It's worse than that. Right now the FX9 only does 4K 60 on a super 35 sensor crop. They're promising to use more of the sensor for 83% off FF 4K 60 with future firmware.
Source: https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/hand...orders/pxw-fx9
C300: The New Canon C300 Mark III and New 25 - 250mm Zoom Lens
- Thread starter Pascal Parvex
- Start date
It's worse than that. Right now the FX9 only does 4K 60 on a super 35 sensor crop. They're promising to use more of the sensor for 83% off FF 4K 60 with future firmware.
Source: https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/hand...orders/pxw-fx9
puredrifting
Major Contributor
That weight too, is amazing. Canon's optical engineers and lens designers deserve a pat on the back, it's quite a technological achievement.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It is my opinion that this is a lens no-one will buy.
There are various 70-200 100-400 28-300 for 1/10 the price
==
This is my fav canon mid tele 780g
https://store.canon.co.uk/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-ii-usm-lens/2309C005/?nav=lenses,zoomlenses
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Oh yeah, Cinema5D and their flawless dynamic range tests which totally prove the Canon 5D has better range than the C300 Mark II. Reminds me of the time I used a scientific test to prove that a turd tastes better than a gourmet meal created by a master chef. You can't deny a scientific test.
I'm not claiming the C300 Mark III has better or worse dynamic range than the C500, but I am saying Cinema5D's dynamic range tests are a joke and not worth putting much stock in. Then again, some people like jokes.
Last edited:
AF only matters when it works with my lenses
AF only matters when it works with my lenses
So far AF on Sony FX9 only works with a few select Sony lenses. Not even all Sony lenses.
Until Sony updates firmware to work with the lenses that I need for my work, the AF on that camera isn't really applicable.
AF only matters when it works with my lenses
So far AF on Sony FX9 only works with a few select Sony lenses. Not even all Sony lenses.
Until Sony updates firmware to work with the lenses that I need for my work, the AF on that camera isn't really applicable.
Last edited:
Interesting comparison. Images posted elsewhere online with C500mk2 & C300mk3 shot side by side shows the mk3 having cleaner shadows and more DR.
Done by owner of C500mk2 with Canon demo C300mk3.
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
They were both done in S35 mode tho, not FF mode on the c500ii.
Did cinema5d compare the FF on c500ii to S35 on the c300iii?
Run&Gun
Veteran
There's a certain market segment that this lens is designed for, and the people that would rather use those still lenses are not it. I own the Canon 100-400/II and I love it. It's a great stills lens. Affordable, lots of reach, close focus and sharp, BUT it's a stills lens. I will say that it's the only stills lens I use on a video camera, but shooting video with it is a PITA. It's not parfocal, zoom and focus are flip-flopped, no manual iris, no hard stops on the focus, truncated/short focus throw, no zoom servo. These are all things that are more than just simple niceties when you shoot sports/sports related features or other "live" or event type stuff.
Canon hit it out of the park both times with the 17-120 and the 50-1000 and I'm betting this will be another one. I don't think this was a 'spec' build. This lens has been asked for, just like the others. It was designed and built with industry feedback. And what they built is nothing short of amazing.
I get it, you're looking at it from your perspective. You don't have a broadcast/network/sports background or mostly serve that market. I do. People like me and that do what we do are the biggest target market for this lens. It's obviously going to be hard to really tell the true success of this lens for a long time, because of the state of the world right now, but this lens will eventually be very in-demand.
cyvideo
Veteran
Can work with full frame but with its 1.5 x converter. So it becomes a 37.5mm with T/4.4-5.9.
Chris Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgTvnDSTCM
G
Guest
Guest
I almost never shoot wider than 25mm, and if i do, it is because someone in charge asks for it.
Also, for ENG, i’d take 25-250mm over 17-120. I’d rather switch to a wide for special effect, but if i am rocking a zoom, it is for practicality and versatility, and for me, 120mm is just not long enough for real world non-fiction shooting. Always have to reach a little further to get a shot we just can’t reach too.
The only times i am going to ultra wides, is for style. So, easy to pop on a tokina 11-16mm spray some B-roll, hell, maybe even shoot it in slomo, give the producers that hard on. They can’t get enough ultra wide slomo. Haha.
yes always the full sensor.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
CHaps lets move on from that lens.
I think some (maybe not on this thread) think it is RnG lens that will match the new camera.. that is bollox .. if it covered full frame without the extender on the C500 it would be a wonderful general purpose lens because 25-250 would be amazing on full frame.
People forgat that 25-250 on S35 is not presenting a wide to tele general purpose lens.
Yes I can see that in theatres and conference centres small sports (basket ball) it would be a good element of a multicam setup. (but why not use the 50-1000)
Just like the is a market for box lenses - that market basketball court market exists... but compared to the market for 70-200s or the like that market is miniscule.
The 17-120 and the 50-1000 both make perfect sense to me just not this one.
If they had worked on a 1.5 or doubler to build into the 17 (mk2) they would have had a total winner
I think some (maybe not on this thread) think it is RnG lens that will match the new camera.. that is bollox .. if it covered full frame without the extender on the C500 it would be a wonderful general purpose lens because 25-250 would be amazing on full frame.
People forgat that 25-250 on S35 is not presenting a wide to tele general purpose lens.
Yes I can see that in theatres and conference centres small sports (basket ball) it would be a good element of a multicam setup. (but why not use the 50-1000)
Just like the is a market for box lenses - that market basketball court market exists... but compared to the market for 70-200s or the like that market is miniscule.
The 17-120 and the 50-1000 both make perfect sense to me just not this one.
If they had worked on a 1.5 or doubler to build into the 17 (mk2) they would have had a total winner
Run&Gun
Veteran
If they had worked on a 1.5 or doubler to build into the 17 (mk2) they would have had a total winner
Now this I can agree with you on. If you could flip in an extender just like on traditional ENG lens and all of a sudden have a 180 or 240 top-end on the 17-120... Well, it may have been a catch-22 for productivity. You may not have been getting much shot, because it would have been hard for everyone to run around and work with their stiffy’s.
G
Guest
Guest
Bahaha!
G
Guest
Guest
CHaps lets move on from that lens.
I think some (maybe not on this thread) think it is RnG lens that will match the new camera.. that is bollox .. if it covered full frame without the extender on the C500 it would be a wonderful general purpose lens because 25-250 would be amazing on full frame.
People forgat that 25-250 on S35 is not presenting a wide to tele general purpose lens.
Yes I can see that in theatres and conference centres small sports (basket ball) it would be a good element of a multicam setup. (but why not use the 50-1000)
Just like the is a market for box lenses - that market basketball court market exists... but compared to the market for 70-200s or the like that market is miniscule.
The 17-120 and the 50-1000 both make perfect sense to me just not this one.
If they had worked on a 1.5 or doubler to build into the 17 (mk2) they would have had a total winner
17-120 with 1.5x does sound like a Swiss Army Knife. Getting up towards the 200mm range adds a lot of flexibility for shooting doc/eng/live events, where access and time don’t always coincide. However, i may still go for a 25-250 + 1.5x and then get an Ultra wide for getting producers off on the “Edgy sports doc” look. In all honesty, 17mm is not that wide either. 17-24mm is kind of a no-man’s land for me. Too warp for normality, and not warped enough to make anything look cool.
I know for JPR, those focal lengths are nice. Go-wide-slow-pan-establish-room. But then, if i am in that mode, i’d just be shooting 2/3”.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
We shot with that same lens off of moving boats for a lot of 2018, Canon lent us one for our docu series. Great lens, not a video lens. Fine for certain shoots, just like the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or III. But not a good fast action/sports lens at all, it trips you up, as all still lenses do, when you are really pushing your camera and yourself, trying to capture things that are quickly unfolding in front of you.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yeah, in s35 17 is not really wide in the sense that we’re used to getting from a 2/3” ENG W/A. It’s closer, but thankfully still wider, than the the back-end on a “normal” 15x/18x/22x ENG lens, which would equate to ~19-20mm in s35(Fuji 19-90 and 20-120 Cabrio’s). We’d need ~11.5mm in s35 to get the same angle of view we get from a 2/3” W/A with a 4.5mm back-end.