You want to identify this man to ask for the photo he did?
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.
As I am not obsessed with DR and megapixel, also feel that the images of Canon DSLR cameras, and Panasonic video cameras have skin tones more pleasing to my eyes.I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation. Following your logic it would be as if Fuji gave up and said, we will just repackage kodak film and save money. We would all have the same look to the photos. We would no longer have that magical pop of shooting flowers with Velvia, or the crispness of a landscape on Provia F. Perhaps, it might of saved the warmth of Kodachrome, but at least our snowscapes, and weddings will look good on our Portra and Ektachrome.I've been shooting with Sony video cameras for the better part of 30 years from the original Betacam to their current FS700, F55 and XDCam. I've always felt Sony imagers had a cold look to them. We were always trying to find ways to trick the cameras to produce a warmer image. We'd use 810 filters, warming cards, putting a piece of 1/8 CTB gel over a white card, etc.. When Panasonic came out with their Varicam, SDX900, HDX900 their imagers had a much nicer, warmer image than Sony. I feel the same with Canon sensors. They have a much more pleasant look right out of the camera vs Sony. I've got a 5D2 right now with some nice L glass Hope to get a 5D3 at some point. I've used the Canon C500 and will be using a C300 tomorrow and Tuesday. Love the look of the Canons. Like you said, they have a Kodachrome look to them. Not complaining about their sensors, just making an observation. I'm happy with my 5D2 and lenses. I've been a Canon guy since the late 1970's. I'll never buy Nikon. I really like the color rendition of my 5D2 over my friend's D800. I don't get into the weeds about pixel count, DR etc.. I look at the picture and if it looks good to me I like it.
Point being, Canon and other sensor companies like Foveon, are not trying to copy Sony, they are trying to find solutions to distinguish themselves from the competition, and that is always good for the industry. If you want a Sony sensor, you can buy a Sony camera. Personally, I am going to stick with my Kodachrome like Canon sensors. Sony May have more DR, but I find their images too cold, and have to spend a lot more time in post tweaking them. My Canon just looks better to me.
Moreover, the size and weight of the camera and lens.Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. I'm sure I've read that somewhere...
At this time Canon C100 costs $ 4,999. It seems an adequate price for the advantages over 5D Mark iii.If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.
The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.
If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.
On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .
Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.
Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.
This is my take on it: That brick wall in the background of the first scene has some pretty heavy moire on the 70D; the 7D mk II and 5D mk III seem to be much better on that front. In terms of sharpness, in this test the 5D3 is better than the other two. When it comes to noise, the 7D2 appears to be between the other two, possibly closer to the 5D3.Well observed. The brick wall in the center have terrible moire only in 70D. The bar code on the bottles also have moire only in 70D. In general, 7D Mark ii seems to have better video than 70D.
ZOMG, I see very obvious horizontal banding on the Image #5 [Portrait], look at the pretty model's sleeveless shirt! Ankortwatt was right, Canon suX0rs canal water!!11 Teh Lulz.I see beautiful breasts. Oops!
For me the better low noise shots compared to the 7D as well as dual memory card slots alone is enough reason to upgrade but I'll certainly benefit from the better AF in low light and for moving subjects as well. Anyone else planning on using the Mk II for weddings?Welcome to the forum.
You are joking that Canon 24mm F1.4 is a prime lens suitable for 70D?QuoteIt seems the problem here is that most don't want pancake lenses. What I see a demand for is Ef-s primes with fast apertures and not that much emphasis on size.Wow. What you can see is immense. I think the opposite. Suprised? There is a lot of demand on the 40mm 2.8 STM, I own one by myself and I'm always surprised what this small thingy can do. At the moment this lens is nearly always on my cam.
So, if someone travels around with a smaller APS-C the 40STM or 24STM could cover most of the needs...
Where is the demand on fast primes on APS-C? There already are fast primes in this focallength-range like the 35mm 1.4L or 24 1.4L. I just don't think that you're willing to pay the prices...
One small tip at the end, maybe you don't know. There are a lot of primes in your range... for example the EF 20mm f2.8 or the really fast EF 28mm 1.8. They're comparable cheap and still to get.QuoteI say again that I am not against Canon release lenses that do not meet my desire. The sad part is that the launch of an EF-S 24mm F2.8 means that Canon will never launch an EF-S 22mm F2.They have a 24mm 1.4! What about this one?
I want to know why the 7D2 does not have a little laser light that shines where the camera is aimed? Everyone knows that the only use of APS-C cameras is to take pictures and videos of cats to put on the internet.... and the videos would be so much better if the cats were chasing that little red dot....Yes. but the red laser need to have 14 points of DR.
Come on Canon! This is a make or break feature! Why don't you have it!