I have a set of CookeMiniS4is that pair lovely with my R5C. Pushing the Cookes to their optical limits results in a very unique image. The image the combo produces is very nice.
I couldn't pass on a deal on sigma 18-35mm zoom for my fx3. Almost comical keyhole at 18mm but kind of interesting tbh. But clearzoom at 1.2x passes it nicely. Only in the 18-25mm range on that lens. The 50-100mm which I also got for super cheap covers fully. Strangely enough sigmas FF cine zoom is 24-35mm 🤷. Either way, I'm not a professional and was a massive discount less than a single for the pair. Which is why I'm watching this video to begin with.
One of the best videos I’ve seen on explaining lens optics, especially around focal lengths. 2 part question: is there not a difference in terms of distortion between focal lengths of different formats? Case being a 17.5mm for 16mm vs. 17mm for FF is going to have greater distortion given the optics are more curved to cover a larger area. If so, when it comes to wide angles on super35 are you better to use lenses designed for that format than use FF so your image has less distortion?
Hey Cire, thanks for watching! Lens distortion is more of a lens by lens basis to be honest. I’ve seen heavily distorted and very low distortion lenses on both sides. There’s not hard statements to make about using either or on s35, as it could all be proved write or wrong. If you’re looking for a solid ultra wide, the Laowa 12mm is excellent!! Jake
16mm, 17mm, 35mm, any xxmm will always be 16mm, 17mm, 35mm on any given sensor size camera. Poor optics construction will distort more than optimal ones, no matter to which sensor size the were made for. Using different sensor size cameras for a given focal length lens is never a distortion factor. Same as wearing a long sleeve fennel shirt. Good fennel fabric shirts will feel nicer to wear than bad ones but both will be too long, too short or not depending on the length of the user's arm.
Question: I want to shoot a short film on super 35. I currently have the RF 24-70 but I want to invest in one canon prime cinema lens. Which overall would you recommend for super 35? Lens; 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135. Thank you!!!!
I think there is one set of Cine Tilt lenses from Schneider, and there is probably some rental options that are extremely rare. But those lenses will have an even larger image circle. Perhaps they just use medium/large format stills designs and housed them in something that looks more like video production. larger sensors are special, and you don't see anything like an Alexa65(Phantom65) since. with larger sensors, diffraction doesn't happen at f/22 or f/64 but way further. Meaning you got such a range of depth of field control that is lacking with postage stamp sized chips
1:13 But what happens when you, “Move in Closer” ? with a 50mm on a full frame, to fill the frame like the 50mm on the S35. Does it work or will it squash the image?
I have an Ursa12k with S35 and a Takumar 28mm lens. What can I do so that the image section is a real 28mm and not so zoomed in? I really want to have the “real” 28mm look on the camera. Should I buy a 20mm lens so that it looks like a real 28mm thanks to the crop / FF to S35 conversion? Unfortunately I don't understand.
I shoot on a speedboosted Pocket 4K, however I opted for a set of FF sigma primes, this was solely for future proofing should I ever find myself shooting on a FF sensor.
I would say that since FF lenses on a S35 sensor is cropping in, if the glass is low enough quality (probably more of a photo/vintage lens issue) there could be a drop in detail
I knew this was something someone would mention! This is something we will be exploring / visualising in our more in depth full frame video. Agreed it’s definitely going to be more of an issue with lower end and vintage optics. Thanks for watching, Jake
Yep, this is absolutely the case. If you have two camera with the same resolution but different sensor sizes, the one with the larger pixels (the larger sensor) is physically easier to design a sharp lens for. It's common for even modern full frame lenses to perform worse on APS-C.
It’s not as simple as this, hence why we wanted to cover it in more detail in our full-frame video. I would love to hear what lens designers think about it being easier to design lenses for larger formats over smaller ones. From my experience, this isn’t necessarily true. Leitz’s lineup is a great example. The Summilux-C’S are optically incredible, as are the leitz primes, but they are also much larger, heavier and slower than Sumis. So if it was “easier” to design for larger formats, why couldn’t leitz design their larger format primes to be the same spec as the Sumis with just a larger image circle? Jake
I agree that stray light from FF lenses bouncing around a cameras mount could cause different aberrations but this will be down to the design of the mount. It’s worth considering that there are plenty of S35 lenses that have larger image circles than needed for most S35 formats, such as Masters and Ultras from their middle focal lengths. We will be doing a full video on this to explore and help visually break this all down. Jake
Putting cost completely aside, when comparing S35 to full-frame sensors and factoring in lenses the more confusing thing is: why would most would go full-frame? If you can account for FOV/bokeh by putting a 24mm f/1.8 to get a 35mm f/2.8 on a FF sensor with the camera position, etc. in the same spot, then what’s the advantage of FF/FF lenses? Especially if the Alexa 35 came out this year, wouldn’t that negate the difference of modern lenses made for FF cameras (assuming manufacturers build new s35 lenses because of it)? If S35 lenses are cheaper, lighter, and there’s a larger pool available including vintage, then why go with FF sensor at all? Looking at the Sony FX30 vs FX3, couldn’t I account for low light issues by getting faster glass? E.g. to get a full-frame 16mm f/2.8 “look” on an FX3, wouldn’t I get similar results using an 11mm f/1.8 on the FX30? I've been battling between the two cameras, and it's very frustrating to not be able to make a decision because of the ambiguity out there.
The advantage of full frame is more information in the screen and larger resolutions. Which, aren't relevant for most people outside of large productions imo. I'm doing research to get a c70 and at first i thought the super 35 would be a disadvantage because i'm coming from the R5, a full frame camera. I have a few of canons nicer full frame lenses. The advantages I see are better image quality (because newer, and because larger glass) as well as, and I cannot overstate this: i already own the lens. If you have a bunch of full frame lenses, they can work nicely on a S35 camera, you just have to work with the crop factor. The advantage of the s35 lenses, are like you said, cheaper, lighter, and vintage. So it seems like having a s35 camera could be an advantage: you can buy bigger, newer, better glass when you need it/can afford it, and you work with decades worth of reliable time tested glass for cheaper.
I got like 3 E-mount APS-C lenses, and one FE lens. I am also considering getting the FX30 because of this. As far as I know, the other two advantages of FF are that the "bokeh" is much more "smooth" and low light performance is better. The trade off is still that top gear and lenses in the FF realm are super expensive, and more heavy (which considering all the gear you have to strap to a video rig might be a big factor for many people).
Watching because currently to my knowledge there is zero 1.33X anamorphic lenses for canons 16:9 cameras. Such as my case of the R6Mii. Only the ridiculous 1.66X with the grotesque 2:8:1 aspect ratio if uncropped. :(
I wanna get my hands on canon FD lenses. not the expensive ones. the cheeper ones. like a set a ultra wide (18 or wider), 24, 35,50,85, some thing 100+ and then the 35-105 zoom lens.
You state that using a lens with bigger image circle will not influence it's performance, but i am not entirely sure about that. What will happen to the light that doesn't hit the sensor? Wouldn't it reflect onto the sensor? I think the RED V-Raptors sensor stitch issue is somehow related to internal reflections.
Stray light from FF lenses bouncing around a cameras mount could cause different aberrations but this will be down to the design of the mount. It’s worth considering that there are plenty of S35 lenses that have larger image circles than needed for most S35 formats, such as Masters and Ultras from their middle focal lengths. We will be doing a full video on this to explore and help visually break this all down. Jake
Hey guys great post as always! two questions.. 1-would you be kind to let me know the exact link for you "camera/lens" chart... 2-What is the exact model of Miller tripod you guys use in some of the footage here in this post...? Thank you! cheers! ;)
I have the Panasonic S1H and I want to get the Panasonic Lumix 14-28mm f/4-5.6 MACRO Lens or the Panasonic Lumix S 18mm f/1.8 Ultra-Wide-Angle Lens, I haven't decided yet.
@@CVPTV I'm on a preorder list for the Dulens... might one to see your test before pulling the trigger... my preorder is due in august.... Do you guys get any holidays ahah ?
What about using FF lenses on Super 35 produces a weaker image regarding detail and, particularly, chromatic aberration? This has been my experience. What would be the scientific explanation to this?
Depends what specific FF lenses you mean? Some will have less resolving power or simply are not as well made lenses. High end cinema glass designed to cover a FF / 135 frame, should be fine on S35.
FF lenses need to be of extremely high quality to render sufficient detail on S35. S35 has a far higher pixel density at the same given resolution. With larger pixels, less of the lens faults are captured. For native 4k sensors it probably doesn't matter much, but anything 6K and above it gets tough. E.g. a 24~26MP 6K S35/APSC sensor has the same density as a FF 61MP sensor i.e. ~9K. Generic FF lenses that used to resolve a 24MP/6K resolution will barely render the 9K pixel density properly. That's also why you would notice that equivalent lenses, especially photo lenses get more expensive the smaller the sensor. The glass has to be sharper, the coatings have to be more perfect, tolerances etc etc... e.g. Olympus 17mm f1.2 @ $1,400 (resolving 80MP FF), Fujifilm 23mm f1.4LM @$900 (resolving 92MP FF - according to Fujifilm's own claims), Sony 35mm f1.8 @ $750/Sigma 35mm f1.4 @ $800.
@@professionalpotato4764 except most cinema cameras don't work that way. A LF cinema camera sensor generally increases resolution and retains the same pixel density. For example the Alexa65 (6k) uses the same sensor design as the Alexa LF (4.5k) and the S35 Alexa (3.2k) - there is no change in pixel density. One of the central fallacies of full frame is the larger photo-sites claim, and this is only true for certain cameras, like the FX3 and FX6, both of which are high sensitivity cameras, with 4k resolution. If you look at the other cameras in the Sony cinema range, (the FX9 and the Venice) both have FF / 135 sensors (6k and 8k), with increased pixel density. Also I don't see any evidence that lenses for smaller formats cost more, quite the opposite. Well corrected lenses made for FF, are much larger and much heavier, than the equivalents made for S35 or MFT. This is especially true when it comes to cinema lenses, where FF coverage lenses cost more than any of those designed for smaller formats.
@@flyingfox2005 Good points. The Alexas and I assume some of the REDs simply "glue" smaller s35 sensors to get a larger format. However the larger pixel density claim isn't a fallacy, but simply just how things are when comparing formats of the exact same resolution. You will always need a sharper lens for a m43 or S35 6k sensor vs a FF/LF 6k sensor. I'm assuming some watching this video would probably be upgrading to true cine lenses from photo lenses, hence I was quoting evidence for costs of smaller formats based off photography equipment, since sharpness is a factor that outweighs lens corrections for the purpose of stills. And it also answers OP's question about degradation of IQ when using FF on smaller formats. Cheap FF lenses will never out-resolve a lens designed for the smaller formats. Cinema cameras aren't demanding when it comes to sharpness due to the lower res nature of video, so correction for breathing, parfocality, flares etc far outweigh the sharpness aspect for cine lenses. The priorities are entirely different so yep, you're right that when it comes to cine lenses they get exponentially more expensive, even within the same S35 format. Whether it's engineering, or brand name markup. E.g. the angenieux 15-40 is far far more expensive than a Sigma 18-35, yet is a whole lot softer. Or has more character as some say.
@@professionalpotato4764 the larger photoshite claim is a fallacy, because it is one of the generalised myths given as the reason to get a FF / 135 sensor camera. It is ONE way to design a FF / 135 sensor, (generally for photography), but it's by no means the rule. In fact probably 85% of cinema cameras scale up the size of an existing sensor design. So as the sensor size increases, so does the resolution. Cheap FF lenses are based on 100 years of lens development. A computer program given very basic perimeters can kick out the design for a 35, 50 or 85mm and you have a bog standard £200 prime, with a picture quality to match the price. Anyone who uses that type of lens can expect to get what they pay for... but that's not the rule for FF / 135 lenses. You only have to look at the prices for new RF and Z mount primes and also the professional applications they are used for to know understand their resolving power. Lenses made for smaller formats do have different design considerations, the sharpest lenses Zeiss ever made for cinema were the DigiPrimes, and they only cover a 2/3 inch CCD sensor. But the smaller the format, the more wide focal lengths needed. There is very little need to make a 9 or 12mm lens for FF / 135 (although they do exist), but for MFT these offer very standard angles of view. Good wide angles, even today cost and that is one reason a lens for MFT aren't as cheap as the cheapest lenses for FF / 135. The reason the OP is seeing "a weaker image regarding detail and, particularly, chromatic aberration" could come from a number of sources. What FF / 135 lens is being used? If it's cheap or VERY old or even damaged - obviously there can cause issues. How telecentric are the lenses being used. This is one of the central reasons for camera manufacturers moving to mirrorless mounts, as it allows for better (and simpler) more telecentric optical design. This was not the case in the past and so using some older lenses on modern sensors (irrespective of resolution) can cause issues. The design of the specific sensor can also be an issue, strength of the OLPF, the design of the sensor stack itself... all of these can interact in unexpected ways with certain lenses, creating very nasty aberrations. Without knowing what FF / 135 lenses are being used, on what camera it's hard to say what is or could be causing the issue. After all for all we know the OP is using a £200 lens... or he could be using a £20,000 lens... It's also worth noting that many people are using older vintage rehoused lenses on modern S35 sensors. From a technical level, resolving power etc these don't come close to many modern FF / 135 lenses, or even MFT lenses... but still resolve excellent detail, with good sharpness and low CA.
I have a very important question. If I mount an RF lens on a speedboster adapter in my canon C70, do I get the same view without the crop as if I mounted a full frame lens for full frame sensor? can anyone tell me?. I don;t want the crop in my canon C70, I am considering to buy a speedbooster, but I have RF lenses, not EF. anyon for help me?
The RF lenses are the new and more expensive EF lenses, in very basic terms. RF lenses are FF, I don't think you need a speedbooster at the risk of lowering your image quality.
As a stills photographer learning video creation your content is always appreciated. I understand the reasons for 35mm and FF and that MFTs has a roll to play, but where does APSC fall within the line up? Or is it that there are limited numbers of Creators using that as an option. Thanks again.
APS-C sensors are of a very similar size to Super 35, to the extent you can almost use the terms interchangeably. If you were to buy EF Super 35 cine lenses they would cover the sensor on your Canon 80D for instance. Likewise you could stick a Canon EF-S zoom on a Super 35 cinema/video camera with EF mount like the Canon C300 MkIII or the BMPCC6K and your coverage would be totally fine.
In terms of lenses made for APSC / S35 - that is where most of the good cinema lenses are... as 3 / 4perf is 35mm motion picture format. You can use lenses made for FF on APSC / S35, but you will often be using larger, heavier lenses than needed for the format. There is also the issue of light spillage, inside the mount, as you have a much larger image circle than needed. This is why lenses will often have a mask to restrict the FF image circle when used on S35.
@@ZacharyWillFilms there is no set crop factor for Super 35 it encompasses a range of sensor sizes. Roughly 1.55/1.6x would be normal from what I can tell, but it can be less or more. APS-C crop varies by camera manufacturer. Canon use 1.6x, some others use 1.5x sensors. Plus there’s also the issue of aspect ratio which complicates and attempts to compare. In general it is best to simply check a given lens image circle diameter (stated in its specs) against the diagonal of your sensor, which you can work out simply using Pythagoras’ theorem.
limited numbers of creators naaaa..i would not say that...mostly youtubers/vloggers are using the FF as standard...in the cinema industry, s35 is the standard. Most films and commercials are shot on it...FF was pushed by canon marketing to insane level and it got stuck that s35/apsc is crop as a mean to show that its the lesser option but its not... I mean see eng cameras or the sensor size used in sport cameras even in 2022.
So if i was using a S35 camera and wanted to get as close as possible to the field of view(width) I see when using a 35mm lens on a FF sensor, I’d be best to get a 24mm S35 lens?
Hey Jake, It will depend on what you are comparing to and from, but crop factor of FF to S35 is roughly 1.5x. So if you want to match a 35mm FF FOV, you would take 35 / 1.5 = Roughly 24mm. Jake
@@redc5984 larger image circle, means more light bounce around the sensor… possible reflexion, it can reduced the overall contrast… matte box is important ton cut the angle of view...
![Is Full Frame Better Than APS-C? Here's The [Annoying] Truth...](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tOx3Y52EPNI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
6:38 - Seeing that Tokina 11-16mm, you are a man of culture.
Great video. Any chance you can add the Irix Cinema lenses on your chart?
Its exactly in the edges where all the art and fun happens in a lens haha .. nice video guys !
the best video i've seen so far regarding different lenses and sensor sizes, thanks a lot for it !!
I was mislead for so long 😅 thank you cvp
Am I right in thinking that large format lenses are the same as full frame lenses?
Absolutely loved this! Looking forward to part 2!!
Dulens and the Laowa Anamorphics please!
great video, perfectly concise, thanks.
Very informative video . Thanks man ❤️🙏🏻🫡
Can't wait to get my hands on the Brackmagic URSA 4.6 @ 1:58 !
I have a set of CookeMiniS4is that pair lovely with my R5C. Pushing the Cookes to their optical limits results in a very unique image. The image the combo produces is very nice.
No vignetting?
@@ricardoduarte6589 there is vignetting on my 25mm (crop about 1.2x) and 40mm (crop about 1.1x).
My 65mm and 135mm do not vignette.
Doing the maths…
25mm looks like a 30mm
40mm looks like a 44mm
…in fullframe.
I couldn't pass on a deal on sigma 18-35mm zoom for my fx3. Almost comical keyhole at 18mm but kind of interesting tbh. But clearzoom at 1.2x passes it nicely. Only in the 18-25mm range on that lens. The 50-100mm which I also got for super cheap covers fully. Strangely enough sigmas FF cine zoom is 24-35mm 🤷. Either way, I'm not a professional and was a massive discount less than a single for the pair. Which is why I'm watching this video to begin with.
One of the best videos I’ve seen on explaining lens optics, especially around focal lengths.
2 part question:
is there not a difference in terms of distortion between focal lengths of different formats? Case being a 17.5mm for 16mm vs. 17mm for FF is going to have greater distortion given the optics are more curved to cover a larger area. If so, when it comes to wide angles on super35 are you better to use lenses designed for that format than use FF so your image has less distortion?
Hey Cire, thanks for watching! Lens distortion is more of a lens by lens basis to be honest. I’ve seen heavily distorted and very low distortion lenses on both sides. There’s not hard statements to make about using either or on s35, as it could all be proved write or wrong. If you’re looking for a solid ultra wide, the Laowa 12mm is excellent!! Jake
16mm, 17mm, 35mm, any xxmm will always be 16mm, 17mm, 35mm on any given sensor size camera. Poor optics construction will distort more than optimal ones, no matter to which sensor size the were made for. Using different sensor size cameras for a given focal length lens is never a distortion factor. Same as wearing a long sleeve fennel shirt. Good fennel fabric shirts will feel nicer to wear than bad ones but both will be too long, too short or not depending on the length of the user's arm.
Very good, concise information in this video!
Nice video as always. Thanks!
Question: I want to shoot a short film on super 35. I currently have the RF 24-70 but I want to invest in one canon prime cinema lens. Which overall would you recommend for super 35? Lens; 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135. Thank you!!!!
I think there is one set of Cine Tilt lenses from Schneider, and there is probably some rental options that are extremely rare. But those lenses will have an even larger image circle. Perhaps they just use medium/large format stills designs and housed them in something that looks more like video production.
larger sensors are special, and you don't see anything like an Alexa65(Phantom65) since. with larger sensors, diffraction doesn't happen at f/22 or f/64 but way further. Meaning you got such a range of depth of field control that is lacking with postage stamp sized chips
Thank you very much for the advanced information, but please refer to the point that the eyes looking and reading on the camera are a bit awkward.
Help me out here. If I am using a 50mm S35 glass on a M43 sensor. What would be my field of view equivalent?
1:13 But what happens when you, “Move in Closer” ? with a 50mm on a full frame, to fill the frame like the 50mm on the S35. Does it work or will it squash the image?
I have an Ursa12k with S35 and a Takumar 28mm lens.
What can I do so that the image section is a real 28mm and not so zoomed in? I really want to have the “real” 28mm look on the camera.
Should I buy a 20mm lens so that it looks like a real 28mm thanks to the crop / FF to S35 conversion?
Unfortunately I don't understand.
Is there a Camera Available with an Actual 35mm censor? Like real Celluloid Film the frame is 35mm physical dimension.
I shoot on a speedboosted Pocket 4K, however I opted for a set of FF sigma primes, this was solely for future proofing should I ever find myself shooting on a FF sensor.
I would say that since FF lenses on a S35 sensor is cropping in, if the glass is low enough quality (probably more of a photo/vintage lens issue) there could be a drop in detail
I knew this was something someone would mention! This is something we will be exploring / visualising in our more in depth full frame video. Agreed it’s definitely going to be more of an issue with lower end and vintage optics. Thanks for watching, Jake
Yep, this is absolutely the case. If you have two camera with the same resolution but different sensor sizes, the one with the larger pixels (the larger sensor) is physically easier to design a sharp lens for. It's common for even modern full frame lenses to perform worse on APS-C.
@@TechnoBabble if its 8k yeah, but if its 4k probably it neglicible
It’s not as simple as this, hence why we wanted to cover it in more detail in our full-frame video. I would love to hear what lens designers think about it being easier to design lenses for larger formats over smaller ones. From my experience, this isn’t necessarily true. Leitz’s lineup is a great example. The Summilux-C’S are optically incredible, as are the leitz primes, but they are also much larger, heavier and slower than Sumis. So if it was “easier” to design for larger formats, why couldn’t leitz design their larger format primes to be the same spec as the Sumis with just a larger image circle? Jake
I agree that stray light from FF lenses bouncing around a cameras mount could cause different aberrations but this will be down to the design of the mount. It’s worth considering that there are plenty of S35 lenses that have larger image circles than needed for most S35 formats, such as Masters and Ultras from their middle focal lengths. We will be doing a full video on this to explore and help visually break this all down. Jake
Putting cost completely aside, when comparing S35 to full-frame sensors and factoring in lenses the more confusing thing is: why would most would go full-frame?
If you can account for FOV/bokeh by putting a 24mm f/1.8 to get a 35mm f/2.8 on a FF sensor with the camera position, etc. in the same spot, then what’s the advantage of FF/FF lenses?
Especially if the Alexa 35 came out this year, wouldn’t that negate the difference of modern lenses made for FF cameras (assuming manufacturers build new s35 lenses because of it)?
If S35 lenses are cheaper, lighter, and there’s a larger pool available including vintage, then why go with FF sensor at all?
Looking at the Sony FX30 vs FX3, couldn’t I account for low light issues by getting faster glass? E.g. to get a full-frame 16mm f/2.8 “look” on an FX3, wouldn’t I get similar results using an 11mm f/1.8 on the FX30?
I've been battling between the two cameras, and it's very frustrating to not be able to make a decision because of the ambiguity out there.
The advantage of full frame is more information in the screen and larger resolutions. Which, aren't relevant for most people outside of large productions imo.
I'm doing research to get a c70 and at first i thought the super 35 would be a disadvantage because i'm coming from the R5, a full frame camera. I have a few of canons nicer full frame lenses. The advantages I see are better image quality (because newer, and because larger glass) as well as, and I cannot overstate this: i already own the lens.
If you have a bunch of full frame lenses, they can work nicely on a S35 camera, you just have to work with the crop factor. The advantage of the s35 lenses, are like you said, cheaper, lighter, and vintage. So it seems like having a s35 camera could be an advantage: you can buy bigger, newer, better glass when you need it/can afford it, and you work with decades worth of reliable time tested glass for cheaper.
I got like 3 E-mount APS-C lenses, and one FE lens. I am also considering getting the FX30 because of this.
As far as I know, the other two advantages of FF are that the "bokeh" is much more "smooth" and low light performance is better.
The trade off is still that top gear and lenses in the FF realm are super expensive, and more heavy (which considering all the gear you have to strap to a video rig might be a big factor for many people).
Watching because currently to my knowledge there is zero 1.33X anamorphic lenses for canons 16:9 cameras. Such as my case of the R6Mii. Only the ridiculous 1.66X with the grotesque 2:8:1 aspect ratio if uncropped. :(
I wanna get my hands on canon FD lenses. not the expensive ones. the cheeper ones. like a set a ultra wide (18 or wider), 24, 35,50,85, some thing 100+ and then the 35-105 zoom lens.
You state that using a lens with bigger image circle will not influence it's performance, but i am not entirely sure about that. What will happen to the light that doesn't hit the sensor? Wouldn't it reflect onto the sensor? I think the RED V-Raptors sensor stitch issue is somehow related to internal reflections.
Stray light from FF lenses bouncing around a cameras mount could cause different aberrations but this will be down to the design of the mount. It’s worth considering that there are plenty of S35 lenses that have larger image circles than needed for most S35 formats, such as Masters and Ultras from their middle focal lengths. We will be doing a full video on this to explore and help visually break this all down. Jake
@@CVPTV Thank you so much, for always providing such great information! Looking forward to this video 😄
Hey guys great post as always! two questions.. 1-would you be kind to let me know the exact link for you "camera/lens" chart... 2-What is the exact model of Miller tripod you guys use in some of the footage here in this post...? Thank you! cheers! ;)
when are you gonna review the xh2s
I've gone all in with my Zeiss Otus set - as close as I can get to a Master Prime on a budget.
Congrats, they are truly excellent lenses! Jake
I have the Panasonic S1H and I want to get the Panasonic Lumix 14-28mm f/4-5.6 MACRO Lens or the Panasonic Lumix S 18mm f/1.8 Ultra-Wide-Angle Lens, I haven't decided yet.
Love this video. I have a set of Super 35 Zeiss primes . Do you have any idea of an expander that will work?. I tried the Tokina and it didn't fit
Please can you link me the DZO EF-EF speedbooster?
Thanks, CVP, for this great video. What are the three lenses (43, 57, 85) displayed at 00:38 ? Cheers
Dulens mini primes! We should be selling them very soon!!! Jake
I see you have the Dulens primes ! Can you do a review of them ? Like putting them against DZO Lenses ?
It’s in the pipeline! Jake
@@CVPTV I'm on a preorder list for the Dulens... might one to see your test before pulling the trigger... my preorder is due in august....
Do you guys get any holidays ahah ?
What about using FF lenses on Super 35 produces a weaker image regarding detail and, particularly, chromatic aberration? This has been my experience. What would be the scientific explanation to this?
Depends what specific FF lenses you mean? Some will have less resolving power or simply are not as well made lenses. High end cinema glass designed to cover a FF / 135 frame, should be fine on S35.
FF lenses need to be of extremely high quality to render sufficient detail on S35. S35 has a far higher pixel density at the same given resolution. With larger pixels, less of the lens faults are captured. For native 4k sensors it probably doesn't matter much, but anything 6K and above it gets tough. E.g. a 24~26MP 6K S35/APSC sensor has the same density as a FF 61MP sensor i.e. ~9K. Generic FF lenses that used to resolve a 24MP/6K resolution will barely render the 9K pixel density properly.
That's also why you would notice that equivalent lenses, especially photo lenses get more expensive the smaller the sensor. The glass has to be sharper, the coatings have to be more perfect, tolerances etc etc... e.g. Olympus 17mm f1.2 @ $1,400 (resolving 80MP FF), Fujifilm 23mm f1.4LM @$900 (resolving 92MP FF - according to Fujifilm's own claims), Sony 35mm f1.8 @ $750/Sigma 35mm f1.4 @ $800.
@@professionalpotato4764 except most cinema cameras don't work that way. A LF cinema camera sensor generally increases resolution and retains the same pixel density. For example the Alexa65 (6k) uses the same sensor design as the Alexa LF (4.5k) and the S35 Alexa (3.2k) - there is no change in pixel density.
One of the central fallacies of full frame is the larger photo-sites claim, and this is only true for certain cameras, like the FX3 and FX6, both of which are high sensitivity cameras, with 4k resolution. If you look at the other cameras in the Sony cinema range, (the FX9 and the Venice) both have FF / 135 sensors (6k and 8k), with increased pixel density.
Also I don't see any evidence that lenses for smaller formats cost more, quite the opposite. Well corrected lenses made for FF, are much larger and much heavier, than the equivalents made for S35 or MFT. This is especially true when it comes to cinema lenses, where FF coverage lenses cost more than any of those designed for smaller formats.
@@flyingfox2005 Good points. The Alexas and I assume some of the REDs simply "glue" smaller s35 sensors to get a larger format. However the larger pixel density claim isn't a fallacy, but simply just how things are when comparing formats of the exact same resolution. You will always need a sharper lens for a m43 or S35 6k sensor vs a FF/LF 6k sensor.
I'm assuming some watching this video would probably be upgrading to true cine lenses from photo lenses, hence I was quoting evidence for costs of smaller formats based off photography equipment, since sharpness is a factor that outweighs lens corrections for the purpose of stills. And it also answers OP's question about degradation of IQ when using FF on smaller formats. Cheap FF lenses will never out-resolve a lens designed for the smaller formats.
Cinema cameras aren't demanding when it comes to sharpness due to the lower res nature of video, so correction for breathing, parfocality, flares etc far outweigh the sharpness aspect for cine lenses. The priorities are entirely different so yep, you're right that when it comes to cine lenses they get exponentially more expensive, even within the same S35 format. Whether it's engineering, or brand name markup. E.g. the angenieux 15-40 is far far more expensive than a Sigma 18-35, yet is a whole lot softer. Or has more character as some say.
@@professionalpotato4764 the larger photoshite claim is a fallacy, because it is one of the generalised myths given as the reason to get a FF / 135 sensor camera. It is ONE way to design a FF / 135 sensor, (generally for photography), but it's by no means the rule. In fact probably 85% of cinema cameras scale up the size of an existing sensor design. So as the sensor size increases, so does the resolution.
Cheap FF lenses are based on 100 years of lens development. A computer program given very basic perimeters can kick out the design for a 35, 50 or 85mm and you have a bog standard £200 prime, with a picture quality to match the price. Anyone who uses that type of lens can expect to get what they pay for... but that's not the rule for FF / 135 lenses. You only have to look at the prices for new RF and Z mount primes and also the professional applications they are used for to know understand their resolving power.
Lenses made for smaller formats do have different design considerations, the sharpest lenses Zeiss ever made for cinema were the DigiPrimes, and they only cover a 2/3 inch CCD sensor. But the smaller the format, the more wide focal lengths needed. There is very little need to make a 9 or 12mm lens for FF / 135 (although they do exist), but for MFT these offer very standard angles of view. Good wide angles, even today cost and that is one reason a lens for MFT aren't as cheap as the cheapest lenses for FF / 135.
The reason the OP is seeing "a weaker image regarding detail and, particularly, chromatic aberration" could come from a number of sources.
What FF / 135 lens is being used? If it's cheap or VERY old or even damaged - obviously there can cause issues.
How telecentric are the lenses being used. This is one of the central reasons for camera manufacturers moving to mirrorless mounts, as it allows for better (and simpler) more telecentric optical design. This was not the case in the past and so using some older lenses on modern sensors (irrespective of resolution) can cause issues.
The design of the specific sensor can also be an issue, strength of the OLPF, the design of the sensor stack itself... all of these can interact in unexpected ways with certain lenses, creating very nasty aberrations.
Without knowing what FF / 135 lenses are being used, on what camera it's hard to say what is or could be causing the issue. After all for all we know the OP is using a £200 lens... or he could be using a £20,000 lens...
It's also worth noting that many people are using older vintage rehoused lenses on modern S35 sensors. From a technical level, resolving power etc these don't come close to many modern FF / 135 lenses, or even MFT lenses... but still resolve excellent detail, with good sharpness and low CA.
can I use my full frame lense 24-70 in apsc super 35?
I have a very important question. If I mount an RF lens on a speedboster adapter in my canon C70, do I get the same view without the crop as if I mounted a full frame lens for full frame sensor? can anyone tell me?. I don;t want the crop in my canon C70, I am considering to buy a speedbooster, but I have RF lenses, not EF. anyon for help me?
The RF lenses are the new and more expensive EF lenses, in very basic terms.
RF lenses are FF, I don't think you need a speedbooster at the risk of lowering your image quality.
As a stills photographer learning video creation your content is always appreciated.
I understand the reasons for 35mm and FF and that MFTs has a roll to play, but where does APSC fall within the line up?
Or is it that there are limited numbers of Creators using that as an option.
Thanks again.
APS-C sensors are of a very similar size to Super 35, to the extent you can almost use the terms interchangeably. If you were to buy EF Super 35 cine lenses they would cover the sensor on your Canon 80D for instance. Likewise you could stick a Canon EF-S zoom on a Super 35 cinema/video camera with EF mount like the Canon C300 MkIII or the BMPCC6K and your coverage would be totally fine.
1.5x crop for Superr 35 and 1.6x crop for APS-C
In terms of lenses made for APSC / S35 - that is where most of the good cinema lenses are... as 3 / 4perf is 35mm motion picture format. You can use lenses made for FF on APSC / S35, but you will often be using larger, heavier lenses than needed for the format. There is also the issue of light spillage, inside the mount, as you have a much larger image circle than needed. This is why lenses will often have a mask to restrict the FF image circle when used on S35.
@@ZacharyWillFilms there is no set crop factor for Super 35 it encompasses a range of sensor sizes. Roughly 1.55/1.6x would be normal from what I can tell, but it can be less or more. APS-C crop varies by camera manufacturer. Canon use 1.6x, some others use 1.5x sensors. Plus there’s also the issue of aspect ratio which complicates and attempts to compare. In general it is best to simply check a given lens image circle diameter (stated in its specs) against the diagonal of your sensor, which you can work out simply using Pythagoras’ theorem.
limited numbers of creators naaaa..i would not say that...mostly youtubers/vloggers are using the FF as standard...in the cinema industry, s35 is the standard. Most films and commercials are shot on it...FF was pushed by canon marketing to insane level and it got stuck that s35/apsc is crop as a mean to show that its the lesser option but its not... I mean see eng cameras or the sensor size used in sport cameras even in 2022.
Wondering if I should get the FF or S35 for Meiki Cine primes for BMPCC 6K pro.
6k pro full frame right? the FF is for you
Very interesting video and what is this for a speedbooster in 6:01 ?
Thanks for watching! That’s the DZO 1.6x Expander, so you can get S35 lenses to cover full frame sensors. Jake
So if i was using a S35 camera and wanted to get as close as possible to the field of view(width) I see when using a 35mm lens on a FF sensor, I’d be best to get a 24mm S35 lens?
Hey Jake, It will depend on what you are comparing to and from, but crop factor of FF to S35 is roughly 1.5x. So if you want to match a 35mm FF FOV, you would take 35 / 1.5 = Roughly 24mm. Jake
Imo the biggest pro of FF-lenses on S35 sensors is the reduced cats-eye shape of bokeh balls.
you forget something... using a full frame lens on a smaller sensor... risk of flare, because the image circle is larger... lens shade is important !
Hi David, Im quite interesting on this part, could you please give more detail how it works ? Lager image circle cause more flare ?
@@redc5984 larger image circle, means more light bounce around the sensor… possible reflexion, it can reduced the overall contrast… matte box is important ton cut the angle of view...
You invest in something, not “into”.
yes!