fuzzynormal

You haven't seen any films in the  2000's with zooms? Because I've seen several and they've all worked just fine. Even some really good looking films have used them several times. Not to even mention tv-series that are now full of whip pans and snap zooms.

Of course I have.

Just because it's something that exists and can be done well doesn't mean everyone should be giving it a go without informed consideration, however.

I shoot my own films with zoom moves every once in a while.  It's a good visual tool.  However, knowing how to utilize a zoom move as a pro and having a neophyte go at it tend to be two wildly different things.

Let's just say it's part of cinematic vocabulary, but the zoom move would be a word in that dictionary with a whole lot of syllables.  You better have a strong grasp of the language before you start dropping it into conversation.

Isn't this a technical topic, not about how something is used or isn't? Or anyone can just add their own "I don't like this and that"- to any topic.

Well, for starters, you can't really escape "I don't like this or that" on the web.  And, yes, technical seems to be the focus here of a lot of people for logical reasons.

However, this blog is called "EOSHD, Directed by DSLR Filmmakers."  

So, if one filmmaker suggest to another filmmaker that they might be making an bad assumption about motion picture imaging, and that they would be better off not worrying about their perceived problem and consider another style of shooting, seems like that would be productive a little bit.  Even if they agree or disagree.  That's up to them, but it's a viewpoint they might not have even considered otherwise.

Believe it or not, (this is the internet after all) I'm not trying to win an argument about how to do things, my suggestions and opinions are just there to offer a personal perspective.  If you think zoom moves in motion pictures are better than sex and chocolate, and the coolest thing you could do with a lens while having sex with chocolate, then that's up to you.

I could have easily said to the OP, just buy a constant aperture lens to do your zoom moves. That would solve a technical problem, but IMHO the artistic short comings are still there.

Yours was the first site I saw mention that the E-M1 might be even remotely suitable for making movies - everywhere else had it that a lack of 24p made it borderline unusable for anyone "serious" about filmmaking.

Indeed, what tends to get overlooked by tech heads is the fact that content trumps all else.  

If you're constantly getting caught up in the notion that you can't effectively tell a story because an imaging device does't shoot at an certain frame rate, it has less resolution than some other camera, or maybe it's missing a few extra steps of dynamic range, I'd wonder if you're the type that'll ever be an effective filmmaker.

Having all those premium features help make a story look better, but that's not going to help you TELL the story at a fundamental level. (in fact, there's a strong argument to be made that technical obstructions foster creativity rather than hinder it.)

Are you consistently worried more about image quality than narrative?  You're probably a technician, not a storyteller.  And here in the lower-end marketplace of filmmaking with all this democratized gear, the latter really tends to matter a whole lot more.

These cameras are just tools, they're not the craft.

What exactly do you mean by "Canon color"? Never heard of such term. We've noticed Canon DSLRs tend to push reds/magentas in favour of skin tones but that's it, and that's only true for DSLRs, we haven't noticed it in the Cinema Eos line. You can match GH2's footage to any Canon one with moderate color correction experience.

Yeah, I'll confirm, all Canon cams I've worked with skew 'red.'

But really, if you shoot vanilla and tweak colors in post, that issue takes care of itself.  I've cross cut with many different brands before.  Recently did a doc with Canon DSLR, Canon HDV, Nikon DSLR, and a GH1, was able to unify stuff in post without too much trouble; just gotta start as bland and flat as possible when acquiring your footage.

I really like the approach to this particular list.  It's compelling theory and comparison just 'kuz it's fun to consider the tech.

But, as AR alludes, the best camera is the one you actually go and use for making something interesting.  Resolution charts aren't exactly great narrative.

For shooting weddings you'll need so much more than a good cam and lenses. And I'm not talking about gear.

That said, an Oly with 5axis stabilization would be my choice. The production value of that feature trumps all other considerations, I think. Simulated slider, crane, and steady cam shots all via handheld? That's a ridiculous advantage.

Then a 12-35/2.8 zoom. That would cover it for me. Less is more I say. Worry more about the shots than carrying misc gear all over the place.

I love zoom lenses too. I have 4.  They're great run and gun lenses for getting the best focal length quickly.  

I bought my last one specifically to do one shot in a western movie, and that was just to do a direct homage to a Sergio Leone film I like.  Plus, the shot was part of a montage meant to convey an unnatural/uncomfortable scenario.  

I'm not condemning the lenses when I say "Zoom" I'm complaining about how they're too often used.

I don't like actual zooming during shots unless it's well considered.  The human eye doesn't work that way, so if you use a zoom, you better regard seriously how it fits into your narrative.

Too often I see video where people do a pull or push because they can, not because they should.

I come from a broadcasting background. Lenses are built to do "zooms" on those field production cameras and lazy TV shooters abuse the heck out of it.  It drives me nuts and it's an unfortunate visual cliche' when done wrong.

Why would you shoot a shot with a zoom move anyway? Are you trying to make a 1970's movie? In that case, just buy a nice old vivitar manual zoom and an adapter. Seriously, zooms (edit: the zoom 'move' not the lens itself) are horrible.

Today my Sevenoak rig and my LED-light 

 

Not bad.  I'm not partial to shooting with a shoulder rig myself, but if you find it helps, no problem.  

Using that LED light though?  I'd ditch it.  IMHO, that's not going to do you any favors with creating an attractive image.  I'd say, at the most, use it as a rim light on subjects.  Have a assistant hit 'em from the side or behind if need be, but direct like that?  Nah, not a good thing.

No assistant?  Roll with natural light and then find your angles that compliment your subject.  This is a much better approach to documentary style film making.  Modern cams are great in low light.  Keep it naturalistic and try harder to find your shots rather than just illuminating the first thing you see.

Is that the Oly45mm on there?  If so, that's a great focal length (90mm Full Frame Equivalent) for portraiture and will look awesome...but not handheld --unless you're some sort of zen master shooter.  You'll need a tripod or at least a good monopod.

If you can handle it, I'd recommend shooting the whole thing longer lens @2.8/fps50/and a shutter speed of 100. (adjust exposure with ISO and/or ND filters)  It would make your work look much more elegant and cohesive.  But again, only if you can effectively control the lens movement on that longer focal length.  Easier said than done.  

More practically, shooting @50mm (FF equivalent) would still look nice and give you a bit more flexibility with space.  Personally, I'm not a fan of wide angles with documentaries.  Useful for a few special shots, depending on the subject, but I stay away from them if I can.  I like to pick one prime and shoot at least 80% of my footage with it.

Good luck!

 

which vintage lens is better for a cinema-like image

For making truly "Cinema-Like" images?  I don't think it really matters.  Having the skill to make those "Cinema-Like" images does.  Once you can utilize that skill effectively, then you can use that wisdom to make smart choices.

You can't just walk outside and randomly point a camera with an old lens on it and have the lens create cinema magic.  There's just way too much more involved with it than that.

That being said, yes, all lenses have different characteristics.  Knowing which ones to use in order to support the narrative is the key.  I've shot an entire film with a cheap uncoated 50mm lens from the 60's because the flawed visuals it created supported that particular story.  or...at least that's how I rationalized it. ;-)

Rarified air you're breathing.  How's it smell?

Was that about cameras?  Must've missed it.

That's lens flare.  You can only solve that "problem" by flagging the lens so lights aren't directly shining on the glass.  Or, just not shooting into lights.

Also, the next time you direct a movie in the Star Trek franchise you can do that on purpose with Zeiss lenses and everyone will think it's awesome and want to emulate it.

This cam is just perfect for street video where there's no time to set up a shot and skinny DOF isn't really needed.

For what it's worth, if you're shooting a f2 on m43, you have an effective DOF of f4 in regards to full frame cameras.  Considering that feature film cinematographers like to shoot around f5.6, I'd say that m43 sensors work well getting that shallow/skinny DOF look.

Something like a f1.4 on a full frame is useful for specialty shots, but shooting motion pictures that way all the time would be a bit much.

Anyway, I'm just saying m43 does good motion picture DOF.

Probably a simple photo CGI composite mix with the "practical" shot.

Awesome.  Thanks for this.  I shot at this temple 5 years ago in HD and it doesn't look half as good as your footage.  Very encouraging.

Content and technique  is way more important than the tech part

Content and technique are more important on high-end professional shoots as well.  Creatives are the ones that control the production.  The tech side makes sure they maintain impressive standards, but content is king; at least with storytelling. 

 

The E-M1 is a amazingly fun to use for video and therefore I want to actually take it out and shoot with it.

 

That right there is why, for some people, the Olympus will always be a better camera overall.  I don't care if it's not as sharp as a GH3 or my GX7.  It's a camera that's perfect for some shooting situations.  --And if it's solving a problem or helping you be more creative, resolution is hardly a priority.

I'll put it this way:  The best imaging machine isn't always the best camera. 

120 fps now?

240 isn't good enough for you?

Sorry but this video is soft. Nothing like GH3 or RX10 level.

A new camera owner is shooting video on the default settings.  So it's a bit soft to start with.  Big deal.  If you know what you're doing you can make images from this camera look fine.  

Besides, all this worry about what sensor tech is best is ridiculous.   These days it's all pretty dang impressive.  If you want to shoot motion pictures to tell a story I doubt having a sensor with 5% less resolution than a competitor's camera is going to matter all that much.

Either you can shoot and edit or you can't.  Extra pixels are nice, but they're not going to give someone film making skills.

I have tried once to get footage from a bike.

 

Here's a simple phrase that should help:  "Chase Mini Van"

Open the doors and pace the riders.

I'm a complete newb as far as video goes, but I am absolutely loving the E-M1 for video. The IBIS is incredible

You got it.  Even for a "pro" like myself I can see how this little cam is worth the other tech shortcomings, just 'kuz the killer feature it has is truly that.

I was playing with one today, shooting rock solid hand held... with a prime @150mm.  Now c'mon, that's some serious production value.  it's not ALL about the pixel math.

C'mon, everyone.  The original post is a joke.  Even if the person that posted the question was serious.  Heck, especially if the person that posted the question was serious.

since I want to shoot 4k…the 5d mark 3 raw and bmpcc are now obsolete?

If you 100% want to shoot 4K, then, for you, gear that doesn't shoot 4k is indeed obsolete.

I think the GM1 does that. But what is the best zoom lens for that task?

I think so.  

Totally depends on you visual tastes.  I like the "standard" focal range 50mm - 100mm, but for climbing I can see how something wide would be nice.

Handheld you're probably not going to want to zoom in too much anyway, right?  With the kit lens you get an full frame equivalent 24mm to 64mm.  Good workhorse sort of range there.  And since you're shooting in daylight, you need not worry about having a fast lens.

I suppose if you want something low-light for evenings around the fire, taking along a fast pancake prime would help.  Otherwise, just roll with the GM1's kit lens.

Oh, I'd suggest putting a .9 ND and polarizer on the lens too.  It'll help keep your shutter speed reasonable on bright sunny days.