Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Luma Tech Illuminas vs. the new Cooke Panchros...a review

Alexander Ibrahim said:
Well, I'm not quite this enthusiastic about it ... but yeah if I'm shooting at t/2.8 anyway zooms offer a lot of workflow advantages.

So ... I'm probably looking at zooms before the Cooke Panchros.

I am surprised to read that you think that the Nikon zooms are optically as good as the Angeniuex for motion?! I kind of hate the Nikon 17-35 lens - is that one a stinker? (I much prefer the Canon 16-35, though I think neither are up to cine standards.)

What do you think about the Canon and Red zooms then? Especially on Epic?
Click to expand...

Opticaly Nikon 17-35 and 28-70 are the sharpest zooms Nikon ever made..
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm
stinker??
 
Timur Civan said:
I wouldn't mix the sets. The RPP's have significantly different flare and bokeh than the Cooke line. that one lens will stand out.

in 1991, where the fastest film is 250T, yes you would be limited by a T2.8 in a "No lights" situation, in 2011, no way. A standing 800 ISO, useable up to 1600 on most digital cine camera, it not a hinderance at all. Think of it like this, in New York City, at night, in times square for example, a bright area, meters at T2.8 @ 500ISO. Meaning, with a REDmx, Epic or F3 you have to stop down to 2.8/4 Split with NO lighting. If you do lots of documentary projects, at night with no lights, then yes, Panchros may be a bit of a problem. if you turn on one light, any where, at all, you get proper exposure. Simple as that.

The benefit being that you get S4/i5 quality images, at 2/5ths the price. The cookes really do make a difference. Optically they are astounding, and the magic they bring really shows up on screen. A good friend and phenomenal DP Khalid Mohtaseb recently took the cookes on a job, He owns CP2's and swore by them. On their return He said and i Quote: "I will do my best to shoot on the cookes for every job I possibly can. I turned on the camera and was like; Holy Effing crap!!! I was totally wrong about the T2.8, its not a problem at all."

Try em. hell you're in the UK they are made there!


That said, im dying to try the illuminas!
Click to expand...

It is not just about sensitivity of cameras in 2011.........
Lets face it: Panchros are Poor Man's Cooks...........thats why COOK makes S4 and S5 series.
It is very trendy last few years especially to shoot beyond 2.8......i would rather use 2 Angies..
Now Timur and Pat keep it coming...:)
 
I love the versatility of zoom lenses and they are so far advanced compared to when I first entered the industry. But there is no way that most zoom lenses have the same performance as advanced primes. Resolving power is only one measure. Flare resistance, curvature of field at different focal lengths, contrast, bokah -- these are some areas where primes still overperform zooms. I'm not down on zooms at all, but I don't think it is fair or accurate to make the statement that the only optical advantage of a prime is a fast aperture. Just looking at how most zooms will porthole slightly at one end and pincushion at the other will show that a set of primes can deliver more technically precise images.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I love the versatility of zoom lenses and they are so far advanced compared to when I first entered the industry. But there is no way that most zoom lenses have the same performance as advanced primes. Resolving power is only one measure. Flare resistance, curvature of field at different focal lengths, contrast, bokah -- these are some areas where primes still overperform zooms. I'm not down on zooms at all, but I don't think it is fair or accurate to make the statement that the only optical advantage of a prime is a fast aperture. Just looking at how most zooms will porthole slightly at one end and pincushion at the other will show that a set of primes can deliver more technically precise images.
Click to expand...

not to mention edge falloff....:)
 
I'll bite Mitch:smiley:
Are you absolutely sure that you can tell on a blind test what was shot with a zoom or a prime?
Even on Fx format lenses?
 
I didn't say that, and I don't think that's the point. But I would say that I could certainly see the difference on a lens projector or two cameras in a side by side.
 
Sidney L. Plaut said:
not to mention edge falloff....:)
Click to expand...
Actually, based on design specs- it's the opposite- still lenses flatten the field at the slight cost of the center sharpness and motion lenses typically are all about the center sharpness. That's what - taking time to look at a photograph (center, corners and in between)vs following subject /action during the motion sequence calls for in a lens design...
 
I am just saying working with light good zooms like Angies is more practical for me then carry 20kgs of "slow" primes.
I am not saying Zooms are better.
I am also not saying COOK Panchros are bad-they are fantastic but i personally would not buy them because they are T2.8.
Nowdays there are other options......and cheaper ones...
 
Timur Civan said:
:) Thats what everyone says till they shoot with them.
Click to expand...

It's very true.

Again, I posted this in the other thread but I shot this at night with mostly existing light at 500-800 ASA, EPIC-M + T2.8 Cooke iPanchros, and all at 48-60fps.
T2.8 is fine for most needs and if you have some lights (or lots), it's absolutely no issue at all. Don't be afraid of T2.8 :)

http://vimeo.com/27110455

Norm
 
I don't buy it.
You'll always be better off shooting with faster lenses on a more sensitive sensor.
Just because you can get away with using slower glass on a more sensitive sensor it doesn't mean faster glass isn't better.
We're in exciting times with being able to push boundaries with less lights and shooting with slower glass, for me, just keeps you in the same place.
I can't wait to get my Illumina's and shoot things I could not have shot before.
 
roryhinds said:
I don't buy it.
You'll always be better off shooting with faster lenses on a more sensitive sensor.
Just because you can get away with using slower glass on a more sensitive sensor it doesn't mean faster glass isn't better.
We're in exciting times with being able to push boundaries with less lights and shooting with slower glass, for me, just keeps you in the same place.
I can't wait to get my Illumina's and shoot things I could not have shot before.
Click to expand...

:thumbup1:
 
roryhinds said:
You'll always be better off shooting with faster lenses on a more sensitive sensor.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say this. If all you care about is shooting at low light levels, then I state that there is little artistry in this. At a certain point it is just low light levels. But one still needs to light in order to shape the light, and I for one generally steer clear of very wide apertures on a Super-35 sized sensor because I find the extreme shallow depth of field visually distracting. So it is still a technical and artistic choice as to where the T-stop is set on the lens. I have photographed entire features with the lens set to T4 because that was the look I felt most appropriate.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I don't see how you can say this. If all you care about is shooting at low light levels, then I state that there is little artistry in this. At a certain point it is just low light levels. But one still needs to light in order to shape the light, and I for one generally steer clear of very wide apertures on a Super-35 sized sensor because I find the extreme shallow depth of field visually distracting. So it is still a technical and artistic choice as to where the T-stop is set on the lens. I have photographed entire features with the lens set to T4 because that was the look I felt most appropriate.
Click to expand...

Mitch, that is all mostly true. I've also shot entire features where the target stop has been T4. I've yet to shoot a feature where I've kept the lens at the target stop 100% of the time, though. Being that dogmatic is likely to get me fired as sometimes the shot calls for something else. For example, I can open a lens up on a wide shot with talent in the foreground, and save some money on larger lighting for the background. Very few will notice the shallower depth of field on wides, as long as the lens retains sufficient sharpness where I want it.

I'm guessing that Jiri's statement of fast lenses are better for modern sensors, is related to most modern sensors/codecs don't do so well when starved for light. Which in my experience is very true.

I am not getting the Illuminas over the Cookes becuase I want to shoot wide open at T1.3 on medium shots and CUs. I'm getting them -in part- because I think haveing the option to do so will in fact be greatly beneficial at times. At those times, being able to look into the shadows 2 stops more than the Cookes or fast zooms, will make me smile and get all warm inside.
 
Paul Nordin said:
I've also shot entire features where the target stop has been T4. I've yet to shoot a feature where I've kept the lens at the target stop 100% of the time, though. Being that dogmatic is likely to get me fired as sometimes the shot calls for something else. For example, I can open a lens up on a wide shot with talent in the foreground, and save some money on larger lighting for the background.
Click to expand...

This, for me, hits on the biggest dilemma with the Panchros. The major productions that can afford to light night exteriors to a f2.8 will probably just rent S4's or S5's. Conversely, the smaller productions that can't afford S4's or S5's usually can't afford to light wide night shots either, so a couple of extra stops is critical. It seems like they would be better off with the Illumina's or even a set of MK3's.
 
Julio Quintana said:
This, for me, hits on the biggest dilemma with the Panchros. The major productions that can afford to light night exteriors to a f2.8 will probably just rent S4's or S5's. Conversely, the smaller productions that can't afford S4's or S5's usually can't afford to light wide night shots either, so a couple of extra stops is critical. It seems like they would be better off with the Illumina's or even a set of MK3's.
Click to expand...

have you seen what mk3's look like wide open? it's not a very good picture at all, it's a very desperate move if you have to do that. mk3 at a 2.8 however is f-ing magical. but alas support and repair for these lenses is getting harder by the minute. either way, not all productions fall in the two categories you just mentioned. s4's go for 1k a day, panchros can go for roughly 500. 50% difference, and a moderate lighting package and some skilled pros with a sensitive camera can accomplish a lot. does it work for every situation? do faster lenses give you more flexibility? of course. but in the end it's all about what you want to do. the "cooke" look is coveted, and the lens set is matched perfectly. these are important factors too, and not to mention the very expensive lenses, go out a lot too and are limited in quantity. if you wanted s4's and nobody has them in for the day you are shooting, and you had a healthy lighting package to begin with, panchros make the best alternative and are readily available too. lens choice is never so black and white, always back to right tools for the job. and that will never change.

been shooting with snorkel lenses all week, and we are at a t8 the whole time. but it's fine because this is what we need for what we are doing, and compensate accordingly.
 
Paul Nordin said:
I am not getting the Illuminas over the Cookes becuase I want to shoot wide open at T1.3 on medium shots and CUs. I'm getting them -in part- because I think haveing the option to do so will in fact be greatly beneficial at times. At those times, being able to look into the shadows 2 stops more than the Cookes or fast zooms, will make me smile and get all warm inside.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Unless you always work with a truck full of big lights its not uncommon to find yourself in situation where more is better. In this case MORE opening on your aperture because its getting dark. The light is falling (it happens every day...) "Oops 2.8, sorry were done"!
Two extra stops will keep you working, and that's just one kind of situation.

These Pancro's I'm sure are beautiful but Id rather carry a faster set for when you need help, this is ONE of the big reasons to have primes in the first place.
 
You dont need a truck of lights.

500w open face through a 4x4 frame with 250 is more than enough @ 580 ISO to get perfect exposure @ a T2.8/4 split with an F3 in Cinegamma. I use that 500 cause its the smallest light i have for an ongoing TV interview series.


A hand full of peppers, 2x 1k's and a 2k and you can do what ever you want.

Haha, You dont need a 10k to get exposure at a T2.8, on a ISO800 camera. Hell, with epic you're good till ISO1250, and with an Alexa ISO 1600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top