September 14, 2014, 10:14:17 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 - dash2k8

Pages: [1] 2 3
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:36:35 AM »
I'm disappointed that the highest ISO setting is 51200. Yes, I'm a low-light geek. My work puts me in a lot of dim situations. Yes, I could use artificial lighting, but sometimes there's not enough manpower and/or time for that (the assistant is already doing audio). Right now I have a A7s and it's great. I was hoping that the 7D2 would, if not match, then at least have a huge increase in low-light capability. Judging from this rumored ISO spec, I'm guessing it's still more geared for sports and not about conquering dark caves (which I don't blame Canon for). If 51200 is the ceiling, then obviously Canon wasn't trying to push this area. The new sensor will help but I doubt the highest setting is going to be much useful (hope to be proven wrong).

Lenses / Re: Development Announcement of a New 800mm f/5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:40:06 AM »
$13,999 is not a tag I can afford... envious of you who can discuss buying it!

"Sony and Panasonic are not market leaders so they have to make alternative and hybrid products. Both have major flaws... the GH4 has skew and poor audio; the A7s has TONS of skew and poor battery life. Both are ergonomically awkward. If you're a business and you can afford a $2500 camera but not a $5000 camera, that's a deeper issue than Sony having slightly better video quality than Canon. (Because the 1080p out of the A7s is not leagues ahead of the 5D Mark III; it has much, much more skew, slightly better resolution, and significantly better DR.)"

I assume by skew you mean rolling shutter (correct me if I'm wrong). For me that is not an issue, which is why we are considering the Sony and Panasonic, but the better resolution and great DR at a MUCH LOWER POINT breaks the deal for me. The short battery life is not an issue, either.

Any upgrade path isn't going to consist of buying one camera body; it's going to be a big migration. It's why we hung on to the Canon platform for so long: to get a consist look. We can buy two C100's or four A7S for the same money... Figure the extra cost of more expensive batteries and accessories, and for us the math is very straight-forward. I totally agree that people should get the C series is they can afford it. For us it doesn't make sense.

The GH4's audio is obviously not production-level, but the grip that can be purchased is much better than the built-in stuff on the 5D3. (All bets are off when we start using external audio boxes.) It would be unfair to compare GH4's audio solution to the C series.

I enjoy your thoughtful and educated responses. All I'm saying is that at the DSLR level, Canon is no longer even a consideration.

My hunch is that Canon will take the Sony route and go with 4K over HDMI out and skip the internal recording completely.  The GH4 has internal, but it's highly compressed 4:2:0.  Even Canon knows that H.264 internal recording is less than ideal and added an all-I frame format on the 5DIII and 70D specifically for video.  My hunch is they put 4K in via HDMI and save themselves the hassle of high bit rate video. 

Also - Canon does have a 4K option out there - the 1D C is a 4K internal recording camera - granted, it comes at a steep price.

I'm sure you know this already, just wanted to reiterate that the GH4 has 4:2:2 over HDMI.

Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, upgrading to the C series is definitely an option, but my gripe/complaint is that Canon has stopped innovating their DSLR video capabilities. They teased us with the 5D2 and then continuously dropped the ball on every single DSLR since on the video front. Not everyone can afford C series cameras and cine lenses. Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video? I do not believe Canon thinks video is unimportant. I think they're just protecting their more expensive products by gutting the lower-end ones. Our company is not a full movie studio so moving up to an army of C300's isn't feasible (a few C100's, perhaps). IMO, Canon has indeed abandoned the DLSR video market in favor of greener pastures (can't blame them for wanting to make a profit). If Sony and Panasonic can do this (and they also make pro cameras), why can't Canon?

When I referred to the A7S and GH4, I was purely referring to them as video cameras (serious still shooters would wisely go with other options). These two absolutely kill the 5D3 and have advantages over the 1DX (low light / continuous autofocus / better audio solutions / 4k 4:2:2 recording).

With the fantastic job they've done with their recent lenses, they could definitely storm the cinema lens market and  potentially lower prices for all of us. No longer will big brands have a monopoly in which they can charge a fortune for good glass. Sigma has proven that minor compromises can be made to drastically reduce cost. With cine lenses being manual focus, we will not hear complaints about bad focus, and that's basically the only major flaw of Sigma glass at this point. Looking forward to this.

My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.

Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:53:27 PM »
Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 08:04:09 PM »
"I contend that the shroud of tourin was the first raw image... and that definitely was in need of post production."

LOL x100

Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 08:28:18 PM »
Encouraging progress and innovation is a good thing. Griping just for gripes sake is foolish. It's one thing to give Canon a push in the butt (thank you Sigma), it's another to hate on this brand because Nikon or Sony or someone else is announcing new stuff and Canon isn't. Do remember that it was Canon cameras running the last Olympics. If Canon was really that lousy, no amount of marketing money would help them become the official camera of the Olympics. And honestly, if anyone feels that Canon is lagging/not up to par/sucks/whatever, why not just switch brands instead of blowing off steam? Switching to another brand and killing Canon's sales will speak louder than anything we can post online.

Good for us consumers that Sigma is pushing advancement and making Canon take notice. I think it says something that a Sigma announcement of a lens that already exists is generating enthusiasm. I didn't see that kind of excitement about updated versions of Canon's older lenses. This 50mm is definitely on my to-buy list. Now I just have to knock off a convenience store during lunch break.

Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 10, 2013, 05:12:55 PM »
Canon needs to step up its game. Sigma has made a killing recently with its cheaper but better alternatives (35mm f1.4 and the 18-35mm f1.8, and perhaps the 24-105mm after tests come out). Canon cannot hope to maintain a higher price tag for lenses with equal or lesser quality. I can understand a Canon costing more than a Sigma, but at least the sharpness, distortion, etc etc have to be the same. The red ring along isn't going to fool customers into paying extra anymore.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 70d RAW Samples
« on: August 07, 2013, 09:40:46 PM »
For those complaining about lack of a major upgrade in technology, I think the easiest solution is to just buy a 1DX and live merrily ever after. Face it, at 70D's price point, you're not going to get anything close to a 5D3. The target audience is enthusiasts. If you do this for a living, you're not supposed to even consider something with two numbers (xxD), right? IMHO the 70D's prelim images have shown that it is a great performer IN ITS CLASS.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D what do you think?
« on: August 07, 2013, 09:26:26 PM »
I am getting one as soon as it comes out for documentary/ENG work. We currently have a 5D3 and 60D for live events (where sitting down with a proper tripod isn't an option) and a 70D with its new focus abilities will reduce the number of shots that we miss from bad focus (zoom in 5x, focus, zoom in 10x, zoom in 1x... too late).

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 09:24:16 PM »
Video features limited? I was hoping that this would be a 5D3 Lite in terms of video, with the new dual pixel AF. Why limit its video when it's clearly supposed to be better than the 70D and in a higher bracket? Unless of course by "limited" they mean it's much better than the 70D but crippled to be worse than the 5D3 as to not kill its own market. Here's hoping for the best...

Pages: [1] 2 3