October 25, 2014, 06:32:27 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 - ajfotofilmagem

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66
1
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: October 24, 2014, 07:20:52 PM »
Sales of 4K TVs not reach 1% of the total market. In the future may reach 5 or 10%.
Let's talk honestly... How many people have room for a 80 inch TV in the living room, and the necessary distance to the couch?

The future is 4K display on giant screens in theaters. However, 8K is possibly better suited for that use. This reminds me of the video cameras 720P, which never became hegemonic because most preferred to the direct jump from 480 to 1080 resolution.

2
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:50:10 PM »
8K video is over 33 megapixels. Canon still don't have a stills camera that shoots that.

There is a certain quantity called "enough" and I think 4K is about that. 24/48 audio is already enough. There are post processes that benefit from a larger capture resolution and processing space. But for consumer delivery 4K video may be standard for decades, most likely the change from there isn't just going to be resolution (it will be holodeck etc.).
If I did work for recording in studios of Hollyood, I would invest in 8K in the near future.
Why?
Because the display screens in theaters is the same size of a bus. But why not get excited with 4K?
Because homes today do not have (and never will) screens the size of a 4-door car, which would show overt improvements compared to 1080P.

3
The Sigma 50A is an optically fantastic lens, with a very poor and unstable AF system. As I have stated in other threads, I do not understand how Sigma can push something as inconsistent as this to the market.
It is hard to reconcile the diverse opinions about this lens.  Some people like yourself report poor & unstable AF.  But reading the reviews on B&H, some seem to find the lens outstanding in every way, including AF.  So many reviews absolutely glow with praise!  I will have to try the 50A for myself at some point.  Is it possible that some copies are truly excellent while others are defective?
Yes, it is possible some Sigma Art work very well and others being inconsistent. But why? I suspect that different bodies behave differently in relation to AF Sigma lenses.

But, and tests that use 5D Mark iii successfully, and others with focus problems? I think the firmware version of the body can cause unpredictable behaviors of AF.

4
However, from what I've read and saw in person, the extra special coatings on the Sigma, actually seem to make it a bit slower than 1.4.  It almost seemed that it was about 3/4 of a full stop slower than the Canon.
I'm still wavering, but at this point, I'm leaning towards the 50L 1.2.  I was able to shoot some MIGHTY dark bars with this and no additional lights with the 1.2 wide open.
So for when you need very low light...at this point, I'm leaning towards getting the canon 50L 1.2.
There are some topics relating experiences with F1.4 lens in Canon digital cameras, I did not find now, but the conclusion is surprising:

A member of CR did a test with an F1.4 lens (at F1.4) mounted on a Canon DSLR camera with all manual settings, and photographed a target with controlled lighting. Then he repeated the shot with everything the same, except that he put duct tape on the electrical contacts of the lens, so the camera could not identify which lens was being used.

He found that the picture looked darker when the camera could not identify which lens was being used. Neuro then gave a simple explanation and terrifying:

Digital cameras (unlike film) do not capture well the light that hits the sensor at a very tilted angle. How F1.4 lenses (and more luminous) many light rays arrive at quite tilted sensor, and do not penetrate well into the photodiodes. To circumvent this problem, Canon pushes the ISO (in secret) to simulate the use of light rays that exists in the film. Ie. When you select ISO100, the camera secretly push the ISO up to 153 (for example) and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays.
Terrifying?... I save that adjective for things like Ebola and perhaps automatic weapons pointed at me. LOL!  8)
In fact, I was terrified when I discovered that my Canon 50 F1.4 only becomes sharp and contrast when used in F2.8. I was also terrified of the price of Canon 50L with a sharpness well below that Sigma Art.

5
However, from what I've read and saw in person, the extra special coatings on the Sigma, actually seem to make it a bit slower than 1.4.  It almost seemed that it was about 3/4 of a full stop slower than the Canon.
I'm still wavering, but at this point, I'm leaning towards the 50L 1.2.  I was able to shoot some MIGHTY dark bars with this and no additional lights with the 1.2 wide open.
So for when you need very low light...at this point, I'm leaning towards getting the canon 50L 1.2.
There are some topics relating experiences with F1.4 lens in Canon digital cameras, I did not find now, but the conclusion is surprising:

A member of CR did a test with an F1.4 lens (at F1.4) mounted on a Canon DSLR camera with all manual settings, and photographed a target with controlled lighting. Then he repeated the shot with everything the same, except that he put duct tape on the electrical contacts of the lens, so the camera could not identify which lens was being used.

He found that the picture looked darker when the camera could not identify which lens was being used. Neuro then gave a simple explanation and terrifying:

Digital cameras (unlike film) do not capture well the light that hits the sensor at a very tilted angle. How F1.4 lenses (and more luminous) many light rays arrive at quite tilted sensor, and do not penetrate well into the photodiodes. To circumvent this problem, Canon pushes the ISO (in secret) to simulate the use of light rays that exists in the film. Ie. When you select ISO100, the camera secretly push the ISO up to 153 (for example) and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays.

If you select ISO 1600, the camera pushes secretly up to ISO 2129 (for example), and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays. In this case, the noise will be larger than an ISO 1600 "true".

If the lens is not manufactured by Canon itself, ISO not be pushed secret, and the lens will appear darker than a Canon lens that had the ISO pushed.

6
According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently. :o :)
OMG!! Canon actually did that. ::)  Must be some very angry haters out there now.
Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? ::) ???  ;D

7
According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently. :o :)

8
A month ago, I have both 50mm F1.4, Canon and Sigma Art. Indeed, using focus points outside the center there is a discrepancy. I marvel at the sharpness of the Sigma Art wide open, while the Canon needs to be stopped down to F2.8 to achieve sharpness and contrast similar to Sigma. :o

In fact, it is not very reliable for tracking moving objects. But it works wonderfully in live view, and I look forward to use in a body with Dual Pixel AF. 8)

Whereas if you use the center focus point or live view, Sigma Art puts Canon 50L with shame in the aspect of sharpness wide open. Excuse me for heresy, but I have to say I prefer the bokeh of the Sigma too. :-X ??? ::)

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 06:24:26 AM »
I am waiting for FF camera with 24-105 STM for $999.  Then, I will start thinking about FF.
How much improvement, I am going to notice for basic family use (screen up to 1600X900, printing up to 8X10 and videos up to 1080P) with FF.   Unless I need very shallow dof, am I going to notice any ISO advantage if I need to stop down with FF.   What is cheapest FF alternatives for 55-250mm and 10-18mm.  I can get 50mm 1.8/40mm 2.8 prime to start with.
US$999 :o ??? ??? ???
Then you will have to wait a looooooong time. ::)
I agree that there are no EF lenses that compare (image quality versus price) as the great 55-250 STM and 10-18 STM.

10
Thanks for sharing your test with us. :)

11
Reviews / Re: Jeff Cable's 7D2 & High ISO Look
« on: October 22, 2014, 06:18:47 PM »
To my eyes, the performance of 7D Mark ii at ISO1600 is very similar to 5D Mark iii in ISO 3200.
Not bad at all.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 20mm f/1.8
« on: October 22, 2014, 10:16:54 AM »
If that has good image quality, Nikon 20mm F1.8 would be a lens for me to be jealous of my friends Nikonians. I am jealous of Nikon 35mm F1.8 and other primes for APS-C. :(

On the other hand, Nikon 58mm F1.4 is a piece of junk compared with any lens $ 1700. :-X Thankfully Sigma Art exists for all of us. 8)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:51:38 PM »
Very mixed views on this. With only a 30fps increase, there is very little reason for anyone with the mark 1 to upgrade. Canon appears to lack innovation yet again.  On the other hand, 4k is not readily available to consumers yet. Sure you can record whatever you'd like in 4k at weddings, but you have to downscale everything so you can put it on a dvd or bluray.. there is no universal disc yet that can hold up to 300gb, there are no discwriters available anytime soon if such a disc ever hits the stores that replaces bluray. The c100 is obviously aimed for sports / weddings / indy filmmakers or whatever so it is logical to have it only record 1920x1080 for the above reasons.

But canon does seem to scare the small film makers away.. thats a hefty price for only full HD, meanwhile you can get a a7s + external 4k recorder for only 4000 dollars.
Welcome to the forum. I also see no reason to record 4K today. TV sets in people's homes are not capable of displaying 4K. The Bluray disks do not have the ability to record 4K, without making dishonest compression that will steal the potential quality of 4K.

Seems to me that there is a feeling like "I have a dick that is bigger than yours". :-X

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 21, 2014, 06:43:25 PM »
Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D.  You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.
Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. ::)
EOS 7D Mark II preorder:  $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate:  $1699
So, which is the FF camera?   ;)
Dear friend Neuro:
Were not you the one who always said that there are more important things in a camera, besides the sensor? ??? :P
With the exception of the sensor, 7D Mark ii seems a 1DX competitor rather than 6D. ::)
Of course.  But obviously price is no longer an absolute differentiator between crop and FF.
I understand. But if I compare the Canon 6D with other APS-C cameras, the most similar model (not counting the sensor) seems to me that is the T5i. :o 8)

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 21, 2014, 06:26:27 PM »
Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D.  You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.
Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. ::)
EOS 7D Mark II preorder:  $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate:  $1699
So, which is the FF camera?   ;)
Dear friend Neuro:
Were not you the one who always said that there are more important things in a camera, besides the sensor? ??? :P
With the exception of the sensor, 7D Mark ii seems a 1DX competitor rather than 6D. ::)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66