Panasonic unveiled G1-HD...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Car3o said:
why does everyone feel the need to buy lenses?
Click to expand...

Depends on what class of lenses your talking about.

If your using 5, 10, or 20+ thousand dollar lenses, then this would be a rental.


However renting a $1000 dollar general lens makes no sense for 80% of the time. Just a few rentals over several days can add up to that.

Now renting high priced specialty lenses for a one time use on a project makes sense as well.



.
Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
 
mattsand said:
i think the point was that everybody needs to buy adapters instead, since they presumably already have lenses. anyway, i'm not sure why people feel they need to buy cameras either. :-)

/matt
Click to expand...

cause building our own would be too easy

I'm thinking about adapting my nikon primes but if I got that olympus 14-35mm I wouldn't have to swap lenses all the time. It would pay for itself in time saved on set and I'm a lazy bugger and it's faster wide than any nikon prime. It costs more than a GH1 but it's a quality chunk of big arse glass.
 
I could see if you're a photographer buying lens would make sense. But if you're using the camera for narrative filmmaking, which seems to be the case for a lot of you guys, what would be sense in buying all those lenses. If you're gonna rent em out, sure buy em. But to buy a wide just doesn't seem to make any sense when you can rent them for way less than to buy them. A 50mm would be a great buy, cause you'll use that more than any other lens. A super wide wouldn't cause it's not a common shot. So plunking down all that money on a wide doesn't make sense to me when it's cheaper to rent it for the day or weekend for that scene/shoot.
 
rental here is insane. 10% of the purchase price per day. plus the nikon primes have been appreciating in value since the D90 came out. They've been a better investment than gold....and I won't mention the stock market.
 
Car3o said:
I could see if you're a photographer buying lens would make sense. But if you're using the camera for narrative filmmaking, which seems to be the case for a lot of you guys, what would be sense in buying all those lenses. If you're gonna rent em out, sure buy em. But to buy a wide just doesn't seem to make any sense when you can rent them for way less than to buy them. A 50mm would be a great buy, cause you'll use that more than any other lens. A super wide wouldn't cause it's not a common shot. So plunking down all that money on a wide doesn't make sense to me when it's cheaper to rent it for the day or weekend for that scene/shoot.
Click to expand...

Why would you use a 50mm lens all the time? Much more, why would you use it on this Camera where it'll be longer than a 50mm?

The most commonly used Lenses are 24's and 35's... That's basically using 18's and 24's on this camera.

And wide is pretty common. In fact, it's not uncommon to have a lens wider than 16mm on set.

Now, if it makes more sense to you to rent, that's a different story. But most would own a set of lenses from the widest they could get to the most reasonable telephoto, especially if you make money shooting.
 
actually it makes more sense to own lenses and rent cameras. lenses can be used on many different cameras and they don't lose that much value over time. i've used my nikkors on the d90, f90x, fe, fm, the f's, various 35mm adapters, many c-mount film cameras since i have an adapter, and while i've yet to try it they work on the red one as well, plus they will soon work on the gh1. i completely disagree it's a good idea to own just a 50mm. if it's the standard lens for you fine, but every dp is different, so is every director, and more importantly every project, and most importantly every shot. i say get maybe three lenses, one wide, one medium and one short tele, or rely on rentals completely. owning just one forces you to tha latter anyway.

/matt
 
Kholi said:
Why would you use a 50mm lens all the time? Much more, why would you use it on this Camera where it'll be longer than a 50mm?
Click to expand...
it won't be longer than a 50mm, it will be a 50mm. when on earth did 24x36 still photography become the norm for filmmaking? it's not a rhetorical question, i'm seriously wondering. i never stopped for a second trying to figure out the equivalent focal length in stills when shot 35mm, 16mm, super 8 or any other format for that matter including video, red and so on. compared to a 50mm lens on a 16mm camera it's actually wider on the d90, why is that not as important?

/matt
 
Kholi said:
most would own a set of lenses from the widest they could get to the most reasonable telephoto, especially if you make money shooting.
Click to expand...
most dp's i know own no gear except a light meter, and if they're the geeky type maybe an hv2o or nokia video phone. i'm an exception owning a d90 as well as both 16 and super 8 cameras, and i hardly ever use them on paid gigs either.

/matt
 
kholi, im pretty sure to get 24mm field of view on the 3/4" system you would need an 11 mm lens.

the quesiton is where the hell to find that?
 
PaPa said:
kholi, im pretty sure to get 24mm field of view on the 3/4" system you would need an 11 mm lens.

the quesiton is where the hell to find that?
Click to expand...


The system would be known as 4/3 (or Four Thirds) - not 3/4".

The crop factor is x 2.0

A 24mm field of view would require a 12mm lens on a FourThirds system.
 
Lee Wilson said:
The system would be known as 4/3 (or Four Thirds) - not 3/4".

The crop factor is x 2.0

A 24mm field of view would require a 12mm lens on a FourThirds system.
Click to expand...


Ah ah. Thanks Lee. After 20 pages or so, I was really asking myself what is the crop factor on 4/3 but feeling too newbie to ask..
 
for da noobs

sensorSizes_06_cheatSheet.png
 
forgive me if i sound like an idiot.. i mostly am!.. but 25fps = pal / 24fps = ntsc... so simply by selecting either pal or ntsc in camera it should select 24 or 25fps.. the camera ( same 1 camera ) should be able to record both pal and ntsc right???
 
mattsand said:
it won't be longer than a 50mm, it will be a 50mm. when on earth did 24x36 still photography become the norm for filmmaking? it's not a rhetorical question, i'm seriously wondering. i never stopped for a second trying to figure out the equivalent focal length in stills when shot 35mm, 16mm, super 8 or any other format for that matter including video, red and so on. compared to a 50mm lens on a 16mm camera it's actually wider on the d90, why is that not as important?

/matt
Click to expand...

Okay, so when you're shooting RED right? And you have to hit 3K? when you've been shooting 4K? Sometimes it looks "off" because you've changed your FOV/DOF (COC) characeristiccs.

That's why it's a big deal to me. And that's why it's longer than what I consider a 50mm. That's me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top