Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 22, 2013, 10:54:34 AM »

\I'm just curious about the workflow with this...are you doing this frame by frame for every image for a video? That sounds VERY time consuming and impractical for any shoot of any reasonable length...?

cayenne

As they mentioned, the key is to do it with a scene that you can apply global adjustments too. So, I can edit picture number 1 of 240 in my 10s clip, then apply it to all the other images (ACR has synchronize, other programs have a similar feature). Takes just as long as a normal grade, maybe even faster, but you get much more powerful tools.

2

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Preorder the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC

« on: May 14, 2013, 09:56:51 AM »

The lens case is certainly included @ B&H

Shhh...people can't feign outrage over the case price if you tell them facts!

3

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 13, 2013, 08:43:31 AM »

Definitely a potential game changer for some narrative work, and people doing really short clips. But anyone doing event work (weddings, etc) wouldnt really be able to use it. I remember how mad people were at the 4GB limit (which meant 12mins or so); no way they'd settle for 700 frames.

But, since I'm one of the people who records short clips, I'd love this capability in my 60D, even if its for 10-15s

4

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:23:05 AM »

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

Who said anything about a format that supports everything that PSD does? You claimed you would lose access to your data, which is false. You can easily export all the layers to individual PNG files and open them in pretty much whatever software you want to use.

This is a major paradigm change from the previous versions. If I own CS5, my files don't become obselete if I dont want to pay for CS6, right? Now they do within the Adobe realm. People can still use CS2 even though it was released in 2005 (they'd pay $1000's for that in CC)...yet the day Adobe checks my license and its not paid, I lose it now. Sure, I might be able to pay for another program that can handle the files, but before this change, I would just keep using Photoshop forever if I wanted.

Now, there might be advantages (more frequent upgrades, cloud storage, etc), but, none of us have actually experienced those yet. We've just seen the price hike and a major shift in how things work. It's understandable people are unhappy, even if it ends up being brilliant. Adobe has to deliver a significantly better experience for the change to be worth it.

I can't believe the amount of whining over a $20 a month subscription to Photoshop, $10 the first year if you already have an earlier version...

Because that $120 I spent in the first year is a good way to the price of an upgrade from the previous year's model (usually $199). I usually go 3 years between upgrades, so I now would spend $360 for that instead of $199...and I might get more updates in the process.

If that $20 was a locked in rate I think people might be less mad, but, it's definitely gonna go up after that first year. So, that $250/yr becomes

5

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for $629 at RitzCamera -mistake or fake?

« on: May 07, 2013, 09:03:24 AM »

But still no e-mail confirmation, 8+ hours after placing the order...

Had the same thing happen, though I confirmed mine wasnt fraud via email. Finally got my cancellation email last night, which I expected. Oh well

6

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for $629 at RitzCamera -mistake or fake?

« on: May 06, 2013, 09:17:15 AM »

I expect they'll cancel these orders. From their ToU:

Agreed...but, I placed an order anyway in the hopes they actually meant the IS version and not the non-IS.

7

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS Rebel SL1 in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: May 02, 2013, 07:29:33 PM »

Introduce some new pancakes and never need a compact again.... also becomes a possible back up....  price drop in a couple of months...

...justifying to myself.

Yep, this camera is likely what I'll end up buying as my camera for when I'm kayaking...using my 60D now, but the weight and size mean I need a bigger waterproof case and more weight to carry. I had been thinking of going NEX for that, but, the cost of getting good lenses for it + the NEX-7 body was too steep. Here, I can use all my existing EF glass and get about the same size/weight

8

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 6D for $1599

« on: May 02, 2013, 09:32:00 AM »

I don't see them as an authorized dealer?  Does anyone know for sure or how this works?  I'd like to purchase the 6D.  My main question is...does purchasing it through them void the warranty through Canon?

Technically, yes. In reality, it seems Canon does honor warrantees even from non-authorized dealers in most cases...of course, the risk is they could stop doing that and you'd have no recourse.

Since the cheapest ones from authorized dealers are $200+ more, then it can be worth it. Especially since you should be insuring your gear anyway if you've got full-frame equipment

9

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip

« on: April 30, 2013, 04:31:14 PM »

Otherwise combining the 11-16 with a 24-105 seems a good 2 lens situation for a crop sensor camera.

It seems like it...but theory is likely different than practice.  The 24-105L is a great general purpose FF zoom - by definition, a general purpose zoom covers moderate wide angle through short telephoto in one lens.  In APS-C, that's a 15-85, 17-55, etc.  The 24-105 on APS-C is a normal-to-tele while the 11-16 is ultra wide - and the gap from 16mm to 24mm is significant, almost the whole wide range is missing (the 10-22 would be a better choice for that).  The real problem is that means a lot of lens changes, not a great solution. Having an ultrawide to supplement a true general purpose zoom does make sense.

Yep. Unless you know you have specific needs for the Tokina's f/2.8 (night photography, basically), then the 10-22 would be a nice combo with the 24-105

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Firmware 1.2.1 Available for Download

« on: April 30, 2013, 08:56:32 AM »

Magic Lantern is working on a true RAW and 14 bit video recording along with 4:2:2 to the card, something we'll never see from Canon.

And they've already said it will never be something that will work for video people...best they've gotten so far is 720 at 24fps for 2s...the reality is you'll never get long recording times because the camera has a buffer to deal with. 1080p wont happen.

Really, it's an upgrade for time lapsers and may have some cool other uses.

If this is the case, the soft output of the 5DmkIII compared to other cameras, as documented on many of his tests, may in fact be impossible to fix with a firmware update, at least one from canon.

That said, what they did find interesting was that the resolution of the DNGs they got from their RAW mode were way higher resolution than just the traditional h.264 video stream from Canon. Not sure if that means that Canon intentionally is crippling it, or if the h.264 encoding loses a lot of resolution, but, that could be useful for some purposes.

Of course, if you want Raw video at 2k, you'd just spend the same amount on a BMCC instead and get a much nicer workflow.

11

EOS Bodies / Re: 70d out in time?

« on: April 29, 2013, 08:22:21 AM »

During my time owning the 60D, I mostly shot landscape/sunset and night street photography. I also will be assisting my sister in shooting a Wedding as well, it will be a nice to get my feet wet into wedding photography.

60D is just fine for those purposes, though obviously for night stuff a 5dii/6d would be nicer. But, as you can see right away, its hard to find cheap glass for full-frame, so, you'll spend $1500 on the body and another few thousand on lenses. Adds up fast.

The amount that I want to spend is tentatively $2000, but I could see myself selling the Tamron, and forking up a little bit more to get a 6D w/ 24-105mm f/4 IS, but then again, I don't know if I could justify the price for essentially a "first-time" DSLR.

Well, a 60D is pretty dirt cheap at this point, seen them in the $5-600 range fairly frequently. So, that leaves you $1500 for glass. If you do a lot of travel, the 15-85 would combo nicely with that as your kit lens. And then a few primes (85mm/100mm and probably something wider, maybe 24 or 28mm) and you'd have a decently well rounded kit. The primes would work for street/night photography, 15-85 gives you some landscape flexibility. And for weddings you'd be covered indoors and outdoors for assisting.

And if you eventually decide to go full-frame, all the primes would still work. And the 15-85 holds its value fairly well.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]

« on: April 26, 2013, 02:25:46 PM »

But the problems folk have found aren't necessarily problems for me.

I have my 7D for the fast stuff.  Even with a shorty forty my 600D wouldn't fit in my pocket.  And the reviews I've seen all rate the M quite highly for video.  Which is very useful for me. And the price is getting very right.

That's all good, but when a company like Canon admits that there are issues with the current model and decides to relaunch it, then why not wait a couple of months. I personally do not see the price going up that much, if at all, as it is not a new model but a replacement of a model that had issues.

Because the EOS-M, on launch, was $799 for that kit. The new EOS-M, at cheapest, will be $799.

Currently the EOS-M is $469 at Amazon, which means its probably going for $400 in some deals. That's half off...so, why wait for improvements you dont really need when the price is 50% off.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 26, 2013, 09:35:43 AM »

Black Magic also announced 2 years ago that it would deliver their products on time.
Some people are STILL waiting for their Gen 1 products when they are out announcing their Gen 3 versions.

What good is a $4000 camera if you have to wait for 18 months + to use it?

Well, lets parse through the BS here. The camera was announced almost exactly a year ago at NAB with availability in July. So the wait, at most, has been 9 months for anyone. As they have been very open about, they had issues with the sensor manufacturer that they have gotten taken care of, and they have also been very open any other issues and how they are fixing them. Since it was a Gen 1 camera doing something nobody else really was, that's understandable. If the EOS-M is any indication, making a product perfect the first time isn't as easy as it looks.

They have also been great about adding new features people ask for. Meanwhile, Canon still won't tell us if they are ever updating certain mistakes on their end, and we have to rely on Magic Lantern to get basic firmware features.

Moreover, they've made it pretty clear they learned from that mistake and are gonna be ready with stock in July for the new cameras. If they fail to deliver, then it'd be fair to criticize them as someone who can't deliver. Especially when Canon and other companies never fail to deliver their stuff on time.

14

Technical Support / Re: Request for advice: Nightsky Picture Stacking and PS techniques

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:19:59 PM »

Another way to create "star trails" is like this. 100 images @ ISO 200, 60 second f4 using a 35mm lens. Then "stack" them using a program called "startrails.exe"

Yep, and their are photoshop actions that do a similar thing...just googling Star Trails will get you to a dozen different things that do it well.

15

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:15:56 AM »

First of all, this is the dumbest gripe I've read in a while.  If you're that unhappy, get a FF with a 24-70 and stop whining. 

Second, it's not even a valid gripe, as Tokina has a 16-28mm constant F2.8 that gets excellent reviews on crop.  Are you really that concerned about the difference between 25.6 and 24?

Yeah, especially since this zoom would do things a 15-85 can't touch; it'd be reasonable to own both as they would be for very different situations.

And since I can't imagine it'd be that great for night photography at 15mm f/1.8 instead of 18mm f/1.8, seems a moot point.

The 17-55 could easily have been a 15-50.  The 18-35 could have been a 15-30.

Well, if you're willing to pay about 40% more, than 15-85 is gettable instead of 17-85. But, if you start adding 40% to all the prices of the Sigma/Tamron/etc lenses that go 17-50, most people wouldn't but them. It's one thing to get a $4-500 OS f/2.8 zoom; but by the time it's $6-700 there are other ways to go. Likewise if the 17-55 was a 15-50 that cost $1500. Going those extra few mm's means bigger glass, and more expensive lenses.

If it was so easy to make 15mm zooms, then why is Canon the only one that does?