September 02, 2014, 11:45:24 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 - daveheinzel

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16
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.

17
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.

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Macbook pro retina advice
« on: July 07, 2012, 12:44:39 AM »
Ok, I'm getting jealous now.

You'll love yours. And good tips on going SSD on MacBook Pros. I did the same on my old 17, and it made such a big difference.

19
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Macbook pro retina advice
« on: July 06, 2012, 10:45:06 PM »
I've been using my new retina MacBook Pro for a week now, and I can tell you that it is a fantastic machine. I do a lot of video work and photo work, and it's absolutely stunning for both (FCPX and Aperture).

Don't believe the negative stories about its graphics card not being able to drive the screen resolution. There are only a few situations where you'll see that effect, and the computer does not, in any way, feel slow or "stuttery."

I'm coming from a 17" MacBook Pro. The retina's screen is much more clear, but as others have said, it's a smaller workspace (understandably). Is that bad? No. Do I miss the extra room from my 17"? Sure. What I miss more is the battery of the 17". The retina's battery lasts several hours when really pushing it, which is nice. But it does drain faster than my 17".

Anyway, it's a great computer. The screen, the lightness of the machine, the speed, the built-in HDMI port... I just really like it for what I do. Using Safari, most websites look just fine. Yes, images are usually not retina resolution, but some are. Text in Safari is great. Text in Pages... not great. Word processing in Pages is pretty ugly actually. But they'll catch up and update it. Photoshop isn't ideal, but it's not horrible either. Aperture and FCPX are beautiful.

Like I always tell people (and the same is true for cameras): if you need one now, get one now. If you want to wait, wait. But once you commit, commit. Don't feel bad two weeks later when they come out with something faster. Just get a machine that does what you need to do. And then do it.

20
The easiest workflow is to import the .mov files directly into FCPX. On import, you have the option of optimizing media. Check this box. This will transcode (in the background, while you edit) a better version that is faster for editing and better for color correcting. If you really want to do things manually, Compressor has nice array of formats to transcode to.

21
Very happy about manual audio levels and setting a max when using auto ISO. :D

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650 Touchscreen Information
« on: June 07, 2012, 11:29:38 AM »
According to the just-posted spec list, it's capacitive.

23
Lenses / Re: Canon's "matte" lens hoods.
« on: June 04, 2012, 08:33:18 PM »
Sounds like you need a lens hood for your lens hood.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]
« on: June 03, 2012, 11:43:42 AM »
I do hope the touch screen isn't necessary, and will just compliment the physical buttons. Poking the screen is just going to make it impossible to see with the finger print marks, and if you tried to clean the screen quickly without turning it off, who knows what random settings you would change.

I remember the same argument when the first iPhone came out. Let's give Canon the benefit of having most likely addressed these obvious issues and see what they come out with. I'm curious to see what sort of software they've come up with to accompany touch input. Will be interesting to see how phone-like it is or if they've gone the extra mile to make it great, as opposed to just barely good enough.

25
Not to pooh-pooh, but the implication is "my shots are as good as yours even though I'm shooting with crap. Still, I don't see a lot of shots taken under challenging conditions. I have some really good shots taken with a 450D, but they are shots with subjects that don't move with pretty light. Even iPhones take great shots under those conditions. I'm not buying a 5D3 or a d800 to shoots sunsets and flowers.

To me, the implication is that you don't need cutting-edge gear to create enjoyable photographs. It's not so much about extremes as it is about just chilling out and enjoying some photos. It's a breath of fresh air to put the latest gear and rumors aside and just look at some photos for a change.

26
Great topic.


Canon AE-1, 28mm Vivitar


Canon EOS 3, 70-200 2.8 IS II


Canon EOS 3, 70-200 2.8 IS II


Canon AE-1, 28mm Vivitar

27
My 70-200 2.8L IS II fell from waist-high onto a concrete floor with very thin carpeting. It sounded like a bowling ball hitting the ground. Someone else dropped it, and I acted cool so they wouldn't feel bad. But once I was alone, I put it on my camera and held my breath. The images looked great. I've been shooting with it for almost a year since then, and the image quality doesn't seem to have been affected at all, not do I actually see a mark on the lens where it hit (on the front element - hood was not on).

My 50mm 1.8 wasn't so lucky. It took a direct hit with a frisbee when filming a frisbee golf commercial, and the lens broke into pieces. If you're going to break a lens, this is the one to break.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?
« on: April 05, 2012, 06:51:32 PM »
I love this thread! I'm 34 and have been shooting digital for about 10 years. Last year I bought a used Canon EOS 3 and have been shooting Ilford b&w HP5 alongside digital. I develop my own film and then scan the negatives using a new Plustek scanner (which is tolerable) and scanning software that is horrendous. But once I have the files on my computer, they're great.

I never shoot color, just black and white. Along with grain and contrast that (arguably) cannot be reproduced with digital photos, there's just something extremely enjoyable about the whole film process.

Here's an album of misc film scans from a few weeks ago:
http://daveheinzel.com/?id=2_64

29
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d vs 60d
« on: March 13, 2012, 01:12:49 PM »
I have both now, but I used to have neither and was in the same position you're in. I ended up going with the 7D because it just felt better in my hands. The plastic-y feel of the 60D and smaller grip just made it feel like a toy. After buying, using and loving the 7D for awhile, I then bought a 60D as a backup. It's a great second camera. If it was my primary camera, my photos would probably be the same. I can't say either makes better images. I've used both for sports, and the AF speed difference hasn't been a huge deal (because I shoot wide on the 60D and long on the 7D).

The biggest differences to me are the articulating screen and the general feel of the body in your hands.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? A General Breakdown
« on: March 07, 2012, 03:38:42 PM »
Thank you for all your hard work, Craig. This site has become one of my favorite daily visits. Keep up the good work.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4