Super 16 mode on F5 & F55

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Well hopefully the Fotodiox is somewhere within spec, as it can not be too far out or as you know it will cause problems.

Which B4 2/3" lens will you be trying, is your plan to scale up to 1920x1080 HD or scale down to 1280x720p?

[Jon Springer]

Fuji XA17x7.6 BERM (no extender)...a cheap lens I know, but I really need to try it and see the results. I'm shooting a national doc for PBS and I need some run and gun capability. We were just missing too much working with lens changes with Nikons. I will need to upres to 1080 since that is what is already shot. I also need to see if a work flow that includes scaling will be feasible for a doc.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

You can search online for some footage B4 2/3" lenses on AF100 or micro 4/3rds and get an idea of what kind of quality you might get. Most of it I've seen is with 2x doubler and looks great.

For your doc I would definitely shoot in 4k so you can get 3000x1600 - but that involves 4 times more data and post work.

Best of luck on your projects, sounds interesting!

[Christopher Young]

Originally Posted by Jon Springer

a Fuji XA17x7.6 BERM (no extender)...will be feasible for a doc.

Jon ~

Just received this from a colleague using a Fuji 18 x 7.6 with a doubler on the F5.

"Hey mate,

I had a play with the crop mode... works quite nicely, but can't run the B4 lenses more open than f4 otherwise it goes nasty soft.

With the extender in on full scan I can go more or less wide open, so all in the results are quite similar! Will keep looking into it... either way the speed you need to gain/ISO up is the same!"

He is coming over so we can do more tests / comparisons but it is not sounding too promising. It's looking like full scan with the doubler is working best when using the MTF B4. He is saying that you have to ISO up to compensate for light loss. In full scan mode with the doubler in I agree with him 100% as that has been my experience. You have to remember the associated light loss is about 2.5 stops so when he says f4 on the B4 lens that that's like working at f8~11 on your 2/3" camera.

I'm using the MTF B4 on an FS700 and finding similar results in the full scan mode. Full scan obviously as there is no crop mode. If it's full daylight it quite usable but the minute that light drops it feels like you are stuck with a lens with a maximum working aperture of f5.6. Wide open on the B4 lens at 3200 ISO being needed to match a PDW-700 XDCam on 0 dB gain is my experience.

Curious to here more shooters experiences with B4 adapters on the F5 / 55.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Dennis Hingsberg]

That is some good to know feedback on the MTF adapter. Thanks Chris! It is meant to be a low cost alternative B4 to FZ adapter so it's still not a bad option, but the 2.5 stops will hurt in lower light.

Jon and I are looking at using a B4 lens without an adapter that has optics in it, so no light loss if you do not have a doubler engaged, or only a little light loss if it is engaged.

[Doug Jensen]

Personally, I intend on picking up a PMW-300 for $8000 as my run & gun camera instead of crippling my F55 with a bunch of really bad glass, adapters, and other gimmicks in post to try and make the footage look good enough. The 300 has 50Mbps XDCAM HD422 right now, a great EVF, removable lens, good ergonomics, and XAVC is just around the corner. There's nothing better than using the right tool for the right job, AND it gives me a second camera when I need it. Just my 2 cents.

[Antony Michael Wilson]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Personally, I intend on picking up a PMW-300 for $8000 as my run & gun camera instead of crippling my F55 with a bunch of really bad glass, adapters, and other gimmicks in post to try and make the footage look good enough. The 300 has 50Mbps XDCAM HD422 right now, a great EVF, removable lens, good ergonomics, and XAVC is just around the corner. There's nothing better than using the right tool for the right job, AND it gives me a second camera when I need it. Just my 2 cents.

Ah! The voice of reason!

[Christopher Young]

+1 for Doug's comments. Hence my using the disc based XDCam as my prime ENG type camera. With an HD wide angle it's hard to beat for many everyday type jobs. Horses for courses is so true.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Duane Adam]

Originally Posted by Antony Michael Wilson

Ah! The voice of reason!

Screw reason, I went with an F5. The samples I've seen of the PMW300 have the look of my old EX1r which I think looks dated and details likes leaves look smeary. Lack of high frame rates and no 4K made it a pretty easy decision. Finishing my first F5 project and am so glad I spent the extra $$$. The camera sings.

[Jon Springer]

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

That is some good to know feedback on the MTF adapter. Thanks Chris! It is meant to be a low cost alternative B4 to FZ adapter so it's still not a bad option, but the 2.5 stops will hurt in lower light.

Jon and I are looking at using a B4 lens without an adapter that has optics in it, so no light loss if you do not have a doubler engaged, or only a little light loss if it is engaged.

In a perfect world Fujinon would make an affordable (i.e. $10K) S35 lightweight zoom whose inferior optics could be corrected with a universal in-camera CAC plugin (if such a thing would even be possible). They certainly have the technology to build such a lens (think XA17 x 7.6 with larger elements), but perhaps not a way to make it profitable.

[Doug Jensen]

As an F55 owner myself, I'm not suggesting the PMW-300 as an alternative for everything an F5 or F55 offers. That was not the point of my post. The PMW-300 is a great companion to the F5/F55 and those two cameras make a great pair.

[Duane Adam]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

As an F55 owner myself, I'm not suggesting the PMW-300 as an alternative for everything an F5 or F55 offers. That was not the point of my post. The PMW-300 is a great companion to the F5/F55 and those two cameras make a great pair.

Makes me think of that Heneiken commercial where the guy has a walk in closet full of beer. Mine would be cameras if only I could afford them all.

[Doug Jensen]

They're business tools, not toys, and they more than pay for themselves. In fact, each camera buys the next camera, and I sell the old camera while it still holds most of it's value. A $20,000 camera doesn't cost $20,000 if you sell it for $15,000 when you jump to the next model. Then it only cost you $5000.

You've got to spend money to make money.

[Duane Adam]

True and when you factor in depreciation and tax savings they're virtually free provided you don't keep them too long. As far as being just business tools, I suppose that's true in a sense but as shooting video is only about 20% of my scope of work, and because its the part I like the most, I hope I never look at them that way. Cameras are much more an artistic instrument for what I use them for, and I've come to love them for that reason.

[Bo Skelmose]

Hi
Anyone know off a support that holds a Broadcast B4 mount canon optic like HJ22x7,6.
Got the MTF adapter and a VOCAS support but need something that can hold the lens very secure to the 15mm rods. I once had a support that was screwed directly onto the lens.