Delete thread please

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler,

Any criticisms I have made of you or your posts have been been very reasoned, logical, thought about before being written, and normally are an attempt to limit voluminous offerings of poor quality content (that pretents to be authorative) being (posted) to the forum.

Gregg, I'm a professional filmmaker. I make money through the work I do. To say I post voluminous worth if misinformation, is just false. I post based on my experiences, based on what I've physically done with my own hands. Whether they fit in line with the rest of the world or not, it's NOT your place to judge.

 

Yes, I come off as authoritative, but that's only because I don't have the time to beat around the bush. You may have hours to think about a post, do research and stuff, but generally I'm making posts at lunch break on set or between renders during post production. So when I say something that's odd, it's probably because I forgot something and 99.95% of the visitors on this forum, just overlook it. They realize, hey this guy clearly knows something and sure, he got one or two pieces wrong, but that's ok. People come on and make corrections without bitching and moaning all the time. Most people are happier then pig in punch to have someone like me on here. In fact, this thread alone inundated my inbox with people begging me to stay and re-post what this thread was originally about.

 

See, what I bring to the table is my own experiences. Not some thought-out, overly clever analysis that nobody will read, but a straight-forward experience. Does it need to be right? No... the specs say X and my experience is Y... the question (no pun intended) is WHY is my experience not the spec? You can argue with me all day long about it, but the experience doesn't change.

 

May I ask, Tyler, when there are clearly several people on this thread who dissaprove strongly of what you write, why you chose to single me out?

I'm sorry if you think I'm purposely singling you out. JD takes those honors, I was done with this, but JD had a point that I agree with.

 

Next time I make a post about something, just remember when you visit the thread to comment, leniency is always the best way to react. There is no reason to throw a hissy fit, like you do 9 times out of 10. It DOES make you look like a troll, no matter which definition you choose to agree with or not.

 

I have zero problems with anyone, I'm the nicest friggen' guy you'll ever meet and I'm a busy guy. I have non-profit film school that puts cameras into the hands of students for little to nothing. I teach high school where I work with students on their personal projects as well, for again... nothing. I'm developing a charity designed to help kids with mental health and a youtube series to go around it. I shoot/edit/color pretty much full-time (freelancer) and I donate much of my spare time, helping dozens of other people. I'm a super busy guy and honestly, the little nit-picky bullshit I see on here, is just unnecessary.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Tyler, I won't address the missperceptions underlying that post, but I will ask again, why are you singling me out, when several people who strongly dissagree with what you write are also on this thread. It would be a daunting task to confront all of them. Are you taking the easy route.

 

As I said earler, if the inflow to the forum of inaccurate information remains unchecked, the knowledgable people will receed and we will become a happy community of fools. This makes you the pied piper or something. As an option, Tyler, why not adopt a more humble approach. Only write when you know your subject. A steady stream of contradictions or rebutles from several worthy forum members should give you pause. Though it has not yet..

 

I once ridiculed you as being like a little dog who gets knocked down in the debate, but always gets up, wagging his tail as though he has just won the debate. This quasi bravery means nothing if you are always wrong.

[Max Field]

Not sure if this is counterproductive, but I'm just throwing out my findings today with the "focal distance lies" thing.

 

I was measuring my RED 18-50mm T3 zoom lens (on a S35 sensor) which reads 8 inches being the closest focus. From the front of the glass it could get things sharp from 2 inches away. From the sensor; 6 inches.

 

Am I doing something wrong?

[Robin R Probyn]

2 inches close focus without macro !.. wow.. on a zoom..

[Dom Jaeger]

Not sure if this is counterproductive, but I'm just throwing out my findings today with the "focal distance lies" thing.

 

I was measuring my RED 18-50mm T3 zoom lens (on a S35 sensor) which reads 8 inches being the closest focus. From the front of the glass it could get things sharp from 2 inches away. From the sensor; 6 inches.

 

Am I doing something wrong?

 

The distance marks always refer to the distance from the film plane or sensor, usually marked on the camera with a circle with a line through it.

 

On some lenses the focus ring can travel a bit further than the closest distance mark, but 2 extra inches at close focus is unusual. If you're stopped down the depth of field will allow things closer than the focus mark to still be in focus.

 

But basically if the focus scale is set to 8" the lens should be sharpest at 8" from the sensor. If it's out then the lens is out of calibration.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler, I won't address the missperceptions underlying that post, but I will ask again, why are you singling me out, when several people who strongly dissagree with what you write are also on this thread. It would be a daunting task to confront all of them. Are you taking the easy route.

Because those people haven't spent every moment on this forum, tracking down posts I make and nit picking them apart like you have.

 

I also don't understand how anyone can disagree with the original content of this thread. Not only did I delete it, but the tiny blurb that was quoted, has nothing "wrong" about it. Again, it's based on personal experience. Again, if I put a lens on my camera and it doesn't do what I expect it to do and another lens does... well, even if the spec says otherwise, it doesn't matter does it? The lens didn't live up to my expectations and I'm going to comment about it, no matter what the spec sheet says.

 

As I said earler, if the inflow to the forum of inaccurate information remains unchecked the knowledgable people will receed and we will become a happy community of fools.

I mean isn't the whole point of this forum to post opinions and ideas, so people can comment and correct? I have no problem with people correcting what I say (or anyone else for that matter), if they do so without being rude and abrasive.

 

As an option, Tyler, why not adopt a more humble approach. Only write when you know your subject.

If everyone took this approach, the forum would be void of any real discussion. The only reason why we have discussions is because the forum is FULL of people who don't know the subject.

 

I'll say this much, if unchecked, "experts" will keep doing the same thing they've always done, for better or worse. It takes the outside thinking mentality of a non-expert to truly bring balance.

 

Also, I know what I'm doing, just because I'm sometimes incorrect on technical details, doesn't change my abilities to get the job done.

 

I once ridiculed you as being like a little dog who gets knocked down in the debate, but always gets up, wagging his tail as though he has just won the debate. This quasi bravery means nothing if you are always wrong.

It means a lot if you learned something.

[Gregg MacPherson]

(1) I also don't understand how anyone can disagree with the original content of this thread. Not only did I delete it, but the tiny blurb that was quoted, has nothing "wrong" about it. ....

 

 

(2) I mean isn't the whole point of this forum to post opinions and ideas, so people can comment and correct? I have no problem with people correcting what I say (or anyone else for that matter), if they do so without being rude and abrasive.

 

If everyone took this approach, the forum would be void of any real discussion. The only reason why we have discussions is because the forum is FULL of people who don't know the subject.

 

(3) I'll say this much, if unchecked, "experts" will keep doing the same thing they've always done, for better or worse. It takes the outside thinking mentality of a non-expert to truly bring balance.

 

(4) It means a lot if you learned something.

 

(1) It was posted, I read it, maybe others did. I think it was Dom who took issue with it. At the time you could have made detailed argument about it, with him. You may have missed your chance at that...

 

(2) Consider this knowledge model. We come to the feet of masters or experts and ask questions, read and try by osmosis to learn and grow...The alternate model, actually in play now in the current world, is that everyone's opinion is of equal value, so we have democratic free for all of opinion, and knowledge is lost. So Tyler, you are like the Pied Piper, dragging many people in the later direction.

 

3) The benchmark, if I can call it that, of expert knowledge, or the mastery within a field of knowledge, does not disallow innovation, alternate views or even sometimes a direct challenge. It is the assumption of naive pretenders that the opposite is always true. The fact that it is sometimes true does not help their assumption, argument.

 

4) Referring to the wagging dog metaphor...If the wagging dog repeatedly makes the same erroneous assumption of being right and the same kind of conceptual errors over and over...I say he is learning nothing....

 

 

Re the erroneous myth you propose about my time spent researching and writing posts....Took a lifetime to shape the person who wrote this, and about 20 minutes to think and hit the keyboard.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Gregg MacPherson

[Dom Jaeger]

I also don't understand how anyone can disagree with the original content of this thread. Not only did I delete it, but the tiny blurb that was quoted, has nothing "wrong" about it. Again, it's based on personal experience. Again, if I put a lens on my camera and it doesn't do what I expect it to do and another lens does... well, even if the spec says otherwise, it doesn't matter does it? The lens didn't live up to my expectations and I'm going to comment about it, no matter what the spec sheet says.

 

But the information was wrong.

 

Reputable lens manufacturers like Zeiss don't put a false minimum distance on their lens focus scales, they simply don't. Ask any focus puller, any lens tech. If a lens won't reach the minimum written on the barrel, it's out of tolerance, and all the marks will be out. Describing it as a problem with Zeiss CP.2s is false and misleading. Saying they advertise a 12" minimum is selective, because some focal lengths are 10", some are 12" and others are longer, just like many other lens sets. But whatever the minimum of a particular focal length is, that's where it will focus down to. Maybe closer due to depth of field, but never not reaching, unless the lens is way out of tolerance. Perhaps your personal experience included assuming a minimum that didn't match what was written on the barrel, or misreading the actual distance from the film plane, I don't know, but the conclusion was false.

 

The collimator test part of the thread was entirely misleading because collimators don't measure lens sharpness, so all the conclusions reached about particular lenses being crisp or soft based on a collimation check were false. It would be like someone measuring the front diameter of 2 lenses and declaring one lens sharper because it has a larger front. That might also be someone's personal experience, but it doesn't deserve to be left unchallenged, especially on a forum for cinematographers.

 

So there were very good reasons to disagree with the original thread.

[Robin R Probyn]

If my personal opinion ,based on my experience is that the earth is flat.. because when I look at it ..well it looks that way to me.. and I post on a well regarded scientific forum.. claiming some sort of professional level proficiency in the sciences and am a teacher of science..many people will be quick to point out its wrong.. if I keep saying .. well no Im right ,just open your window and have a look at the horizon .. then they will get frustrated .. and after a while some of them will spit the dummy and call me a twat..

 

Do I have to right to make the post.. yes legally I do.. do other people.. some of whom might have been into space and now for a fact that the world is not flat.. have a right to call me out..and worry about mis information on their forum .. well yes they do too Im afraid..

[Tyler Purcell]

(1) It was posted, I read it, maybe others did. I think it was Dom who took issue with it. At the time you could have made detailed argument about it, with him. You may have missed your chance at that...

My intention wasn't to make a detailed posting at the time, it was to simply relay my thoughts, nothing more, nothing less. Again, thoughts and opinion's don't need to be accurate in any way shape or form.

 

(2) Consider this knowledge model. We come to the feet of masters or experts and ask questions, read and try by osmosis to learn and grow...The alternate model, actually in play now in the current world, is that everyone's opinion is of equal value, so we have democratic free for all of opinion, and knowledge is lost.

Where I do agree society today places less value on knowledge then in previous generations, I don't necessarily agree that random people's opinions hold less value.

 

Having worked with some top experts in dozens of different fields, I have always found myself helping them resolve issues, using methods they've never thought of before. In fact, an outside view is actually very important and it's why many experts surround themselves with younger, less experienced people. Not just to train them, but to also get their feedback for themselves to absorb. It's why so many "experts" have stolen ideas from their protege.

 

The democratic "free for all" actually brings a lot of balance.

 

So Tyler, you are like the Pied Piper, dragging many people in the later direction.

HA! I'm one person on one internet forum. You give me too much credit sir.

 

3) The benchmark, if I can call it that, of expert knowledge, or the mastery within a field of knowledge, does not disallow innovation, alternate views or even sometimes a direct challenge. It is the assumption of naive pretenders that the opposite is always true. The fact that it is sometimes true does not help their assumption, argument.

Read above...

 

4) Referring to the wagging dog metaphor...If the wagging dog repeatedly makes the same erroneous assumption of being right and the same kind of conceptual errors over and over...I say he is learning nothing....

Well, I learn every time someone corrects me. It's actually a great way to learn because you're told exactly the information your missing, instead of searching in vain for something you don't even know you don't know.

[Tyler Purcell]

But the information was wrong.

But Dom, I wasn't posting "information", I wasn't looking at a spec sheet and copying/pasting it online. I was simply writing a comment on my feelings/observation. It was just my personal opinion.

 

Reputable lens manufacturers like Zeiss don't put a false minimum distance on their lens focus scales, they simply don't.

When I'm setting up a shot, I'm not looking at the close focus of the lens, I'm putting a lens on the camera and I'm moving the camera around to see what kind of shot I can get. If X lens can't do what I want of it but Y lens can, I will use Y lens.

 

So I don't care WHAT the numbers state. Sure, on a big show when you've got lots of money to blow on specialty lenses, you'd have a truck with all sorts of cool lenses that can do macro/close focus. Unfortunately, on smaller shows... which is 99.95% of everything shot, we basically use what we have.

 

I have a set of CP2's at school that I use all the time, I own a set of Rokinon Xeen's and I own a set of Optar super 16 primes + a 12-120 heavily modified super 16 zeiss zoom. I shoot both Super 16 and Super 35mm, so I know what what each lens does on each format.

 

I was shocked when I put the 50mm CP2 on the Dragon and couldn't get the close focus I was looking for. I had no problem getting it with the S35mm camera and the Rokinon Xeen 50mm. I didn't measure anything, I simply put the focus to the closest it would go where it hit the stop and I altered the position of the camera to compensate. I didn't have nearly the same problems with the Xeen's as I did with the CP2's. You may recall, I made a post about this and you hit me on the head with a hammer.

 

So again... just for clarification, I could care less what Zeiss puts on the side of the lens, or what their spec sheet is. I could care less if the brand new CP2 kit we have is somehow damaged, maybe it is, I don't know. All I DO know is that as a cinematographer on set, in a working environment, I made an observation that the CP2's didn't have nearly the close focus of other lenses I have used in the past. Again, "observation" and that's it, nothing more, nothing less. Since my last CP2 shoot, I have measured all of my Optars (film plane to focused object) and found 2 of them to have far better close focus then the markings on the barrel, WITHOUT vignetting. One was labeled 10" and had 7" and the other was labeled 10" and had 8".

 

I use the Optars 9 times out of 10, so I'm use to how close they focus. The CP2's didn't perform the same way, as you pointed out in a different thread, most likely due to the larger field of view from the S35 imager fooling me. Yet the Rokinon Xeen's performed EXACTLY like the Optars do in terms of close focus. The original point of this thread was to make that OBSERVATION nothing more, nothing less. Again, I wasn't doing a back to back lens test, it was different day's, different locations, different cameras, everything was different. Yet, X lens didn't perform the same way as Y lens, even though they supposedly have similar spec. Isn't that an "interesting" observation? I thought it was, which is why I posted something about it.

 

Perhaps your personal experience included assuming a minimum that didn't match what was written on the barrel, or misreading the actual distance from the film plane, I don't know, but the conclusion was false.

You made the assumption I was looking at the barrel and that the lens had something technically wrong. Again, as stated above, I could care less what the barrel says. I always put the lens on and see how close it will focus for my own sake.

 

If the 50mm CP2 had close focus of 12" and the 50mm Xeen 10", then that would explain the difference right there. I honestly care so little, I still haven't bothered to look up the spec. The Xeen's solved my problem and as a cinematographer, that's all I was reporting in this post, simple as that.

 

The collimator test part of the thread was entirely misleading because collimators don't measure lens sharpness

How was it misleading? I saw it with my own eyes. With the lens all the way open, the pattern on the screen was soft, no matter how much adjustment we made to the back focus position. When we stopped the lens down to a bit below F2, the lens became crisp and by 2.8 it looked really crisp and solid. Again, we tested a bunch of other glass and the professional Zeiss lens tech, explained to me how junky the Korean glass is. This test is one of the things he used to prove his point. If he's wrong, then you have a beef with him, not me. I was simply relaying what I saw, I'm just the messenger.

 

Is this sufficient enough for you to understand the basis of my original posting? Did I have to write all of this bullshit to begin with so you'd understand what I meant? I didn't think it was necessary, nor did I have the time to do so when I made the original post. I just expected people to have a pleasant conversation about what they read. I didn't expect to defend my clear observation because you didn't understand what I said. Who cares what you "think" I said, you are not the intended audience and you also aren't involved at all in what I said. You don't make Zeiss lenses, you don't make Rokinon lenses, you don't make Optar lenses. I'm not hurting or damaging YOU or your reputation at all. Why do you give two shits what I say? How is what I said DAMAGING to anyone? I'm just a filmmaker making movies, having fun and trying to share my experiences with other people. Again, all I did was make an observation that was very basic and so unworthy of all this text and explanation.

[Gregg MacPherson]

If a lens test was projected onto a screen, then perhaps a lens projector has been misidentified as a collimator...

[Satsuki Murashige]

So I don't care WHAT the numbers state. Sure, on a big show when you've got lots of money to blow on specialty lenses, you'd have a truck with all sorts of cool lenses that can do macro/close focus. Unfortunately, on smaller shows... which is 99.95% of everything shot, we basically use what we have.

 

As a cinematographer who shoots 'smaller shows', and as a former camera assistant who has worked for many DPs on a wide range of budget levels, I can tell you that most of us will check the close focus of our lenses in prep.

 

As an AC, I made sure to label all the lens cases for every job in prep with the focal length, max aperture, and close focus for each lens. And rental house lenses are usually similarly labeled on the lens caps. I think this is standard practice all around, not just for big budget projects.

 

If there are specific shots which require close focus, we order diopters or macros in advance. Finding out on the day would be too late, we wouldn't be able to get the shot. This is all just part of being prepared, regardless of budget.

[Gregg MacPherson]

But Dom, I wasn't posting "information", I wasn't looking at a spec sheet and copying/pasting it online. I was simply writing a comment on my feelings/observation. It was just my personal opinion.

 

 

This is the kind of disingenuous nonsense that raises a bad reaction. These observations and perceptions/misperceptions of yours that are particular/peculiar/unique to you, were presented as useful information to others. If you want to try making useful confusion between the personal and the universal you could try writing novels....

[Tyler Purcell]

I can tell you that most of us will check the close focus of our lenses in prep.

It was a personal project, I was playing around in the garage shooting a film projector for a project I'm doing with Kodak. I had been using the lenses for the entire year without even contemplating close focus.

 

This is what I mean by "smaller shows"; stuff you do with friends for fun. You shoot with what you've got, there are no other options.

 

Honestly, I own or have free access to all the equipment I normally use; (dragon/F55/Ursa 4.6k/pocket camera, XTR Prod, SR3, Aaton 35III, Moviecam Compact, Arri ST/LT, etc) Almost 80% of my shooting is from that inventory and the rare times I'm out renting something, it's because they've got money. In that case, you bet your ass I'm going over the script like a hawk and making sure I have all the speciality stuff I can fit on the truck. Otherwise, the filmmakers get what they pay for, which is basically whatever I got available. In the last two years, I've rented three times... THREE! So yea, now you understand where I come from.

[Tyler Purcell]

If a lens test was projected onto a screen, then perhaps a lens projector has been misidentified as a collimator...

There is a color monitor attached to a video camera, that's where you see the pattern from.

 

Because I worked for a few years as a bench technician servicing electronics, I've come accustom to calling the display portion of a monitor a "screen" because it differentiates it from the electronics and housing.

 

I apologize if you found the use of the word "screen" misleading.

[Tyler Purcell]

This is the kind of disingenuous nonsense that raises a bad reaction.

Look in the mirror Gregg, every one of your posts is disingenuous, with seemingly innocuous questions that give you more fuel for your Troll fire.

 

Now you're trying to TELL me how I should go about writing my posts to try and "avoid" a bad reaction in the future?

 

I'll say this much, I've been on dozens of forums for the last 20 years and there are ALWAYS people like you. Do gooders who have nothing better to do but nitpick what others say and do because they're not up to YOUR personal standards.

 

My response is always the same; too bad.

[Justin Hayward]

This is what I mean by "smaller shows"; stuff you do with friends for fun.

 

Whaaaa??? Maybe start prefacing your posts with this tidbit? :P :D

[David Hessel]

"This is critical to me, the CP2's I use all the time from school, don't get near 10" even though they advertise 12, it's more like 14 - 16 in real life."

 

Now you are saying you don't care what the lens markings said, what they the focus was set to and that you didn't bother to properly test anything. When the lenses didn't perform as advertised you didn't bother to try and confirm a reason why just stated that is how they work in real life. It's like saying.

 

"I tested a bunch of different cameras and the Alexa always had a blue tint and the highlights were blown." and then turning around and saying "I just put a lens on and started shooting, I don't care what the iso and color temperature settings were..."

 

As Dom said if a lens doesn't hit its minimum focus something is wrong with the setup up or the lens and stating that is how the lens really performs is misleading at best.

[Tyler Purcell]

Now you are saying you don't care what the lens markings said, what they the focus was set to and that you didn't bother to properly test anything. When the lenses didn't perform as advertised you didn't bother to try and confirm a reason why just stated that is how they work in real life. It's like saying.

The markings are completely irrelevant, the specification of the lens is completely irrelevant. If I put a lens on the camera and I turn it until the focus hits the stop, there is no more I can do right? I have to adjust my camera's location in order to get the shot I want.

 

If the lens is at the stop and it doesn't achieve the look I'm after, no testing or measuring will help reach a different conclusion. A technician from Zeiss doesn't magically pop out of my closet and go over the reasoning behind why the lens doesn't focus any closer.

 

I completely understand your point, but I'm not saying the lens is broken or defective. I'm merely stating, what I expect a higher end cinema lens to do, the CP2's didn't do. Yet my cheap-ass, optically inferior Rokonin Xeen's, appeared to not have the same sort of issues. All I was doing is making an observation.

[Satsuki Murashige]

It was a personal project...

 

This is what I mean by "smaller shows"; stuff you do with friends for fun. You shoot with what you've got, there are no other options.

 

Ah. I would characterize those types of shoots just as 'personal projects', not as a 'show' since to me that implies a hired job.

 

Sure, if you're just messing around with friends then you can do whatever you want, I guess. I just have a problem with you implying that 99.95% of everything shot (assuming that you are including the rest of us in this statistic) is 'messing around with friends.'

 

Most of us who post here regularly do not operate like that and have to work under higher expectations. That's why we care so much about the accuracy of specs, because our livelihoods and reputations rely on them.

[Satsuki Murashige]

The markings are completely irrelevant, the specification of the lens is completely irrelevant. If I put a lens on the camera and I turn it until the focus hits the stop, there is no more I can do right? I have to adjust my camera's location in order to get the shot I want.

 

If the lens is at the stop and it doesn't achieve the look I'm after, no testing or measuring will help reach a different conclusion. A technician from Zeiss doesn't magically pop out of my closet and go over the reasoning behind why the lens doesn't focus any closer.

 

No.

 

If you are shooting something that requires 10" close focus, and the lens spec says 10", then that is what you order. At your camera prep, if you find the lens performance does not match the spec, then the lens back focus is out, or the camera flange distance is out.

 

Erring on the side of near focus typically means the lens is too far away from the sensor, so in your case the lens is too close. Which means you add shims. You have the lens shimmed or the lens mount adjusted - before you start shooting.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Not sure if this is counterproductive, but I'm just throwing out my findings today with the "focal distance lies" thing.

 

I was measuring my RED 18-50mm T3 zoom lens (on a S35 sensor) which reads 8 inches being the closest focus. From the front of the glass it could get things sharp from 2 inches away. From the sensor; 6 inches.

 

Am I doing something wrong?

To amplify what Dom has already said, often times the last scribed focus mark on the lens barrel is not the actual minimum achievable close focus - if you keep turning the focus ring, you'll see that the ring keeps moving past the mark. This is completely normal and may be what you are seeing. Some (mostly modern) lenses also focus quite a bit past infinity.

 

Nonetheless, at the 8" scribed mark, the focus should be at exactly 8" from the focal plane on the camera. If it's off, then either the lens backfocus or the camera flange distance (or both!) is off and needs to be reset correctly to spec.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'm merely stating, what I expect a higher end cinema lens to do, the CP2's didn't do. Yet my cheap-ass, optically inferior Rokonin Xeen's, appeared to not have the same sort of issues. All I was doing is making an observation.

Making an observation and reporting a problem is totally fine. It's the leaps in logic from 'my camera equipment is malfunctioning' to 'CP2's are crap!', 'all specs are meaningless!' that people here take issue with.

[Tyler Purcell]

Satsuki, I survive off my friends and their projects. We have a close/tight group who work together on a regular basis and we all make money.

 

I do dozens of "spec" projects every year, most of them I produce myself. I do this to learn, to expand my group of friends and to get product out there that normally wouldn't get produced due to the time it takes to get funding together. I don't have the money to constantly be renting, so I use what I have available to me. I think you'd find MOST people with a camera, do the same thing. They aren't working professionals, but people who enjoy making content and posting it online. Just look at the daily uploads to YouTube/Vimeo, we're talking tens of thousands every day. How many of those people are paid professionals? Maybe less then 1%?

 

Where I agree with your comment that accuracy is important, I don't think it should trump personal opinion and feelings. Again, just because a spec sheet says X, doesn't mean your "experience" should be discounted. It's super easy for a potential user of a certain product to find a spec sheet. It's not very easy to find an actual user who has experience using said product and is willing to go into details on what they like and don't like. Again, I was simply posting my opinion and experience using a particular product, no more, no less. Does it matter if the shoot I was using it on was a paid gig? No... it doesn't matter. I was still working my ass off, I was still producing a product that a lot of people will see. I've now shot a dozen projects with those CP2's, some paid, some personal.

 

Also, if the back focus was off on any lens, you'd know right away because most of the time we're closer to infinity then we are on the other side of the scale. Anyone with a modicum of experience can put a lens on a camera, look through the viewfinder and tell if a lens has a back focus issue right away. Sure, if it's off by a few micron's, it's not a problem and likewise you'll never notice. Any back focus issue that makes the close focus work entirely different then the spec, is something you'd notice.

 

Never once did I say the lenses I worked with were broken. I simply had an expectation that wasn't met.