<-- Recently got hired to run off and shoot for eight weeks

tissues and baby oil

>eight weeks straight
>shooting video and photo every day 24/7
>What should I bring?
I would suggest Ritalin or Cocaine, but I don't think it'll be enough

>>3067778
Maybe meth+cocaine...but you're still looking at around 10 days maximum.

>>3067778
>>3067779
Yeah. Pay's not even that great but, eh it's something to do. I don't have much else going on right now anyway.

Rn I'm going Fuji X-T1 with my E1 as a backup, selling my overpriced Nikon cause it's nowhere near as good. Along with some nikon and fuji lenses (all prime).

Lots more gear too, can give a whole run down if anyone wants to know.

>>3067774
LOL is it some travel couple that wants videos for social media??

>>3067781
>Along with some nikon and fuji lenses (all prime).
That's going to be a royal pain in the ass. For ultimate versatility just do the holy trinity with a variable ND plus stepper rings and a cpl. You'll be ready for most anything without having a giant load to lug around.

>>3067784
Just not a fan of the trinity man. I shoot concert photography professionally with prime lenses, usually just a 35mm. You just have to see the shot, learn how to move your feet, ect.

The trinity is just too damn expensive and the high-element zooms look like shit no matter how costly they are or who makes them. I hate zoom lenses because of this, it just processes the image like crazy. Making your subjects look like cardboard cutouts rather than subjects it feels like you can reach out and grab. Not only that but the fact that they have much higher detail and precision compared to any zoom lens, just as long as its a good fixed focal-length lens.

I'd rather have a few quality shots that blow the client away rather than a bunch of shitty ones from a zoom lens.

You ever see those really cool four/five element vintage portrait lenses? Only reason they look so amazing is because of the low element count. The more elements there are the worse the final image is going to look; they just can't properly process believable depth.

>>3067794
Fair enough, but it sounds like you're working on at least some level of production where you won't necessarily have the luxury of being able to move where you need to to get a shot.

>>3067794
>I love spherical aberrations, the post.

Nothing wrong with that senpai.

File: Figure_27_06_03.jpg (105KB, 774x320px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 774x320px

>>3067796
I always manage. Again- still never anything you can get with a trinity set that I can't get with a few primes. Just takes time learning how to move and how to see the shot before you look through the viewfinder.

>>3067798
I seriously hate the look of zooms man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgve4QYR9D0 <-- this guy explains it much better than I ever will.

>>3067801
>I always manage. Again- still never anything you can get with a trinity set that I can't get with a few primes. Just takes time learning how to move and how to see the shot before you look through the viewfinder.
Love to see you zoom in during video with one of those primes.

>>3067801
>quoting that autistic video
Ignoring that bullcrap, modern zooms are literally better in every respect than ancient primes. And if you "hate the look of zooms" that's your problem. Prime lenses don't make you look more "pro"

File: controller.jpg (95KB, 709x677px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 709x677px

>>3067802
You kidding me? Zooming during a shot in a video with a shitty zoom wheel on the lens barrel? Fuck that.
I use plenty of zooms in my shots during the broadcast camera operation work I do week in week out. Only reason for that is when I have actual motorized controllers that will deliver a smooth shot. Even then, at no point is just lazily moving a wheel on a lens barrel any substitute for actually creating a captivating movement, they're two different things. You really need to learn how to actually move the camera instead of just being spoiled with a zoom lens like most are. Trust me, it'll really broaden your horizon in terms of what stunning images you can capture.

<--- pic related

>>3067805
No no, I could care less about what a zoom looks like on the outside. I'm talking about the actual image quality.

What part of his video is bad? You watch the whole thing?

>>3067807
>waxes poetic about how using primes will broaden horizons while being too inept to learn to smoothly zoom manually

>>3067811
Trust me, all the broadcast professionals cringe when they see some shitty amateur videographer on youtube using his zoom wheel. It just doesn't look good, its sub-par.

Its one of those things thats hard to explain if you haven't really been doing live video work that's held to a really high standard.

File: FUJINON_UA22x8%20-%20cropped.jpg?itok=pQOUGVwi.jpg (53KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x500px

>>3067808
You mean you could not care less. And the video used the shittiest video quality to compare a screen with two of the most possibly different images with the worst pseudo-science possible. You can literally check the T-stops for various lenses on the internet. Prime lenses lose as much light as zoom lenses.

>>3067813
>broadcast professionals
You mean people that use lenses like these? Literally all studio broadcast use zoom lenses. It's cine where they use primes more.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1280
Image Height	961
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:03 10:19:42
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1280
Image Height	800

File: .jpg (28KB, 728x403px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 728x403px

>>3067813
Have you even seen broadcast lenses before?

>>3067813
Who said shit about using the barrel directly?
https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Cameras-Camcorder-Shoulder-Supports/dp/B00H7WFUVI
For such a professional you seem to not know shit about what you actually may need and what's available out there.

File: .png (83KB, 1206x647px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1206x647px

>>3067808
>video in how primes always have better light transmission than primes
This part actually pissed me off because of how wrong he is. Notice how all lenses have f/2.8 but they all lose a similar amount of light. The guy has no idea what optics design is since lens makers always account for everything, which is why zoom lenses are so expensive in the first place.

>>3067837
Search his channel for "gravity"

>>3067839
So the guy is a confirmed nutcase then? I guess everyone that subscribes to him is the same as well.

>>3067841
Pretty much. He's a good info source for what old Nikon lenses are worth picking up, but for anything remotely scientific or going deeper than "this lens you can find for $50 is pretty awesome", he's a retard.

>>3067837
dXo shitposting makes me rock hard

>>3067846
>shitposting
as long as you are comparing lenses on the same tested camera, the info is rock solid. nobody has a better database of lens stats than dxo.

File: fujinon_erd_10a_d01m_digital_zoom_demand_controller_1013130.jpg (328KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 2500x2500px

>>3067815
>>3067816
Yes. I know. Those are for broadcasting, I could go into why we use zooms for almost every single camera in a broadcast but it'd be lengthy and I don't feel like arguing about that.

>Have you even seen a broadcast lenses before?
That's what a broadcast zoom, iris, ect controller looks like dork. Did you really think that I was calling that controller a lens??

>>3067837

Never said he was right about those things, but everything he's been saying so far about element counts is the truth. You can't compare old low-element count vintage lenses to newer high-element designs. Unless you like shooting uninteresting flat images.

Besides, what kind of technologies do you think have changed in fixed focal length lens making in the past decade or so? Nothing, nothing at all. Other than sticking more 'advanced' autofocus control in the barrel and repackaging the same designs, along with a handful of new mounts, there's hardly anything thats changed. Really hardly anything you could improve on in the first place anyway.

>>3067899
^^ Exactly what shitty zoom lenses do to your subject. Just look at that compression.. ugh .

>>3067774

>I won't be getting paid much and the work will be intense

This is worst than that sound grip meme.

>>3067813
>Trust me,

>>3067794
Please stop listening to Angry Photographer's bullshit. He's an insane person.

>>3068054
Can you argue with him though? What he says about overpriced shitty zooms is the truth. I've used thirty year old lenses and brand new holy trinity sets and the fifty dollar fixed focal length lenses are always much, much better in quality.

>>3068114
What exactly do you want argued with?
His supposed facts? Those are easy as hell to debunk. Shit just don't work like that.
His and your opinion that older glasses produce better looking opinions? That's a personal taste thing and not worth mentioning.

>>3068114
He is wrong in terms of lens optics, design, and transmission. He has no idea how lenses are designed.