f/0.95 lenses on cameras

Loud Orange Cat

Loud Orange Cat

Pro Member
indiePRO
I've seen some HD video that were taken on cameras with f/0/95 lenses and they're mindblowing.

What cameras offer lenses like this? Personally, I'm a Canon whore myself (video, DSLRs...) and they offer nothing less than f/1.2.

What HD video cameras with a 4:2:2 colorspace offers lenses less than f/1.0?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
ItDonnedOnMe said:
But, again, my point is not that there's anything wrong with the f/0.95 lens, or using faster lenses to get more light on the sensor instead of cranking up the ISO. It's just that there's nothing magical about that lens. Just because someone sees great work shot with it (like the OP did) doesn't mean that lens should necessarily be the starting point in trying to achieve something similar. There's a lot more choices in the f/1.4 range that will basically give you the same or very similar effects with a variety of current cameras.
Click to expand...


Do you know of a side by side comparison of 0.95 and 1.4. I've never used 1.4 and if you really can get nearly the same amount of light.... (but even 1.4 isn't very popular and quite expensive on Canon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Loud Orange Cat said:
I've seen some HD video that were taken on cameras with f/0/95 lenses and they're mindblowing.

What cameras offer lenses like this? Personally, I'm a Canon whore myself (video, DSLRs...) and they offer nothing less than f/1.2.

What HD video cameras with a 4:2:2 colorspace offers lenses less than f/1.0?
Click to expand...


LOC - To answer your question, there are two cameras that can mount f0.95 lenses and shoot at 4:2:2 or higher:

1. The $2995 Blackmagic Cinema Camera with the MFT mount shooting ProRes or higher (the camera Kholi referred to in his earlier post)

2. The $995 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera with the MFT mount shooting ProRes (or higher, when available) .

The BMCC MFT is as rare as hen's teeth and the BPCC won't ship until July, but I've ordered one anyway, because no other camera shoots ProRes at this price point.

Hope that's helpful,

Bill
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
More specifically to the OPs question:

The difference between 0.95 and 1.2 is <a stop, so I wouldn't be rushing out and basing your entire camera purchase based on one lens when the difference is less than a single stop of light.

Especially considering you can get an 85mm f/1.2 lens on a Canon which will actually give you even shallower DOF if that's the look you're after...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
More specifically to the OPs question:

The difference between 0.95 and 1.2 is <a stop, so I wouldn't be rushing out and basing your entire camera purchase based on one lens when the difference is less than a single stop of light.

Especially considering you can get an 85mm f/1.2 lens on a Canon which will actually give you even shallower DOF if that's the look you're after...
Click to expand...

Except that for the price of the 1.2 he can get the 0.95 + a camera + some lighting.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
Except that for the price of the 1.2 he can get the 0.95 + a camera + some lighting.
Click to expand...

It was stated that 'Canon offer nothing faster than an f/1.2'. True, but in real world application, the difference between f/1.2 and f/0.95 is pretty minimal (see: <1 stop).
The 50mm f/1.2 will give you similar DOF characteristics as well, and isn't hugely more expensive than the f/0.95 25mm.

Also, considering the 85mm f/1.2 lens is ~$2k, I'd say he could get a body and a lens - if he wants 4:2:2, then he's looking at a $3k BMCC or a Pocket cam, but the pocket cam and a f/0.95 lens is going to cost the same as the 85mm lens anyway - and from the sounds of it he seems already heavily invested in Canon.

Of course there are more reasons to go for a pocket camera over some Canon DSLRs, but without more information it's difficult to advise further.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
Except that for the price of the 1.2 he can get the 0.95 + a camera + some lighting.
Click to expand...

The difference between f/0.95 and f/1.4 is only about one stop - and there are plenty of great old 1.4 lenses from nikon, pentax, minolta, etc that will run you maybe $150 + a $10 adapter.

So now for the price of an f/0.95 he can get a body, lens and maybe even a light (depending on which f/0.95 lens you want to compare to).

But he also specified a 4:2:2 camera (preferably with canon mount), so that means we're not really talking about trying to put together the cheapest options here. That pretty much rules out most DSLRs. As Jax noted the BMCC is the cheapest currently available (sort of) option at $3k, after that it jumps to the C300 at about $14k. The C100 could be made to fit the bill at $5,500 with the addition of an external ProRes recorder, although I guess that would also bring the 5DmkIII into the mix with the clean hdmi output in the latest firmware.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Has anyone mentioned the effect of sensor size on light gathering capabilities? All things being equal, a full-frame sensor should give you around two stops advantage over an MFT one - i.e. ISO 3200 on FF will be roughly as noisy as ISO 800 on MFT (APS-C sensors lie about halfway in between).

If two sensors are the same resolution, then the larger sensor should be brighter/less noisy because the individual photosites have a greater area. While f/0.95 sounds fantastic, for clean images in low-light I'd probably prefer to use a full-frame sensor with an f/1.2 lens: the lens is 2/3 of a stop slower, but the sensor has an effective advantage of two stops.

(I'm aware not all of this will apply when shooting video due to the various resizing/pixel binning/line skipping techniques used by different manufacturers, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the lens isn't the be all and end all - the capture medium plays an equally large part in the photographic process.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top