addicted to the 50mm 1.2 and Canon 5D2 at DVinfo.net

addicted to the 50mm 1.2 and Canon 5D2 · October 20th, 2010, 03:11 PM

hi guys,
love this combo, let me know what you think.
cheers,
Mike Kobal

Dominik Seibold · October 20th, 2010, 06:34 PM

I don't want to critizise your video (I think it's well made, besides some nasty clipping in the sky), but I think that for people who want to shoot goose bumps pictures with just a little effort those ultra-large aperture lenses are a very good choice. I think that a big part of this fascination of low depth of field is not just a pure aesthetic one, but to do something which was ever since very expensive to achieve and therefore associated with high professionalism. The idea is to fool people who don't know much about recent developments in imaging technology, to increase the own reputation (why do I have to think of Philip Bloom? ;).
It's also interesting that since HDSLRs became affordable even pointless populist youtube blog videos provide this low depth of field. I'm wondering, if the resulting inflation of this will upvalue a high depth of field.

Stuart Hooper · October 20th, 2010, 08:10 PM

I don't know, I think for the 'fashion vid' genre, if I may call it that, shallow DOF is appropriate.

And while there is a lot of boring work out there, I think Mike Kobal's videos are a cut above, plus they tend to stay on the short-side which I think is good for this sort of thing, making them a must-watch in my vimeo feed. Certainly on a digital billboard or looping a store or at a certain kind of party...perfect.

Laurence Janus · October 20th, 2010, 08:18 PM

Thanks for the message on Vimeo.

The 50mm 1.2 looks like a fun toy but I still love my 1.8!

The clips are a little "Mr Plow" but as Stuart Hooper said, that is entirely appropriate in certain circles.

October 20th, 2010, 08:18 PM	#4
Laurence Janus Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Kyoto, Japan Posts: 139	Thanks for the message on Vimeo. The 50mm 1.2 looks like a fun toy but I still love my 1.8! The clips are a little "Mr Plow" but as Stuart Hooper said, that is entirely appropriate in certain circles. __________________ SONY α77 :: Panasonic X900M :: Sony DSR-PD170P :: Miller DS5 :: Premiere Pro 2.0 :: Cineform NeoScene

October 20th, 2010, 06:34 PM	#2
Dominik Seibold Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Nuremberg, Germany Posts: 285	I don't want to critizise your video (I think it's well made, besides some nasty clipping in the sky), but I think that for people who want to shoot goose bumps pictures with just a little effort those ultra-large aperture lenses are a very good choice. I think that a big part of this fascination of low depth of field is not just a pure aesthetic one, but to do something which was ever since very expensive to achieve and therefore associated with high professionalism. The idea is to fool people who don't know much about recent developments in imaging technology, to increase the own reputation (why do I have to think of Philip Bloom? ;). It's also interesting that since HDSLRs became affordable even pointless populist youtube blog videos provide this low depth of field. I'm wondering, if the resulting inflation of this will upvalue a high depth of field.

October 20th, 2010, 08:10 PM	#3
Stuart Hooper New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: Panama Posts: 14	I don't know, I think for the 'fashion vid' genre, if I may call it that, shallow DOF is appropriate. And while there is a lot of boring work out there, I think Mike Kobal's videos are a cut above, plus they tend to stay on the short-side which I think is good for this sort of thing, making them a must-watch in my vimeo feed. Certainly on a digital billboard or looping a store or at a certain kind of party...perfect.