April 21, 2014, 04:37:51 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 - Fandongo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 11, 2012, 06:43:31 PM »
i miss the large hood of the mark i.. :'(

Haha yeah, petal hoods are the stupidest thing in the world.

Here, let me set this lens down while I swa...woops it's broken.

32
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6L IS [CR10]
« on: February 10, 2012, 01:40:23 AM »
EF-S L would be brilliant...

If it was a 4.0, or a 2.8, or dare I say, 2.0 (for those that don't mind regular L heft).

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is already L quality as far as optics are concerned. It's just missing the tank like build quality and weather sealing.

Does anyone know why Canon has avoided making EF-S "L" lenses? Do they figure that most APS-C consumers don't want the added weight, so they stick with a plastic build?

I think its more that the L is linked to their high end lenses for use on high end dSLRs... IE: Full Frame.

EF-S can only be used on the crop sensor bodies, and not the full frame, soooo, yeah, it goes out the window there.


"High End" is subjective.
Sure, they need to coddle us FF users, but some of the crop deficiencies can be remedied with good, fast (.95) glass.

Instead, they make 900 different 3.5-5.6 lenses.

MFT will quickly swallow up all of the amateurs and semi-pros if this practice continues.

33
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 10, 2012, 12:20:55 AM »
Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
hence the several hundred dollars in 77mm filters I've dumped.

24-70 version I FTW.

34
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6L IS [CR10]
« on: February 10, 2012, 12:13:42 AM »
EF-S L would be brilliant...

If it was a 4.0, or a 2.8, or dare I say, 2.0 (for those that don't mind regular L heft).

35
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 10, 2012, 12:11:10 AM »
I still haven't maxed out the capabilities of my 24-70 v 1.  Weight might be an issue, as I am not getting any younger, eh?

Neither have I!!

It's such an amazing lens, and I bet II will be better...
Besides weight, I can't Imagine an average person to be able to tell the difference in the final output.
But then, the average person can't tell the difference between DSLR and iPhone photos anymore.

I would have been really tempted to sell and trade up if it had IS (just for handheld video stabilization).
Without it, not a chance.

They add IS to the 24 and 28... but it's only 2.8.
If it's 2.8, it might as well be part of the 24-70 II - since it sports "prime-like" quality through the zoom range.

I don't get it, bad move Canon.

What they really need is a 12-24L IS and 24-70L IS.
Those two lenses on FF, with the added range on a crop - sounds like a no-brainer money machine.

36
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 09, 2012, 11:56:18 PM »
"A photograph has much more meaning, I'm just not interested in video."
 - Every artsy person, wearing an artsy hoodie and artsy glasses

uhh, but now video is the same picture, plus it moves.
There's an incredible amount of skill required to effectively edit sequences of images.
Edits make no sense without continuity, and require music/effects (or the lack of), as well as a constant understanding of the emotion of motion.

Photography is a magnificent skill to master.
And all of that knowledge can be channeled toward video... It's the same thing, the only "constraint" is 16:9.

Not putting down pro photographers at all, their attention to detail is generally magnitudes greater than "video folk", and they deserve the right to remain photo-only people.

But DSLRs have boosted to level of amateur photographers by 1,000,000%

Mastering video, music, effects, and continuity is beyond the grasp of 999,999% of those...

So they consider it an abomination.

The sheer number of beautiful wedding videos littering the internet now (anyone can shoot emotion to Jason Mraz), as well as the plethora of short films now shot on the 5d/t2i/t3i/60d/gh2, only make their utter inability to do something similar that much more obvious.

Now light/low light is now the norm, and the high iso performance in video looks far prettier than equivalently flashless stills (since they generally need to boost shutter speed beyond 50 to remove motion blur, a favorable trait for video, and the noise nearly disappears when not frozen in time).

It's an unfair advantage, one that everyone should use to their benefit.

They aren't perfect for video.  Yes they are, they just haven't updated the unintentionally mind-blowing world changing accidental technology in over 3 years.

But...

Hatters Gonna Hate.

Let them not advance with the rest of humans.

37
lol, they're already getting stuck in their ways again.
clearly they've never seen GH2 footage.

Sexiest combination is the 5d2 + GH2.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon t4i = 7d price drop? videographers PoV
« on: January 24, 2012, 11:22:18 PM »
...and the gimmick swivel Lcd...
I cannot answer your questions.  However, I have a 60D and I can assure you that the swivel LCD is not a gimmick.  I have pulled off very tricky shots using it.  For video recording, it is helpful to have a screen that articulates.

I still always feel like I'm going to snap it off.  Removable...or less rigid (360 degree rotation) would be great.
I too have found awesome ways to use the articulating screen, however, I'm not OK with the t3i losing the LCD sensor.

With ML it's quite a valuable button, adjusting focus without touching the cam, changing backlight brightness/white balance steps without entering a stupid menu...

Pure Genius.

39
Any wagers on how long until iPhones are banned?

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon t4i = 7d price drop? videographers PoV
« on: January 24, 2012, 02:26:10 AM »
t2i + L's = awesome sharpness.

Clearly they're struggling with the realization of how much can truly be changed in software.
I'm starting to think they should keep the 7d line as the 1dx little sister, make the 5d III the best hybrid (lacking AF pts, but good video for big MP), only to be out-flexed in video by the upcoming "4k" DSLR.
Perhaps there's room for a t4i oriented to stills and a txi or something that can shoot 2k or some other pro video gimmick, in the feather-weight body.

Canon has Panasonic beat in prettiness of colors, but the gh2 blows everything away in fine detail... The softness of Canon is part of the beauty, but I'd like to see some balance, still soft but the fine detail doesn't turn to garbage poop.  Brick walls aren't as big of a problem as water...

Who knows, let's just hope they figured it out and don't charge $16k for it.

41
My 2009 MBP still handles raw quite well. 

One thing to consider is Firewire800/Thunderbolt vs. USB 3.
Sandisk and Lexar used to make a FW800 CF reader, super fast (8gb of video/photos in under 3 minutes w/extreme IV 45MB/s)... Now it goes for $300 bucks most places, since it's illogically become extinct.

There's USB 3 card readers everwhere for cheap (though I can't confirm transfer speeds), which would add further value to the ASUS.  This is why I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge before I recommit to Apple or Windows.

Thunderbolt... I think Sonnet announced something for 2124... But i doubt it will be out before August 2200.

42
Competition is good!

I hope the Sigma doesn't out IQ the 24 1.4L II.
I'd almost bet on it having less vignetting,
but the bokeh, ohhhh the bokeh.

Due time.  Video stuff for DSLRs?
features? updates? stutter-free lenses or software?

Why aren't they releasing vital organizational trade secrets that I can use to better calculate my options?
=)

43
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2011, 12:58:58 PM »
[The follow focus is more a pipe dream.
Canon will never be influenced by Hollywood to perfect a feature so incredibly intuitive that it would put every focus puller on the street.

why not?
if it reduces cost for the studios... they will want and use it.

we saw other professions disappear.


Americans are on a ridiculous jobs kick.
Not to be confused with the Jobs kick.

They don't care how much better a computer can do the same job.
They want jobs so bad they're willing to lose their jobs to protest the lack of jobs.
Jobs jobs jobs, I created 2,000 jobs.

It doesn't make sense, people should protest the existence of inverse pyramid organisations - particular those of the government's own making and managing.
Not reward with praise the existence of fundamentally flawed futile jobs.

Studios spend cash like it's candy.
Arri knows this, and charges accordingly.
In DSLR replacing 35mm film land, $3500 for a follow focus is not OK.
In the scope of their absurd expenditures, an extra body to focus is nothing.
It's easy to see how it snowballs.  If a camera costs more than a house...several houses with all the film once it's all done, just for the technical ability to roll film.
Everything has to be perfect along the way, and they all get hired to do their one thing.
Don't even look into permits anywhere near LA... Outrageous.

Cutting the focus, and keeping ridiculously fancy catering, tons of grips, and 100 PAs would be unlikely.
If they switch to these cameras they might start cutting all of the slack...
It'll get the snowball rolling the other way.
People might start screaming "off with their heads"
I don't see Hollywood dropping the focus puller or any set slaves, even after it becomes commonplace.

Because of the inherent advantage that kind of functionality would give the indy...
There's no way they'll release it any time soon.
It puts too many jobs in danger.

Of course, they're more than welcome to prove me wrong.
Hopefully with the 4k DSLR.

Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Scorsese are producing kids movies.
G movies pull almost unfair profits.
They're preparing for rocky waters that the imminent over-saturation will cause, while making things an indy CAN'T do by himself with a 5d.
Of course, nobody with just a 5d and some cfls/leds has proven that they can do Scorsese or Jackson.
Yet.

Consider how absurdly easy editing has become... And so smooth.
Millions of dollars couldn't get 3 years ago what kids have on their quad core Macbook Pro with Adobe.

"What's it like to ONLY be a director?" 
   - a 12 year old kid asks Scorsese in 2014 after shooting a movie in 2 days that generates blockbuster revenue.

:P

44
EOS Bodies / Re: “Revealing” Canon C300 Test Video
« on: November 30, 2011, 11:13:15 AM »
Too bad they didn't specify the "HD SLR" they used for the side-by-side shots :) The difference in image stabilisation is huge. I wonder how the 7D/5D II video shooters feel about this comparison.


I would say don't shoot with a jiggly tripod head.
If you're an excessively jiggly person, get a good IS lens.

DSLR + glidecam + rollerblades on horribly bumpy cobblestone = smooth as butter.

I'd also say check out the wide bike shot @48fps 720p.
Still dirty like a DSLR in 720.

Negligible high iso noise is cool.
It's cool on the hacked gh2 too.
This camera matches exactly what i expected of the 5d3.

Unimpressed.
TO THE MAX!!

45
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2011, 09:44:41 AM »
Quote
Pmovie mode w/optional:
  - auto 180 degree shutter (change shutter - visible frame rate indicator adjusts)
  - auto WB that doesn't change after hitting record.
  - auto iso - adjusts at variable rate depending on how dramatic the shift, staying constant whenever possible.
  - follow focus preset marks
     - you could even set approximate marks, while in record a half shutter press begins the rack...it stops once the object in that approximate location gets focus confirmed.

The follow focus is more a pipe dream.


Well if I was working for Canon as a product owner (assuming they are not living still at stone age with waterfall process, project and program management and all the unnecessary work which does not help the consumer to get the products on time the consumers want), I would surely try to include these features. Lockable follow focus to an object is in software perspective feasible. It would not be very easy feature to implement, but it would be something that would make the camera to do something revolutionary instead of evolutionary. There are plenty of other things that could be done for the picture as well, which currently nobody is doing. However, the case is that I am not working for Canon.

Sounds like features like this would be more likely to come from one Cupertino company if they would ever venture to SLR cameras.

Quote
They aren't supposed to know.

Sometimes I wonder the product decisions made by companies. Sometimes they seem to do so dumb decisions that it is incredible how they can survive such fiascos. Instead of answering to a market need or creating a new market breakthrough, they companies tend to do evolutionary products without inventing anything new innovative. And then they sell that crap to customers because customers are expected to be sheeple and not care about what they buy. Maybe at the Internet age a change might eventually happen that selling crap over and over again will not work anymore and consumers, prosumers and professionals are more aware on what they want and what they will buy. Here would be a incredible chance for some small startup to come up with a total Canon/Nikon killer that would run circles with their products at a price that would completely kill the market for the traditional camera companies. Technically it could be done but it would require some serious venture capital and investors who have some vision rather than just looking the next quarter.



It is a damn good thing us nerds use the internet.

Have you seen tech commercials these days?
I think the rule of thumb is:  If you see a commercial for it, DON'T buy.
It's old, underpowered, they made too many and they want you to take the rest off their hands.
i5??  Intel is advertising i5 processors?

Never saw a Sandy Bridge-E commercial.
Remember how much Pentium II was hyped?
I kinda wonder if we'll see a repeat with Ivy.

Red is a small startup (relative to Canon) and they are a great example of just how hard it is for a smaller company to match the consistency demanded from professionals.
You can take more risks (like throwing a totally inept video mode into a beastly 5d) buy from wholesale suppliers at a massive savings, and sell much closer to the cost per unit because you have your hand in other industries raking in big bucks.  I bet people who shoot on Canons are tempted that much more to print Canon. =)

Sigma hinted that they need to split lens lines for photo/video.
Panasonic brought the classic video camera style rocker lenses and some damn good stabilization.
I hope the need doesn't imply that a smooth electronic follow focus can not be achieved smoothly with still lenses as they currently are.  I wagered the purchase of L's on the hope that it was just a matter of time, otherwise woulda went Zeiss, sacrificing sharpness for color/bokeh/great MF.

But i agree with you certainly, someone needs to step up.
I was expecting it to be Samsung.
...Still could be.

I don't understand the new Canon Motto:  Match, don't push, never lead.
They started with the goal of "destroying film"
Man did they do a good job...
Cinema was a fluke, lets not mess with that.  WHAT?!?!


Quote
3. AF for video

Unlikely, if it follows the lead of the 1Dx. And for the HDSLR people this is much less priority item than a aliasing free image that really is 1920x1080 pixel by pixel sharp.


A lot of people jump on the "they don't want it, nobody would use it" train.
But it's an entirely arbitrary statement.

They've never had the opportunity to use it without it hunting all over the place stupidly.

It's wrong for consumer products to be better and simpler at achieving the goal while the higher end stuff lags behind.  But it happens all the time, mostly due to product cycles. 
And people in the prosumer forums saying:

"Why would we need this?"   

"That's stupid and I'm all pro!"

and of course...

"Don't advance things.  I hate when things get better.  I like my cameras like my women - old, not able to do many things, and desperate for someone to use them...preferably in the $3,000 range."

Pixel to pixel sharpness is almost an irrelevant advance (except for cropping) when people can't point out the 5d shots in a theater.

Average people can't tell the difference between:

1) 35mm film of their ass
2) m4/3rds video of their ass.
3) full frame video of their ass.
4) their ass

The advances in numbers and perfecting those that are there just feeds us stupid pixel peepers with an insatiable lust for MORE.
Hopefully the Digic 5 can at least match the gh2...
But I'd choose features over numbers with a mantra.

The power of one.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4