I've recently watched a ten minute video on MacVideo about the F3. It is by Rick Young and is highly informative, mainly to do with its interaction of different lenses (eg.) Adaptimax. He's an excellent presenter!

MacVideo - Camera Technology - Features - Shooting with the Sony PMW-F3 using Canon EOS lenses and Adaptimax converter (http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/features/index.cfm?articleId=3296213)

Thanks for posting that up.

Rick Young was one of the first people to break the news of the Sony F3 getting some of the some of the first clips of the F3 in it's pre-release state and getting a good interview out of the Sony Product Manager on the F3. With all the promotion he has given Sony on this camera, Sony should give him one with the PL lenses so he doesn't have to suffer through using his Canon glass on it.

His reportage is very good and worth following.

I especially like the part where he recommends controlling exposure by changing the shutter speed. Yeah, that's great advice. Give it a try, you'll love the look!

(just in case you can't read between the lines, I'm being sarcastic. That is some of the worst advice you can take)

But isn't changing the shutter speed or using ND filters the only way to control exposure with these lenses? The Canon L lenses do NOT have aperture rings, F stops, or any means to open and close the iris manually. Everything is done electronically, but he said the contacts don't work. I'm assuming that with these lenses, you're also shooting wide open all the time, with no means to stop down?

Yes, adding ND filters is the right way to control exposure if you are using a lens that does not allow proper aperture control. However, cranking up the shutter speed to control aperture is always a bad idea because of the side effects that will cause. Obviously, there are some creative reasons you may want to use an extreme shutter speed if you purposely want to get that "look", but he's not talking about that. He is suggesting that you use shutter speed to control over-exposure -- and that is just plain wrong.

An even better solution (for a professional) would be to select a lens that actually allows you to control the aperture, rather than using an inadequate lens just because you happen to have it already laying around the house.

One of the key issues with using the shutter to control exposure is the coarse 1 stop steps, so accurate control is near impossible and you can see this in some of the clips where highlights are blowing out or the shot is just generally a little under exposed. A half stop would probably have brought these back to the correct exposure. The other issue is that you can't change exposure mid shot.

A variable ND is the best compromise in this case, until Birger or someone else brings out a mount with electronic control.

Rick is a UK Sony ICE.

Ok, I'll bite. What's an ICE?

ICE = Independent Certified Expert. This is Sony's classification for their cultivated
team of professional-level customers, end-users of Sony gear who have been recruited
by Sony to assist with manning the booth at trade shows and various field events. Canon
has a similar program, as does Panasonic but to a lesser degree. These folks are not
considered employees but they are independent contractors who are paid on a daily
basis for these occasional gigs. They were already highly knowledgeable when they
were brought into these programs but receive additional technical training each year,
especially prior to major product announcements and industry events such as the
NAB and IBC expos. A number of them are regular DVi members and I greatly
appreciate their presence here.

I think most of us know that using shutter speed to control exposure is a bad idea. Not sure why he felt the need to pump this Adaptamax adapter to the point where he was giving not so great advice. Having said that he has done a lot of good public work in the past so I don't think he needs to go through the shredder. Point out the failings of what he is suggesting and move on.

I hope nobody is accusing me of putting someone through the shredder. I just pointed out, for the benefit of those who don't know better, that adjusting shutter speed to change exposure is a bad idea. If that is putting someone through the shredder, then so be it.

BTW, I have been a Sony USA ICE member for 5 years.

The work arounds for using Canon EOS glass are absurd from my point of view. If you've spent $15K on a camera spend a few more bucks and go Nikon until the Birger adapter comes out. Then you can sell your Nikon glass if you like.

After reading the reviews, I just watched the video. My impression was that he was really speaking to those who were looking for a place to move beyond their problems with 5D/7D/T2i systems - and hence had both constrained budgets and an existing assortment of Canon mount lenses. Of course his video also seems to predate the FS-100... Overall, I didn't feel that exposure control by shutter was being suggested more than other possible available alternatives - such as built-in ND's, standard ND filters, variable ND's, negative gain, etc.- whether mentioned or not, The key point was that it was actually possible for him to go out and shoot using his existing Canon mount lenses.
Admittedly, exposure control by shutter speed adjustment is less than ideal -- but I also find the lack of control of being forced to shoot at a specific f/stop all the time (in this case wide open) another creative limitation. Yes, soft backgrounds are nice, but sometimes I want to be able to 'control' the amount of DOF by using the iris to determine how much depth of field I actually want, which could be more than the minimum DOF. I suppose in my case I'm lucky that I never got rid of all my old Nikon primes... (and that they're all old enough to still have iris rings)
I also have to admit that there have been times where, as an operator with XDcam or older DigiBeta cameras, I've used the shutter to limit the light and allow me to open my lens a little more for a softer background behind talent doing a standup, particularly as a 'quick fix' where all other available options had either been exhausted or are simply not available. (Or conversely I may reduce my shutter speed slightly if I'm already wide open and suddenly lose a little bit of light, though the F3 is quiet enough thad adding a little gain may not be out of the question either)

Recently placed a order with Rule-Boston camera for the Birger solution for F3 for use with Canon glass, which has not been released yet. Will be of interest just how I like the difference between the Nikon, Zeiss glass to the Canon glass.

Ideally would like to have one set of glass when traveling solo with F3 and 5D.

Steve,

For what its worth, If you want to have one set of glass for Canon and F3 its way easier to do it with Nikon glass for both. Nikon adapters are cheap and easy for EOS. Many used Nikon lenses including excellent zooms have iris rings and many of the zooms can be parfocal. Plus the adapters for both Canon and F3 can incorporate mechanical iris mechanisms so you still have iris control. By contrast using canon glass on an F3 is a nightmare.

If you're using the Canon lenses in manual mode on the Canon then there is little downside, tho you do lose IS.

I have noticed the sub $100 adapters for Canon that I've tried tend to not maintain perfect backfocus though so you may lose parfocal quality in the zooms.

I just pointed out, for the benefit of those who don't know better, that adjusting shutter speed to change exposure is a bad idea.

I've seen alot of ENG news shooter doing just that during an interview (live mostly), They open the lens all the way , and use the N.D, however, when it is not enough to control the blow out they use the shutter.

So is this wrong to try to get a shallow DOF during an interview with a standard fujinon zoom lens on a 2/3 chip shoulder camera?

I confess I've often done this to lower DOF on an interview but don't feel I've ever noticed it as long as I don't go beyond 1/100 or 1/120. ( I have gone to 1/150) At what point do you feel like you really notice the higher shutter speed? I don't go higher just out of fear not because I've ever noticed a problem.

Eventually I started to carry a set of ND's with me at all times to open the f stop, but no one ever noticed the shutter speed increase or at least said a word to me.

By the same token I often will slow the shutter speed to 1/40 or 1/30 or 1/25 to open up the exposure in low light. Again I've never had a complaint or even noticed a serious problem (even doing steadicam following someone at night.)

On an interview you can get away with 1/120, but you do notice the lips sharpening at 1/250.

They'd be better off working this way:

1. Back up as far as possible, zoom in as far as possible.

2. Open the iris all the way.

3. Adjust the lights for proper exposure.

Alternately, if it is difficult to bring the lighting down far enough, advance a level of in-camera ND so as to bring the iris back to full open again. Significant shutter speeds just make the video look abnormal.

Of course once the camera is already at max distance and longest allowable zoom, the rather large exposure change between the internal ND filters may be too large, so once you've placed gain at -3 the next step is to either add ND filter to the front of the lens, stop the lens down a bit, or tweek the shutter speed. Another issue is that when shooting outside or (indoors with lots of windows) there may be some significant changes in illumination level, and swapping ND's in the middle of an interview or during a standup with a teleprompter may not be an option.
I suppose that's why I wish the cameras had more internal ND filters (to allow the exposure differences to be less far apart) as well as additional negative gains (-6 or even further).
Which begets the question whether with the low noise of the F3 it would make more sense to go with a higher ND level even if it meant going +6 or +9 to maintain exposure? I've found myself at times going +3 after adding ND, but I don't like going past +3 if I can help it...

Dave,

I agree with your technique of using heavy ND and then kicking in some gain. The F3 and FS100 are the first cameras I feel that is a legitimate way to shoot. The increase in noise is negligible and the gain pattern is not like the ugly gain of other cameras. However, I would not advise going to -3db. With the F3, you absolutely lose some dynamic range with that setting. I never shoot at -3db with the F3.

If given the choice between losing some of my shallow depth of field or going to a higher shutter speed, I will always sacrifice a little depth of field. Contrary to what has been stated here, even an interview (particulary if you have someone who moves their hands a lot while speaking) will look abnormal if the shutter speed goes above 1/90th. I can see it. Other professionals can see it. And audiences can perceive that something is not quite right. If you want to destroy the cinematic look that you have worked to create, then by all means, shoot with a fast shutter speed.

Thanks for that post Doug . I've never noticed it but will stay inside 1/90th in the future. I also was unaware of losing latitude at -3. I do agree with using gain on F3 to adjust for light changes. I also use it in combination with ND settings to sometimes find the right combo to get my iris where I want it. The noiseless qualities of the F3 are very helpful.
AF100 has 3 ND filters which is really an advantage, but the image can't compare.

To be honest, I don't use the shutter to control exposure. I tried it a couple of a couple of times and wasn't that happy, I could see the lip effect at !/120 and it was just about acceptable, but there was no other movement on screen.

You can use a fast shutter speed if that's the effect you want, but it's not the standard setting and you're using it as a visual device in it's own right as per "Saving Private Ryan". However, I do find using a high shutter speed on propeller driven aircraft annoying. I've only seen one good use of the effect on an aircraft and that was on an attack helicopter in a feature film, when the blades looked like scimitars.

This sounds reminiscent of the HV-20 exposure control "trick"... which is completely incongruous w/ an F3, LOL!

Hello All:

First post. . .

I thought it would be helpful to mention that backing away from the subject and using a longer focal length has no effect on depth of field. For any given angle of view, all things being equal, depth of field remains the same. For example, a MCU at 100mm and a MCU at 25mm will have the same depth of field. The perceived focus on the BG may look different because the wider lens will be including more background.

As the focal length of the lens increases and the BG becomes more abstract, the subject appears progressively more of a "floating head" and will have less of sense of place. There are no easy answers as what works in one context may not in another.

Regards,

Neal

For example, a MCU at 100mm and a MCU at 25mm will have the same depth of field
Doesn't subject distance have an effect on depth of field?

Hi Paul:

Subject distance has an effect on depth of field if the focal length remains the same. For example 50mm at 5 feet has a different depth of field than a 50mm at 50 feet.

If the angle of view is maintained, as an example:

A 50mm lens at 5 meters (3.6 angle of view) at f4 has a 2.06 meter depth of field - 4.17 to 6.23.

A 500mm lens at 50 meters (3.6 angle of view) at f4 has a 1.98 meter depth of field 49 - 51. The .08 difference is rounding error.

That is not to say they look the same. . . only that depth of field is the same.

Many a fine camera assistant has been burned by wide lenses with a close subject to lens distance. . . and the director and/or cameraman can't understand how the AC could 'miss' at 35mm!

Okay - I'll bite... How does a 50mm lens and a 500mm lens have the same angle of view?

(EDIT: okay, I've worked out you mean the width of the view at 5 or 50 meters.)

I realise that changing focal length does not on it's own, change the depth of field. It's a subject that's been confusing a lot of DSLR users who try to work it out for different sized sensors... as if that makes any difference!

I hope nobody is accusing me of putting someone through the shredder. I just pointed out, for the benefit of those who don't know better, that adjusting shutter speed to change exposure is a bad idea. If that is putting someone through the shredder, then so be it.

BTW, I have been a Sony USA ICE member for 5 years.



Doug,
Raise the shutter high enough and create your own shredder :)
I agree, add ND, or better yet, start with manual iris controllable lens. I have a few Canon EOS lens and it would be great to utilize them (They stay in my 5D kit), but my choice has been Zeiss and Nikkor. I do keep the Sony primes around for the extra 1/2 stop.