September 22, 2014, 12:38:57 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 248
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 08:30:14 PM »
5D mk III = D800/D4, canon slightly better but same league

5D3 as is = a bit better than D800 overall (arguably, depends whether you favor lack of a bit of aliasing vs better detail), but well behind A7S native 1080p or 4k into Ninja Shogun and behind downscaled GH4, perhaps a bit behind some of the other Sonys and others too now

5D3 with ML and shooting in RAW = well better than the Nikons and most of the rest, somewhat better than A7S

Quote
7D mk II = D7100/5300/5200/3300/K3/A6000, Canon slightly better (except GH4 being only better in resolution) but same league

Nah GH4 downscaled to 1080p is way the heck better than 7D2's waxy, soggy footage. Some of the others have better video quality than it too. And if you compares to the FF A7S.... left in the dust.

Some of the others have better usability features too.

Although the 7D2 does have DPAF for the times that is useful though.

Quote
there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.

Not true at all. It's embarrassing how much more detailed and natural say A7S 1080p in cam footage looks than in cam 1080p from 7D2 and 5D3 never mind the rest of the Canon DSLRs (and we didn't did even get into adding a Ninja Shogun to the A7S!!!!).

And downscaled GH4 4k looks pretty solid and has way more detail than 7D2/5D3 (unless using 5D3 RAW). I'd say enough to embarrass the Canons.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 08:24:17 PM »
Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost  Hollywood movies  and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

 

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Yes, but note you say as a B cam. Not as an A cam for the biggest Hollywood productions.

3
Sure the low ISO DR is weak for this day and age (although banding is fixed which is very nice) and the video quality.... but just focus on the what the 7D series is most about and what matter most of all for it- a small body with speed, AF, reach and the 7D2, assuming the AF works as well as assumed, seems to hit out of the park and would certainly appear to be the best such option in existence. As far as speed AF it appears to be all out, close for metering (although lacking spot linked to AF point for some reason), and 10fps is very good speed and the UI is quick and great. Grand slam at it's core.

(the worrisome things about it are more worrisome for other lines, it still leaves (some good number of) us fearing the 5D4 may once again have a non-Exmor-level sensor and crippled video quality and usability)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:01:53 PM »
Anyway this is probably getting too much into the finer points of video image quality, which I have a feeling might not be the top priority in this one particular case.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:00:45 PM »
If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.
... plus the 7D-II has a headphone jack (much like the 5D-III) which is useful for monitoring while you record.

It also has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out with audio embedded.

The clean 4:2:2 HDMI isn't worth much since with Canon DSLRS the image quality damage occurs prior to the compression stage. I got a Ninja for my 5D3, but I could barely tell any difference whatsoever. Using ML RAW though the difference was beyond night and day.

I've seen the difference, and it's minor.  It's better in some ways, but worse in others, especially hot pixels and color artifacts.

In some cases I could swear it even gave you LESS dynamic range too. (talking clean HDMI recording, not ML RAW)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:59:03 PM »
I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot. :)

While I shoot hockey a lot (my kids play) I never use the burst mode, I'm always single shot.  Maybe it's because I play as well, dunno, but I can anticipate the shot and get what I want.

I have had to work on my technique to get those shots.  I learned that AI-servo really helps (that's an understatement), I use center point focus, spot metering, shutter priority and I tend to set the ISO, auto ISO hunts more than I like.

The real reason I don't do bursts is I hate having to go through all that crud and delete the non-keepers.  I tried burst and found that my keeper rate fell to about 1-10%, closer to 1%.  My keeper rate for single shot is 50-90%.  So I had a good reason to work on my technique.  If you don't made the post filtering then yeah, I've heard 8fps is as "slow" as you want to go.

Good luck with whatever you do, and don't worry too much, you've got an awesome body in the 5DIII.  I love mine.

I don't know which body and lens you are using, but your keeper rate in extreme low in burst mode. I did find out, and seen that many more action photographers, use centrum weighted measuring instead of spot measuring. I don't have then problems then that my auto-iso hunts that much.

I'm using the 200mm f2.0 prime (a very nice lens) and the 5DIII (which I also like).

When I'm shooting burst there are all the pictures before and after the shot I wanted that I toss.  I'm taking 10ish pictures to get one (and that doesn't always work).

I play hockey and I can anticipate what is going to happen, I know the shot is coming because I see the windup, I've gotten dozens and dozens of nice shots of goals being scored with the puck in midair.  All single shot.

If you don't play the game I suppose it would be harder (I sort of feel like being a player is "cheating" when I'm taking pictures, I know where the game is going.  I also coach several teams so that probably helps with reading the game).  Anyway, for me, single shot results in just as many (or close) keepers and a ton less post processing (which is really delete, delete, delete...).

This is all at the rec/high school/travel level, so it's not a money maker (though I've been offered jobs by the pros, LOL, $25/hour 1099 money, like that's going to pay for my equipment :)  I just do it so I've got pictures to look at when my kids move off to college and for the other parents/kids.  So I'm optimizing for the least hassle for me.

If I was getting paid to take NHL pictures then I might play with the burst mode, doing it for fun means I spend too much time deleting.

Nice combo by the way. Not only for sports inside but also for portrait.

I do understand what you mean now by keeper rate. It's keeper rate against the required shot you would like.

For sports it is such a tremendous advantage you can read the sport. In fact for all type of action photography. You are fully right that using continuous mode would give you a lot of photos, which you don't all want to keep. Best advice there for people is to use for a while NOT the continuous mode, but the single shot. Just to reduce the load of generated photos. Also in continuous mode, you need to trigger your camera only when it is needed. You need the correct face expression, the position of ball, or in your case the puck. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Sorry, but thought you needed some assistance for such a high rate "out of focus" which you din't say say but I presumed from your low keeper rate.

The dangers with not using burst though are:
1. AF will miss, with burst at least maybe you got once decent shot in focus out of the sequence
2. you might not handle the AF perfectly in all cases and then once again a burst might at least get one semi-decent shot
3. sometimes a hideous facial expression or arm pops up in some weird position or blocking something critical, you can known the sport as well as a pro and have played it at a high level, but it won't help in these cases, a fast burst might still get one great frame
4. sometimes you want more than one key frame
5. something things go into a wild melee
etc.
for some things, like ball on head or bat, you do have to time it yourself, even a 10fps is way to slow
and even for regular things, sometimes your own timing can pick the peak of the peak of a sequence out better than a burst (although once you get to 12fps the burst can often do it as well, plus with 8 or better 10-12 you sometimes want and can get a couple really key frames)

7
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:54:09 PM »
If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.
... plus the 7D-II has a headphone jack (much like the 5D-III) which is useful for monitoring while you record.

It also has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out with audio embedded.

The clean 4:2:2 HDMI isn't worth much since with Canon DSLRS the image quality damage occurs prior to the compression stage. I got a Ninja for my 5D3, but I could barely tell any difference whatsoever. Using ML RAW though the difference was beyond night and day.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:52:31 PM »
Just a note on video to help you decide:

Canon has two generations of video IQ:

-Generation one: aliasing and moire hell, soft images, poor lowlight performance, these are the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, 100D, 1200D, 60D, 70D, 7D, 5D mk II, and 6D. These cameras have bad IQ compared to their current competitors (D3300/5300/7100, A6000 etc)

-Generation two: used pixel binning instead if line skipping therefore eliminated aliasing and moire, have better resolution and way better lowlight performance, these are the 7D mk II and 5D mk III. These have similar or better IQ compared to their competitors (D5300/D7100/D600/D800 etc)

 If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

Actually even in gen 2 the video quality is kind of behind the times at this point. It's very waxy and blurry. A lot of competitors have better to vastly better video quality now.

But yeah the 7D2 is better than the 70D for video quality. The 70D has a lot of nasty aliasing and moire, the 7D2 fixes that up, although nothing else (still the same soft, waxy video and still without basic, basic things like focus peaking and magic focus zoom box and such).

The only high quality 1080p from a Canon DSLR these days is from the 5D3 if you shoot RAW using the ML hack. The 1DX 1080p is passably sharp.

But the best video AF probably is in the 70D/7D2.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:48:09 PM »
If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.

Are your really sure that is true?? There is absolutely beyond a doubt no way in heck that should be something patentable. Granted the patent office has done some things that are utterly nuts, so I suppose, but....

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:45:37 PM »
I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III. I mostly shoot candids, portraits, my grandson in the park and his T-ball and soccer games.  The 5D MK III has done really well and  I rented a canon 1.4 III extender and will try out this weekend.

The reason I’m interested in the 70D or 7D MK II for my second body are.
The extra reach and video auto focus.

70D advantages
Touch Screen
Articulated Screen
Price

7D MK II advantages
Ergonomics (similar to 5D MK III)
65 Focus Points
10 FPS
Weather Proof
Headphone Port
Viewfinder coverage, 100%

I’m leaning towards the 7D MK II, but I’d like to hear your feedback and suggestions.

Which one would/will you buy or would you buy?

I'd think the 7D2 would do considerably better for soccer.
That's what that cam is made for and for what it should be the best aps-c camera on the market.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:56:25 PM »
Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost  Hollywood movies  and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

 

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:55:03 PM »
Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet. I have no complaints on the C100/300/500 cameras up until the day Sony released the FS7. The C100/300 are the best in their class but now they've been surpassed by that Sony, they will update them to be conpetitive again, that's how it works and how it will always work.

It's the low-end market that's lacking. For example, the Canon rebels were a revolution in filmmaking when they first came out, and they were great for that time, but Nikon started making the D5200, D5300, D7100, D3300 that exceed the rebels significantly in image quality, no aliasing/moire, higher detail, better ISO performance, yet Canon never seemed to answer those at all yet, making the Canon rebels markedly inferior to the competition, which is a position I've never seen Canon take, they are always the best. From the rebel, to the 60D, to the 70D, to the 7D, to the 6D, ALL have markedly inferior video quality to the entire competition, for example, the 6D video quality is significantly below the Nikon D3300, or Sony A6000 little APS-C mirrorless, a completely unacceptable situation.

Therefore Canon is only on par with the competetion (and even beyond them) starting from the 5D mk III. Only then you can get a clean image without aliasing or moire with good resolution and lowlight performance and the much-loved Canon colours. And the C100 is absolutely superb of course.

This situation has given the video shooters the feeling that Canon has taken their hands off the low-budget filmmaking market and supporting only those above the 5D level, and they do have the right to feel that. (photographers complain that Canon neglected them in favour of video, a bit annoying for us video shooters to be honest given our situation, we mock these comments all the time on video forums - poor photographers with the limited choices they have)

The 7D mk II is the first step Canon has taken to show they still support the <5D market. For the first time we get a clean 5D-twin image on a Canon that's below 3500$. The 7D mk II is now on par with the competetion (D7100, K3, A6000 etc)

but that's still a 1800$ camera, now they need to fix it on the 70D, and on the rebels. If they do so, then they will be on par with entire competetion, and for me even that isn't great as ideally we want them to exceed the competetion not just catch up, yet even catching up below the 7D mk II market is not even happening. A completely bizzare situation.

We are not asking for revolutions we just want the Canon low-end DSLRs to have similar image quality to the rest of the market as the 7D ii and 5D iii do.

Until then, I will probably be buying a 7D mk II after it's been tested. But from initial observations, it has identical IQ to the 5D mk III, same lovely clean image which is a bit better than the D5300/D7100/A6000, making it the first low-budget upgrade for Canon shooters below the 5D mk III price. Canon video shooters need an upgrade for their rebels and 60/70Ds, and the 7D is too high for them. This IQ must trickle down to the rebels otherwise Canon will be losing many customers jumping to Sonys and Nikons.

That's the situation on the low-end market. If Canon starts doing the same with high-end market (not updating the C line to be on par with the FS7), well that would be a shipwreck. But I don't expect it.

I wouldn't say the 7D2 or 5D3 (ignoring ML RAW) are even par. Downsample GH4 4k to 1080p and it's much better. And the A7S has much better 1080p. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the others do now as well. Canon produces very waxy, low detailed 1080p in their DSLRs. (unless you shoot RAW and use ML, that makes the 5D3 video totally awesome for 1080p)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:58:14 PM »
Now maybe Canon is just holding off the good stuff for a soon to arrive 5D4, fair enough and it is a bit higher priced. I used to be all but sure, I do wonder now though.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:57:05 PM »
Lee Jay I can't imagine having a cellphone for 7 years!  :o  so curious, what kind is it??

All of them I've ever had, several brands.  I'm only 2 years into my Galaxy S3 at the moment.  Haven't considered upgrading.

I live in Colorado too, the "big landscape state".  I think I've taken about 5 landscapes in my life, and only one of them in Colorado.  That was a big panorama taken with a state of the art camera, a Nikon Coolpix 950!

Different circles then. There are many well known landscape photographers who live in this state. One in particular is exceptionally well known, John Fielder. This IS a big landscape state, and people DO spend a lot of time taking landscape photos here. Go hiking up in the highlands above the Maroon Bells, or in the Uncomphagre wilderness, or San Juan range, and you'll see a ton of people with DSLRs.

I think your less a representative of "the norm" than you might think. ;)

If "the norm" for dSLR owners in Colorado is landscape photography and obsession about DR, then you're right on target.

I suspect that once again, you're assuming your needs/wants/habits are those of the majority.  They're not.

You seriously don't think that landscape photography is a big thing, in of all places, Colorado?

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:42:30 PM »
DPAF and STM are for newbies and consumers that play around making videos, not professionals.

Yep, there are lots of newbies and consumers dropping $12,000 on a C300 to play around making videos.

True, however how many of the actual professionals dropping $12,000 on a C300 are doing so to play around with DPAF, especially on critical shoots? I'd wager the percentage is quite small at this point. That may change, especially if/as the technology improves...but I would be willing to bet that manual follow focus rigs are still used with a majority of C300 shoots where focus is critical.

There are 1000's of pros making a living shooting docs and ENG work either alone or with one assistant. Not all video work is done on a set with a team of cameramen, focus pullers, audio guys, and cable runners and what not. There's a place for AF, and it's actually really easy to not use it if you don't want to; no one suggested that manual focus was a thing of the past, but AF is a tool that will become increasingly useful as time goes on. And I'm sure my blasphemy is making someone's eye's bleed right now.

agreed

I'd still 1000x rather have the A7S video options though than 7D2 video.

Why does the 7D2 still have the same old waxy/blurry 1080p 8bit as it's best quality mode? Why did they even remove the zoomed video mode that would be so useful for wildlife and you know make sense on an action/wildlife cam?

The $2500 A7S puts out nicer 1080p in cam than the $10,000 1DC (so does the 5D3 with ML RAW, granted you have to be willing to deal with RAW). And with the Ninja Shogun, it puts out nicer 4k for $4500 than the $10,000 1DC (and you already have your high-res external monitor included for that $4500).

GH4 4k downscaled to 1080p is better quality than 1080p in cam from 7D2.

Some of the other cams were actually also 'so daring' as to give focusing aids that work while shooting live video and other BASIC usability features that Canon once again declared were not fit for the 7D2 since they are 'ultra-high-end only features'  ::).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 248