August 28, 2014, 11:19:35 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 - RunAndGun

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:08:12 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).
That's crazy but not too surprising.  I've worked with actuaries at insurance companies before and they are actually a logical bunch, but the people that you deal with are often quite irrational.  What I know for sure is that you need to be totally honest upfront because they'll find any excuse they can to avoid covering your claim, and the larger it is, the more they dig.

That brings up another good point for everyone.  Please make sure your insurance includes coverage for "mysterious disappearance".  It's when your gear is stolen or lost without explanation.  For example, you leave your gear in your unlocked car at a wedding reception, state park, etc., and minutes later you return and it's gone.  You have no witnesses, no fingerprints, and there's no damage from a break in or something, and the police report indicates just that.  These types of claims are considered a red flag for fraud and many policies exclude coverage altogether.

I actually could rationalize the website part better than I could the TV part.  Nowadays, it seems EVERYONE has a website for everything, but his was probably about 10 years ago…  So many people in this business advertise/list their equipment packages on their sites, especially when it comes to the cameras du jour.  You can get calls JUST because you own a certain piece of gear(C300 is a PERFECT example), whether you're any good or not.  Even if you don't list your address, it doesn't take too long for someone that wants to know it, to find it.  So as an insurance co(and sane person), I can see where a website could be considered a liability(and a shopping list for a thief).  I just didn't get why they considered the liability higher/unmanageable for TV vs. Stills.  Yes, our gear costs more(WAY more), but they said they were fine with the dollar amount of coverage I wanted.   It was probably just ignorance/lack of understanding on the ins co's part, since they don't specialize in the field like the company I deal with for my business policy.

2
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:05:08 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).

3

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself.  More light, not less.  IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly.  Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.  :)

Yes.  I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure).  It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital.  Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8?  8)

4
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 20, 2014, 09:38:50 PM »
My policy is "replacement cost", covers rental gear and errors & emissions and liability coverage of $2mil.  This is a true business policy and my premium is about $1800-$1900/year.  But well worth it when you look at the fact that a catastrophic theft would total more than a house.  My first(and thankfully only) theft, which was largely just lighting and grip, went well over $40K, not counting personal effects and damage to my vehicle.  And that was almost a decade ago.

5
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 05:44:14 PM »
I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.

I just dont see how it's possible. You have to lock the mirror up to shoot.  Only way to do it is mirrorless.

Right, you would need an OLED screen mounted in a way that if turned on when the mirror is away it could get its light through the viewfinder. I should try to patent this idea.

Btw - all the people saying the photography portion cannot be improved. I disagree. I think the dynamic range could still get an improvement. You know dark areas and bright sky. Way to go in this regard.

Why would it need to get light through the viewfinder?  OLED panels are self illuminating.  They don't require a backlight source like an LCD panel.

But anyway… I would like to see high quality EVF's on DSLR's.  The optical VF's on still cams, even on 5D series and 1D series cameras, are almost microscopic in comparison to what I'm used to on the motion side.  I believe my color LCD EVF's on on my VariCam's are 3" panels and the Alphatron on my C300 is 3.5".  And the newer OLED EVF's(like on the Sony F/5 and 55 and Panny's new VariCam and the new Zacuto Graticle) could be adapted to stills use(they are less than 1" and are more highly magnified than the larger LCD's and still beautiful) and make everyones life much easier and better.  They could even be articulated like we have on the motion side so you wouldn't need an angle finder or have to use the rear panel.  Yes, you would have to have power to look through it, but if you haven't used a quality EVF, you don't know what you're missing.  I've had 5 series still cams(ii & iii) for almost six years and been shooting TV with EVF's for over 17.  I'll take a high quality EVF any day of the week(especially the newer color flat panel tech over our old 1.5"-2" B&W tubes) when I actually need to see and focus(remember, we're focusing everything manually).

6
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:27:38 PM »
Are you asking for personal or business?  If it's just personal gear, it's probably covered by your homeowners(or renters) policy, unless it's an unusually large amount.  My business policy doesn't require me to specify or serialize my gear(although having a list of everything with serial #'s is a good idea.  Helped me immensely when I had a large, almost complete theft eight years ago).  I just told them the dollar amount I wanted.  Depending on your deductible and what is stolen, it may not be worth a claim(i.e. just a small lens), or it may save your @$$(i.e. an 800mm or in my case, I work in TV and even "inexpensive" things may be several $K).

7
Dear "J,"
……………………..
……………………..

 Just remember this. It is not you...it's him.

Now THAT is some funny $h!t, I don't care who you are.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next for Cinema EOS?
« on: June 10, 2014, 09:43:29 PM »
Low budget indie crowd is generally shooting Alexa.

And major big studio features and major episodic TV shows and even TV feature pieces….

I would say you see way more RED's on indie set's and Alexa's on major Hollywood features and TV show 

It may not be a 4K camera, but the Alexa is the digital workhorse of features and TV shows.

9
The 17-120 is nice... And will outlast any camera that they could have announced.

Haha yeah it's nice for the video industry but I doubt many people on here have $33k lying around to buy one. Prosumers got the shaft that's all there is to it.

NAB isn't for prosumers. 

There's a lot of good, quality gear has gotten down to prices that 'prosumers' can afford(and some IS aimed at that market), but they're not the main target customers of most of the manufactures/companies that are there and the products that they are selling.

10
Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 29, 2014, 03:28:30 PM »
I don't have the EF 50 f/1.2 L, I have the CN-E 50 T1.3, which is based on the 50L.  It is not a spectacular lens close up.  It seems fine a working distances of at least several feet, but once you get into the MOD area, it gets soft/milky with the aperture wide open.  I've also heard billions of complaints(ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little) about Zeiss' 50mm(the still lens and cine version-CP.2) being a junker, too.

The 85 f/1.2 L II and CN-E 85 T1.3 are both awesome.  I love the 85 L on my 5DIII.

I have yet to understand the almost obsession and reverence that people have with a 50mm lens.  I do not own one for my still cams, and of the set of CN-E lenses that I own(14, 24, 50, 85 & 135), the 50 is the LEAST used focal length.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases Some New Lenses
« on: April 18, 2014, 05:03:29 PM »
They're talking about cine lenses.  Look at the geared focus ring and the 'T'.  Samyang/Rokinon and Tokina have become very popular with a lot of people that have Cx00's, F5/55's, DSLR's and the like.

12
Man who would have thought the answer was "not a damn thing."

The 17-120 is nice... And will outlast any camera that they could have announced.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: April 03, 2014, 12:23:58 AM »
I've never used the C100, but most that have them seem to love them and there's no doubt that the image it makes is very good.  Personally, the ergonomics of the Cx00 series don't fit my shooting style, but others LOVE them and if you're one of those that do like it, you can probably do great things with it.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: April 03, 2014, 12:08:04 AM »

What are you using for ENG now? What would you get out of the new stuff?
Right now I have a 5D3 and EF lenses (16-35, 24-105, 70-200 2.8, 2x teleconverter, 28 2.8 IS, 35 f/2.0 IS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro), EOS-M with adapter, and 60D, Tokina 50-135 2.8, Tokina 11-16) and a bunch of other gear (audio, tripods , etc).

I do some event coverage, and documentaries. I want to do more of this. I have been thinking of the C100, at least my lenses would be useful. But I'd also like to have something all-in-one, quick to grab, with a GP all around lens. Thinking of the XA20 or XF200, or maybe even just a little Panasonic camcorder. Not sure what to do. C300 is too much $. Don't know much about the new Panasonic GH4 (with the audio add-on) but I suspect this cam is over-hyped.

What do you think?

My 'bread and butter' camera is a Panasonic 2700(P2 VariCam) w/Fuji HA13x4.5.  I bought the C300 mainly just for sit-down interviews and 'artsy b-roll' for feature pieces, but I do work on one show that specifies the C300 as THE camera(The bulk of that show should really be shot with a "real ENG" camera, but a lens like the 17-120 would help).

I've never shot extensively with a 5 for video.  I have two mkII's and a mkIII, but I bought them for stills.  But I have used my mkIII a few times for a third or fourth angle/lock-off.  We've all seen the beautiful images that can be made with it, but I couldn't imagine trying to cover an event with one.  I look at them primarily as a still cam, but if I look at it in the video sense, it should be more of a specialty camera (interviews, specialty shots/b-roll) not a general ENG camera substitute.  You would be much better served with a true camcorder, like the XF200 you mentioned.  The ergonomics would be MUCH better and the smaller sensor would help, too.  A large sensor when trying to cover an event ENG style can be a hinderance.  Wide aperture lenses wide open with a large sensor equals SHALLOW depth of field which can also equal frustration and missed/blown focus when you really need it.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: April 02, 2014, 07:15:48 PM »
It's not always just about weight.  My ENG camera(lens, battery, VF) is 25-30 lbs and I can shoot a lot longer(and better) than I can with my C300 that clocks in around 10lbs(grip, batt, LCD, and a lens).

That being said, at this point in time, I don't see this lens becoming a part of my arsenal.  Even as ideal as it would be for one of the shows I occasionally work on with the C300(and their rate really doesn't justify it).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12