[Gary Huff]

[Todd Terry] “Of course this wasn’t a consideration before the DSLR explosion.”

Very true, I don’t think the Sony 18-110 is trying to be cine-style, but definitely video-centric with its servo zoom. Cine-style zooms are expensive, heavy, and manual, which aren’t a good option when you don’t work with budgets that routinely allow you a 1st AC (I’d rather spend that on a gaffer if it’s either/or).

I will say that in my time on film and commercial sets, I routinely see cine-style zooms as opposed to primes. Now, I would say the Canon 18-80 is a cine-style zoom that happens to have electronics in it, which is the best of both worlds. It’s compact, it has a servo, and it’s parafocal. Canon also markets it as a Cinema lens. Though, truth be told, I’d have the 17-120 if I could afford it, and use that 90% of the time.

[Gary Huff]

[Todd Terry] “I thought virtually all real cine lenses (and I’m assuming video zooms) were parfocal.”

I guess that means how you define what a “real” cine lens is.

[Todd Terry] “I know some SLR zoom lenses are not (and are only varifocal), but I thought that all legit lenses for motion work are.”

What separates a “legit” lens for motion work from a “non-legit” lens? If I shoot motion work with a lens that would not fall under definition of “non-legit”, does that mean the definition still works?

[Gary Huff]

[Bob Cole] “How does the AF work here?”

I usually have the AF set to “Face Detect” for interview situations. The C300 Mark II’s sensor size is the equivalent to 35mm motion film, so we’re not talking about insane shallow DOF like on the 5D or Sony A7 series. I have shot hours upon hours of footage this way and the focus is nailed 99% of the time. I have it set to a toggle so I tend not to leave it on unless the subject is moving around significantly.

For this spot, I had a single operator who was running the camera, but she was primarily moving it on the Dana Dolly for the parallax effect. I had the C300 Mark II set to Face Detect for the entirety of the shot, just in case there was any issue with the focus (this is not the 18-80 which wasn’t available at the time).

uTalk

For this spot, it was just me running the camera, so I had Face Detect turned on so that the camera would track and focus as I zoomed out. This is the 70-200 f/4.

Mercados de O’liva

Unfortunately I don’t have any 18-80 examples yet as I have only had it since very late December, and most of what I have shot with it hasn’t been released yet. However, the functionality is the same as with the above examples.

Now, all the DPAF gives you is a targeting reticule that you can move around and Face Detect. It doesn’t “lock-on” objects or anything.

[Gary Huff]

[James Harries] “Any guidelines on how to drive traffic to the video?”

You have to figure out how to get it in front of eyeballs. Most people just spam their Twitter/Facebook feeds and, unless you’re someone who has a ton of involved followers (like a celebrity) that usually doesn’t do anything. It’s take finesse and time investment in communities.

[Gary Huff]

[Bob Cole] “Do you own or use one? Is it parfocal when you are in manual focusing mode?”

I do own one and it is parafocal and works great, even when you have AF turned on. The Sony you mentioned is *not* parafocal, not mechanically. It is a cheat where Sony uses the AF feature on the camera you have it mounted on to “fake” being parafocal. I can do this with non-parafocal EF lenses on my C300 Mark II as well. The Canon 18-80 is parafocal mechanically and works with Canon’s DPAF focusing system.

[Gary Huff]

[Bob Cole] ” I read this: “According to Sony, the lens acts like a parfocal lens with the electronic autofocus function engaged. Actual parfocal lenses cannot be auto focus lenses and auto focus lenses cannot be actual parfocal.” Is this true? “

No, it’s not true. The Canon 18-80 f/4 is parafocal and autofocuses just fine. I would also ask where you saw this exactly because I cannot find it on the page for the lens you mentioned, either in the overview, Reviews, or Q&A.

[Gary Huff]

[James Harries] “Of course but the platform is also an important factor I think.”

Unless the platform is refusing to play videos you upload, it is not an important factor at all. YouTube can work just as well as Vimeo or Wistia or any other. If you don’t drive traffic to the content you want to be seen, the platform is a big fat zero in factoring in.

[Gary Huff]

[Kevin Camin] “I don’t think I’m starving the sensor of light if I’m lighting things correctly.”

Then your scene would have low contrast.

[Gary Huff] “Why would you underexpose? Well, some things actually [i]are[/i] dark, and you might want more contrast if you’re shooting to get as close to the final image as possible.”

Think of shooting an interview against duvetine. You aren’t going to “properly” expose the duvetine to keep it from being black in the image…you want it to look black and you probably don’t want any of the details (wrinkles, stains, etc.) that lighting it would showcase. Some cameras will handle this fine, otherwise will be noisy because of the way you are exposing.

[Kevin Camin] “My question is why would this produce less noise. “

Because the ISO rating of the camera has nothing to do with it. The ISO rating of my C300 Mark II is rated for 800 ISO because that is the amplification of the sensor where the DR is best. When shooting Clog 2, I cannot go lower. Clog 1 is rated at 400 ISO, which I suspect is the native of the camera overall.

[Gary Huff]

[Kevin Camin] “I was just wondering since the sensor doesn’t amplify at base ISO 800, what is it doing under that ISO, and would that really provide a less noisy image, provided we are lighting things properly.”

The answer is: it depends.

Noise comes from starving a sensor of light, not merely from the amplification of the sensor. Some cameras handle underexposed areas really well (C300 Mark II, A7S Mark II). Some cameras do not handle underexposed areas well at all (GH4). If you underexpose anything on a GH4, you get noise. Why would you underexpose? Well, some things actually [i]are[/i] dark, and you might want more contrast if you’re shooting to get as close to the final image as possible. This is where a waveform monitor comes in handy because you can actually see if you’re underexposing anything.

[Gary Huff]

[James Harries] “Apart fom vimeo, is there any other renown website to showcase and have exposure for film and video work?”

It’s not about the site, it’s about the traffic you drive to your content no matter what platform it is on.