Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out

[ahalpert]

". Is it possible that users who are in that position are using the wrong tool, an interchangeable lens camera?
Something like a fixed lens, servo zoom video camera would often serve their needs better, .

Not if they want large-sensor DOF and sensitivity and the ability to switch to a different lens later. But yes, a servo would be nice.

Here's the starting and ending frames of a continuous shot crash zoom I took with the 18-270 (if there are any children in the room, you might want to cover their eyes before they see such softness):




It's both an effect and the only way to get all the coverage you need if the speaker is not going to be talking long enough for you to swing lenses.

Photographers circumvent superzooms by wielding 2 cameras with different focal length lenses attached. I could do that if I wasn't using rigs. Or maybe I'm just too weak to strap a 2nd gimbal or shoulder mount over my shoulder

 

[John Brawley]

Ted Schilowitz.

What's he up to these days?

https://www.televisionconference.com/speaker/ted-schilowitz/

JB

 

[John Brawley]

FWIW, almost all lenses are darker in the corners when fully wide open (even the best-of-the-best may have the slightest hint of vignetting), and become the brightest across once they are half a stop or a stop down. (A few stops sounds excessive.)

Sure, but...two stops ?

JB

 

[NorBro]

I've seen that much on a lot of photo lenses (only most recently), but wouldn't expect it as much with lenses that are dozens of thousands of dollars.

In reality, I've never noticed any vignetting while shooting all these years until I started watching hundreds of lens videos from the same guys testing them on white charts. 99% had dark corners wide open.

Getting into some full-frame zooms like the Tokina Vistas on S35 sensors should solve that problem. Even more options for MFT.

 

[Run&Gun]

Not if they want large-sensor DOF and sensitivity and the ability to switch to a different lens later. But yes, a servo would be nice.

Here's the starting and ending frames of a continuous shot whip zoom I took with the 18-270 (if there are any children in the room, you might want to cover their eyes before they see such softness):

View attachment 140118
View attachment 140119

It's both an effect and the only way to get all the coverage you need if the speaker is not going to be talking long enough for you to swing lenses.

Photographers circumvent superzooms by wielding 2 cameras with different focal length lenses attached. I could do that if I wasn't using rigs. Or maybe I'm just too weak to strap a 2nd gimbal or shoulder mount over my shoulder

Crash Zoom ; )

 

[puredrifting]

It's kind of funny, on the consumer stills side, anything over 7x-8x is called/considered a "super zoom" and generally kind of looked down on, because they usually ramp a lot(probably 2 stops or more) and aren't considered the highest quality, optically speaking(although I've heard good things about the new Canon RF "sz"). And in the TV world, "super zooms" are SoP and most won't even consider(buying/using) a normal/long lens below 22x today and our w/a's are at least 13x. Even in the 90's, we had 18x-22x lenses for our ENG cameras. Trying to remember when they broke the 100x plain with boxes.

I agree and I've been lucky enough to work a few of those box lenses, they are amazing. But they are also $100k to $250k and up. A lens that costs as much as a house and is almost as big can overcome those build, quality and optical limitations quite well as anyone whose ever watched
the Rose Parade or an NFL game on TV can attest to. But we're talking $800.00-$1,200.00 still lenses that are almost always quite disappointing in performance.

 

[ahalpert]

Crash Zoom ; )

Must be time for my next coffee...

 

[ahalpert]

I agree and I've been lucky enough to work a few of those box lenses, they are amazing. But they are also $100k to $250k and up. A lens that costs as much as a house and is almost as big can overcome those build, quality and optical limitations quite well as anyone whose ever watched
the Rose Parade or an NFL game on TV can attest to. But we're talking $800.00-$1,200.00 still lenses that are almost always quite disappointing in performance.

I'm sure a $100k zoom has more flaws than a $20k prime.

No one is saying that a superzoom is as beautiful as most primes. But nobody's using it just because they're lazy either (at least I'm not).

It's just a tool. It does things other lenses can't do.

And the 28-200 is only a 7x zoom anyway, which partly explains why it crushes the sony 24-240 optically.

There's also a budgetary component here. If I could buy a 24-70 and 70-200 for the same price, I would. They still wouldn't serve the same purpose. But no doubt I'm considering the 28-200 as a starter kit lens

 

[Run&Gun]

Must be time for my next coffee...

I kind of got hooked on the nitro infused coffee earlier this year. We did a shoot right before the world fell apart and the first half of the day was in a local coffee shop and they did their own nitro infused coffee. I think I had at least three, maybe four within the span of maybe two or three hours(hey, they were feeding and watering us for free, or at least the producer was paying). I regretted that several hours later at the second location.

 

[Guest]

Not if they want large-sensor DOF and sensitivity and the ability to switch to a different lens later. But yes, a servo would be nice.

Here's the starting and ending frames of a continuous shot crash zoom I took with the 18-270 (if there are any children in the room, you might want to cover their eyes before they see such softness):

View attachment 140118
View attachment 140119

It's both an effect and the only way to get all the coverage you need if the speaker is not going to be talking long enough for you to swing lenses.

Photographers circumvent superzooms by wielding 2 cameras with different focal length lenses attached. I could do that if I wasn't using rigs. Or maybe I'm just too weak to strap a 2nd gimbal or shoulder mount over my shoulder

Where's the large sensor DOF?

 

[ahalpert]

I kind of got hooked on the nitro infused coffee earlier this year. We did a shoot right before the world fell apart and the first half of the day was in a local coffee shop and they did their own nitro infused coffee. I think I had at least three, maybe four within the span of maybe two or three hours(hey, they were feeding and watering us for free, or at least the producer was paying). I regretted that several hours later at the second location.

Hmm sounds expensive. I'm hooked on the delicious price of instant coffee. My favorite brand is Whatever. Because respecting my body is costly. Besides, instant coffee tastes like how my brain feels. It tastes like ****, but you can live off it (name that movie)

 

[ahalpert]

Where's the large sensor DOF?

The focus would be deeper on a smaller sensor.

It doesn't show here, but his background is soft.



The wide angle bit had to match the f/6.3+ aperture of the telephoto side.

A full-frame lens at f/5.6 would deliver greater selective focus than this APS-C (canon 1.6x no less) f/6.3

 

[Run&Gun]

Hmm sounds expensive. I'm hooked on the delicious price of instant coffee. My favorite brand is Whatever. Because respecting my body is costly. Besides, instant coffee tastes like how my brain feels. It tastes like s*%t, but you can live off it (name that movie)

Those didn't cost me a penny. The ones at Starbucks on the other hand... Lol(and I'm not a Starbucks fan). I've only had about three or four in the last two months. I actually drink very little coffee. I like good coffee, but probably drink less coffee in a year than some people drink in a month(maybe a week). I'll binge some during the winter where I'll want one or two a day for a few days and then I'm good for a while. But I make and drink a few gallons of tea a week.

 

[Guest]

The focus would be deeper on a smaller sensor.

It doesn't show here, but his background is soft.

View attachment 140120

The wide angle bit had to match the f/6.3+ aperture of the telephoto side.

A full-frame lens at f/5.6 would deliver greater selective focus than this APS-C (canon 1.6x no less) f/6.3

Yeah, I say go for it. You know what you need. Short flange compact super zooms are sort of uncharted territory for a lot of us. And with the A7s3 sensitivity, that f5.6 might not be an issue. And looks like the whole thing will fly on the gimbal alright.

JCS was a big advocate for the gimbal all-in-one rig. It seems the way a lot of shooters are leaning. and with auto focus and better compact zoom options, it is becoming a reality. see here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?365172-The-Perfect-Camera-1-0

The most exciting thing about short flange was always seeing where that took wide lenses and longer range compact zooms.

 

[ahalpert]

A lot of people seem to have missed that the superzoom was to be a complement to a 50 1.4 on gimbal as my first choice

 

[Guest]

Ha, looks like tillhavis nearly invented the C5002 in 2018:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362432-The-Perfect-Filmmakers-Camera



The Perfect Filmmakers Camera ?

Panasonic S1 FF Sensor
Interchangeable L Mount
Internal 4K 10bit 4:2:2 Recording without crop (24-25fps minimum)
Internal 4K Raw without crop (24-25fps minimum)
Dual IS
Dual Pixel AF
2 x XLR’s
5” Daylight viewable Fully articulating touchscreen LCD
Built in Electronic ND’s 6-10 stops
2 x CFastExpress Slots
1 X SDI Input/ Output
1 x HDMI Input/ Output
1 x Timecode/Sync Multicam
1 X USBC
1 x Headphone Jack
1 x EVF (similar to Leica Visoflex EVF2, powered via hotshoe and also removable)
2 x Batteries (one in the handgrip and a second under the body of camera, hot swappable and
drawing from Handgrip first. This would allow a three battery cycle before having to replace the battery under the body or power down the camera)
1 x Locking Lemo Power Connector (rear of camera)
Wireless Control via smart device
Live Streaming
Larger than the current Canon XC15 smaller than the C200
Similar (redesigned) handgrip as XC15 with additional function buttons
6-7 User assignable function buttons
One push AF and Auto Control for run and gun situations



View attachment 133359

View attachment 133360

View attachment 133361

View attachment 133260[/QUOTE]

 

[cyvideo]

When every shot counts, imperfect shots are better than getting no shot.

Love it!

Not a wedding but Alister in Norway with the FX9 used the Sony 24-240mm. He admits not the best lens but to maximize his shooting time and avoid lens changing in the snow it delivered. All in all the footage looks more than acceptable for 95% of the shoot situations I would cover. Sure not a big fan of variable aperture lenses as you change shot size but then sometimes compromises are imposed on you by conditions you find yourself in. Sometimes bulk, size and weight being some of them.

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2020/02/fx9-footage-from-norway-2020/

Chris Young

 

[Guest]

Love it!

Not a wedding but Alister in Norway with the FX9 used the Sony 24-240mm. He admits not the best lens but to maximize his shooting time and avoid lens changing in the snow it delivered. All in all the footage looks more than acceptable for 95% of the shoot situations I would cover. Sure not a big fan of variable aperture lenses as you change shot size but then sometimes compromises are imposed on you by conditions you find yourself in. Sometimes bulk, size and weight being some of them.

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2020/02/fx9-footage-from-norway-2020/

Chris Young

So much beauty out there!

 

[DLD]

Nikon P1000 has a 125x zoom (24-3000). 1/2.3" "smartphone" sensor.

 

[Guest]

Nikon P1000 has a 125x zoom (24-3000). 1/2.3" "smartphone" sensor.

That could be the future. Especially considering how much more money goes into cell phone sensor tech. Cine large sensors just keep rehashing the same stuff with new sizes and pixel counts. Seems like most of the true break throughs are happening in the cellphone space.

(just that physics is still on the side of larger sensors)