Nikon & Sony 18-200mm comparison on the FS100

[Jon Braeley]

I work in docs ... nothing is prepared and I enter almost every location without preparation. I may go from 2 or 3 candles of illumination to dazzling brightness in split seconds or suddenly have the opportunity to grab a few words from a subject.

But it takes me less than 15 seconds to change a lens - I keep a 17-50mm on the lens when I arrive but carry two primes in my pouches - both F1.4. I use my feet to crop if needed.

Switching a lens on the run is the sessence of this type of work - it came from stills work. Veteren war photographers do this while bullits are flying so I am sure we can.

I think the FS-100 is not for journalism style video work - not at all. Far better cameras out there for this.

[Gabe Strong]

Doug,

I 'played' with an EX3 that a Sony rep brought to the public TV
station that hires me as a freelance videographer and editor.
Then, about two months ago, I helped shoot a greenscreen interview
with an EX-1R for Citrix. I shoot with the Sony F355 XDcam HD
disk based cam at the PBS station as well. Finally, three weeks
ago, I shot some stuff for a documentary filmmaker from San Fran.
He brought his Sony PMW 320 with him, and had me use that, along
with my FS100 to do some two camera interview shoots where
we had the interview subjects seated, and he acted as interviewer.
I then was able to have one camera on a CU and the other on a
MS. I like all of those cameras....they all make sense to me.

As a business person though, I had a couple options. I could
get an EX-1 or EX-3, and basically have the same kind of cameras
the TV stations have, or I could try to 'differentiate' myself.
But I wanted something that didn't take me too long to figure
out,....something I could use right away, but grow with and expand
my skills with. Not sure if this makes sense to you or not.....but
I have been pleasantly surprised with the FS100 and how it works in
faster paced situations. And unfortunately in my small market, buying
multiple 'expensive' cameras is not a very good business decision, so I
couldn't really go with buying both a EX-1 and a FS100, which I would
love to be able to do.

Jon, if you are that quick at changing lenses I can see how it would
work great for you. I can't do that.....not even close to 15 seconds.
I saw a 17-50 2.8 and a 50-150 2.8 that I thought might make a good
pair. Do you use a variable ND? It seems like a matte box might be
hard if you are doing doc work. Anyways, what gets me, is the adapter
situation and all the workarounds. I don't want to buy some glass unless
I know it's going to work great with the camera....I'd like to be able to
actually adjust the iris on my camera after all, without taking the lens
off and putting it on a HDSLR. As a matter of fact, I don't own a HDSLR,
I'm not a still shooter and don't know much about still glass, which is another
learning curver for me. I've tested a couple on the FS100 and all,
but before I start my investment in additional glass, I want to make
sure I have it all figured out, to give me the best experience with
the FS 100.....so I'm kind of waiting for the new Sony adapter (the
EA-2?) and the rumored Canon Birger adapter to see what they will
be able to do with the camera. Of course, the plus with the FS100,
is that you CAN use different lenses for different situations!
For what it's worth, I've had no problems at all doing TV news
stuff with the FS100, the kit lens, and a Heliopan variable ND
filter. It worked much better than I thought it would. I also
shoot high school football for a local team with it and have no
problems. Is it as good for those things as an EX-1? Probably
not, but it's not that bad either.

[Doug Jensen]

Hi Gabe,

It sounds like you had enough experience with the other cameras that you were able to make the right decision for YOU. If you hadn't actually used some of the XDCAM cameras, then I would say you weren't in a position to know what you were missing out on and how they compare to the FS100. But since you've used them all, I'm sure you made an informed choice. That's all I was wondering about.

With that said, judging from what you have written on this thread, I personally think the EX1R would have been the better choice for you -- especially if you're using the kit lens, because that lens destroys a lot of reasons most people would buy an FS100 in the first place. If you truly want to "differentiate" yourself from the other people in your area, you're going to have a tough time doing it with the kit lens. But what the hell do I know? :-)

[Gabe Strong]

Doug,

Well...I'd say you know quite a bit, definitely more than I do
about this stuff. To me, it 'seems' that I get more of a
shallow depth of field shooting with the kit lens than I
do with the 1/2 Sony's. It's not as good as what you can get
with a 'fast' lens on the FS100, but it seems to be a bit better.
I know there is a chart somewhere that shows the F stop settings
that offer 'equivalent' depth of field with different sized sensors,
but not sure where it is. It looks to my eyes that the FS100
around F4 or F4.5 is still 'significantly' shallower than the
1/2 Sony's, I did do a comparison with the Sony 320 and the FS100
with kit lens on the interview, and the FS100 certainly looked
shallower to my eyes, but maybe that was my eyes telling me what
I wanted to see.

But, my plan is, to use the kit lens for now, as I learn the
camera...but I will certainly be adding faster glass to my kit
as the adapters come out and I can decide if I should buy
Canon glass or not! If I bought the EX-1, I would not
be able to have this option to expand....there are so many
lenses out there with different 'looks', some of them almost
make the FS100 into a different camera (not really , but it
really changes the look). I actually have 2 or 3 fast zooms and
1 or 2 REALLY fast primes picked out.....but I have to figure out
if I should go with Nikon mount/Novoflex, Sony A mount/EA-2 or
Canon/Birger. Have any recommendations there?

[Doug Jensen]

It sounds like shallow DOF was the main thing on your mind when you chose the FS100. If that is true, then you shouldn't be wasting time with the stock lens. You need to invest in some faster and superior lenses that will really let you take advantage of the bigger sensor. I totally agree with Jon and his use of he description "far superior" when describing other lenses compared to the stock lens.

I will tell you that anything I can shoot with the FS100 & the stock lens, I could shoot better with an EX1R and it's fixed lens -- plus the EX1R offers dozens of advantages over the FS100 that are more important to me than shallow DOF. In my opinion, shallow DOF is just an overused style right now that is much less important to me than all the other features the EX1R offers, which would make it a better choice for me if I was shooting the types of things you described in your earlier posts. There are many ways to differentiate your work from other cameramen that have nothing to do with shallow DOF.

I'm not saying the FS100 is not a good camera or that the EX1R would be a better choice for everyone, I'm just saying that using the stock lens on the FS100 negates all the good qualities of the camera. It's like putting K-mart tires on a Ferrari.

As for lenses to invest in, I would recommend looking for three features:

1) Fast. f/2.8 or better. f/1.4 is even better.
2) Constant aperture. The aperture must remain constant through the entire zoom range.
3) Ability to change the aperture directly on the lens itself with no adapters or other add-ons.

Bonus 4) Buy primes. Prime lenses will generally perform better than similarly priced zooms. I never use zooms on my FS100 or F3 and I don't miss them one bit. You get used to it faster than you think. I almost look at zooming as a crutch now. I never thought I'd say that.

Anway, those are the three (or four) things I would look for.

[Gabe Strong]

I haven't seen many lenses that have the ability to change the iris
right on the lens itself. Granted, there is only one small lens shop
in town, everything else I have to order online. It does seem, though that
many of the newer DSLR's control the iris electronically....which would
mean I wouldn't want to get those lenses (point 3). More fun lens research
coming up :-)

[Dan Asseff]

Gabe,
I, like you, shoot for our local PBS station and have the FS100 and also the NX5. But I am not sure about using the FS100 on those shoots. I have the kit lens also and understand your reasoning for liking that lens. I would like to see someone that has a variety of lenses shoot similar shots to compare what faster lenses really look like. The fast pace of the shoot and them liking smooth push and pull shots makes me stick with the NX5. I would like to see that chart you were talking about too.

Dan

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Dan Asseff

I would like to see someone that has a variety of lenses shoot similar shots to compare what faster lenses really look like.

We are waiting for our Nikon and Canon lens adaptors to arrive and we will be doing exactly that with some of the "usual suspects" from Tokina, Sigma, Canon and Nikon.

[Dan Asseff]

Shaun,

That is awesome, what lenses will you be using? And will you be testing the kit lens too? keep us posted.

Dan

[Jon Braeley]

I see more Canon than any other brand - especially in Asia where I am right now - Canon everywhere!

But no one would consider Canon for video unless they had a huge investment in them - which is often the case. Not having a manual aperture control on the lens is a big problem... a $1000 adapter problem.

I do not see Canon bringing out their own video camera to take EF-EOS lenses (stupid decision). So if you do not own Canon cameras then Nikon would be a good choice ... Zeiss Nikon especially for primes. A good alternative is Alpha A-mount as I think Sony are expanding rapidly the offerings in this mount and also the E-mount. I started buying A-mounts as the adapter is really nice - A to E by Sony. I would like to see Sony take A-mount into pro vidoe cameras more. You can get most lenses in A-mount now.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Dan Asseff

What lenses will you be using? And will you be testing the kit lens too?

I share office space with a DVInfo moderator (Dylan Couper) who runs a video production gear rental business so we have a pretty decent selection of the "Usual Suspects" here. Some Nikon primes and zooms, some L series Canon glass... The EXACT list will go up once it's done but as we are both busy these days (me SHOOTING the FS100 and Dylan renting the gear out) it might be a while yet...

[Jon Braeley]

I shot a quick interview last week on the FS-100 with the Samyang (Rokinon in the USA) 85mm... an amazing bargain lens that I have touted for a long time. F1.4 and superb in the late afternoon light. This raw frame grab is at F4. No color retouching. at full frame you see every hair on his skin.

At $300 this is what makes using primes a fantastic option now we have the FS-100. You cannot ignore the choice that is now out there....

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

But no one would consider Canon for video unless they had a huge investment in them - which is often the case.

One of the MOST UNDERAPPRECIATED things about Canon stills lenses is that focus works in the SAME DIRECTION as on a video lens. Nikon's focus is "backwards" to those of us in the video world. It's sure nice to turn the lens the right way every time when rack focusing or working non-repeatable events...

Having said that, most of my large sensor shooting is done with LOMO ciné primes these days so...

[Gabe Strong]

Jon,

Did you see this thread?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...ml#post1682321

Canon has 'something big' to be announced November 3rd. All kinds of
speculation, including that it may take their still glass....who knows,
but interesting times for sure. With the rumored price of
the Birger adapter, I have to say I am mostly considering Sony A or Nikon
glass for the FS 100.

In the meantime, here are a couple still grabs of what I did with the
kit lens. Now I was never able to get anything like this with the EX-1
or similar cameras, but that may have been because I didn't own them and
so didn't know them as well. I like this kind of look for interviews sometimes
and I can get it with the kit lens really easy....I'm sure it would be better
with faster glass, but unlike you Doug, I am fairly certain I am not going to
be a 'prime lens' guy. I may use them every so often, but I can never see
myself only using primes like you do. It takes WAY to much ability to do
that, I am nowhere near that good yet.

[Bruce S. Yarock]

Gabe,
I fully understand where you're comming from. I've been using the 18-200 quite a bit, especially for fast paced, run and gun. I also bought the 16mm f.2.8 Sony lens, which is an amazing lens for the price( $129 on ebay). I also used it on my indicam ( steadycam type rig) and it workeed pretty well. I'm really impressed by the autofocus usability on both Sony lenses, when needed.

I also have a nice collecion of older nikon pimes from when I used a letus extreme, and they look better than the kit lens. I have a 105 f 1.8 that is beautifull, and a 50mm f 1.4 that is great in low light, and looks great. Also, I have a tokina (Nikon mount) 28-70 f 2.8 which is nice. But i have no complaints about the image quality on either of the Sony lenses.

I Sold my letus, Canon H1 , two A1's and one of my Canon 7d's in order to move up to the fs100, etc. I still have one 7d and sveveral fast Canon lenses , but still nothing from Birger.

To Dougs point- I REALLY miss a shoulder mount camera. Between the Canon XL2 and XLH1, I shot with a shoulder mount cam for 7 years. The FS100 is very modular, which is great, but you can't just throw it on your shoulder and start shooting. But the image makes it all worth it.
In the meantime, I'm still experimentinng with different set ups.
Bruce Yarock