April 17, 2014, 06:43:43 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 110
Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: November 29, 2012, 04:20:08 PM »
Nice review, it's making me think more seriously about this lens, over saving up (a long time) for the Canon 24-70 v2.

Lenses / Re: Trying to justify purchasing a 200mm f2.0
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:31:18 AM »
Not having used the 200 f/2 (but lusting after it), and don't own the 70-200 (yet, rented it), i'd say is this for work, how you make a living? I'd be the 70-200 2.8 is perfectly fine for you then, and it's extremely good quality throughout it's range.

Is this because you have a bunch of extra money and you want a really fancy new toy? Heck ya! Go for it. Everything I've heard makes me want this lens.

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle on a Budget
« on: November 28, 2012, 08:35:31 PM »
You'll be hard pressed to find any super-wide in f/2.8 that inexpensive. Only thing that comes to mind is the Samyang/Ronkinon 14mm f/2.8, however it's a manual lens, so no AF, and I think you have a manual aperture ring as well. Otherwise, if you want AF, it's get an older lens cheap if you can find one, or save up your money and find a used 16-35 v1 or v2. From what I've read I wouldn't bother with the v1, but it is significantly more expensive.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD Hands-On
« on: November 28, 2012, 07:51:19 PM »
This is so tempting. Oh so tempting. I'd love to see a comparison shoot of this and the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II with the same body (preferably 5d3, but 1dX would work as well), and with MFA. I'd also love a real world test of the weather-sealing on both of them, although I know the Canon's is quite good. If the Tamron claims weather-sealing, it needs to keep up. The other downside is I can't get CPS service on the Tamron...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: CompactFlash vs SDXC (Effectively 5D3 vs 6D)
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:50:44 PM »
I'm hijacking my own thread, but it seems that this would be an easy fix for some users from Canon.

Have the camera record to the CF card at max speed, and then copy from the CF card to the SD card when there is downtime.  If the CF card could read/write at maximum speed at the same time, then this would be seamless.
I don't know if the DIGIC 5+ just refers to the processor or the entire logic board, but you'd imagine that Canon could designed it so that the DIGIC 5+ dump the data to a second system that handles the CF/SD I/O.

Not sure, but the DIGIC 5+ probably uses a DMA (built into pretty much all modern, reasonably high performing processors these days) controller to transfer from RAM to the memory card(s).

In terms of having it automatically copy from CF to SD, the big challenge I think is that you never know when someone is going to start doing a big burst of images which need flushing to the CF card. Personally I'd never use that functionality, it could potentially be error prone where the camera thinks it's successfully copied something from the CF to the SD card, but then it's only partially there, or not at all and deletes it from the CF card. Oops. I'd rather the camera only ever write to the memory card, except when I tell it to delete/format.

Lenses / Re: Canon are obsessed with an IS version of the 24-70
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:44:46 PM »
It's out there....somewhere ;D

Somewhere over the rainbow, I'm dreaming of a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: CompactFlash vs SDXC (Effectively 5D3 vs 6D)
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:05:41 PM »
I use a SDXC card in my 5D MK III (its not UHS-1).  I do not try to shoot the high FPS rate, so its no issue.  If I were shooting high FPS, I'd merely stop recording to both cards.
If you think about it, when writing to both cards, the speed of the slowest card will limit the writing speed.  Thats almost always the SD card.
Unfortunately, the design of the 5D MK III was apparently frozen before SDXC UHS-1 cards arrived.  Its unfortunate, but true.

True, but looking out even 1-2 years and it should have been pretty obvious that UHS-1 cards were coming, and quickly. Besides, an SDXC UHS-1 slot would work just fine with the slower speeds. Personally, I suspect that the DIGIC 5+ only has 1 super-high speed storage interface, so the SD slot has to hang off of a slower bus. The 1D-X doesn't have this problem since it has 2 DIGIC 5+ which gives it the 2 super-high speed interfaces, 1 per chip.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage
« on: November 28, 2012, 12:51:26 PM »

I don't shoot much video, but I definitely saw lots of moire. I hesitate to say it's worse than my 5d2, but it's still very bad. Didn't seem particularly great quality to me. The 35mm T/1.5 Samyang/Rokinon/Bower lens is more interesting to me, although I'd get the standard photo version since I rarely shoot any video.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 6D have video AF
« on: November 27, 2012, 04:52:21 PM »
Nope it wont have good video af, in fact it will be worse than the t4i. 6D wont support STM lenses, no phase detection point on the sensor.

The only FullFrame camera with good video AF is the a99.

The 6D will support STM lenses. It's that it won't have any AF during video recording. You can still use STM lenses just fine for normal photography and AF before starting to record video using normal Live View AF functionality.

Software & Accessories / Re: Magic Lantern Team Hacks the Canon EOS M
« on: November 26, 2012, 07:28:06 PM »
It would be really funny if the ML team manages to improve the speed of the camera's auto-focus before Canon does.

Turn on the focus peaking, and you can probably manual focus faster.

Canon General / Re: DSLR Gear - No Idea
« on: November 26, 2012, 07:25:13 PM »
Brilliant marketing campaign. Quite funny too! I appreciate the point they are making, although I'd like to think most of the time I'm not in one of those categories.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: CompactFlash vs SDXC (Effectively 5D3 vs 6D)
« on: November 26, 2012, 07:17:39 PM »
Thanks for the feedback so far.

Speed has been my biggest concern.  I've been more worried about pin issues damaging the camera than the card, so that is moot for me.

It surprises me that the costs seem similar when SD has to be so much more minimized than CF.

In terms of pure write speed, the Lexar 1000x UDMA7 cards are the fastest cards out there in a UDMA7 camera, barring the XQD which right now only the Nikon D4 supports. Most SDXC UHS-1 cards will still give great performance, in a camera with a UHS-1 slot, but they still won't perform quite as high as the top performing CF card.

Personally, I can't wait for the XQD, and I hope the next Canon and Nikon's support them, even if it does mean needing to buy all new cards for the camera. Of course, for me that's 3-5 years off most likely, so by then there should be a good number of cards and readers out there.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: CompactFlash vs SDXC (Effectively 5D3 vs 6D)
« on: November 26, 2012, 03:20:04 PM »
Also, SD/SDHC/SDXC is considered by some to be more reliable since it doesn't have any pins that can be bent, which is true. However they tend to just feel a bit flimsier to me than CF.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
« on: November 26, 2012, 03:18:14 PM »
Thanks JasonATL for correcting my fast and somewhat incorrect reply. I tested Resove on a MAcBook Pro 2011 with i7 with Tumderbolt drive. Seems as Windows is better with a grafic card for this app, may the newes macs will be better.
Of cource you "can" handeld BMCC, but i think most people would agree that a c100, c300 is better. If you follow P. Blooms South Africa tour, you got the same message.
And you need a pretty wide lense with that crop facor to shoot wide. ( yea i know there are some alternatives)
I may buy such a camra, but it somewhat dangerous only to look at dynamic range, etc.
Agree that Canon needs to open up for high quality video.  The "best" camra for me would be the 1D C, but man, it costs a fourtune.

It might be that you don't have an Nvidia GPU. I haven't researched it, but it appears from what I read in the review Resolve uses CUDA, which is Nvidia specific, although OpenCL is quite similar and can theoretically run across ATI or Nvidia without much trouble, there may be certain reasons why they don't/can't easily use OpenCL rather than CUDA. That likely is a big reason why you didn't have good performance on your Macbook.

Besides, it's a laptop. You're expecting amazing performance out of a laptop? And remember, just because it's a Thunderbolt drive, doesn't mean it's fast. It could still be a bog standard 7200 RPM mechanical disk there. If it was a quality SSD, that's different of course, but otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be all that much faster than the one in the Macbook.

I also think the point is that what you get for the price is fantastic, and at least arguably on par with some of the much more expensive options such as the 1DC/Red/C100/C300. Those are at least 3-4 times expensive, BEFORE you start adding in lenses, rig, recording media, etc. For the young film maker without a decent budget (even for rentals), the BMCC is much more affordable. I think that's one of the reasons the 5d2 was so amazing back in the day is because you could get a pretty good quality for, relatively, quite inexpensive with relatively inexpensive lenses. And Canon has, since then, mostly fallen by the wayside due to their attempt to push the video DSLR up into the more expensive higher margin area. Which is exactly the opposite of what the 5d2 was, and is why they are losing a lot of mindshare from what I've been hearing (I'm out here in LA, have a few friends in the industry). BMCC seems to be around the same price point, compatible with the same lenses (depending on the version you get of course), and gives you a ton more than anything Canon, and possibly most other cinema camera manufacturers, give you at a similar price point.

Ok, the tunderbolt drive has two disks 7200rpm, i am using a RAID setup so it@s able to store on both. So the disk controller shares the load, it´s very fast and for FCPX is now problem at all, excellent performance
There is a GPU and its detected by DaVinci Resolve (ATI 6750M). The is also a CUDA driver in the system panel, not sure if this is effective as its ATI card.
However video play back is very sluggish and normally it can not play 24fps in Resolve, even before you start to add colour correction in the nodes.  The cpu is 2,3 (i7) GHz and 8G of memory.
Can anybody shade some light what would be necessary on a MAC, or explain why this is crapy.

EDIT :  I just upgraded the CUDA driver and performance inceased a lot, so that seems the main reason.

Yea, drivers can really make a big difference sometimes.

Beyond that, it's 2 disks in RAID0? That will give you some speedup, but I hope you have that data backed up properly elsewhere. If one of those disks dies, you lose everything on that array. You can probably get all the sequential read/write speed you need out of most modern mechanical disks, but I image you'd be doing a good amount of random reads, which RAID0 would help some, but really a good SSD will give you much better performance. Leaving aside any number crunching, which it sounds like was the problem, which is entirely up to the CPU/GPU.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Low light settings
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:31:09 PM »
You were at 1/1250 of a second? Sure it's kids moving around, but out of curiosity why didn't you go down to 1/600, or even 1/300 and go down to ISO 3200/1600?

In terms of visible noise, what noise reduction settings did you use on Lightroom? Also, try exporting at a smaller resolution, more like what you'd put up on Facebook or what not. When you downscale, you tend to minimize the noise that's visible.

Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 110