TheRenaissanceMan

Still, I'd completely disagree. Especially when more and more camera/lens sales moving upstream into the "enthusiast market."

It's $200 cheaper. Not exactly in a different price category. And OSS isn't a critical feature when all your bodies have IBIS. Plus, the the Zeiss 24-70/4 isn't exactly blowing the doors off for optical performance. On a separate note, Jon, I don't think anyone appreciates the condescending attitude.

Sony's 24-70/4 isn't exactly a top performer optically, though...and based on their DSLR f/4 zooms, I would be pretty confident buying Nikon's. Curious to see proper reviews of it and their other lenses, though.

2. Most know-nothing DSLR soccer moms and the like got a short zoom, a long zoom, and a 50mm. Got tons of people who wanted to do their own portraits/headshots for fun or to save money. Prime lenses there. Travel photography, sold a wide fast prime to plenty of those. Same with astrophotographers. Even had one wild dude who was a serious birder and bought several brutally expensive primes, including a 500mm. Do most consumers go for zooms first? Sure. But I would not say "no one except pros use primes." In fact, working photographers are the exact people who often benefit from zooms to get critical shots, while hobbyists can pick up a more fulfilling prime, take their time, and not worry about potentially missing a paycheck moment.

As someone who sold cameras for 5 years, I can say with no hesitation that you are completely wrong about that.

PM me. We can talk lights all day. ? The 28mm 1.8 is a hidden gem. Not a whiz kid when it comes to test charts, but what a render.

Eh, the F3 is the same sensor with better processing, better form factor, better I/O, built in NDs, S-LOG, and for basically the same used price. Neither is a small camera, and I'd rather have an F3 on a cheap shoulder pad any day.

I think Art Adams tackled a similar topic in a more thorough, methodical way. https://www.provideocoalition.com/defining-the-cinematic-look/

Anyone here have experience with Tiffen Glimmerglass? Just worked on a big show that used it, and based on what I saw on monitor (plus the test footage from Tiffen on Vimeo) it does some really nice things to faces.

How's the MF action? Beautiful video @alanpoiuyt. What settings are you using?

Just ordered mine; apparently it'll take at least 3 weeks to get here. Yikes. When it does, I'll let you guys know in case there's any tests you want done. Definitely going to line it up against my buddies' A7S II and GH5 for reference, as well as the F3 to see if it can match it for gimbal/crane/overhead shots.

Maybe this calls for a separate topic on color science?

I would argue that that type of shooting is more videography, as you're not really making a film there in the traditional sense. But sure, for no-budget travel or recording family memories, it's nice to have a smaller camera.

https://indiefilmhustle.com/color-science-let-pixar-teach/ http://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/a-short-history-of-camera-color.html Smarter, more experienced people in this industry seem to disagree with your dismissal of color science as a concept. Perhaps, as a beginner, you should spend more time listening and learning, rather than espousing ideas you don't understand? All photosites only capture luminance data. That data is assigned an R, G, or B value, depending on the filter that covers it. Those filters have to be carefully designed to let in their color and a bit of the others: if made too pure, the sensor will not be able to accurately reproduce secondary colors, like yellow and cyan; not pure enough, and colors blend together into mud from lack of separation. These color values must be interpolated from nearby photosites, as each one only capture data for R, G, or B. How that data is cobbled together has a profound result on the resulting detail and color. Then this information feeds into a camera's color matrix, which carefully subtracts channels from each other to create clear and distinct colors. All of which are made to hit specific mathematical targets within the manufacturer's carefully designed color space. These are tuned partially for accuracy, but also to create certain effects on the viewer based on the psychological effect of various colors. So sure, subjectivity plays a part. That's why every manufacturer does their color slightly differently, and has their own "look." But to purport that no math or science goes into the process is misinformed and asinine.

Big camera on sticks, small camera on sticks. Doesn't make much difference in my experience. Same thing on a dolly. Handheld, sure, although I'll take a good FS7 shoulder setup to holding a properly rigged camera out in front of me all day. Gimbal...sure, a small camera is the ideal tool there. But gimbal shots are massively overused these days, and don't necessarily guarantee more interesting shots. In fact, I find many people I work with use camera movement much more effectively when stepping up to a larger camera, because it forces them to think harder about how and why they're moving the camera. And also because shoulder/handheld stuff has a nicer look due to the added inertia--a more professional handheld aesthetic, if you will. Also, big cameras just have more going for them. Comprehensive I/O, better image quality, more features, higher frame rates, beefier codecs, etc. More space means better cooling, more ports, bigger processors, etc. I'm not saying a big camera is always the ideal tool, but the vast majority of the time it's not what's holding you back.

Sorry, did you have a specific point here?

I know you didn't say it flat out, but there's often an attitude floating around that the technically sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses are the ones you NEED to go for, and that any other choice is based on fanciful ideas or ignorance. Some DPs DO find Master Primes too flat and perfect. Some love their strong, consistent performance. Maybe we could improve the discourse of the forum by trying to recognize more often that there are many effective methods, and they should all be analyzed and appreciated for their unique merits. Mercer, the advantage of knowing a little about the higher end optics is that they have distinct characteristics they're known for, and therefore work as good references against which to compare the lower-end stuff we have a better chance of owning/renting for our personal projects. For example: my Leicas were made in the same company at the same time by the same designers as the Panavision lenses of that era--the C series--and share some similar design goals/aesthetics, though obviously made to meet completely different price points. Contax Zeiss, on the other hand, were made alongside their Super and Standard Speed cinema glass, and have characteristics that hover somewhere between the two, depending which specific lens you're looking at. RedUser is a great place to hear about the higher end stuff, as are articles by people like Art Adams. Shane Hurlbut's tests are useful, but his commentary often isn't imo. John Brawley I find has great insight on optics too; his tests on the SLR Magic APO primes really won me over. Ultimately, our tools are a personal choice that help us define ourselves as artists. All I'm asking is that we keep that in mind, alongside the more vigorous "better or worse" quality debates that regularly dominate the site.

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.)

No CFA, no micro lenses. Weird.

Rokinons are flimsy plastic lenses with glass ranging from okay to mediocre. I'll use them if they're all that's available, but they're right near the bottom of my list. I know I'm a broken record on this, but Leica R, Contax Zeiss, Minolta Rokkor (converted to EF), and Voigtlander lenses will provide superior image quality, smooth mechanics, and the ability to travel with you to all future cameras. Won't cost much more either, depending which versions you go with. Rokinons are cinema lenses in name only. They're not optimised mechanically or optically for video, beyond the cheap gearing. Invest in something that'll last.

My understanding is that using the picture profile version of S-Log and setting Matrix to "off" uses SGamut, as does (on 4:4:4 units) setting the output gamma select to S-Log. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but I'm getting correct results with the color transform in DaVinci.

Untrue. Both the F35 and F3 use SLOG1 and SGAMUT. The results with Resolve's transforms bear that out.

They uploaded the full res comparison clips to YouTube.

Ah, my b. No clue about that one. Wonder how the focus ring is. Those earlier EFs range from pretty good MF action to pretty awful. Fun thing I just learned: all of Call Me By Your Name was shot on a 35mm. And it looks lovely! A single lens film can definitely be done, but it entails its own set of challenges. See that as an advantage, though, since specific limitations often produce inspired results. Hm...modern clean prime. 35 or 50. Not too pricey. The Olympus OM 35mm f/2 comes to mind. Sharp as a tack, great colors, very affordable. The Contax Zeiss 35mm 2.8 MM is another stunner, if you can handle a modest aperture. Sparkling and pristine from wide open, and a tiny little bugger to boot. Ditto the CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7, which is even sharper than the 1.4. Downside of that one is the build quality--bit plasticky compared to the rest of the lineup--as well as the somewhat "nervy" bokeh (though that's more of a taste thing). I do have the Leica R 50mm Cron. My version hails from 1970, and thus wasn't too pricey. Ran me about $350. Lovely, gorgeous lens, but I wouldn't exactly call it clean and modern. More like a Panavision C-series, with a bit of highlight bloom and nice resolution of fine detail without aggressive microcontrast. Flares like a bastard, too. Canon lenses aren't my favorite, but don't fix what ain't broke. If it works for you, use it. And it certainly looks like it's working for you! Love what you've been doing with the 5D raw.