August 21, 2014, 04:10:58 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 - jonathan7007

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
Lighting / Re: Mitros+ Owners: are you satisfied?
« on: August 20, 2014, 07:34:45 PM »
As the OP, I never got very excited by the Canon system because it seemed inflexible for me: events, sure, maybe, but then add commercial work on location: flexibility between systems is needed and I don't have clients here paying the margins for discrete kits all packed separately for different purposes. So mix-and-match to be able to do anything is my motto.

Scotty, thanks for the input. I might buy one.

The price struck me during this discussion as close to that of an Einstein head. That gave me pause. I usually don't run out of Einstein heads on location, but as an alternative for my next head: a Godoc 360 and a strato? Alternatively, because I usually use all this stuff on manual, a fifth Einstein head can be turned up and down with my Cyber Commander. (I fire the Einsteins with their dedicated trigger which is handier, holding the Cyber Commander in my hand for adjustment and sometimes flash metering.) That's very useful.

I have some thinking and comparing to do.

Lighting / Re: Mitros+ Owners: are you satisfied?
« on: August 20, 2014, 05:15:18 PM »
Conversation linked above (now in two threads) offers a lot of hands-on experience both from earlier this year and recent firmware affects. Jury's still out, I believe. See why I'd only buy ONE. (at least now): controller function OK once you understand ho it "thinks", response as a "receiving unit" for some of these commentators: not-so-consistent. But jury's still out (repeating myself.)

Lighting / Re: Mitros+ Owners: are you satisfied?
« on: August 20, 2014, 05:05:43 AM »
good test on output level consistency from a Mitros+ compared to Canon 580EXII models -- posted just now (!-read our minds...) at Fred Miranda

Very detailed.

Lighting / Mitros+ Owners: are you satisfied?
« on: August 19, 2014, 04:36:46 AM »
Comments on Amazon from the first months after release refer to overheat throttling and the success of the firmware upgrade in avoiding shutdown was 50-50 in the small number of comments offered. It occurs to me I should see if B&H have sold more... therefore might have more comments.

I have a Phottix three-Odin set and one Strato2 rcvr to round out the kit. I have used these for several different setups. I am considering buying one Mitros+ flash to stay on my camera during events at which I have placed flashes (maybe my Einsteins) at one or more remote perches. It is a biggish commitment ($400) but you could say the transceiver is valued at $150 alone.

Private by Design once made the point that this price rises to the same range as good deals on Canon 600 pieces. I agree but have the investment in the Odin kit and a 580EX and a 550EX. I also do interiors where there are needs for a less-bright light in a small room off the main area we are lighting. Optical slaves can be finicky. I like having a LOT of flexibility when working in unpredictable locations.

So, are these delivering the benefits Odin installed features should allow?


Lighting / Re: HSS with Einsteins win!
« on: August 16, 2014, 06:52:13 AM »
Do you find that the HSS solution for Einsteins works the same out in the field with the Buff Vagabond? I shoot with Einsteins and have a set of Phottix Odins. Now I have to find out my firmware state -- but I know I have seen no mention of an ODS adjustment framework.

Extremely cool that I can do this.

I do have 5DMark3's, what are the "difficulties"? More variation? Lower shutter limit?

The discussion got a little away from the w540 comparison requested.

I use and really appreciate a w520 bought in late 2011 IIRC and I have upgraded components all along as my needs increased. I was tethering with this on a shoot today. I look into the Lenovo forums occasionally to stay up with what the new "W" (workstation) models offer. Anyone considering a w540 needs to read a lot of angry, disappointed forum messages. Some do refute the large numbers of complaints, but some people who evaluate ThinkPad laptops as their job suggest that people buy a w520 instead!

I like my "FD" 1920 x whatever (16:9) screen, although I was sorry to see the old 4:3 screens disappear. Have not tried to calibrate it but keep meaning to get around to it. (I own a Color Munki Photo.)

I am writing just to ask KCC and anyone else reading this to read the "w" machine Lenovo user forum carefully. Sorry not to be able to put the link in this post. I am responding on a tablet.

Software & Accessories / Re: DxO upgrade question.
« on: July 25, 2014, 04:00:48 AM »
In my experience the company answers questions quickly although the last time I asked something the answer came from Europe so factor in the time zone issues. I don't remember if 9.5 was a free upgrade, although the pattern would dictate that it is.

Software & Accessories / Re: laptop for tethered shooting?
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:57:30 AM »
Hi, jumping back in. Jrista, loved knowing more about Longhorn, which I remember sounded really interesting.

I noted another reference to dslrController, which I do use on shoots. I think I mentioned it way earlier in this thread, too. With images that require careful scrutiny I still stick with my Lenovo w520 running now either EOS Utility 2 or 3. Maybe my ASUS Transformer can't hold the detail because it's a year 2011 resolution 1280 x 800(?) screen. I can't zoom it clearly enough to know for sure the big interiors I do with a tilt and shift are sharp enough way in the back or to check subtle stuff in the foreground. Clients like it. Easier to work with as it's smaller and handholdable. Nice to have the ability to bracket the HDR stuff right from the screen, although dslrController is less able to control the 1DsMk3's I like to use on the tripod for those shoots. (older machine language internal software on that era of 1D body.)

I avidly read about the Surface units and I'd like to try to tether to one. The w520 has been GREAT, though. Still chugging along as it offers lots of customization and access inside the body. Plenty of RAM and a couple of SSDs.

Note that a bright spot for dslrController is the developer's support of wireless without requiring the expensive Canon device. Photographers have used it for some interesting benefits. I think I read that a shooter making an elaborate scene with multiple models walked out around the set firing shots so he could show every model the scene as shot and adjust pose, props, etc.

Know that there isn't any documentation. So you can't bring a binder to the shoot (as I do for EOS Utility) for the assistant to bone up on the software.  It's quirky and if you switch bodies you get different features available. One good thing about it: seems less fussy about which cord you use than EOS Utility! 

This Lenovo does have LR and Photoshop. I have at times tethered into Lightroom. But they are there for work away from the office. This machine has a Quadro (right name?) nVidia board for discrete Graphics processing.


Thanks for contributing. I don't have an M body. I will stick with the 5dMk3 bodies I have for consistent video look in for these walk-through segments, which will be edited into the other quick views -- some done already -- room pans, outdoor details on the property, flowering plumeria close-ups, local scenery, ocean, etc.

I have a Manfrotto 502 fluid head and a super heavy tripod that I love, so I can collect the remaining material with the lenses I have. I am ordering the Voightlander 28 and will try that. Ramon's suggestion of the new 16-35 piqued my interest in that lens and I may add that to the kit, too, for its well-reviewed IS. All the rest of my wide lenses have no IS.

Thanks, everyone. Looks like there aren't a lot of wide lenses like the Voightlander(s) available in Canon mount.


EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Filming with 100mmL or 50mm 1.8?
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:42:35 PM »
An older post on page two of this sub-forum reveals Jack to be the teacher of the kids to be interviewed so he is good to go with that 50mm. Just the ticket for inspiring them. Sounds like fun project.

Thanks. Yes, I just tried the 24-70 set at 24 and 28 to see if the longer 28mm Voightlander pancake would serve. I think it would be OK. Saves a little $$. Same weight as the 20mm version but sharper, so could maybe use as stills lens.

I don't have a crop body. It's the size of the lens that driving most of the unwanted movement. And lack of experience on my part! By action camera you must mean a GoPro? My client wants quick clips of other scenes: nearby beaches, surf, mountain views, restaurant buildings, sunset through the palms... I'd like it to have better quality and range of imaging: long lenses, where applicable, for example.

I *will* have to try out different stabilizers. It's just an expense (experimenting, $$, selling what I don't adopt) that I was hoping to avoid because I bought this Hague DMC model stabilizer. Where I live there is little used gear. My current video requests are for small $$ projects. I have discovered there is a learning curve with these units, too. Both in weight choices and hand-hold-control.

The model used in the YouTube video above is pretty impressive in the hands of that videographer. Running?

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Filming with 100mmL or 50mm 1.8?
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:06:20 PM »
Yup, old topic but worth noting for the research others are doing...

Assuming that "interviewing children" means "talking [little]head" then a vote for the 100mm on a tripod for -- *most important* -- not being right on top of the child: too scary! Then you have the softer background, other good image stuff. I would hope an interview would use a clip-on mike.

Even true for crop sensor IMO. (I had a ten year stint as an elementary school teacher. Kids need space until they are a little used to a new adult. Many grown-ups, too!)

Sort of... Thanks for the suggestion!

I researched the Canon 20mm prime as a direct comparison to the Voightlander and my long heavy 24-70 and found that it was not sharp and still pretty heavy, not short either. Ramon above points out the value of the IS (and modern IS is better) so perhaps I should compare weight and size of the smaller, slower Canon 24mm prime.

I do have the super-sharp Canon 24mm f1.4 and it is shorter but almost as heavy as the 24-70 v2 (8oz difference.)

The person from whom I bought the used stabilizer confirmed for me that the sway I saw was due to the physics of initiating movement in a mass (camera/lens) distributed across a longish distance between back of camera and front element. A big front element weight hurts a lot among the factors influencing the motion seen on video.

BTW, this YouTube video -- shot with a different [low-end like mine]stabilizer brand and that Voightlander is pretty impressive for the non-Hollywood types and clients like mine. Check it out:
Canon 5D Mark III with Voigtlander 20mm Lens (Tested with Glidecam) Small | Large

Takes a little while to get to the footage you want to see, but you can see him RUNNING while capturing (by showing his shadow.)

So I have two questions to investigate today: 1. is weight/size going to be MORE important than sharpness, and, 2. is 28mm wide enough for the rooms I will do for at least my first gig (which has to pay for at least a part of the added junk...)

...and I realized that sway aside, I can use another lens I have here to establish -- using my little house -- if the Voightlander 28 would be OK and save me a couple of hundred over the 20mm.

Even if... I bet I eventually get that newer 16-35. Results are quite good.


I appreciate the suggestion because I had not looked closely at this new product and was impressed by the review at

Now I want one. But the problem created by my long heavy 24-70 will, I think, still be present for the use I see becoming more common, based on the comparison charts for weight and length. It is 8oz less than the 24-70 2.8L v2 (21.7oz compared to 28.something). The 28mm or 20mm Voightlanders are 8.2 oz, barely a bump on the body.

This is tough. I wish it was easier to justify both... The 20mm Voightlander is less sharp and more expensive. That's annoying and makes it a video-only lens for my kit. And that makes the $$ harder to justify.

I took from your post that the IS was allowing you to shoot video handheld. What situation -- and with what focal length within that 16-35 range? Walking while capturing?

I appreciate anything you can share from your experience, because my immediate client is now talking about a bigger production with other nearby attractions shown. (It's a vacation rental property, not a real estate job.) I'm looking forward to the production and have to start soon.


I am a stills guy adding an occasional simple walk-through video to keep customers who insist on both. I have experimented with a Hague DMC steadying device for my 5Dmk3 and could tell that my 24-70 v2 was too heavy and too big, because the length/weight combo introduces swaying and movement when lifted or swung. So it appears I need a pancake-like wide angle to trim down the shape and weight effects of the body/lens at the top of the stabilizer.

I already own a lot of wideangles for stills: my Sigma 12-24 seems too big for this and, like the Canon 24-70, too heavy out front. I have the 24mm f1.4L, trimmer in length but almost as heavy as the 24-70.

I am considering the Voightlander 20mmf3.5 or 28mmf2.8. These are manual, pancake designs. The 20 is not sharp at the edges but the 28 is much better. My biggest unknown is whether moving through spaces and doors and hallways in smaller houses will the 28 be insufficiently wide? If I shoot a still to show a whole small room I have my 17mm tilt and shift or the Sigma 12-24. (But I use my 17 on every shoot.) With a moving video camera I have the flexibility to pan. The 20's lack of sharpness might be OK because video never seems very sharp anyway. But the changes in shapes get weird(er) with the very wide lenses.

I have read that very wide focal lengths help mask glitches in the stabilizing.  But 20 is pretty wide to be moving past objects in the tracking shots. . 28 doesn't feel "wide" to me now. But video handles distortion differently.

Here's a really good review of the two lenses by a photographer. The link is to the review of the 28 and at the end of this review is a "related" link to his earlier write-up of the Voightlander 20.

Perhaps there are other candidates. Couldn't think of a different forum for this. Feedback, please.
Thanks, in advance for all thoughts.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16