When all is said and done, I should have just bought a DSLR...

Barry_Green said:
Regarding hyper shallow DOF: the AF100 with the Noktor and HyperPrime lenses can easily match the DOF of a 7D or other APS-C DSLRs. Not so easy to match the hyper shallow full frame look yet, but that will be easy to do when the Metabones SpeedBooster for M4/3 is available.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Speedbooster actually changes the f-stop/DoF characteristics of the taking lens so it won't give you that hyper shallow full frame look. Yes, you can use a slightly longer lens (say a 35mm f1.4 instead of a 24mm f1.4) but your DoF will still be at whatever it is set on the lens - more light will be hitting the sensor but your f-stop will not have changed (your T-stop will have changed but DoF is calculated from f-stops)
 
Rowy said:
I don't think the Speedbooster actually changes the f-stop/DoF characteristics of the taking lens so it won't give you that hyper shallow full frame look. Yes, you can use a slightly longer lens (say a 35mm f1.4 instead of a 24mm f1.4) but your DoF will still be at whatever it is set on the lens - more light will be hitting the sensor but your f-stop will not have changed (your T-stop will have changed but DoF is calculated from f-stops)
Click to expand...
Actually not true, the f-stop actually does change, along with depth of field.

A focal reducer changes the effective focal length of a lens and consequently changes the f-stop, since f-stop is just a ratio of iris opening to focal length. The resulting lens system takes on the characteristics of the faster lens it becomes - including depth of field.
 
If that's that case, that is really cool - will have to do some more reading

Looking at the only side by side picture from the white paper (vodka bottle), I'd have to say that I can't see much (any) difference to the DoF - not a very scientific test I'll admit.
 
Last edited:
Dof kind of works like this.

apart from the effects of the aparture.. the closer you get to an object the shorter the dof will be and the longer lens you have the shorter it will be.

So if you have 50mm, on fullframe you have to be close to get portrait, on half frame you have to be twice the distance to get the same frame and the DoF get cut.
 
I have finally caved in , i bought a sony A77 to film a cycling doc 18 months ago, i got it because i needed a super light kit with no accessories - A77 has a swivel screen and peaking which was great with run and gun shooting... As it is Alpha mount i bought a few lenses to go with it - tokina 11-16 Sony 16-50 f2.8 etc.

I have been really happy with the camera and feel as a DSLR it meets my needs. I got an FS700 3 months ago which i use most days now for work - great camera. I got the Lea-2 adaptor which enables me to use my Alpha lenses on the FS700 and i use the A77 as a B-cam in interviews sometimes. It's a great system but i am a bit tired of convincing clients that the A77 gets a very similar look to the 7D (all they ask for is the canon DSLR look) and there not being much support out there for Alpha mount from third parties. For example with time-lapse kit.

With the Speed booster coming out for canon to E-mount and probably never a-mount to E-mount i have decided to sell my A-mount lenses and A77 and get a set of canon mount rokinon cine T-1.5 primes with a speed booster and normal metabones canon to e-mount adapter - these two adaptors will effectively double my rokinon collection.... (am i correct with this?)

From the money i will hopefully get from selling the A77 and A-mount lenses i think i'll pick up a mark ll or three as a b-cam.

What do you think? Good move or stick with the A77 and A-mount / Lea-2 FS700 setup?

I feel like lenses last longer than cameras and with the possibility of getting a c300 or f5 laster in the year have a canon lens setup will be beneficial...

Sorry if this seems like a rant but i've been pondering a lens change for a while now and this speed booster has tipped me over the edge!!

Speed Booster article
 
swanny said:
I've never heard of someone trying to get a knocked out background for an interview with a 12mm. Reverend mentions shooting with a 50mm and says that is further away from a DSLR look, but I don't see that at all. 50mm and 85mm give a beautiful look to images from the AF100 at 1.4.
Click to expand...

But the 5d at 24mm f1.4 is truly something to behold. It's wide and shallow. THAT is a really great and cinematic look to me.

Also I'm gonna go against the curve and say that I agree with the clients. The DSLR look is also something I crave. It's something we all craved when we were working with 1/3" sensors. Those DOF-adapters weren't for nothing. That GH2 image is ok, but it does not look like the 5d.

If I was a client, I would ask for the DSLR look too. Maybe I'm ignorant? But I seriously prefer it to smaller and noisier sensor cams with silly videolike highlight roll-offs. There's a reason I switched my documentary project for a 5d from a traditional cam. There's a reason many, many more have done that eventhough it is more difficult than with a traditional cam. It's the look. And what wouldn't we do for the look?

I always felt kinda bad for people who were being led to buy that Canon XF100/300 cams or the AF100. Not because they are bad cams but because I personally feel that the look of those cams is kinda video. And eventhough we've come way forward with for example the FS700...I still prefer the 5dmarkIII to the FS700. It's funny because technically the 5d is way worse. But the fullframe aesthetic and noise free images that the 5dmarkIII gives...it's just good enough. It's a look. Not a technical preference. When I was just watching some random shots, the FS700 seemed to be better. More dynamic range, more sharper. But when the scene was lit and both cams were running... the 5d just came up with these intensely beautiful shots a bit more than the FS700.

Though The Raid did look very good. But so did Episode III too and that was shot with 2/3" cams. The less budget you have, the more you need shallow dof.
 
Last edited:
FF+24/1.4 shallowness, IMO, isn't a 'cinematic look,' but a 'Full Frame' look. It has its place, just like any other look, regardless of budget.

What wouldn't I do for a particular look? Risk missing key elements of a developing story futzing around with prime lenses, overheating, moire, unsynced sound, blown focus from poor monitoring, jello, loose or bad device connections, etc. Those are some examples of things I'd rather not do chasing a certain look. Absolutely nothing wrong with making a full frame DSLR work, and commendable when it does, but in the narrow margins within which I typically operate, it's not a sensible risk. Others may have different goals and limitations.

So in summary, no need to feel bad for us who chose 1/3", 1/2", 2/3", and 4/3" cameras for the bulk of our work... because it works fine for us.
 
mcbob said:
FF+24/1.4 shallowness, IMO, isn't a 'cinematic look,' but a 'Full Frame' look. It has its place, just like any other look, regardless of budget.

What wouldn't I do for a particular look? Risk missing key elements of a developing story futzing around with prime lenses, overheating, moire, unsynced sound, blown focus from poor monitoring, jello, loose or bad device connections, etc. Those are some examples of things I'd rather not do chasing a certain look. Absolutely nothing wrong with making a full frame DSLR work, and commendable when it does, but in the narrow margins within which I typically operate, it's not a sensible risk. Others may have different goals and limitations.

So in summary, no need to feel bad for us who chose 1/3", 1/2", 2/3", and 4/3" cameras for the bulk of our work... because it works fine for us.
Click to expand...

+1 exactly. I wonder how muich of that look is a function of artifacts anyway. That wide and shallow look is getting played out for me anyhow. It's fine locked off but it gets ridiculous pulling focus and if you're moving the camera as in cinema, it's just a royal PIA. And I don't mean just sliding the darn thing side to side to get that "cinema" look, I mean motivated camera moves. Look at the King's Speech for a beautiful example of stunning cinema with beautifully framed wides with deep focus, or Sidney Lumet's the Verdict if you need more old-timey cred.
 
Last edited:
maarek said:
But the 5d at 24mm f1.4 is truly something to behold. It's wide and shallow. THAT is a really great and cinematic look to me.

Also I'm gonna go against the curve and say that I agree with the clients. The DSLR look is also something I crave. It's something we all craved when we were working with 1/3" sensors. Those DOF-adapters weren't for nothing. That GH2 image is ok, but it does not look like the 5d.

If I was a client, I would ask for the DSLR look too. Maybe I'm ignorant? But I seriously prefer it to smaller and noisier sensor cams with silly videolike highlight roll-offs. There's a reason I switched my documentary project for a 5d from a traditional cam. There's a reason many, many more have done that eventhough it is more difficult than with a traditional cam. It's the look. And what wouldn't we do for the look?

I always felt kinda bad for people who were being led to buy that Canon XF100/300 cams or the AF100. Not because they are bad cams but because I personally feel that the look of those cams is kinda video. And eventhough we've come way forward with for example the FS700...I still prefer the 5dmarkIII to the FS700. It's funny because technically the 5d is way worse. But the fullframe aesthetic and noise free images that the 5dmarkIII gives...it's just good enough. It's a look. Not a technical preference. When I was just watching some random shots, the FS700 seemed to be better. More dynamic range, more sharper. But when the scene was lit and both cams were running... the 5d just came up with these intensely beautiful shots a bit more than the FS700.

Though The Raid did look very good. But so did Episode III too and that was shot with 2/3" cams. The less budget you have, the more you need shallow dof.
Click to expand...

Sure. Nothing wrong with that. To each his own. There are also those who prefer a Mitsubishi full of plastic hanging from it (I think the correct term is a bodykit) over a BMW M3 because they feel that is cooler and sets them apart. It sure does and sticks out like a sore thumb in mid traffic, specially if the trunk is filled with speakers running full blast. Nevermind that a BMW will outlast, be more reliable, has better handling, a better engine and is overall just a better car. It doesn't give you the DSL-err-Fast&Furious trendy (ghetto) look.
 
5D has a certain look that imo can NOT be replicated by any other camera, doesn't mean we can't get close but in all honesty if they want 5d buy it.
Here's some Music Videos shot with 5d that I personally like even if they are not perfectly correct.



 
Last edited:
nothing said:
Actually not true, the f-stop actually does change, along with depth of field.

A focal reducer changes the effective focal length of a lens and consequently changes the f-stop, since f-stop is just a ratio of iris opening to focal length. The resulting lens system takes on the characteristics of the faster lens it becomes - including depth of field.
Click to expand...

Found this on DSLR Shooter
- As with a teleconverter this change in the amount of light hitting the sensor does not equal a change in the actual depth of field. So a 24-105mm f4L lens fitted to a Sony FS700 or other NEX camera and set at f2.8 on the camera (the adapter automatically adjusts the displayed aperture with most EF lenses) would have the same amount of depth of field as a 24-105mm set at f4 on a Canon full frame camera like the 5DmkII. You would not get the equivalent look of a f2.8 lens on a full-frame body.

so there are a few oposing ideas out there - wont know until we have one in the hand.
Still planning to buy two when/if they release a M4/3 version
 
Rowy said:
You would not get the equivalent look of a f2.8 lens on a full-frame body
Click to expand...

Right.

So if you use a Full Frame f/4.0 lens with the SpeedBooster adapter on an APS-C camera ( the effective F-stop of this combo is now f/2.8 ), you would have the SAME DOF as the original f/4.0 lens on a Full Frame camera.

In other words, the SpeedBooster DOF matches what the original lens would be like without any adapter on a Full Frame camera.
 
Am I the only one who is more interested in a F-mount version of this adapter? I just can't stand shooting with anything which has not a real manual iris and focus ring.
 
OP Here. There is a certain aesthetic that the clients are asking for, the non-technical ones can't really express themselves, I had one say when I asked about the look of the video they wanted, "You know, that style where everything in the background is soft?". So I interpret that as DSLR. I can barely describe it myself but there is something about a 5D (full sensor) look that can have a dreamy, filmic quality, especially in low available light, that I haven't seen yet from the alternatives. Especially on wide.

Years ago we looked down upon wedding guys. About 4 or 5 years ago I was in a waiting room at a tape distribution company and picked up a copy of WEVA magazine (Wedding & Event Videographer Assoc). The cover story was about the new 5D and how they could expand their market to corporate, etc. Well, a lot of the top wedding guys who were still photogs from the start and had added video with cams like the Z1U, transitioned their stills to DSLR video and now they're really good. Some of the wedding videos I see aren't about the party or service, they make these gorgeous, filmic mini-docs of the couple.

So now I need to wonder, with my lenses being Nikon friendly, and the DP6 monitor needing HDMI out, and I gave my last non-video DSLR to my daughter, should I pick up a Nikon D800 for "The Look"? The problem is the word Canon has become the default request.
 
Rowy said:
...the same amount of depth of field as a 24-105mm set at f4 on a Canon full frame camera...
Click to expand...

Yet it's a much wider lens now, so if it has the same DOF as a 24-105mm but is actually a 17-75mm FOV, then that would match the DOF of the faster lens it now is.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Am I the only one who is more interested in a F-mount version of this adapter? I just can't stand shooting with anything which has not a real manual iris and focus ring.
Click to expand...

Same here but I have read they are doing that, I also read they are planning a OM to MFT version. Fantastic for me as I collect these lenses and a resolution and T/Stop bump with OMs would make these useable on more shoots and pretty nice on the BMCC. If you're not into to OM lenses, what you can take away from this (if true) is that dumb mounts are being made alongside the electronic ones and if obscure (compared to Nikon mount anyway) OMs are being adapted to MFT then it looks good for all kinds of lenses to be adapted. If they tailor make the reducer lens for each sensor they adapt to (i cant see why that's not possible) it could transform the way we view and use MFT cameras with non native lenses, 24mm 1.4 L series might just be the same on the 4/3rds with a native reducer. The thing with native M43 lenses is that they are made primarily by the lumix team for photography so will always be light/small and only fast if they are primes, which will mostly be made by olympus, and no faster than F2.8 if they are zooms (and cost a packet), this speedbooster is such a significant product, especially if they tailor make it for MFT, great sharp and cheap glass becomes great wide, bright glass.


Back on subject, we all know the AF is a great broadcast camera and most of us by now are past it having to be our only camera, if you want 5D, full frame work then grab a 5D or better yet a D800. For me the AF is too useful to sell on and I am striving at making it work cinematically, I actually think its a great learning tool for DPs as its feature packed, cropped and a challenge to get right, there is a lot more to cinematography than camera operating, wide lenses and making the background a constant smudge but saying that I do love the full frame image for certain shots, in particular wide angle shots, in our world its like a mini IMAX camera, not 65/70mm i know but just different enough from s35 and 4/3rd to be desirable and used well for a few signature shots can be a real standout, but as your only camera for everything?

By June I aim to own the BMCC, Nikon D800 and my AF100. That's a £4000 investment overall and covers all of the bases, works with all of my lenses, power, rigs, crane and lights etc and allows me to offer Broadcast, run and gun doc, RAW, 2.7K, Full Frame and all (bar the BMCC) in either compressed h.264 or in 422 prores. Everyone can be in this position if they want to. Personally I love cameras but also want to learn a RAW workflow, have full frame for photography and alternative looks in video but still have my broadcast jack of all trades AF100, the fact that I will have mastered a tricky taboo camera and can offer a range of codecs, quality and practicality to my customers is just a very nice added bonus (and the only argument my girlfriend will hear when I buy them!)

Forget the "only camera I can own thread" in a AF100 forum, its cheap enough to own alongside these other unique cameras, especially a DSLR and if for thats not the case then stop bitching about your purchase, master it or move on to something else.

They are just tools, you'd be a fool to ignore other camera formats and to lump your eggs in one basket, be that a 5D or AF100 basket.
 
nedcam said:
OP Here. There is a certain aesthetic that the clients are asking for, the non-technical ones can't really express themselves, I had one say when I asked about the look of the video they wanted, "You know, that style where everything in the background is soft?". So I interpret that as DSLR. I can barely describe it myself but there is something about a 5D (full sensor) look that can have a dreamy, filmic quality, especially in low available light, that I haven't seen yet from the alternatives. Especially on wide.

Years ago we looked down upon wedding guys. About 4 or 5 years ago I was in a waiting room at a tape distribution company and picked up a copy of WEVA magazine (Wedding & Event Videographer Assoc). The cover story was about the new 5D and how they could expand their market to corporate, etc. Well, a lot of the top wedding guys who were still photogs from the start and had added video with cams like the Z1U, transitioned their stills to DSLR video and now they're really good. Some of the wedding videos I see aren't about the party or service, they make these gorgeous, filmic mini-docs of the couple.

So now I need to wonder, with my lenses being Nikon friendly, and the DP6 monitor needing HDMI out, and I gave my last non-video DSLR to my daughter, should I pick up a Nikon D800 for "The Look"? The problem is the word Canon has become the default request.
Click to expand...

Put a piece of black tape over the Nikon logo, cage it up and just nod your head, the ones that know will only care about the full frame look and will probably appreciate the sharper image, the ones that don't....Er.....don't know
 
nothing said:
Yet it's a much wider lens now, so if it has the same DOF as a 24-105mm but is actually a 17-75mm FOV, then that would match the DOF of the faster lens it now is.
Click to expand...

I think this is right...

Basically, if it gains a wider image and a faster F/Stop then at the now 17mm it should have the same DOF characteristics and field of view on APSC as the FF camera. We would need a native MFT speedbooster to make up for our 2x crop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top