October 30, 2014, 03:16:17 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 78
226
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:54:11 PM »
Watching a documentary in a true large format IMAX theater is impressive visually.  For most everything else, whether it's on the big screen or on my SDTV makes essentially no difference to me.

I find the difference between ML raw video and native 5D3 video to be entirely immaterial.

227
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D and 7D II Combo or 5D III?
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:14:06 PM »
I'm going for the combo.  I've loved shooting with my 20D and 5D, and I don't expect that to change.  I'll use the 7D2 in good light for action, and the 6D in poor light for slower subjects.

228
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:11:42 PM »
Let me be frank.  Image quality matters much, much less for videos than for stills.  Videos have many more frames, audio, and all of it in time sequence to provide more information than the viewer of a single still can get from a single still frame.

The reason I wanted 4k, even if it was low end 4k, was for stabilization in post, which can cost you 3/4 of your pixels in some cases.  The reason I want digital zoom is so I can get more zoom range out of a cheaper and better narrower zoom lens (18-135 versus 18-300, for example).

But, for properly framed shots, this performance is more than acceptable.

229
EOS Bodies / Re: Chuck Westfall Talks Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:42:00 AM »
I sure wish someone would ask Canon about the 3x movie digital zoom mode from the 70D being in or out of the 7D2.  I was really hoping they would expand that to smooth continuous zoom from 1x to 3x, but it appears they went the other way and got rid of it entirely.

It would also be nice to know if it reads the whole sensor or still line skips in video mode.

230
EOS Bodies / Re: AE-1 Styled DSLR from Canon?
« on: September 17, 2014, 07:52:00 PM »
The AE-1 was my first camera, bought at the age of 9.  I used it exclusively for many years (13, I think).

And I'd never, ever, buy a camera shaped like that again.  Nostalgia doesn't help lousy ergonomics.

231
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 17, 2014, 02:41:01 PM »
True...however, one doesn't need to buy into the whole Sony system. You can just buy their bodies (which are ephemeral anyway, from every manufacturer, unlike lenses), and use an adapter to attach your Canon lenses. Stick with the Canon "system", but gain the benefit of Exmor with the rest of that system. ;)

Do you still get the same fast focusing?

Quote
If Sony somehow did end up belly up...eh, no real harm done...most people would have replaced an old A7whatever body in a couple years anyway.

Well, maybe if it is a Sony.  I just finished a huge shoot using nothing but my over 10 year old 20D, and I got more glowing comments on this shoot than on any shoot ever.  I plan to buy two new (Canon) cameras in the next 6 months, and I plan to keep them for at least 10 years.

232
Lenses / Re: Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:54:08 AM »
By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!

I don't know where you got that idea, but the 70-200/2.8L IS II is 1,490g, and the 400/4DO II is 2,100g.

233
Lenses / Re: Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:11:57 AM »
Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable?  If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me.  I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort.  It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

i agree that the foot should be removable, are you sure it's not?

I guess I'm not totally sure, but it doesn't look removable, and I don't see any evidence that it is.

looking at the product photo i see it has slots in the ring like its supposed to slide off the studs.

Well, if it is removable, then that's good.

234
Lenses / Re: Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:40:55 AM »
Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable?  If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me.  I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort.  It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

i agree that the foot should be removable, are you sure it's not?

I guess I'm not totally sure, but it doesn't look removable, and I don't see any evidence that it is.

235
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV announcement on March 2015 or later
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:29:49 AM »
I can't think of a reason to believe the 5DIV will be anything more than a full-frame version of the 7DII with the popup flash removed and a somewhat slower frame rate.  But maybe Canon will surprise us with some new sensor technology or 4k or something else.

236
Lenses / Re: Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:06:07 AM »
Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable?  If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me.  I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort.  It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

237
Lenses / Re: 100-400mm and more DO lenses confirmed
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:16:26 PM »
Re: 100-400L

"It's definitely on the boards for replacement."

Geee...ya think?  The replacement was late 8 years ago!

238
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:54:16 PM »
I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine with a 70D took some test shots and I don't think the 70D performance at 1600 is all that much better than my 7D. If so, Canon needs some magic in that "low light sensitivity" improvement to the 20.2 Mpixel sensor to make the 7Dii worthwhile, IMO. Without a usable 1600 (or higher) ISO, I'm thinking I wasted all this time waiting for the 7Dii and maybe the 5Diii is the answer.
I'm definitely NOT pre-ordering.

That's only the answer if you can either get closer, or use a bigger lens (500/4 versus 300/4, 300/2.8 versus 200/2.8, etc.).  If neither is the case, most likely the camera with the smaller pixels will win.

Exactly, only I'm looking at the 800/4 vs my 5004 and that's an EXPENSIVE proposition.
I was hoping that Canon would come up with something that matched the EXMOR process, which would give me a usable 1600.

There is no 800/4.  If you compare the 800/5.6 on full-frame versus the 500/4 on crop, there won't be that much of a difference in noise in the final images.  The full-frame camera will be a stop or so better, but shooting at a stop slower shutter speed.

239
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:38:00 PM »
I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine with a 70D took some test shots and I don't think the 70D performance at 1600 is all that much better than my 7D. If so, Canon needs some magic in that "low light sensitivity" improvement to the 20.2 Mpixel sensor to make the 7Dii worthwhile, IMO. Without a usable 1600 (or higher) ISO, I'm thinking I wasted all this time waiting for the 7Dii and maybe the 5Diii is the answer.
I'm definitely NOT pre-ordering.

That's only the answer if you can either get closer, or use a bigger lens (500/4 versus 300/4, 300/2.8 versus 200/2.8, etc.).  If neither is the case, most likely the camera with the smaller pixels will win.

240
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:19:45 PM »
Those digital zoom things on the rebels had simply dreadful false color artifacting/moire.

Baloney.  It's just a 1:1 pixel crop - almost no moire at all, and in fact much less than in regular video modes.

The 70D has it, and no moire is one advantage often sited.

One thing I'd really love is the ability to smoothly zoom from 1x to 3x "digital zoom" which would greatly increase the zoom range of a zoom lens, or add a usable zoom range to a prime.  The 18-135STM, for example, would go from 29-216 to 29-621.

The false color artifacting comes from debayering, not downsampling. And it's very hard to suppress in the absence of downsampling. This (along with dynamic range extension) is why 1:1 pixel video cameras are rare. It was awful on the Rebels, I imagine it's also awful on the 70D, but everyone studiously avoids running chart tests on video cameras because the news is usually so grim.

Well, I've used it on my Rebel many times, and it's always been quite solid.  I've also looked at many samples of it from the 70D, and the same is true.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 78