Other: ZEISS LWZ.3 21-100mm/T.2.9-3.9 T Announced

Yes the CN7 can give me 17 -240 in HD.. there is some slight quality loss on centre crop though after de bayer.. and its 3 button pushes..or 4.. but Fs7 has center crop no..? put it right at the top of your user menu..
 
Yeah but your not really going to be snap zooming into 240mm during an interview.. or a take really.. its handy for B roll/GV,s.. just when you need telephoto on the long end.. never use it much in-between.. you seldom need to go beyond 17-120mm in one take.. its the wide thats the worry not the long end.. wish it was a 15 to 110mm..
 
Yep my point is that a Arri LWZ 14.5-45 or an un made 15-70 would really sing with digital zoom

If I were speccing an 'affordable/light' cine zoom Id start wide enough and compromise at the long end and rely on digital zoom for that.. if any of the cams apart from FS5 had digital zoom!

Sony/Canon have the cam/lens development facilities in place to make it happen.

Also it would be possible to do ISO ramping with a darkening lens and meta data

There is just no joined up thinking apart from maybe the canon 18-80 and c300ii

S
 
I think its the physics of it.. if a 2.8.. wide to anything decently long could be made "cheaply ".. it would have been done.. anyone would know that would sell like chocolate that made your hair grow back.. (possibly my own personal fantasy but you know what I mean).. its obvious an expensive combination.. so we still only have the CN7/Fuji Cabrios ..
Not an engineer but i think any sort of digital zoom is going to lose quality.. has to be some pay back visually..
 
Donny 123 said:
I think its the physics of it.. if a 2.8.. wide to anything decently long could be made "cheaply ".. it would have been done.. anyone would know that would sell like chocolate that made your hair grow back.. (possibly my own personal fantasy but you know what I mean).. its obvious an expensive combination.. so we still only have the CN7/Fuji Cabrios ..
Not an engineer but i think any sort of digital zoom is going to lose quality.. has to be some pay back visually..
Click to expand...

Absolutely - one cannot beat physics Im aware of that.

You have seen the master zoom? http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/cine_lenses/master_lenses/master_zoom.html

One assumes they did not make it huge for fun!

The thing is in a design meeting you make compromises and focus on what you want to achieve which to me would be a "three shot lens", wide mid CU which means 17-xx

I think the compromises they have made are wrong and are consistently wrong.

Sony knock out a shonky 18-105 f4 for $500

What can be done for $5-10k?

Id guess a 17-100/3.5 with a drop in 1.4 converter in E and FZ mounts which have space for that unlike deep flanges like PL and EF.

Even my nikkor 28-85 would be impressive if I could swing the speedbooster in and out like an ENG lens doubler.

S
 
I shall be looking forward to IBC and hoping to see Sony announce a 4K 1" SLog3 SGamut3.cine XAVC-I (same bitrate as FS7) camcorder in the PMW-300 style. This seems a far more pragmatic solution for low grade videographers who don't do work of much importance like myself than a hunk of glass that isn't quite right for anyone for a similar pile of cash.

If Sony woke up a bit and offered SLog3 and SGamut3.cine in their video camera line they'd breathe new life into the broadcast line and get my money and very likely plenty of others too.
 
I agree Nirv, and have suggested many times an EX1/3 type camera with SLOG3 would sell like hot cakes.

I get the feeling lots of people simply have the wrong camera for their needs and then judge all equipment by how it doesn't quite do what they'd like it to. I guess we all do that to a degree, but their are some people who waste thousands on a large sensor camera when what they need is an all in one compact solution. Ego I guess.
 
What does everyone think of the test footage released by Zeiss? It definitely has that feel of CP.2's in the image.

 
12-120 Angie was always a workhorse general purpose lens on 16mm. Roughly equal to 28mm S35 on the wide end. My Cooke at 9mm is roughly equal to 21mm S35. Seems adequately wide for most purposes to me.

This is a pretty light lens for its size and coverage too. Actually lighter than my Cooke 9-50mm.
 
Last edited:
icarusfilm said:
Going wider than 21mm is just a bad habit from ENG shooting loose the wide end and your footage will look better.
Click to expand...


well, sometimes my clients like to see their big machines entirely in the frame
and they also like wide landscape shots with many of their machines
It's a typical scenario of "too dusty and no time to change lenses" "
 
Liam Hall said:
I agree Nirv, and have suggested many times an EX1/3 type camera with SLOG3 would sell like hot cakes.

I get the feeling lots of people simply have the wrong camera for their needs and then judge all equipment by how it doesn't quite do what they'd like it to. I guess we all do that to a degree, but their are some people who waste thousands on a large sensor camera when what they need is an all in one compact solution. Ego I guess.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you and Nirv.. but I dont think its ego.. I was more than happy with my PMW500.. but production companies.. firstly for corp work.. then really rapidly doc,s... all changed to the must have S35 sensor "look".. I had two camera,s for a while but there was just no callers for the 500.. Ive had the f5 just over 2 years and never once been asked for 2/3" over that time .. s35 does actually make life easier in alot of ways.. esp for interviews I think it really can look better than a 2/3 ...esp in a small room.!.prod co,s can crop in on a 4K image for HD delivery.. etc..

I dont want to hauling heavy gear around.. but Im freelance..I dont make the decision .. if I had just told every prod co that called me.. oh no your totally wrong .. my PMW500 is the only way to shoot this.. they would just go else where.. not always ego but market forces..
 
A couple of you brought up the physical limitations of optics, but I junk the speed booster serves as a pretty good idea of what's really possible with a given size/weight. For example, the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 (or the Canon equivalent, v.1 or soon v.2) are all relatively light lenses that work at an effective f/2.8 in that magical 17-75mm range, with the SB.

Certainly an expert lens designer like Canon, Sony or Sigma could "focus" the light those zoom are pulling in better than an external speed booster can (not that I'm complaining about the SB at all). Point is, there's nothing mythical or magical- that I'm aware of- that prevents this "perfect" lens we're talking about from being made.

I think something kept Sony from creating an S35 version of their 28-135mm f/4 cine zoom, which, theoretically could be ~18-90mm f/2.8. Perhaps they were terrified of how much money they stood to make off it? Ha! They did have their cine lenses v. 2.0 that they we're interested in selling back when. Idk. Maybe we'll see that S35 cine zoom lens from Sony pop up one day in the future. Here's to hoping...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top