March 05, 2015, 09:34:56 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - daveheinzel

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D Mark III. For video. Which one?
« on: December 28, 2014, 09:42:58 AM »
I currently use a 6D as my main video camera. I've used a rented 5DIII and have a little experience with that. I'm not sure how you're covered for audio, but I use a Tascam DR-100 for audio. I keep it separate from the camera and sync in post (FCPX). I'm very happy with the 6D. Every now and then I run into aliasing issues, but usually not. And you can learn how to minimize them with practice. I use the kit lens (24-105 f4) for a surprisingly large percentage of shots. I wasn't planning on using the lens much, but it's extremely useful in documentary and fast-shooting situations. When I have time, I'll use a 70-200 2.8, a Zeiss 50 1.4 and the 17-40 to complement its range (the 50mm 1.4 is magical). I'd get the 6D and put any leftover money into a solid rig, sound system, slider... pieces of kit that otherwise add production value to your video that your camera cannot.

Lenses / Re: Advice sought on Cropped Frame Wide Lens
« on: August 29, 2013, 11:56:05 AM »
I can only speak for the 10-22, which I have and use with my 7D and 60D. In the year or so since I've purchased it, it is the go-to lens for almost any occasion. I absolutely love it, and I very rarely go to my 17-40. It does take a bit to get used to the 10mm end, but it's worth the effort.

Lenses / Re: If You Could Have One 1 Lens...
« on: June 23, 2013, 11:58:43 PM »
One camera and one lens forever: Canon EOS 3 (film) and Zeiss 50mm 1.4. Ilford HP5. No hesitation.

From what I understood looking at everything made for cinema, they're pretending to sell everything at 10-50 times more their price just because they think every person working for cinema is freaking rich.

Just think: how much would ever cost to produce such lenses? Think also at the other Canon Cinema Zoom Lenses with astronomical pricing, think at the bolts and knobs (which are just plain stupid pieces of metal) made by RED as accessories for their rigs, they're as expensive as if they were made out of solid gold...well they aren't!

At this point I really wonder how do these lenses compare with the new Samyang T1.5 35mm AS UMC, Samyang T1.5 24mm ED AS IF UMC, and Samyang T3.1 14mm ED AS IF UMC which cost a fraction of that price (about $400-500), and we all know how spectacular is both the build and optical quality of Samyang lenses.

It largely comes down to volume. Canon is not going to sell many of these lenses, even if they were priced much less. The market is small, so they have to spread development and production costs over far less customers. But yeah... they're crazy expensive.

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N
« on: January 07, 2013, 12:18:03 PM »
I'm curious what selling points will be used to differentiate this from the cameras that exist on smartphones. They went to great lengths to make this friendly to "smart-phone photographers," but what's really going to want to make them shell out a few hundred dollars for this? I'd argue that general photo quality has gone downhill over the past five years or so, especially with the plethora of filters applied haphazardly to photos in the first place. But I'm not sure that the average consumer cares enough about actual image quality to warrant having a second device.

Anyway, interesting camera. I love the design, just curious about who it's going to appeal to and if it will be a success.

Lenses / Re: whats up with my focus?
« on: November 26, 2012, 11:12:36 AM »
That image is comparable to my best images with the 7D when I shoot at such a high ISO. That's why I usually stick with 1250 or less. Focus looks fine though. Try at a low ISO and see if that makes a difference. Corners on lenses that wide are usually a bit distorted.

Lenses / Re: Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 on Crop Body
« on: November 10, 2012, 01:35:13 PM »
I have this lens and use it with the 7D and 60D. It's a beautiful lens. I'm actually selling mine to get a mountain bike, as my hobbies are shifting. But I have really enjoyed it. I use it for both video and photo. For video, the large rotational distance between focus points makes follow focus awesome.

The one thing I'd caution you about is that this lens, wide open, out resolves your camera's focusing screen. As in, looking through the optical viewfinder, it's hard to tell if you've nailed focus on someone's eyes or on their nose. Using LiveView bypasses this issue, and with the swivel screen of the 60D, that helps shoot like this. I've done that a lot with the 50mm and prefer to use it on the 60D for this reason.

Here's a test video I shot just after buying mine:

Landscape / Re: Utah
« on: November 02, 2012, 09:53:18 PM »
Awesome photos Dave. I particularly like the last one. I have been all over the USA but never to the south of Utah. It's on my bucket list.

You've got to go. It's wonderful. If you don't mind a crowd, Arches is great. The hike to Delicate Arch is not very long (30-40 minutes) and is very rewarding. Sunset there is magical, even when you share it with dozens of people. Canyonlands is more remote and offers long hikes. And there are great photo ops at every turn. I struggled with wanting to leave my camera behind and just go hiking, but I couldn't bear the thought of not having the camera when I found "that spot." And "that spot" was all over the place.

Landscape / Re: Utah
« on: November 02, 2012, 07:22:17 PM »
It was a beautiful area - definitely worth going. Moab is very close to Arches NP and has several options for hotels. But I reserved a campsite in the park. You have to do this in advance during busy times. Daytime temps were warm but not hot, and night was cold but not freezing. It was a good balance between each if you're camping. Arches was borderline crowded, but if you go there not expecting solitude, it's not bad. Weekdays are better if you want photos without people in them. Canyonlands, especially the Needles district, offers more remote trails and great photos as well.

Landscape / Re: Utah
« on: November 02, 2012, 06:02:51 PM »
Thanks guys. Equipment is Canon 7D with either 10-22 or 17-40. I also used a polarizer (perhaps too much in some cases). Flash was a 580 EXII. I had gels but accidentally left them in the car. Instead of doing a one-hour round trip hike, I used a yellow poncho I had with me to color the flash. I had my white balance set to make the sky look blue, which made the naked flash look blue as well. I only had to do a slight correction in Aperture to this, but I was happy to get it close.

Oh and for the 35mm stills I was using a Canon EOS 3 and Ilford HP5.

Landscape / Utah
« on: November 02, 2012, 04:37:27 PM »
Hi all. I recently returned from a trip to Utah and wanted to share some photos. I have them all on my website organized into galleries here:

Some of my favorites are attached.

Composition of 12 35mm black & white stills.

Hiking in Colorado on the way to Utah.

Delicate Arch at night, illuminated by hand-held flash fired through yellow raincoat.

Lenses / Re: Why would you get this lens?
« on: September 25, 2012, 06:36:07 PM »
How come the 10-400 1.4L IS pancake isn't on the list? I'll take two.

Landscape / Re: Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:26:35 AM »
I'd vote for the 10-22. I have that one and the 17-40, and on my 7D and 60D, the 17-40 is just kind of "ok" in the wide department. I usually find myself shooting the 17-40 at 17 almost all the time, but with the 10-22, most of the time I'm in the 12-15mm range. I have a normal polarizer filter, and because I usually shoot zoomed in a little, I never see it in the corners. Not sure if it's visible at 10mm or not, but I can't recall ever seeing it.

I'm going on a landscape photography trip soon and will be primarily shooting with the 10-22, 17-40, 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8.

It's their 60 anniversary, so it should rather have exactly 60 AF points marked in viewfinder with Svarovski crystals cut with diamonds brought from the the mine below the Mariana Trench and every next year they could add another crystal as a service worth another 399E.

Haha, perfect.

I'm kind of disappointed that it doesn't have 72 cross-type AF points.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4