Jump to content

The M43 Cinema - 3 Way Battle


sanveer
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sanveer said:

But it's a strange situation. It's almost like having 13 or 12.75 Stops at ISO 400 and ISO 3200, or, 13.5 Stops at ISO 100. The low light would be hit big time. I won't be surprised if it may then be unusable at ISO 1600. 

Yep unfortunately that's my guess as well. The ZcamE2 is meant for internal use, almost studio like. I can see how in that situation you have control of the light so higher ISOs are not that important, but at the same time because you have lights the dynamic range is also not that important. Thus if it ends up being true, I would see it more as cost cutting measure/spec bragging than something that would be more useful for videographers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mercer said:

Even without the Dual ISO implementation I would suspect that there may be a bump in DR somewhere in the higher ISOs. 

How? 

13 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

Yep unfortunately that's my guess as well. The ZcamE2 is meant for internal use, almost studio like. I can see how in that situation you have control of the light so higher ISOs are not that important, but at the same time because you have lights the dynamic range is also not that important. Thus if it ends up being true, I would see it more as cost cutting measure/spec bragging than something that would be more useful for videographers

It's strange and sad how they're cutting corners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

So just because the sensor is capable of Dual ISO, if they don’t implement a circuit, there would be no trace of it embedded in the hardware of the sensor?

Which leads me to ask... is the implementation of Dual ISO hardware or software related?

Both. Everything in hardware has implementation in software. And vice versa.

 

Even Sony Entry-level ILCs like the A6300 ans A6500 have dual native ISOs and that is why their low light is pretty usually upto ISO320 or ISO6400. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

is the implementation of Dual ISO hardware or software related?

For dual ISO you need separate analog circuits on the sensor. So hardware. The software just switches between these analog circuits at a specific ISO value.

There is no strictly software dual ISO because that means applying gain, which would always amplify the noise floor as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 11:04 PM, Damphousse said:

Good to know.  I have a kit panny lens but never used it much.  I promptly got the BMPCC specific EF speedbooster and just used my Canon lenses.  I don't like the whole adapter thing and it was kind of dumb to let in all that light with the speedbooster and then have to put on a crazy heavy ND filter but I liked working with a more s35 field of view.

I may follow your lead and get a c-mount or Voigt as a compact walk around solution.

I still have that crappy kit lens so I'll play with that till I make my decision.  I haven't preordered yet so I guess I will get my camera in Summer 2019!

I’m in the middle of some projects, so I am going to wait until the spring or summer of 2019 to get one. I think this camera is pretty ambitious for BM, so it may not be ready by September anyway. So between my projects and my cautious nature, I’d rather wait to see what kinks the camera has before I throw down the money for one.

Those Panasonic kit lenses, although slow, are pretty sharp even wide open. I had the 14-42mm, first version, last year during the second time I briefly had a Pocket cam.

At the time I was looking for a get up and go alternative to my 5D3 when I wanted to be incognito, and shoot in ProRes for a quick turnaround in post.

I did a test or two and decided to just roll with my 5D3... long story short... I had too much expendable income at the time... wish I had expendable income now. And although I could afford both cameras, my color grading skill set was better suited for the 5D3 and the few little things I would have used the Pocket for didn’t really justify the cost to keep it.

Anyway here’s a short and dumb little, handheld test I did with that lens, a Hoya IR filter and a Bower variable ND. Surprisingly, the OIS was pretty decent. And even with the small sensor, on the long end, wide open, I could get some shallow depth of field.

 

Turn down the audio... I should have in post. Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mercer said:

I had the 14-42mm, first version, last year during the second time I briefly had a Pocket cam.

The lumix 14-42mm mark II was my first lens with the BMPCC, which I used briefly before switching to a speedbooster. The stabilisation worked fine for me too, though there was no way of turning it off as there was no OIS switch on the lens itself. When panning the motion could get a bit jerky, depending on the way you panned.

Here's a video I made with it (also using an Olympus 9mm f8 toy lens for wide shots), prores, with some post stabilisation:

And this one exclusively with the 14-42mm:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess I'd rather take the smoothness balance without losing the sharp outcome for any one of the 14-42mm versions than the sharpness from the 12-35mm constant f/2.8 glass... Unpredictable stuff from tempered forks over knives (interesting doc title BTW) to gently handle can always end juicy to our side as we wish and our craft takes there. Cinematic milestone is anything but never utmost real details from the subject to shoot.

Thanks to Chris for taking the discussion on the table : ) More love for crappy lenses! LOL : ))

Here we go -- no reason to be picky with low light shortcoming this time... no excuses hehe

Sorry to go deeper (you Glenn @mercer already know it) BTW it even has Fuji in the name all included! LMAO (E :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

I must confess I'd rather take the smoothness balance without losing the sharp outcome for any one of the 14-42mm versions than the sharpness from the 12-35mm constant f/2.8 glass... Unpredictable stuff from tempered forks over knives (interesting doc title BTW) to gently handle can always end juicy to our side as we wish and our craft takes there. Cinematic milestone is anything but never utmost real details from the subject to shoot.

Thanks to Chris for taking the discussion on the table : ) More love for crappy lenses! LOL : ))

Here we go -- no reason to be picky with low light shortcoming this time... no excuses hehe

Sorry to go deeper (you Glenn @mercer already know it) BTW it even has Fuji in the name all included! LMAO (E :-)

Although the foggy haze definitely helped him with that video, so did that Fujian lens and this is one of my favorite GH5 videos... so... thanks for finding it!!!

I love crappy lenses. Be it cheap new lenses, or cheap vintage lenses. One of my most watched lens tests, on Vimeo, was from a Sony 3n and one of those aps-c c-mount 25mm lenses.

Everybody has different needs and opinions. Some people want the cleanest, and sharpest image. For me, I just want something interesting... sometimes you can get there faster with a clean, sterile image, other times a funky lens will do the job. Hell, sometimes an iPhone and a Moondog Anamorphic may do the trick.

Traditionally, I have chosen lenses based on practical reasons... money. And honestly that’s as good a reason as any. Recently, I have found myself in a rough financial patch, so I am revisiting a lot of my old lenses and man there are some unknown gems that cost next to nothing.

Will they give you a perfectly sharp image across the frame, no... but they will lend a little character that these modern sensors sometimes need to quell the inherent sterility of 4K sensors.

In some ways the P2 is too good, I really hope the final version has some of the funk and edge of the original Pocket and BMCC.

If it is too good, maybe it will be popular enough for me to snag a cheap GH5 on the used market. I already own a camera that shoots Raw, so if I’m going to buy a second camera... something with IBIS, or one of the dozens of other things the GH5 does well, could be equally as appealing as a P2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes 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. ?

Fair enough, but he also shoots with an Alexa. In my opinion, all of the cameras we discuss aren’t in the same category or on the same planet as they’re using in Hollywood. Putting a master prime on a GH4 isn’t going to make GH4 footage look like The Revenant. What I think these cameras can do, is mimic older film pretty damn good. 

So I’ve always looked at it as this... there is no way in hell with my resources that I am going to get an image that even minutely competes with an Alexa... even if I was insanely talented. But I may be able to get an image that looks like a 70s or 80s film. And for me, the mere thought that it’s possible with a $2000, or less camera, is pretty astounding. Your mileage may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...