Jump to content

Need serious help choosing my DSLR...


craigbuckley

Recommended Posts

Can you recommend a solid 14mm? And for an adapter, would something like this work?

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Olympus-Panasonic-Cameras/dp/B003EAVUMK/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1349025595&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+fd+to+gh

Or should I invest more..And thanks I will look into a tripod as well, and this website is great.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Have you considered the GH2? Bang for a buck especially with the GH3 around the corner. You also get a lot of very nice old prime lenses on ebay for little money.

Which adaptor you buy depends on the mount of the lens you buy. So for example, if you get a nikon lens, then you'll need a Nikon F mount to micro 4/3 adaptor or if you get a minolta lens, you need a

I double all of the above.. I'm also glad you posted this here instead of Personal View... It's good to see you still have a good self-esteem:) A GH2 with the 64gb, 95mbps Sandisk Extreme Pro car

I still think you should get the 14-42mm but the Panasonic 14mm f2.8 is a really nice lens and very inexpensive. It looks like it's about the cheapest 14mm you can get:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Aspherical-Thirds-Interchangeable-Cameras/dp/B008R6F6HG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_p_2

Oh and check out this guys website where he does some really great scientific comparisons between different micro 4/3 lenses:
http://m43photo.blogspot.com

About Neutral Density filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter
Basically, it allows you to shoot wide open aperture in full daylight by cutting down the light entering the lens. It's so you can get that shallow depth of field look in brightly lit scenes. A variable ND filter is actually two pieces of specially coated glass that rotate against each other. The more you rotate the top glass, the less light gets through. It's an indispensable tool and great for outdoor shooting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, i got the same pancake 14mm. Its the cheapest you can get. Can not say anything about the adapter. From the reviews it seems to be alright. I ordered mine over ebay in Poland, its not out of plastic and handmade. But to be honest i relied on the advice of some other site members in my choice. (ciecio7 is the seller name on ebay)

14mm or 20mm does not say too much about a film look. I also recommend trying to find your own look. Many people are after a look that is characterized by other dslr shooters as film look. There is no such thing as THE film look. And if everybody shot flat, soft and with a super duper shallow depth of field, then it would become really boring to look at in a short time. There are good books about cinematography, you might want to take a look at those, too.

www.amazon.com/The-Filmmakers-Eye-Cinematic-Composition/dp/0240812174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349032853&sr=8-1&keywords=breaking+the+rules+of+cinematography

This is a book i really like. Its easy to get in and gives some good technical advice, too.

For a wide lens i would go for 14mms though. 35mms and then (if you have the money, 50) and 85mm. Those were the first 4 primes i bought.

Trust me, you will really enjoy the gh2. canon certainly has a huge fanboy cult. And honestly they make really good cameras, but they did not improve as much as other developers over the last years and they cost a lot more. For the amount of money you want to pay, there is nothing in the league of the gh2.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The 14mm and the 14-42mm? Well, I'n not sure I understand why you would want them both? The 14mm pancake is f-2.8 and the 14-42mm starts at f3.5 so you are only gaining a about a stop with the pancake lens over the zoom so I don't really think you're gaining much there. Like I was saying before, if 14mm isn't wide enough for you, you should be looking at wider lenses, not those with the same focal length. So, I think if it's not wide enough for you, like if you want a fisheye lens, then that's another story all together. There are some nice 7mm lenses out there if that's what you are after but they are going to cost you.

As far as the 14mm having a better film look then a 20mm, this is really subjective and there are a lot of differing opinions on this. There are a lot of factors contributing to how "filmic" or "Cinematic" a shot looks. The lens has a lot to do with it but there are some other very important things to keep in mind as well. The lens's focal length has more to do with what you are trying to convey or the story you are trying to tell then how cinematic it will look. You actually need to have a good range of focal lengths in order to say different things about different kinds of scenes. There are some general rules that you can apply to film making but it's really up to you how you follow them. For instance, wide angle lenses are good for establishing shots and showing the hugeness of something like a building or vista. Medium focal lengths are good for... well, medium shots of course. And telephoto lenses are good for close ups and giving the viewer a sense of intimacy. So, the lens focal length is more about the story then the look. As far as look goes, let me refer you to a great little beginner video:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf_3gX_Z6Lo A[/media]

very important thing I think that HD-DSLR's gave to film makers though is shallow depth of field and this has a great effect on how cinematic something looks in my opinion. Lower f-stop numbers will give you better shallow depth of field then higher numbers so keep this in mind when lens hunting.

Personally, I would go for an older lens in the 24mm to 35mm range with as wide an aperture as you can find (the lowest f-stop number like f2.0 to f1.4) to add to the kit lens so that you can shoot some nice shallow depth of field stuff. Then, maybe a cheap old 50mm f-1.4 lens. Those old 50mm lenses are a dime-a-dozen and offer really nice shallow depth of field in a nice telephoto range. This way you have wide angle, medium and telephoto covered.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a really great video on Youtube a few years ago about shooting documentary but I wasn't able to find it again. However I discovered that the same guys above has a really nice tutorial as well. Take a look at this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyhjh4jR4s&feature=relmfu
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349034020' post='19260']

very important thing I think that HD-DSLR's gave to film makers though is shallow depth of field and this has a great effect on how cinematic something looks in my opinion. Lower f-stop numbers will give you better shallow depth of field then higher numbers so keep this in mind when lens hunting.
[/quote]

Thanks for the good advice... Lower f-stop numbers? What do you mean by this? I understand the shallow depth of field idea and would like a lens that can produce this, but which lens would be good for shallow depth of field? The 20mm pancake?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lower f-stop numbers like f/1.4 or f/2.0 are better then f/3.5 or f/4. Lenses are usually described with a focal length and widest possible aperture. The wider the aperture the better. So if you see a lens described as a "50mm, f/3.5" and then another "50mm, f/1.4", the latter is better because the lower F-stop number indicates a wider aperture opening. f/1.4 is better then f/3.5.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You need an adapter for canon fd lenses. Fotodiox has one. Make sure its the adapter for the right line. You dont want any leica, Olympus or Minolta Adapter. But Canon and for the FD line not any other. Several brands make one, i think you should be alright with the fotodiox one...

The canon fd 50mm 1.4 is by the way a very good lens to start with as it is not too expensive. Lenses can be for a life time, if they are good. I own several Canon FDs and they are in average 30 years old but still excellent. There are sometimes even older and excellent lenses outthere. Camera technology changes fast though. So who knows, you might put that lens in 20 years on another camera that nobody could have thought off today...

by the way...the SSC version of the canon fds has a radioactive coating on the lens. Some think its bad, some think it does not matter at all. Just a fact to consider...
Link to post
Share on other sites
many people are scared of the word "radioactive" because of obvious reasons. however the radioactive level of these lense coating are almost impossible to measure and can be neglected for health reason. they do however change the colorlook of the image. thats something some people like and others dont :) you have to see for yourself. its nothing that a great lense needs though, if that was your question.

No that Nikon lense doesnt have it. to give you a little more input, i would recommend the Super Takumar 50mm 1.4. look at a few examples and take your pick!

may i join this thread with my own questions? dont want to open up a new one :)

i cant decide between the following cameras: GH2, GH3, 6D, D600 and A99. although the last one is actually over my budget. $2000 should be the max. the first question i asked myself is: do i need FF? and actually i believe right now that i do. i can achieve the shallow depth of field with faster lenses, but youll always get a more cinematic look with FF. can you convince me of the opposite :) ? than it would come down to the gh2 and gh3. the gh2 is much cheaper and with the hack i dont see big disadvantages to the gh3. i mean the sensor is even a little larger and we dont have to worry about moire. what do you think?
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='pietz' timestamp='1349186823' post='19317']
i can achieve the shallow depth of field with faster lenses, but youll always get a more cinematic look with FF. can you convince me of the opposite :) ?
[/quote]

Nope. Essentially you're right. ;-) Better low light performance, better DOF, less noise, etc. I'm sure if we had our druthers, we would all be shooting on full frame cameras. But, they are usually cost prohibitive for many a starving artist. When it comes to the argument of FF camera's like the 5DIII vs GH2, It's all about a balance of compromises.

One thing you should consider though: so far, all the full frame HD video capable cameras out there still don't produce as nice an image as the GH2. This is really the reason so many people choose the GH2 in the first place. I mean, you are making a lot of compromises when you choose Micro 4/3 but the quality really is that good. The biggest issue for me with full frame cameras is that Canon (and from what I've heard, Sony and Nikon) all use a process called "Line skipping" to scale images down to 2K. Basically, if you have an image and you want to make it half the size, you can just throw out every other pixel. This is usually what produces the aliasing and moire in those cameras. On top of that, these cameras usually employ high or subpar compression which causes further detail loss and softening. Panasonic on the other hand, use pixel summing when scaling down the original 16 mega pixel image to 2K. This greatly reduces Aliasing and moire. Then with the hack, you are able to retinal a lot more of those details due higher bit rate compression.

To me argument seems more like an issue of convenience then anything else. FF cameras give you the ability to shoot in less that satisfactory lighting conditions and still give you nice looking results. They also give you the ability to use cheaper lenses with say, an f/3.5 aperture and still get beautiful bokeh. So, you don't have to try as hard as you would using a camera like the GH2. However on the GH2, even though you get don't get the same shallow depth of field, the final image is going to retain so much more of those crisp and organic details that get lost in the down scaling and compression of the FF cameras out there. So, you kind of have to ask yourself whether you would like less convenient sensor size but better looking over-all video quality or more convenient sensor size and lower quality video. And lets be honest for a sec, it's not like the images from a 5DIII or A99 look like crap. Most of the time, you won't even notice it and the video will look amazing. It's only when you see it in comparison to the GH2 that you notice all the detail loss. And really, as I've been learning recently, If you are just going to upload your movies to Youtube and Vimeo, does that matter?

P.S. I find it funny sometimes when people say that full frame cameras are more cinematic because of their larger sensors. I mean, it's true and all but actually a frame of film on a super 35 motion picture camera is actually closer in size to an APS-C sensors. So, with a FF camera you are actually getting a "Vistavision" frame.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349154330' post='19300']
ok ok thanks again everybody... In choosing an adapter, does this matter on the lens? Say I am purchasing one of those canon fd 50mm 1.4 lens, is the fotodiox going to work with that or do I need a specfic adapter?
[/quote]

Okay, I think I see what you are asking here. By "on the lens" you are wonder if different lenses need special adaptors to support different features of those lenses? If that's the case then, like I said before, you can only use "manual" lenses on the GH2. Those lenses don't have any special features that you need to worry about.

Just keep in mind that if you find a lens that has autofocus, you won't be able to use that feature. In many cases, you can still use the lens on the GH2 but it won't "Autofocus" for you. But when shooting video, You'll find that autofocus is one of those things that makes video look like video. ;-) And, when shooting with autofocus on the GH2 it tends to jump in and out really quickly anyways. When you shoot with a film camera or DSLR, you usually try and make your focus changes nice and smooth so focusing by hand is the best way to get really nice results. The other common issue you will run into when looking for old lenses is automatic aperture control. Most newer lenses use a feature where you can set the aperture with a button or dial on the camera or have the camera set it for you automatically. In doing this, most camera designers decided that because of that, you don't need an aperture ring anymore. Most modern lens systems are like that now a days. So, if you can't use any automatic features on the GH2, how are you going to change the aperture? Exactly. You can't. Therefore, you need to make sure that the lens you buy has an aperture ring. All old lenses like Canon FD, Nikon F, Minolta MD, etc. all have aperture rings so if you stick with those, you'll be fine. You only need to buy one adaptor for each different type of lens mount you get. So, if you get 3 different Canon FD lenses and one Nikon lens, you only need to get two adaptors. One for the Canon mount and one for the Nikon mount. Afterword, you can continue building your collection with either of those two mounts or you can get another adaptor for another lens system and build out that way. It's one of the beauties of the Micro 4/3 system.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349202502' post='19327']P.S. I find it funny sometimes when people say that full frame cameras are more cinematic because of their larger sensors. I mean, it's true and all but actually a frame of film on a super 35 motion picture camera is actually closer in size to an APS-C sensors. So, with a FF camera you are actually getting a "Vistavision" frame.
[/quote][/background][/size][/font][/color]

While we type and read, a huge shift is underway. Digital cinema is growing up, and a change in perceiving the spirited images we call [i]film[/i] has already begun. Sunday I watched a doc in an arthouse cinema that was obviously shot mostly with DSLRs. Despite all efforts to mimic the analog 'world' (RIP), digital cinema, and 8-bit video in particular, never looks like [i]film[/i]. But I, a projectionst and almost an analog fundamentalist, found that I felt completely happy with the clean, videoish look, and that it did not weaken the impact of what was to be - er - [i]transported[/i]. If there [i]is[/i] something to be transported and not just the travesty of a look of the past. I say, let's stop comparing film to video. Perhaps we should eliminate the word film from our vocabulary and invent something else. Something that lets us love our stuff as it is, forget about stupid looks and start telling something. This can be great times for independent _ _ _ _makers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks galenb. i agree, go with the GH2 for superior video quality and sharpness or a FF of choice for the look and slight moire and aliasing problems.

with the 5D3 being probably the best FF fpr video right now, i keep thinking about the 6D because for video purposes its essentially just as good as the 5D3 except for the missing headphone jack. would you agree? only 97% viewfinder coverage, little worse AF system and a little lower resolution dont hurt me as a videographer. and for that its 40% cheaper!

can anybody say something about a comparison between the D600 and the 6D? they are both about the same price. an advantage for the 6D would be that a lot of my friends are using canon cameras, borrowing their lenses is a big plus. is the D600 that much better to compensate for that? is the A99 woth the extra $800 dollars?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys,

I'm new to this forum but have been working in broadcast tv in the UK for many years.
Like many of us here we now have to multi-skill which I've done successfully for a long time which means that camera work, sound, editing etc are no mystery to me. My armoury of tools includes jibs, masts, camera stabilisers and I even fly my own very sophisticated UAV for all the aerial work which I'm fully licensed to use here in the UK.
I regularly use various more conventional camcorders and am well acquainted with avchd.

I've resisted the whole DSLR thing until now - as much on ergonomic grounds as anything else but am now being asked to provide a dslr style of image and after considerable research I've ended up at the door of a hacked GH2 as being the best equation of quality, weight, cost and versatility. I already own a whole bunch of stills lenses that will fit with the right adapters.

The burning question for me is:
Should I buy a GH2 now while they're still available or wait for the GH3?

All views and advice gratefully received :-)

Steve
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...