January 29, 2015, 01:51:03 AM

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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 56
EOS Bodies / Re: 4K Fixed Lens Camcorder Coming? [CR2]
« on: December 05, 2014, 09:18:39 PM »
Of course we're all speculating to some degree, but from reading the description given here, it sounds like it will be a relatively small sensor camera (1" or less) because it will have a fixed lens and will also possibly be announced at CES so more of a prosumer/consumer camera.  I took the statement "it will have similar ergonomics to the EOS C100" as meaning the body will look similar to the C100 along with a similar button layout and a top handle with XLRs.  I think it would be awesome if it has a sensor that's as large as the C100's and hopefully it will, but to me it sounds like it will have a similar shape to the C100 but not necessarily similar sensor.
To me the biggest giveaway is the name. XC10 sounds like its basically the in-between line of the XA series (XA10, 15, etc) and the C-line. So, maybe it'll have a slightly larger sensor (maybe 1" to the XA's 1/2.84") but a lesser zoom range. Which actually would make for a great event/interview camera for my work.

I love the XA line, so, anything they can do to improve that is a win in my book

Can someone please explain simple /me how it has more dr at higher iso?
The simple explanation is basically the same explanation for how actual film had ISOs (100, 400, 800, etc). Each was designed to have maximum performance at that base ISO. Digitally, sensors have a sort of "native" ISO where they perform best. Many stills cameras work best in the 100-200ISO range, while many cameras designed for video tend to be in the 400-2000 range as "native".

Red talks a bit about it midway into this post: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/iso-speed-revisited

Ok, but sarcasm aside - from shooting with ML's dual_iso I have a vague idea how much dynamic range daylight high-contrast shots have. I'd say with 15-16 stops you should be really covered for most natural scenes, 14 is fine for most purposes unless the sun is in the frame. So what's 21ev for?
Flexibility. I can always add contrast and crush the ends of my levels to turn it back into 15-16 stops, but its much harder to turn 15 stops into 21. Could be especially useful if, for shutter speed reasons, you need to under or over-expose signficantly. I dont mind clipping highlights if I wasnt gonna use the top 3 stops anyway, if that's what I need to shoot at the right shutter angle.

It's mostly a question of "why not?". Do I really need to be able to shoot cleanly at ISO6400? No, but, I might be able to save a lot of money on my production using an A7s cause I need less light.

edit: Other thing that occurred to me...it could, combo'd with the Movi system, etc...completely change moving from indoor to outdoor for filming. If leaving a bright outdoor scene and moving indoors I change 7EV, with a 21 stop sensor, I might not even have to pull exposure as I change between those scenes. I can just adjust my color grade in post.

Of course, as Red Dragon showed, "21 stops" is never actually 21 stops...it'll be 17 or 18, which will be about perfect.

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:17:35 AM »
Tokina 11-16 is the way I'd go. Sharp lens that gives you a decent range for wide-angle. And its the only lens that works at f/2.8, which if you ever decide to get into night photography, is the difference between getting useable shots and not (the 10-18 starts a full stop slower, and even the 2/3 stop of the 10-22 makes a difference).

My sense is that the 10-22, 10-18, Tokina 11-16 are all about equal in sharpness in standard landscape apertures (f/5.6-f/11). But, only the Tokina can do f/2.8.

Sigma 18-35 would also be a nice lens, but, I think you'll find going from 18mm to 10-11mm opens up your repertoire more than going from 18mm f/3.5 to 18mm f/1.8 does.

Lenses / Re: 60d lense options ?
« on: November 23, 2014, 02:11:33 PM »
I have a 50mm 1.8 is all... Im getting into on camera/ Off camera flash and strobist work. I shoot mostly portraits and do majority video
And my budget will be 600 USD

So, if you're doing portrait work and video, then you are probably going to want to aim for primes. Going the 15-85, 18-135, etc dont really make sense unless you were doing travel photography.

There are basically two ways to go

1. Go all primes. So, maybe the new ef-s 24mm lens as well as the 85mm f/1.8 (or 100mm f/2). That would cover most general portrait work, and if you needed wider than 24mm, then something as simple as the 18-55 kit lens may do it.

2. Buy a 17-50 f/2.8 (if Tamron, I'd go non-VC) and then get another prime (85mm/100mm). That'd cover you from 17-50 and give you a closer portrait lens as well.

Ultimately it depends what kind of video you are doing. If you're in constant motion, then you'd probably have to grab primes or zooms with IS to make up for that, but if you are shooting locked off, you won't need that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 19, 2014, 12:15:25 AM »
I think it might be possible that Canon has discovered an optical formula that works well and has patented it as a defensive measure against other companies using it to produce a competitive lens.
I think you hit the jackpot. This is one of the possibilities they came up with for the 10-18, yet despite it maybe being better, they went with the more practical choice.

If they released an EF-S 11-24 on top of the 10-18, I'd have no idea what to think.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How long until the next FF body? Or buy now?
« on: November 15, 2014, 11:47:28 PM »
Seriously?  I was surprised that we didn't see a new rev of the 6D at Photokina two months ago.  As the Rebel of the full-frame line, I'd expect the 6D's refresh rate to be a lot closer to the 1-year Rebel rate than the 4-year high-end body rate.  By two years from now, other manufacturers will be eating their lunch at the low end.
Eh, I think that's looking at it the wrong way. While it is the cheaper option, it's still a $1000+ camera, and Canon doesnt refresh those as frequently. I think we're definitely a year out from a new 6D, and the 5dIV will probably come before it.

Either way, we are definitely a full year from having a <$1500 full-frame camera that isnt the 6D...so, unless you are fine waiting that long, I'd say 6D is the way to go.

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 07:01:56 PM »
Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!
Actually, Canon has been releasing the updated lenses and cameras at essentially the same retail price as their predecessor. So, the new 100-400 was within $100 of the retail price of the old 100-400 at its initial release. Likewise for the 7DII and a few others. I cant find what the retail price for the 35L was on release, but, I'd bet it'd be within 10% of what that was.

Probably $1799 if it doesnt have IS

Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:57:40 PM »
I'm torn on this one, if it is indeed real.  My head is swirling these sort of thoughts right now:

  • If it's for event photogs, one would think it's a stop too slow, right?
  • If it's for video, where's the IS?
  • If it's for landscapers, how do you filter it?  We'd be stuck in Wonderpana world, wouldn't we?
  • If Canon insists on going pound for pound with Nikon's 14-24 ultrawide, they will be a stop slower.  Isn't the Nikon an f/2.8 design?
Well, lets go through them. First, 11-24 is not for event photogs, thats that the 16-35 is for. Thus why the new one has IS.

It's also not for video, as its impractically wide and would only be used for very specific shots. Far more likely that someone would want the 16-35 range for that (and again, that has IS).

Landscapers have been filtering lenses without threaded filters for many years, and many that would buy this $2k+ lens either already own filter systems, or dont mind spending a little more on some new filters. Nikons 14-24 doesnt have threaded filters either, nor does Canons 17mm TS. Even if this did have a threaded filter, it'd be wider than the 77mm or 82mm filters people already own...so, new filters would be needed anyway

If Canon is going pound for pound with the 14-24 from Nikon, then Canon is 3mm wider, which some might trade the f/2.8 for. Especially if its as sharp at f/4 as the Nikon is. Likewise, it'd make Canon's the widest rectilinear lens out there I believe. The few people that NEED 14mm f/2.8 could either get Canon's, or do what most of them are already doing, save $1000+, and buy the Rokinon. Most astro guys [main user I can think of that would want/need f/2.8] already own the Rokinon because it's 1/5th the price of the other options.

The new 16-35 makes this lens slightly less desirable than it probably was 6 months ago. But there are still plenty of landscapers that will buy it if its on par with the sharpness of recent Canon lenses. Especially if it comes combo'd with a 30+ MP sensor

So not only are there some bizarre undisclosed weightings involved, but DXO isn't even testing bare optics.
To be fair, that is actually useful to know. For example, if I can see than on my camera there is no difference in sharpness between Canons 17-40 f/4 and the new 16-35, well, then I just saved myself $700 if I dont need IS. Whereas if it'll make a noticeable difference, I probably need to start saving up. Last I checked, nobody uses a lens without it being attached to a sensor.

Now, they way they embarrass themselves is by taking 3 fairly useful numbers and combining them into some nonsense number/grade. They should at least be able to explain why one is ranked higher (like Snapsort at least shows how it weights its comparisons and what it considers important).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the 7D MK II Really Selling Well?
« on: November 04, 2014, 07:49:43 PM »
My point is that the 7D was difficult to find in stock for months.  Same with the 5D MK III.  The 7D can be picked up in most cities, and its just a few days after it was released.
This is why I question how well they are actually selling.
Yeah...it could certainly be that its not selling well. Could also be that Canon decided to delay release so they had plenty of stock. People going to buy a camera and finding it out of stock can be lost sales.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the 7D MK II Really Selling Well?
« on: November 04, 2014, 06:10:31 PM »
Currently number one on Amazon best sellers list. number eight with kit lens. People dispute the Amazon list but never cite any better list or have any valid reason for challenging it. So yes, it is selling very well now. The fact that dealers have it in stock simply means canon accurately projected demand and they have the infrastructure in place to meet the demand, unlike smaller companies like Tamron.
Well, consider what the Amazon best-sellers list is really tracking. When was the last DSLR released before this? The D750 or A77II are probably the closest...one being 2 months ago, the other being 4ish months ago. So, you'd hope a brand new camera would outsell ones that is a few months old. I'd actually be surprised if it or the D750 are still that high on the list come a month from now, since the bulk of camera sales are the XXXD and XXXXD cameras for Canon.

When the Canon winter rebates come out, that'll tell you how well the camera is selling.

The answer is easily no for me. I can own a 1DX and a 7dII right now and still have enough leftover for a few L lenses. If the $10k body came with a fixed 16-300 f/1.8 lens, then it'd do something the others couldn't. Otherwise, $10k is about double the max I could ever see a body being worth.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Listed as Discontinued at Amazon UK
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:45:33 PM »
A little more fuel for the fire - Nikon has lowered the price of the 610


Nikon USA has finally drop the price of new Nikon D610 and Nikon D7100. The Nikon D610 body only now $1,696.95, and Nikon D7100 Body Only now $946.95.
Right, so Nikon's entry level full-frame now matches the price of Canon's (6D is $1699 most places right now). Makes sense to me. That Nikon's dropped that far already despite being a year newer (technically) is probably not great for their margins.

That said, its a great sign for the 6DII or D620, they may well end up <$1500 in a few years if prices keep pushing down

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Listed as Discontinued at Amazon UK
« on: October 27, 2014, 09:16:54 AM »
Get the 6D better AF coverage and more points, get dual cards and what would be the need for 5D3 that you lack on such 6D2?
Frame rate, flash sync speed, max shutter speed, over 30+ AF points (just because a 6D would have 19 doesnt meant they'd have a good spread)....all things critical to a pro photographer vs a hobbyist. And those are the markets they are targeting. You'd find few, if any, sports or wedding photogs who would go 6D2 over 5DIII in that circumstance.

And as a hobbyist, I'd certainly like a 6D2 that has the IQ and low-light ability of the 6D, but with a little better AF spread so I can use it for the times I capture action/nature.

Agree. 6D is an amazing value option for Canon shooters and underlines how little an "upgrade" the 5DIII was.
Huh? The 5DIII was a massive upgrade over the 5DII for photography. As in, pro's dealt with the hilarious limitations of the 5DII because it was their only real option (without going 1D), while they flocked in droves to the 5DIII.

It added 50+ focus points, 40 of them cross-type...added 2fps to the rate...the list goes on for days. The 5DII was out-spec'd by the 60D in everything but sensor size; the 5DIII is beaten only by the 1DX.

If that's a little upgrade to you, you'll be horribly disappointed by every Canon upgrade from here to the end of time. Few, if any, cameras will get more of an upgrade in one cycle

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 56