C100 on the way! PLEASE help me compile a kit...

[John Yingling]

Ha, this thread is divided! Hot damn. I know I will love the Tokina. It'll help ten-fold. Like I said, I've rode on a kit lens with my 60D! Insane.

Attachment kit recs?!

Thanks, internet.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by David Dixon

For example, I don't know what a 20 mm lens would look like on a micro 4/3 camera, but give me the "35mm equivalent" (as B&H photo does on all non-interchangeable lens cameras and camcorders) and I know exactly what to expect.

So when you are shooting on your 60D, you're constantly adding a 1.6x crop to all the focal lengths you think of?

"Well, I have an 50mm on here, but that's the equivalent of 77mm in photographic full frame."

You seriously do that in 2014?

[David Dixon]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

So when you are shooting on your 60D, you're constantly adding a 1.6x crop to all the focal lengths you think of?

"Well, I have an 50mm on here, but that's the equivalent of 77mm in photographic full frame."

You seriously do that in 2014?

Nope, only when I'm purchasing a camera or lens. As in the example I gave earlier, if I were to buy a Panasonic GH4 for videoing certain kinds of subjects, I'd need to know the crop factor in order to make an educated choice on which lenses would provide the field of view ranges I wanted. If I bought a 20mm lens for it, is that a wide angle? Who knows? Sounds pretty darn wide to me. Well, if I knew the crop factor, then I *would* know. Luckily, B&H agrees with me and provides in the specs: Camera Format: "Micro Four Thirds (2X Crop Factor)." So that 20mm lens is really only as wide as a 35mm equiv. 40mm lens - not really wide at all.

Doesn't everyone do this? To me the alternative is to just buy lenses blindly and hope they are wide or long enough for your needs. I want more information in advance than that. Others can do as they like.

I just looked up the Sony AX100 4K camera on B&H. They don't even give the actual zoom range at all - they *only* give the 35mm equivalent. I'm fine with that. I don't really care what the crop factor is. They list the "35mm Equivalent Focal Length" to be 29-348. I know what that means and can make an informed decision on whether it will meet my needs.

Happy shooting!

[John Yingling]

One other question I had (aside from the original) is on the Ninja 2 :

I leave for China, South Korea, and Japan in 11 days. Part of me really thinks I should get a monitor for such an epic endeavor. I'd love to get ProRes from a Ninja 2 for workflow as well.

The hectic, bumpy run and gun environments I'll be in...though..I'm not sure if it'd be worth the hassle / risk of it keeping disconnecting. Seems like theres a 50/50 split for using it as a monitor.

Thoughts?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by David Dixon

Nope, only when I'm purchasing a camera or lens. As in the example I gave earlier, if I were to buy a Panasonic GH4 for videoing certain kinds of subjects, I'd need to know the crop factor in order to make an educated choice on which lenses would provide the field of view ranges I wanted. I

We are not talking about a 2x crop factor, we are talking about a 1.56x crop factor. Something you stated you don't do on your 60D.

I even think constantly talking about the crop factor on m4/3 is silly. Why is there this need to constantly compare to photographic full frame by people who don't use it to people who don't use it.

So, again, I find that I never used a Tokina at wider than 16mm on my 60D/C100 because wider than that was just ridiculously wide. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm gives me that ultra wide angle close enough to the Tokina, while having more reach and giving me IS and full Dual Pixel AF support, which I tend to use more often than I thought I would, especially in awkward angles while outside when you can't see the LCD screen very well and can't get your eye to the EVF.

See there? A functional description of lenses on the camera in question with zero references to crop factors that have no meaning in this context.

Originally Posted by John Yingling

Part of me really thinks I should get a monitor for such an epic endeavor. I'd love to get ProRes from a Ninja 2 for workflow as well.

The monitor on the Ninja-2 is rather poor, even though it works great as a recorder. It's clearly intended to be a recorder primarily because you have to specifically engage it into monitor mode. The Ninja Blade, while slightly larger, doesn't feel any heavier, but does add some bulk to the overall package. I have run and gun with it, but I don't know if I would want to do it for lengthy extended periods with no break or ability to mount to a tripod or monopod.

However, the Blade is a very good external monitor, and is clearly meant to be one because you cannot turn off the monitor mode at all. Additionally, you get goodies like scopes. Just be sure to get the Atomos hood for it if you go this route. Makes it much easier to see in daylight.

Now, if you decide it's too big for your intended use, then I would look at the Ninja Star with the Atomos branded CFast cards. That would give you ProRes with something that could easily be mounted on the shoe of the handle and give you very little additional bulk to the C100.

The hectic, bumpy run and gun environments I'll be in...though..I'm not sure if it'd be worth the hassle / risk of it keeping disconnecting. Seems like theres a 50/50 split for using it as a monitor.

I have never had the Ninja-2 or the Ninja Blade disconnect on me. You have to purchase the right HDMI cables, not just some random one you grab at Wal-Mart. Monoprice has some good ones that have very small heads, and I am using those with zero problems. Perfect Path is also good, and has a locking mechanism in the head. Zacuto is pricey, but has a cable with articulating heads on each end, which is also great. Ideally, no shorter than 3'. I have a 1.5' and it's just too short to use on the C100 with the Blade. 3' has been the perfect length for me, giving me enough wiggle room to mount the monitor where I need it to, without having too much slack.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by David Dixon

...Doesn't everyone do this? To me the alternative is to just buy lenses blindly and hope they are wide or long enough for your needs. I want more information in advance than that. Others can do as they like.

...I know what that means and can make an informed decision on whether it will meet my needs.

Happy shooting!

Yes, so far as I know, everyone does this. There are internet resources devoted to it that include field of view demos for various focal length and crop factors for those who aren't quite as practiced with it.

Why? Because that full frame is the standard for angle of view comparisons. I know that for my style of work I need to get down to at least 24mm FF equivalent to get the wide angles I want for interior work. Sometimes I'm on full frame, some on crop. It's simple to run the numbers to find out what FL I need... of course part of this is that I use several different cams on a regular basis.

OTOH, if you're locked in to Canon APS-C and you get familiar with the looks of the various focal lengths, maybe you'll never need to consider 35mm equivalents.

Somewhere here on DVi I pencilled out my chart of uses of FLs for typical photo/video uses, ranging from "effects" Super Wide Angles, through accepted WA, normals, moderate telephotos for portrait, etc. The only thing that makes it possible to have this discussion is understanding of crop factor and standarizing on full frame.

The reasons are historical of course... but that's where standards come from.

Specing, buying or renting lenses... or doing multicamera shoots, or having meaningful discussions online... IMO the more people that understand the common language and terminology the better.

[David Dixon]

Seth, thanks for explaining my thoughts better than I could have done it myself!

But whether you want to consider crop factors or 35mm equiv. or not, my original point was that 24mm on a C100 is not very wide. I think the OP is going to need something wider. And, I would agree with Gary that I'd rather have a zoom that starts wider than that rather than a second lens that is an ultra-wide zoom.

[John Yingling]

I went ahead with the Tokina.

There just aren't many lenses that fit my needs, have IS, that much larger of a wide angle, and have the reach, that would negate the $600 I spent on that lens.

Couple in my 60D needing something other than a kit lens, and it's really a no-brainer for me.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by David Dixon

...my original point was that 24mm on a C100 is not very wide. I think the OP is going to need something wider. And, I would agree with Gary that I'd rather have a zoom that starts wider than that rather than a second lens that is an ultra-wide zoom.

Quite right for my uses as well. The 24-105 is a great lens, but it doesn't go wide enough for many uses when you can't keep backing up (interiors).

The 17-55mm offers f2.8, and goes reasonably wide. I could wish that it went a little longer than 55 (88 equiv), but the wide looks are very usable for me.

I use the Tokina 11-16mm mentioned above, it is well accepted among the folks I work with as a very valuable superwide on crop sensor.

The Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS rounds out my zooms.

Coming from traditional video cams with 10:1 or even 20:1 zooms, these short zoom ratios seem pathetic on first glance, but that's the price we pay for the big sensor...

[Matt Davis]

It's a bit late now, but going to the OP question:

Well done on the Tokina 11-16 - a great lens. Almost a special effect lens, but hey - 2.8, super wide, it gets the job done and the pictures look nice.

Canon 17-55 2.8 was another lens to look at. With the DPAF option, it's even more interesting. As a 'nightclub' do-it-all lens, it works well. Not much reach for someone on stage, but if you can get in close, you can get a head shot.

You may want to check out the prosumer 18-135 lens. 24-105 is for well-lit situations, but interestingly, if you can put up with the noise for the extra gain needed for a 24-105 you can get away with the 18-135. Not exciting shallow depth of field or sublime 50mm or 85mm at f1.4 low light shots, but if you can bash the C100's menus into shape and let it control the lens properly, I do find this to be an absolute corker of a lens. Be very sure that when I first got it, I hated it with an acidic passion. However, if you're willing to throw in some gain and let the camera do a lot of the work, this is a very useful lens.

Quite frankly, I travel with the Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55, Canon 70-200 f4, Sigma 50 f1.4, Samyang 85 f1.4 and Canon Macro 100 f2.8, because... I'm a lens slut. And I usually have the 24-105 with me too. But the deep dark nasty secret is that I use the 18-135 (which is usually on my T2i) for an awful lot of stuff when you have no idea of what's going to happen next.

Final random bit of info: f2.8 on an EX1 1/2" chip camera is f8-11 on your C100. F4-f5.6 is not to be feared, quite frankly.

[Andrew Maclaurin]

Like Matt I have found the 18-135 pretty useful until things get really dark. It covers a lot and zoomed in you still get a lot of dof if you want it.
Matt, how far do you push the ISO/gain when using the 18-135?

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Maclaurin

how far do you push the ISO/gain when using the 18-135?

I don't like to go beyond +12dB at the moment. If +6dB is one stop, and doubling the ISO is one stop, then if the base ISO can be agreed upon as being 500ISO, that means I don't like to go above 2000 ISO - which probably wriggles around to be above 3200 ISO.

Having said that, when things get dark and when you have the time and access to Neat Video, the truly excellent de-noise plug-in, we can play up to about 18dB, but it's a compromise.

[John Yingling]

Thanks, guys.

I was wondering. When I plug my RODE videomic into the mic outlet, is there any way to also get the onboard mic and/or XLR at the same time? The point being a backup. I assume I change the knobs on the leveler. .....but will it be pieced out separately in the files? How do I separate, and can I pick which one links to my footage? Will it be both? Cheers.

[Gabe Strong]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

Yes, so far as I know, everyone does this. There are internet resources devoted to it that include field of view demos for various focal length and crop factors for those who aren't quite as practiced with it.

Why? Because that full frame is the standard for angle of view comparisons. I know that for my style of work I need to get down to at least 24mm FF equivalent to get the wide angles I want for interior work. Sometimes I'm on full frame, some on crop. It's simple to run the numbers to find out what FL I need... of course part of this is that I use several different cams on a regular basis.

OTOH, if you're locked in to Canon APS-C and you get familiar with the looks of the various focal lengths, maybe you'll never need to consider 35mm equivalents.

Somewhere here on DVi I pencilled out my chart of uses of FLs for typical photo/video uses, ranging from "effects" Super Wide Angles, through accepted WA, normals, moderate telephotos for portrait, etc. The only thing that makes it possible to have this discussion is understanding of crop factor and standarizing on full frame.

The reasons are historical of course... but that's where standards come from.

Specing, buying or renting lenses... or doing multicamera shoots, or having meaningful discussions online... IMO the more people that understand the common language and terminology the better.

Nope. Not everyone does it, despite statements to the contrary. I have never shot
DSLRs in my life and haven't a clue what a 24mm or a 50mm looks like on a FF
camera. I have shot a ton on Super 35 cameras, Red, C300, F3, FS100, and FS700.
I know what 17mm, 24mm or 50mm look like on Super 35 sensor so I buy lenses based
on that knowledge. I worked as AC on set and never once did any of the DPs refer in
any way, shape or form to FF or 35mm equivalents. All these DPs have a common
knowledge, language, and terminology based on familiarity with Super 35 motion
shooting, they don't care that a 50mm on Super 35 is closer to a 35mm on FF. They know what
a 50mm looks like on Super 35 so they just ask me to put the 50mm on the Epic.

[Tim Bakland]

The 24-105 is super for a great share of event/wedding needs.
That, and a 30/35mm prime for lowlight when needed (I have the Zeiss 35 Distagon and love it!)

All that said, the new 24-70L II is a superb, sharp lens and great in pretty low light. I confess that I sold my 17-55, giving up the wider end, to put $ toward the 24-70 just because the new lens is that nice.