1
Canon General / Re: The best camera is the one....
« on: April 27, 2013, 12:17:33 PM »
...that you don't feel like you're setting up when taking a picture.
May 22, 2013, 05:53:42 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.
2
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: ND filters for video? Suggestions?
« on: April 21, 2013, 11:42:13 PM »
In my country most rental places have Tiffen NDs and Polarizers. I have been a camera operator and focus puller long enough to know the difference between brands solely by looking at the final image... Even though here the standard is Tiffen, they algo give you a slight green cast and the resolution drops (this appears to be subjective, I know some ACs that claim they don't see a difference) a lot. I joke around saying that Tiffen gives you a free 1/4 White Promist with their NDs.
That is my experience with Tiffen. Sometimes I get a Schneider or B+W (owned by Schneider), and I hug the guys at the rental place. Those are good filters.
But then again, my standards of quality are comparable to standards of japanese schoolgirls. Scoring an 8 out of 10 is not acceptable.
That is my experience with Tiffen. Sometimes I get a Schneider or B+W (owned by Schneider), and I hug the guys at the rental place. Those are good filters.
But then again, my standards of quality are comparable to standards of japanese schoolgirls. Scoring an 8 out of 10 is not acceptable.
3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Low level formatting of CF Card
« on: March 31, 2013, 07:37:53 PM »
NTFS is a file system for Windows. Mac uses HFS. Windows can't read HFS. Mac can read NTFS but can't write (it can write if you install third party software).
Both systems support read and write FAT16, FAT32, and recent versions of their OS support exFAT (which is what is used in SDXC cards).
Pendrives, thumbdrives, USB drives, SD cards, SDHC cards, CompactFlash cards, and all other flash cards and flash drives out there (except external hard drives or SSD drives) use FAT32 or exFAT.
External hard drives or SSD drives use NTFS or HFS depending on what OS you choose to use it with.
Digital cameras use FAT or exFAT file systems.
Hope it helps.
Both systems support read and write FAT16, FAT32, and recent versions of their OS support exFAT (which is what is used in SDXC cards).
Pendrives, thumbdrives, USB drives, SD cards, SDHC cards, CompactFlash cards, and all other flash cards and flash drives out there (except external hard drives or SSD drives) use FAT32 or exFAT.
External hard drives or SSD drives use NTFS or HFS depending on what OS you choose to use it with.
Digital cameras use FAT or exFAT file systems.
Hope it helps.
4
Lenses / Re: Which Super-Zoom is the best?
« on: March 29, 2013, 12:01:57 PM »
Be careful about weight, the new SL1 weighs so little that with a super zoom it might be too front heavy and she might not like it. Maybe you'll have to sacrifice a little bit of reach and get something like the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS (the new version weighs about 100grams less).
Unless someone releases a battery grip for the SL1, most zoom lenses will feel front heavy with this camera... which might annoy some consumers who just want small, light, and nice handling.
As for which super zoom, the Tamron 18-270 VC seems to be the best of the bunch.
EDIT: The 18-270 VC weighs almost the same as the Sigma 17-70, it is also the lightest super zoom.
Unless someone releases a battery grip for the SL1, most zoom lenses will feel front heavy with this camera... which might annoy some consumers who just want small, light, and nice handling.
As for which super zoom, the Tamron 18-270 VC seems to be the best of the bunch.
EDIT: The 18-270 VC weighs almost the same as the Sigma 17-70, it is also the lightest super zoom.
5
Canon General / Re: How many years have the CR posters been shooting seriously / professionally
« on: March 20, 2013, 09:16:12 PM »
Got my father's old Pentax ESII from the 70s when I first said I wanted to take a photography course at age 15 (2004). Decided I wanted to do that for a living at 16 (2005), and have been working professionally since I was 17 (2005/2006). That makes it 7 years now...
Of course, how "professional" I was in my first couple of years is debatable... but I guess that happens to all of us when starting out.
Of course, how "professional" I was in my first couple of years is debatable... but I guess that happens to all of us when starting out.
6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-b Images Leak & a New Kit Lens
« on: March 19, 2013, 08:08:43 PM »
I for one like the camera. I like all the mirrorless movement, but I just can't live without an optical viewfinder. But I love their size and weight. I'd prefer to have my 5D or 7D for work but also have a small DSLR for travel and walkaround that doesn't weigh too much.
I remember an interview long ago with a Canon exec, in which he was asked about mirrorless planning, and he said something like "its not a question of having a mirror or not, people want smaller cameras with DSLR IQ. We will meet that need". I like that approach, since the EOS-M sucks at both AF and viewfinder (having none).
That said, of course that its size imposes limitations. For example, I can't think of any lens other than the kit lens, that would fit the camera and be comfortable to hold, without being front heavy. If they release a couple more lenses that are lightweight but fast/nice IQ/better than kit lens, then it'll be something else...
As a sidenote, I looked closely at the lens mount on the picture... is it me or the mount (not the ring, but the locks inside of it) are plastic? They don't shine as much as in the other DSLRs. Of course it could be just a lighting thing, but the animated GIF got me wondering... maybe its just a camera meant for kit lenses?
I remember an interview long ago with a Canon exec, in which he was asked about mirrorless planning, and he said something like "its not a question of having a mirror or not, people want smaller cameras with DSLR IQ. We will meet that need". I like that approach, since the EOS-M sucks at both AF and viewfinder (having none).
That said, of course that its size imposes limitations. For example, I can't think of any lens other than the kit lens, that would fit the camera and be comfortable to hold, without being front heavy. If they release a couple more lenses that are lightweight but fast/nice IQ/better than kit lens, then it'll be something else...
As a sidenote, I looked closely at the lens mount on the picture... is it me or the mount (not the ring, but the locks inside of it) are plastic? They don't shine as much as in the other DSLRs. Of course it could be just a lighting thing, but the animated GIF got me wondering... maybe its just a camera meant for kit lenses?
7
Lenses / Re: Metabones Speed Booster -- why only for FF to APS-C?
« on: February 02, 2013, 01:20:33 AM »
Besides, medium format lenses rarely go faster than f3.5. So an adapter with a focal reducer from MF to FF won't be much of help... just more optics getting in the way...
8
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How did they make this vid?
« on: January 18, 2013, 01:13:09 PM »Why would you think this was shot with a DSLR at all, much less a 7D?
Anyway, as said before, first shot is probably a dolly and the rest is 100% steadicam. (I'm a steadicam operator). It wasn't an incredibly talented one - it was a competent one - all the horizon floating, changing headroom, bad framing "floaty" look that you see in 90% of web videos that are out there are a good way to not work very much ever again if anybody sees it. There's a certain proficiency you have to achieve to be an operator, and not just an owner, and this is a good example of that.
7D because of depth of field, although after I posted I realized there are lots of compressed video cameras with large sensor, so FS100/700 came to mind. But it has the "Canon DSLR look" or whatever it is, I just could feel it was a Canon. I've been using them for far too long. Seems the joke is on me, since it was shot with the 5D after all.
And I agree with you on all of the latter.
9
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How do YOU set your white balance for video with the 5D3?
« on: January 16, 2013, 04:00:28 PM »
Its not really that hard. Just know the basics. Daylight is close to 5600, tungsten close to 3200.
Either use the presets (cloudy sunny tungsten fluorescent), or use manual kelvins and approach the number, while watching the LCD for the color you like.
The expoimage thingy is useless and yes, adds another step to it and more "gear" to carry.
EDIT: Also color meters won't help you. It is a tool for the more advanced, for detail specialists/freaks, kinda like a spot meter. Don't worry about it.
Either use the presets (cloudy sunny tungsten fluorescent), or use manual kelvins and approach the number, while watching the LCD for the color you like.
The expoimage thingy is useless and yes, adds another step to it and more "gear" to carry.
EDIT: Also color meters won't help you. It is a tool for the more advanced, for detail specialists/freaks, kinda like a spot meter. Don't worry about it.
10
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How do YOU set your white balance for video with the 5D3?
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:26:21 AM »
Manual kelvins, always. I usually know beforehand in what range of kelvins I would be standing on, but its hard to actually put your finger on it. Why? Because if you're lighting all up with tungsten lights (3200 kelvin), even if you have a preset for it, some light bulbs may be worn out, which will give you a warmer tint. If the voltage is not steady, or steady but not on the mark (220v or 110v depending on you country), the lights will have a warmer tint as the voltage drops. Happens a lot when working with generators. If you have a dimmer on a light, as you dim it, it also changes the color temperature slightly.
As for CFLs (3200/4000/5600, there are a lot of options), you have to consider that the white color is actually painted. The tube/bulb is kinda like thouse black/violet lights from discos. So different manufacturers, different batchs, different dim levels, equates to different color temperatures.
Regarding daylight (5600 as a standard), color temperature changes all the time. Sunset/sunrise is a lot warmer, cloudy days are a lot cooler, etc.
So, going back to the beginning, knowing all of this can give you an approximate idea of what is the color temperature of your situation. BUT, there is another factor: the camera. No camera sees everything the same as the next, even if we are talking about two Canon 7Ds that were manufactured one after the other. It never happens (color grading in post is very important). And if you put "5600" in the camera, maybe the software wasn't calibrated perfectly and you'll have to set it to 5800. It happens.
The best thing you can do, is play with manual kelvins and learn from it. All the time. In every situation you're on, try to see what changing the WB does to the image, and draw your own conclusions from that. White balance can be just a setting, or it can become a tool.
Hope it helps!
Cheers
As for CFLs (3200/4000/5600, there are a lot of options), you have to consider that the white color is actually painted. The tube/bulb is kinda like thouse black/violet lights from discos. So different manufacturers, different batchs, different dim levels, equates to different color temperatures.
Regarding daylight (5600 as a standard), color temperature changes all the time. Sunset/sunrise is a lot warmer, cloudy days are a lot cooler, etc.
So, going back to the beginning, knowing all of this can give you an approximate idea of what is the color temperature of your situation. BUT, there is another factor: the camera. No camera sees everything the same as the next, even if we are talking about two Canon 7Ds that were manufactured one after the other. It never happens (color grading in post is very important). And if you put "5600" in the camera, maybe the software wasn't calibrated perfectly and you'll have to set it to 5800. It happens.
The best thing you can do, is play with manual kelvins and learn from it. All the time. In every situation you're on, try to see what changing the WB does to the image, and draw your own conclusions from that. White balance can be just a setting, or it can become a tool.
Hope it helps!
Cheers
11
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How did they make this vid?
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:12:59 AM »
First one could be a dolly or even a steady cam. All the rest it was a steadycam.
Why it didn't float? Floating is a side-effect of cheap steadycams. It shouldn't float. And it doesn't on this video. But, on some shots, another side effect of steadycams was visible, the horizon twitched a bit sometimes. Balancing a steadycam rig is not easy, but I could see that it was a good steadycam op.
All of them had a focus puller, but the first shot wasn't really good on that area, that's why we all noticed and thought it only had one on that shot. But if you set your eyes on the background and foreground on each shot, you'll see that the out-of-focus changes a lot and not just because the camera is moving away from them. The guy walking also doesn't walk at a constant speed, hence the need for a focus puller. Probably with a whip.
The internet nowadays is full of filmmakers that learn on their own, or want to be the next big thing without actually working their way up, or maybe they just take it as a hobby. As a result, there are a lot of videos and products for filmmaking that aren't good. There are shitloads of cheap "steadycams" that give you that "floating" effect, and a lot of people reviewing them saying they are awesome, and a lot of other people that "learn" from them. I've seen a lot of these videos and none tell you that steadycam ops not only have good gear, there is a technique involved, how you walk, how you handle yourself, has a lot of impact on how much the footage will be stabilized.
On the camera side, I'd say it was with a 7D and a 24mm for most of it, judging from depth of fields and background blurs.
Hope it helps. I do this for a living (DP for small/medium things and focus puller for medium/big), so any question I'll try to answer it.
Why it didn't float? Floating is a side-effect of cheap steadycams. It shouldn't float. And it doesn't on this video. But, on some shots, another side effect of steadycams was visible, the horizon twitched a bit sometimes. Balancing a steadycam rig is not easy, but I could see that it was a good steadycam op.
All of them had a focus puller, but the first shot wasn't really good on that area, that's why we all noticed and thought it only had one on that shot. But if you set your eyes on the background and foreground on each shot, you'll see that the out-of-focus changes a lot and not just because the camera is moving away from them. The guy walking also doesn't walk at a constant speed, hence the need for a focus puller. Probably with a whip.
The internet nowadays is full of filmmakers that learn on their own, or want to be the next big thing without actually working their way up, or maybe they just take it as a hobby. As a result, there are a lot of videos and products for filmmaking that aren't good. There are shitloads of cheap "steadycams" that give you that "floating" effect, and a lot of people reviewing them saying they are awesome, and a lot of other people that "learn" from them. I've seen a lot of these videos and none tell you that steadycam ops not only have good gear, there is a technique involved, how you walk, how you handle yourself, has a lot of impact on how much the footage will be stabilized.
On the camera side, I'd say it was with a 7D and a 24mm for most of it, judging from depth of fields and background blurs.
Hope it helps. I do this for a living (DP for small/medium things and focus puller for medium/big), so any question I'll try to answer it.
12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon Cine Lenses, any experiences?
« on: January 07, 2013, 12:55:59 PM »
Same optics, different housing.
13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 07, 2013, 12:37:00 PM »
I'm gonna go a bit further away with the suggestions: Have you thought about Micro 4/3?
I've seen amazing images from the Olympus OM-D E-M5. That, coupled with the 12-35mm f2.8 (24-70 eq) and 35-100mm f2.8 (70-200 eq), could be a great option for vacations.
You would "suffer" from more depth of field and not so crazy high ISOs, but really, who needs higher than 6400? (I never shoot over 1000)
I've seen amazing images from the Olympus OM-D E-M5. That, coupled with the 12-35mm f2.8 (24-70 eq) and 35-100mm f2.8 (70-200 eq), could be a great option for vacations.
You would "suffer" from more depth of field and not so crazy high ISOs, but really, who needs higher than 6400? (I never shoot over 1000)
14
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Which Powershot or IXUS
« on: December 26, 2012, 09:36:27 AM »
Look at Canon's refurbished cameras, right now they're on sale:
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_123258_lowPrice_list
I just bought an Elph 300 HS, its a very good looking and portable camera, from now on my everyday carry-on. But on the technical side, its AWB sucks and setting it up manually is not easy nor fast. And I can't adjust the flash power which I'd like in order to use it as a fill flash...
Oh well... compromises should be made if you don't want to carry you DSLR everywhere...
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_123258_lowPrice_list
I just bought an Elph 300 HS, its a very good looking and portable camera, from now on my everyday carry-on. But on the technical side, its AWB sucks and setting it up manually is not easy nor fast. And I can't adjust the flash power which I'd like in order to use it as a fill flash...
Oh well... compromises should be made if you don't want to carry you DSLR everywhere...
15
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Patent: Integrated Lens for an APS-C Compact Camera?
« on: December 26, 2012, 09:31:44 AM »(I chose MFT...you could purchase an incredible MFT intrchangeable-lens camera with kit zoom lens and money left over to buy another lens for the $800 Canon introduced the G1X at. I wonder why it didn't sell?)
Exactly, MFT has a better offer for the same or lower price, even though the sensor es a bit smaller, if you're in the market for a "compact" camera with SLR-like features, you know there will be compromise. Their cameras are a lot smaller and some are even pocketable.
18-70 f2.8-6? Trends are going into fast lenses on compacts now (thank god), and you give us f6? No way José.