Noob lense advice needed

G

gorillaonabike

A collaborator and I are planning to shoot some shorts leading up to a feature. On a positive notes I am ferociously organised (80% of success is turning up) and between us we have a little experience and beyond this, our strengths and weaknesses appear to compliment each other. In addition, we are both pretty affable guys. I may have a project to work on until the end of August and then from then on, September 15th onwards to be precise, we will be looking to get a crew together to shoot. Effectively, my goal is to make shorts, make mistakes and then by 2013 - shoot a feature.

As a 'starter' camera I want to go with a Panasonic AG-AF100. Although the DSLRs are very fine pieces of kit, the visual issues around movement put me off and I recently worked on a project where the camera judder (OK, OK moire) was far too noticeable.

However, as I am relatively new to all of this, there are two questions I would have for my more experienced brethren.

Firstly, is there a cheaper option than the Pan? I need something where the judderiness is not an issue.

Secondly, I need a do-everything starter lense and all recommendations are more than welcome. Naturally, I want to build up lenses, buying a second in 2012 and a third in 2013 but initially I need something versatile and relatively (for glass) inexpensive. I know how much glass can cost but I need something that will 'do a job' rather than blow the socks off Spielberg.

So I would appreciate if you would please let me know your thoughts.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Judder is inherent to 24p, the camera you use won't change that. The image issues DSLRs have are aliasing, moire, rolling shutter, and shakiness due to their light weight. While the AG-AF100 is better at dealing with those than DSLRs, it still using the same type of sensor as DSLRs and isn't perfect. That being said, it's an amazing camera and I fully intend to upgrade to the AF100 (or it's successor) from the GH2 I use now before I start on my own feature film.

As for glass, I'd recommend getting some old Nikon primes and an adapter. Keh.com and eBay are great places to start looking. You could pick up a 24 1.8, 28 1.8, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 1.8 for less than the cost of a nice new lens.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
A sorta pre-2008 option is to buy a 3ccd camcorder and use a depth of field adapter. No moire, but there's a host of other problems.

But I dunno, I shot a feature on a cannon t1i over the last couple of months, and I thought the image quality was just great. Moire was almost never a problem, since I was careful about it. And the t1i sucks, compared to the newer DSLRs!

Yeah, the Af100 is the camera I like to imagine when I fall asleep at night. But the camera I'm really dreaming about these days is the FS100. Have you seen that low-light performance? Holy crap! I'd like to stick a SD card into one of those memory slots, if you know what I mean.

I recommend checking out Phillip Bloom's review of the Af100, FS100 and the 5D mark II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyIEFWxxvc0

I think the gist of the video is, if you're willing to spend up to $6000 dollars, you're going to get a good camera.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
superamazing;193949 But I dunno said:
A friend of mine just advised me against buying this. He said - "gorilla, you're an @sshole. You want to buy a Ferrari when you can't even drive yet. A good film maker gets great quality out of the cheapest piece of kit. SO BUY SOMETHING CHEAP AND LEARN HOW TO USE IT!!!"

He's a good friend of mine - believe me, anyone calling me an @sshole has to be a good friend or, well, there's a reason my nickname is 'gorilla.'

He said - try something cheaper. You might be bad at this film making lark. You might have zero talent. You might just be an @sshole with a camera. So buy something cheap and then if you get to the stage where you're outgrowing it, then buy something better.

So I took his advice. I bought something cheap and cheerful. A VG10. This way if I buy better lenses, then I can trade up to your suggestion, the FS100. So thanks for the advice and if I'm any good, I'll go in that direction.

My gameplan is to shoot a short in 2011, shoot a few more in 2012 and then if any of this is any good, I'll go for a feature (already written) in 2013.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Unless I'm much mistaken the VG10 is a much better camera than the FS100.

If you have bought the VG10 then that's (from everything I've heard having never actually used it) a really good camera.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SinEater said:
You are mistaken.

NEX-FS100
Click to expand...

I guess I am. When I saw FS100 I thought:

32786399-2-440-OVR-1.gif


EDIT: Ah man does the NEX-FS100 look freakin' sweet!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AF-100 mentioned in the post is a pansonic camera

FS100 is a sony camera.

The latter destroys the former in image quality.

I think your friend is right, just use a DSLR and learn off of that. Spend the money elsewhere.

As far as lenses go, experiment: I usually shoot with cinema glass, when I'm not I prefer very very old still primes. They add a lot more character, to me. Takumars, etc. My favorite zoom cost 15.00 on ebay, is an F4.5 Constant and looks like crap.

It's awesome.

Anything will probably do to learn with, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're mixing two words that describe two different things. JUDDER is inherent to any 24p cam, moire isn't, moire is the bane of the Canon DSLR line, they all suffer from it, and it an annoying rainbowie buzz that infects you frame, especially on pattern that have fine mesh, such as a bridal veil. If it's in fact moire that bugs you, then stay away from Canon and go Panasonic -- GH1/2/13. I don't know about Nikon et all, but from what I know, they lack manual control.

I'm also partial to vintage lenses, but I'd stray from the Canon FD, they're super cheap, but I think their image tends to be a lil softie and uncontrasty. I love the Pentax and Taks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Another vote for Canon FDs!!! Such a nice look.
Click to expand...

You like them Kholi? I liked them at first, but the more I mixed them with m43 lenses and the Pentax, the less I loved them. The other thing is the adaptors have a "Lock-unlock" switch right next to aperture, I'm forever unlocking it when I'm fumbling for the iris ring, and unlocking it disable the iris.

Can't complain about the price though, and you can get fast ones in tele.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
You like them Kholi? I liked them at first, but the more I mixed them with m43 lenses and the Pentax, the less I loved them. The other thing is the adaptors have a "Lock-unlock" switch right next to aperture, I'm forever unlocking it when I'm fumbling for the iris ring, and unlocking it disable the iris.

Can't complain about the price though, and you can get fast ones in tele.
Click to expand...

I like them, I thought you were voting for me! Read wrong.

But, I do actually because of the contrast. It's great for grading later on. And, the vintage look and sharpness really adds to it.

My favorite kit would be Contax Zeiss primes, but they're expensive now that they've become so popular.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
You like them Kholi? I liked them at first, but the more I mixed them with m43 lenses and the Pentax, the less I loved them. The other thing is the adaptors have a "Lock-unlock" switch right next to aperture, I'm forever unlocking it when I'm fumbling for the iris ring, and unlocking it disable the iris.

Can't complain about the price though, and you can get fast ones in tele.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're mixing different lenses. Ideally you should shoot each project with lenses of the same brand/era. Different companies use different lens coatings, and lens coatings have improved with time. I find the older lenses can give a great image that's very conducive to color correction, and they're extremely affordable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top