For paper prints up to, say 16x20, I'd say it's pretty hard to tell the difference between full frame sensors and cropped sensors these days, especially when using a commercial printing service like a Costco.
Most professional custom (hand) printers can tell the difference, especially when working on prints over 16x20 and designed for closer gallery viewing (say around 36" away from the print surface). But who these days will actually even commission such a printer to make prints like that? Imagine the price!
These days, photographic paper prints are taking a very distant second place to digital screens. And if a digital photo is projected/screened at anything other than 1:1, it's pretty difficult to tell if it's the camera sensor quality or the computer's graphic system or graphics card or screen quality that's affecting IQ.
On a computer screen that's under 27", though, where most photos live these days, it's pretty impossible to tell, IMO, without pixel-peeping (which by definition means you're looking at the pixels and not at the photos as a whole)
Me, I prefer FF for stills just because when I reach for a 24mm lens, or a 16mm lens, I know the angle of view of that lens just because I've been working with them for such a long time. And I have a collection of FX lenses already.
I have, and have used, DX cameras as well, pretty much interchanging with impunity to get the exact visual angle I need from the lenses that I have. Operation of both is near identical, and so is post production. For me. Except when going into potential poster-sized prints, as mentioned above.
For motion pictures, I'm using mainly Super-35-sensor cameras, and so there's a crop factor involved. I have made Excel spreadsheets with focal length equivalents for all my lenses (I needed that because I have three sets of focal lengths to deal with - the actual S35 sensor length, the FF equivalent length and an intermediate factor if I use my Metabones adaptors). I don't really shoot run-and-gun video so I can afford the time to use the look-up tables if I need, to set up my shot, and also there's plenty of viewfinder apps now available that will do the conversion automatically and let me see what's what.
Just like stills, there's very seldom need for full theatrical cinema quality in the videos I work on, simply because 99.9% of the time it's going to YouTube or Vimeo anyway. For the very rare cases it does end up in a cinema, well, that's DCP's we're talking about (digital cinema packages) and they're actually only 2k flat, or 3k squeezed.
Of the maybe 20 or so feature films I've worked on in the past five years, all were shot on 4k or better, one was actually shown, one time, in 4k, and all the other 19 of them were 2k DCP flat or HD, with maybe a couple of UHD 4k prints made, both for their directors' own uses.
FYI, in no instance was I paid any more to work in 4k over HD, despite the computers, graphic cards, screens, and drives having to all be upgraded just to take the 4k media.
So yes, while it's fun and great to shoot digital (and yes, there is 645 format digital MF equipment, Hasselblad et al are still alive and well), I'd say keep in mind what your end product is likely to be and then shoot for that product. I used to own digital Sinars and Hasselblads - but my D800E does 99.9% of that already, so I sold them to add to my collection of modern ultrawide lenses.
Daily I spend most of my shoot time on a "lowly" D600: for most clients, 24MP is plenty. A D7200 takes up the DX side of things, and yes, like everybody else I'm thinking of D850 and/or a D500 - but I don't have enough ongoing business to warrant the "upgrade".
But it's nice to dream about them!
Mark - good morning!
Welcome, welcome!
As a very long time pro photographer and cinematographer (I did my first full-page ad in 1975, I believe - shot on Rollei 6x6, my very first camera), I've had the good fortune to move through the various ages of photography and cinematography. I've owned Aatons, Arris, Bolexes, Eclairs in S8 through 35mm, and most of the digital format cameras as well.
So - this is my 2/c, and just my 2/c, for what it's worth. Most people's viewpoints will differ from mine, of course. That's to be expected.
Here goes:
How much, if any, of your original film (sprockets) equipment do you have left?
While most of my gear ended up being Nikon, there was a time back in the day when I was running every brand. The top brands were always in stiff competition, then as now.
The top gear was always excellent for the end use (newspaper and magazine print work).
If you were mainly 16mm then you were, I'd say, documentary focused? Or TV commercials/music videos?
Do you know that HD (1080p and 720p), while being the main standardized broadcast medium in the US today, will be changing as more UHD (4k) pipelines come into play? And that the current international standard for digital cinema projection is around 2k flat and 3k anamorphic?
I had to change my entire lineup, as everybody else did, back in 2012 when we went from 480 to HD. And then again around 2014-5 to go to 4k. But maybe I jumped the gun, because aside from the one feature film that shot in 5k Red and actually wanted a 4k print, out of the perhaps dozen or so feature films that I've posted since that time, only 2k DCP (digital cinema packages) were actually required, ordered, and paid for. The only thing that's happened to the 4k, 5k, 6k media coming off the Reds and Arris and whatever, has been down-res'd to 2k DCP and HD release prints.
An image stabilizer is essential only in certain kinds of production, Mark. As is onboard stabilization, 4k drones, LED lighting, super- and hyperfast lenses and all the rest of it. 99.99% of that is marketing hype, same as it ever was.
The salient questions are these:
a) are you self-producing your own work? Or do you intend to hire out your skill sets and equipment as a service to other productions and producers?
b) what kind of programs would your eye and taste naturally fall into? More news/documentary/reality/run-and-gun/single operator types of programming? Or more scripted/planned/rehearsed/camera-crewed short films, commercials, or narrative feature films?
c) what's your budget? And is this a 100% deductible budget? i.e. out of your own pocket as a cost of a hobby? Or is there monetary return to be expected from perhaps higher end equipment as investment?
d) a question like a directional mic tells me that you're more going for run-and-gun type shoots and/or work, and have forgotten or not learned that, same as it ever was, if someone is going to speak on a movie you're making, it's always best to have someone, not necessary a skilled operator but certainly less of a headache later, to be operating the sound for you. That side of things has gotten cheaper, since a Zoom H4n costs maybe a hundred these days instead of the several thousand a Nagra used to cost. The mics, though, cables, headphones, slates and operators cost within 20% of what they have always cost, mainly because tens of thousands of film makers between the 70's and the 20's have realized that there's no way to effectively short-circuit that procedure and not come up with video-y, newsy, or reality-sounding dialog. (Always assuming that the films shot would be up for sale or rent, though. Otherwise whatever, shoot however you want.)
Sensor size - while most people will call the sensors the same, effectively, I'd say that for every one who says that MFT is the same as FF or MF or whatever has never seen their footage, nor will ever see their footage, projected on any screen larger than 20ft wide. Same as it ever was, a 16mm print screened on a commercial cinema screen looks different than a 35mm print.
At 5-6ft wide, the practical maximum for non-projected UHD material these days, the differences aren't as night-and-day as above 20ft, and thus debatable.
Also equipment sizes and weights and crew requirements mean that larger and more expensive productions will always, always stick with Panavision, Arri or maybe Red, Panasonic and Sony variants for maximum image quality and exposure latitude on their shoots. Because it's just not worth the bother, if Arris and Zeiss/Cooke/high end Fuji/Leica are available for rent, to take a chance on a lesser known brand.
Thing is, even though a used Alexa Classic will yield professional level results at a very reasonable price (under $10 as against a used Alexa Mini for $50k, body only), it's not just the price. As you know, using an NPR or an ACL or even something large like a CM3 or an Arri IIx series, is the limit of a field-operated single person kit (in video that used to be called ENG). Mostly even to operate the larger lenses even in 16mm requires the services of a focus-puller/AC1 and maybe even a clapper/loader. And they still do.
For me, I tend to stick with full frame sensors in stills simply because I don't have to look into the camera to see what a 24mm will cover as against, say a 135mm. Yes, I can (and do) do the math in my head but it's still intellectual and not instinctive. Same as your focal lengths in 16mm, I'd say.
And where would that make the difference? Well, in grab shots. Shots where you have to go from bag to shooting in less than, say 15 seconds. With an NPR or a C300, well-prepared, you could get that shot. With a Panavision or a Red, probably not, unless you had a crew that was also well-prepared.
Yes, the trend is to go smaller and lighter, because who can afford a focus-puller and AC2 these days?
Well, who can afford a dolly or a jib, or even an used O'Connor or Miller head these days (real fluid, not "fluid feel"). Or a tripod, come to that? And yes, the old el-cheapo Indian shoulder rig is just the same price as it ever was, 30 years ago, and sells about as much as more people discover it and how useful it is for a certain kind of shooting.
Do also consider your lab work.
Yes, there's still lab work. And color correction. And grading. And timing And yes, they're all similar, but not identical.
And yes, they're all digital, these days.
But still there, very much there. I can personally evidence this when people come to me and ask me "what's a deliverable?" when Youtube Red or Amazon or Apple or Netflix finally bite on one of their shows and the finally come around to realizing that yes, the picture and the soundtracks do still have to end up by being delivered to those companies in conformity to some kind of broadcast or quality standard. And yes, that standard is technical and no, they won't cut you a check until the film materials you have delivered (the deliverables) meet those standards, technical, legal, and artistic. All three.
That's when your lack of a sound guy will become obvious, etc..
So. I'd say look very carefully at Blackmagic as well as the obvious suspects. In particularly investigate the lab/post pipeline through their (free version available) DaVinci Resolve program. And the de-Bayering controls that aren't available on the various Apple and Adobe post products. And yes, that's the very same DaVinci CC setup that was available on the Hazeltines of yore at the labs. Just digital now.
Lenses are as they ever were. The real cinema lenses (used for 20ft plus projections in real cinemas) are head and shoulders better than the stills lenses pretending to be cinema lenses. But they cost more than ten times more than those other ones, because less than 1 in 1000 productions will actually to go a real commercial cinema run these days. Mostly they'll end up on 5-6ft wide or smaller, in most cases a lot smaller. In that case, you can see that even 16mm is fine. So MFT is fine.
Me? I have Blackmagic for cinema use and Nikons for stills. The current flavor of the month for both is not the Panasonic GH5, as mentioned elsewhere, but the Panasonic GH5s. Canon C series, Sony mirrorless, and all the others are all there in the pack, plus or minus. Yes, I've used pretty much all of them. No, there wasn't anything outside of Blackmagic that stood out/stands out FOR ME because of the post pipeline - the Blackmagic camera media just slides right into DaVinci Resolve without issues, conversions, etc.
For a tripod, and again depending on what you principally want to shoot, I'd want to go for something like the older Davis & Sandford V18 series - I have two of them and they both feel as smooth to me as my O'Connor 30D and 50D (real) fluid heads do. I came to the D&S because I found them for less than $100 each - and then I tried them out and liked them. Not as much control as the real fluid heads, but great for a situation where mostly people want me to handhold the camera rigs on top of the fluid heads anyway, to get that contemporary "hand-held" look, but without the jitter that comes with using lighter weight rigs.
Yes, I've shot many pro assignments on the GH4, GH5s, etc., both in stills and in video. But the video looks like video (i.e. the news, ENG look) and not like film.
Actually in the end I still have and sometimes use my Canon and Beaulieu S8mm, Aaton LTR16 and Russian 35mm movie film cameras, because, to my eye, and in the cinema, only film looks like film.
And, depending on the production or the client, some other folk agree with me enough to want to use that medium. With film discipline, of course.
So yes for Panasonic MFT as well, but really I'd say gear up as you mean to end up. If it's realty-doc style online and OTT, then sure, stay there. If commercials or more, try for at least a Blackmagic or used Varicam / Red Scarlet / Alexa Classic. I use my old Leica and Nikon primes because they still hold their own. But any of the more modern lenses will be sharp enough, zoom enough, etc., for your final image. Setup times, operating requirements, speeds between setups, all of that comes to play when you're shooting professionally, but not necessarily for your cuppa tea.
Since I have assignments pretty much all over the country these days, I've made it my hobby to look in all the local Craigslist ads, camera stores and some of the older pawn shops, thrift stores, etc., to see what I can find. Then I take the best of those, get them CLA'd, and test them against the sets that I own, and sell the inferior image quality samples off.
So when I say I still use a Nikkor 105/2.5 for my portraits or digital movie or 35mm movie shots, be assured that the actual lens I'm using is probably the 10-12th such exchange, so it's pretty darned sharp and clear still, even when compared to the current AF-S or whatever series lens works on auto cameras these days.
Do I have an 18-200mm lens for a doc-style catch-all? Sure do. It's saved my bacon plenty times in sports and other events. But would I use that for a commercial or a short drama? Nope, Nikon or Leica primes for those, with follow-focus etc., for sure.
Okay, done spouting now. Hopefully some of you can pick something useful out of it all. Apologies for not being able to write shorter!
Agreed with the others.
I'd say put the lens on your D7k, find its sweet spot, shoot it against your other lenses in comparable focal lengths and using those other lenses' sweet spots, and see which one wins.
Then you will know for sure if your 70-210 is worth keeping or not.
In this instance, perhaps taking this kind of action beats online theory discussion?
It comes down to the actual physical examples of the lenses mentioned here, and as I've found out, there is more variation between examples than the manufacturers would lead us to believe.
I think you will find that your old 70-210 will easily outshoot your 18-200 in DX. But that's not only based on my testing methods and experience, but on my copies of each of those lenses.
You have a different camera, and different examples of those lenses. So unless you shoot them out against each other, you won't know for real which setup performs better - for you.
Funny you should mention that.
I just completed a lens shoot-out of all the lenses, new and old, in my collection, using a real life scene and a test chart, through a D600 on a very sturdy (large format) tripod, mirror locked up, and a 2 sec shutter delay.
I went through all the common focal lengths (8, 16, 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, 85 ,105, 135, 180, 200, 300) and found the sweetest spots in every lens at those lengths. Then I went through all of the sweet spot shots of each focal length and marked down the best of them (by sharpest usually, but sometimes it was best color/contrast between two equally sharp lenses).
At 70mm, 135, 180, and 200mm, one of my 70-210's (I have two, they're so cheap these days) won the batch. The surprising one was 70mm, shot against a 24-85G, a 28-70/2.8 gold ring, a 24-120 (not surprising here - I had a very sharp 24-120G before that probably would have won, but sold that one long ago). The old 70-210 clearly won at this length. The won again, by enough to raise eyebrows, at the rest of the tested focal lengths mentioned above too.
It wasn't particularly fast - I think the sweet spot was around f/7 to f/9 or so - but then the winners of the 85mm and the 105mm were both older Nikon primes, at around f/8 as well, even though common doctrine suggests diffraction at those apertures.
Before I bought my 300/4, which is a very sharp lens, I used the 70-210 for sports as well. While its performance wide open fell short of the 300's wide open, used at its sweet spot of f/7 it made me enough work to buy my 300mm in the first place, so that's saying something. (Of course, used at the 300mm's sweet spot of f/8, the 300mm will go toe to toe with anything else 300mm out there).
Yes, I do have an 18-200 and an 18-300 both DX lenses, but since I have no DX camera (I use them for video only, usually), any comparison would be unfair.
So just so's you know, I still possess lenses from the 80s. My 85, 105, 70-210 were all bought new. And all my three lenses are holding the line superbly, and remain at the top of my pile, even in this digital age.
JM2C, YMMV etc
foxfire, and gents, hello!
I have a question. Why is it that when shooting digital we're still set on conventions that were instigated by color transparency film stock, and analog color separation technology?
We now have the most incredible darkroom and lightbox tools ever. Why not use them?
I guess you know about dodging and burning areas of your image? In Photoshop, or in a darkroom, under and enlarger?
You are aware that most of the photo giants of the past used darkroom post-processing on a daily basis?
It's only when we came to slide shows or the color separation of color transparencies for print purposes (print as in magazine, newspapers etc) that we had to be exact about exposures, since the transparency / slide films were shot, then went to processing, then came back mounted and ready to project or go into color separation - no post processing color or image manipulation was readily available at that time.
Nowadays, that's still the case - if you were showing analog negatives or color slides to other people.
But we're not. The computer is at least two stages away from the original JPG or RAW file that came from your camera.
So what is wrong with tweaking your images to suit your exact needs, if they are exact for a particular shot?
I don't get it. Yes, finding the sweet spot of a lens is obviously great - most of mine are a stop and a half, or two stops in from wide open. But not always. My old PC-Nikkors, that have tilt and shift, settle in at 11-16 where as most of the others are blurry due to diffraction by then, for instance. One of my macro lenses ditto.
Yes, testing is best, to find the best lens / zoom / aperture combo for any given common focal length.
For example, at 85mm, I have a 70-210, a 24-85, a 24-120, and a very old 85/1.8 prime lens that will cover 85mm. The best by far is the prime lens at f/8. How did I get to that? By setting every lens at that focal length and shooting the exact same subject at all available apertures (off a big tripod, obviously, and time release/mirror lock-up)
But photography always had a shoot phase, and a lab/develop/post phase.
Why is it, that even after all these decades, and all this accumulated body of knowledge, that we're still concentrating on point-and-shoot?
I mean, nobody will contest that nowadays we can totally miss the optimum aperture by a stop or two and still be able to recover most of not all the image data from the camera original, without missing a beat, just by moving a slider or three.
So why get so concerned about 1/3 stops any more? With all this latitude we now have at our fingertips?
Sorry, I don't get it.