Questions Regarding 5D II

Two quick questions regarding the 5D II...

Keep in my mind that I take many pictures, but I'm mainly a film guy.

I currently only own one lens (24-105 mm).

1) Is there anyway to take a picture that looks exactly like it does through the viewfinder? For instance, I'll look through the viewfinder and it looks beautiful and natural with great falloff. I'll snap the picture and then forget about the ISO being high or the aperture too low. Is there a way to take a picture exactly as it seems through the viewfinder?

2) I just graduated and I'm getting more into film work. My price range is $500-1000. I need a lens that's great with depth of field and focus. Also, IS is needed. Any suggestions?

Thanks all in advance!

Well, I am not sure if there is an easy answer to your questions. First, in order to make the image look the same as it did through the viewfinder, you as the photographer have to make the exposure. The camera can guess, but the camera won't know exactly what you want the image to look like. Get to know the camera, it's quirks. Learn to see as the camera does.

Also, I have very few images that don't need some sort of post processing. Not sure if you are processing them or not, but a little processing can really make an image better.

As for the second question, are you looking for more or less DOF? I don't have the 24-105, but have been reading up on them and it seems like a great lens. What is it not doing well for you right now?

Mac wrote in post #12506774
Well, I am not sure if there is an easy answer to your questions. First, in order to make the image look the same as it did through the viewfinder, you as the photographer have to make the exposure. The camera can guess, but the camera won't know exactly what you want the image to look like. Get to know the camera, it's quirks. Learn to see as the camera does.

Also, I have very few images that don't need some sort of post processing. Not sure if you are processing them or not, but a little processing can really make an image better.

As for the second question, are you looking for more or less DOF? I don't have the 24-105, but have been reading up on them and it seems like a great lens. What is it not doing well for you right now?

Regarding your answer to the second question, I love my lens currently. I'm just looking for more depth of field. My filming style has always been sort of a Peter Berg hand held (not Paul Greengrass style though) style. I want some great DOF for over-the-shoulder shots as well as establishing shots.

Maybe it's just me but I find your question confusing. Do you want more DOF(ie more of the image in focus) or a shallow DOF(ie more foreground/background blur)?

If you want more DOF, set your aperture to a higher number. A lower number for just your subject in focus and greater blur.

The 24-105 wide open is F4 from memory. So you'll get more background blur(less DOF) if you set at f4 and get closer to your focal point.

swoffa wrote in post #12506915
Maybe it's just me but I find your question confusing. Do you want more DOF(ie more of the image in focus) or a shallow DOF(ie more foreground/background blur)?

If you want more DOF, set your aperture to a higher number. A lower number for just your subject in focus and greater blur.

The 24-105 wide open is F4 from memory. So you'll get more background blur(less DOF) if you set at f4 and get closer to your focal point.

Sorry, I want more shallow depth of field.

joecar2000 wrote in post #12507057
Sorry, I want more shallow depth of field.

Then you will have to set it in AV mode and the widest aperture (smallest number). So in the 24-105 that would be f4. The closer you are to your subject the shallower the DOF will be.
If you want even shallower DOF you'll need a lens that can get wider. Like f2.8 or f1.8 or f1.4 but we are talking extra dosh now if you stick with the canon brand. The "nifty fifty" is a ripper lens and dirt cheap for the results. It's a 50mm f1.8 lens and that will give you a shallow DOF.

Have a look on flickr.

I'm a beginner still myself so someone may be able to elaborate on the above, or correct me if I'm wrong.

As to your second question:
- I would recommend NOT to get IS. It's futile if you're shooting on a tripod, and if you're shooting handheld it doesn't do anything because there's too much shake. Invest in good stabilizers. Get a Glidecam HD2000/40000. It's a lot of money, but MUCH better and about the same you spend on IS.
- As for lenses: as you don't need the IS, just get old glass.
These are without a doubt the best lenses you'll find for the price:
Olympuis Zuiko OM 28mm f/3.5 - 50$, not a shallow DOF, but VEEEERY sharp. Amazing!
SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - 100-150$, super fast, tack sharp. As good as any 50mm gets.
Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/2 - 200$ (Ah Nikon! Yugh!) But seriously, amazing for the money.

Get those 3 lenses for 350-400$ and spend 400-500$ on a GOOD stabilizer.

I got a 135mm SMC Takumar f/3.5 (there's also a f/2.5, but that one was too expensive :P ) coming in, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be amazing! I'll let you know.

As you can see: good glass doesn't have to cost a lot. Especially when shooting video (when you don't need AF), it's a waste to buy 'digital' glass in my opinion.

Consider 50 1.8 or 1.4. Both fantastic "learning" lenses for shallow depth of field in the price range you mentioned.

PG1 wrote in post #12508115
Consider 50 1.8 or 1.4. Both fantastic "learning" lenses for shallow depth of field in the price range you mentioned.

I was thinking 50 mm 1.2 or 70-200 mm for shooting. What does everyone think of these?

Another thing I'm looking at is this - is there a lens that helps with NOT bending the image when the camera shakes? I've filmed and many times I'll move the camera a bit swiftly only to have the camera sort of bend. I have a feeling this is with every camera though.

#1 No ... Photo diodes and the human eye are two very different sensors.
#2 You need a large piece of film to get the depth of field where f/32 is the sweet spot in the lens

This might make your decision harder -- or easier -- as he gives you lots of choices.

But Vince LaForet is sort of Canon's go to guy when it comes to vetting out how to use the HDDSLR tech to its max. Remember, this is THE guy Canon picked to do their sample video productions when they introduced the camera.

He is a canon guy, so hes gonna recommend canon.....

But he says the first lens you need for film is the 24-70.. read it here:


http://blog.vincentlaf​oret.com/mygear/lenses​/

mattograph wrote in post #12512721
This might make your decision harder -- or easier -- as he gives you lots of choices.

But Vince LaForet is sort of Canon's go to guy when it comes to vetting out how to use the HDDSLR tech to its max. Remember, this is THE guy Canon picked to do their sample video productions when they introduced the camera.

He is a canon guy, so hes gonna recommend canon.....

But he says the first lens you need for film is the 24-70.. read it here:


http://blog.vincentlaf​oret.com/mygear/lenses​/

He seems to have recommended all of these:

24-70mm 2.8
50mm 1.2
70-200mm 2.8L
100 mm 2.8
135mm 2

I've been searching videos for footage and what it looks like. Does anyone have any information about these and whether they are worth the money or not?

Or should I just be worried about an audio set up? Ha.

Ok, had to re-read things, but I get what you're asking. You are using the 5D2 primarily for videos, and are looking to find a lens that provides a shallow depth of field, focuses quickly and has IS.
Couple of things here. As far as I know, the 5D2 does not autofocus during video, it is manual focus only, so the speed of the lens focusing is a moot point in regards to what you're asking. Secondly, the 'bending' as you put it, is known as jellyrolling, and is somewhat a intrinsic side effect of DSLR video. I know some cameras are worse than others, and firmware upgrades may help as well, but for now, you just have to avoid jiggling or move the camera rapidly, especially in regards to panning.
As far as what you should do for lenses, I would recommend prime lenses due to their wider apertures, which will help with the depth of field as well as being typically brighter, which will aid in manual focusing. If you are dead set on a zoom, try to get a shorter focal length with a wide aperture (like a 24-70 2.8) unless you plan on getting a steady cam rig.
I hope this helps you out.

joecar2000 wrote in post #12517967
He seems to have recommended all of these:

24-70mm 2.8
50mm 1.2
70-200mm 2.8L
100 mm 2.8
135mm 2

I've been searching videos for footage and what it looks like. Does anyone have any information about these and whether they are worth the money or not?

Or should I just be worried about an audio set up? Ha.

If you watch his movie, reverie, then go back to the lens listing, he has reference images for you to review. By looking at those, then back at the movie, you can see which lens he used for which shot.

Not super clean, but more than you get from most folks.

Quick question:

Does the 24-105 mm and 24-70 mm work on the 7D as well?