EVA1: Panasonic AU-EVA1! Announcement and latest updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Milvus and EF aperture control...

puredrifting said:
Saw that. Tough choice unless you know you will only use them on Canon Cameras or something like the EVA1 that will electronically control the iris.
Click to expand...

True - I think this must lend to some of the overlooking. For me though, it also has benefits: electronically controller aperture can have some real benefits (recording metadata on f/stop, ability to monitor on screen the f/stop, and quicker, easier, more accurate changing of aperture. The EF mount has become so ubiquitous, and I really like working with native lenses, I guess I haven't thought this would be much of a use case problem. I can't see myself ever switching to Nikon systems, or cameras taking up a Nikon mount. For Sony e-mount and MFT, the EF to E mount/MFT adaptors are active. Canon is all EF mount and will be. Panasonic has gone EF mount on all their pro offerings. And BMD has EF mount.

This really only leaves the inability to work the Milvus on a PL mount system (please correct me if I am overlooking something here!), which isn't too big of a deal for me, especially since if I am working on a PL mount I will almost certainly be using actual CinePrimes...? Everywhere else outside of this, the active electronic EF aperture seems like more a pro than a con (at least to me!)
 
filmguy123 said:
Re: Milvus and EF aperture control...



True - I think this must lend to some of the overlooking. For me though, it also has benefits: electronically controller aperture can have some real benefits (recording metadata on f/stop, ability to monitor on screen the f/stop, and quicker, easier, more accurate changing of aperture. The EF mount has become so ubiquitous, and I really like working with native lenses, I guess I haven't thought this would be much of a use case problem. I can't see myself ever switching to Nikon systems, or cameras taking up a Nikon mount. For Sony e-mount and MFT, the EF to E mount/MFT adaptors are active. Canon is all EF mount and will be. Panasonic has gone EF mount on all their pro offerings. And BMD has EF mount.

This really only leaves the inability to work the Milvus on a PL mount system (please correct me if I am overlooking something here!), which isn't too big of a deal for me, especially since if I am working on a PL mount I will almost certainly be using actual CinePrimes...? Everywhere else outside of this, the active electronic EF aperture seems like more a pro than a con (at least to me!)
Click to expand...

I agree, I have Canon cameras and will possibly pick up an EVA 1 so not a huge factor for me. But lenses are "forever" so just trying to think about situations where having iris control externally could be important in the future. Right now EF is becoming the industry standard in lower end cameras and even some upper end but in ten years? Who knows?
 
filmguy123 said:
Re: Milvus and EF aperture control...



True - I think this must lend to some of the overlooking. For me though, it also has benefits: electronically controller aperture can have some real benefits (recording metadata on f/stop, ability to monitor on screen the f/stop, and quicker, easier, more accurate changing of aperture.
Click to expand...

Electronic aperture control on a video camera is horrible. Like typing with chopsticks. I have metadata and on-screen info of f/T-stop from my manual Canon Cine primes and 17-120. AND adjusting a fully manual aperture by hand is most definitely quicker, easier and more accurate(presuming you are next to the camera and this isn't a jib or other remote situation).
 
puredrifting said:
I agree, I have Canon cameras and will possibly pick up an EVA 1 so not a huge factor for me. But lenses are "forever" so just trying to think about situations where having iris control externally could be important in the future. Right now EF is becoming the industry standard in lower end cameras and even some upper end but in ten years? Who knows?
Click to expand...

I don't think the trend in contemporary camera design is leaning towards less electronic control.
 
Networker said:
I don't think the trend in contemporary camera design is leaning towards less electronic control.
Click to expand...

Do many PL mount lenses and cameras communicate electronically? I agree with what you say but trends in our business are kind of unpredictable, who would have thought a $7,500.00 mainstream camera besides BMD would be coming out with internal RAW recording? At least with Nikon mount, you can always manually set the iris. With EF dedicated lenses, you can with a dedicated EF mount camera with electronic control. When I look at the Milvus today though, for a full set, if I am going to drop $10k, it would be a difficult decision for me. Of course, I can use a Nikon to EF adapter and have the manual iris control or I could buy EF native mount with no external iris control. Which would you buy today if you were spending $10k or so?
 
puredrifting said:
Do many PL mount lenses and cameras communicate electronically? I agree with what you say but trends in our business are kind of unpredictable, who would have thought a $7,500.00 mainstream camera besides BMD would be coming out with internal RAW recording? At least with Nikon mount, you can always manually set the iris. With EF dedicated lenses, you can with a dedicated EF mount camera with electronic control. When I look at the Milvus today though, for a full set, if I am going to drop $10k, it would be a difficult decision for me. Of course, I can use a Nikon to EF adapter and have the manual iris control or I could buy EF native mount with no external iris control. Which would you buy today if you were spending $10k or so?
Click to expand...

Short answer: It depends. A lot of "newer" PL mount glass has Cooke or Arri connections to communicate with cameras through the PL mount, that are capable, to transfer focus and iris data, and zoom if applicable. My Canon 17-120 has communication/data and power(and aperture control) through the PL mount on my F55. It's great. I don't have to plug a cable into the camera or power tap or anything else. Just mount the lens and make sure the camera is set to "C" in the lens section and away you go. It even allows me to use one of the programable buttons on the lens to assign a camera control shortcut. In the lens menu, I assigned shuttle shot(to check focus) to the return button and assigned the return button function to the aux button. The F55 allows you to assign a shortcut/function to certain lenses return buttons, so I can just hit that aux button on my lens and flip back and forth between "real time" shooting and slow-mo without getting into the menu, quick menu or even moving my hands off of the lens.
 
puredrifting said:
Do many PL mount lenses and cameras communicate electronically? I agree with what you say but trends in our business are kind of unpredictable, who would have thought a $7,500.00 mainstream camera besides BMD would be coming out with internal RAW recording? At least with Nikon mount, you can always manually set the iris. With EF dedicated lenses, you can with a dedicated EF mount camera with electronic control. When I look at the Milvus today though, for a full set, if I am going to drop $10k, it would be a difficult decision for me. Of course, I can use a Nikon to EF adapter and have the manual iris control or I could buy EF native mount with no external iris control. Which would you buy today if you were spending $10k or so?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be; my argument is that you can always use a manual lens on an electronic camera. I can use the Canon Cine Prime series on my C100. They have all manual control. So as long as that is the case, no camera manufacturer is going to remove the electronic iris control. That feature is really cheap to put in and even cheaper to just keep in. The trend is to add (more) electronic features to the new cameras while keeping what is already there. Accordingly, I don't see any future problems with having an electronic iris lens, as I don't see the feature disappearing from the cameras that already got it, and I see it being added to the ones that doesn't when they are being upgraded/replaced.

But, let me add, this is my opinion only. I have no clearer view of the future than you do, so it's possible I'm out to lunch on this one.
 
Networker said:
Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be; my argument is that you can always use a manual lens on an electronic camera. I can use the Canon Cine Prime series on my C100. They have all manual control. So as long as that is the case, no camera manufacturer is going to remove the electronic iris control. That feature is really cheap to put in and even cheaper to just keep in. The trend is to add (more) electronic features to the new cameras while keeping what is already there. Accordingly, I don't see any future problems with having an electronic iris lens, as I don't see the feature disappearing from the cameras that already got it, and I see it being added to the ones that doesn't when they are being upgraded/replaced.

But, let me add, this is my opinion only. I have no clearer view of the future than you do, so it's possible I'm out to lunch on this one.
Click to expand...

I get it. But you still didn't answer, if you were dropping $10k or more on a nice set of primes like the Milvus or something even nicer today, would you buy EF mount or Nikon or E-mount or ? It doesn't really matter to me because if spend any money on lenses this year, it will be the Canon CNe Servo 18-80 T4.4. But just curious, if I was buying a set of primes today and mainly using lower end cameras like the C200 and EVA1, I guess I would buy EF? I think?
 
puredrifting said:
I get it. But you still didn't answer, if you were dropping $10k or more on a nice set of primes like the Milvus or something even nicer today, would you buy EF mount or Nikon or E-mount or ? It doesn't really matter to me because if spend any money on lenses this year, it will be the Canon CNe Servo 18-80 T4.4. But just curious, if I was buying a set of primes today and mainly using lower end cameras like the C200 and EVA1, I guess I would buy EF? I think?
Click to expand...

I'd stick with the EF mount. Looks to me like pretty much everybody is offering it and the selection of lenses is such that you can find something for pretty much any purpose. I looked at the Milvus line and I wouldn't have any problem investing in those. Then again, electronic iris control works for me and my workflow, I'm used to it, and I like it. Others may not.
 
Networker said:
I'd stick with the EF mount. Looks to me like pretty much everybody is offering it and the selection of lenses is such that you can find something for pretty much any purpose. I looked at the Milvus line and I wouldn't have any problem investing in those. Then again, electronic iris control works for me and my workflow, I'm used to it, and I like it. Others may not.
Click to expand...

Thanks Otto!
 
I, too, would purchase in Canon EF mount, because it has become the de facto standard for non-PL mount cameras. However, at this point I wouldn't purchase ANY lens that doesn't have autofocus motors built in. Cameras and AF technologies are only going to get more advanced in the next few years, and manual-only lenses will get left in the dust. If you're working on a set with an AC, then by all means, rent whichever manual focus prime and zoom lenses best fit the project. But for owning? I'm only buying lenses that can do autofocus from now on. It's too valuable an asset to ignore when plunking down thousands of dollars. I'm betting that manual-only lenses will soon become as niche as uncoated anamorphic vintage primes are today.
 
I think cameras that have electronic ND (preferably with auto ability) are far more usable than messing with an aperture ring on lens or on camera. This is the killer feature of the FS5 and FS7II. If they could just address the weaknesses of the FS5... /sigh/
 
Jaime Valles said:
I, too, would purchase in Canon EF mount, because it has become the de facto standard for non-PL mount cameras. However, at this point I wouldn't purchase ANY lens that doesn't have autofocus motors built in. Cameras and AF technologies are only going to get more advanced in the next few years, and manual-only lenses will get left in the dust. If you're working on a set with an AC, then by all means, rent whichever manual focus prime and zoom lenses best fit the project. But for owning? I'm only buying lenses that can do autofocus from now on. It's too valuable an asset to ignore when plunking down thousands of dollars. I'm betting that manual-only lenses will soon become as niche as uncoated anamorphic vintage primes are today.
Click to expand...

Kind of weird that DPAF has been out for a few years now and yet nobody else seems to be making a stab at doing something as good or better. I can personally say that my two factors that make me buy Canon cameras are the warm, flattering skin tones and DPAF. If you are making high end cinema cameras, sure, there will be an AC or two on remote FF, but for sub $10k cameras, DPAF or something to compete with it would seem to be a logical step. I am sure Canon holds patents for the process but there are more than one way to skin a cat.
 
puredrifting said:
Kind of weird that DPAF has been out for a few years now and yet nobody else seems to be making a stab at doing something as good or better...
Click to expand...
Sony A9 AF system (allegedly ... or, at least, according to a bunch of reviewers on YouTube) matches and/or beats Canon 1D XII and Nikon D5.

But it's a video crippled camera. Could Sony release something in the C200 range with a similar quality auto-focus and internal X-OCN? Sure, right when 5DMKIV will have a video features list comparable to A7RII.
 
puredrifting said:
Kind of weird that DPAF has been out for a few years now and yet nobody else seems to be making a stab at doing something as good or better. I can personally say that my two factors that make me buy Canon cameras are the warm, flattering skin tones and DPAF. If you are making high end cinema cameras, sure, there will be an AC or two on remote FF, but for sub $10k cameras, DPAF or something to compete with it would seem to be a logical step. I am sure Canon holds patents for the process but there are more than one way to skin a cat.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Autofocus like Canon's implementation in the C200 is the future for most video production. I suspect Sony, Panasonic, RED and even ARRI will jump in very, very soon.

DLD said:
Sony A9 AF system (allegedly ... or, at least, according to a bunch of reviewers on YouTube) matches and/or beats Canon 1D XII and Nikon D5.

But it's a video crippled camera. Could Sony release something in the C200 range with a similar quality auto-focus and internal X-OCN? Sure, right when 5DMKIV will have a video features list comparable to A7RII.
Click to expand...

Sony's AF is quite good, but Canon's DPAF combined with a touchscreen is in a whole other league when it comes to shooting video. For stills photography, it may well be better than Canon & Nikon.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Indeed. Autofocus like Canon's implementation in the C200 is the future for most video production. I suspect Sony, Panasonic, RED and even ARRI will jump in very, very soon...
Click to expand...
There's then a need not only for a universal mounting but the universal everything. Which won't happen.

Sony's AF is quite good, but Canon's DPAF combined with a touchscreen is in a whole other league when it comes to shooting video. For stills photography, it may well be better than Canon & Nikon.
Click to expand...

If Ryan reads this, he can make an additional comment.

 
Once you get used to parfocal zooms it's extremely hard to work with any varifocal lens.

I'm sure Canon's AF system is useful for some applications, but how would anyone use the Touchscreen when working handheld?
 
Jaime Valles said:
I, too, would purchase in Canon EF mount, because it has become the de facto standard for non-PL mount cameras. However, at this point I wouldn't purchase ANY lens that doesn't have autofocus motors built in.
Click to expand...

Meh, all for the future of quality AF but no lens without AF built in? I *love* buttery smooth manual focus rings and even with the tech, there's an art form with a perceptible difference in manually pulled shots. I will definitely want AF capable lenses moving forward, but I also definitely want high quality lenses built for manual. I find most of the lenses with good AF don't have great focus rings and no way I would compromise quality focus rings today for the promise of eventual AF (which I have no doubt will come, maybe even soon, but still!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top