March 04, 2015, 02:12:24 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 - adamdoesmovies

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 03:17:32 AM »
Can you control the camera and use live view over an eyefi card?  I have no interest whatsoever in downloading pictures over WiFi.

wifi has no value to me when I shoot wildlife.  in fact, unless I am shooting in a studio I can not image using wifi (I am sure I am missing some uses).

Major interest is the new sensor - multiple layer implies higher effect resolution.  but what about DR?  Unless Canon thinks that this camera will not be used contrasty subjects (which is not true - back lit wildlife, sports, etc).

Wildlife seems like a perfect use for WiFi. Being able to control a second camera without being right next to it is amazing.  I think it's extremely regressive for all of these photographers to continually say "Well I'll never use it, so it's useless to everyone!" It's been said about GPS, flip screens, video, digital capture, programmable modes, autofocus, and basically every other feature that's ever hit professional cameras. The thing is, every time, they're wrong. Not everyone is a wedding photographer, not everyone only shoots landscapes. Theres tons of capabilities because there are tons of possibilities, and it's disappointing to see today's photographers trying so hard to stifle innovation in the name of a tradition that never seems to have really existed.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 10:24:07 AM »
I don't want to hear anything else until it includes 4K internal video recording, less moire and a headphone jack. Among other things.

As far as I'm concerned (and I'm going to sound like a jerk to some people by saying this) photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years and if you can't take a good picture with one of those than you suck as a photographer. It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.

The original 7D was the first of the Canon cames to features it's now standard video functionality that made its way into every other Canon camera. I expect the 7DmkII to usher in the new standard for Canon video functionality.

I second this. My 7D is an incredible camera already. As you said, if you can't take a good picture with any camera made within the last 5 years, you suck as a photographer. There's very few places this camera can really improve for photography, but video has a lot of room for growth. Even within that, though, the 7D already contains the hardware ability to do things like custom resolutions and frame rates (magic lantern allows this), but the stock firmware won't let it.

As a user who primarily uses my 7D for video, the no-WIFI thing makes me nearly completely uninterested in this camera.  I've specifically been waiting for the ability to monitor using my phone, even going as far as buying an extra phone in anticipation of this feature (I use it with my GoPro currently). I don't need a few more pixels, I need more built-in video functionality that doesn't require buying a bunch of stuff to bolt to the side of my camera.

 They complained it was difficult to figure out where to put the antenna.  However, they could have put one in the plastic flash housing, in the perimeter bezel around the main LCD or top display, near (or even in) the CF/SD card slot, somewhere behind the rubber grip, or near the ports on the side. A creative engineer could even have figured out a "window" of some sort. A combination of any two of these spots would provide adequate coverage, but this is really about milking the accessories market.  Unfortunately, I refuse to pay them 400+ bucks for what is probably a 5 dollar Foxconn 802.11 card in a fancy housing. 


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Any old K-mount lenses worth getting?
« on: June 08, 2014, 10:15:01 PM »
K-Mount is full of so many different lenses!! Pentax has had a lineup of original and third-party lenses with compatible mounts extending almost as far back as Nikon. SMC Pentax (formerly "Takumar" branded lenses) are freaking fantastic, and can be readily found in K-mount or a PK variant if you look. - I have a whole lineup of the takumars in M42 mount. Generally speaking, mount adapters are good to have on hand anyhow. I can't tell you how many cool and interesting lenses I've picked up in thrift stores just because I knew I could adapt them! (the number is definitely in the dozens, though)

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark ii with WiFi/GPS or Without?
« on: February 20, 2013, 01:06:57 AM »
And, for that matter, can we please just have the articulating screen already? Anyone that doesn't like it can just LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS. Seriously, I've needed one this entire week...and no, I don't want to go buy a dedicated monitor. That's a stupid suggestion.

EOS Bodies / Re: 60D or t4i for video?
« on: October 24, 2012, 08:24:08 PM »

I'm quite the noob when it comes to this, so all help will be appreciated  :)

EDIT: I also want to keep in mind the quality in "low light" environments.
Canon recommends that a video camcorder is better.  HDDSLR video can be amazing, but the basic camera does not come video ready as a camcorder does, rather, its just a small piece of a system needed to produce movies for the big screen or television programs and commercials.
I'd figure spending at least 3-5X times the cost of the body to add all the other needed equipment that will make the video live up to its potential.  You will get better video with a good camcorder for less money at the low end.
One other reason for HDDSLR video is when you have only one camera and want to take a quick video on the spur of the moment.  It might not be pro quality, but having the capability to capture something is nice.

Not exactly sure what you're trying to imply, but I have my mind set on a 60D. I'm going to use it to make short films (like the one in my above post) for YouTube. At this point I just need to figure out my lenses (also mentioned in my above post).

Of course "Canon recommends" you buy their 6000-10000 dollar video cameras, which don't do as well in low light, have no depth of field control, and generally look like a reality show no matter how you use them. The DSLR's aren't perfect, but this idea that you need to build a huge rig around one for it to be usable is simply false. You see a lot more DSLR's in production than you'll ever see Canon camcorders.

Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 10, 2012, 06:45:43 AM »
I noticed NO ONE seems to have mentioned the best part about IS lenses: they also stabilize video extremely well.  Even an optically-impossible F/0.6 isn't going to keep a sharp steady image when shooting video handheld at 50mm!

I never thought I'd consider switching brands, as I've been a Canon user for nearly 40 years.

But, if I ever switch it will not be because of bodies, but because of lens prices. I chose Canon many years ago because their prices were lower for comparable lenses. I am afraid they are losing that edge. Bodies will come and go, but lenses are the long-term and larger investment. If Canon cannot remain competitive in its lens pricing I may have to rethink my investment.
I think part of what kept Canon competitive in lens pricing was the fact that many of their primes were older. Sure, they made them right and they are good, but, until the 24mm and 28mm, there wasn't a non-L prime that was made in the 2000's. It's easy to keep prices low when you aren't updating lenses for 20 years.

I think you have good reason to be worried for the future. The pancake 40mm is the only lens Canon has put out <$1000 that seems to match its price. Also, if Canon's non-L strategy is to go f/2.8 and IS, instead of f/1.8. Because Nikon and Canon's recent 28mm offerings are similarly priced, but Nikon does f/1.8, and Canon does f/2.8IS

I was really excited for the 24/28 until I found out their prices.  It's kind of pointless to spend 700+ on a non-L prime. Something tells me they could make them cheaper, but won't.

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 03, 2012, 01:43:50 PM »
For reasons you won't yet comprhend, for video you will need:

A zoom with a fast constant max aperture.  That means an f2.8 zoom.

You will need a zoom with a filter thread that doesn't rotate.

You will need a zoom with a nice tactile long throw focus ring.

Such a lens will be really good for your photography, but will really really help your video.

You won't be using AF if you are doing video seriously.  People may take issue with this, but they are wrong.  AF cannot pinpoint what you want in focus (that is the subjects eye) and cannot track fast enough.

So really forget AF.

You have $500 and a short telephoto.

I would therefore suggest a sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro or the same but with OS (not the f2.8-4 version or anything else that sounds similar) can be found used with lots of change, you may be lucky and find a non-OS verison new, and certainly this is the best bang per buck.

18-50 is also a good walkaround lens, decent wide angle, and ok tele.  Would be a good interview and GV lens (thinking video)  Also has good close focus, it isn't a true macro, but for practical purposes, unless you work in a lab, you wouldn't need a seperate macro lens with this.

I have one and so can recommend it.

The 18-50 is probably one of Sigma's best lenses. Don't knock the 17-70 2.8-4 OS, though. Slightly less sharp, but about 200 bucks cheaper, and does well with video.

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:08:03 PM »
You are going to want some other accessories as well for video, the cost of the camera is about 10% of the total beginning expense.  hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see.  Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.

For 500 clams, you better be getting something better than "Beginner level."  You can get a brand new Manfrotto tripod and fluid head, both more than sturdy enough for a DSLR, for about 200. You can also get a set of used sticks and buy a decent fluid head separately for about 150- just make sure it's compatible with the thread.  It isn't exactly as nice as a Connor, but as long as you have the sticks secured, you won't have problems and it's 99.9% as effective.  Despite what most people seem to think, you don't need a shotgun to kill ants.

Technical Support / Posting CanonRumors links on Facebook/other sites
« on: June 08, 2012, 02:02:20 PM »
As a long time reader, I want to be able to share articles I read here with friends. However, when I post the link, it comes up not with a preview of the page, but with a gibberish shortened URL instead...Is there a way to link to CR articles in such a way that it will show the article?

I agree with Smithy.  You've been using the ID for how many years and you say it's better than a camera that you've used for how long?  Oh, that's right "playing with it for a while" and you decided to share your wisdom.  My apologies for my sarcasm.

I am not judging the camera, just the grip. The camera is by far the best on the market, for now, but the ergonomics are part of the daily use. If you shot 1000 photos a day, like I do, you would understand. Amateurs won't see it anyway...
My apologies for my sarcasm...

Doing sports/action based photography, I can't see how anyone could manage to lug around a huge 1-series plus its lens all day without having serious back problems. I gave up the 1DII for the 7D, never looked back... The grip comes in handy sometimes, but usually it just makes the damn thing too big. 

That said, I enjoyed the 1 series - I've even shot some stuff on the 1DmkIV (mostly video). Obviously the image quality has the potential to be greater than any other body... but frankly I think it's more about what you've gotten used to, and what you need for the particular job you have. While the 1DmkII was every bit as fast as my 7D, better build quality, image quality, and crop factor - I was never able to shoot the whole day running around with it unless I wanted to experience extreme pain for the next several days. 6 hours and 4200 images into a tennis tournament with a 1D/70-200IS 2.8 around your neck? Screw the chiropractor, you'll need an orthopedic surgeon to correct that.

Macro / Re: Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x 2.8 Macro Lens example photos
« on: May 26, 2012, 05:13:08 PM »
So many beautiful shots on this thread... Still, the phrase "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" continues to come to mind when I see so many of these creatures.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Large Sensor PowerShot? [CR1]
« on: June 23, 2011, 06:51:30 PM »
today pentax launched a  new evil camera

Another player in the market.

As for this type of camera being too expensive maybe a straight point & shoot, which I can't envisage being launched, but the evil type cameras are at least as pricey as the 600D if not more so, and they're selling well despite that.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that this camera wouldn't suck, and would probably succeed if it didn't have a webcam-sized (exaggerating but only a little!) sensor!

EOS Bodies / Re: which one should i choose ? 600D or 60D?
« on: June 20, 2011, 03:32:13 AM »
the 18 - 55 II lens is much better than the version I

the 55 - 250 II lens (just introduced) is better than the version I in image quality

as far as I know the new and the old versions of both lenses are pretty much the same, there are only some cosmetic changes, so it really puzzles me why you claim that the version II of the 18-55 is "much better"

I'm not sure what the numbers are but it has been pretty well established that the newer 18-55 is much better than the one that was included during the XTi era, in sharpness, contrast, build quality, and of course the introduction of IS.

Technically speaking, there have been something like 4 different iterations of this lens - the original one that came with the 300D-XTi (possibly XSi), then the 18-55 II, then the 18-55 IS, and I believe there's been minor revisions to one of those as well. The main difference optically, though, is between the original and the more modern-looking ones.

EOS Bodies / Re: Eye control
« on: June 19, 2011, 04:22:49 PM »
I've read elsewhere on this forum in another thread, people really complaining about the eye-control, couldn't get used to it, didn't want to spend a while training it, hated it, etc blah blah.
I've never used it (although i think my sis had it on her eos 50), but the one thing i do know is _if you don't like it, turn it off_.

the only arguement i can see against it is the 'i don't want to pay for something i'm not going to use'. yeah well, get used to it. how many people regularly change between all their different focus modes? us af microadjustment on every lens? use white-balance and ev bracketing?  high iso and long exposure noise reduction, lighting optimiser, illumination correction in every shot? (probably not the people who shoot raw-only). record cards-full of HD movie at 3x zoom?

half your camera is stuff you're never going to use all the time. you want a simple camera? buy a film or a leica M9.

I say bring it back, i'd be interested in trying it out on my next body. at the least i'd certainly use it for zone-selection on my 7d...

Zone selection with eye control would be amazing. I've gotten myself in the habit of using the joystick for it, but eye control would be even better.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4