Jump to content



Photo

Sony F900 Vs Canon7D


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12339 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 November 2014 - 07:04 PM

Hi David

 

Interesting insight - I keep seeing F900s for sale for silly money, but of course the cost is the lenses. You can get the bodies for $6k - but then it needs $30k of glass.

 

Do you record it straight to ProRes on a flash recorder, or something like that? Technically the worst thing about F900 is the recorder.

 

P


  • 0

#22 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 November 2014 - 07:40 PM

 You can get the bodies for $6k - but then it needs $30k of glass.

 

I would have thought B4 mount glass was fairly cheap these days.


  • 0

#23 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 14 November 2014 - 08:06 PM

Glass really seems to never be all that cheap ever. Least of all when it can be adapted in any way. Granted, still cheaper than when it came out, no doubt, but...


  • 0

#24 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 November 2014 - 08:19 PM

B4 mount glass isn't readily adapted to formats other than 2/3". The nearest digital format is Micro 4/3 and it generally doesn't cover the image circle. There are an awful lot of 2/3" shooters still out there, on reality shows and news/sports, but increasingly those shows are changing over to s35 chip cameras and PL glass.

 

You can buy older SD ENG lenses now for hundreds, not thousands of dollars.


  • 0

#25 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 14 November 2014 - 08:22 PM

This is very true; though it also doesn't stop people from adapting them to almost any MFT system. Even I have an old SD zoom which works on my pocket. I find this keeps things rather inflated. Plus; if you add "HD" to it, then...


  • 0

#26 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 November 2014 - 08:34 PM

Out of interest, at what focal length does your old zoom start to cover the MFT sensor?


  • 0

#27 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 14 November 2014 - 08:39 PM

It doesn't cover the MFT; I use it on a pocket. It's a 9~117 lens with a doubler built in. With the doubler on it covered the GH2 (if memory serves) through the range. On the S16mm pocket sensor it starts covering around 16mm give or take; but I haven't hardly used it on that camera unless I want the long end of it.


  • 0

#28 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12339 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 November 2014 - 04:41 AM

Yes, you can get B4 lenses that will fit an F900 and project an image on to all of the sensor for $500 if you particularly want to. Whether they're likely to produce pictures that anyone would consider HD is another matter...

 

In all seriousness, it's now possible to buy what would have been considered a rather good standard-def B4 lens for not much money and apparently some of them are pretty reasonable, especially stopped down a bit. But then if you're shooting a small format, as we've heard, you really don't want that limitation. I've seen 14x7-ish lenses with "HD" branding going for under $10k used, but I've no idea how much better they are than good, older SD lenses.

 

This concern is the main reason I don't own camera gear anymore. Cameras are cheap. Lenses that aren't ergonomically revolting remain stubbornly high-priced.


  • 0

#29 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 November 2014 - 11:45 AM

I would think that even an old SD lens could comfortably out-resolve a 2/3" HD sensor. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Surely old glass is all the rage these days?

 

:)


  • 0

#30 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12339 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 November 2014 - 12:34 PM

Bear in mind that we're talking about enormous 14:1 or 20:1 zooms, with massively wide short ends down to 4mm or so with the complex retrofocal design required to land that on a 3-chip block, plus extenders and relay groups to add optical junk to proceedings, which have to be small and light and often open up to a 1.3 all the way down. 

 

No, they're often not that great and sometimes they're absolutely terrible. Many of them have horrifying amounts of flare and diffusion and horrible contrast, especially at the long end, and especially wide open. Think about news work, where the priorities are a very wide wide end, a very long long end, and the ability to form some sort of image when you can more or less count the photons going past using an abacus. "Good" is of course relative but it's not an interesting old-lens sort of artifact, it's just milkiness and glow.

 

This has some comparative shots of a Fuji 17x7.6 HD lens and a 20x8 SD lens on a Blackmagic cinema camera. The performance is probably compromised by the 3-chip versus single-chip issues, but the comparative improvement with the HD lens is enormous. Both, sadly, are blown away by a much cheaper Canon 100-400 stills lens, but those are the breaks if you want a real zoom.

 

Were all this not the case I'd probably own something like a Blackmagic pocket camera right now, rigged up like that.

 

Oh, and, edit: this also has relevance to stuff like Amira. They're talking about B4 lens adaptors for it (or something like the HDx35), which are probably a good idea as the Fuji Cabrios really make it far too front heavy. One wonders what B4 lens could do an Amira justice.

 

P


  • 0

#31 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 November 2014 - 02:16 PM

Interesting article, although the SD lens was tested with the doubler in, which is something I used to avoid even when shooting Betacam.


  • 0

#32 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12339 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 November 2014 - 02:56 PM

To cover the BMCC, it'd have to be.


  • 0

#33 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 November 2014 - 03:54 PM

Not a good solution, unfortunately. It's a shame, as a fast ENG style zoom and a MFT Camera would be a useful combo for ultra low budget and personal projects.


  • 0

#34 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12339 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 November 2014 - 03:57 PM

Quite. I keep waiting for someone to put one out. I was all excited about the Canon CN series, but then I realised it was priced to compete with Cabrios, and... no.

 

A GH4 is coverable without the extender, in ETC mode...


  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery