Will 4/3 replace 2/3?
- Thread starter Bucknfl
- Start date
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Not gonna happen......trust me, I'd LOVE it if it did and buy one in a heartbeat, but how many
FAST 'bright' zoom lenses with that type of zoom do you see out there?
olof
DVXuser Sponsor
Personally I want a 1/2 or 2/3 chip camera as well as a 4/3 or similar. I currently have the AF100 and 2 EXcams.
They are for different purposes. And frankly I think the market for ENG style (small chip) cameras is and will be bigger for the foreseeable future.
I think in a few years we will see cameras where you can choose how to use the imager. Small for great DOF and large for SDOF. Sometimes deep focus is very desirable even in motion pictures. Take a good look at Citizen Cane sometime. All SDOF is a current craze.
I am not saying SDOF is bad, it is just one style, and a little over used at the moment. I love my AF100, what is great other than SDOF are the lenses it can use. But I also love my EXcams for ENG style shooting. Like sports where it is hard to nail focus on the run. The AF100 is more for controlled shooting environments in my mind anyway.
They are for different purposes. And frankly I think the market for ENG style (small chip) cameras is and will be bigger for the foreseeable future.
I think in a few years we will see cameras where you can choose how to use the imager. Small for great DOF and large for SDOF. Sometimes deep focus is very desirable even in motion pictures. Take a good look at Citizen Cane sometime. All SDOF is a current craze.
I am not saying SDOF is bad, it is just one style, and a little over used at the moment. I love my AF100, what is great other than SDOF are the lenses it can use. But I also love my EXcams for ENG style shooting. Like sports where it is hard to nail focus on the run. The AF100 is more for controlled shooting environments in my mind anyway.
A 4/3 14-140mm/f2.8 lens with a servo zoom would be monstrous (10-15 pounds) and ridiculously expensive (40-60k). Compare with Angenieux Optimos or Arri/Fujinon Allura. It's a good bet it'll never come into existence. For sure not for a 5k camera.
2/3 standard is well and not going anywhere. The zoom lenses here are managable in size although still expensive. A good 12x servo zoom at f1.7 can be 30k.
TV production in docu/ENG/reality/entertainment/sports etc. will not switch to 4/3. The shallow "cinematic" DOF is not needed there, it's actually a detriment.
TV drama--perhaps yes, will go more towards 4/3 and S35, but that's a bet as good as any other. 2/3 seems a sweet spot for HDTV production and even many drama prods prefer that to movie-like way for reasons of costs, mobility and style.
4/3 and electronic S35 are of interest to the big screen/big budget drama, but there the likes of Alexa (S35) will definitely be preferred.
Anybody who bets that the really shallow "cinematic" depth of field is the one killer feature for any camera stands to be sorely disappointed. Now, if camera/lens were built that shoot everything in focus, and high quality selective DOF was possible to introduce in the post...well, that WOULD be the killer feature.
Until then a set of f2 Zuikos (14-35, 35-100 and 150mm) are more likely to give you the desired "only-left-eye-sharp" effect than a vaporware purpose-built 14-140/f2.8.
PS. At cinematography.com one can listen to the people who actually shoot those dramas, eg here:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=49455
"But I'm definitely with you that it's just silly to write-off or dismiss ENG design philosophy as somehow "inferior" to cine design when it has some real practical advantages (which is one of the reasons I think that Lisa Weigand switched "Detroit 187" from the Red One to the Panasonic 3700 when she took over, being easier to shoot that show in a handheld doc style with ENG cameras and lenses..." (David Mullen ASC)
2/3 standard is well and not going anywhere. The zoom lenses here are managable in size although still expensive. A good 12x servo zoom at f1.7 can be 30k.
TV production in docu/ENG/reality/entertainment/sports etc. will not switch to 4/3. The shallow "cinematic" DOF is not needed there, it's actually a detriment.
TV drama--perhaps yes, will go more towards 4/3 and S35, but that's a bet as good as any other. 2/3 seems a sweet spot for HDTV production and even many drama prods prefer that to movie-like way for reasons of costs, mobility and style.
4/3 and electronic S35 are of interest to the big screen/big budget drama, but there the likes of Alexa (S35) will definitely be preferred.
Anybody who bets that the really shallow "cinematic" depth of field is the one killer feature for any camera stands to be sorely disappointed. Now, if camera/lens were built that shoot everything in focus, and high quality selective DOF was possible to introduce in the post...well, that WOULD be the killer feature.
Until then a set of f2 Zuikos (14-35, 35-100 and 150mm) are more likely to give you the desired "only-left-eye-sharp" effect than a vaporware purpose-built 14-140/f2.8.
PS. At cinematography.com one can listen to the people who actually shoot those dramas, eg here:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=49455
"But I'm definitely with you that it's just silly to write-off or dismiss ENG design philosophy as somehow "inferior" to cine design when it has some real practical advantages (which is one of the reasons I think that Lisa Weigand switched "Detroit 187" from the Red One to the Panasonic 3700 when she took over, being easier to shoot that show in a handheld doc style with ENG cameras and lenses..." (David Mullen ASC)
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
I think the 4/3 is a good middle ground b/w 2/3 and Full Frame sensors. And I do hope panasonic comes with more easily usable lenses. With regards to the current craze, it was actually preceded by sad looking video camera with rather small sensors, because of the technology limits (and the price of the upper limits), all that is happening now is simply a return to the previous 80 years of cinema look with both Deep DOF and SDOF.
Developing a camera than can produce both looks is what users will want in the long run, and so you're right about the choice of how to use the imager. But no matter what SDOF gives a dimension to your image, allows the director to bring the subject and the subject only in focus if you need, and of course it doesn't look bad at all! That SDOF might simply be in our genes since that's the way our eyes work.
Let's just hope that such choices come sooner than later, and I would believe that we're already able technology wise. I just wish there was a Steve Job (from a decade ago) of the camera industry.
Nityananda_SCSMath
Active member
Well we don't necessarily need a 14-140 2.8 lens with servo zoom, how about a 14-50 f/2.8 and a 50-150 f/2.8, with full video-style autofocus lik the Panasonic 14-140mm? Those lenses wouldn't be too expensive or large, I mean the Zuiko 4/3 14-35 and 35-100 f/2.0 lenses are only 2lbs and 3.5lbs, respectivly, and they are a full stop faster then f/2.8!
So I think a Panasonic video-style autofocus 14-50mm f/2.8 and a 50-150mm f/2.8 for about $2000 each and about 2lbs and 3lbs each is pretty realistic.
That isn't the same thing as having your whole zoom range in one lens, but two lenses isn't so bad. I would be totally into that.
Alternatively I bet they could make something like a 14-100mm at f3.5 constant in one lens that wouldn't be COMPLETELY monstrous. And that would be pretty killer too.
The micro 4/3 mount/sensor really does make making a lens much lighter and cheaper then a full frame camera, I think these lenses are completely within the realm of physics while still being doable financially.
The only issue is the R&D time + money in developing the lens compared to the demand/amount of people using micro 4/3 products that will pay $2000+ for a relatively big, heavy lens. Not a huge market really, just AF100 owners and the richer of the GH2'ers....
So I think a Panasonic video-style autofocus 14-50mm f/2.8 and a 50-150mm f/2.8 for about $2000 each and about 2lbs and 3lbs each is pretty realistic.
That isn't the same thing as having your whole zoom range in one lens, but two lenses isn't so bad. I would be totally into that.
Alternatively I bet they could make something like a 14-100mm at f3.5 constant in one lens that wouldn't be COMPLETELY monstrous. And that would be pretty killer too.
The micro 4/3 mount/sensor really does make making a lens much lighter and cheaper then a full frame camera, I think these lenses are completely within the realm of physics while still being doable financially.
The only issue is the R&D time + money in developing the lens compared to the demand/amount of people using micro 4/3 products that will pay $2000+ for a relatively big, heavy lens. Not a huge market really, just AF100 owners and the richer of the GH2'ers....
For me 2/3" is the sweet spot format for reasonable creative flexibility and great choices of fast broadrange zooms that aren't too big or heavy.
M4/3 is a very young format though. The AF-100 should be popular enough and sell well enough that there will be some decent zoom options from Canon and Fuji within a couple of years. Expect them to be rather expensive though.
M4/3 is a very young format though. The AF-100 should be popular enough and sell well enough that there will be some decent zoom options from Canon and Fuji within a couple of years. Expect them to be rather expensive though.
wbamb83392
Member
I built a 20-200 f2.3 lens for micro 4/3 format and it weighs 5.5lbs. 1080p on a 4/3 sensor is not very demanding in terms of sharpness, which makes a lens much cheaper to manufacture. Fujinon sold the raw lens for $2000 to the CCTV market, so a reasonably priced fast 10x zoom is not outside the realm of possibility. However, pro gear has low production which is probably the reason for the ridiculous prices.
With regards to the future of 2/3, I think the 2/3" 3 chip camera will be the design of choice for high speed cameras and some scientific applications but will fall out of favor for most video work. High dynamic range will probably be the next "megapixel race" and there might be some 2/3" 2 chip cameras to efficiently do double exposures at high frame rates. If HDR takes off, complex zoom lenses will have too many flare and ghosting issues. Instead of a 2/3 3 chip sensor and a 16x zoom, the video camera of the future will probably have a single 4/3 or aps-c sensor, a simple but very sharp 4x zoom lens and a high quality 4x digital zoom to cover the same range with a lot of components borrowed from still cameras. Then, cameras will record 20 megapixel video in 3D and you'll do the framing and zooming in post. Then they'll do it in a 360 degree panorama and the camera will fly through the air by remote control. Then the xbox will become good enough to render realistic scenes in real time and people will lose interest in pictures and videos of the real world in favor of CG.
Last edited: