NDT0001
Lives in
Australia
Joined on
Mar 20, 2009
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| 2014_1211_140657AA by old shutter bugger from The Bride | Overloaded by NZ Scott from Your City - Delivery Boy | Barley by Will B Milner from Alone | APPLE & ROACH by TX Photo Doc from Delicious - Unpalatable |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
2464FeatureWhat is equivalence?
Arca45Swiss: What's weird about IG is that's it is only really mobile friendly. Try posting in Safari or another browser, you can't
Id hate to state the obvious, but it was always made to be a mobile platform. It was never intended to work well from a desktop browser.
Paul Pasco: Sometimes I read comments here and shake my head. I saw this gallery for the first time on my phone and go 'wow, what amazing rock formations' and then read some comments and it's whining like little children about the photographer's PP skills. I'm just great full to see a place I will probably never see in person.
wait until you get called stupid, ignorant and uneducated for having a moderate opinion on anything. I would NEVER show any of my work on these photography websites. It is truly a sewer of human behaviour for many.
Everythingis1: Lonely Planet makes really excellent travel books/guides. If they pour their resources into this is has the potential to be a great travel companion.
Agreed! They are a great resource.
65mm is an awesome focal length. I wish more manufacturers would make this size. Lets you get back a bit and use it like a fifty.
nir-vana: Wondering if the optical design is new for these lenses or the same as the stills versions.
The reason for the curiosity is that PL mount has larger focal flange (52mm) than EF (44mm) or Nikon F (46.5mm). In case of E mount version it's not a problem - just add a tube, but when the flange is larger than the original design, you have to change something.
same glass, different housing.
Why is it that people here constantly feel the need to ridicule something they would never use?
Matsu: Interesting, but you can't fully converge video and stills shooting, even when the device is fully capable of both. That's because your choice of shutter speeds/angles will differ depending on whether your priority is to freeze a frame or produce smooth motion capture. Same is true of your lighting regimen where lighting for motion vs stills will differ again based on the shutter speeds required for each.
The weapon can shoot HDRx mode, allowing you to shoot an A track and an X track simultaneously. Exposure time can be set for both tracks independently, you then use the A track for video and extract stills from the X track. Problem solved :-)
Clint Dunn: Interesting that this new, state of the art sensor has worse dynamic range then the A7R2. I could care less about the 20fps the dynamic range is much more important to me.
So you DO care about 20fps, seeing that you could care less??
Alex Permit: Impressive. Could this have been done as effectively with CGI?
Could easily been done in CG, but if it was, we wouldnt be talking about the ad right now.
virtualreality: Why does it look like a game console?
In this market, ergonomics, functional efficiency and IQ trump physical attractiveness, always.
mezastel: Suppose I max out on memory. How much 4K (peak quality) can this camera record on its battery?
FLruckas thats quite an insulting thing to say, i dont know if your just trying to be clever or funny but def. not called for.
mezastel: Suppose I max out on memory. How much 4K (peak quality) can this camera record on its battery?
Its beyond my why you would want to record an 8hr conference in 4k or raw. The camera is capable of recording in 1920x1080 to a 128GB SD card at 35Mbs for 485mins (8hrs)
Tommi K1: Is it a true raw, or raw like in a RED?
.
Tommi K1: Is it a true raw, or raw like in a RED?
There is always a balance between file size and image compression. The simple fact is all video streams are compressed in some form. Firstly you would never pick a difference, and secondly you would complain about the file sizes and cost of the fast media required. To say a compressed raw file is not true raw is simplistic and untrue.
Walter the dog running with a gopro and jumping into the ocean is the best dog video ever :-) Keyword walter/dog/gopro to see it
scoobysnapstories: THATS NOT CHEAP AT ALL
* for you
Ebrahim Saadawi: The 5D EF mount was simply a revolution in cinema glass. Before the 5D and 7D came out, cinema glass was limited to PL to very high end rental firms, consisting of zeiss and cooke primes mostly. With the DSLR revolution they said hey, doesn't this cheap, ultra sharp Canon/Nikon/Sigma cover super 35mm film and cine sensors?! Yes they do. Let's try them... then all companies started making cameras with EF mount rather than Cine PL mount, simply because there are SO many more lenses and future at VERY cheap cost. Now even Red have native EF mounts and all the Sony E mounts that go EF and so on.
The reason that stills glass are better and cheaper than Cine glass is economics of scale as we all know, not superiority of the product.
Cinema lenses however still held a place in many shoots for a few features:
1- Long focus throw
2- accurate witness marks
3- Consistent size/diameter bodies in a "set"
4- Much stronger ALL metal construction.
5- Focus breathing
This is where these Cine versions of still glass come from. They give these features to their already optically wonderful stills glass and get a full fledged PL/EF cine lens for about 1/20 the price of normal ones, which started at 20-30K for a prime.
Now when you look at it this way, a Sigma Cine Prime Set, complete from 14 to 135 for the price of one cine prime so a 5000$ price tag for a 14mm f/2 PL Cine prime is a complete bargain for the target user, RED/Arri/C300 type of operators. They can own the prime for the rental price of an older Cine prime! That's a great deal. On Red forums they're so exicted about these Sigmas as they have the EF-only Red Raven and of course all their cameras have EF models. So you'll see lots of these Sigmas on Especially on Reds and C300s.
So look at the target user when you're judging the price. The cost of producing these lenses is NOT cheap. These have a completely new construction from the ground up, and they have a whole division for supporting these high-end users as we can see.
The Cine-vised still glass all run for around 5000 USD. They DO have some optical "tweaks" that most people don't know. They have small floating element to minimize breathing actually, they have entirely new coatings on all elements that result in the key effect of colour consistency throughout the prime set, something now needed in photography, the construction, springs, helicoids, gears, metal, all are much improved in cheer strength and to result in much lower error tolerances in element allignment thus higher field corner to corner resolution on all copies in the lens set.
Companies that do exactly all of these tweaks (optical and mechanical) to their stills optical formula lenses, are Canon (CN-E), Tamron, Zeiss CP 2s, Sigma, and Tokina too and more...
All retail for about 5K a piece or 25K a whole cine fast prime set.
If Sigma manages going a bit lower they'd be killing it.
This is merely random information for these who don't know them. Sorry for long post.
Yes totally. Go back less than 10 years and the entry point for any type of cine lenses was over $10k per unit. We live in prevelidged times.
Ebrahim Saadawi: The 5D EF mount was simply a revolution in cinema glass. Before the 5D and 7D came out, cinema glass was limited to PL to very high end rental firms, consisting of zeiss and cooke primes mostly. With the DSLR revolution they said hey, doesn't this cheap, ultra sharp Canon/Nikon/Sigma cover super 35mm film and cine sensors?! Yes they do. Let's try them... then all companies started making cameras with EF mount rather than Cine PL mount, simply because there are SO many more lenses and future at VERY cheap cost. Now even Red have native EF mounts and all the Sony E mounts that go EF and so on.
The reason that stills glass are better and cheaper than Cine glass is economics of scale as we all know, not superiority of the product.
Cinema lenses however still held a place in many shoots for a few features:
1- Long focus throw
2- accurate witness marks
3- Consistent size/diameter bodies in a "set"
4- Much stronger ALL metal construction.
5- Focus breathing
This is where these Cine versions of still glass come from. They give these features to their already optically wonderful stills glass and get a full fledged PL/EF cine lens for about 1/20 the price of normal ones, which started at 20-30K for a prime.
Now when you look at it this way, a Sigma Cine Prime Set, complete from 14 to 135 for the price of one cine prime so a 5000$ price tag for a 14mm f/2 PL Cine prime is a complete bargain for the target user, RED/Arri/C300 type of operators. They can own the prime for the rental price of an older Cine prime! That's a great deal. On Red forums they're so exicted about these Sigmas as they have the EF-only Red Raven and of course all their cameras have EF models. So you'll see lots of these Sigmas on Especially on Reds and C300s.
So look at the target user when you're judging the price. The cost of producing these lenses is NOT cheap. These have a completely new construction from the ground up, and they have a whole division for supporting these high-end users as we can see.
The Cine-vised still glass all run for around 5000 USD. They DO have some optical "tweaks" that most people don't know. They have small floating element to minimize breathing actually, they have entirely new coatings on all elements that result in the key effect of colour consistency throughout the prime set, something now needed in photography, the construction, springs, helicoids, gears, metal, all are much improved in cheer strength and to result in much lower error tolerances in element allignment thus higher field corner to corner resolution on all copies in the lens set.
Companies that do exactly all of these tweaks (optical and mechanical) to their stills optical formula lenses, are Canon (CN-E), Tamron, Zeiss CP 2s, Sigma, and Tokina too and more...
All retail for about 5K a piece or 25K a whole cine fast prime set.
If Sigma manages going a bit lower they'd be killing it.
This is merely random information for these who don't know them. Sorry for long post.
Helleluja! Your post should be a permanent reference for anytime cine lens news is reported on this stills focused website. Whenever cine lenses are released for a dollar more than a sigma or canon kit lens and all the 'experts' here cry extortion.
Alex Armani: Sigma Art 135 is $1399, Same optics but for cinematography diffident housing, All metal parts never cost over $500, but don;t be surprised if price will jump to $4000.
Personally I dint like to be screwed. If price will be $2000 I will order both 14 and 135.
The difference is Sigma will make and sell 20x the amount of the stills version than they will the cine version. Economies of scale.
The technicians time needs to be paid for as its probably needs a small hardware adjustment or add on. I dont get these commentators who are so outraged by a paid add-on to their already highly capable hardware. Where does the outrage of wanting extra features for free come from? If your using this camera in a professional business capacity, your $99 upgrade is paid for in the first hour of your work day. If you needed clog so desperately for video you probably already have a C class eos camera anyway.