Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About HockeyFan12

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • My cameras and kit
    Arriflex 765

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Based on his profile photo, it's a very different story. But I'm not going to judge. Could be two unrelated stories.
  2. Interesting discussion. Vintage cinema lenses and S16 cameras have skyrocketed in price recently, as I found out the hard way. I bought a 25mm Cooke S3 a few years back for around $1100, returned it as it had minor fungus and took a minor loss. Since then, its value has tripled. K35 and Lomo anamorphic have increased in price as well as Cooke, and even more dramatically. @noone I think the appeal of the 24mm FD isn't just that it's a 24mm f1.4. It's that it has vintage coatings (the SSC aspherical matching or near-matching first-generation K35s I've read in everything but aperture shape, but who knows) and has hard focus stops so mechanically it is more suited for "cinevising" or rehousing than the 24mm EF f1.4, which would otherwise probably be preferable (sharper) and the look is softer and more organic than Sigma Art, which surely would outperform it, too. Even the best vintage gear can't compete optically with Sigma Art or an Otus. So that's not what it's about. But I think among the generation in their 30s and 40s there is a trend toward vintage/film not just here but among Indie filmmakers... for me, once I started shooting on a 6K sensor I noticed a stronger preference for vintage lenses than I had even had in the past. And I wonder if higher bitrates for streaming etc. will continue to promote a trend toward "texture" over clinical perfection. An SD scan of S16 looks like a dvx100 to me, a 4k scan looks incredible. However I think the younger generation seems to prefer 8K and Sigma Art (you can't really blame them) so I don't see the demand for vintage going up much further. But as supply is exhausted, I also doubt prices will bottom out. If they do, maybe I can finally pick up some Cooke Panchros. Or not, the 75mm is radioactive and they seem fragile and prone to fungus anyway. I wonder what will become of Zeiss Otus and such. (And mechanically complex M43 and the Leica L mount primes or even the RF and Z mount primes.) The Zeiss LWZ2 is perhaps the best deal and most undervalued zoom on the market ($8k used for a compact zoom that cuts well with Master Primes and can convert to EF or PL–should be closer to $50k) but Zeiss will soon discontinue service entirely, leaving that bargain with a pretty large caveat. Some EF lenses can't be serviced. I guess nothing lasts. Except manual focus Nikkors. For whatever reason. Which also have the best price/performance around. 😕
  3. Iscorama, early Rollei Zeiss 50mm f1.8. Very good combination. If you like a vintage look, German Rollei Zeiss are the most underrated FF lenses on the market. Same coatings as pre-T* standard speeds, slightly improved designs. Very sharp with slightly old school painterly bokeh:
  4. Have you noticed a trend among which demographics rent what? Are people in their 20s renting different gear than people in their 30s and 40s? I read an interesting post here: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/77500-the-lost-history-of-cooke-lenses/&do=findComment&comment=529738 One comment that surprised me is the mention of the lack of chromatic aberration in Cooke S2s. Those are a mess otherwise, but apparently pretty clean as regards CA. Also in a comparison of Nikon's first and most recent 50mm F mount primes, you can see the earlier prime has far less CA: https://www.lenstip.com/117.5-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_–_Nikkor-S_5_cm_f_2_vs._Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D_Chromatic_aberration.html Has there been a change in design philosophy? I recently compared Nikon's earliest 28mm f2 with Canon's 28mm f1.8 and Nikkon's earliest 85mm f1.8 with Canon's current one and the older lenses are softer but appear to have less purple fringing but also less bokeh fringing. "Harsher" bokeh but more color neutral. I know the Zeiss Otus lenses are near-apochromatic, so it's not all modern designs that are worse here, but it feels like a change in design philosophy. Is this a thing or a coincidence?
  5. Trust your eyes, not the internet. And now that I look at it again the 6K actually looks pretty clean to me and with much better color linearity and the 4.6k and especially EVA1 look really really noisy, just with less banding, but maybe the noise covers the banding? I've never seen objectionable banding with the 6K in real world scenarios. Anyway the dynamic range numbers don't tell the full story and imo highlight dynamic range (and the texture, not quantity of shadow noise) is what matters most. P6K excels at both. Definitely don't trust an online test and don't trust some random person's interpretation of it! Your firsthand experience is infinitely more valuable.
  6. Thanks, I wish I had. Just random clips from free sound. The arpeggio reminded me of Twin Peaks and the buzz of Larry Jordan's Our Lady of the Sphere. I was just messing around with stuff I had ordered from KEH.
  7. I think that particular thumbnail is from a low light comparison, but that's a very useful channel. To my eye; 4.6K G2: https://vimeo.com/408639496 Highlights hold to about +4.5. Shadows go deep but get green and unusable around -4 or -4.5. EVA1: https://vimeo.com/399691355 Highlights hold almost to +5. Shadows go deep but heavy noise. Nice color linearity, but maybe good to -3.5? https://vimeo.com/400031418 Amira clips around +5.5, maybe a bit better. Great color linearity but noisy, but nice noise texture. Good to -4.5 but noisy? So would measure much worse but it looks good. Subjective. S1H: https://vimeo.com/404396461 Pretty similar to EVA1, much more banding. Difficult to judge shadows because banding, noise texture, etc. is all more subjective than results on a wedge chart. P6K: https://vimeo.com/408524414 This was at 400 ISO. So it looks like +4 or +4.5 and -2 or -3 if you can tolerate some banding. But at 800 ISO that would be +5 or +5.5 and -1 or -2 but that's from banding, not noise. So if you don't underexpose and rate at 800 ISO I can see this being surprisingly close to an Alexa unless you need to dig into the shadows. S1 has great highlight detail, not so good shadows: https://vimeo.com/399496111Every result is fantastic. An embarrassment of riches on the market today. I don't entirely trust the methodology though.
  8. C100 and C200 are pretty different in my experience. Not sure what to make of it, but the C100 has +5.3 stops of highlight dynamic range at base (850 ISO). C200 has +6.3 at base (800 ISO). So for the C200 maybe the best way to get an image closer to the C100 is shooting 400 ISO where the highlights will be similar. How are you metering? Since most of us are just metering by eye the ISO setting feels kind of irrelevant relative to how we expose, or at least can only be discussed in that context. I found the cameras to be completely different. Totally different looks, totally different ergonomics, totally different workflows.
  9. Have you done any grading other than applying a LUT? I was underwhelmed by the .mp4 files from the C200 but didn't find them quite this noisy, I found raw lite noisier. How did you expose these shots? The log files do look dark. Try black balancing and see if it helps a bit. I had the same experience with the C100 having more noise (and a stop less highlight detail) but nicer noise texture, at least with an external recorder. I found the C100 noisy when I exposed properly, more so than the C200, but the look was nicer when it was. Made me focus more on aesthetics and less on specs (or even lab tests) but with a camera that has gobs of dynamic range as the C200 has, it's easy to expose incorrectly, too. And then the noise reveals itself in post.
  10. Ten years ago I would have said Tim and Eric.
  11. Thanks. I've owned the 11-16mm and 11-20mm and while the color matched and sharpness was great, I didn't find either intercut well with the old Nikkors. Will go with the 20mm f3.5 UD. Not a perfect option, but cheap at least, and seems to have a very "vintage" look. (Is this just a euphemism for bad performance?)
  12. I should know the answer to this! I'm shooting S35 and my daily drivers are a set of f1.8/f2.0 Nikkors. They're great. I mostly went with the oldest ones I could. Single coated, longer focus throw, whatever. Lower contrast and vintage is my preferred look. For this at least. But I sold my 18mm f3.5 because it was too slow and the look didn't have the magic. I'm on EF mount so no speed booster for me. Debating between the 20mm f2.8, 20mm f3.5 UD (I love the look of this on Flickr), and 16mm f2 Rokinon and 20mm f1.8 Sigma EX. Sigma Art is too modern to intercut. I have owned a few Rokinons and they are all a bit different. I would expect the 16mm to perform too well to intercut with its fancy design and had at first dismissed it. I also mostly have 72mm filters and would need a step down ring, but I think I've read it can work with one. And I saw a video shot with one and mistook it for something older, so now I'm not as sure... Anyone got any (non-snarky, please) feedback or ideas? The 20mm f3.5 UD is in the lead right now. Back when I started this set I had a t2i and was limited to around 640 ISO tops so the depth of field is more for look than speed, I suppose, odd as that seems to me.
  • Create New...