Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Right, so you acknowledge that photographers and videographers have different needs, but then you go off quoting your photographer friend in regards to your video needs.
No one ever said in this topic that sharper lenses on the C100 don't make a difference; they do, and no one ever said that the 24-105 is as sharp as a 24-70 II or 70-200 II. It's just that sharper lenses don't make as much of a difference as they would on a 22 megapixel still camera, and that must be taken into consideration when choosing lenses, and that photographers who have a lot of knowledge of still lenses are probably not your best guide in making lens purchases for video cameras. The Canon 24-105 is "good enough" for a lot of videographers' work, good enough meaning the client is happy, the videographer is well paid for their services, and everyone is happy, except perhaps for a photographer who misunderstands what needs videographers have and raves about their superior lenses which a lot of videographers don't need but may want.
Of course all purchases come down to budgetary choices unless one is rich or happens to have very high paying clients in relation to the cost of their gear. It's my opinion that a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a good purchase, but only after you've purchased other more important items such as good audio, cameras, lighting, etc., as the differences in image quality compared to other cheaper but good quality lenses (such as Nikons) is not as large as the benefits that you can achieve with better cameras, lighting, etc., for the same amount of money.
As an example, you could ask your photographer friend if for general purpose photography they'd rather have a Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (along with other general lenses) with flashes or a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS without flashes, and I'd guess they'd prefer to have flashes available even if it means shooting on a less sharp lens. It's all about prioritizing based on the budget you have to get the best results you can with what you can currently afford.
You also have to consider that a lot of work which goes out to Youtube gets played at a default of 480p from those who don't want to make the effort to select 1080p and often viewers dont make the image full-screen, as well as many people watching it on their phones and tablets. While a sharp 1080p image is nice, if only a small percentage of your audience is viewing it properly, then money spent on sharper lenses may again be going to waste. Whereas, say dynamic range, for example, which is better on a C100 than a 5D, is something that can be noticed by the general audiences even on a smartphone (window blown out vs. not blown out), as well as the difference between good lighting and bad lighting.
For audio I have the Scheops CMC641, Sanken CS-3e, Sanken COS-11D, Countryman B6, and Countryman B3, which is about $4500 worth of mics not including the other 10 or so cheaper mics I have. I'm not one of those cheap mic videographers you mention.
Then again, I've been using a Canon 24-105 and a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for a lot of my work, instead of superior lenses such as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, which together cost $4000. Are you suggesting my work over the past couple years would have been better if I had skipped out on the expensive mics and instead bought those expensive lenses? I can't afford everything so choices have to be made.
Last edited:
