October 02, 2014, 03:02:40 AM

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 - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
1
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II pricing and feedback
« on: September 29, 2014, 09:50:22 PM »
How could it be advertised as $1799 when the currently strictly enforced MAP is $2299?

It dropped to $2199 I think, with a $300 gift card. I'm not sure who got it for $1799, but after B&H's promotions and bonus cash it came to about $1820 or so for me...

For those who don't own what it's what you expect. It's sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 L but not much and not "tack sharp" until f4 or f5.6 but ok wide open. (The 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma is sharper at 1.8 than this lens at f2.8.) The bokeh is the harshness of a complex zoom, but is very clean without fringing. Clinical and smooth. Seems good for landscapes once you stop down. The IS jumps a bit and isn't really ideal for video.

Very nice lens overall. Great build quality and a joy to shoot with. Amazing AF. Seems like a good deal for the price.

2
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:57:02 PM »
How is the autofocus on the 50mm Art?

I have the 50mm f1.8 Canon (love it wide open) and the 50mm f1.4 Sigma from long ago... it is a surprisingly sharp lens with great smooth bokeh, but the autofocus is awful! Likewise the 18-35mm f1.8 is dodgy... but surprisingly irks on my 5D Mark III just not crop bodies.

Worries me. I'm ready to spring for the Sigma but want to see if anything better from Canon comes out first.

3
Canon General / Re: Gets the Job Done....Every Time
« on: September 23, 2014, 04:45:06 AM »
My Canon kit - It works. It does what I need it to do. It never fails me. Gets the job done....every....single....time.

Having now owned and played with multiple systems from different companies, I am truly learning the value of the Canon ecosystem.

With as much chatter going on as there is about all of Canon's deficiencies and shortcomings, I felt as though it would be refreshing to bring a different view and experience to the table. Sorry if this has already been stated elsewhere, but this is my two cents that I've come to realize as of late.

Without fail, I have never gotten frustrated with the functionality of my kit to the point where I felt that something else could serve me better in every facet of my shooting.

Having now owned an A7r rig, multiple modern Fuji rigs, and played with a Nikon rig, I have come to the conclusion that nothing really beats the overall functionality, completeness, and usability of my Canon kit.

Yes yes, I know. Canon Fanboy, right? Wrong. If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent my last 6-8k on trying out other company's offerings. To a fanboy, that is blasphemy.

Anyhow, I have found that comparing IQ between all of the rigs, I am generally splitting hairs. There are a finite number of instances where I actually look at an image and say "wow, I am so glad I own ABCD rig because the images are so much better than the rest."

The differences for me at least, are in functionality and feature set....not IQ. Sure, IQ on some levels can be slightly improved with my Canon rig. But assuming I properly expose (or get close) and properly compose (or get close), there is nothing IQ-wise that my Canon rig cannot accomplish.

The only reasons left when I really think about why it is I enjoy using other rigs are due to feature sets. For instance, A7r, allows me to use my TSE lenses with a very good manual focusing aid feature set. A smaller plus would be the increase in resolution and slight bump in DR (not as important to me). The xt-1 is super compact for what it brings to the table and has an even better manual focusing aid feature set (prefer it for all my old lenses that do not require electronic communication with the body). However, that's where the positives end for me when comparing them to my Canon DSLR.

For me, the autofocus is still way too unreliable and slow on every mirrorless camera I have owned or used. Battery life has been consistently atrocious across the board. Ergonomics are almost acceptable at best. And the worst part? The ecosystems range from barely starting to develop, or mildly developed and still lacking significantly. All of these things taken together make for systems that involve a lot of compromise. It makes them very niche/specific use tools.

This brings me back to my original point, the Canon rig that never fails. Slight shortcomings, I will admit, are present. However, as a general rule in my experience, it has always gotten the job done and I have never felt it lacking to the point where I looked to another system and felt that I could do better.

The one truth I have found, the grass is almost never greener....

100%. Truth is the real highly paid pros I know all shoot Canon and think even Sigma lenses would be insane (though they appreciate Nikon, if no other manufacturers, too).

Why?

Job done well enough is a pay check.

Canon is conservative.

Canon shooters are conservative.

Pros are conservative: good enough is still a paycheck.

I use a 5D Mark III and a C100 and love them both, but if I cared for pure specs over reliability and ease of use I'd have long since abandoned them.

But I don't.

4
Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:48:17 PM »

5
I try to never crop and try very hard not to rotate.

The horizon level helps a lot. On my 4x5 and 6x7 I would always use the lines in the finder.

I find rotating gives too big a hit to the MTF, especially for landscape.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 21, 2014, 07:23:04 PM »
No one uses timecode anymore. Plural Eyes is arguably better than timecode given sound travels only 1 foot/ms.

lol

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:48:25 PM »
I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Looking on shotonwhat for  at high end Hollywood movies, and TV dramas, C500 hasn't been used at all except for a couple of movies. C300 is more popular but with independent lower end filmmakers.

I'm just stating personal preference, having used all those camera systems, sometimes all on the same production.

The C500 is certainly the black sheep of Canon's current line up.

I get that red has some traction, but what "high end Hollywood movies" were shot on the F5?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 21, 2014, 03:02:42 PM »
Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost  Hollywood movies  and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

 

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.
As a struggling indie, I have all my fingers crossed for the Sony PXW-FS7, and that's about as $high$ as I can go  on a camera. Ergonomics look like they will be great, and I'm hoping IQ will be up there too. I like the fact that it has built-in shoulder mount, extending handgrip control, and so many other nice features right out of the box, like slomo at 1080p, etc.
I am interested in the C100 as well, but at this point I'd rather wait on the mark II version.

Neither the C100 nor the FS7 are appropriate for indie film production. The FS7 outfitted with the HDSDI deck might be, but without timecode sync you're SOL for dual system audio and I have found the timecode sync on the F5 to be unreliable and require a lock it box in the first place.

Rent? I have seen Alexa packages, with lenses, rent for a month for the cost of an FS7. F5 packages are very inexpensive, though I am not wild about the camera... see above.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 08:30:31 PM »
Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost  Hollywood movies  and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

 

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Yes, but note you say as a B cam. Not as an A cam for the biggest Hollywood productions.

Absolutely true. Need for Speed was mostly C500, but the for anything over 1-2 million dollars, you'd better have a good reason to use any other camera than the Alexa. With Need for Speed it was low light (and skin tones), for some Red movies it's because they want a ton of resolution for digital effects and don't care so much about a beautiful organic look (Fincher, Ridley Scott) or have relationships with the company or need the tiny handheld rig.

But yes, the Alexa is leagues above anything else out there. Maybe the Dragon is close.

I wouldn't put the Fx5 or Red above the C500, though. Only the Alexa stands alone.

One thing to realize is that most of the things hobbyists and artists consider "pros" professionals count as "cons."

Easy to use ergonomics for a single operator? Sounds great...

Most pro ACs will go on about how miserable it is rigging a C300 up to resemble an Alexa or film camera. A single owner/op could not shoot effectively with the large battery hog that is the Alexa, but for a film crew the ergonomics are great.

A great image out of camera? Sounds great...

Not if you have a a LOG-based workflow.

4k... awesome!

Not if your workflow is 1080p. MAJOR shows with millions spent per episode shoot prores 422 instead of prores 444 on the Alexa to save disk space and wouldn't consider 4k. Whereas most artists/hobbyists want to use the highest quality available.

Fwiw, 12 stops of dynamic range from the C300 seems like a big negative, but within that 8 bit codec wrapper of XF cam, it's as good as you can get. Much nicer than Sony's SLOG2 implementation in the A7s, which has weird colors.

Do you really want to be a pro? Then get a job in the camera department. Or do you want to be an artist? Then buy whatever you want. It's weird to me that people trash the elements of the C300 and Alexa that specifically make them attractive to pros (1080p and easy-to-ingest codec for one). Canon won't change that for you, but Panasonic and Sony will. So... jump ship and don't look back.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 08:11:00 PM »
there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.

In my experience (and I have used all of these camera families extensively in post and on set) there are HUGE differences. How have you been using them? Professionally graded at 800 ISO under daylight in a low dynamic range scene they all look quite similar. Push a little further and they're DRAMATICALLY different animals.

•C300 has by far the best low light. Red grain at ISO 800 3200K underexposed a stop looks like C300 grain at ISO 6400 underexposed a stop. Red handles 3200K light horribly. Also magenta highlights.

•Red has the most resolution.

•Alexa has the best color rendition, smoothest grain pattern, least skew (other than F55) by far, and BY far the best roll off of saturated highlight colors. F5 is awful in this regard (clips to saturated color not to white), Canon is ok (WideDR mode best), Red weird (clips to magenta but smoother), etc....

When shot carefully they can be made to look the same, but when shot carefully the DP will usually pick the best for the job. But I find these cameras enormously different.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 07:19:00 PM »
Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost  Hollywood movies  and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

 

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:36:27 PM »
Sony seems on a roll with video cameras:

1.  The A7s ... a tiny FF low-light monster that can do 4K with a recorder, and almost fit in your pocket.

2.  The Upcoming PXW-X70 which seems to beat Canons new XF200 on every spec, and adds goodies like HD-SDI, full size HDMI, wifi control and more ... for $1200 less!

3.  The upcoming PXW-FS7 which seems set to clobber the C300 in every way at nearly half the price. Reviewers are saying that this camera will even compete against Sony's own very expensive, and much larger, F5 and F55 cameras.

Can Canon afford to wait? Or will Sony eat their cinema lunch? What do you think Canon will offer against these formidable Sony cams?

Canon had it all in the bag, but seems intent and giving it all away due being too conservative these days, having too much fear of internal cannibalization and too little fear of outside, too focused on milking things for too long.

The 7D2 is a prime example. The image quality is already completely out of date and the camera is not even on the shelves yet.

The worst thing that ever happened to Canon video is the second Canon marketing realized their engineers had accidentally stumbled onto something big (and I saw accidentally, because they were so out of touch that they didn't even imagine anyone would possible want manual controls for video on a 5 series camera! they have these tight little focus groups so all they heard from was some PJ who wanted ultra automatic, easy run and gun video and totally missed the clearly obvious bigger picture, but as soon as marketing realzied the bigger picture they went into we better make some new high end stuff and make sure to cripple the DSLR video as much as possible and proceed as slowly as we can to milk, milk, milk). And now, as you say SOny has a serious movie camera for the price of a 1DC that utterly blows the 1DC out of the water for serious filming. They have the A7S that blow away every single Canon DSLR for in camera 1080p quality (if you want to deal with RAW, the 5D3 with Magic Lantern RAW is good though, but that is only because of some brilliant hackers) and with a $2000 add-on can record a nicer 4k than the 1DC (so that is $4900 for A7S+NinjaShogun+Metabones lens adapter vs $10,000 and the lower priced SONY option gives you better video quality)!

I agree, and I hope this is just part of the leapfrog game, because when Canon gets it right they can hit it out of the ballpark. But Sony seems to be reaching for the stars with these new releases.

Aye, I think Canon's lagging farther and farther behind the packs (yes, it's plural now. :P)

I think Canon could have reached for the stars with the 7D II, delivering a home run on every single technology front. Instead, they did the same old thing...improve a couple key features, threw in GPS (seemingly as an afterthought, otherwise I think they would have had both GPS and WiFi and possibly even NFC), and called it a day. Oh, wait...they threw in another layer if microlenses on the sensor as well.

A "reach for the stars" home run would have had a kickass wicked new sensor based on radical new technology (or maybe just technology as good as the competition), GPS, WiFi, NFC, Dual CFast 2, 4k video, basically all the bells and whistles. The Samsung NX1 sounds to me, technologically, what the 7D II should have been...a high resolution ISOCELL BSI sensor with high FPS, and all the bells and whistles. The only thing the Samsung lacks is a lens lineup and awesome customer support.

And an optical finder. And a tested, reliable AF system.

Without lenses and a decent finder (never seen an EVF that even compares), bells and whistles are just... bells and whistles. The 7D II is an actual, useable dSLR, which most dSLR buyers want. If all you want is specs, why are you going with the manufacturer that cares least about them? It's like getting upset when Apple doesn't put the fastest chip in their new rMBP and makes it thinner instead or something.... Canon is about the experience and creating useful tools, not necessarily the highest-specced ones.

Video/cinema cams don't have optical viewfinders.
AF is another big difference, although Canon's new DPAF system looks extremely promising for cameraman-interviewers.

Tell that to the Alexa studio (and every 35mm camera before that), but both the Samsung and 7DII are stills camera anyways.

Fwiw, "cameraman-interviewers" don't use AF, either!

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:19:11 PM »
Sony seems on a roll with video cameras:

1.  The A7s ... a tiny FF low-light monster that can do 4K with a recorder, and almost fit in your pocket.

2.  The Upcoming PXW-X70 which seems to beat Canons new XF200 on every spec, and adds goodies like HD-SDI, full size HDMI, wifi control and more ... for $1200 less!

3.  The upcoming PXW-FS7 which seems set to clobber the C300 in every way at nearly half the price. Reviewers are saying that this camera will even compete against Sony's own very expensive, and much larger, F5 and F55 cameras.

Can Canon afford to wait? Or will Sony eat their cinema lunch? What do you think Canon will offer against these formidable Sony cams?

Canon had it all in the bag, but seems intent and giving it all away due being too conservative these days, having too much fear of internal cannibalization and too little fear of outside, too focused on milking things for too long.

The 7D2 is a prime example. The image quality is already completely out of date and the camera is not even on the shelves yet.

The worst thing that ever happened to Canon video is the second Canon marketing realized their engineers had accidentally stumbled onto something big (and I saw accidentally, because they were so out of touch that they didn't even imagine anyone would possible want manual controls for video on a 5 series camera! they have these tight little focus groups so all they heard from was some PJ who wanted ultra automatic, easy run and gun video and totally missed the clearly obvious bigger picture, but as soon as marketing realzied the bigger picture they went into we better make some new high end stuff and make sure to cripple the DSLR video as much as possible and proceed as slowly as we can to milk, milk, milk). And now, as you say SOny has a serious movie camera for the price of a 1DC that utterly blows the 1DC out of the water for serious filming. They have the A7S that blow away every single Canon DSLR for in camera 1080p quality (if you want to deal with RAW, the 5D3 with Magic Lantern RAW is good though, but that is only because of some brilliant hackers) and with a $2000 add-on can record a nicer 4k than the 1DC (so that is $4900 for A7S+NinjaShogun+Metabones lens adapter vs $10,000 and the lower priced SONY option gives you better video quality)!

I agree, and I hope this is just part of the leapfrog game, because when Canon gets it right they can hit it out of the ballpark. But Sony seems to be reaching for the stars with these new releases.

Aye, I think Canon's lagging farther and farther behind the packs (yes, it's plural now. :P)

I think Canon could have reached for the stars with the 7D II, delivering a home run on every single technology front. Instead, they did the same old thing...improve a couple key features, threw in GPS (seemingly as an afterthought, otherwise I think they would have had both GPS and WiFi and possibly even NFC), and called it a day. Oh, wait...they threw in another layer if microlenses on the sensor as well.

A "reach for the stars" home run would have had a kickass wicked new sensor based on radical new technology (or maybe just technology as good as the competition), GPS, WiFi, NFC, Dual CFast 2, 4k video, basically all the bells and whistles. The Samsung NX1 sounds to me, technologically, what the 7D II should have been...a high resolution ISOCELL BSI sensor with high FPS, and all the bells and whistles. The only thing the Samsung lacks is a lens lineup and awesome customer support.

And an optical finder. And a tested, reliable AF system.

Without lenses and a decent finder (never seen an EVF that even compares), bells and whistles are just... bells and whistles. The 7D II is an actual, useable dSLR, which most dSLR buyers want. If all you want is specs, why are you going with the manufacturer that cares least about them? It's like getting upset when Apple doesn't put the fastest chip in their new rMBP and makes it thinner instead or something.... Canon is about the experience and creating useful tools, not necessarily the highest-specced ones.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:57:33 PM »
No it won't. Other camera companies are already introducing 4K into their consumer product lines, so Canon doing it later would still be a dollar short and a day late.

Canon doing it now is a day late and a dollar short.  After all, with the right ($1,000) software, you can capture 4K video on a freaking iPhone 5S.  The fact that so many multi-thousand dollar DSLRs sold today can't even do what a <$100 cell phone (with 2 year contract) can do is an utter embarrassment, IMO.

It's way past time for Canon to step up their game and quit treating decent video quality as an excuse to squeeze more money out of their customers.  It's not an opportunity for an upsell anymore; it's basic functionality.

Canon's XF Codec is already integrated into a lot of company's workflows. Very few channels broadcast 4k and it's very expensive to post in 4k.

There's a market for 4k in the consumer sphere (youtube distribution), not so much in the professional sphere, that's all 1080p except at the ultra high end. This isn't a consumer device, it's a professional one, and thus it's build on reliability and integrating into conservative workflows, not specs or features alone.

Look at how Arri is destroying Red in broadcast tv and in film... It's not because Arri has the better format (the Alexa does have a better image)... it's because it has an easier to handle, "lower end" codec in a lower resolution.

Consumers want the best of the best. Professionals want the worst (easiest/cheapest/etc.) that's good enough. If your 2 year old phone does it, stick with the phone.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 17, 2014, 06:35:05 PM »
More details of sensor
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_28_megapixel_aps_c_bsi_cmos_sensor/

Samsung used 65nm process to make these sensors compared to 20nm to make mobile Soc's. I think, Intel uses 16nm process to make processors. As they are keep on reducing this size, SOC's/processors  become more powerful and efficient.  Are there any benefits with similar trend for sensors. Which one Canon uses to make their FF and Aps-c sensors.

Canon uses a 500nm process on FF sensors, but it's possible the 7D and 70D use a 180nm process.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28