Leaderboard

I guess everyone has their own requirements when it comes to lens designs. Personally, I have never carried a lens in my pocket, not even a pancake so that is not something high on my list. However, storage in my camera bag is always somewhat of a puzzle so shorter/compact is always welcome. I also value discretion which is why 70-200mm are usually not my thing. Plus compact lenses pair better with mirrorless cameras. So the RF 70-200mm f4 speaks to me. I know for others, weight is the major concern and it wins there too. Others do prefer fixed length mainly for proof reasons and that's valid although the RF-L extension zooms are weather sealed. Overall I think the RF 70-200mm F4 is a win. Maybe not to everybody but plenty of reviews out there give it praise and some even consider it their favourite lens:

People focus in some other directions. So-called professionals because that's for a living : ) This doesn't mean someone outside is not able to show up with more knowledge about ; ) A bit like film critics or a few so-called movie industry experts, the best ones are far to be the most famous ones : ) The same for cell phone cameras, they're the best sellers but this says too little and definitely not prone to offer the best outcome ;- ) Like blockbusters when arthouse is handicraft and is needless to say much more complex to be made as art form, free from formulas in the bag.

There is an optimum resolution and sharpness. More is not always better. This is why movies aren't all shot with the highest MTF lenses currently available - DoPs choose the optimal lenses and apertures for the scene / project. However, I shoot with cheap cameras (iPhone, GX85, GH5, etc) which are far too sharp, and look video-ish. Luckily, we can reduce this in post. This thread is me trying to work out: What the range of optimal resolution / sharpnesses are actually out there (from serious professionals, not moronic camera YouTubers or internet forum pedants) What might be a good point to aim for How I might treat iPhone / GX85 / other cheap shitty video-looking footage so it looks the least video it can be These techniques will likely apply to all semi-decent consumer cameras, and should be able to be adjusted to taste. I'm still at the beginning of this journey, and am still working out how to even tackle it, but I thought I'd start with some examples of what we're talking about. Reference stills from the Atlas Lens Co demos from their official YT channel, shot on Komodo and uploaded 6 months ago: (You have to click on these images to expand them, otherwise you're just looking at the forum compression...) Reference stills from the Cooke SP3 demos from the official Cooke YT channel, uploaded 11 days ago: I've deliberately chosen frames that have fine detail (especially fly-away hair lit with a significant contrast to what is behind it), in perfect focus, with zero motion blur. I think this is the most revealing as it tends to be the thing that is right at the limits of the optical system. So, what are we seeing here? We're seeing things in focus, with reasonable fine detail. It doesn't look SHARP, it doesn't look BLURRED, it doesn't look VINTAGE, it doesn't overly look MODERN (to me at least) and doesn't look UNNATURAL. It looks nice, and it definitely looks high quality and makes me want to own the camera/lens combo (!) but it basically looks neutral. But, that's not always the case. This is also from the same Cooke SP3 promo video: The fine detail is gone, despite there being lots of it in the scene. Is this the lens? Is this the post-pipeline? We don't know, but it's a desirable enough image for Cooke (one of the premier cinema lens manufacturers in the world) to put it in their 2.5 minute demo reel on their official main page. It also has a bit more feel than the previous images. Contrast that with these SOOC shots from my iPhone 12 Mini: I mean.... seriously! (If you're not basically dry-wrenching then you haven't opened the image up to view it full-screen.. the compressed in-line images are very tastefully smoothed over by the compression) More: and my X3000 action camera also has this problem: Those with long memories will recall I've been down this road before, but I feel like I have gained enough knowledge to be able to have a decent stab at it this time. We'll see anyway. Follow along if you're open to the idea that more isn't better...

I like a single prime around the "portrait" focal length. For me, that's a fast MANUAL 50mm on a 4/3rds sensor. I'm near-sighted so using the cam's display is very easy for me. That's about as simple as it gets. Camera. One lens. You want a wide shot, move away from things. Want tight, move in. The longer focal length almost always makes people look flattering and cinematic. I also like footage where focus can drift and the shooter pulls it back into focus. Feels real and organic to me. I don't want perfect, I want something that's a deeper truth than that. "Quiet" handheld is a technique I've practiced for years. Finally, another technique I use is to "dirty the frame" to add to the aesthetic. Overall that's kind of my jam anyway. I'd suggest trying it; you might like it. Less techy, more human. It's a loosey-goosey way to shoot and, personally, I do find it low stress because gear is minimal, I don't fret about anything but the shot, and it's just fun.

Thanks for the support! I did one single test run last night, of trying to get the B roll but also filmed aspect of everything I do in a single nights astrometry planning. Big notes. 1. Need a smaller tripod. Found a giant tandem leg tripod w a Manfrotto head on it in a closet and it's way too massive for this project. By a factor of like 3. For my budget, Im thinking the iFootage Gazelle to replace the legs and use the fluid head I found. 2. Low light lens. This one is obvious, but also the most difficult. The 17-70 2.8 is great, but a 24-105 F4 equivalent isn't gunna cut it when I'm filming with zero artificial light, often out in fields or at night in the observatory. Also, I believe I have also dashed my own hopes of using a manual focus cinema lens for this. I just can't see myself having a good time doing that. And im doing all of this... for fun. 3. Audio. In running these tests, the Rode Video Mic Pro R set to +20 and the XT4 set to -20dB was extremely clean, and useable for nearly every shot I threw at it. The only time I felt limited was when we had some kids riding down the road at full volume, which it picked up quite clearly as well! May consider a WirelessGOII for more personal VO things and such. Worries have calmed on the audio side. 4. Video Monitor. Here's my major wrestling point! I love the idea and concept of using a monitor. But my main concerns are bulk, balance, and batteries. Is that worth it? I dont think I can answer that yet. My Tamron NAILED focus during the test runs, but framing was a big concern because there were shots that I genuinely couldn't see the screen to ensure good framing. Where I used to work, we used large bright Atomos monitors, and that sadly isn't in the budget. Shinobi sounds fun, but if something is cheaper I will look at it. Any thoughts are welcome!

It make sense then. Probably the RF 70-200 F4 is even better on gimbal but it does not have a tripod collar that can make it a bit trick as you need some support on the lens.

Sorry I meant Venice II From: https://www.xdcam-user.com/2021/11/sony-launches-venice-ii/

As is the entire YT channel of WanderingDP, a real life working pro breaking down commercials. Not only does he break down the composition and lighting, and also shooting logistics like when you'd schedule different shots at different times of day, but also advice on how to be more efficient on set etc, plus he's hugely sarcastic and his videos are often hilarious... https://www.youtube.com/@wanderingdp/videos

I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/4. The EF 70-2000 f/2.8 was obviously never an option for gimbal use.

No, Venice is 6K. They have apparently used the A1 sensor in the BURRITO.

Decision made, I am getting one. Why? Because I have spendyitis vulgaris? Nope. Because it's only the second time in my life I have been inspired by a camera. The last time was Spring 2011 when the original Fuji X100 was announced. I drove 200 miles to a trade show in March to see and handle the thing and knew instantly it was right for me so preordered and had one of the first available in the UK. It arrived the day prior to my first wedding of the season so I took it alongside my pair of Nikon D3S's with big boy zooms. It was an instant revelation shooting bridal prep right up to the point the battery ran out of juice which coincided with the end of bride prep. Oops. Viewed the files when I got back and preferred them over the so called 'pro' camera files. There was a certain 'filmic/organic' look to them that has never been replicated by any camera I have ever used. I bought some more batteries and increasingly used that little guy over my pro cameras before actually shooting a large chunk of the season with just the X100. With hindsight, that was a little bonkers so as soon as the X Pro-1 was announced for the following year, I preordered a pair plus all 3 launch lenses and dumped the big Nikon stuff. Again with hindsight, it was probably a bit much/too little but I traded 'image quality' and joy of use for outright capability and range. Nothing has come close since. OK, the X Pro 2 did and so did the XH1 and more recently, the S1H, but none of these have really captured the intangible magic that the original X100 did. Today, I reckon a X100V might, but I think I have been there and done that now and it would not be another 'X100 moment'. I am pretty sure the Zf will be. I'm not expecting to get those same 'filmic/organic' files that the original X100 produced. I think that was off it's time, but instead, at the very least, the ethos and joy of using such a set up. But so so much more capable and without the shortcomings (crap battery life, super slow start up time and AF) of the X100. My education and career was for 5+ years on F2's or 3's, - it's that long ago, I'm not entirely sure so there is some heritage there just as my first proper camera was a Fuji STX2 that my grandparents gave me for my 16th birthday, which fostered a sense of nostalgia when I went fully Fuji in 2012. I have maybe 7 seasons left in this industry. We'll see about that, but 30 years I think is probably long enough and I think I am heading back to my roots and Nikon to see out those years. Not 100% committed yet, but I do have a need now to have something relatively lightweight and compact and around 35-50mm for at least 50%+ of my stills work so am going to get a Zf with the 40mm f2 SE lens as a very minimum for that very purpose. Beyond that, it's in Lumix's hands... They either produce a S2R or S2H within the next few months, or it will be Nikon all the way for me. It might still be Nikon regardless, but I need to give Lumix that chance because it will be a big and relatively costly move. Or it could even be a Nikon/Lumix mix as my S1H could easily be re-purposed into the mix as my dedicated static longer form video capture tool at which it excels.

On the Apple Camera App only ProRes can be recorded on external SSD or CFexpress…. make no sense but is Apple. Not sure if a third party app eg BlackMagic can record non ProRes to external storage.

Right on the spot ; ) I guess it should work in every recording mode but we never know if it is actually restricted to internal capture or not... No iPhone user over here yet ; ) Any iPhone 15 early adopters who can confirm it, please?

Would it be better if I called it "unsharpen" ? 🙂

Ain't they possible to record them directly via USB-C?

Nonetheless, I put my money on upcoming third party tools to flood the market soon. As already said, never had one yet (my OnePlus 9 Pro only allows a single lens @1080p without any customization), but still talking about 'blur'... I must confess, I guess, I won't resist to play WITH the bokeh, different lenses (?) @4K, that's for sure! : ) https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/iphone/iph5e602f6d6/ios No idea why they feel the need to mention up there how to export it externally, anyway... Long story short, I don't find it as bad as people's bad-mouth are used to bash or add some prejudice over this new world after all... A bit like filmmaking in general, the things won't perfectly work in every situation. Many great actors require many takes to optimise their outcome to their audience. The same for film directing, many drafts for the screenplay, lots of dialogues going straight to the bin and on and on. It works the same way :- )

Funny I hear you to evolve to something I was trying to defend myself before to be sick of this nonsensical overprocessing they insist to never leave outside of their yearly pack in fact. It's interesting to read your thoughts actually going in that direction (a bit or the same like to read Andrew to claim the beauty of 8K acquisition just not exactly for delivery, as for instance). Encouraging the claims of the LOG as solution mantra but disappointing to see its real use when these first samples pop up now. Let's wait and see, though. Common uneducated opinion says too little, I concur on that, obviously : ) Reason why there are opinions and opinions. Who said so? Ah it was you? Then, that surely counts in a much different way. Get me now folks? I'll probably be ending to buy one, who knows? But MotionCam going along the external SSD is attracting me much better than anything else to say it straightforward. Speaking of the devil aka 'blur' BTW, that concept of computational photography is neat and starts to be more than strictly wishful thinking nowadays, no many doubts there :- )

This is why I have swapped to the GX85 from the GH5 - the image quality from the GX85 isn't as good as the GH5 but the footage is better because the people in the frame are less aware of the camera. What is the workflow? That video shows the guy grading in Lightroom and then later on in Resolve, which seems rather odd. Can Resolve open the DNGs? People thought the earth was flat, and even now despite mountains of evidence some people still do. Popularity is a pretty poor way to judge what is true. The answer might just be a simple blur. Spoiler alert: I'm even wondering if over-sharpening in-camera might be a positive thing. More on this as my thoughts develop!

Man, if NASA is paramount (no complaints, how could I? ; )) then, let me show off a little bit now LOL as well disclose only a fraction my NDA : ) and let you all know I have some exclusive NASA's original footage to work in the next months to come! :- )

Don't you agree? : P Take a look on that thinning hair there: And it's not the only sample out there... Maybe the users had failed something there, no idea. However, listen, I see where you're coming from : ) I share your enthusiasm on specs and the idea LOG has set us free from over-processing but so far, everything screams oversharpened shit to my eyes (my major guideline, not opinions of other people), I'm sorry. Really. So, I still want to believe but I am not yet able to justify the purchase I'd like to, anyway.

Unbeatable, iPhone outcome looks garbage when compared with, the last version too, unfortunately... So far no good. Still waiting for something decent to pop up, though :- )

Btw whomever said android raw was good is very correct. The DNG workflow is ass though.

Wonder how many normal people still use their new purchase camera after 1 month when the novelty died off. But phone on the other hand you use it every min lol.

Looking at those stills close up they seem to have a nice noise structure which is actually quite filmic / organic. You can definitely tell it's RAW and not sharpened in-camera. I had the same experience with my Canon 700D when I installed Magic Lantern. Using the compressed modes was awful because the noise from the sensor (which was a lot) was awful when compressed, but in RAW it had a rather pleasing aesthetic.

Some good info here

I am perhaps the closest here to saying yes to this comment, being that I value size, simplicity, speed of working, stabilisation, and am actively opposed to creatively-inappropriate shallow DoF, etc. I do, and will continue to, use my phone as my second camera. I use it when I don't have a dedicated camera with me, I use it for a wide-angle (to complement the normal-tele lens on my proper camera), and I use it to shoot the in-between shots like getting in and out of vehicles and while travelling between locations. However, it is along way from becoming my only camera, because: They're crap in low-light, especially the wide-angle camera I tested my iPhone 12 Mini vs my GX85 and GH5 and I found that the normal iPhone camera had similar noise performance to the MFT cameras when they were at F2.8, and the wide camera was equivalent to F8! It's always your phone and your camera You always want to use the latest phone as your camera because they're getting better and better, but you always want to use the latest phone as a phone because the battery life etc is newer and better and they're faster. Therefore, you are always in danger of getting messages and pop-ups etc on your camera while shooting, or if you put it into aeroplane mode then you might miss important notifications. They're too expensive to buy two of. They're a pain to shoot with No handle, no wrist strap, etc, and if you rig it up then it's a pain to use it as a phone, and a pain to put in your pocket. Also, if you want to have any external accessories like lenses or NDs, they always require a case, but the cases are completely shit at being a protective case, so you're perpetually changing cases, which screws them up. Even if you don't use lenses etc you're going to want to use an SSD with it now because Prores. They lack flexibility of lenses Even a Panasonic GM5 that shoots low-bitrate 1080p will look better fitted with an F1.2 (or F0.95) lens than a phone for low-light situations. The GM5 will also look better fitted with a 100mm (or 200mm, or 400mm!) lens than a phone using heavy digital cropping on its longest lens. The GM5 will look nicer when fitted with a fast aperture lens than the Cinematic Mode which has about the same subtlety in blurring the image as a toddler does when smearing food on themselves at dinner time.

I found the breaking point. Fuji Instax Mini Evo. I don't actually own one so will have to buy it when we get there. A bit of a Pyrrhic vvictory then but in the battle of wills with your kids you'll take whatever win you can.

There is no good way to judge colour online - lets review all the possibilities: log images are shown this is the purest experience of the camera, but you can't judge anything with this log images + manufacturers LUT is shown this is the best way to judge images, but its random chance how good this will look and doesn't really show the potential of the footage graded images are shown, but they look crap this tells you nothing as you can't tell if the camera is bad, the LUT is bad, the colourist is bad, or all of them graded images are shown, and they look good this tells you what is possible but not what is possible for you. great images could be because the camera is great and colourist is ok, camera is good but colourist is very good, camera is mediocre but colourist is world class BTW, if camera forums and camera YT had the same level of knowledge about cameras as they do about colour grading then every video would be trying to work out the exposure triangle and failing. Even rudimentary colour grading and colour science knowledge online is rare outside professional colourist circles - I know more about these things that most and I am at the very very very shallow end of the pool so if I know more than you do then you're basically no-where...

F1.2 was the maximum, or F1.0 if you count the EF 50mm F1.0 F1.4 was the norm, a balanced option much smaller than F1.2 Look at the size of an EF 50 1.4 vs the F1.2, much smaller, or smaller still the Canon FD or Olympus OM 50mm F1.4 It's tiny F1.8 or F2 was for sharpness, F1.4 for portraits, softer skin, more ethereal look. Now in the mirrorless day, there's not many RF lenses at F1.4. They're either enormous F1.2, or cheap shit.

My recent purchase decisions have very much been lens driven and the R3 has been on my radar for a while as the near perfect body for me as I prefer a built in grip to a detachable one, but at the same time do not care for the weight. So Z9 vs R3 = a win for the R3. But then it falls apart for pretty much the reasons Andrew stated. My favourite lenses are the Tamron; 20-40, 28-75 G2 and 35-150, only available or can be adapted to Sony & Nikon, ie, I could stick all of those on a Z9 but none on a Canon. Also, the Sigma Contemporary line; 20, 35, 65, 90, 105 and 28-70. Sony or L Mount only. I like these for video work as they have both an aperture ring (well the primes do) and a manual focus switch which is part of the overall combo why I shoot L Mount for video. The only lens I actually like in Canon RF mount is the 28-70...but it is monstrous...and if I was to choose the R3 as my next stills camera, although I could live with this combo, it's not a 'one and done' combo because I could live without going wider than 28mm, but need longer than 70 and there isn't that much scope to crop with the R3. But having said that, it's still a near 2.5kg combo when the Sony A7RV + Tamron 28-75 is only about 1.5kg and can be cropped hard. Lenses have been my issue for well over a decade, partly because I have avoided Sony and to be fair, with good reason as until recently, I have found Sony cameras to be a bit meh. The A7RVa was the first that actually ticked the box and the A7RV even more so and I am struggling to see a better option for me for stills than that A7RV + Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 combo as it ticks...well every single box. Canon though, they have never been able to entice me into spending any money with them. Owned probably 50+ cameras but never a Canon.

I can say I personally switched away from Canon (despite LOVING their cameras) when my R6 got lost because of the RF mount. When I bought it I figured more options would quickly become available, but there's just no reasonably priced upgrade path, unlike with L mount. You either buy crappy plastic 1.8 primes or 2500$ ultra amazing lenses.

what about Venice sensors? do you have any info on those?

Yeah, just a little frustrated about the whole world seemingly taking digital cameras and giving them a bunch of crap that is increasingly fringe and specialist at the expense of simply having nice looking images. Everyone loves how the Alexa looks, even the original, but then when it comes to what features we demand in a camera, somehow image quality comes last, with all the BS somehow being more important. Non-cinema cameras have worse image quality now than they did in 2013. No-one stopped to ask... if the first 2 million pixels looks like crap, why would I want to have 62 million more?

If I was Blackmagic, I’d skip the L mount and be beating a path to Nikon’s door to use the Z mount. Natively, you can get fast Z primes up to 800mm so there is a much broader range there whereas L mount tops out at 135mm but it’s the adaptability where it scores. Adapters for EF with autofocus, E mount with autofocus, even any manual focus lens with M mount and deeper mount can have autofocus too and even PL mount with integral variable ND filter. Last but by no means least F mount with full autofocus, something which no other mount can offer. Between these adapters a customer for this speculated BM camera could use pretty much any lens they’ve acquired over the years with full autofocus. Minus X mount and of course L mount itself but weirdly with the MFT to E mount you can even use those lenses too. Z mount is hands down the most versatile mount around* with the added bonus of BM not having to deal with Leica who, let’s not forget, wouldn’t do firmware to make their cameras compatible with an adapter from one of the actual members of the alliance. My MC-21 still isn’t and won’t ever be compatible with my Leica T or SL. Nikon are unlikely to get into the true cinema camera market so there is less perceived challenge versus Panasonic who are very likely to want to do so with an L mount cinema offering in the near future. *This amazing and comprehensive compatibility didn’t of course stop me somewhat hypocritically not buying into Z mount and spending all my money that I’d intended to use on increasing my L mount collection of lenses instead 🙂

I think one very important bonus of this alliance would be the fact that it gives Panasonic a very important missing piece in their ecosystem: a truly professional cinema/ENG camera with 12-bit, XLRs, docu-style body etc. If you're buying into an ecosystem for the first time Sony offers such a great upgrade path for starting one-man bands with the A7-IV, FX3, 6, 9, Venice. No matter what level you start at you can always upgrade while keeping your lenses. Same goes for Canon. Panasonic really misses that at the moment. Panasonic currently offers some of the best hybrid camera's on the market and then after that there's nothing.

From John Brawley: "No. Canon, like Sony won't license their mount. It's an open secret that Red did an IP swap for the ability to use RF mount on some of their cameras and in exchange, Canon can make their own internal raw codec that can be used in-camera. It's easy to test the theory. Name a single camera (not lens) with E mount that isn't made by Sony? Same for Canon with RF (excluding Red)?" https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=173840&start=450#p956719

According to same John Brawley there is no licensing cost for any camera manufacturer to implement BRAW recording internally, it is not just for post processing. There is a cost however in development, to put all those algorithms in the processor chip. To my knowledge processor chip development is quite costly. Companies are using one chip for all of their models and for several years in order to be able to pay for this development.

Reading this thread about the opportunity to have native BRAW recording on Z-Cam, confirm that is OS on post production only: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=171209 Anyway, They could make a deal like the one rumored between Canon and Red: you don't f**k with your Raw and I let you use my mount....

That place has to be the most shit rumor site to have ever existed. It’s utter trash 😬 Because it might be the only viable full-frame mount available to them? I’m quite intrigued by BRaw and as an existing L Mount user…

Exactly ! If you are at Blackmagic and have to make a decision, which mount would you choose ? Market pushes toward FF, this is clear. Company has to make a move in this direction if it wants to stay relevant. L Mount seemed to me like a logical move, Kye gave much more detailed argumentation that I had in my head 🙂 Yes Blackmagic is competitor for Panasonic but so are Sony and Canon. Blackmagic carved a niche for themself. BMPCC 4K was selling well alongside GH5, GH6, GH5S and again as Kye rightfully noted: " Panasonic make hybrid MILCs and BM make cinema cameras." So they have slightly different niches. I don't know, it just makes sense to me and wanted to share those rumors with all of you. Would be happy to see Blackmagic go in this direction.

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense. BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount. Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose? EF mount They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.

Out of all the mirrorless mounts it makes the most sense that they'd go with the L-mount due to its open nature. There aren't really many alternatives.