September 20, 2014, 06:06:40 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 - CarlMillerPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: Today at 03:14:35 AM »
I think they'll "answer" Sony on a tech/feature level, but not on a price-point level. I think Canon is okay letting go of the budget/indie filmmaker. I don't know the revenue that market brings in for them, but perhaps it's irrelevant. Maybe it's purely a branding decision (i.e. Canon doesn't want to be associated with the low-end video market). Maybe they're okay letting every student filmmaker, wedding videographer, and individual that's getting started in video go to other brands. Perhaps the same person in charge of video strategy also heads Canon's mirrorless strategy  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: Today at 02:09:35 AM »
DPAF and STM are for newbies and consumers that play around making videos, not professionals.

Yep, there are lots of newbies and consumers dropping $12,000 on a C300 to play around making videos.

Lol. You yourself don't even believe those purchasing a C300 are doing so because of DPAF. Troll.

My mistake. I guess you're just bad at getting your point across:

My point wasn't that people are buying the C300 for DPAF, but that Canon...decided to offer DPAF as a feature upgrade on a $12000 camera aimed at the professional market.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:12:22 PM »
Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.

Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.

Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

That's the bottom line.

This. +1

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:04:17 PM »
It's [7d mk II] now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).

Are you trolling?

The 7d mk II is at the BOTTOM compared to the competition, and it just came out. The 7d has mushy, detail-less footage like the rest of the Canon DSLRs. The A7s, GH4, A600, A5100, Black Magic Pocket Cam...they all destroy this brand new camera. Yes, it might have better ISO performance, but who cares when the image looks like crap anyway. And what about focus peaking, zebras, c-log, etc? They're all absent, and I'm so over depending on Magic Lantern to make Canon's viable for video.

Unless Canon has something up its sleeve for an affordable Cinema EOS cam, they're letting all their budget-minded filmmakers go to other brands. Tugela said it perfect:

It is possible that Canon think that maybe they can get people to buy two separate cameras, and therefore get revenue from that customer twice, but I doubt it is going to work if that is their plan. The people who want both functions want cameras that can do both, they don't want to carry two completely separate kits around with them. Professionals might, but consumers and prosumers generally will not. And since cameras such as the 5 and 7 series are marketed at the consumer/prosumers, Canon are basically shooting themselves in the foot and literally handing market share (for those who want both functions) over to competitors like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. And make no mistake, those companies are going to use the opportunity to get their foot in the door, and once that foot is in, the rest of the body is sure to follow.

EOS Bodies / Re: AE-1 Styled DSLR from Canon?
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:09:34 PM »
Only the hopelessly-hip would like the hokey-hybrid-viewfinder that Fuji uses. It took the X-T1 for me to take Fuji seriously.

I haven't used the X-Pro but the X-E1/2 are incredible for what they are.  The X-T1 is fantastic as well.  Fuji is playing it really smart by carving out their third party niche in the retro-stylish camera world instead of trying to out-DSLR Canikon.  The lens lineup/roadmap complements the cameras perfectly with top-notch, fast standard primes and great quality standard zooms. Their customer support and dedication to keep updating older models' firmware along with the new really builds trust in the ecosystem.  If I didn't do bird/wildlife photography primarily, subjects where they obviously can't compete, I would drop Canon completely for Fuji. They make really good stuff!

+1. The X-T1 would be my dream camera if it was FF. And I hear their 56mm f/1.2 is what the Canon 85 f/1.2 II would be if it could focus faster.

However, I really need EF glass for the video work I do. I don't have the money to have video AND photo lenses, each on different systems. Here's hoping Metabones makes an EF to X-mount Speedbooster.

EOS Bodies / AE-1 Styled DSLR from Canon?
« on: September 17, 2014, 03:29:40 PM »
Maybe some don't, but I think many of us love the feel and process of using a film SLR. Rotating through the shutter speeds. Deciding to set and burn 160 ASA film at 100 for slight overexposure when shooting portraits. Being able to see all your camera's settings without having to look at an LCD. Nikon tried to appeal to this sentiment with their Df, but fell short and ended up with a messy hybrid. Fuji seems to be doing it right, and I've been eye-balling the X-T1, if only based on aesthetics. I want Canon to put out something similar. I'd love to see an AE-1 styled digital body with at least the specs below:

  • Full Frame (6d sensor maybe?)
  • Shutter Speed Dial
  • ISO Dial
  • Exposure Comp Dial
  • LP-E6 battery, if possible
  • PC Sync port
  • No pop-up flash
  • Replaceable focus screens

Who else is interested in this sort of Camera?

PowerShot / Re: Official: Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:17:12 PM »
Why is Canon so in love with 20.2 mp sensors?

Price for the new battery and Wifi/LAN adapter is a joke.

Lenses / Re: Official: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:12:11 PM »
I'm actually glad to see Canon releasing a lens like this. Seems affordable FF is at least one trend they're willing to support.

Tamron must be reading my posts here on CR  ;) ::)

My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.

I think I can give up 1mm on the wide end for VC  ;D Glad I've been able to resist picking up the new Canon 16-35 f/4. Here's hoping Tamron's UWA is a good as their 24-70 and 70-200 VC lenses!!!

It really is the year of the lenses for third party manufactures lol. Pretty soon my kit will be nothing but Tamron zooms and Sigma primes.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 02:05:32 PM »
This is a solid camera, but with today's market it's almost a niche camera for sports & wildlife shooters. I can't think of a single reason a portrait, landscape, or event shooter would get this over the 6D.

It's not aimed at those people . . . but it is aimed at anyone who wants to capture something that isn't just sat still in front of them.  It's hardly a small "niche" is it?

So you're saying it's aimed at bad photographers who need 10fps and 63 focus points to get a good shot? The 6D (and every camera ever made) can capture things that don't sit still just fine.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 01:43:27 PM »
This is a solid camera, but with today's market it's almost a niche camera for sports & wildlife shooters. I can't think of a single reason a portrait, landscape, or event shooter would get this over the 6D. Maybe those who dabble in everything will.

Viability for video is yet to be seen. 4k is still pretty new so I think it'll still be used (at least a little bit) if Canon was able to fix their mushy, detail-less output and aliasing/moire problems. Honestly, I doubt it though. I think it's just going to look like either 70D or 5DIII footage, and those who were holding out for a Canon "response" to the amazing video coming from other manufacturers in this price range will move on.   

I do have to say, the omission of Wifi when it's almost 2015 is pathetic.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Rundown of Canon at Photokina
« on: September 04, 2014, 01:26:58 PM »
Oh, this is a very, very simple answer.

Regardless of what the TV manufacturers wish you would believe, 4K is a gimmick for every environment except a large commercial theater.  It is a way to try and sell consumers another piece of electronic equipment with exciting specifications that has no benefit.

Given the eye's resolving power and the average distance people sit from a TV, you need a bare minimum of 120" screen size to even physically see any difference at all - and even in that case, the difference is minute that would rarely be detected.  In reality, 4k is only useful for large commercial theaters which have screen sizes many times that size.

So, going back to your answer, why does an under $2000 APS-C professional camera not have 4k?  Well, most likely because if someone is filming something for a large commercial theater they are going to use something a bit better than a $2000 APS-C DSLR; if the filmmaker does use an APS-C DSLR because quality is not a priority, then obviously 4k doesn't matter either.  So, Canon is simply focusing on putting out a product with features that will actually be used by professionals in this price bracket, i.e. sports and birding.  4K would go unused by a professional in this type of camera.

And, why do smartphones and Panasonics have 4k?  Because it is a gimmick feature they can try to lure consumers to their product with, even if it has no benefit to that consumer in any application they could possibly use it in - except possibly that Panasonic could further profit by selling you a 4K tv so you can display your videos in native 4K (that in reality looks no better than 1080p even in a home theater). Still, with some juicy marketing the consumer will think they have the next best thing and revel that they did their research to get the latest and greatest technology; they will think that they got this great new feature even the expensive 7D2 does not have!  Unfortunately for that consumer, they were duped.

You think professionals who capture in 4k always intend to deliver in 4k?
Aren't you aware of the framing abilities 4k offers if you deliver in 1080p?
Aren't you aware of the sharpness, noise, and color space benefits of downsampling 4k to 1080p?
You think professionals would not use 4k if it were in the 7d2?
You think professionals didn't use the 5d and 7d?
You think professionals aren't using the GH4?
You think professionals aren't using the A7s?
You think professionals aren't using the Black Magic 4K Camera?
But most of all, you think professionals don't want something from Canon that can compete with the performance of the above cameras at a similar price-point?!?!

Maybe you think the only video "professionals" are those working in Hollywood on giant blockbusters. Just as the only "professional" photogs are those shooting for NatGeo and Sports Illustrated, right?

EOS Bodies / Re: A Rundown of Canon at Photokina
« on: September 03, 2014, 03:20:08 PM »
From the photographer part of my job- the 7d2 sounds pretty awesome! I honestly never expected this camera to be the high megapixel one. So 20 megapixels at 10fps with good ISO sound like a great deal to me. I am excited and may buy it!

From the videographer part of my job- seriously? We need 4k in not a 10000$ body. I think canon was caught off guard by the gh4 and a7s. For anyone who says that they don't want to cut in on their 1dc sales is not thinking. If that were the case then a 60d wouldn't have 18 megapixels like the 1dx. Thre are other features- base ISO, recording codec, fps , etc.

 This may make me buy something that has 4k on it from another brand as long as I can use ef mount. I am hoping to be  surprised by this anncouncement and get 4k. But I am also not just sitting at my computer refreshing canons news page.

Canon doesn't want to admit there are professional filmmakers out there using DSLR & mirrorless cameras for serious work. It's a real market that has developed (ironically, thanks to Canon), but that market is not going to move up to Canon's overpriced cinema line; there's just no reason to with what Sony and Panasonic are doing. The 7D II sounds like a fine camera. Nothing amazing, but fine. It will sell to photographers. I wouldn't mine one for photography purposes. But those interested in video are already spending money elsewhere, me included. The A7s is my new love. Not only does it take all my EF glass, but I can adapt FD glass on it as well (which you can't even do with Canon's current DSLRs). "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." - Steve Jobs. It's already happened for video.

Third Party Manufacturers / The New 50mm - Samyang 50mm f/1.4 (T*1.5)
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:28:20 PM »
The samples look pretty good to me. Question is how where they processed. Corner sharpness & price are also unknowns at this point.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8