September 16, 2014, 01:54:52 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.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17
136
EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS 1D & EOS C500 for NAB
« on: April 11, 2012, 06:53:05 PM »
Interesting, higher res than a 1DX - be interested to see how close it might be to the 5D III sensor and how it performs.....

How many 1DX pre-owners might have second thoughts??

137
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 vs D800: Video 1 of 3
« on: April 06, 2012, 06:27:29 AM »
Also worth a view...

By Crisislab

138
Video & Movie / Re: 5DMkIII film shot in SoHo, NYC
« on: March 31, 2012, 02:51:34 PM »
nice work...

139
Macro / Re: 9:1 macro
« on: March 31, 2012, 08:16:19 AM »

140
ND Grad Filters are just another tool in the bag for making the photograph as close as you saw it. As others have said, ND Grads are good to bring the DR within the capabilities of the camera when the scene allows you to. I have the Lee system, but there are times where I will favour a 2 shot bracketed picture - typically when the part of the scene I wish to control is too irregular in shape.

Sometimes when I have used them, I will still correct the dark banding that you can often have on the scene as a result of the Grad overlapping with other elements of the scene. I will also use a Grad in LR to either lighten or darken a scene further (Lee grads only work in stop increments, sometimes I want finer control)

Bracketing, as people have pointed out, is more difficult with moving elements in scenes, but i find most of the time I'm either blending sky or water with the land, and therefore the moving elements (grass, water, trees), are limited to only one part of the scene and not impacted by the blend.

Bear in mind also, that if you can avoid a filter, even a Lee, that you will get sharper pictures so always check before you reach into your bag. How much does it blur? Put your camera on live view, 10x zoom, and put the filter in front and then away from a scene and see. It's not massive, and it can easily be corrected in PP. But if you don't need it, don't use it :-)

Your Lee circ pola will also be a good investment once you need to use it across a few lenses. And of course there are things a Circ Pola can do which you can't do digitally.

Finally, the other thing I like about the Lee system which I've used on occasion is their 2 rotation filter holder which allows you to independently rotate 2 filters. So you could use one Grad for the Sky and perhaps a 2nd for some water.

Like I said, filters - both real and digital are just tools in your bag to help create the scene you envisaged. Happy photography...

Oh ps. if you have not ordered them, get the £3 white plastic caps. I leave the adapters on all the time and therefore these are great protection...

141
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 29, 2012, 07:51:01 PM »
I actually do not think its game over or I need to switch.
In fact I don't think there would ever be any reason for me to ever sell and change
to another brand, save for maybe if Canon goes bankrupt -- which will not happen.

I just find it absolutely ridiculous that any sort of comment made that does not fall along
the lines of "oh Canon is so great" gets bashed. I mean... why? If one doesn't criticize oneself,
how will one improve? I simply mentioned a need that I have and that the current Canon
offering will not fulfil, so I will simply keep on waiting until it does get fulfilled, that is all.

The overwhelming hostility and brand affiliation on this site is almost as bad as POTN, and
probably is a predominate Canon-user trait. None of my Nikon friends exhibit this behavior.

The minute anyone criticizes Canon... or perhaps even Apple, someone immediately
jumps to a conclusion and starts being ultra defensive of their views. I thought forums were
for discussions? Clearly not.

By the way, I shoot with two 1D Mark 3s, surprised?
I shoot with a pair of 1Ds MK IIIs, so no, not surprised at all :-)

And I was not trying to defend Canon or bash you, so sorry if that is how it came across.... I said I understand your frustration, I felt the same when Canon released the MK II hence why I ended up with two 2nd hand MK IIIs.

I am surprised on how many people appear to think that Canon & Nikon will always release similar specs at almost the same time, as though the industry is "geared"...

I find the D800 appealing and interesting, and I will be closely watching to see where the market pans out. Photography is pleasure for me, and it is the longer term view I will take based on what I think both companies may offer, from bodies to lenses. I've also considered a Pentax MF and a 2nd hand Phase One....

142
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II
« on: March 29, 2012, 07:43:02 PM »
Since you're not in a rush, and since you're considering spending over five figures on a lens...I'd suggest budgeting an extra grand (total) to rent each before you buy (based on a guesstimate of a few hundred each for a four-day rental). Or, at least, go to your local pro camera shop (if you have one) and play with them in person.

Either that, or figure out how much of a hit you'd take to sell one and factor that into your budget. Buy the one you think you're most likely to want, but don't worry about selling it and buying the second on your list if you're not happy (because you've already set that money aside); think of the loss for selling it as the rental price.

And, I gotta tell you...the 400 and the 600 most emphatically are not the sorts of lenses you just toss in a bag with the rest of your gear. They come with hard-shell cases big enough to fit at least a couple dozen laptops, and I wouldn't recommend transporting the lens outside the case. Think of them as watermelon-sized faberge eggs, though their fragility is more like that of the watermelon than the egg.

Frankly, there's no way I'd even think of taking my 400 anywhere unless I knew I was going to be shooting with it, and I doubt I'd be shooting with it on my lunch breaks unless it was part of a paying gig. Don't get me worng -- it's a hella fun lens, and I'm always looking forward to using it. But, at the same time, it's not something to take lightly (so to speak).

Cheers,

b&
I take mine (500mm IS) in a Lowepro bag and the only time I use the (original) case is when I'm at home.... Oh and for the 500mm, could not fit one of my laptops in there - can't speak for the 400 / 600mm versions :)

143
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II
« on: March 29, 2012, 07:02:18 PM »
Thank you for all the replies.  The 400/2.8 II is definitely another strong option that I should consider.  Interestingly my main concern was that the 400/2.8 II + 2x extender would be considerably less sharp than the 600/4 + 1.4x but at least with the current 600 that does not appear to be the case - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 One advantage that the 600/4 II does have though is it makes a nice 1200/8 - which perhaps will be more useful in the future when Canon releases a 1 series body again capable of focusing at F8.

Note that I currently own a 300/4 and a 70-200/2.8 II.  I plan to sell the 300/4 to help fund whatever I buy.  However, the earliest I will purchase something is the end of the year as I have quite a bit of saving to do (the 5D3 did not help here :))

In terms of lugging gear to work, I already lug a bag with a 7D, 5D3, 70-200/2.8 II, and six other L lenses to work every day.  I will need a bigger bag for either lens, but it isn't a big deal.
If birding priority has a significant gap over wildlife, then the 600mm is your choice. Not sure why you would sell the 7D unless you were considering a 1D IV, as the effective reach is better.

The 200-400 appeals more for when you want to frame the wildlife and you have more opportunity to. I find I have more time with animals than birds, unless you have some lure for them (ie food). Currently I have a 500mm and 70-300mm. I might supplement with a 300mm f/2.8 but the 200-400mm is a rental option only for me I think.

You're biggest gap appears to be the longer reach, so 600mm, 1.4x and 7D. Unless you find you need higher ISO capability than the 7D delivers for you. Rent the 200-400 for Safari's if you're not happy with the 70-200mm.

144
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 29, 2012, 06:47:42 PM »
Quote
The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.


Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.

Yes, this is the industry standard.

Most if not all 400ppi prints on commercial design work are using
photos shot with a MF camera.

But you do realize that smaller studios do not have that sort of budget
to be spending $20-40k on a back alone and upgrading it every few years.

High mp 35mm cameras are definitely feasible as shown by the D800,
I really dont see why there cannot be a shift away from shooting medium format.
Photo equipment is severely overpriced, whose to say that it cannot get cheaper?

The world should move forward, not sit back on
existing business models "that works."
Canon delivered what most of their users indicated they wanted, and where they thought the market was going. Whether there was some technical reasoning behind that we can't tell.

3 months ago, Nikon had the 24MP 3DX. Then they released a 36MP monster. Canon has not said they will not release such a camera (after all a 7D @ FF is > 45MP), but right now they have released what they thought the market wanted / needed 2-3 years ago.

I understand your frustration, but your phrasing appears to indicate game over, just 'cause Canon did not know Nikon would release a high MP camera... There is a short term game, which a lot of people here seem to be worried over, and thus are considering a switch. There's a longer term game also and by the end of the year, we will hopefully know where Canon thinks it will make the most impact (financially...), and can then see if it still aligns with our needs. If I switch, it won't be because I don't think Canon can deliver, but I do think they are somewhat conservative.

AnselA wrote a good piece which resonated with many members. Having an "outside / less regular" posters' perspective is good to make people step back and think. Maybe we should have a "Vent" category, where people can airs their gripes, irrespective of their abilities and everyone knows what these posts will contain.

For me, I get a lot of benefit from the site, and have learnt a lot of tech from people far more knowledgeable than I. And for me, that's why I frequent the site.... The flotsam is well... just that :)

146
1DX Sensor 18MP
7D AF
7D Body
Digic V not+
<$1999K

I would guess Canon will see how the market responds. Sub $2K vs high MP. Higher volume and Canon's own response to Nikon's disruptive 36MP, while they develop their own MP monster for 2013.

They've already shown they will encroach on the 1DX by putting the AF into the 5D MK III, so I don't think they will worry about using the sensor in a cheaper body. But I think they will want to protect their MK III sales. So it will have a lower MP than the MK III

I think this will mark the end of the APS-C with a xD numbering and there will be no 7D MK II, this will be handled by a 70D in 2013. With Canon shifting their prices up, then the xxD range will come in at the old price of the xD.

147
I don't find this review to be accurate, and some of the information in it is actual false.  Also, it is very emotional - why?  It's just a camera review for goodness sake.

The review is comparing a 5D3 out of the box to a GH2 that has been hacked... great review (i hope my sarcasm is coming through) ;-). 

It seems like the author is mostly upset about the price (as are lots of people).  He is mainly stating that, for the money, there are a bunch of different features that you can get on different cameras.  IE - Uncompressed 4:2:2 via HDMI.  I'm not saying I wouldn't want that in my 5D3, but add another $3000 to your GH2 set up for the AJA.  *Oh, you'll also be needing a rail support system and some Anton Bauer batteries to power the external recorder.

Also, he makes no statement as to the lenses he is using for the GH2/5D3 comparison.

I'm not going to lie, I personally would love a 1.6X crop from the sensor like on the Nikon.  That is a bummer.  But if that means I have to use Nikon glass... for get it.

Furthermore, as someone who used the 5D2 a lot for macro videography for the last 3 1/2 years...  I can say without a doubt that the "jello" rolling shutter issue is vastly VASTLY improved on the camera.

And shooting super clean 6400iso footage with the CineStyle gamma setting is great!

Go Canon! 

Harold.

i agree, but I'm also talking about the other review, i was so surprised how he jumped all over the 5D with out of the box settings and all. to get what we are getting today from the 5D and GH2 they are both essentially hacked, the 5D with the technicolor picture setting and the RGB transcoding software is the standard for professional use, do we forget that camera was delivered to us with no manual video settings and no 24p! and the GH2, well we all know how bad that delivery was, bottom line is it takes US to make them perform well, what we do with them and and what we make of them. out of the box no dslr is going to perform great, you have to know what do with all the settings for you particular application. seems to me he deliberately set off to write a bad review and purposely shot an out of the box factory settings dslr against a completely hacked camera. my first response is yeah i see that too, but i turn this off, disable this, customize my personal settings and the video seemed much better than any of the 30ish projects i shot on the previous version,no moire either... and stills, with HDR and 61 point auto focus, simply an amazing upgrade.
I think the other point to make, be it Nikon, Canon or whoever, is that they should open up the operations of both video and stills in their cameras, rather than have the tech community have to hack them to make changes. If Nikon & Canon differentiated their products based on the HW capability, and left the software features to software devs, then we would have a far richer feature set to leverage....

148
there is no question the D800 is an awesome camera.  I am still waiting for the side by side comparison with the 5DIII. I think all of us professional photographers are...

Really? Professional photographers waiting for internet reviews on 2 new bodies which will be out of date in 3 years time?

What about the lenses?

If youre invested in Canon lenses and flashes the 5D3 would have to be pretty crap to make you sell all your gear and start again with another system surely?
Surely every owner of Canon who has invested a lot in lenses needs to look at the long term, not the short? By that I mean where do you think both Nikon and Canon will be in 5+ years. If you think that Nikon will continue with their "lead" over Canon then the lens investment should not be a barrier if you migrate over time. And by "lead" I mean whatever features you value in a dSLR, be that video, high fps, AF, sensor res, low light capabilities etc.

So for me it is the longer term view and looking at 2 generations of Nikon and Canon (MK II / D700 and MK III/D800). If I believe that Nikon has more of what I want, and Canon will never close that gap, then I don't think swapping is as big as some people may believe so long as you do it over time.

I think quite a few people here will change / increase their lens collection over time. I'm certainly looking at the 24-70 and the 70-200. So if I picked them up for Nikon rather than Canon, paired it with a D800 then I would keep my 1Ds with the 500mm etc for wildlife until such time as I could swap those out.

No way would I make that decision until the year is out, and the full Canon / Nikon line up is released....

And now to contradict myself (such is my dilemma  :P)

If you go over to Tom Hogan's site and look at his commentary in March, I think he nails it pretty much spot on. Whether you have a D800/D4/5DMK IIII/1DX, it won't matter - you'll be able to take great photos in different conditions and know that the camera will produce the results.

And I think that is the case. I think the current sensor design is reaching a plateau in terms of what it can squeeze out of a bayer arrangement, and I think there needs to be a tech leap to a different design before this will yield a significant change. Hence why there is not a significant difference between this generation and the previous one (evolution not revolution). But again, the results from either system (N or C) will satisfy the large majority of shooters.

Finally, I'm reminded of an article a while back on Lu La which talked about the days where a lot of Hi Fi manufacturers desired the lowest THD on their equipment, and were in competition to get the lowest value. Ignoring the fact that the final sound it made was not to the taste of many people as it was too sterile. Translate therefore into DxO benchmarks... Sure they give an indication of the quality of the sensor, but no more. Compare a picture from a latest gen DSLR with a Phase One MF and I don't think anyone would doubt the Phase One is a lot better (ignoring low light / high iso). And so it should be for the cost  :)

Similarly between Canon and Nikon, since you will never be able to eliminate the glass used, with an A:B print comparison, if you like the results from Nikon enough then you have your answer for this generation. Now you have to decide whether Nikon will maintain that "lead" for you and then figure out how to migrate (slowly or big bang)...

149
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7590/first-truly-representative-nikon-d800-video-footage-dxomark-says-sensor-is-best-ever


EDIT: For all the people blabbing about photographers not needing one more than the other, I ONLY SHOOT VIDEO!
I'm curious.... why have you jumped for a MK III if video was a priority for you? Did you order before any reviews came out? If you have a heavy investment in Canon lenses, then would you not wait to see what the 4K video is, or the "other" body which may be released in the Autumn??

150
Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« on: March 21, 2012, 08:57:45 PM »
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter.  I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one.  Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens.  Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc.  Highly recommended for the right person.  For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome.  I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF).  In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did.  Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.

Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)

Hope that's useful.
Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.

I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition  :D

Thanks again.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17