Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Canon U.S.A. Introduces Two New Cinema Prime Lenses, Expanding The Cinema EOS Prime Lens Product

« on: January 10, 2013, 10:46:32 AM »

From what I understood looking at everything made for cinema, they're pretending to sell everything at 10-50 times more their price just because they think every person working for cinema is freaking rich.

Just think: how much would ever cost to produce such lenses? Think also at the other Canon Cinema Zoom Lenses with astronomical pricing, think at the bolts and knobs (which are just plain stupid pieces of metal) made by RED as accessories for their rigs, they're as expensive as if they were made out of solid gold...well they aren't!

At this point I really wonder how do these lenses compare with the new Samyang T1.5 35mm AS UMC, Samyang T1.5 24mm ED AS IF UMC, and Samyang T3.1 14mm ED AS IF UMC which cost a fraction of that price (about $400-500), and we all know how spectacular is both the build and optical quality of Samyang lenses.

It largely comes down to volume. Canon is not going to sell many of these lenses, even if they were priced much less. The market is small, so they have to spread development and production costs over far less customers. But yeah... they're crazy expensive.

2

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 07, 2013, 12:18:03 PM »

I'm curious what selling points will be used to differentiate this from the cameras that exist on smartphones. They went to great lengths to make this friendly to "smart-phone photographers," but what's really going to want to make them shell out a few hundred dollars for this? I'd argue that general photo quality has gone downhill over the past five years or so, especially with the plethora of filters applied haphazardly to photos in the first place. But I'm not sure that the average consumer cares enough about actual image quality to warrant having a second device.

Anyway, interesting camera. I love the design, just curious about who it's going to appeal to and if it will be a success.

3

Lenses / Re: whats up with my focus?

« on: November 26, 2012, 11:12:36 AM »

That image is comparable to my best images with the 7D when I shoot at such a high ISO. That's why I usually stick with 1250 or less. Focus looks fine though. Try at a low ISO and see if that makes a difference. Corners on lenses that wide are usually a bit distorted.

4

Lenses / Re: Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 on Crop Body

« on: November 10, 2012, 01:35:13 PM »

I have this lens and use it with the 7D and 60D. It's a beautiful lens. I'm actually selling mine to get a mountain bike, as my hobbies are shifting. But I have really enjoyed it. I use it for both video and photo. For video, the large rotational distance between focus points makes follow focus awesome.

The one thing I'd caution you about is that this lens, wide open, out resolves your camera's focusing screen. As in, looking through the optical viewfinder, it's hard to tell if you've nailed focus on someone's eyes or on their nose. Using LiveView bypasses this issue, and with the swivel screen of the 60D, that helps shoot like this. I've done that a lot with the 50mm and prefer to use it on the 60D for this reason.

Here's a test video I shot just after buying mine:

http://daveheinzel.com/?id=3_25

5

Landscape / Re: Utah

« on: November 02, 2012, 09:53:18 PM »

Awesome photos Dave. I particularly like the last one. I have been all over the USA but never to the south of Utah. It's on my bucket list.

You've got to go. It's wonderful. If you don't mind a crowd, Arches is great. The hike to Delicate Arch is not very long (30-40 minutes) and is very rewarding. Sunset there is magical, even when you share it with dozens of people. Canyonlands is more remote and offers long hikes. And there are great photo ops at every turn. I struggled with wanting to leave my camera behind and just go hiking, but I couldn't bear the thought of not having the camera when I found "that spot." And "that spot" was all over the place.

6

Landscape / Re: Utah

« on: November 02, 2012, 07:22:17 PM »

It was a beautiful area - definitely worth going. Moab is very close to Arches NP and has several options for hotels. But I reserved a campsite in the park. You have to do this in advance during busy times. Daytime temps were warm but not hot, and night was cold but not freezing. It was a good balance between each if you're camping. Arches was borderline crowded, but if you go there not expecting solitude, it's not bad. Weekdays are better if you want photos without people in them. Canyonlands, especially the Needles district, offers more remote trails and great photos as well.

7

Landscape / Re: Utah

« on: November 02, 2012, 06:02:51 PM »

Thanks guys. Equipment is Canon 7D with either 10-22 or 17-40. I also used a polarizer (perhaps too much in some cases). Flash was a 580 EXII. I had gels but accidentally left them in the car. Instead of doing a one-hour round trip hike, I used a yellow poncho I had with me to color the flash. I had my white balance set to make the sky look blue, which made the naked flash look blue as well. I only had to do a slight correction in Aperture to this, but I was happy to get it close.

Oh and for the 35mm stills I was using a Canon EOS 3 and Ilford HP5.

8

Landscape / Utah

« on: November 02, 2012, 04:37:27 PM »

Hi all. I recently returned from a trip to Utah and wanted to share some photos. I have them all on my website organized into galleries here: http://www.daveheinzel.com/?id=4_78

Some of my favorites are attached.


Composition of 12 35mm black & white stills.


Hiking in Colorado on the way to Utah.


Delicate Arch at night, illuminated by hand-held flash fired through yellow raincoat.

9

Lenses / Re: Why would you get this lens?

« on: September 25, 2012, 06:36:07 PM »

How come the 10-400 1.4L IS pancake isn't on the list? I'll take two.

10

Landscape / Re: Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?

« on: September 24, 2012, 09:26:35 AM »

I'd vote for the 10-22. I have that one and the 17-40, and on my 7D and 60D, the 17-40 is just kind of "ok" in the wide department. I usually find myself shooting the 17-40 at 17 almost all the time, but with the 10-22, most of the time I'm in the 12-15mm range. I have a normal polarizer filter, and because I usually shoot zoomed in a little, I never see it in the corners. Not sure if it's visible at 10mm or not, but I can't recall ever seeing it.

I'm going on a landscape photography trip soon and will be primarily shooting with the 10-22, 17-40, 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8.

11

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Hasselblad at Photokina and lensrentals sense of humour :-)

« on: September 20, 2012, 10:00:52 AM »

It's their 60 anniversary, so it should rather have exactly 60 AF points marked in viewfinder with Svarovski crystals cut with diamonds brought from the the mine below the Mariana Trench and every next year they could add another crystal as a service worth another 399E.

Haha, perfect.

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Hasselblad at Photokina and lensrentals sense of humour :-)

« on: September 20, 2012, 09:33:42 AM »

I'm kind of disappointed that it doesn't have 72 cross-type AF points.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR

« on: September 17, 2012, 11:00:40 AM »

I might be the only one who actually wants this camera. I currently have a 7D and 60D, shoot a mix of subjects (portraits, sports, landscape) for both paid work and for fun, and I take a lot of video with both cameras.

I use the 7D for football with my telephoto zoom and have my 10-22 on the 60D for crowd and close-range photos, which the 6D would be better for (I have the 17-40, which would work, although it's slow). I only use the center AF point, possibly a holdover from my early SLR days. But I'm not overly concerned with "only" 11 AF points.

I've never owned a full-frame (unless you count the EOS 3 film camera), and this seems like a logical step up. I could sell the 60D and 10-22 and be more than halfway to the cost of the 6D. The 5Diii would be ideal, but it's just out of my price range. And if I managed to save up that kind of money, I have a million other things in real life where I should put that money first.

So, yeah. This should be a no-brainer. But for some reason, I already have premature buyers' remorse. And the thing isn't even out yet. Good thing I am forced to sleep on it.

14

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: First Canon EOS C100 Short Hits the Web

« on: September 11, 2012, 09:44:20 AM »

I really wanted to like this video, but you have to have some story in mind first, not just a random sequence of clips with shallow DOF and people screaming "whoo-hoo" in different locations. What happened to story telling? Video has become all about showcasing steadicams, underwater casings, and suction cups. Yes, footage looks great, but I lost brain cells watching this (Maybe Neuro can help me get them back? :-))

They should just give all these promo projects to Vincent Laforet. Or at least the guy who shot Rebecca Black's "Friday" :-)

Completely agree. I came to the forum to gripe about shallow DOF and the people screaming "woo-hoo." You did it for me. Thanks! I think we've all seen enough meandering camera demos like this by now. It's all tool and no story. It's like showing off some new cookware by throwing everything in the fridge at them. I'm not sure if that's the best analogy, but it's a fun visual.

15

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The Three Best Lenses for Filmmaking?

« on: September 08, 2012, 10:56:36 PM »

My favorite three that I own and use are:

1) Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS ii. The IS on this lens is fantastic for handheld video, and the image quality is so consistently amazing. Love this lens for almost any type of work.

2) Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE. It's the cheapest Zeiss you'll find, and it's great for video. Image quality is outstanding - very sharp when focused. And the barrel rotates so much for focus, giving you great control for follow focus. And it has hard stops at the end of each focal range. It's a pain for still photography unless you stop down quite a bit.

3) Canon 17-40mm 4.0. This was my first L lens, and I'd probably like the 16-35 better because of the larger aperture, but I have really been happy with this lens.

I use a 7D and 60D for DSLR video work. Another lens I have and use for video is the 10-22. It's crazy wide at 10, and handheld video has a very seasick kind of feeling. But in some situations it comes in handy.