For $26 it's almost worth it to get that cheapie canon FD as well as the Novoflex Nikon adapters ($300) and mix and match lenses based on what you can find out there.

I look forward to seeing some shots on sticks from you in better weather. Hard to judge with the gray day outside. I'm assuming the ND filter was on board because of the snow?

Scott Caplan
GKCCOC

Ok, I just got in a 28-90 F2.8 FD lens that I bought off ebay for
$60. It has 67mm threads, so works great with my 77mm Heliopan
and 67-77 step ring that I have for my kit lens. It seems a little
heavy I think I may need to buy a rail system with lens support.

Anyways, it has been pouring out here, so I was only able to
shoot a couple shots outside before the crappy weather returned.
These were handheld, shaky, and really not much to look at.
But you can get an idea of the quality of a $60 lens.....I did
no color correction or anything, these are straight from the
FS 100 images. Once the weather clears up, I'll put together
a real little short video, that will be shot entirely on
this FD lens.....here's the link:

cannon FD - YouTube (http://youtu.be/rJKa-FlEkpw)

Scott,

I'm sure the Novoflex would be better, and I'd guess the Nikon lenses
are better than FD lenses as well. However, I never got into shooting
video with still cameras, and stayed away from DSLR's. So I have NO
investment in any still lenses. Therefore, I am waiting to hear if
the new Sony LA-EA2 will give better smooth aperture control. I have
heard that a firmware update will give it that, but don't know yet.
I also will probably wait to hear about the new Birger (due out at the
first of the year) and MTF adapters. I don't want to start investing in
still glass, and then find out I should have went a different direction.
However, if you already have a good collection, it makes sense to me
to get the adapter that would allow you to leverage your investment.
Since I have no investment in stills glass, buying cheap FD lenses
allows me to 'play' with faster glass than the kit lens, without
sinking a ton of money into doing it. I've bought three FD lenses and
the adapter for significantly less money that the Novoflex adapter
costs by itself. Never mind the cost of the nice Nikon lenses.
The nice thing about the FD stuff, is you can find strange stuff
that isn't made anymore. I haven't seen a 28-90 F2.8 modern lens from
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma, or anyone. But there is a Vivitar
FD mount lens with those specs. So you can find all kinds of different
things on ebay.

You need the ND outside even without the snow. That FS100 chip is
so sensitive there is no way to shoot outside, especially with a
F2.8 lens, without either using ND, or stopping the lens way down,
or dramatically increasing shutter speed. If you stop the lens down,
you lose the shallow depth of field. If you increase shutter speed,
you play havoc with the look of moving objects. So I always use
the Heliopan when I am outside. It can come off for indoors shooting
in many cases, but for outdoors, it needs to be on the lens. I'll get
some stuff shot with the new lens as soon as I can. Looking at
our weather, it may be a few days. However, if we have a 'sucker hole'
in the weather, I'll try and run outside and shoot something proper.

Hi folks
I 'm a shooter in northern Canada. I shoot under some pretty rugged conditions. I'm looking to move up camera wise. One of the series I work on (Ice Pilots, NWT) shoots on Sony XD cams (700's & etc) we also shoot on Sony EX1's . The cockpits of the aircraft are very cramped so we can't swing the larger camera's in them without conking the pilot on the head which is considered a "bad thing".

I'm looking to up grade the cockpit cameras we use and was wondering if any of you think the FS100 would do the job. It looks a bit fragile, with lots of things sticking out. The EX1's we use take a real beating and I wonder if the FS100 would hold up.

At this point all the tech specs seem to be ok. I'm concerned about ergonomics and general handling under extreme rurn & gun conditions.

Cheers
Terry Woolf

Unless you think shallow DoF or excellent low-light capabilites would be big advantages to your show, I wouldn't recommend switching the EX1's for FS100's.

Seven reasons:

1) The FS100 is not built as rugged as the EX1.
2) The FS100 would be much harder to shoot with -- for most people.
3) You'd be mixing a clunkly, inferior AVCHD workflow into your XDCAM workflow. If all your other cameras are XDCAM you should stay with that codec and workflow.
4) With the exception of shallow DoF and better lowlight (both due to the bigger sensor) the FS100 is in no way superior to an EX1.
5) You'll hate dealing with SLR (or PL) lenses for run & gun. You'll miss having a servo zoom and the focal length range.
6) After you buy decent lenses, the FS100 will cost more than an EX1R.
7) You'll need all new batteries, ac adapters, memory cards, etc. if you switch cameras.

What about the EX1's are you unhappy with? You'll have to spend a lot more money to get anything that will be significantly better than those.

Good points Doug, but that $6,000 plus price tag is still pretty hefty considering the age of the EX1. And you're stuck with that one lens (albeit, a pretty good one). Thousand bucks can buy some very nice glass...

And I'd think that the FS100 ability to output 4:2:2 far exceeds the EX1's (but not totally sure). It also has more variable framerates (60fps, 30fps, 15fps, 8fps, 4fps, 2fps, and 1fps).

But you're right, it's a good camera. Another one to maybe take a peek at is the Canon X105/305 series if you don't mind the 1/3" size chip set.

John,

I hate to say it, but you are incorrect on almost every point.

1) The price of an EX1R is a hell of a bargain no matter how you measure it. The lens that comes on that camera is pretty darn good, there'd be hardly any reason to change it even if you could. I'll bet 90% of EX3 owners have never changed their lens. $6300 for an EX1R with a great lens is actually a much better value than an FS100 at $5600 with a crappy lens. You get a hell of a lot more camera for that extra $700. And it's not just the camera itself, but also you get the XDCAM workflow which will save a busy professional thousands of dollars in saved time and hassle every year you own the camera.

2) Age has nothing to do with whether the EX1R is good or not. A good camera is a good camera whether it was invented last week or two years ago. Why do you think it continues to outsell almost every other Sony camera? Because it is a lot of bang for the buck. Only the EX3 exceeds it in value for the money, but an EX3 would be harder to squeeze into a small cockpit.

3) Please tell me what "very nice glass" you are going to invest in for a thousand bucks? I have yet to see anything that is going to give you the speed, performance, and focal length range of the EX1R. Not to mention SteadyShot, auto-focus, and auto-epxosure if you are interested in those features. A thousand bucks MIGHT get you one nice SLR lens for the FS100, but that's it -- and it still won't be enough to cover the focal length range you'll need for run & gun.

4) The EX1R actually has MORE variable frame rates than the FS100. Every single number from 1 to 60. Okay, you have to drop down to 720P if you go over 30 fps, but still looks very good. If I remember correctly, the FS100 only has one frame rate over 30 fps, and that is 60 fps. Nothing in between. And no dedicated time-lapse recording at all. The best you can do for time-lapse on an FS100 is 1 fps. On the EX1R you can all the way down to fpd (one frame per day) or almost anyhing in between.

5) You think the FS100's output "far exceeds" the FS100? Not hardly. The EX1R outputs 4:2:2 10-bit over HDSDI. That is certainly superior to the FS100's 4:4:4 8-bit over HDMI. I don't even think you can record the 4:4:4 on any portable recorder, so that really makes it 4:2:2 8 bit. In addition, external recorders can be triggered via HDSDI timecode, but not via HDMI yet -- thus an external recorder on the FS100 is just a big hassle to trigger.

6) Even if you ignore the XF105's 1/3' chips, it doesn't offer 1/2 the features and performance of the EX1R. However, the XF305 is much closer match and worth a look if you can accept the 1/3" chip. The XF305 is a very nice camera.

I'm not saying the FS100 isn't a very good camera, I'm just saying that there are significant differences between it and an EX1 --particularly when someone is already working with other XDCAM cameras. In my opinion, if Terry jumped to an FS100, he'd regret it. If he didn't already have an EX1 and went straight to an FS100 he might never realize what he was missing out on and be perfectly happy. Ignorance is bliss. But he isn't ignorant, he has the EX1 under his belt already.

Gentlemen, thanks for all the opinions & info. I think I have decided against getting the FS100 quite yet. I wanted to move up to a large imager camera and I'm not willing to go the DSLR route. ( old fashioned I guess) but also I need long shooting times and good XLR audio inputs.

I have a lot of hours on the EX1 and it has done very well for me. Image quality and ease of use in cramped, low light, run & gun situations have been have proved it an adequate camera. I do have some issues with the ergonomics. I do not like servo driven focus systems and I find the EX1 difficult to use in manual when running & gunning.

The project I'm on now has me using, Sony HXRMC1's, Sony PWDF800's, Sony Ex 1 's, and Gopro's ( I'm expecting etch-a-sketch's soon) all on the same day.Through out this mix the camera I have to pull way from my eye the most to look for controls is the EX1. Why doesn't the LCD fold flat against the body for car interiors and cock-pit shots?

I know, I know a $6000 camera won't do what a $60,000 camera will but I can always hope.

What I want is an EX1 sized camera with a 35 MM imager, an LCD screen that rotates every way possible, and a lens that works like good Canon or Fuji on the large body XD cams. If any one finds one let me know. Oh and it should be under $10,000.
Cheers
Terry Woolf

Doug - let me quickly address your points:

1 & 3 - Pricing is subjective. If you think a four year plus old camera w/o a removable lens and long form GOP recording is worth $6,300, then OK. I don't. If we're comparing the removable lens version, the EX3, then you're looking at $8,320. Again, I think that's too much, given the pricing of the AF100, FS100, F3 and soon to be released Scarlet.

Certainly you can get a very similar camera from Canon for much less then the older EX1 - the XF105 has 50 mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2 codec, Dual CF Card Slots, similar lens, HD-SDI output and a genlock/time code terminal (BNC style), HDMI out, etc - all for $4,000. The difference in chip size (1/3" to 1/2" ) is negligible.

You're statement that you can not find good glass for under a grand is... a little overstated. In fact, you can walk into excellent primes for $150 in either Nikon or Canon mounts - at least according Ken Rockwell (and several others). Lots of other fine new glass for less than a grand - not to mention used.

2. Age of course matters in any product line. The original EX1 isn't even new for sale at this point. This can affect anything from getting repair/parts, to resale value, to getting batteries, etc. More to the point, if one camera will get you a job, and one won't, then it's certainly "too old." Might not be fair, but that's the way a lot of producers work. And it's what the camera can do at a certain price point. Here, I think there's better bang for the buck.

You're quite correct however that just because a product is older that it won't work. Perhaps I overstated myself on this point.

4. The FS100 has more frame rates by far - the EX1r (at least according to B&H) has 60, 30, and 24p, while the FS100 has all of those frame rates plus 15fps, 8fps, 4fps, 2fps, 1fps. Again, this is from B&H, so if I'm wrong please correct.

5. I believe most people doing sfx work would take 8 bit 4:4:4 over 10 bit 4:2:2, assuming proper exposure. So, this is a six of one, half dozen of another argument. While I understand not wanting an external recorder, the FS100 can record internally while also outputting - double redundancy (albeit in different colour spaces) is nice.

6. Not what features you're speaking to in regard to the XF105 v EX1r, but it's nowhere near double.

And the one thing neither of us mentioned - quality of image. I've worked with the EX1 and it delivers a fine, very crisp video image. The sort of image Sony is both famous, and notorious for. In other words, very "video-y." Beyond it's DoF, the FS100 delivers images far more film-like then the EX series. Ditto that the Canon XF105/300 series.

All that said, I'm sure it would perform very well out in the wild, and agree that the FS100 would be a tougher camera to operate under the circumstances. But for other shooters, the best overall bang for the buck - and yes, that included DoF, relative product age, removable lens, 4:4:4 colour space - would not be the EX series of cameras.

Certainly you can get a very similar camera from Canon for much less then the older EX1 - the XF105 has 50 mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2 codec, Dual CF Card Slots, similar lens, HD-SDI output and a genlock/time code terminal (BNC style), HDMI out, etc - all for $4,000. The difference in chip size (1/3" to 1/2" ) is negligible.
As regards the difference in size being negligible, then 1/2" is twice the AREA of 1/3". That equates to a full stop difference in itself in terms of depth of field and sensitivity - hardly negligible, surely?

As regards chips, then apart from the size difference, the XF105 is single chip (1920x1080 Bayer) - the EX1 is three chip (3x 1920x1080). The single chip Bayer is likely to mean another stop difference in sensitivity (owing to the subtractive filtering), and the necessary deBayering will mean it won't have the resolution of a three 1920x1080 chip design.

In short, compared to the EX1, the XF100 will have significantly less resolution, be about two stops inherently less sensitive, and be a stop different regarding depth of field.
I've worked with the EX1 and it delivers a fine, very crisp video image. The sort of image Sony is both famous, and notorious for. In other words, very "video-y." Beyond it's DoF, the FS100 delivers images far more film-like then the EX series. Ditto that the Canon XF105/300 series.
That may be true for the cameras out of the box. But line the EX1 up according to something like Alan Roberts profiles and the EX1 will certainly not be "video-y". Main adjustment to make it more "film-like" may be to reduce the level of detail enhancement, and with full 1920x1080 resolution, it's possible to do just that without it looking unacceptably soft.

Interesting thread. Incidentally, I had the opportunity to speak with Jacques Haitkin this weekend. He was the Cinematographer for Nightmare On Elm Street, and has done a bunch of other "real DP work" (the "real" is because I'm tying to be a DP but not there yet, maybe in 35 more yeas). He also owns a Sony EX3 so i asked him what he thought of the Sony F3 and if he thought it would be worth it to step up to purchase one. His response was I'd be crazy to sell my EX3 to buy an F3. He thought the F3 was a great camera but unless I had something that would pay for it within one or two projects it wasn't worth it.

Don't get the wrong message, he thought the F3 was a fabulous camera and thought it was really incredible once you started capturing and using S-Log (don't forget he has just about everything he shoots graded), but it wasn't the type of camera he thought you should purchase (unless you could have it pay for itself and quickly). His advice, for those shots you want shallow DOF on, if you're going to buy, "get the FS100". Those were is actual words. He did make a great point that most people wouldn't be able to tell you the if an image was shot on an F3 or an FS100 as long at it was properly shot.

He still feels that the EX1/3 are one of the best values. He did pound into me the importance of practicing with a camera like the EX1/3. It takes a lot of knowledge to squeeze out the very best from any camera but with all of the ways you can tweak the EX1/3 there's a lot that can be done with them. I've seen what a Hollywood Cinematographer can do with one, so it is possible, It just takes time and a lot of learning.

Now I'm thinking about acquiring an FS100. ;)

Interesting story Garrett.

David - worked with both the JVCGYU100 and the EX1, and yeah, the DoF difference is negligible - esp when compared to a S35 sized chip. You get a bit more shallow DoF w/ the 1/2" chip set then a 1/3", but if shallow DoF is what you're after, the EX series isn't for you.

And settings aside, it's that large DoF that help makes all small chip cameras look more video-like (and yeah, I think the EX series does look more video-like then other similar non-Sony cams IMO).

Certainly not a slam - some people prefer the ultra clean look. And the EX series were an amazing camera in many ways. But for the reasons I gave, I'd rather have a FS100. That said, I certainly can understand why someone would rather buy into the way of life.

Hey Gabe

I have also been recently looking into some FD mount lenses to play around with. I look forward to seeing some more footage from you shot with them.

Chad

I'm ordering my fs100 Thursday. I bought the fd adapter gabe shared a link for. I also bought, cheaply, off eBay, a 1.4 50mm and a 2.8 28mm manual lens. I'm not buying the kit lens, and I don't yet have the funds for better lens. Eventually I'll be getting the novaflex Nikon adapter (I'm interested in zeiss primes). But couldn't imagine getting my camera and not having a lens or two to try it out with.

Not getting the kit lens, cause I have enough funds for the camera with kits lens or camera and fmu. I decided on fmu, cause of $500 mail in rebate.

Hey Gabe

I have also been recently looking into some FD mount lenses to play around with. I look forward to seeing some more footage from you shot with them.

Chad

Soon I hope. Really crappy weather here as usual for us this time of
the year.....just sheeting rain and blowing hard, typical SE Alaska winter.
I ordered a cheap ebay set of rods and lens support system.....just
to be safe. Don't have the cash right now to be buying a expensive
rig, but wanted something to help support this FD lens.

Doug - let me quickly address your points:.

John, I posted a reply to your comments yesterday, but I guess one of the moderators chose to remove it. I have learned my lesson and will think twice next time before wasting my time trying to correct inaccurate statements. Some things are opinions, but other things are facts. Some of the things you have stated are flat out wrong and anyone who wants to do some checking can learn what they are. I can't afford to waste more time on this and write it again. So you can have the last word and I will leave it to the readers of this thread to do their own research and find out the truth for themselves. I actually own both an EX1 and FS100 so I think I should know a little bit more about the cameras than what someone else reads on B&H's website.

5. I believe most people doing sfx work would take 8 bit 4:4:4 over 10 bit 4:2:2, assuming proper exposure.

I wouldn't. While 4:4:4 helps in doing greenscreen work, it doesn't help in anything else. 4:2:2 is also sufficient for that. 10 bit latitude though helps alot, not in vfx per se but in grading.

People also seem to be quite weird about 4:2:2. The advantage of 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 disappear completely after they are onlined and continue to bluray/dvd/internet. It's not like 10bit where you can utilise all the latitude and grading and then go 8bit. When you go 4:2:0 you will completely lose any advantage 4:4:4 brought (except for greenscreen work)

4:4:4 also does not help in color correction much if at all. Maybe in doing some very heavy masks based off rgb colors, it lets the edges be more sharp. But otherwise, 4:4:4 is very much overrated. 4:4:4 is great if you stay in that format but no one ever does.

I wouldn't. While 4:4:4 helps in doing greenscreen work, it doesn't help in anything else. 4:2:2 is also sufficient for that. 10 bit latitude though helps alot, not in vfx per se but in grading.

People also seem to be quite weird about 4:2:2. The advantage of 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 disappear completely after they are onlined and continue to bluray/dvd/internet. It's not like 10bit where you can utilise all the latitude and grading and then go 8bit. When you go 4:2:0 you will completely lose any advantage 4:4:4 brought (except for greenscreen work)

4:4:4 also does not help in color correction much if at all. Maybe in doing some very heavy masks based off rgb colors, it lets the edges be more sharp. But otherwise, 4:4:4 is very much overrated. 4:4:4 is great if you stay in that format but no one ever does.


Is it just me, or does Mikko seem to be "for" and "against" it all at the same time? Haha, Im messing around of course.

Ordered my fs100 and fmu today. Received a dumb canon fd adapter, and 2 prime canon fd lens yesterday. I'll be able to play until I get the better glass I want. I'll have the camera on Monday, can't wait!

jeff-

congrats.

i know you have been on these boards "shopping" for answers to the many questions we all have.

i look forward to watching some of your posted efforts.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

I'm ordering my fs100 Thursday. I bought the fd adapter gabe shared a link for. I also bought, cheaply, off eBay, a 1.4 50mm and a 2.8 28mm manual lens. I'm not buying the kit lens, and I don't yet have the funds for better lens. Eventually I'll be getting the novaflex Nikon adapter (I'm interested in zeiss primes). But couldn't imagine getting my camera and not having a lens or two to try it out with.

Not getting the kit lens, cause I have enough funds for the camera with kits lens or camera and fmu. I decided on fmu, cause of $500 mail in rebate. You will be very happy with your purchase. I LOVE the look of the FD glass. Try and find canon lenses marked SSC in red. The 35MM Canon F2 SSC is amazing. Though this glass does rotate during focusing as do all FD mount canon lenses to my knowledge. I use 52 to 72MM screw on ND filters to get around the inability to use a variable ND.

I'll second the S.S.D. lenses. Back in college I loved those lenses on my still camera. Asphericals are even better if you can find them in good shape. And there are Canon FD Sigma's still out there from $99-499.00 on the web, a bargain.

Scott Caplan

So, to the OP:

Did you end up buying an FS100?

I wouldn't. While 4:4:4 helps in doing greenscreen work, it doesn't help in anything else. 4:2:2 is also sufficient for that. 10 bit latitude though helps alot, not in vfx per se but in grading.

People also seem to be quite weird about 4:2:2. The advantage of 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 disappear completely after they are onlined and continue to bluray/dvd/internet. It's not like 10bit where you can utilise all the latitude and grading and then go 8bit. When you go 4:2:0 you will completely lose any advantage 4:4:4 brought (except for greenscreen work)

4:4:4 also does not help in color correction much if at all. Maybe in doing some very heavy masks based off rgb colors, it lets the edges be more sharp. But otherwise, 4:4:4 is very much overrated. 4:4:4 is great if you stay in that format but no one ever does.

Yea someone does, actualy loads of folks do... my main day gig is as colorist/finishing artist, in the last month two national commericals, two movie of the week's for primetime, and today a Cinemascope feature

Credentials established well enough? I hope so...

Even when i'm targeting YUV/422 like the commericals & MOW's i work in 444 if the camera delivered 444.. Mostly i'm working with RED & Alexa, so they do, and i do... i monitor in YUV, but work in RGB, when i'm delivering film i usualy work in P3 these days, and 422 is not an option there in any case.

Working in 422 feels like i have half a limb cut off, i would rather have the colour accuracy of 444 and deal with banding of 8bit, than the reverse.

Here's a little chart showing colour accuracy;
File:Common chroma subsampling ratios.svg - Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_chroma_subsampling_ratios.svg)


compare that to dealing with 8 bit banding? yea.. i'd take 444/8it over 422/10bit any day

All a bit of a moot point as there is no 444/8bit on offer anyway..

d

Speaking of 4:4:4:

Didn't the literature of the FS100 mention 4:4:4 at one time? I went back to check on Sony's web page, and it only mentions uncompressed 4:2:2 from the HDMI port.
Am I missing something?

I remember on B&H's site, for the fs100 with the kit lens, it use to mention 4:4:4, and the body only model use to only mention 4:2:2. Now they both read 4:2:2.

I just found this blog article.....


Notes On Video: The Sony NEX-FS100 and the unimportance of RGB 4:4:4 (http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2011/08/sony-nex-fs100-and-unimportance-of-rgb.html)

"...the data of the image created by the FS100/NX70 processor is just 4:2:2.
Then it is lifted up to 4:4:4 in the HDMI processor if the connected device is 444 capable."

"That's right, even if you have a display device or a recorder that supported RGB 4:4:4, the signal you are getting from the NEX-FS100 is just the 4:2:2 signal, converted to 4:4:4. So really, there's no reason to worry about this format at all; as Sony notes, the camera simply outputs it if the device that it is connected to supports that protocol."

This is a mighty interesting topic. I recently purchased the FS100, because although we mostly do weddings, we also are interested in entering other markets as well. And I have to be honest, DSLRs (which we also own) are a pain in the @ss, and when you've worked with FS100 for a few hours, you can never seriously go back to them and their limitations, unless for certain things. This following video was shot mostly with FS100. It is a prewedding film actually (I know, it doesn't look like it), and the filming is not over yet but the thing is that no way the night shots could be done properly with any DSLR on the market right now, unless someone likes to be tormented with overcoming stupid limitations (and I don't). The only shots that were shot with 7D, is a couple of urban scenes at 00:20 - 00:25, one shot with the fountains of Vatican and the subway parts because in the last two, cameras were not allowed but DSLR was! :) We also mostly used FD lens. And I simply have never seen the best of 5Ds, giving that result, especially in night shooting. Just my two cents.

"Errand Boy" Initial Teaser on Vimeo

Love it Dimitris. Do you mind sharing what FD lenses you like the best? I am also looking to purchase some.

Thanks

Thanks! Can't really say about favorites. Actually we borrowed all the lenses from a friend who is a photographer and has a huge collection of FD. But what was used really often? 24 (for the steadicam shots), 28, 35, 50, 85, 100mm. All 2.8 except the 100mm which was 2.0. With those lenses and the super 35 sensor, I don't think the image quality can be beaten by any DSLR (ok, maybe 1DMKIV, but at the same price point, you still get a better videocamera with FS100).

Thank you for posting this and for the lenses you selected. Great food for thought.

Scott Caplan

Dimitris, great video and thanks for sharing info on your lenses.

One quick question, which adapter did you use to mount the fd lenses? I'll be getting a FS100 for our company soon and for short term looking at some FD lenses, just not sure how much I should be spending on a half decent mount?

Dimitris-

Your footage looked great.

If that is the pre-wedding film, I can only imagine the honeymoon movie!

Nice work.

Be well.

Rob
Smalltalk Productions

Dimitris, great video and thanks for sharing info on your lenses.

One quick question, which adapter did you use to mount the fd lenses? I'll be getting a FS100 for our company soon and for short term looking at some FD lenses, just not sure how much I should be spending on a half decent mount?

We use this one.

Canon FD to Sony E mount adaptor (http://www.mtfservices.com/home.html?page=shop.product_details&category_id=2&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=109)

One important plus of this adapter is that unlike some others we tried in the past with different cameras (like Jag on Sony FX1), the exposure doesn't "lock" when you put the lens on it. In the past, we used needles and other trickery in order to get the manual exposure (I guess most of you know what I mean), but in this one, you just put the lens on and exposure/focus are ready to be played with. It has 1.54X magnification factor, but we can easily live with that.

It has 1.54X magnification factor, but we can easily live with that.

But this has nothing to do with the adapter you are using. It's because of the difference in size between 35mm still frame and Super35 motion frame.

Yes, I know. :) I just noted this, because some people I am talking to, consider this as a bad thing which should be resolved. :)

So the way films are shot from over a century should be resolved... (ok, over simplification here, since the Super35 format is not that old, but you get the idea).

........ and I'd guess the Nikon lenses
are better than FD lenses as well. ...............


Not necessarily. The better Canon and Nikon glass has been good for many years. The FD's can't be used on modern (EF) Canon without an optical adapter, so there's little demand for these lenses.

Contax/Zeiss was very inexpensive until people realized these lenses could be adapted to the Canon 5D.

I have just purchased a Canon FD 50mm F1.4 ($60) and a FD 35-105 F3.5. ($85). Very excited to see some results after they arrive. I will post some video of some test shots with each lens.

Not necessarily. The better Canon and Nikon glass has been good for many years. The FD's can't be used on modern (EF) Canon without an optical adapter, so there's little demand for these lenses.

Contax/Zeiss was very inexpensive until people realized these lenses could be adapted to the Canon 5D.

Good point. I was just thinking 'tech' in general has advanced SO far, that
theses lenses from the 70's and 80's can't be that good. But they sure
do look nice, and while camera tech may have come a long ways, good lenses
are kind of 'timeless' it seems. Or at the very least, they don't go
out of date as quick. I like the 28-90 F2.8 FD lens I bought for
doing interviews......gives you most of the focal lengths you want
for interview shooting....and it looks REALLY good!

I've used the Aaton Mt conversions of the prime Contax/Zeiss lenses. Not quite as sharp as the 16mm Zeiss Super Speed Distagons, but nearly there.

Good glass is good glass, especially when OIS and AF are taken out of the equation.

Scott Caplan

Good point. I was just thinking 'tech' in general has advanced SO far, that
theses lenses from the 70's and 80's can't be that good. But they sure
do look nice, and while camera tech may have come a long ways, good lenses
are kind of 'timeless' it seems. Or at the very least, they don't go
out of date as quick. I like the 28-90 F2.8 FD lens I bought for
doing interviews......gives you most of the focal lengths you want
for interview shooting....and it looks REALLY good!

Since we're talking about older lens here, I wanted,to post something I asked,somewhere else, just those what everyone here thinks. This is what I wrote.....

In the process of getting to know my first real "pro" camera (fs100). Been playing will all the settings and such. I've made an observation, and wanted to ask if my conclusions are correct. I'm currently using very inexpensive canon fd lenses, until I have the funds for, nicer higher end lens. When using the peaking function (has 3 settings, high, medium, and low. I'm using set on low), I've noticed situations when I have (or feel I have) good focus (on what it is I'm trying to focus on), but there is no peaking indication at all, and other times when there is. With out having a newer, better quality lens to compare it to yet, I'm concluding that this is showing my older lens to be less, sharp at times. I'm wondering if that is correct? This is my first interchangeable lens camera, and am learning a lot, about many different things. I'm a person who isn't so great at being taught things, but rather I need to dig in, and figure things out on my own.

I'm not sure your conclusion are OK. The peaking system on the FS100 is OK at best. It needs very good and clear edge and no movement to show the peaking indicator. Low is unreliable and useless. Med should be your setting in my opinion. But this peaking is a joke. Miles away from a true peaking found on ENG view finder.

By the way the peaking function in Zacuto and SmallHD EVF is closer to the ones on pro ENG viewfinder, and much more usable. You should get one.

I'm not sure your conclusion are OK. The peaking system on the FS100 is OK at best. It needs very good and clear edge and no movement to show the peaking indicator. Low is unreliable and useless. Med should be your setting in my opinion. But this peaking is a joke. Miles away from a true peaking found on ENG view finder.

By the way the peaking function in Zacuto and SmallHD EVF is closer to the ones on pro ENG viewfinder, and much more usable. You should get one.

Thanks for the feedback. An external monitor is on my shopping list. For use on my camera, and also for use on the steady cam and crane. I was thinking the dp6, as opposed to a smaller one.

I found Jean-Phillipe's comment to be very true, particularly on wide landscape shots. The difference between razor sharp and slightly soft is often undetectable by the camera's peaking, especially true when the lens is focusing near infinity..

Alister Chapman once commented that the infinity setting on some lenses, particularly prime lenses designed for still photography, are often variable from lens to lens. He was referring to the fact that a lens could focus passed the infinity mark, yielding an unsharp image.