November 22, 2014, 12:00:28 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 - mkabi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
EOS Bodies / Re: what is the body you want to see canon release next ?
« on: November 21, 2014, 10:29:30 PM »
A rebadged NX1 with an EF mount would be awesome!!

+1


2
No doubt this may be the future.

But, it still begs the question... is this really adding to the art of photography? Or is it adding to the art of photoshoping?

How much time do you spend in front of the computer? Do you really want to spend more time in front of the computer?


3
So, I can expect an a7s III (note: not a typo) sometime in 2016?

4
Lenses / Re: A Couple of Real World EOS 7D Mark II High ISO Samples
« on: November 04, 2014, 03:59:40 PM »
Underexpose by over 7 stops?  Great technique.

Don't waste your breath...
Some people would rather take an hour to take a picture and spend a whole day in front of a computer to correct it.
Others like me, would rather spend a whole day to take a picture, and spend an hour in front of a computer to correct.
Of course, you might not have that luxury in fast action, last minute and time limited situations, but I'm not into that kind of work. I love the art of photography not so much the art of photoshop/LR.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: October 30, 2014, 09:36:56 PM »
I'll have one in my hands tomorrow at the PhotoPlus Expo in NYC at the Canon Exhibit, it may not be mine but just to hold one which I'm sure will not be much different than my 7D but I can run it thru it's paces with an expert from Canon to show me the in's and out's of it. Almost like getting a crash course on it before getting my own. Enjoy your cameras guys.

I messed around with one at the expo for about twenty minutes, I like it but now I'm undecided after also playing with the Canon 5D Mark III. I'm getting ready to transition to karate/taekwondo tournaments indoors and the Canon rep said the 5D Mark III would be a better fit. :-\
I'm going back tomorrow..........

Tough call...
You need high frame rate and low light capabilities.
I would suggest a 1DX, but if its out of your price range...
You have to ask yourself... do you need high quality low light pictures with lesser pictures taken at the right time? Or slightly lower quality low light pictures with more pictures taken at the right time?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 26, 2014, 10:35:46 PM »

Ahh, yes, very true. But most major motion pictures have the budget for increased time to shoot multiple angles and don't need to save time and $$ by shooting 4K for reframing. They also have greater post-production budgets for scanning, etc.

Many doc-style TV shows do need that $$ savings and speed, however.

No matter what business you're in... you're trying to make the most for the least. Time is money too. If you have a 100 days to shoot, then thats all you have... I don't think the execs and producers will be happy if you shoot till 101 days, just to fit multiple angles. Similarly, if you have a chance to complete the job in 75 days instead of 100, that would save even more money. Its just more money in your pocket.

So, obviously, given the time, budget and scope... using a non-4K camera + multiple angles out weighed the cost of a 4K camera + single angle & a lot more post production work.

Here is what you have to remember. You can do 1 take with 4K, but how many times can you reframe that to be multiple angles? You still need to do another angle no? At least 2 more... in my opinion. Then there are reshoots, because someone made a mistake...

4 times the resolution means at least 4 times the space requirements, by all accounts... 4K and most RAW footages are space eaters.... plus you have to remember redundancy so you don't lose the huge files. Post-processing & rendering these files need a beast of a computer... all these need to be considered...

7
1. Consider using 3m stick to the wall hooks to hang the dress. They come in different sizes.

I hate when people do that...
Invest in a mannequin, it will add value to your business (won't cost more than $100 - $350).

EDITTED TO ADD: On second thought, invest in a dress form instead, people may think you're a perv. running around with a naked doll.

8
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: October 24, 2014, 09:44:12 PM »
One more thing... I would like to add...
Joe1946, I am glad you posted that link...

I can forgive Microsoft with their X-box One...
But Sony, seriously? They should be pushing 4K with the PS4. So dissappointed in Sony... what the hell? You have 4K TVs, you have a 4K Cameras... and what do you do to one of the most well received gaming console??


9
EOS Bodies / Re: 4K Products Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 24, 2014, 09:03:37 PM »

The regular use won't care a whit about 4k vs UHD and UHD is actually better for them, if anything.
A7S+Shogun costs like 1/3 the price of a 1DC.


You forgot to add that the Shogun has a 7" screen.

Why is UHD better for "them"?

10
Video & Movie / Re: Who is shooting in 4k?
« on: October 24, 2014, 08:58:25 PM »
Isn't most movies shot on 70mm film better than 4K?
You know those huge Panavision cameras?

I have shot once in 4K with a friend, we rented the RED Epic. The end product was sh!t, don't tell the talent that >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Su2qxm8ik

11
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: October 24, 2014, 08:31:48 PM »
Alright Joe1946, lets use some common sense... hopefully you dont' need to quote anyone.
Suppose I gave you $7000 tomorrow.

Thats enough to buy a Gh4 and a 4K TV, right?
Hopefully a 65 inch 4K TV, no?

You are going to film in 4K with the Gh4, and you are going to edit the 4K video on your computer. Then how are you going to put this 4K video that you made on this 4K TV?

Stream it from your computer?
Hook your 65 inch TV directly to the computer?

How many 4K videos can you make that will entertain you on a constant basis?
How many 4K videos can you contain on your hard-drive?

EDITTED TO ADD: It may be true, there may not be a 1080p TV available to purchase down the road, it may be replaced by affordable 4K TVs. But given that you already have a 1080p set, in working and good condition, would you go and buy another TV? And, if you do get a 4K TV, are you using it to its full potential? I mean, I believe that I am using my 1080p to its full potential simply by playing Blu-ray movies... but I don't know if I can get 4K content if I go buy a 4K TV tomorrow.

12
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: October 24, 2014, 08:14:06 PM »
Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.
In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?
4K UHD TVs will outsell 1080p TVs within two years. Just because Canon does not have any 4K cameras under $9,000 does not mean 4K is dead. There are millions of 4K cameras sold every month to consumers and 4K UHD TVs will be a hot seller this Holiday season.

Dude are you listening to what I am saying?

Forget Canon not producing 4K cameras under $9,000. Just forget it, Canon doesn't produce TVs either.

Listen carefully now.
There is NO cable channel producing 1080p signal, why do you think that all of a sudden that TV channels will suddenly produce 4K signals? Do you think that because Panasonic has 4K cameras under $2000 that will suddenly make Cable channels 4K????

13
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: October 24, 2014, 06:16:47 PM »
Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.
In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 4K Products Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:53:28 PM »
I was surprised at out how much backlash there was after the C100 Mk II announcement because for years people have been complaining about the C100 having no 60p, a poor viewfinder, no internal mic on the body, etc. and they gave us all those things.  I think it's true that people will continue to want more than what is currently offered partly because that's how we've been conditioned.  If we got 4K 10 bit output there would be people demanding internal 4K.  If we got internal 4K then people would demand 120fps.  If the C100 had all those things then what could Canon add to the C300 to get people to buy it instead of the C100? 

Like jrista said, people complain on all the forums.  A friend of mine rarely complains about anything, but when he found out the Sony FS7 didn't have the same sensor as the A7S he said he wasn't interested in it.  I would guess that Canon is doing the best that they can while looking out for themselves as well as consumers. 

Of course, if the new C300 doesn't have 4K then forget everything I just said  ;) lol

It depends on WHEN they implement new functions. Obviously if they only move to 4K when everyone else is moving to something better, then it is still a dollar short a day late.

We want them to implement these features when they are current technology, not when they are old technology.

Its not "a dollar short, [nor] a day late."
And, I find it quite funny that you guys complain so much.
Fact is... Canon had the 1D-C way-way before either A7s or Gh4 came along.
Only problem is... y'all can't afford the 1D-C. Same here, I can't afford it either.

A7s can't record internal 4K, and as per dpreview external isn't even cinema 4K, its UHD (max 3840 x 2160 @ 8bit). http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-dmc-gh4-sony-alpha-7s

GH4 is better with both cinema 4K (4096 x 2160) internal & external (10-bit), only problem is that its micro 4/3rd sensor.

Both of them sound a bit crippled in my opinion.

They all have their problems, but both Gh4 & A7s is far more affordable.

So to say... this... "We want them to implement these features when they are current technology, not when they are old technology."
It isn't cause Canon doesn't have it, its cause you can't afford it.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:19:06 PM »
I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely.  I just skipped the intermediate step.

I don't think social media is a fad, but its rapidly evolving to other forms.
Its gone from facebook to twitter/instagram to snapchat.
I honestly can't keep up... is it really socializing though? Or narcissism morphing to new levels?
You want to be popular, you want to show off that you've done this and been there?
In my opinion, its raking in a lot of evil eye :D

But to answer unfocused innate question, may be someday... one day pictures taken from a cell phone will be just as good or better than DSLR/MILC, and when that day comes... no one will hire a photographer at a wedding and people will be able to pick and choose from the multitude of pictures taken from their relative's phones to create an album.

Till that day comes, it doesn't matter if a DSLR/MILC can throw a picture on a social media site. I say this, because... pictures thrown on facebook is for the moment, a present day thing that is easily displaced and forgotten with a hundred other "Whats on your mind" pictures/videos/comments that come to you over the year. Pictures taken by a photographer at a wedding is forever, which if done artfully will be remembered forever especially when made into an album.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23