Canon Cine Primes kit or CP.2 ?

[Dr. Sassi]

If the same distance is given, from a lens to a sensor, the size of the sensor will not and can't change the result of the (same) optic. How would that be possible?

If the distance is the same, the smaller sensor will take only a fraction of the glass that the larger one takes, in that way the resolving power of the lens seems less for the smaller sensor. Seems, as the lens is independent from the size of the sensor of course. Again, there is not communication nor change.

Edit: ... think of it that way, if it would change, than the small core area of an larger sensor would get a different DOF. Sounds not really realistic to me./edit

 

[Dr. Sassi]

I'm really curious about some CN lens examples. ) Thanks in advanced for these.

 

[Nick Morrison]

If the same distance is given, from a lens to a sensor, the size of the sensor will not and can't change the result of the (same) optic. How would that be possible?

If the distance is the same, the smaller sensor will take only a fraction of the glass that the larger one takes, in that way the resolving power of the lens seems less for the smaller sensor. Seems, as the lens is independent from the size of the sensor of course. Again, there is not communication nor change.

Edit: ... think of it that way, if it would change, than the small core area of an larger sensor would get a different DOF. Sounds not really realistic to me./edit

I see your point. I guess a larger sensor (like the 5D) has the affect of being more shallow because the wider FOV necessitates longer lenses to match the FOV of S35 sensors.

 

[Nick Morrison]

If the same distance is given, from a lens to a sensor, the size of the sensor will not and can't change the result of the (same) optic. How would that be possible?

If the distance is the same, the smaller sensor will take only a fraction of the glass that the larger one takes, in that way the resolving power of the lens seems less for the smaller sensor. Seems, as the lens is independent from the size of the sensor of course. Again, there is not communication nor change.

Edit: ... think of it that way, if it would change, than the small core area of an larger sensor would get a different DOF. Sounds not really realistic to me./edit

That being said. If you have a 50mm 1.4 on a 5D and a 7D. And matched the SAME COMPOSITION (of say a CU). On the 7D you'd have to stand back several paces to do so (because of the narrower FOV). As a result, the subject and background would recede more into each other and look less shallow. But with the 5D you'd be closer to the subject, and be able to throw the background out of focus much more easily. It would, in effect, look more shallow on the same lens.

It would have everything todo with FOV and PERSPECTIVE (not image circle, you are right), but in effect...the larger negative would have produced a shallower DOF on the same lens.

I know I'm spinning this in circles, and that you guys are mathematially right, but I've worked so often on both cameras that I've seen this phenomen happen (when trying to match CUs on 7D and 5D on same lens) that the 5D appeared much shallower at the same composition. The reason of course was FOV/PERSPECTIVE, and the way we got around it was throwing a 35 1.4 on the 5D instead, but...you can see why I was thinking it was the IMAGE CIRCLE.

You'r right, it's not. The larger negative creates a wider FOV which alters perspective (which can bring you closer to the subject, & change DOF, bokeh, etc).

So thanks for clarifying, and for gently educating me. I've, yet again, learned a little somethin' on reduser. Thanks guys!

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Hey Nick, this is my idea about that as well. I don't think we talk about a difference here. I wanted to clear only that single point, to take some of the confusion out.

If you change the the distance to the subject in front of the lens, you get of course a different result. You might not even be able to match it -- at least not easily. There are so many parameters in that game. Yet alone the distortion of the result is different, the vignetting, etc. I would try to use two lenses to be honest, instead of changing the distance which destroys the image composition. FG, MG, BG scale for example.

http://vimeo.com/14832168 (too sad he did not calibrated both cameras to each other, in the way he shows it, the image quality is different. What is lens specific and what is not. Not clear)

I shoot normally with a 5dm2 (roughly 30,000 exposures per year) and it is quite a change to use the lenses on a Scarlet. I agree with you.

Best

Sassi

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hey Nick, this is my idea about that as well. I don't think we talk about a difference here. I wanted to clear only that single point, to take some of the confusion out.

If you change the the distance to the subject in front of the lens, you get of course a different result. You might not even be able to match it -- at least not easily. There are so many parameters in that game. Yet alone the distortion of the result is different, the vignetting, etc. I would try to use two lenses to be honest, instead of changing the distance which destroys the image composition. FG, MG, BG scale for example.

Hey Sassi, thanks again for you help on this. You've helped me re-calibrate my notions on shallow depth of field (and I thought I knew it all!). Cheers.

I would try to use two lenses to be honest, instead of changing the distance which destroys the image composition.

Yup we invariably always would. A 50 1.4 on a 7D would very often get matched with an 85mm on a 5D.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Hey Sassi, thanks again for you help on this. You've helped me re-calibrate my notions on shallow depth of field (and I thought I knew it all!). Cheers.
Yup we invariably always would. A 50 1.4 on a 7D would very often get matched with an 85mm on a 5D.

Hey Nick,

Edit: Yes 50/85 sounds about right, if one has that pair, then it should be simpler to match ) The DOF for the 85 might be smaller thought. But the field of view is relatively matched. The hyper focal might show the difference, as the bokeh, etc. I guess I tell nothing new right now.../edit

I'm certainly a fan of working with lenses, and in my Cinematography (tutorial) series, I took the term "Painting with Light" and turned it into "Painting with Lenses", well that will not cover everything, but shows certainly my love to the options with lenses. (Which I have learned in the late '70s from a Time Life book. I do not take credit for it.) But I hope I will expand on that in my next book. Based on that I'm really interest what people write here, and -- yes-- to get deep into cine- vs still lenses, I have learned in the last 3 month here more, than while studying film. Isn't it funny. ;o)
have a good one
Sassi

P.S. I saw your CY lenses line. My first lens for an SLR was a Zeiss T* for my Yashica FR (the Contax copy...)

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hey Nick,

I'm certainly a fan of working with lenses, and in my Cinematography (tutorial) series, I took the term "Painting with Light" and turned it into "Painting with Lenses", well that will not cover everything, but shows certainly my love to the options with lenses.

I hear you about loving lenses, and the options they provide. That's why I've collected nearly every prime length btw 8mm and 500mm! It's great to have options, tumbling out of one or two pelican cases.

P.S. I saw your CY lenses line. My first lens for an SLR was a Zeiss T* for my Yashica FR (the Contax copy...)

Yup, Contax are a great, venerable line of lenses. Overlooked, but superb.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

The issue is apparently resolved! BTW one reason why I'm here is what I can learn. That's apart from the fact that I just love this company (even though I have not yet had a chance to use the cameras).

One quick point, Nick: sometimes when we ask people questions they misunderstand us. And sometimes we misunderstand the answers. And sometimes both things happen. I think that this explains why, "I've been told by every DP I've worked with on these cameras that it's because the sensor on the 5D is LARGER." Sometimes professionals either don't know something or they express it in a confusing way.

BTW my mechanic knew a guy who built racing engines who didn't know that higher octane fuels burn more slowly than lower octane fuels. In that case, being wrong did not really matter because the engines worked as they should have. As you may or may not know, higher octane allows higher compression ratios, and the higher compression is what gives more power.

 

[Max M.]

so on topic again

I would a least wait till IBC, on duclos blog i was reading about zeiss bringing out 2 more lenses in the CP2 family. http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/zeiss-teases-new-lenses-ibc-2012/#more-1908

I would choose for the CP2's. Mainly because of the interchangeable lens mount and available lenses. EF mount is great, but wouldn't work on the F65, F3, Alexa that easy without adapters. It's nice to have to option to choose between PL and EF. And zeiss is really on roll with the CP'2, expanding quite quick, there are a lot of more focal distances available.

I agree that the image data the canon lenses pass through is a missing feature from the CP'2, would be nice if they would do that to. And they focus a but stiff, the cooke panchro focus like a hot knife through butter, unbelievable smooth, with the CP'2 you have to use a little more power. Curious about the canon primes.

 

[Max M.]

by the way, If Samyang can make a really cheap 24mm T1.4, why can't zeiss make a 25mm T1.4 CP'2 lens for the price of other super speed lenses??