September 21, 2014, 04:37:36 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 - HurtinMinorKey

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 28
346
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Building kit around 5D Mark II...
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:56:08 PM »
They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.

I don't know about that, I used the 50 1.4 and didn't see much of a difference between it and my 50L.  The 50mm f/2 Makro is definitely sharper than my 50L.

I will concede this point.

347
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Building kit around 5D Mark II...
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:03:21 PM »
@ frank.  Thanks for the info.  I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video?  Does this do with the manual focus?  Are they significantly better than L primes?

i think zeiss give better color, sharper corner... n smoother focus?

They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.

Zeis 50mm f/1.4 goes for about  $750
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L goes for about  $1400

Check out the review site I posted above.  It's detailed in the breakdown.

348
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Building kit around 5D Mark II...
« on: February 28, 2012, 12:40:14 PM »
that 24-105 is a good all around lens. You might want to think about some longer lenses(200mm L), if you are dead set on going with the kit lens.

Otherwise I might forget about the kit lens and go with the primes.  Canon 35mmLI,  50mm LII, and 85mmLII. Although all three might break your budget, so i'd sub in a 35mm f2 for the L series since resolving power is probably more important in the closeups. 

Check this site out.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

349
Software & Accessories / Re: Photo editing software for a new user...
« on: February 27, 2012, 06:29:00 PM »
Anyone getting started right now should use GIMP.  It's only real draw-back is bit-depth, but that should be gone in year or two.

350
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 8K Sensor capable of 120fps.
« on: February 24, 2012, 12:04:51 PM »
For 8k to be worth it(distinguishable from 4K) you'd need a huge screen(200in) at a relatively short distance(10ft). In which case, eye strain will cease to be a problem, but neck strain will kick in as you try and cover the entire screen.

351
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 24, 2012, 11:59:36 AM »

If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.

And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!


uh ... no.  that's the price difference for a 61-point AF system and 6 FPS shutter.  the 5D Mark II came with video and it cost $2500.

they're not throwing anyone under the bus, they ran the numbers and predicted that the market could sustain a $3500 FF pro-AF camera.  people on these forums love to assume that pricing structure is something 'owed' to them by the companies, whether Canon or Nikon.  no such thing.  they are pricing their goods the same way that you price your goods as a photographer.  if I feel my potential client base is willing to pay $4000 for a wedding package there is no way you're going to get me to sell it for $3000.


I think you perfectly make my point on the pricing. Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." With a 5D3, they'll now say they have addressed what the market said were the small deficiencies in the 5D2 video, do a business reset and price it at $3500 -- with certainty they'll sell as many or more to the same video crowd who paid $2500. That's simply how business works, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. But the demand that drives the pricing is coming from the video, not the stills.

And the whole discussion could be moot as that rumored $3500 price may be a kit price. Who knows!

What I will disagree with is the point that better AF and shutter are worth $1000. In a stills-only camera, they could never get away with that. Also, I'd be surprised if their unit cost for such an upgrade were over $100.

My guess is this is accurate. I think the dual flash cards means a better video codec, or maybe even 4k. It kinda seems like it's gonna be the old 5dii with better AF and video, along with the requisite faster processing and fps.


352
Do you think the dual CF card slots will mean a better(higher bit rate) video codec?

353
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: If 4k video in 5dx/5d3...
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:12:32 PM »
^Part of me thinks they want to put 4k on a DSLR just to get the people over at RED to shut their trap. 

354
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Act Of Valor shot exclusively on 7D & 5DII
« on: February 17, 2012, 04:39:38 PM »
For the record, the tech specs on the IMDB page indicates they used Arriflex film cameras too.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/technical

355
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 03:48:47 PM »
But they didn't do that.  They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor.  If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?

Because the 18Mpix (larger pix) is better for stills. The only reason to have the 22Mpix in the FF is so you can do better line skipping video at 1080p.

356
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 14, 2012, 05:43:13 PM »
People can appreciate an image of a bird caught in flight, but a video of the same birds tracking across the screen? Boring.   

If you put up your still of a bird in flight next to my video shot at 300fps played back at 24fps, I'm gonna get more viewers.

357
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 4K DSLR Pics from CP+ 2012
« on: February 13, 2012, 02:25:38 PM »
i dont mean those family ones.. i mean these: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HDV/index.shtml

*nods* that is exactly the line that I am wondering how the C300 fits in and if it signals a phasing out of that product line.

Thought marekjoz does bring up a good point, as PaS and DSLRs increasingly become multimedia devices, what will become of the dedicated 'family' camcorder?  If it is not worth it to produce dedicated still cameras, why would it be worth it to produce dedicated video ones?

My guess is that this thing will still be limited in terms of battery life and storage.  It's not the type of thing you'd use if you were trying to film a wedding.  It also won't come with a nice cheep zoom. My guess is that body only, it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000. This price keeps it well below the c300 and the RED Scarlet.  In other words, this is will be Canon's offering to maintain its status as the indie filmmaker's tool of choice. 

358
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX sample photos posted
« on: February 07, 2012, 05:11:31 PM »
Did they let the engineers take these? Picture 2 is just terrible. How am I supposed to judge the capabilities of the camera with shite worl like that?

359
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 - Quality of video output
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:52:18 PM »
Does anyone know the bitrate or the chroma sample for the video?

360
EOS Bodies / Re: C300 Dealers & Price Announced in the USA
« on: January 18, 2012, 11:58:02 AM »
^^

Not to mention that RED's sensor tech is almost outdated at this point, whereas the sensor in the c300 is state of the art.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 28