August 02, 2014, 04:43:42 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 - CarlMillerPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 01:11:10 AM »
You cheap out on food and anniversary gifts to ensure have enough for all the camera stuff you want.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:09:04 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

Yep.  According to nearly every review, too.  Everyone take a step back and breathe then answer honestly.

If Canon had released this lens with a red ring on it:  People would be singing the praises of its sharpness and color, contrast, and maybe some would swear that they can detect a certain undefinable something; something which can't be put into words, something which stirs the soul, etc...  And the price would be double or more.

If Zeiss had released this lens:  There would be no autofocus at all, and people would scoff at those lesser shooters that depend on such a pedestrian crutch as autofocus.  People would marvel at its sharpness and color rendering.  The images would send viewers into spasms of joy due to their sublime, yet undefinable other-worldly quality.  And the price would be four times what it is now.

EXACTLY.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 03:38:45 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

4
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:42:20 PM »
Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

5
Pricewatch Deals / Re: SanDisk Sale at B&H Photo
« on: July 17, 2014, 02:48:12 PM »
Like many, I got the 64gb 1066x Lexar cards for $88 a pop when they were on sale. Ordered in May and they didn't come until last week. It's really a supply/demand issue - they will come eventually.

6
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 11, 2014, 02:59:15 AM »
Get the Sigma, it's definitely built better than the Canon.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 09:28:55 PM »
The two I'm most hoping for are the 24mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/1.8/2 OS. The 85mm would be welcome but I have a Vivitar (Rokinon/Samyang) 85mm f/1.4 that I'm extremely happy with (which is strange, as its contrast is pretty bad and flare control non-existent, but I just love the aesthetic it gives; very filmic). I'd also love a 24-70 f/2, and I wouldn't care how heavy or big it is. However, I'd still be stoked if they put out a 24-70 f/2.8 OS offering, as I do video a lot.

Additionally, if any of you checked out sigma-rumors they also have this exciting lens listed:
  • 16-20mm f/2 DG Art - listed as "60%" likely.

I would LOVE a fast uwa zoom like that. I shoot concerts a lot from the pit and I need the fastest glass I can get. They did list other focal lengths as possible (16-24, 14-20) but with a f/2 constant aperture I imagine they'd have to keep the zoom range short. 16-24 would be ideal for me. Wouldn't have to get a 24mm f/1.4 in that case!

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:54:51 PM »
My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

I just can't see Canon being 'daring' or smart enough to 'dare' put 10bit internal recording though or fixing up DIGIC so that it doesn't go all plasticky on everything. But what you suggest would be VERY nice, 10bits 4:2:2 4k that is crisp and keeps the fine detail and noise and doesn't do the nasty stuff that digic does even at ISO100.

I  hope Canon is "smart enough;" they certainly need to be at this point in the game. They're losing so many to the Gh4 and A7s, and those still holding out for Canon's "answer" are going to jump ship if it doesn't deliver. But, like you, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Canon fails epicly. 

Conversely, they could just make the 1D C $3,500. That video set at that price point is what they need to give. The problem is that on the stills side, it's the 1d X. I'd be all for Canon dumbing down a 1D C on the stills side (to more of mark-III capabilities, maybe even less), and then rebranding it as a baby 1d C. Or, better yet, put it into a 5d body and call it the 5D C. I honestly don't need any new tech than what is already in the 1d C. 

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 04, 2014, 07:46:19 PM »
My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).


10
You definitely need some flashes, but skip renting the Canon flashes and purchase some Yongnuo's for about the same price. Either the YN 560 III (which has built in radio triggers) or the YN 565 (if you want TTL). Personally, I'd recommend learning manual flash, but go with TTL if you don't have the time. I sold my 430ex II and bought 3 of the YN 565 for about the same price. Couldn't be happier.

This setup is definitely a bit much to master for your first wedding, but with the YN 565 and the Yongnuo 622 triggers I can control the output on EACH individual flash (and switch from Manual to TTL, put on rear-curtain, etc.) all from the back of my camera. Pretty handy, and all for the price of one Canon 600ex-rt.


11
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: July 01, 2014, 05:19:52 PM »
An answer to the GH4 and A7s. Canon is losing its video shooters by the droves, me included. We're all keeping our Canon glass, but won't forever.

12
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 02:13:56 PM »
At 12800+ ISO due to lack of light at f/4 at a dim event, it will be fuzzier and noisier at all apertures than the f/2.8L II at f/2.8 ISO 6400.  So to answer your question, no :)

That's probably the only case in your favor :)

It is the primary case for the 16-35 II, yes.  But it is a crticially important one for event photographers that many reviewers appear to be overlooking.   One has to remember one of the business goals of review sites is to drive lens sales.  That is one reason forums are important, to obtain all sorts of opinions from people who usually have no vested interest in pushing a product.

Then again, most event photographers probably don't need a reviewer to note this since it is rather obvious.

Agreed. I photograph concerts and film weddings, and don't even bother to bring my 17-40 to the latter as it's just too slow. I'd like to upgrade and considered this newcomer, but f/4 is just death at a reception and so I'm looking at used 16-35 II at the moment. Maybe I should just hold out for Canon's mythical 14-24 f2.8

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 04:30:24 PM »
4K video or not? I'm a filmmaker, so I know I'm in the minority here.

If it doesn't come with 4K H.264 or built-in RAW video, I won't even think of buying. Canon needs to step up their game for us video folks.

Came here to air my thoughts and agree with you 100%.  The majority of people here seem to want LESS video features, but I really want to see MORE video features incorporated and the ones that are there already improved.  4K for this camera is almost a must for me to consider.

I make wedding films, and I'm hoping Canon delivers on the video features. My finger is twitching over the "buy it now" button for the GH4 and A7s, but I want to give Canon the opportunity to respond to those products. I don't necessarily need 4k, but I do want better DR and sharpness. The 5D with Magic Lantern is currently getting the job done, but the highlights are blown and and the detail mushy. Yes, Canon has already done it with the 1DC and C100/300, but Panasonic just did for $1,700, and Sony for $2,500. Come on Canon. 

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 26, 2014, 07:31:22 PM »

Mirrorless camera sales are tanking, they took off at first, but then sales dropped drastically, particularly in the USA and Europe. 

First, Canon dumped thousands of "M" bodies for give- Away Prices, and then a couple of weeks ago, I saw thousands of supposedly refurbished Nikon J series Mirrorless cameras going for $160 on ebay, and that included Lightroom 5 which was a $80 value.  They can't give them away.

This means that you won't be able to sell it if you decide to change, most people do not want them.  Its not a comment on the quality of the images or operation, just that they are not selling well.

I bought my 5D MK III from Adorama 2 years back for $2750 with a 2nd Genuine Canon battery, and it has not dropped in value all that much.  Neither has your 5D MK II.


Mirrorless tanking? Canon mirrorless, definitely. Others systems, not so much. If the OP is interested in a smaller system, check out the Panasonic GH4, Olympus OM-D EM-1, or the coming Sony A7s.... especially the A7s.

And making your decision on potential resale value is a horrible way to approach it if you're not a professional.

15
Lenses / Re: Traveling to the UK/Ireland
« on: May 24, 2014, 09:38:55 PM »
Definitely the 24-105 and 50. The zoom will cover your landscapes/architecture and the prime will be useful in low light and for portraits. I went to Ireland a couple years ago before I was able to afford any decent gear. All the pics below were taken with a Sony point and shoot (DSC-W80). Would love to go back with my current setup.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7