Jump to content

TheRenaissanceMan

Members
  • Posts

    1,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TheRenaissanceMan

  1. 1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

    I never said no one but Pros, I said "other than Pros I doubt many people buy primes anymore". Sort of a different meaning.

    In the college town I live in I haven't seen a real camera, even parents with their students, for years. It is Smartphones, and even that not many out often taking photos or video. I guess the students would think that would look dorky. Teeny Bopper stuff. Now walking down the street with one looking at the screen, yeah pretty big time on that!

    Still, I'd completely disagree. Especially when more and more camera/lens sales moving upstream into the "enthusiast market."

  2. 5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    I contend that Sony's 24-70mm f/4 is not only more affordable, but has the very useful feature of optical image stabilization.

    It's $200 cheaper. Not exactly in a different price category. 

    And OSS isn't a critical feature when all your bodies have IBIS. Plus, the the Zeiss 24-70/4 isn't exactly blowing the doors off for optical performance.

    On a separate note, Jon, I don't think anyone appreciates the condescending attitude. 

  3. 12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    My information is correct. Sony lenses are also dust and moisture resistant. We all know what that means - keep them out of the rain!

    Sony's 24-70mm f/4: Dust- and moisture-sealed design better permits working in inclement conditions and rubberized control rings benefit handling in colder temperatures.

    Advantage Sony: +2 (lower cost, OSS)

    Advantage Nikon: -2 (higher cost, no OIS)

    Sony's 24-70/4 isn't exactly a top performer optically, though...and based on their DSLR f/4 zooms, I would be pretty confident buying Nikon's. Curious to see proper reviews of it and their other lenses, though.

  4. 9 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

    And how long ago was those 5 years?

    2. 

    Most know-nothing DSLR soccer moms and the like got a short zoom, a long zoom, and a 50mm. Got tons of people who wanted to do their own portraits/headshots for fun or to save money. Prime lenses there. Travel photography, sold a wide fast prime to plenty of those. Same with astrophotographers. Even had one wild dude who was a serious birder and bought several brutally expensive primes, including a 500mm.

    Do most consumers go for zooms first? Sure. But I would not say "no one except pros use primes." In fact, working photographers are the exact people who often benefit from zooms to get critical shots, while hobbyists can pick up a more fulfilling prime, take their time, and not worry about potentially missing a paycheck moment.

  5. Just now, webrunner5 said:

    Yeah in this day and age other than Pros I doubt many people buy primes anymore.

    As someone who sold cameras for 5 years, I can say with no hesitation that you are completely wrong about that.

  6. 19 hours ago, mercer said:

    Here’s another shot from the Canon 28mm f/1.8 I bought a few months back for a song. I actually didn’t expect a lot from it when I bought it, but it’s been my goto lens for my short film...

    BFA372A9-4ACB-4855-A1A9-B5CC4756A2F8.jpeg

    But I really need to start investing in some lights. I got a great recommendation from Jon, with the Fotodiox Flapjacks, but does anyone else have any good suggestions for on camera lights?

    PM me. We can talk lights all day. ?

    The 28mm 1.8 is a hidden gem. Not a whiz kid when it comes to test charts, but what a render.

  7. Anyone here have experience with Tiffen Glimmerglass? Just worked on a big show that used it, and based on what I saw on monitor (plus the test footage from Tiffen on Vimeo) it does some really nice things to faces.

  8. Just ordered mine; apparently it'll take at least 3 weeks to get here. Yikes. :grimace:  When it does, I'll let you guys know in case there's any tests you want done. Definitely going to line it up against my buddies' A7S II and GH5 for reference, as well as the F3 to see if it can match it for gimbal/crane/overhead shots.

  9. 3 minutes ago, kye said:

    Depends on film-making style.  If you're talking traditional film-making then I agree, but those at the more guerrilla end of film-making (such as those shooting travel or filming family) size makes a huge difference.

    I would argue that that type of shooting is more videography, as you're not really making a film there in the traditional sense. But sure, for no-budget travel or recording family memories, it's nice to have a smaller camera.

  10. https://indiefilmhustle.com/color-science-let-pixar-teach/

    http://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/a-short-history-of-camera-color.html

    Smarter, more experienced people in this industry seem to disagree with your dismissal of color science as a concept. Perhaps, as a beginner, you should spend more time listening and learning, rather than espousing ideas you don't understand?

    All photosites only capture luminance data. That data is assigned an R, G, or B value, depending on the filter that covers it. Those filters have to be carefully designed to let in their color and a bit of the others: if made too pure, the sensor will not be able to accurately reproduce secondary colors, like yellow and cyan; not pure enough, and colors blend together into mud from lack of separation.

    These color values must be interpolated from nearby photosites, as each one only capture data for R, G, or B. How that data is cobbled together has a profound result on the resulting detail and color. Then this information feeds into a camera's color matrix, which carefully subtracts channels from each other to create clear and distinct colors. All of which are made to hit specific mathematical targets within the manufacturer's carefully designed color space. These are tuned partially for accuracy, but also to create certain effects on the viewer based on the psychological effect of various colors. 

    So sure, subjectivity plays a part. That's why every manufacturer does their color slightly differently, and has their own "look." But to purport that no math or science goes into the process is misinformed and asinine. 

  11. Big camera on sticks, small camera on sticks. Doesn't make much difference in my experience. Same thing on a dolly. Handheld, sure, although I'll take a good FS7 shoulder setup to holding a properly rigged camera out in front of me all day. Gimbal...sure, a small camera is the ideal tool there. But gimbal shots are massively overused these days, and don't necessarily guarantee more interesting shots. In fact, I find many people I work with use camera movement much more effectively when stepping up to a larger camera, because it forces them to think harder about how and why they're moving the camera. And also because shoulder/handheld stuff has a nicer look due to the added inertia--a more professional handheld aesthetic, if you will. 

    Also, big cameras just have more going for them. Comprehensive I/O, better image quality, more features, higher frame rates, beefier codecs, etc. More space means better cooling, more ports, bigger processors, etc.

    I'm not saying a big camera is always the ideal tool, but the vast majority of the time it's not what's holding you back.

  12. I know you didn't say it flat out, but there's often an attitude floating around that the technically sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses are the ones you NEED to go for, and that any other choice is based on fanciful ideas or ignorance. Some DPs DO find Master Primes too flat and perfect. Some love their strong, consistent performance. Maybe we could improve the discourse of the forum by trying to recognize more often that there are many effective methods, and they should all be analyzed and appreciated for their unique merits.

    Mercer, the advantage of knowing a little about the higher end optics is that they have distinct characteristics they're known for, and therefore work as good references against which to compare the lower-end stuff we have a better chance of owning/renting for our personal projects. For example: my Leicas were made in the same company at the same time by the same designers as the Panavision lenses of that era--the C series--and share some similar design goals/aesthetics, though obviously made to meet completely different price points. Contax Zeiss, on the other hand, were made alongside their Super and Standard Speed cinema glass, and have characteristics that hover somewhere between the two, depending which specific lens you're looking at.

    RedUser is a great place to hear about the higher end stuff, as are articles by people like Art Adams. Shane Hurlbut's tests are useful, but his commentary often isn't imo. John Brawley I find has great insight on optics too; his tests on the SLR Magic APO primes really won me over. 

    Ultimately, our tools are a personal choice that help us define ourselves as artists. All I'm asking is that we keep that in mind, alongside the more vigorous "better or worse" quality debates that regularly dominate the site.

  13. 1 hour ago, jonpais said:

    Roger Deakins shoots with Arri Master Primes because they are the cleanest, fastest, sharpest lenses out there. (his own words). I don’t think clean and sharp are synonymous with sterile. ?

    Sure, but Deakins' aesthetic is generally hyper-clean and polished. He's one of the greats, but his way is not the only way. Robert Richardson specifically chose softer lenses for Hateful Eight because he hated how exacting the more modern lenses "draw." Neither is inherently a better or more valuable approach, but rather a very personal choice rooted in the aesthetic tastes if the DP/director and the needs of each specific project.

    Personally, I'm big on the smooth-yet-detailed look of Cooke and older Panavision, which is why I went for 70's (Mandler era) Leica glass. But even that isn't right for every project; I will often rent or borrow Zeiss Milvus or Contax if I'm looking for something a little harder, slicker, less "emotional," etc.

    Even then, Mercer is right in that the camera is yet another variable in this whole equation. Some are pickier than others about the glass you use (NX1, anyone?), whereas some work great with everything. Some render crisper, some more forgiving. Your lighting style affects these choices, too. Need to have bright spots roaming around the set and potentially flashing the lens without blinding the camera? Sure, I'll go Master Primes. Trying to do an epic establishing pan shot of a sunlit location, complete with dramatic flare? Not so much with the Master Primes. Got aging talent that needs to look glamorous? Run from Master Primes as fast as your legs will carry you.

    It is NEVER a hard and fast rule. It ALWAYS depends. Seeing the utility of each available paintbrush is a critical part of advancing in your craft. There is no "correct" way.

     

    (Sorry...veered us even further off topic here. Happy to discuss lens aesthetics and other non-camera comparison subjects via private message or in the Lenses topic.)

  14. Rokinons are flimsy plastic lenses with glass ranging from okay to mediocre. I'll use them if they're all that's available, but they're right near the bottom of my list.

    I know I'm a broken record on this, but Leica R, Contax Zeiss, Minolta Rokkor (converted to EF), and Voigtlander lenses will provide superior image quality, smooth mechanics, and the ability to travel with you to all future cameras. Won't cost much more either, depending which versions you go with. 

    Rokinons are cinema lenses in name only. They're not optimised mechanically or optically for video, beyond the cheap gearing. Invest in something that'll last.

  15. 1 hour ago, mercer said:

    I was actually referring to the 20-35mm EF version but it’s probably a very similar lens design... maybe even identical.

    But yeah, this is definitely my thought process. In fact, I could see myself shooting an entire short film with just one lens. Now the problem becomes... which lens. I am looking for a very modern clean prime lens between 35-50mm. I’d love a 50 or 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art but I don’t want to pay that kind of money... any suggestions? 

    I’d love some Leica’s, but as you know... they can be pretty pricey... do you have the 50mm f2 Summicron?

    For now I am going to roll with my Canon lenses. Hopefully this zoom will be good. I’ve been editing a scene from my short that I shot with the 35mm f2 and I really just love that lens. The color needs a little work yet, but the lens is just special...

    31904F59-1CBE-4F61-8DE3-86EDFA4FF9E8.jpeg

    Ah, my b. No clue about that one. Wonder how the focus ring is. Those earlier EFs range from pretty good MF action to pretty awful.

    Fun thing I just learned: all of Call Me By Your Name was shot on a 35mm. And it looks lovely! A single lens film can definitely be done, but it entails its own set of challenges. See that as an advantage, though, since specific limitations often produce inspired results. 

    Hm...modern clean prime. 35 or 50. Not too pricey. The Olympus OM 35mm f/2 comes to mind. Sharp as a tack, great colors, very affordable. The Contax Zeiss 35mm 2.8 MM is another stunner, if you can handle a modest aperture. Sparkling and pristine from wide open, and a tiny little bugger to boot. Ditto the CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7, which is even sharper than the 1.4. Downside of that one is the build quality--bit plasticky compared to the rest of the lineup--as well as the somewhat "nervy" bokeh (though that's more of a taste thing).

    I do have the Leica R 50mm Cron. My version hails from 1970, and thus wasn't too pricey. Ran me about $350. Lovely, gorgeous lens, but I wouldn't exactly call it clean and modern. More like a Panavision C-series, with a bit of highlight bloom and nice resolution of fine detail without aggressive microcontrast. Flares like a bastard, too.

    Canon lenses aren't my favorite, but don't fix what ain't broke. If it works for you, use it. And it certainly looks like it's working for you! Love what you've been doing with the 5D raw.

×
×
  • Create New...