And you thought Leica and Zeiss lenses were expensive?

On 2016-09-07 04:17:20 +0000, Rich A said:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/601812...orless-cameras

Have

to admit, I'd be curious to see what they are like.

I think I will pass.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/09/2016 2:25 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:


to admit, I'd be curious to see what they are like.

I think I will pass.


Same here!
Someone is in la-la-land if they think that's a consumer product...

On 9/7/2016 6:09 AM, Noons wrote:
On 7/09/2016 2:25 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:


to admit, I'd be curious to see what they are like.

I think I will pass.


Same here!
Someone is in la-la-land if they think that's a consumer product...

Since they're cine lenses, I doubt that Cooke is all that concerned
about the consumer market. In the world of video and cinematography,
those prices are pretty reasonable.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On 08/09/2016 13:06, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 06:27:55 UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

On 7/09/2016 2:25 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:


to admit, I'd be curious to see what they are like.

I think I will pass.


Same here!
Someone is in la-la-land if they think that's a consumer product...

One wonders what it actually does that makes it worth the price though.

No distortion, no colour or little colour error, the highest sharpness, little to no vignetting. Apparently.

All stuff that you can probably get "good enough" from an inexpensive
prime lens for still photography.
For cine you'd probably want close to zero focus breathing, a mechanical
construction so that there's nothing at all even slightly loose / wobbly
or uneven when focus pulling or changing aperture, focus gear ratio
suitable so that it's actually usable by the focus-puller on the crew
operating the camera, probably come in a set of primes with standard
T-stops and with consistent lens character so that when changing focal
length within a scene, it doesn't look different for every focal length
used.
Most of that doesn't matter at all for still photography.
Then because they're not being churned out in the thousands, they're
expensive - so tend to be rented as needed. So over-design them
mechanically so that they are as rugged as possible, and also so that
they're fully serviceable, not stuck together with glue and tape.
Then for the intended market - making movies with budgets of tens of
millions of $$$ - it's not going to be a clever move to suggest that you
could save a few bucks by using a set of Rokinon lenses or de-clicked AI
Nikkors instead of renting the best available equipment.

On 08/09/2016 02:06, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 06:27:55 UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

On 7/09/2016 2:25 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:


to admit, I'd be curious to see what they are like.

I think I will pass.


Same here!
Someone is in la-la-land if they think that's a consumer product...

One wonders what it actually does that makes it worth the price though.

No distortion, no colour or little colour error, the highest sharpness, little to no vignetting. Apparently.

No electronic controls, though?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 08/09/2016 21:23, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 22:07:19 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 08/09/2016 13:06, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 06:27:55 UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

On 7/09/2016 2:25 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:


to admit, I'd be curious to see what they are like.

I think I will pass.


Same here!
Someone is in la-la-land if they think that's a consumer product...

One wonders what it actually does that makes it worth the price though.

No distortion, no colour or little colour error, the highest sharpness, little to no vignetting. Apparently.

All stuff that you can probably get "good enough" from an inexpensive
prime lens for still photography.
For cine you'd probably want close to zero focus breathing, a mechanical
construction so that there's nothing at all even slightly loose / wobbly
or uneven when focus pulling or changing aperture, focus gear ratio
suitable so that it's actually usable by the focus-puller on the crew
operating the camera, probably come in a set of primes with standard
T-stops and with consistent lens character so that when changing focal
length within a scene, it doesn't look different for every focal length
used.
Most of that doesn't matter at all for still photography.
Then because they're not being churned out in the thousands, they're
expensive - so tend to be rented as needed. So over-design them
mechanically so that they are as rugged as possible, and also so that
they're fully serviceable, not stuck together with glue and tape.
Then for the intended market - making movies with budgets of tens of
millions of $$$ - it's not going to be a clever move to suggest that you
could save a few bucks by using a set of Rokinon lenses or de-clicked AI
Nikkors instead of renting the best available equipment.

No, not unless you wanted a "look." I've sold a lot of old, exotic c-mount stuff to RED users. But on the flipside, I've seen some things is movies I considered annoying, yet the filming was with very expensive lenses. Case in point, out of focus highlights with "pin-wheel" looking blur circles cause by a particular cine lens's iris.

How do you know that's not exactly what the director wanted?