FS7: So what IS the OMB ENG solution..

Back on topic.

This doubler engaged glass adapter seems more appealing than when I first considered it.

-doubler in lens covers full sensor
-dont know about no doubler in lens covering crop mode?
-cheapish
-can go on canon/varicam/F55, the latter two being cameras I aspire to.
-dont know if there is a MFT back for it which would be interesting on my bmc micro with no doubler engaged.. this might end up with a hilarious but super practical ultra ENG rig!

https://www.lensadaptor.com/b4-23-sony-e-mount-package
 
I have an Abacus B4-PL adaptor if your interested .. works off center crop only.. but very little light loss.. obviously no good for Fs7.. without a PL adaptor..but if your thinking F55 it will work ..
 
I wont get an F55 til they launch the F75 and used F55s are $8g, aka 2018/19 (or after NAB! ?) :)

..but at that point an E mount lens would not fit.
 
Morgan- as to your wanting of a do-all zoom and your willingness to spend money to get closer to that end, are you losing any work by your not having that do-all zoom? Are you losing work because you don't own a Canon 17-120mm?

This is mostly a rhetorical question, I suppose. Just me thinking out loud.

While the lens-swap thing is a pain, does slow one down, does cause one to miss shots, and is less than ideal- there are guys out there working regularly with that method. Their clients aren't complaining. Their phones still ring with job offers. I have been working regularly using that method. I am not getting negative feedback from clients. No client is telling me "we really like your work overall, but man, we really wish you were using an all in one zoom and not frequently performing lens swaps. Unless you obtain an all in one zoom we are going to have to hire someone else."

Maybe the question is one for the owner of the Canon 17-120mm ( I believe it was Run&Gun )- Did ownership of the lens increase your revenue? Did the lens pay for itself? It's lovely to be able to list the Canon 17-120mm on your gear list, but how many clients even look at an Owner / Op's gear list or hire because of that gear list? ( I don't even cite my gear list anyplace or, for that matter, advertise my services. ) Did ownership of the Canon 17-120mm result in an improvement to your demo reel? ( I don't have a demo reel. The point there being that it is possible to work regularly despite not having any reel, nevertheless a reel that was improved as a result of owning a do-all zoom for s35 ).

back to Morgan- Is this a need for a do-all zoom or is it really just a want of a do-all zoom?

If a prospective client is demanding a Cabrio 19-90mm or a Canon 17-120mm, you could simply rent one, could you not? Personally I have never had an instance where a client demanded such a zoom. I'm not, to my knowledge, losing any work by my not owning one. And I wouldn't gain any work by my owning one.

Ben's "zoom with your feet" method isn't a substitute for a do-all / wide to telephoto zoom. You and I are in agreement on that. And we agree that there are shoots where a do-all zoom is needed. But does Ben have a point in that one can get along just fine without that do-all OMB zoom?
 
Well I already have 10-24, 28-85(boosted) (=19 - 50 or something) and 50-300 as my standard kit, these lenses are pretty awesome. Im not (generally) in the broadcast sphere where certain kit is specced and will win/lose business.

The big broadcast show I did do they rented 4X FS7/Cn17-120s as a block deal and my FS7 sat at home not earning apart from one day when we used it as a C camera with my 400 2.8.

But the 28-85 is a serious compromise.

Yes I think it is better than a 24-105 because it is manual, it is also better than most (if not all) of the other still lens options mainly because it is manual and wonderful. Ive had or tested the usual suspects 17-55, 24-105, 17-70 nikkor, 18-250 sony and the 28-85 is the best. Did I mention I like it because it is manual.

The focus ring is butter where every electric lens; stigma, modern nikkor, canon L, not to mention EX1 just has a tiny clag before starting to pull. Really only the 17-120 (and my 35-70!) is the only other zoom lens that I felt at home with the focus action.

But is still has annoyances. The minimum focus is poor unless one engages the macro facility (which only works at 28) and the wide is not wide enough and the long not long enough.

I just cant quite do a nice tight head without harassing the subject with proximity and risking casting shadows on them if im using a light. That 50-55 zone is just wrong for a reporter, light, operator and subject - one needs one step back.. a 70-80 at least for everything to be relaxed, it is very mentally important for the subject and the shooting team.. the reason I think the new fuji is such a miss.

Even with a reporter almost physically in contact with the cam op the subjects eyeline is too off and one shoots too much of a profile and the reporter tends to bump you and upset the shot. Also not really space for a little face filling reflector if outdoors.

Also at 28 I have to move my monitor as it can appear in shot or at least the cable sometimes edges shot, the length of a TV zoom would get the front element fore of the monitor (which I place like an EVF)

Ive used the 17-120 on a shoot where it was hired for me, I like it, but cant see ownership as an option and it is significantly heavy.

So really Im looking to swap out my 28-85 and get something better.

When would I use it? On solo shooter/director shoots, the kind where I do charge for kit, but adding the 17-120 would double that fee and raise eyebrows.. especially as it would kind of not bring any new shots (in the clients head) or add to the offer in the way that a ronin or something does.

When one shoots there is a lot of physical and mental in the relationship with the kit.

Physically swapping lenses when the camera is on the shoulder (I have my lenses in 'belt kit' aka thinktank style webbing) causes a twist to the body that adds to the physical demands of the day, not to mention lost shots.

I mentally enjoy most of the FS7 - I have a nice balanced rig, luts are consistent through my DP502, HFR engages quickly as Im on 180 shutter, I use slog and have manual iris so besically dont enter the camera menu all day only noodle the WB on the toggle. All good. So most of my camera work is very fluid and allows me to concentrate on content and relationships on set. My rig jumps on to my sticks - it all works.. but for that mid zoom.

So really for $4k I think it would just make my life much much better make me a smoother operator and reduce the demands on my body.
 
Last edited:
JPNola said:
Morgan- as to your wanting of a do-all zoom and your willingness to spend money to get closer to that end, are you losing any work by your not having that do-all zoom? Are you losing work because you don't own a Canon 17-120mm?

This is mostly a rhetorical question, I suppose. Just me thinking out loud.

While the lens-swap thing is a pain, does slow one down, does cause one to miss shots, and is less than ideal- there are guys out there working regularly with that method. Their clients aren't complaining. Their phones still ring with job offers. I have been working regularly using that method. I am not getting negative feedback from clients. No client is telling me "we really like your work overall, but man, we really wish you were using an all in one zoom and not frequently performing lens swaps. Unless you obtain an all in one zoom we are going to have to hire someone else."

Maybe the question is one for the owner of the Canon 17-120mm ( I believe it was Run&Gun )- Did ownership of the lens increase your revenue? Did the lens pay for itself? It's lovely to be able to list the Canon 17-120mm on your gear list, but how many clients even look at an Owner / Op's gear list or hire because of that gear list? ( I don't even cite my gear list anyplace or, for that matter, advertise my services. ) Did ownership of the Canon 17-120mm result in an improvement to your demo reel? ( I don't have a demo reel. The point there being that it is possible to work regularly despite not having any reel, nevertheless a reel that was improved as a result of owning a do-all zoom for s35 ).

back to Morgan- Is this a need for a do-all zoom or is it really just a want of a do-all zoom?

If a prospective client is demanding a Cabrio 19-90mm or a Canon 17-120mm, you could simply rent one, could you not? Personally I have never had an instance where a client demanded such a zoom. I'm not, to my knowledge, losing any work by my not owning one. And I wouldn't gain any work by my owning one.

Ben's "zoom with your feet" method isn't a substitute for a do-all / wide to telephoto zoom. You and I are in agreement on that. And we agree that there are shoots where a do-all zoom is needed. But does Ben have a point in that one can get along just fine without that do-all OMB zoom?
Click to expand...

It's not always about "are you losing work or not?", sometimes it's, "will it allow me to work the way I want to?"

I don't have a website, so there is no place for me to list gear for potential clients to see. As far as the 17-120 paying itself off, well I just bought it in December. I told a lot of people as soon as I took delivery of it and I used it on a shoot just a few days after receiving it, had another shooter rent it a few days after that and had another call me and book me for three days specifically with it and my F55 for a studio show that was being done in the field and spec'd out with F5/55's and 17-120's. And that was in probably the first five days of having it. I think "Build it and they will come" kind of applies.

I've been kind of lucky with some of my purchases, most notably my F55 and the 17-120. I wasn't necessarily "losing" work not having them or even specifically being asked for them on a regular basis before owning them, but once I got them and put the word out, I did get work that I wouldn't have not owning them.
 
Thanks for the reply, R&G. I find it beneficial and interesting to hear how others work.

remember- when in doubt, pull out!
 
I agree with R&G.. I got the CN7 from when it very first came out.. and it'd paid for itself a few times over now.. going on the rental price.. although it has gone down in price too since I bought mine..
But yes I think it has "helped" in getting work in that its a sort of" trophy "item in my gear list if you like.. and that relates to employers thinking you know what you are doing (mistakenly or not!) because you have the money to buy that gear.. you must work alot.. you must be good.. FIRST off let me say yes I know its total BS.. but its basic phycology too..
Apart from that.. it has allowed me to work the way I want to.. from ENG camera days.. I only had zooms.. the Fuji 4.5 was pretty much bolted onto the camera.. I liked to work that way.. getting coverage as it happened .. even when I had control.. just personal style I think.. I dont want to have to change lenses or have to worry and carry them around.. and the CN7 was a bargin compared to the Cabrio 19-90.. and a better lens I felt personally..
But very heavy and I know use an easy rig for any long HH shooting..
I do get asked often what lens/camera I have..actually almost every job.. I dont know if I would not get some of these.. but mainly I just want to have the lens that allows me to shoot like i want to.. and have that confidence going into the shoot..
 
Trying to self critique.

Simply Im rejecting the CN17 due to cost and mass. Small self shoot jobs should not need such a lens and don't financially justify it. I completely understand that it has huge value on certain broadcast shows.

Zooming on foot - aka living with a 55 and getting closer - Im rejecting this as if I get closer to my subjects then I harass them, and also cause shadow issues and eyeline issues.

A simple solution is to just force myself yo stay back and shoot a looser frame. This can get the mic into shot (I like booming from below just below the chin as I feel this provides good focussed audio in challenging environments such as a 'trade show floor'). One reason to stay back and shoot a loose frame is to have enough space for graphic elements which clients want more and more.

I could set some crop marks on my monitor and hanging back with 'weak' composition, might feel more natural.

The other simple solution is to learn to live with some 'grotty' lens like the 18-200 I already own or a sigma etc. They are not too bad if you don't really pull focus in shot but let the subject drift.. or use AF (????)

Neither are appealing or natural but, I live with other compromises.
 
Last edited:
I tested the 28-135 and it was garbage for the money and while it has a constant f4 the IQ is no better than the 18-200 both have the cheap lens look and you can bet the 18-110 also does too. You can buy a Hasselblad branded 18200 if you're too embarrassed to use it in public or the power zoom version looks a lot less toy town. I used the Sony pretend Zeiss 1670 on a few shoots which has a nice range for runNgun.

I would say the 18200 lens is way beneath what should be put on the FS7 but when the work is way beneath what should be shot with the FS7 then who cares and the combo is probably better than any current Sony broadcast camera can provide anyway. The supersteadyshot is very good when you're running around at an event or you find the job ends up like an event style shoot. This crappy work doesn't deserve the Fuji or the zeiss and doesn't pay for such glassware anyway.

I discovered the best way of using decent manual glass and even primes was to manage the client expectations, upscale the work and get the number of days filming necessary so you aren't running around like a blue arse-fly worried you'll miss shot during a lens change. Failing that using decent glass like the nikkor 85 AIS f2 for talking heads or product shots lifts the 'production value' of a shoot primarily with the 18200/1670.

Latterly most work I did was using the Nikkor 2885 and primes and never felt I'd wasn't covered. I did have a 2885 on SBU and a 2885 on a novoflex and would swap over depending on whether I was inside or outside respectively.

You can beat yourself up and keep craving the £4k Cabrio or be pragmatic and make money.

p.s. clients are much more interested in grip equipment such as Ronin and Drone footage for production value than pixel peeping a nice lens. Most don't see it in my experience.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely right. Sombody has to shoot event work make sure it isn't you. And yes I'm in a shoot with the new Fuji my Otus primes dedolight hmi lighting and my mavic drone guess what everyone is excited about.


QUOTE=Nirv;1986688145]I tested the 28-135 and it was garbage for the money and while it has a constant f4 the IQ is no better than the 18-200 both have the cheap lens look and you can bet the 18-110 also does too. You can buy a Hasselblad branded 18200 if you're too embarrassed to use it in public or the power zoom version looks a lot less toy town. I used the Sony pretend Zeiss 1670 on a few shoots which has a nice range for runNgun.

I would say the 18200 lens is way beneath what should be put on the FS7 but when the work is way beneath what should be shot with the FS7 then who cares and the combo is probably better than any current Sony broadcast camera can provide anyway. The supersteadyshot is very good when you're running around at an event or you find the job ends up like an event style shoot. This crappy work doesn't deserve the Fuji or the zeiss and doesn't pay for such glassware anyway.

I discovered the best way of using decent manual glass and even primes was to manage the client expectations, upscale the work and get the number of days filming necessary so you aren't running around like a blue arse-fly worried you'll miss shot during a lens change. Failing that using decent glass like the nikkor 85 AIS f2 for talking heads or product shots lifts the 'production value' of a shoot primarily with the 18200/1670.

Latterly most work I did was using the Nikkor 2885 and primes and never felt I'd wasn't covered. I did have a 2885 on SBU and a 2885 on a novoflex and would swap over depending on whether I was inside or outside respectively.

You can beat yourself up and keep craving the £4k Cabrio or be pragmatic and make money.

p.s. clients are much more interested in grip equipment such as Ronin and Drone footage for production value than pixel peeping a nice lens. Most don't see it in my experience.[/QUOTE]
 
Not to pile on - or beat the horse - but Sam, I think managing client expectations is the key to this discussion and will very much help dictate a "solution". If you are shooting event-style, can't miss anything, capture it all type stuff, I would suggest more along the lines of Sony Z150 Panny DVX200 , etc etc. or 2/3 style shoulder mount cam or rent the 18-110 for the FS7 and be done with it. Or they pay for that Cabrio, etc.
 
markfpv said:
Not to pile on - or beat the horse - but Sam, I think managing client expectations is the key to this discussion and will very much help dictate a "solution". If you are shooting event-style, can't miss anything, capture it all type stuff, I would suggest more along the lines of Sony Z150 Panny DVX200 , etc etc. or 2/3 style shoulder mount cam or rent the 18-110 for the FS7 and be done with it. Or they pay for that Cabrio, etc.
Click to expand...

If you put the SEL 18200 PZ on the FS7 you've got basically a Sony Broadcast shoulder cam that records in 4k SLog3 XAVC-I. Even though it's a gash lens for low end run&gun or the 'right' situation it's worth having in the kitbag even if it's hardly ever used.
 
Yep all the 'do it with primes/hmi work at your own pace is great', and I love that stuff. But also covering an event.. if it is a good one.. is actually a good and challenging job. Capturing real life, not enacting it.

Real life, you get actual emotion and that is to some extent maybe why we are in this game - to be at amazing places when amazing things are happening. Even if that is only little stuff like the running events I shot for British Athletics - just kids - but they still cry/collapse/cheer when they cross the line - and they do it for a very short amount of time.

So Im not anti event. Sure Im anti doing a corporate shot list in one day that should have taken two.

Mark.. yep Im aware of the 18-110 and the concept of this thread was supposed to be.. " For actuality coverage.. Which to buy ? the 18-110 or some old 2/3in fandango?"

Im not keen on a second camera because I like the dance between getting 'the moment' and also doing some 'art' when the pace slows - all in a one person portable package. (I do have an EX1 van and sometimes grab it in an 'emergency'!)

Also AFAIK the 1in cameras are pretty compromised. the only camera in that class that interests me is the XC10/15 with the 300MB codec. BUt it is still a floppy lifeless experience to use (I only tried it at a shop)

S
 
Last edited:
B4 lens on the FS7 is yet another shoulder launch missilesque contraption for very soft <HD images.

The 18-110 is what it is, a dressed up stills lens with electronic parfocality.

Both are sub-optimal choices.
 
Have you tested/can you point me to examples of these soft images?

That would really move the chat forward.. actual experience and examples.

RnGun had that set up and bought the 17-120 but did not expand as to why..

S
 
Agreed. My favorite type of shooting is real life. True documentary. Not staged doc or "recreated" doc. And while I also do plenty of corporate, commercial work and love to compose lovely shots, capturing that moment, unrehearsed, as it happens in real time, is my drug of choice... so perhaps Nirv (even though officially retired) is right... bite the bullet & have the nasty 18200PZ as an affordable everything lens. Or now that I think of it, perhaps a Canon 28 - 300 on SB is a better pill to swallow. Stay at f4 thru the range... but have the ability to be at 2.8 on wides if you need it....
 
Im still leaning towards a 2/3 lens..

-cheaper
-goes to F5,55, vari (my next cam)

But ultimately the reason is probably that I feel that all the plastic lenses are somehow 'floppy' and do not react as fast as one thinks.

Those lost micro seconds make me want to chuck gear over a cliff; boot up, change to HFR, seems like weeks when you are watching something happen.

And dont get me started on cache record being forgotten when you exit HFR.. that just sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top