Thread: Really nice, cheap, Veydra alternative

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    425
    ...COMPARED TO 135. Not compared to any other system. Not Super35. Not Super16. But 135 or Full Frame 35mm.
    Thank you.

    Pedantic filmmakers have been arguing that Super35 should be the preferred equivalency for years, and still haven't made a dent in the vernacular. Some people keep tilting at that windmill, though...
    Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
    Pocketluts Store
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreeOnline View Post
    I don't say it in terms of it being a worthless lens. It's just that for each format there are different tiers. For full format, as an example, you get f1.4, f2.8 and f4 lens designs. This is obviously not all there is, but I think it's fair to say that they are clear tiers of design.

    I'm always thinking about the various formats in terms of equivalence. So for me, this lens is a f4 design (not splitting hairs here or going into T vs F stop) and I'd prefer if it was a 2.8 equivalent. There's a reason you get some lenses for MFT that are f0.95 that you don't see that many of in FF.

    Since price is not an issue for me (I just don't find it an interesting aspect of a product, it's not that I have unlimited money....) I'd be more interested in one or two tiers faster. The Voigtländer Noktons are all 0.95. That's probably two tiers faster?

    I'm not that familiar with MFT glass, so maybe 2.2 is a de facto standard that people are happy with? I just saw that the Veydras were also 2.2 (I remembered them being faster).
    Anyway, what exactly about it did you find amusing?
    Andrew, a T2.2 is not the same as f/2.2, they are different specifications. A f/stop is based in the focal,length of the lens and the actual iris opening diameter to get an approximate value for light transmission. A T/stop is an actual measured light transmission value, done in a test bench with each lens design. So a T 2.2 lens has the same approximate light transmission as most f/1.8 lenses.

    The issue with f/stops, is the actual light transmission of a 25mm still lens will be different than the same f/stop on a 50mm lens. Where as any T/2.2 lens will have the same light transmission as any other T/2.2 lens, so your exposure from one lens to the next is going to be the same. This was very important back in film cine days, where expsoures were critical, and is still a desired situation to reduce post production corrections to correct different exposure on various clips with the same lighting.
    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    151
    So what your saying is that even though a 50mm is designed to have a 50mm field of view on a super 35mm image circle and then that lens is put on a m4/3 sensor its a 100mm equivalent with respect to full frame. That’s bs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Asyndeton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by rze View Post
    So what your saying is that even though a 50mm is designed to have a 50mm field of view on a super 35mm image circle and then that lens is put on a m4/3 sensor its a 100mm equivalent with respect to full frame. That’s bs.
    You might want to read the Wikipedia page on Crop factors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Asyndeton View Post
    You might want to read the Wikipedia page on Crop factors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

    O I see the semantics vs practicality. I guess theirs a lot of photographers here. I’ve never met a cinematographer or anyone in camera department that utilizes full frame as as a reference or refer to a 50mm s35mm as an 80mm. The advocacy here is weird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    130
    Doesn't anyone here understand basic geometry?
    The image circle of a BM4K pocket camera is, I believe, about 10% less than that of m4/3.
    It doesn't really matter that the BM is only 1 pixel high.
    What matters is the image circle.
    Duh!
    You can call it wider field of view all day long.
    But I really isn't until the diagonal of the sensor is larger than the m4/3 image circle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    860
    Thanks for the review, I'll probably get one when they are back in stock on eBay. Amazon won't ship to Canada for some reason, and not on the Canadian store. I find T2.2 plenty fast enough for narrative on iso800 cameras, especially if the lens is sharp wide open, most 1.4 lenses are not. Really hope they fill out the set as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    3,036
    The focal length is always the focal length. The 50mm is always the same, a 50mm lens.

    The reason I detest the use of crop factors is because it leads to exactly these kinds of misunderstandings, something that perversely, those that use crop factors would argue it simplifies.

    * These lenses look a hell of a lot like Veydras.



    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Member AndreeOnline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Zürich
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Smith View Post
    Andrew, a T2.2 is not the same as f/2.2, they are different specifications.
    I know. That's why I wrote what I wrote in parenthesis. Normally, the difference isn't as big as you suggest though. It's more like f1.4—T1.5 or f2.8—T2.9

    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    The reason I detest the use of crop factors is because it leads to exactly these kinds of misunderstandings, something that perversely, those that use crop factors would argue it simplifies.
    I personally don't think it leads to misunderstandings, because I think misunderstandings are already there.

    I also think it's important to know what changes in setup are needed to reach the same Angle of View and blur circles between formats. Granted, when out and about shooting, it's doesn't matter anymore, but as a theoretical foundation I certainly think it's a worth while exercise.

    But I couldn't for my life answer why a simple clarification of technical fact would need to turn into something sour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Wollongong, NSW Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreeOnline View Post
    I also think it's important to know what changes in setup are needed to reach the same Angle of View and blur circles between formats. Granted, when out and about shooting, it's doesn't matter anymore, but as a theoretical foundation I certainly think it's a worth while exercise.
    Ah, but this is also something that causes confusion - "angle of view" is not the same as "field of view". Technically the angle of view relates to the focal length, and field of view how THAT relates to the imaging sensor size.

    Anyway, I agree that there's a lot of confusion around the issue, but don't understand why people have to get so divisive in their own understanding of different lens focal lengths and sensor sizes. The reality is, crop factors can be very useful, but also confusing. If you can get your head around what your current camera needs to achieve the desired field of view you need for each particular shot, then you've most likely gained a much deeper experiential understanding of photography/cinematography that crop factors may become irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Nice :)
    By Bxl in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-01-2016, 07:40 PM
  2. Cheap alternative to C-Fast for Ursa-Ursa Mini
    By Max Minoia in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-09-2016, 07:06 AM
  3. Nice work being done
    By Herb in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-11-2015, 11:05 AM
  4. Another cheap alternative to C-Fast
    By Brian@202020 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-24-2015, 01:17 PM
  5. Bmpc4k -- nice!!
    By Tim Joy in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2014, 01:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •