Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Bare with me here as I am an old guy from the film era.

What is the advantage to using a digital still camera for shooting video? Is it the purchase price? Is there an advantage to the purchase price even after purchasing all the additional accessories to make it viable for semi-pro video? Is there an ergonomic advantage that isn't apparent?

Never mind pro level like the Alexa series, wouldn't a box camera configuration make more sense? I see 'em for $3-10 grand. I know you're talking a lot more by the time you add lenses and accessories but still we were spending $20-30K on a 16mm sound rig like an SR16 or Aaton back in the day. Don't know how much that would be in today's money but it would be substantial.

Posted (edited)

Canon brought out new DSLRs years ago that had really good video capability. People started to buy one camera that could do everything -- stills and video. A generation grew up that associated high definition video with the stills camera body shape/design.

I don't like the DSLR design most of the time in filmmaking, but yes the bodies do seem to be generally less costly. That may already be changing. For filmmaking the stills camera design has to be kitted out with extra do-dads, cages and big batteries and the cameras themselves don't seem to produce images as good as the larger, dedicated video cameras. In my experience, stills-body type cameras can sometimes produce more of a chintzy video look to the footage compared to bigger, dedicated video cameras.

The small DSLR/mirrorless cameras have small batteries, can tend to overheat when worked hard, and are too light. The DSLR side-holding style worked well for a 35mm SLR that needed to be compact for travelling photojournalists but for filmmaking it doesn't seem to me to be the most stable way to hold a camera for shooting moving images. A heavier video camera gives more stable footage when hand held or shoulder mounted.

But the DSLR design is nevertheless a fully legititmate video camera. To each their own. I avoid them myself. I started with film cameras too and to me a movie camera has to look like one. Professionally, too, I think some clients can feel a little less satisfied if they want some kind of 'film' made of their event or project and the DP turns up with a consumer DSLR or mirrorless on a little gimbal.

 

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Posted

The DSLR/mirrorless revolution led to the current style of video we see again and again everywhere. The cinematographers now love a top-mounted monitor and virtually no one, and I mean no one, now uses a viewfinder. Is it because their faces are clearly visible at all times and they love that? I don't understand how any DP could be happy staring at a monitor screen. That's something directors do. To me I have to have a very clear view of the image that you can only get with your eye stuck in the eyecup. How they focus is beyond me.

The DSLR video style that is now so common means a lot of super-slow hand held slow mo shots that the camera dude swings from side to side while filming. So the camera is always moving to the side or in and out, whether it adds any meaning to the shot or not (almost always not). So, slow mo and lot of drone shots too. Then little gimbal shots. Not too much of that because even that's now a bit old hat. No fluid head tripod anywhere. Too heavy and too old fashioned or something. Strictly monitor only, as I said.

Glitz and slickness. Superficiality in brilliant 4K. Smooth glides all round.

Then a machine gun editing style. Quick impressions. Fast shots. Brief attention span and that's understandable because substance isn't there.

Welcome to the contemporary glib videography style.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Master this style in 6 months and you too can be a pro.

Selling the dream to the nimrods n'est ce pas? One wag I met at an equipment show told me that "It wasn't the guys panning for gold during the Gold Rush that were smart. It was the guys selling the shovels and pans."

 

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The DSLR/mirrorless revolution led to the current style of video we see again and again everywhere. The cinematographers now love a top-mounted monitor and virtually no one, and I mean no one, now uses a viewfinder. Is it because their faces are clearly visible at all times and they love that? I don't understand how any DP could be happy staring at a monitor screen. That's something directors do. To me I have to have a very clear view of the image that you can only get with your eye stuck in the eyecup. How they focus is beyond me.

The DSLR video style that is now so common means a lot of super-slow hand held slow mo shots that the camera dude swings from side to side while filming. So the camera is always moving to the side or in and out, whether it adds any meaning to the shot or not (almost always not). So, slow mo and lot of drone shots too. Then little gimbal shots. Not too much of that because even that's now a bit old hat. No fluid head tripod anywhere. Too heavy and too old fashioned or something. Strictly monitor only, as I said.

Glitz and slickness. Superficiality in brilliant 4K. Smooth glides all round.

Then a machine gun editing style. Quick impressions. Fast shots. Brief attention span and that's understandable because substance isn't there.

Welcome to the contemporary glib videography style.

Yeah when my eye met the rubber cup (or hopefully chamois) I shut out all the world except the one on the groundglass. Scrutinizing the frame for composition and scanning for the errant stand leg or mic sneaking into the shot.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

Haha! Yeah, they used to say everyone can now be a filmmaker when the DSLR revolution hit. Once, only the rare few could make films. Well, that's fair enough I guess.

They forged for themselves a new film style ... and they are very welcome to it. May they long revel in it.

  • Like 1
Posted

The advantage is value. You still need to know what you are doing. You still need to understand what you need and don't need. Nothing changes except that your kit is smaller and easier to put into small spaces.

I have not shot too much video. But I could not shoot any video at all if I needed to use an old Alexa, which is reportedly heavier than the Japanese island of Hokkaido. It just would not be possible.

And if you are serious about video/cinema, but don't want to spend too much money, then you're in luck:

(8:09)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)

Mirrorless cameras tend to have pretty good image quality for the price, they are often very light sensitive compared to similar priced video cameras. Lighter weight too, often smaller size, the camera body can hang from the lens mount if needed to ease using heavy tele lenses. Often very low power consumption compared to video cameras though if needing a external recorder with the mirrorless camera it will often consume lots more power and can then be on par with Blackmagic etc. video cameras which have less efficient power management than mirrorless cameras have.

Mirrorless cameras are often very good choice for run and gun type of stuff and documentary type of stuff as long as you don't need good in-camera audio features and don't need extensive "cine-style setup" rigging. If wanting to use tons and tons of accessories like transmitters, wireless audio, wireless timecode, remote focus, pl lenses, v-mount battery, etc all at once then they are much easier and faster to rig to a real video camera.

So the mirrorless stuff is best for lower budget level stuff where small and versatile camera is needed which cannot cost a fortune but needs to be light sensitive and easy to adapt to different shooting situations. And only using few basic accessories with it at a time, sometimes even shooting as-is with kit lens and no accessories. Stuff like IBIS and usable compressed internal codecs and low power consumption are a lifesaver in some shooting situations.

If shooting higher budget stuff with lots of crew and need to rig tons of accessories and have controlled lighting, then it may be better to choose a real video camera for the job. I would still keep the mirrorless as a backup in case some small pickup shots with different lens or gimbal or handheld need to be done really fast (typically I use mirrorless for macro stuff with pre-tested lens setup if I know there will be some macro shot of the eye etc. stuff) or if needing to shoot some stuff in stealth mode, for example some quick two shot scene on the street where there is lots of curious people to potentially ruin the shot if large camera with lots of crew is used but if having a mirrorless camera with minimal accessories they would think you are just an average street photographer and leave you alone.

Another good usage is risky rigging where there is high chance of losing the camera. A mirrorless can be sacrificed if something goes wrong so one can take more risks with the camera to get the perfect shot.

 

Edited by Aapo Lettinen
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted

A manufacturer of DSLR-style mirrorless cameras could of course just shift the lens mount around to one side on the DSLR body shape. Then you've instantly got a camcorder configuration. So really they're just a small video camera and end of story. The bigger cameras have more stuff inside and bigger fans for cooling them down.

Posted
On 7/10/2024 at 6:03 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

The DSLR/mirrorless revolution led to the current style of video we see again and again everywhere. The cinematographers now love a top-mounted monitor and virtually no one, and I mean no one, now uses a viewfinder.

 

I am constantly teaching younger camera ops the advantage of operating with a viewfinder.  It’s not something that is easily explained but it gets your head into a different space and creates a more physical connection to the camera.  

Monitors are great and very useful for pulling focus or quick references but when the camera is rolled I will always try to have my eye in the viewfinder.  

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Victoria Sagady said:

creates a more physical connection to the camera...

Exactly put.

I sort of rebel against the modern style of 'film' production. Just too cruisy and glib and 'cool' or something. Always with a damn monitor and a free camera, cruising around. Something's not right about it. There's little meat in a lot of video production. Everything has to look plastic and super super cruisy and smooth. Why?

Life often isn't cruisy or smooth. In fact usually not.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Like 1
Posted

Filming while gawking at a monitor is fine if you're skateboarding along the road, filming someone else skateboarding. and for filming someone skiing etc etc. But all the time? Always and everywhere?

  • Like 1
Posted
On 7/18/2024 at 1:31 AM, Jon O'Brien said:

A manufacturer of DSLR-style mirrorless cameras could of course just shift the lens mount around to one side on the DSLR body shape. Then you've instantly got a camcorder configuration. So really they're just a small video camera and end of story. The bigger cameras have more stuff inside and bigger fans for cooling them down.

Quite so, 25 years on there's no reason other than custom for a DSLR still to look like a camera that needs two film chambers. But it's still a handy place to put the handgrip.

Think Hasselblad. That sort of looks like a camcorder. I mean the 500C- their current stuff has gone back to the rangefinder shape.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Mark Dunn said:

Think Hasselblad. That sort of looks like a camcorder. I mean the 500C- their current stuff has gone back to the rangefinder shape.

Ironic, or maybe just serendipitous, that such an 'old' design is better suited to digital cinema.

  • Like 1
  • Premium Member
Posted

Considering the entirety of Hollywood history : most Hollywood directors looked neither through a viewfinder nor at a monitor. A classic example is Alfred Hitchcock, who was content to doze off, as it were, on the soundstage. Tarantino, too, prefers this way, to stand beside the camera and watch the performances rather than monitor the Situation via monitor.

  • Thanks 1
  • Premium Member
Posted
On 7/10/2024 at 7:10 PM, Doyle Smith said:

Bare with me here as I am an old guy from the film era.

What is the advantage to using a digital still camera for shooting video? Is it the purchase price? Is there an advantage to the purchase price even after purchasing all the additional accessories to make it viable for semi-pro video? Is there an ergonomic advantage that isn't apparent?

Never mind pro level like the Alexa series, wouldn't a box camera configuration make more sense? I see 'em for $3-10 grand. I know you're talking a lot more by the time you add lenses and accessories but still we were spending $20-30K on a 16mm sound rig like an SR16 or Aaton back in the day. Don't know how much that would be in today's money but it would be substantial.

I've yet to find any "photography" camera (where video is a secondary concern) good enough to make me want to leave behind cameras with better form factors, larger controls and as many have said above a decent EVF.

Within the last couple of years we've seen 10bit 422 codecs internal come to these cameras and a much needed increase in sensor read out speed (far too many of these cameras have 15ms plus readout speeds) and in some cases even internal ProRes.

Their adaptability when it comes to lenses is a huge plus. There are very few lenses you won't be able to mount on a mirrorless camera; Cameflex, BNCR, Arri-S, Arri-B, Arri PL, LPL, Nikon, Contax, FD, OM, Leica R, M42, EF... there really are few limits. The downside being most mirrorless mounts have some level of mount wobble, so any adapter will need locking to your rig or cage.

The cost of getting a mirrorless camera to production specs can also creep up on you, many will need an external recorder, additional monitor, lens adapters, cage, external battery solutions, shoulder rig, grips... and it can get expensive fast and your tiny camera can also get big fast.

For me their greatest utility has been as a B or C camera, when we don't want to sacrifice quality, but we want to squeeze a camera inside a car, or get the camera into a position that would take far longer to rig with a larger system - especially macro work.

Their menus and controls are fiddly and a pain, monitors poor for film work. They're the type of camera you can make work for you but it will take some effort, but never a true replacement.

  • Like 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Jeff Bernstein said:

Considering the entirety of Hollywood history : most Hollywood directors looked neither through a viewfinder nor at a monitor. A classic example is Alfred Hitchcock, who was content to doze off, as it were, on the soundstage. Tarantino, too, prefers this way, to stand beside the camera and watch the performances rather than monitor the Situation via monitor.

Yes that's right. If I was a director and had the power to say what goes and what doesn't I would do it the traditional way too. No video village. Let the cinematographer do the whole image side of it. Keep the budget down too.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 7/19/2024 at 11:51 AM, Daniel J. Fox said:

I've yet to find any "photography" camera (where video is a secondary concern) good enough to make me want to leave behind cameras with better form factors, larger controls and as many have said above a decent EVF.

Within the last couple of years we've seen 10bit 422 codecs internal come to these cameras and a much needed increase in sensor read out speed (far too many of these cameras have 15ms plus readout speeds) and in some cases even internal ProRes.

Their adaptability when it comes to lenses is a huge plus. There are very few lenses you won't be able to mount on a mirrorless camera; Cameflex, BNCR, Arri-S, Arri-B, Arri PL, LPL, Nikon, Contax, FD, OM, Leica R, M42, EF... there really are few limits. The downside being most mirrorless mounts have some level of mount wobble, so any adapter will need locking to your rig or cage.

The cost of getting a mirrorless camera to production specs can also creep up on you, many will need an external recorder, additional monitor, lens adapters, cage, external battery solutions, shoulder rig, grips... and it can get expensive fast and your tiny camera can also get big fast.

For me their greatest utility has been as a B or C camera, when we don't want to sacrifice quality, but we want to squeeze a camera inside a car, or get the camera into a position that would take far longer to rig with a larger system - especially macro work.

Their menus and controls are fiddly and a pain, monitors poor for film work. They're the type of camera you can make work for you but it will take some effort, but never a true replacement.

Your comments echo many of the shortfalls that I thought to exist. Especially the price advantage being eroded by the amount of ancillary equipment necessary to make it feasible for production.

In regard to the B or C cam rig camera... I could see the advantage to use them like we used to use Eyemos. Good in a tight spot and not too dear if they are sacrificed in pursuit of a clever shot.

Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2024 at 6:01 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

Yes that's right. If I was a director and had the power to say what goes and what doesn't I would do it the traditional way too. No video village. Let the cinematographer do the whole image side of it. Keep the budget down too.

I was fortunate in this respect to have been one of the few DP's working in the last two decades of the 20th Century not to be forced to use video assist. One of my producers was very Hollywood old school. We had film dailies from FotoKem and no video assist. He was very insistent however on the actresses (female actors??) looking very beautiful.😉 

I was fortunate to have the trust of the directors I worked with as well. I'd generally show them the opening and ending comp of the shot or let them ride the rehearsal (if they could operate) and they trusted me (or the operator) for the in-between.  I also feel the director is better equipped to judge the nuances of performance when he/she are not looking at a monitor.

I went to a seminar taught by Ossie Morris BSC and he said John Huston never looked through the camera.

There's a lot more responsibility on the DP when you work without VA and it requires trust on the part of the director and producers, but it is a much faster way to work.

Edited by Doyle Smith
  • Premium Member
Posted
2 minutes ago, Doyle Smith said:

Your comments echo many of the shortfalls that I thought to exist. Especially the price advantage being eroded by the amount of ancillary equipment necessary to make it feasible for production.

In regard to the B or C cam rig camera... I could see the advantage to use them like we used to use Eyemos. Good in a tight spot and not too dear if they are sacrificed in pursuit of a clever shot.

The XH2S cost about $3200 - maybe cost another $2000 to rig it up with a PL adapter, cage, baseplate, rods, shoulder pad, grips. That's not including a separate battery solution, which some might also add.

I view these cameras as the modern equivalent of an Arriflex, to be used alongside the larger camera, preferably with smaller compact lenses and in many cases they are invaluable.

For someone starting out or on a tight budget they do offer 80% towards what a larger camera can offer sometimes... but you have to know their short comings.

  • Like 1
  • Premium Member
Posted
1 hour ago, Daniel J. Fox said:

The XH2S cost about $3200 - maybe cost another $2000 to rig it up with a PL adapter, cage, baseplate, rods, shoulder pad, grips. That's not including a separate battery solution, which some might also add.

I view these cameras as the modern equivalent of an Arriflex, to be used alongside the larger camera, preferably with smaller compact lenses and in many cases they are invaluable.

For someone starting out or on a tight budget they do offer 80% towards what a larger camera can offer sometimes... but you have to know their short comings.

Ideally a mirrorless camera body would be somewhere around 2000 - 2500 usd range if wanting it to be good quality and the cage + pl-mount + baseplate + rods + shoulder pad + handles etc. kit somewhere around 1 grand or not much more.

Then separately some kind of monitor and battery system you can use with other cameras too.

Just use the Chinese cages and pl-mounts etc parts and some second hand used mattebox and ff if it is for low budget use or a c-cam or d-cam. Using very high priced new premium quality accessories with it is not necessary in most cases or if it is, use something very universal which can be used with other cameras too as you will likely update the camera body every two years but the accessories need to last you much longer and you will very likely switch to different manufacturer ecosystem even multiple times. That is also why I don't recommend high priced cages as they are very camera model specific and you always need to buy new one when updating the camera body.

Personally I have only the cage camera model specific and pretty much all the rest of the stuff is interchangeable between cameras and some of it very old, the FF is a used Chrosziel from 80's and most of the baseplate and mattebox stuff is from the times of my first dslr, about 15 years old, same with most lenses. It even happens to be that the two Panasonic mirrorless cameras can use same batteries so did not even need to buy two sets of batteries, saved some 200 on that. It is important that the external monitor, possible transmitters etc. use universal style of batteries (in my case NP-F 960 style, the same than the recorder and smaller Led lights, again big savings) but the mirrorless camera itself can often manage with its own tiny batteries because they usually last from between closer to 2 hours or even more so you should be fine with 3 or 4 batteries

  • Premium Member
Posted
1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Ideally a mirrorless camera body would be somewhere around 2000 - 2500 usd range if wanting it to be good quality and the cage + pl-mount + baseplate + rods + shoulder pad + handles etc. kit somewhere around 1 grand or not much more.

Then separately some kind of monitor and battery system you can use with other cameras too.

Just use the Chinese cages and pl-mounts etc parts and some second hand used mattebox and ff if it is for low budget use or a c-cam or d-cam. Using very high priced new premium quality accessories with it is not necessary in most cases or if it is, use something very universal which can be used with other cameras too as you will likely update the camera body every two years but the accessories need to last you much longer and you will very likely switch to different manufacturer ecosystem even multiple times. That is also why I don't recommend high priced cages as they are very camera model specific and you always need to buy new one when updating the camera body.

Personally I have only the cage camera model specific and pretty much all the rest of the stuff is interchangeable between cameras and some of it very old, the FF is a used Chrosziel from 80's and most of the baseplate and mattebox stuff is from the times of my first dslr, about 15 years old, same with most lenses. It even happens to be that the two Panasonic mirrorless cameras can use same batteries so did not even need to buy two sets of batteries, saved some 200 on that. It is important that the external monitor, possible transmitters etc. use universal style of batteries (in my case NP-F 960 style, the same than the recorder and smaller Led lights, again big savings) but the mirrorless camera itself can often manage with its own tiny batteries because they usually last from between closer to 2 hours or even more so you should be fine with 3 or 4 batteries

If you don't use a camera specific cage, you end up with a needlessly blocky and bulking build. A cage designed for the camera will hug the body and still allow you access to all the buttons and controls.

If you are taking a feed to a monitor using a HDMI you absolutely MUST be able to lock the cable to prevent flexing. If you don't, it just takes one wiggle or tug and you can very easily destroy the camera's HDMI port, resulting in a costly repair bill. It is very unlikely a third party generic cage will have the HDMI cable clamp or support in the right position.

In terms of PL adapters - again I'd not skimp on this if you want to use the same lenses across all your cameras. The most important thing is to select a cage that will let you lock the PL adapter to it. This alone is worth paying a little more, as you can then take the strain off the photography mount (E, X, RF, Z, L) and the adapter feels to all intents and purposes an integrated solid part of the camera.

  • Like 1
  • Premium Member
Posted
9 minutes ago, Daniel J. Fox said:

If you don't use a camera specific cage, you end up with a needlessly blocky and bulking build. A cage designed for the camera will hug the body and still allow you access to all the buttons and controls.

If you are taking a feed to a monitor using a HDMI you absolutely MUST be able to lock the cable to prevent flexing. If you don't, it just takes one wiggle or tug and you can very easily destroy the camera's HDMI port, resulting in a costly repair bill. It is very unlikely a third party generic cage will have the HDMI cable clamp or support in the right position.

In terms of PL adapters - again I'd not skimp on this if you want to use the same lenses across all your cameras. The most important thing is to select a cage that will let you lock the PL adapter to it. This alone is worth paying a little more, as you can then take the strain off the photography mount (E, X, RF, Z, L) and the adapter feels to all intents and purposes an integrated solid part of the camera.

yes of course you will want a cage but it does not need to be the most expensive one. And one can lock the PL adapter to the baseplate too if the cage does not allow it. locking to the cage is ideal but one can manage without the cage and pl adapter being from same manufacturer and expensive. Of course if the price difference is small, then why not. But if the cage costs a grand I would skip it and purchase better camera body instead, if there is tons of expensive accessories thrown to a simple mirrorless kit one could buy a more dedicated real video camera instead and forget the mirrorless entirely if not specifically needing high light sensitivity or ibis which most reasonably priced video cameras lack.

using PL lenses might be necessary on some productions especially if the mirrorless camera is used to supplement a larger and better A-camera. but I think most of the users who would do indie films with mirrorless cameras don't use PL lenses at all because they are more expensive and offer little benefits if not having a separate focus puller or if not needing parfocal zooms for regular zoom-ins (which are rare in actual filmmaking though on experimental stuff more common. I have been on exactly one professional movie production which used zoom lens for actual zoom-ins and zoom-outs, every other productions have used zooms only as variable primes or shot on prime lenses alltogether. So it is very, very rare to actually need a zoom lens for zooming and actually needing it to be a real parfocal constant aperture cinema zoom). So I would not assume all mirrorless users automatically need PL mount even if making low budget indie shorts and stuff. Most of them are using EF-mount or similar for 99% of stuff anyway. Personally I use Nikon mount lenses most often and only hook up the PL mount if needing to use Lomos.

  • Premium Member
Posted
3 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

yes of course you will want a cage but it does not need to be the most expensive one. And one can lock the PL adapter to the baseplate too if the cage does not allow it. locking to the cage is ideal but one can manage without the cage and pl adapter being from same manufacturer and expensive. Of course if the price difference is small, then why not. But if the cage costs a grand I would skip it and purchase better camera body instead, if there is tons of expensive accessories thrown to a simple mirrorless kit one could buy a more dedicated real video camera instead and forget the mirrorless entirely if not specifically needing high light sensitivity or ibis which most reasonably priced video cameras lack.

using PL lenses might be necessary on some productions especially if the mirrorless camera is used to supplement a larger and better A-camera. but I think most of the users who would do indie films with mirrorless cameras don't use PL lenses at all because they are more expensive and offer little benefits if not having a separate focus puller or if not needing parfocal zooms for regular zoom-ins (which are rare in actual filmmaking though on experimental stuff more common. I have been on exactly one professional movie production which used zoom lens for actual zoom-ins and zoom-outs, every other productions have used zooms only as variable primes or shot on prime lenses alltogether. So it is very, very rare to actually need a zoom lens for zooming and actually needing it to be a real parfocal constant aperture cinema zoom). So I would not assume all mirrorless users automatically need PL mount even if making low budget indie shorts and stuff. Most of them are using EF-mount or similar for 99% of stuff anyway. Personally I use Nikon mount lenses most often and only hook up the PL mount if needing to use Lomos.

The Wooden camera cage I used with the XH2S cost $399 - worth the investment to protect the HMDI. It's the first time I actually bought into an entire system, rather than cherry picking from a variety of manufacturers. In the end it made the rig simpler, cheaper, lighter and more compact.

I was talking about PL lenses, because the OP is a DP who will most likely be using PL, LPL or Panavision lenses - all of which can easily be adapted to any mirrorless camera.

Also for indie films (where a mirrorless maybe their main camera), good PL lenses are getting cheaper and more available every day. Dulens primes are small and compact, with a great focus throw for a single operator. In the last few months I picked up two sets of the SLR Magic Hyper primes - with each set costing a little more than the price of a single Zeiss CP.3 (and giving to my eyes a much nicer image). 

Laowa make several parfocal PL zoom lenses for both S35 and FF - all very affordable, compact and light weight.

An investment in good PL lenses makes a lot more sense in the long run - as those are lenses that can then be used on any future production / camera system. As you said about cages only being suitable to one camera, mirrorless lenses will lock you into a specific camera brand... moving from Sony to Canon for example would suddenly get very expensive.

If they want to use cheaper lenses - Nikon, Contax, FDs etc can of course all be used - but they can also now be modded to LPL (again removing the chance of mount wobble) and used with an LPL to mirrorless adapter. The Simmod lenses LPL to mirrorless mount are not only very afforable, but have some of the best tolerances I've ever tested.

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...