My lens has a spot on it, is there anything I can do?

[Brian Drysdale]

Advice changes with time, but holding onto an existing DSLR depends on if it does what yon want regarding stills, however, the video side has moved on so much since 2011, it's not really suitable for more than videos for personal use.

If your projects are shot on other people's cameras, that's fine.

There's a whole thread on your varifocal zoom lens, so I'm not going there.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

could somebody spare a few moments to detail why these are so good?

The primary appeal of *full-frame* DSLRs (such as the Canon 5D Mk. II which started this whole thing back in Oct. 2008), is the ability to achieve very shallow depth-of-field, which narrative filmmakers really seem to enjoy.

Crop-sensor DSLRs are also capable of very shallow depth of field when used with fast lenses, but I think it's the low cost factor which makes them so popular. For example the Canon EOS 80D + EF-S 18-135 nano USM + power zoom adapter can be had for $1,500 and it *somewhat* emulates a $2500 pro video camcorder (but with certain, severe limitations). It's compact, relatively easy to use, and of course does double-duty as a most capable stills camera.

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

other filmmakers advised me to, cause there were more lens options compared to videocameras for the same price range around back then.

Sorry but that's not entirely true. For several reasons.

First, there is no practical way to change focal length during a shot with a still photo lens (the one exception being the Canon EF-S 18-35 nano USM + power zoom adapter). There are work-arounds involving extra hardware (and extra cost) that will provide remote and / or motorized control for still photo lenses, but by the time you build this out, you'll be better off putting that expense into a proper pro video camcorder. There's just no substitution for a servo-controlled lens on a pro video camcorder, with a proper zoom rocker and ready provision for remote operation, such as lens controls mounted on the tripod pan handle, where they belong. Of course, if you don't change focal length during a shot then this is no issue.

Second, most all pro video camcorders will get you a telephoto focal length equivalent well beyond 300mm (in 35mm terms), built in. For example, the Canon XF300 has a lens that reaches nearly 600mm, and stops down to only f/2.8. You cannot buy a 35mm still photo lens at 600mm f/2.8 -- Canon has a 600mm f/4, and it costs more than $11,000!

Third, the only focal length range you'll have a hard time covering with the built-in lens of a pro video camcorder is ultra-wide angle. In this instance, a DSLR may be a better choice, but even then you have the option with a pro video camcorder to add a wide-angle adapter (for less money than a DSLR plus an ultra-wide angle lens).

Fourth, macro capability is built right in to some pro video zoom lenses. I don't know about other manufacturers, but I do know the Canon line. On all Canon XF, XA and VIXIA series camcorders, you can remove the lens hood, zoom out to full wide, and focus right on the front objective. It's one of my favorite demonstrations when I show these camcorders at trade shows. The minimum object distance is practically zero. They'll focus closer than most any still photo macro lens.

Finally, video zooms lenses are mostly par-focal with minimum breathing. You can zoom in, get critical focus, zoom back out, and focus will hold. You can't do that with most still photo lenses.

I hope I have shown here how the built-in zoom lens on a pro video camcorder is actually more capable than most any still photo lens. I am open to rebuttal on this topic, of course.

The other advantages of a pro video camcorder over a DSLR are the ability to do dual recording, relay recording, better control of audio, better control of image (ND filters, etc.) and no 30-minute shot length limit, among other factors.

Hope this helps,

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well as far as zoom lenses, go, I think primes look better than zooms for some shots, and a lot of people prefer primes, unless zooms are better in many cases? I just haven't found myself needed to zoom during the footage a lot accept for maybe a few specific shots. Some have told me before that the zoom looks unnatural or dated and to try to avoid it though.

There was one project so far where I wanted to do a fast zoom during the shot, but the DP I had in mind, had a videocamera with a zoom lens, but the motor could not move the zoom fast enough. Do most videocameras have this problem, where they can only zoom from slow to medium speeds?

But as for zoom lenses vs. prime, people choose prime because of more shallow DOF options. However, if a built in lens on a camera, that is a zoom lens, can open up to f2.8, will that have just as much shallow DOF as a prime at f2.8?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

I just haven't found myself needed to zoom during the footage a lot accept for maybe a few specific shots.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with *not* changing focal length during a shot.

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Do most videocameras have this problem, where they can only zoom from slow to medium speeds?

It depends entirely on the make and model of the camcorder. Some of them actually are capable of performing very fast snap zooms via servo. In any case, you can always switch to manual and perform a snap zoom by hand. In fact, it's the only type of zoom that is practical to do by hand.

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

However, if a built in lens on a camera, that is a zoom lens, can open up to f2.8, will that have just as much shallow DOF as a prime at f2.8?

If the image size, focal length and aperture value are the same between a given prime lens and a zoom lens, then yes the depths of field will be identical.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks! The DP told me before he couldn't go into manual zoom with his camera cause if he tried to zoom that fast manually it could damage the motor, or at least put more wear and tear on it. But that was probably his type of camera then.

Well I could invest in a better camera and lens, but since I usually get a cinematographer or DP to shoot my projects, is it worth it, as back up?

The only reason I pulled out the old T2i and zoom lens, is that someone I know wanted me to do a corporate video for them but they wanted me only and no one else to help, so I used my own for it. But is there any reason to upgrade the gear if most of my projects, I usually get someone else to shoot them?

I thought maybe the lens could use an upgrade since I don't know any DPs with lenses that go up to 300 so far and then they could just use mine. But what do you think about a camera upgrade, if I plan on using separate DPs or videographers?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

The DP told me before he couldn't go into manual zoom with his camera cause if he tried to zoom that fast manually it could damage the motor, or at least put more wear and tear on it. But that was probably his type of camera then.

Yes, that's probably true for his particular camcorder. It's not true of *all* camcorders, though.

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Well I could invest in a better camera and lens, but since I usually get a cinematographer or DP to shoot my projects, is it worth it, as back up?

In your case, probably not.

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

But is there any reason to upgrade the gear if most of my projects, I usually get someone else to shoot them?

Not really. If you usually get someone else to shoot them, then there's only two things you really need:

1. a business card
2. a phone number

-- you can make an entire career for yourself in the film industry with just those two items.

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

I thought maybe the lens could use an upgrade since I don't know any DPs with lenses that go up to 300 so far and then they could just use mine. But what do you think about a camera upgrade, if I plan on using separate DPs or videographers?

As far as lenses go, you really should just rent them as you need them.

And no, you really don't need a camera upgrade in your case. Forget I even mentioned it. Your plan to use separate DPs or videographers is actually quite solid. Just be sure to let them do their jobs, and let them make the decisions about technical matters. That's what they're there for.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. It's just the ones I work with so far, do not have a telephoto lens which is what I want. But the rental stores are often booked up in advance, and shoot dates change a lot so I thought it would be better to just have the telephoto lens ready to go for the DP for any shoot date change, which is why I was thinking of selling this one to buy a better one.

[Chris Hurd]

Just be aware that your EF 75-300 is really not a very good lens and therefore does not have much resale value. It's worth about $20 as a trade-n at B&H:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/trade-in.jsp/view/item/id/1564/BI/2855/KBID/3801

You could put it on Ebay and maybe get $100 if you're lucky. My point is, you're going to have a hard time getting any money for it. It may be worth more to you to keep it as a back-up, or give it away to a friend or family member.

If you want to buy a better telephoto lens, several excellent suggestions have already been made to you so that you can make a good purchase decision. No matter how much or how little you want to spend, any change would be an improvement.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks. Well some of the suggestions were more costly, and I want a lens that is on the sharper side, since this lens is quite soft when maximized to it's long length. What about the Tamron-100-400? Is that one sharp at the long end, since people have been saying mine is too soft looking zoomed in all the way?

Or maybe, the lens isn't as soft as some make it out to be to the point of unacceptable, maybe soft is okay?

What about these shots, zoomed in at 300mm, are they too soft?

Birds - YouTube

teal and orange test footage - YouTube

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan - I don't do DSLR video, but I've just popped my quite nice but modestly priced Sigma 70-300mm zoom on my DSLR. hopefully this will give you something compare against yours.

Opened a window, sat the thing on the edge and shot some flowers about 3m away, and then refocussed across the road - so both ends of the focus range. Hope it helps as a comparison. 1080 .avi original straight from the camera.

300mm Sigma stills zoom test on DSLR on Vimeo

IMGP0547 on Vimeo

[Ryan Elder]

Your footage seems to be a little sharper than mine on the glass maybe... What do you think?

[Paul R Johnson]

I'm not sure. As I never take video, I was a bit surprised how narrow the DoF actually was. Focusing on those flowers was ridiculously hard on the screen. Through the lens for stills it's easy. Those stems on the flowers are inches apart, yet making one sharp was quite difficult, so in your clips, is the softness just that the focus point is slightly off? I'll try it again today with my normal video camera and see if the difference is obvious, quality wise at the long focal length.

[Paul R Johnson]

Very short, but here is the 300mm sigma lens on my DSLR fully zoomed in against my 1/3" JVC wit Canon KT14x4.1 lens,

statue test on Vimeo

Didn't do any tweaking, but probably should have checked the colour temp - but the sharpness of the lens and small sensor on the JVC camcorder knock spots off the DSLR and average lens - AND I had to use 1/16 ND filter too!


EDIT
nice day today, so I went into the store and gathered up all the cameras I could find power cables for, and thought I'd have a play. Oldest a Betacam with a really nice lens with 2X capability. Then a JVC 5100 - 4:3 SD, then a small consumer HD handicam plush DSLR and the JVC 750. I strung them together. I had grief getting SD in - the picture on the monitor in composite was clean on the two old-ons, but got some strange noise patterns int he transfer. I also expanded the SD images to fill the HD frame. Not sure it proves anything apart from the 2 X extender works damn well.

MIXED CAMS on Vimeo

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. I don't think mine was out of focus, I was just told by another filmmaker that non-cine lenses are too soft if zoomed in all the way to 300mm if that's true, especially Canon ones he said. But it looks that soft in all my footage so far, so I don't think it's a slightly out of focus issue.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

I was just told by another filmmaker that non-cine lenses are too soft if zoomed in all the way to 300mm

Actually that's a highly misleading statement which is not necessarily true.

There are plenty of still-photo zoom lenses that are just as sharp as cine zooms. In fact, some cine zooms are simply re-housed still-photo zooms that have lens control rings and other "cine" features added to them.

What's really happening here is something that I've tried to explain to you before, but you just don't seem to get it.

Your particular lens -- that Canon EF 75-300 -- is at the *bottom* of the optical quality food chain. It performs poorly at either end of its zoom range, but most noticeably at full telephoto.

Once again: your lens is very poor. *Any change* would be an improvement. You could stay within the Canon brand and get excellent results, without having to resort to the exorbitant cost of a cine zoom.

Look, Ryan, right now you have the worst telephoto zoom you could possibly own. You made a mistake when you bought that thing. Most likely you were lured in by its very low price. Hopefully now you realize that you get what you pay for.

At the opposite end of the lens spectrum is the Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S cine zoom. You can read more about it in my Cinema EOS buyer's guide located here. It costs $45,000. It's definitely out of my budget, and probably out of yours, too.

In between are a *wide variety* of Canon lenses that reach 300mm (or more) that can be had for less than $2,000. Other DVi members have already pointed out some of them. I mentioned one that's very good and only costs $500, but you didn't like it because it's "fly by wire." Well, sure it is. You know what else it is? It's infinitely preferable to the cheap lens you're using right now.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I'll mention it anyway: there's also a super-telephoto Canon L-series prime that will do exactly what you want, and it's compatible with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, and it's about as sharp as you can get at 300mm for well under $1500:

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Super Telephoto Prime

Hope this helps,