FS7: So what IS the OMB ENG solution..

M

morgan_moore

Major Contributor
Much chatter on the 18-55 thread, maybe let us turn it around.

What is the best way to get a lens the can do 'an introducer, through to an ECU' under $5k and under 2.5kg

Lets call that an 18-80 at least.

It seems to me there are two options, each offering compromises.

Sony 18-110 ($3.5k ?)

-simple
-understood
-rentable to other ops
-understood performance
-talks to zoom rocker

-dont trust sony not to fall apart/jam, lock, stop talking to the camera and generally drop on in the doodo.
-coatings may scratch
-iris is not on the lens
-not true feel

2/3 Used ENG fandago creation ($2.5k?)

My casual observation is the 4k-3k crop with doubler (stopped down a bit) is the best way to use this? What do others think?

-wonky workflow
-not understood
-operator can induce errors by opening iris too wide at wrong zoom lengths

-I trust these lenses to function
-wonderful manual feel on focus iris and zoom

Speedbooster and 24-105

Is this still the king of cost/performance?

Sony 18-252 or other slow superzoom

Horrid, but needs must on occasion?

--

Overall it seems that the extra $1g spent on the sony lens is just more sensible money.

--

BTW for me I would alway have a 50 1.4 with me too probably for sit down chats and 'art'

Your thoughts gentlemen..
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
If you do ENG work with an FS7 the Sony 18-110 is a no brainer.
Click to expand...
I think so, too. But also i'm asking myself: isn't the image quality of the 18-55 MK Fuji a lot better? How about shooting handheld Event-, Run/Gun-stuff with manual iris, no IS, no autofocus? I will make some testfootage for myself the next days with my 28-135mm Nikon / "stupid" Novoflex Adapter.
Would the improved quality of an 18-55 MK Fuji be worth the lack of all the other, nice features? The range would be kind of ok for me... there is that crop-center-modus with the FS7, i could work with that.
So for me it's really a desicion between the Sony 18-110 and indeed the Fuji 18-55 MK. Weeks ago the 18-55 didn't interest me because of the lack of all that nice little helpers as IS, autofocus, no metadatas in viewfinder. But all the demos now really look good.
I know, years ago all the filmcameras had nothing like autofocus, IS etc.. But also handheld documentary often was made with the small 16mm frame, not 35mm.
At the moment i shoot with the 18-200 Sony. It's not that bad. IQ is good, IS is very good. But that d... wire focus is a pain to work with!
 
IMO 55 is not long enough for an ECU - even if you can fill the frame often you cannot physically get that close to the subject.

Clearly the Fuji is a wonderful lens for image qualities.

This OMG/ENG thing needs IMO one to accept more visual compromises in a trade off with not missing content.
 
Osslund said:
2/3 fandango? Is that using 2/3 AKA B4 lenses on the FS7?
Click to expand...

Yep various options of adapters with/without glass and using the internal Doubler of the 2/3 lens or not.

My quick tests found that the best image using a cheap no glass adapter and an old SD lens was..
-engage doubler
-stop down a little
-shoot 4k full scan
-about 70% of the image is usable which is kind of 2.5 or 3k with a great FOV range.

S
 
They may sit outside the price-range you mentioned, but I feel like the new Zeiss 21-100mm and the Fuji 20-120mm are (on paper at least, I haven't seen either in the flesh yet) the best affordable options going for single-lens run-n-gun type stuff. Proper lens mechanics, a great focal range for your run-of-the-mill interview + b-roll type piece. I'd love to have one for the occasional TV spots that I PD.

I know you mob all groan about how impossible it is to shoot anything wide with a 20-21mm lens, but all of the solo-op stuff I do, is done with a 28-80mm CZ.2 and a 21mm CP.2 for the wide stuff and even pressed right into the corner of a tiny radio recording studio, I've managed to get away with 21mm.
 
Yep Im one of the mob that moan. my personal feeling is that 75 degrees is the FOV that feels right as a minimum 'proper wide' 18mm is 66 degrees which is already a compromise. (http://www.abelcine.com/fov/)

Interestingly out in the landscape one can usually get away with less.. so these lenses would be perfect of the wilds-man or shooting from a helicopter.. exactly as shown in the zeiss promo film :)

Before I made a tedious post about 'the language' we use for choppable sequence and for example a 'non synch wide' is part of the armour where one must be back from the subject enough to not see lip movement to notice if it is in synch, the shot can then be laid over a cut in an intervew. And this means wide.

Again an 80 is kind of required to not be a jarring jump from a mid shot, 24mm mid jump cuts with a 55 shot, not with an 80 shot.

You may not like the language. But it is what a class of directors and editors expect especially those directors used to directing 2/3 operators

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Yep Im one of the mob that moan. my personal feeling is that 75 degrees is the FOV that feels right as a minimum 'proper wide' 18mm is 66 degrees which is already a compromise. (http://www.abelcine.com/fov/)

Interestingly out in the landscape one can usually get away with less.. so these lenses would be perfect of the wilds-man or shooting from a helicopter.. exactly as shown in the zeiss promo film :)

Before I made a tedious post about 'the language' we use for choppable sequence and for example a 'non synch wide' is part of the armour where one must be back from the subject enough to not see lip movement to notice if it is in synch, the shot can then be laid over a cut in an intervew. And this means wide.

Again an 80 is kind of required to not be a jarring jump from a mid shot, 24mm mid jump cuts with a 55 shot, not with an 80 shot.

You may not like the language. But it is what a class of directors and editors expect especially those directors used to directing 2/3 operators

S
Click to expand...

If you need the range and the flexibility of an eng camera and lens why not just use one? You will not be able to get that and the aesthetics's of a large sensor camera i any thinkable size-weight-price category. These "directors" need to understand that they have to evolve and adapt and plan their shoots accordingly. Maybe use a 20-120 + wide angle in a gimbal or allow a lens change or get a WA adapter.
 
Because the new language is a mix of RnG mayhem mixed with time-lapse, slomo, and 50 1.4 sit down interview work (also a must in the dark) - all graded from Slog/or another WDR codec .

Sure an F23/F800 (?) and those 2/3 primes could get this maybe.. but not cheap

Also with a 2/3 zoom you have crop mode and reach at sports maybe on the FS7

instead of a zoom the other option is to have a 'grab cam' like the XC15 for the moments when it 'kicks off'

FS7 and a slow zoom plus a couple of tiny 'art' primes brings a unique set of looks in a carry on size package.

S
 
I still don't get it to be honest. I've covered stuff like that with just one camera and a 28-85 and a lightweight 80-200 in the pocket.
 
Taking center crop into consideration the Fuji 18-55 is also an 18-110 + the 50-135 is a 50-270 add a 50 1.4 and you are done
 
morgan_moore said:
FrameFarm.. you are probably right :)

I was interested in feedback of anyone doing the 2/3 fandango?
Click to expand...

I have the IBE HDx35 adapter for my C300 and F55 so that I can use my existing 2/3" HD glass and it has been worth every penny when I've needed it. No, you're not gonna get super shallow dof(your FoV and DoF are the same as on 2/3" cam), but you get zoom ranges that do not exist with s35 glass and that gives you speed, flexibility and convenience. And in some cases a top-end(reach) that you can't attain easily or affordablly with s35. I used the adapter with my W/A zoom on my C300 to shoot two days of cycling features for network leading into the Paralympics and I would have not been able do what I did as quickly or easily without a lens that had the range of my 13x4.5. I've also used my 22x7.8 several times on my F55 for (American) football and some other stuff. The results are good, especially with good glass.

I haven't used it since I bought my 17-120, but if I needed the versatility of one of those lenses, especially my long lens, I would break it out in a heartbeat. I feel very fortunate that I have an incredible selection of glass at my disposal to use, from still lenses, broadcast HD lenses with extenders, CN-E primes and even a very nice Cine Servo zoom. The weakest link in my gear package is ME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top