Lintelfilm

Dave's a nice guy and yes, he qualifies that he's only talking about noise, but that doesn't change the fact it's a nonsense test. The FS5 vs A7SII side by side under the bridge was the funniest. He was saying the A7 looked better, but his face in the A7 shot looked like a purple version of the Elephant Man. 

Also he completely failed to acknowledge that, for a professional camera like the FS5, noisy shadows (again vs the A7SII) that hold detail are far more desirable than clean shadows turned to mush by a weak codec and/or noise reduction. Noise can be cleaned up in post while retaining detail. If the NR is in-camera it's a lost cause.

It's a bit like saying "This is a test to see who is the fastest runner, but I'm only going to base it on how fast the athlete's arms move"

Sorry guys don't think I'll have time to share the images yet I'm juggling 2 jobs and a big pitch at the moment. 

For me 10 bit is all about colour rather than banding, artefacts, grading in post, adding FX, etc. Yes high bitrate 8bit can look great but 10 bit colours invariably have more visible depth and hence subjects look more "there"/real. I do seem to be more sensitive to this than most filmmakers I talk to - perhaps because I come from a painting background I think - so I guess you can argue its subjective. I remember Andrew Reid's NX1 JPEG vs RAW spot the difference post - I was able to see which was which immediately, clear as day.

Greater colour depth = better, richer, more subtly varied and separated colour. No question. This only becomes amplified at the grading stage.

However I don't buy the "down sampling to 8 bit in post anyway so no point acquiring in 10 bit" line - look at HD cameras that downsample to HD from 4K (or 4K downsampled in post). The more information you have later in the processing stage the better.

8 hours ago, jgharding said:

This matches my experience recording C100 with Ninja 2. I was using DNxHD 220x which is 10-bit, and was thinking "is this somehow filling in the extra bits?!" But it isn't, the output is 8-bit, it's just having so much more data really helps.

There's a Cinema5D post and video on this from ages ago - it's clear that recording to 10bit 422 ProRes HQ results in a much better image than recording in standard ProRes 422 (8bit), so in one way or another you're right.

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c100-internal-avchd-vs-prores-compared/

It's automatic - the XC10 detects 1080 recorder. You have to use the 60i pulldown feature on the Ninja Star but there are no artefacts.

I'm 95% convinced it's 10bit - colours on the Atomos files are much more varied and separated (even if I adjust exposure to compensate for differences on the recorder).

I'll post some side by side images later if I have time ...

2 hours ago, andrgl said:

I was all set to buy the 50-100mm until I realized the tripod collar is non-removable. Doh!

Not a huge deal breaker but it makes me less interested in trading up my Nikkor zooms.

What's the problem with the collar? It's pretty small and you can rotate it out of the way.

Nice photos Andrew! I'll be interested to hear your take on the 50-100mm. I'm loving it.

Just the video then:

Just now, The Chris said:

This is pretty common with zooms in this range, MFD is always about 1m.

Yeah I realised that. It's actually a little better than average.

I just wrote a more in depth article for Newsshooter about my first impressions noting this. Don't know when it'll be live but I've done a short video too. 

The more I use it the more I like it though. The longer focal length basically amounts to that lovely 18-35 bokeh on steroids!

I'm using the manual zoom a lot too as it's very smooth. Dan Chung has alluded to it being not quite parfocal BTW. For critical stuff you might not want to zoom but you can definitely get away with it without adjusting focus if you want to.

It's a very noticeable difference - and as I say it's front heavy so that doesn't help. If the weight was added to the centre of the rig I'd agree but it's out front so it affects balance a fair bit. It's not a deal breaker but just don't expect a slightly longer 18-35mm. It's nearly twice the weight.

7 hours ago, Dan Keeble said:

I tried this lens out yesterday, expecting it to be super heavy but it's really not...not considerably much heavier than my other Sigma ART lenses. I don't understand how people have commented on it's weight like it's almost a deal breaker. come on. 

The average weight of all the other Art lenses is 750g (see above) which is exactly half the weight of the 50-100mm at 1500g. It's also the only Art lens over 1000g - and by quite a margin.

18-35mm Art = 800g

24-105mm Art= 900g

20mm Art = 950g

50mm Art = 800g

35mm Art = 650g

24mm Art = 650g

30mm Art = 450g

50-100mm = 1500g

57 minutes ago, jgharding said:

I don't have the DAF upgrade on either C100 body, so I have no STM lenses. I don't think I'll look into it at this stage really, I'll probably wait til C100 MKiii if it ever arrives with 4k.

I use the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the 24-105L f4 mainly. The latter is not by any means spectacular, but it's a sort of "camcorder" workhorse with the IS. That's what puts me off this one a little too: lack of stabilisation.

I have a bunch of nice Contax primes and so on but they only come out for the big projects to reduce general wear and tear on them, and because using primes is very slow in comparison.

What you talk about there is the secret to Canon success: doing all of it well enough. The package is just very usable. You can rescue the AVCHD from much worse mistakes than you'd think too!

Yeah I'm finding that with the AVCHD. It's crazy. And my hard drives love the tiny files. The XC10 is awesome in 1080 too. For interviews and people shots I'll probably stick to HD. It's landscapes and wide detailed shots where the 4K high bitrate shines.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding of Canon's choices out there. They make very intentional choices based on factors that aren't just spec-centric. They don't just do it "well enough" though IMO - they do just enough, very well. I do wish they put 10 bit 422 in the Mark II but I'm not going to complain too much. As a professional tool for corporate video the MkII (and MkI) is plenty for a few more years to come. DAF is nice but I'm using manual focus a lot with the Sigma's a lot so far because AF is really fast and not massively consistent with the 50-100. I see the 50-100 purely as a replacement for a set of fast cine primes, it's not one for run & gun. I think the C100 is at its best with shallow DOF and that's why I have the Sigmas. If I get a runngun zoom I'll probably go for a 2.8. Otherwise I'll go for the 18-135 STM. I've seen some nice stuff shot with the C100 and the 24-105 though (see Noam Kroll).

1 hour ago, jgharding said:

Sounds like you use the same main kit as me C100, 18-35 1.8, and an XC10. Can't complain at all! As such I'll have a look at this lens, since on a two-cam interview that's both your angles covered.

Yeah I've literally just swapped from a BMPCC and GH4, both with Nikon mount speedboosters. I was doing a shoot all last week at a mining museum in the wilds of the Durham dales and had a major Canon epiphany. The GH4 is great as a workhorse but the image just wasn't up to the massive changes in lighting (dark forests, underground mines and extreme midday sunshine) and the BMPCC which has a wonderful image but just isn't up to the functional demands of an on the fly doc shoot chasing school kids around an old mine site. Canon DAF alone would've saved about 60% of the shots I've had to trash. So immediately after the shoot finished I dumped about £6K on CVP & WEX and will be selling my BM & GH4 & Nikon glass.

I'll miss the Pocket's 10bit 13 stop image but that's about it. The XC10 doesn't offer the lens choices of the BM but the 305mbps image is comparable and the stabilization, zoom range and AF/face tracking outweigh that for me. I also picked up a 10-18mm STM for the C100 as the XC10 doesn't go quite wide enough for some things (my current shoot involves cathedral interiors). I may pick up the 18-135mm STM but I'm not sure what it'd offer on the C100 that the XC10 can't do.

What lenses do you use most on the C100? I'm considering a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS or a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC purely for the stabilisation (and the USM as the Sigmas are pretty noisy with DAF).

5 hours ago, jgharding said:

1m is a long min focus... I'd be tempoted to go with a 100mm macro and a 50mm 1.4 instead!

Quite a vintage milky look there in the bokeh too, not totally smooth but not crazy vintage jitters. a strange one by the looks of it... not quite the essential lens-bag winner that is the 18-35 1.8, but still unique.

But hey, I've not used it

Yeah 0.95M is on the barrel. It is quite a big downside in many ways. As I say it's going to be mainly a portrait lens for me so not a huge issue, but for some it may be another reason to look elsewhere.

The fact remains though it stands alone in the market, effectively offering a set of 3 fast, sharp primes with nice character in one reasonably sized zoom. For that fact alone it is invaluable to me. I can go out on a shoot with just the 18-35mm and 50-100mm and be sure of cinematic images without the hassle of swapping all the time. If I need small and handheld, I can put an XC10 in my bag (which has impressed me hugely by the way - it's just a rock-solid 4K camera with a gorgeous image that cuts perfectly with the C100). 

The other thing I forgot to mention is that the minimum focus distance is a bit disappointing - just shy of a metre.

1 hour ago, Inazuma said:

What? No sample images?

I wrote this on my iPad so couldn't but I'll try to get some up today.

12 hours ago, Caleb Hauff said:

@Lintelfilm I know being a stills lens first the focus throw isn't great, but what kind of focus throw does the focus ring have? I have both the Sigma Art 18-35 and the Sigma Art 50 and I was pretty bummed with how short of a focus throw the 50 Art had even in comparison to the Sigma 18-35.

Focus throw is decent. I don't know the numbers but it feels longer than the 18-35. Becaus I don't use marks or gears I don't like focus throw to be too long, and this one feels just about right. The breathing is much more of an issue for pulls. The focus ring's smoothness is similar to the 18-35mm - a bit stiffer now but I expect that to change with use. Like the wider lens, the zoom ring is smooth as butter and because of the 50-100's parfocalness it can actually be used for quite elegant in shot zooms.

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.

I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 

However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.

1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.

2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.

3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.

4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.

The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 

I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 

If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.

Anyone else wonder if there's a bit of Nominative Determinism going on with Daniel Peters? 

Anyhow, DP is a hell of a talented DP.

Since he's moved to England perhaps he should adopt Owen or Oswald or Oberon or Otis as a middle name?

I use Natural too! Maybe it's my grading - perhaps I have a subconscious desire for everyone to look like a tart? To be fair it doesn't always happen but seriously though, if you try to bring colour out in the cheeks the lips can often go silly.

Funny how the lips are often a giveaway. Lips on GH4 footage can be ridiculous - like neon-magenta lipstick.

Do you have a guess what camera JCS? 

Funny that so many don't like this BTS - I like the skin tones, the lighting, the camera movement. Sure it's rough around the edges, but in general I like it quite a bit. Colours aren't "accurate" but I think they're appealing (personally).

Are you Nikon owner by any chance Eno?

Thanks Zak. Are you still seeing a lot of C300 stuff in more recent months?

What about the shooting do you think is poor?

I did a bit of a search and there isn't much info but these docs are all made by one production team and certainly they've used a C300 on a few projects (the only camera I found alluded to).

http://goodinaroom.com/blog/academy-originals/

I'd guess either they've stuck with that or "upgraded"(?) to a C100 Mk II.I'd be surprised if it was a C300 MkII. 

Anyways my guess remains with it being a Canon Cinema camera.

Huh surprising guess but now you say it, full frame kind of makes sense. If it is an A7S I'm surprised I like the colours so much. The way it renders the fluorescent lights looks quite like Sony though. If it's the 24-70 it must be on a shoulder rig (which I'd expect anyway for this) - there's very little evidence of jello.

Yes this is what I thought. Big heavy camera for handheld sand good audio.

I'm trying to figure out what camera this BTS doc was shot on. My guess is either a C100 MkII or a GH4 (at the outside a very-well-coloured A7RII). Pretty sure it's not a "real" cinema camera. Highlight rolloff isn't stunning. Definitely looks like a 4K sensor to me. I'd guess a C100 MkII. Colours are very nice.

Any ideas?