF it will have.
Click to expand...

And focal distance. If you focus the lens on something far away, the depth of field is deeper than if you focus on something up close. That's why the old cinematography depth-of-field charts included focal distance (example).

For example, if you focus on something 6' away, your DOF might be 3'. But if you focus on something 16' away, your DOF might be 10'.

Each lens has a certain focal distance where DOF is at its maximum. Some people might think it is when you set the lens to infinity, but actually it is a little bit less than infinity, and it is called the hyperfocal distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top