Quickie HVX + M2

jdorsey

jdorsey

Active member
FineArt.jpg


Excuse the shakes and inconsistent white balance... I just wanted to test my new 50mm 1.4 lens.

Fine Art - 11MG
Fine Art - 33MG (right click to download)
 
The lens looks great, though the extreme shallowness of the dof really bothers me. I see it a lot in student and indie films these days, where they use these adapters, but don't understand lighting, or don't have the budget for a lighting setup, so are forced to shoot wide open. I mean an f/1.4!!? Why should you ever need to shoot that wide open? The depth of field is SO shallow, it's distracting. For example the shot when she is drawing, and we see the paper, only a spot in the middle is in focus, the rest of what we are trying to look at is out of focus, because your depth of field is literally around 2". In some situations this kind of dof is useful, if a specific shot is desired, but ask any professional operator or DP, their is such thing as too shallow a depth of field.

BTW- your M2 looked great, no vignetting and good edge to edge sharpness, the lens seems great as well.
 
Thanks for your comments and helpful criticism. You see right through me--I'm a giddy first-timer with the M2. I must confess--it being my first time with the lens--I was thrilled to be able to get the extreme dof and to work under such low light (you're right again, I don't have lighting equipment).

As you suggest, I will work back from here....close the lens down and find some light.

Thanks again.
 
It dosnt really bother me because i completely understand not having the proper lights to be able to close down the lens. it still looks much better and professional than the stock HVX lens.

Read the Lust, Caution ASC article and im pretty sure the dp Rodrigo Prieto said that he shot many scenes at a T 1.3 and obviously that guy knows what hes doing so that shallow DOF can work, i would just switch it up a little here and there.
 
jdorsey, the footage looks great. don't let people force feed you rules as to what people do and don't do. no disrespect to Andrew Brinkhaus, but i happen to like your fooatge shot as is. open wide, shallow depth of field, natural light. its pretty cool lf you ask me. this is all opinion based.

I mean an f/1.4!!? Why should you ever need to shoot that wide open?

well kubrick shot like that in Barry Lyndon when he was lighting rooms with candles and that was the only available and natural light. and he's often praised for it.
 
Thanks Defcon and ReilWezie.

With every piece of equipment I add from my wish list, I learn more and can do more with what I have...It's nice to have the F/1.4 option.
 
i liked your footage too. i love the look of the m2 adapter. i see what he's saying about the shots of when she is drawing. i was 'looking' for it after i read his post though. i doubt the average person outside of filmmaking would care though.
 
I'm actually with Brinkhaus on this one. I felt the depth of field was really too shallow - to the point of being a bit distracting. I've got the same lens, and I try to shoot at around f4, as that seems to be the sweet spot for it. You can stop down from f1.4 to f4 without *that* much light loss, and the end result is a much easier image to work with, as you'll have more depth of field, making focus easier. Just my 2 cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top