Thanks for your thoughts and straight forward answer! By the way how do you like the Rokinon Cine DS? That is the other lens I was considering if I was to go more of a budget route.
I must say I'm a bit surprised that there has not been more opinion from the community about this topic. Whenever reading various blog posts regarding cameras most people will bring up the fact that lens/lighting is more important than camera body. However now that two lenses are pitted against each other in two different form factors and price brackets there isn't much of an opinion. Also the fact that I've been advised to stick with the significantly cheaper photo lens was not expected. If lens is more important than camera body how is it that a $2,500 cinema lens will not significantly improve an image over a $500 photo lens?
Thank you for the input! However with photos being raw and a higher resolution than video wouldn't they show the flaws of a lens more so than video? Where a softer lens for example will be more appropriate for video than digital photography?
There are all sorts of films which justify all sorts of camera movements and shots. A Jim Jarmusch film comprising of mostly static master shots is not necessarily less cinematic than your standard action picture chock full of camera movement. Also different film justify certain cinematic language appropriate for the story.
This really is probably a lens issue, use a prime lens as it will give you a considerably sharper image.
You're right, my apologies. I did notice what you were talking about when comparing those two under exposed shots. In the video he does mention using denoiser for an optimal result yet you say denoiser will not play nice with 8 bit footage when gradient is present. So if I were to purposely avoid gradient and use denoiser would I be getting best image possible out of the camera?