SONY CineAlta PL mount primes test

That looks very good indeed!
I see you're recording prores instead of DNxHD, is there any specific reason for that?
 
Those look nice! Nicer than I thought they would. I know they are slightly cheaper than the Zeiss CP2s, although you can only buy the Sonys in a set. But I feel the CP2s have a little more punch. Maybe it's the youtube compression.

Any chances of making the original Prores file available?

By the way, as far as I know the 35,50 and 85 are the very same glass that came with the F3. Just rehoused in a metal housing.
 
The Zeisses to seem to have a bit more inherent contrast, but even if the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm were the same as the glass that came with the F3 (I don't think they are - the housing sizes are too different) that wouldn't really be a bad thing. Those original Sony's came pretty darn close to the CP.2s for most intents and purposes.

I did a comparison of the old Sonys with the CP.2s a while back, which you can check out here: http://www.dreamsmiths.com.au/zeiss-sony-comparison/

Hope it helps.
 
SJX said:
Those look nice! Nicer than I thought they would. I know they are slightly cheaper than the Zeiss CP2s, although you can only buy the Sonys in a set. But I feel the CP2s have a little more punch. Maybe it's the youtube compression.

Any chances of making the original Prores file available?

By the way, as far as I know the 35,50 and 85 are the very same glass that came with the F3. Just rehoused in a metal housing.
Click to expand...


Cp2 more punch? hahaha without a direct comparison that statement is kind of... well, pointless. The CP2 have way more CA, and completely missmatching T stops. Except for being light and well built, I've always stayed away from the CP2s, I find them optically poor for what they cost.
 
Grug said:
The Zeisses to seem to have a bit more inherent contrast, but even if the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm were the same as the glass that came with the F3 (I don't think they are - the housing sizes are too different) that wouldn't really be a bad thing. Those original Sony's came pretty darn close to the CP.2s for most intents and purposes.

I did a comparison of the old Sonys with the CP.2s a while back, which you can check out here: http://www.dreamsmiths.com.au/zeiss-sony-comparison/

Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say the original sonys were bad. I actually heard they were quite good, reason sony stuck with the same formula for the glass. The fault was only the plastic construction.


Thanks for the link. I will take a look at it later when I'm kicking back.
 
macgregor said:
Cp2 more punch? hahaha without a direct comparison that statement is kind of... well, pointless. The CP2 have way more CA, and completely missmatching T stops. Except for being light and well built, I've always stayed away from the CP2s, I find them optically poor for what they cost.
Click to expand...

Sorry mr.macgregor. I didn't mean to personally offend your camera or lenses. To me they are all just tools and I don't emotionally attach myself to any of this stuff. I was just expressing my opinion based on having shot with the CP2s and knowing how contrasty and punchy they can be and comparing it to the footage you posted based on my experience. But as you can see by Grug's post, I'm not the only one who thinks the CP2s have an edge in the contrast department.
 
SJX, go and get some CP.2's and post some examples. I do not think Macgregor is emotionally attached to his gear, he is attached to real examples and tests. The internet is full of misinformation and peoples opinions. There are far more people with opinions and input on gear than who actually own the gear or use them on a regular basis.

A good example of gear being destroyed by internet talk, Abelcine makes an excellent PL mount to B4 lens adapter. It is very expensive and I use them a lot. Any time I bring up these adapters to other camera operators and DP's, they believe you need the extender engaged. I have found the reviewers out there who made this claim, and it upsets me because I believe they have never even used the adapter. The reason the Abel adapter is so expensive is because you don't need to engage the extender, I know because I use it. Everyone else believes different because of all the talk on the net.

Sorry for the rant and to add to the off topic. SJX I do not believe you are trying to be malicious, but you don't bring your own experience or examples to your posts. Macgregor helped create a new workflow for this camera by showing his process to making the beast work. It is information like that that I needed to commit to buying an F35 of my own. Posts made by non-F35 users like yourself are what I had to sort through to get to the real information of this F35 forum.
 
Sorry Sjx that was a bit overboard, after all this is the f35 discussion board not the " f35 user board".

Macgregor are you done with Nikon on the f35? In hindsight I would of bought the older sony set as a starter lens set for the f35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top