Laforet + EPIC + Canon Mount + 600mm

[James Brundige]

Some folks are very excited about the IS. You can't use it with moving images or a non-locked-off camera.

[Shawn Nelson]

Wont be :( will follow by about 2 weeks.

I want one! :-)

[Mick van Rossum, NSC]

According to Vincent's notes on his Vimeo page it's more than 3400mm, shot at 4K and 120fps: http://vimeo.com/27212799 Amazing.

Still surprised no one asks about the 3400mm claim, to get the same Field of View on a 24x36mm camera as an Epic X in FF with a 1200mm one would need around 1530mm on that 24x36mm camera.......

[Michael Olsen]

I'm actually not getting that math, either. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

EPIC Sensor @ 4K = 22.12mm wide
35mm = 36mm wide

36 ÷ 22.12 = ~1.6275x crop factor

600mm lens x 2x = 1200mm
1200mm x 1.6275 = 1953mm

It seems to me that in order to get to 3400mm FOV, the sensor would have to be only about 12.70mm wide - or somewhere around 2.3K.

3400mm ÷ 1200mm = 2.833x crop factor
36mm ÷ 2.833 = ~12.70mm

Anyone?

[Mathias Erichsen]

Some folks are very excited about the IS. You can't use it with moving images or a non-locked-off camera.

What? I have used IS with great success when filming hand held with dslr´s... Is EPIC different in this regard?

[Dan Kanes]

Regarding IS - I think some people hate it some people love it. It will resist your pans and tilts in a weird way - at least to me...

Is there any issue using dumb Eos mount lenses like samyang 8mm or nikkor with Eos adapter?

Cheers!

Dan

[Sanjin Jukic]

I'm actually not getting that math, either. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

EPIC Sensor @ 4K = 22.12mm wide
35mm = 36mm wide

36 ÷ 22.12 = ~1.6275x crop factor

600mm lens x 2x = 1200mm
1200mm x 1.6275 = 1953mm

It seems to me that in order to get to 3400mm FOV, the sensor would have to be only about 12.70mm wide - or somewhere around 2.3K.

3400mm ÷ 1200mm = 2.833x crop factor
36mm ÷ 2.833 = ~12.70mm

Anyone?

For the math maybe it could be better to use an image circle that is measured at least by size of the image frame diagonal because it should be more accurate approach.

"Basically all lenses produce a circular image field and the diameter of that circle has to be larger than the diagonal of the frame, otherwise the corners of the image will be dark."

LINK>>>



FF35mm

Now call Pythagorean theorem a² + b² = c²

(36x36)+(24x24)=1872

√1872=43.2666… or ∼43.27

Image circle of FF35mm is 43.27mm.



EPIC 5K

(27.7x27.7)+(14.6x14.6)=980.45

√980.45=31.312 or ∼31.31

Image circle of EPIC 5K is 31.31mm.


Now 43.27 DIVIDE (÷) with 31.31 and you get 1.381 or approximately (∼) 1.4x crop factor.

So Epic has approximately 1.4x (or exactly 1.38x) crop factor related to FF35mm format.



Again to illustrate that difference between FF35mm and EPIC 5K with this picture:


Shot on Leica M9 with Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ASPH (additional text and graphics by SJ)

Download the full res image here>>>

[Roberto Lequeux]

$2k will hurt for Canon lenses. I was expecting a little lower, like near $1k.

I don't mind spending for a titanium PL, but for Canon I might go with saving some money.

Then again there are benefits... mhhh... And you need both if you want to rent more.

Well, can't complain. ANY 10-second-interchangeable Canon mount on Epic is worth the price!

[Vince Doran]

So Epic has approximately 1.4x (or exactly 1.38x) crop factor related to FF35mm format.

1200 x 1.4 = 1680mm?, I'm confused now. Surely someone knows the exact answer on this.......RED?

[Denis Buhot]

... to keep a subject moving directly towards you in focus when using a big telephoto... that would be a wildlife cinematographer's dream at times... Doubt it, though... we'll have to keep zooming down for quite a while to achieve that, I fear.

Oh, Jarred, how is the sigmonster doing on Epic ? A swissknife to me...