March 03, 2015, 10:05:19 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 - AndreeOnline

Pages: [1] 2 3
I routinely use Lee hard grads in place of solid ND filters on a FF, on lenses with 77 mm adapters, without any problems (except when I also need that grad to do the job of a grad….). I would not use soft grads for this.

Wow, this is great news if it's correct, which I am assuming it is if you are using it!

Since replacing the 16-35 2.8 II with the new f4 IS equivalent I am all 77mm. Then I'd buy the 0.9 hard grad and use that both as a grad and as a 3 stop ND.

Scroll down the page- they make all kinds of ND filters from 1 stop to 3 stops in half stop variants (though the half stop ones are hard to find). They make 2 and 3 stop glass ones, which are more expensive.

Thank you.

Don't understand how I missed that. Forgive my retardedness.

Lee makes a full range of solid ND filters:

I know of those two. 6 stops are too much for video (sometimes). Looking for a 2 and a 3 stop solid filter in addition to the "Stoppers".

I am also looking into Lee Filters. I want to use them both for photography and with a mattebox when shooting video, so the 4x4 size makes sense for me.

I don't see any "normal" solid NDs on Lee's site. Will the hard grads cover the whole image when positioned properly? By looking at the images they don't seem big enough for this.

If not, that seems like an oversight in such a mature system...

I registered on his forum to talk to him directly there.

In one post I wondered out loud if Andrew will point to all the externally available information about the 1Dc (it's been out for two years and most aspects of it have been covered), or if he will read up on the camera himself and then post his findings as "new information" on his own site.

In an other post I gave a factual answer to a question being asked by an other forum user:

Q: how much of of the sensor will the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 cover?
A: in S35 mode it's 18-35 (obviously), and in 4k mode it's roughly 22-35mm.

After those two posts I was banned. That is my annoyance with him: total lack of character or integrity. On the up side, he puts in a lot of work reading up on stuff and doing his own tests. It's too bad that it isn't worth much if what he writes is subjective, sensationalist stuff.

To first categorically dismiss Canon for so long and then buy their most expensive, and according to him overpriced, DSLR (from one perspective he is right, from another he doesn't understand pricing)—it doesn't add up.

Reading his own forum, it's clear that quite a few users are confused and frustrated. It's apparent that for many of them it's really important to hate Canon.

Have any kind of opinion and a minority of users on 'Other filmmaking forums' will criticise you so that doesn't bother me…
That I can understand. Nobody cares about opinions—they are trivial at best. If I were to like the color green and someone calls me a fool for it, I couldn't care less.

When it comes to blogs looking for an audience it gets trickier. Ken Rockwell. Fake Chuck Westfall. Pretty clean cut cases where people knew what to expect. Well, most people.

But once you venture into… journalism(?), people expect knowledge, maybe some research—and not unimportant: perspective. When you pose as a journalist but write opinionated click bait—that's when you get a reaction.

There's other logic in the mix here unrelated to video - I now need a pro stills camera and this one allows me to sell my 5D3, 5D2 and 7D which makes the upgrade cost to the 1D C a lot easier to bear.

Do you remember our discussion on Twitter at all, after the launch? My pro 1Dc arguments? How the 1Dc brings a lot to the table and if you're complaining about price at least consider a user that needs the whole feature set of the camera? I'm glad you understand that point now. Keep them coming.

My original criticisms of the 1D C still stand. It doesn't deviate enough from the 1D X to justify being double the price
Why do you insist on dragging price into the camera evaluation? It's not part of the equation. It comes at the end. It's useful for 'buying advice', but has nothing to do with the camera itself.

It's an amazing camera—but insanely expensive!—a distasteful item for rich tech snobs.
It's an amazing camera—and cheap!!—shut up and take my money!

Both of the above describes an amazing camera.

1D C though has the most cinematic image of the lot. I never argued otherwise.
Honestly, it would be difficult to argue against it, so I'm sure you didn't. But you also certainly didn't come out and say that the 1Dc was the most cinematic camera with most beautiful image.

I don't know if you include me in the general "shut up, forum nerd" statement, but seeing that I paid the $12.000 I allow myself this short response.

For the 1DC owners above, a question:

The Canon 6D, 1Dx and 1Dc differentiate themselves from other Canon bodies in that they display significantly less banding and pattern noise in the shadows when lifted.

Lifting the shadows and painting back detail there has long been something Nikon/Sony users have been able to do, but it has been messy on the Canon side.

Other than that, the 1Dx/1Dc have pretty large photo sites with their moderate 18MP.

All of that said, the "obvious" advantage that Sony/Nikon have according to DxO is pretty academic in the real world. Very small differences in perceived shadow detail can influence contrast measurements (dynamic range) quite a bit. And the 14 stops or whatever that Nikon/Sony get relate to the lower ISOs. I'm not even sure it extends to 200.

I tried to have a discussion with Andrew (EOSHD) at the launch of the 1Dc. This was around the time when Blackmagic presented their 4k S35 Cinema Production camera.

Andrew then ridiculed Canon, the 1Dc (and me for seeing its benefits), declaring that it was 'game over' for Canon. Since then he has pretty much gone on a crusade making fools out of Canon and its users.

All of this because he couldn't afford the camera, and that made him upset. Of course it was OK to complain about the price, but that has nothing to do with the camera. We have proof of that now: same camera, new price. Two different things.

Now that he could afford it, the tune is different: "insanly beautiful images", "rugged and weatherproof", "internal 4k", "stills and video in one body", "powerful Canon Log with 12 clean stops", "beautiful Canon colors".

All points that I made on Twitter 630 days ago that made him eventually call me a troll and mute me. I mean, the Blackmagic CPC was OBVIOUSLY soooo much better for $4000. So why not stick to that Andrew? Or one of the Panasonics or Sonys?

The simple answer is that the 1Dc is a real camera that works in the real world, delivering professional results. That is what matters to Canon. Not specs on a paper. I wouldn't call the Sonys and Panas "paper cameras", but some of the specs gets really over valued.

It's very OK to be super enthusiastic as a hobbyist over the cheaper cameras and the possibilities they offer. But it annoys me to no end that some people just have to slander something else in order to make themselves or their stuff look good. And as they then get the opportunity to acquire the stuff they hated so much in the beginning and it all of sudden becomes the "hidded gem no one knew about"... that's where hypocracy begings.

I would ask to think about why they link to EOSHD. Why give him the recognition? Try reading through some of the film making forums to see what his peers think of him before giving him another link/feature.

As for Andew himself: he now is in possesion of a beautiful film making tool that should suit his artistic ambitions. It might just be the eye opener he needs to straighen him out a bit and make him value the things that matter. Hopefully he'll grow with the camera.

I wrote a similar post on his forum-I later saw that it requires moderation (so it will probably never se the light of day)-but I ended it with wishing him luck with the camera. It's a real beauty. I'll end on the same note here:

Good luck with the camera, Andrew. Hopefully you'll grow with it.

Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:21:08 AM »
Has anyone noticed the odd profile of the focus ring? I wonder how it will be to use.

Do you mean the focal length/zoom ring? The inner ring, closest to the mount?

The focus ring is the outer, broad ring.

EOS Bodies / Re: Modular DSLR Coming from Canon? [CR2]
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:52:56 AM »
Like the original post mentions, this feels like a likely Cinema EOS camera. Don't get carried away thinking that Canon is about to change its normal photo lineup.

We've just seen the C100 mkII and there's been talk of 4k C300. This would be the first indication that Canon plans to maintain the 1Dc form factor with a few alterations.

I am a 1Dc owner myself and this could potentially be very exciting news. The 1Dc is close to the perfect camera to me (within reason). The rumored modularity will limit itself to basic, external stuff. Internal modules are fantasies-let's not go there.

  • The viewfinder has already been mentioned. Today I use a LCDVF that works well, but a quality Canon solution is alway welcome.
  • A modular mount is the most promising idea. Natrually, we're not talking about Sony or Nikon mounts here, but a dedicated video mount. Bulkier than normal EF, but it includes ND filters. This is the main thing the 1Dc lacks.
  • I expect it would make sense to have some audio modularity similar to the C100's grip.

That's about it. No crazy stuff.

On the inside, hopefully processing power to allow for better high fps shooting. A really sharp 1080p60 is within grasp for sure (the 1Dc doesn't have cooling to allow for extremes).

A live view based timelapse mode with mirror lockup (no shutter actuations) would be great.

And.... please... 10 bit, 422 out. Also, in addition to the high bitrate MJPEG, maybe an efficiant internal 4k codec that produces smaller files.

Price would remain high, but I would be all over this one.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next Cinema EOS Camera Will Be..... [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 08:54:30 AM »
Hrm. That doesn't sound quite right to me I guess.

You are right.

The 'k' resolutions are strictly cinema. 2k is 2048x1080p and 4k is 4096x2160p.

There are not 'buts' or 'ifs'. Various marketing channels might say 4k about displays that are in fact QuadHD: 3840x2160. Some might write in this very thread, even after this post, that 3860x2160 is 4k. It isn't. Just like 1920x1080p is HD, and not 2k.

It's really nothing to quarrel about, but the definitions are what they are. And one way to think about it is like this: if Canon or Sony would market a camera as 2k in the resolution specs, it would shoot 2048x1080 100% of the time.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 19, 2014, 05:14:36 AM »
I imported the stairs photo into Aperture and turned on the focus point overlay.  Looks pretty good to me.

While it might be an actual indication, it doesn't mean much.

I they use the central point for accuracy, and then recompose, it won't show you where they actually focused.

EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS C200 & C400 at NAB? [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2014, 11:33:48 AM »
Quote from: Canon Rumors
EOSHD has posted about the possibility of an EOS C200 and EOS C400 for NAB 2014 in April.
According to EOSHD’s source, Canon will introduce the Cinema EOS C200 as a new entry level 4K camera, and the semi-pro Cinema EOS C400 sitting under the EOS C500.

You probably don't want to give EOSHD credit enough to warrant this type of article.

If you read is article, it's obvious that he doesn't even believe it himself. It's easy to backtrack the actual Twitter discussion. The user @schweinert offhandedly speculated/wished? for C200/C400 a couple of days ago. Then, over a couple of tweets he firmed up his wording into more of a statement, but it seems completely sourceless. Only his own opinion of what Canon "ought" to do.

Andrew Reid at EOSHD then ran with the idea and posted an "article" as an open question: "could this happen?". The purpose is, of course, strictly to generate traffic to his site.

Andrew doesn't have the objectivity or integrity to warrant this kind of attention.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 14, 2013, 11:53:04 AM »
While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2013, 04:55:05 PM »
Even if the quality is equivalent  the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma.

Regardless of price, an IS lens can't push someone to buy a non IS lens.

These lenses are specifically made with IS for hybrid shooters/videographers. Non IS lenses are not an alternative.

I actually disagree. I have a friend who's super into video (shoots with a hacked GH2) and doesn't care about in-lens stabilization. If you're really serious about video you'll have your own stabilization rigs, which is partly why he wants to add a 60d and 50 1.8 to his kit.

It's similar to the argument about the 70d's LV focus. A lot of people said serious video shooters wouldn't use it. I think the same applies here, which is why a stabilized 50 1.8 at around 5x the cost of the previous generation doesn't make sense. Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

So, who disagrees... you or your friend?  =)

I agree regarding auto focus—I wouldn't touch that with today's standards. But IS is different.

First of all: for many DSLR video shooters, putting the camera on a rig is a fail right there. As a concept it's not wrong, but it might be highly desirable to shoot "rigless".

Plus, a rig typically excels in stabilizing the motion to the point where you might not need post stabilization, or where you end up with camera movement that can be fixed in post, to a degree.

But what IS does is that it removes the micro stutter that is impossible to fix in post. This can be beneficial even with a rig setup.

Now, the photography world has traditionally done well without IS on wideish primes. The reason we're seeing these lenses now is due to video.

I do a lot of video on a DSLR (on and off rig) and I would take IS on my Sigma 35mm 1.4 or 50 1.4 any day.

Pages: [1] 2 3