Where is Panasonic in this game?
- Thread starter Phil1076
- Start date
Maybe we'll all be talking about how small all of these old-camera sensors are compared to our fancy large-format cinema cameras with 4"x5" sensors and 128-bit color depth a few years down the road, capturing 5600K resolution footage to display using our sky projectors, charging everyone in the hemisphere who happens to look upward while our film is showing...
How did we ever manage to survive with those wimpy IMAX cameras?
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
You really think most experienced cinematographers want to re-program their brain from the FOV they have embedded for each cinema lens? It's hard enough to get them to let go of film.
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
ANY FF stills camera (which will pretty much always exist). It's a stills lens, I want to be able to use it for stills as well. It's still a stills lens dedicated to a certain less than FF sensor/film size. A FF lens will always work, on any (other than moving up to medium format or bigger) camera, though it's FOV may change.
I'm not planning on using it on anything - I don't buy ASP-C lenses for just the reasons you allude to.
However, the Tokina does work on the Canon Mark II (Phil Bloom in fact shows it being used in one of his videos), albeit at the "longer end" of the lenses' range. Presumably, it would work the same way on the Nikon. And again, you seem to be missing the main point, which is that ASP-C lenses can be used with some level of functionality on all interchangable large sensor video cameras. M4/s's can be used on one - the AF100.
And I'm not aware that the Tokina vignettes on the FS100 (or any of the cameras you mention).
However, the Tokina does work on the Canon Mark II (Phil Bloom in fact shows it being used in one of his videos), albeit at the "longer end" of the lenses' range. Presumably, it would work the same way on the Nikon. And again, you seem to be missing the main point, which is that ASP-C lenses can be used with some level of functionality on all interchangable large sensor video cameras. M4/s's can be used on one - the AF100.
And I'm not aware that the Tokina vignettes on the FS100 (or any of the cameras you mention).
I listed dedicated prime lenses, the Tokina 11-16mm is a great zoom for both APS-C and M4/3 formats, but it's not a prime lens.
There are advantages when using a lens designed for the format you are shooting with. The new Olympus 12mm f/2.0 and 45mm f/1.8 prime lenses are designed to be sharp at full aperture ( wide open ), and are built to produce the best possible image for the M4/3 sensor. I own a Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4, which has a fair bit of uncorrected coma at f/1.4 which softens both the contrast and resolving power of the lens. I know that the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 will easily beat my Zeiss 50mm when shooting at full aperture, which makes it tempting to buy the Olympus 45mm for the extra performance. ( the Olympus AF is also very handy when shooting stills )
And those lenses also work great with M4/3 cameras too.
But M4/3 cameras can use almost every lens on the market. So there are actually more lenses for Micro 4/3 cameras than almost any other format.
The problem is Canon EOS glass, not the cameras we are shooting with. Canon EOS glass use electronic apertures which is a problem when adapting them for other cameras. Ignore Canon EOS glass and this problem goes away. ( Lots of Nikon, Zeiss, and PL glass that is just as good as the Canon EOS glass )
What do you use to shoot wides on everything else?
True enough - but that's of little help to all those people heavily invested in EOS glass, which since it's inception has dominated the still camera lens market.
"But M4/3 cameras can use almost every lens on the market. So there are actually more lenses for Micro 4/3 cameras than almost any other format."
With adapters, that might actually be true - but again, you lose much functionally for most of those lenses. Fact is, there's no where near the amount of native glass available for the m4/3's format. If you want true full functionality across hundreds of camera models & lenses, then you're left with Nikon or Canon. If you chose m4/3, your selection in both cameras and native lenses will be severely limited when compared to either of those brands.
"And those lenses also work great with M4/3 cameras too."
Which is why the format makes some sense for camera makers, but little to lens makers - like Canon and Nikon. Panasonic obviously wanted to sell more glass then they would otherwise, thus part of the reasoning in choosing the m4/3s format. However, they may have found out that it's been more trouble then it's worth to roll out a whole new line of glass.
All of this goes towards longevity of the format - it's possible that Panasonic continues making 4/3s based cameras, but stops making glass for them - or, as is the cases currently- releases a few lenses a year.
"There are advantages when using a lens designed for the format you are shooting with. "
Of course - there are often many. But for the m4/3s buyers there still is the problem of portability and long term use of the format - you're really betting on either continuing to use only video and/or still cameras that use m4/3, or that when you go to sell the lenses that people will still want to buy them. And that is, I believe, one of the primary reasons why so many AF100 users buy Nikon glass (availability being the other big one).
I should mention again that I'm not bashing the format. It has it's advantages and may well come to be one the accepted major formats for years to come. But it has it's foibles and for some, those differences are enough to stay away.
Last edited:
So? You can use the 11-16mm Tokina on the 5d at 16mm with no vignetting. I've shot material with it. Looks great.
The Samyang 8mm you quoted is actually a fisheye. So it's a very bad comparison. For example the Sigma 8mm-16mm is rectilinear.
The Tokina 11-16mm is basically a prime. Quality wise.
The only reason Canon has dominated the DSLR video market is that it was the only game in town when Vincent LaForet introduced the concept of the Video DSLR to the world at the end of 2008.
I have owned and shot professionally with Olympus / Nikon / Canon SLRs for more than 20+ years now. ( and I've owned and used Mamiya 6x7 / Sinar 4x5 / Sinar 8x10 / ToyoField 4x5 / ToyoField 8x10 cameras too. ) I have used lots of different glass over the years.
Leica first owned the 35mm still photo market for many years until the Nikon F SLR camera came along in the 60's. In the 70's Canon became a direct competitor to Nikon in the Pro market. ( Contax / Konica / Minolta / Olympus / Pentax cameras also popped up, but mostly in the consumer markets )
In terms of dominating the 35mm SLR professional still market, I would say that Nikon has been in the game longer than any other company.
From a stills perspective, I would agree. From a video perspective, most of us are using manual lenses ( AF pretty much doesn't work for large sensor video cameras ), so other than losing out on image-stabilization ( very handy for hand-held work ), M4/3 lens adapters are a great fit when using older glass with M4/3 video cameras.
Actually, you're left with Nikon glass, as Canon EOS glass doesn't work on most other cameras.
Not when it comes to shooting with APS-C formats, as there are very few dedicated Canon / Nikon lenses made specifically for APS-C cameras. As I listed earlier, there are essentially no dedicated APS-C prime lenses on the market right now, and more Micro 4/3 primes are coming later this year.
I buy what makes sense for what I shoot, which is why I am buying Zeiss ZF ( Nikon AI-S mount ) lenses along with M4/3 lenses where they make sense. I am not stuck with any one format because of idealogical ideas, I am happy to use what ever works and does the best job at the time, which is why I've owned and used 6 different camera brands and 4 different camera formats over the past 20 years. Each brand and format had advantages, and when something lost it's usefulness I sold it to move on to the next best thing.
I expect the video/cine world will be very different 20 years from now, when our current APS-C and M4/3 cameras will be long gone like just like Super 8, 16mm film, and BetaCam formats have come and gone.
Greg Smith
Veteran
I know you didn't just say that! You sir, have been hacking into my mind or somehow come across some of my rants! Yes. I wrote to Jan and told her the same, marry the virtues of the AF100 to the HPX250.
Realistically, think about it - HPX250, no lens nothing changed. Let's say interchangeable lens, would it be more expensive or cheaper than it's current $5000 tag? In other words, as is, minus the lens - cheaper or more expensive?
I'd like to think cheaper. Say $1000K cheaper. Okay now swap out the sensor with the AF100 sensor - now what's the price? $8000?? Really??? The sensor costs $4000. I don't believe it, mate.
I think the AF??? blah-blah shouldn't cost anything more than $6000. Anything else is a rip off.
Enough already, mate. $7000??? You got gold nuggets coming out of your ears or what. Shhh. $5500-$6000 is the right price. Were I an engineer, I'd frankenstein an HPX250 and an AF100. There is no reason why with these two cameras technologies cannot be merged at the price of one. Simply drop the lens, yank out the 1/3 sensor, drop in the AF100 sensor - voila. Or even make that long 18-616mm lens available to buy for the AF200 so the zoom still functions as it were an HPX250. Now, that, I'd sell my **** and a kidney to buy.
No, no, no. Stop saying $10K.
$5500 is what it's truly worth.
The technology already exists, a merge of HPX250 and the AF100 will blow the socks off everyone at the $5K price point.
Last edited:
Hell yeah! And I thought I was nuts! Thank you, thank you! Yes, yes, flipping yes! It's all there spread across different cameras.
No more than $5500. Frankenstein the damned thing already. They're not inventing anything new.