March 02, 2015, 10:26:13 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 - iP337

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Canon General / Re: Review - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 02, 2014, 08:16:29 PM »
Wish my 85L II has same AF speed as f1.8

I was a little surprised that AF speed difference was not mentioned. Being able to focus quickly in low light was a major point to chew on when I was looking at the 85mm 1.8, and it has a lot to do with why I am keeping it. Well, that, and the focal length plays well with what I do, it doubles as a portrait lens on FF, and the results are very useable wide open.

Of course they won't. It's human nature to not make oneself look dumb by saying that a lens they paid many times more is actually worse in some aspect. They grill the cheaper lens for its weaker points, which the 1.2 also suffers from to a lesser extent, but fail to mention the 1.8's lightning fast AF or non extending front element.

Exactly and in my opinion there are too many biased "reviews" and comments based on that fact when it comes to the 85/1.8.  They are meant for two different jobs; 85/1.8 is perfect for sports and event coverage, it's also the best bang for your buck in Canon's EF lens lineup, it's one of (if not) the fastest auto focusing lens ever made.  The 85/1.2 on the other hand is one of the sharpest and thinest DoF lenses you can get (without standing a mile away) but it's also one of the most outrageously priced lenses.  It's apples and oranges, one doesn't replace the other, it's what you need to do with it that counts.  Also CA and fringing is so easily fixed now a days in post and even in camera that it is a non issue and good portraits are usually taken at 2.8. 

Ken Rockwell has a great in depth review on this lens where he doesn't talk about magic and feelings lol:

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 6D
« on: July 15, 2013, 04:17:11 AM »
I wouldn't get a 6D and 70D, that would cost too much, for that price a 5D3 would be a better choice.  I would get a 6D and 7D though or just a 70D because I'm pretty sure we can look at the 70D as being a 7D/6D mix in one body, notice the reported resolution is the exact same as the 6D (5472x3648) so I'm pretty sure we can expect the same "line-skipping" video quality as the aliasing 6D :/ It makes sense that Canon in an effort to maximize their investment into the 6D's research and development has just ported the "Down Sampling" code from the 6D to this new 70D. If this is true, than it is a deal breaker for me. I'd rather wait for the 7D2, which I assume will have the same resolution and down sampling method of the 5D3.

Another potential deal breaker would be the signal to noise performance, I've heard Canon say that even though the 70D has a higher pixel density (19.96Mp btw) than their previous 18Mp APS-C sensors the noise performance has not suffered. I would have rather heard that the 70D's senor has a one stop advantage over the previous 18Mp APS-C sensors; so I'm not too optimistic on this matter either.

My last worry is that it is likely using the same SD card controller as the 6D. Which (although UHS-1 rated) was only able to write a maximum of 40MB/s; not fast enough for Magic Lantern's requirement of 80MB/s for continuous 1080p24 raw video (or even 50D's 60MB/s yielding continuous 1500x800 at 24fps).

However the new Live View Auto Focus system is amazing, I think the technology is really the future for all video cameras but I've also read (43rumors I think) that the 70D's implementation of it is actually slower than Panasonic's new contrast detect in the G6/GF6. Maybe the 70D's is more accurate though, or maybe they tested that with one of the slower/smoother STM lenses.

Another great upgrade in the 70D over the 7D is that video compression is now done with the 5D3 and 6D's AVC High Level codec (variable bit rates of 80Mbps Intra and 48Mbps Inter with B frames). These are one of the best option's H.264 has to offer and should show a marked improvement in detail over the previous canon models.

I'm also very happy with the photo features, 7fps burst and 19 cross-type AF are all I need.  Which the 6D lacks but the 6D would be loads better in low-light.

It's no substitution for a 5D3 but it's defiantly an upgrade to the 7D, and even though I am okay with the $1200 price tag the truth is that other than this potentially gimmicky live view af system this camera is still using "yesterday's" technology especially for video and I expect that it's price will drop quickly (just like the 6D) when people start comparing it to the other brands.

The HDMI port on it can do 1920x1080. What is compressed about HDMI? You can hook a computer to a TV through HDMI and the computer signal going over HDMI is not compressed at all.
14bits the HDMI probably can't handle, so the depth resolution would have to be less, down to at least 10bits I think and quite possibly 8bits, but the spatial resolution could retain the full DNG stream sharpness.

(that said the 1.2.1 actually does appear to be a bit sharper than the old firmware, either over HDMI or compressed internally, at least, which is good)

I don't understand.  4:2:2 and 8bit are forms of image compression,  and I don't think these HDMI ports can't produce higher color depth or sub-sampling than that.  When Canon says "uncompressed" they mean no frame or resolution compressions, but there is still chroma compression.  Your HDMI signal from a computer is most likely compressed, since HDTVs use rec.709 which is 8bit and there is no point in an 8bit DNG.

1. DNG and CR2 are the same, both use the same lossless RAW algorithm and both are not de-bayered. The De-bayering is preformed in your computer (usually automatically) with a viewer or editor that supports De-bayering.

But the Bayer sensor is 22MP and these are 2MP so unless they are just reading a non-bayered mini-block, which they aren't something sort of de-bayer must be done already. Look at sRAW and mRAW they are are not in the original complete Bayer state and they are stored in a RAW file too.

When I say CR2 I mean RAW which is not de-bayered in camera. sRAW and mRAW are not really raw, they have been de-bayered and sub-sampled at 4:4:4 in camera then to a smaller resolution by averaging the formed 'pixels' and then losslessly compressed with CR2 but information has already been lost compared a pure CR2 raw file.  You may be right that the same process might have already been used for these 1931 x 1088 14bit RAW images Magic Lantern found, but it is unlikely.  The images require a program that applies de-bayering to view them and most people agree that video resolutions are achieved by line skipping (Canon has even admitted to it) or in this case combining 'sensel' data in 3x3 blocks before any processing (de-bayering) is done.  Also Panasonic has admitted that they "bind their pixels in 2x2 block before any processing is done" then (like the sRAW files) they process them into YCrCb and down to the appropriate resolution before sending it to the h.264 encoder.

You might have to clip off the left and right side junk and send an offset address so it starts reading it below the top junk. You wouldn't even have to do that if the HDMI accepts an offset to get to each new lines address. I have no idea how it is setup, it might have something like that so no clipping is needed at all. COnsidering how many modes it can put out that might very well be the case.

hmm, my point is that HDMI (especially the one's in these Canon DSLRs) don't support resolutions over 1920 x 1080 so the 2K image needs to be down-resed or cropped and positioned (like the Canon official firmware already does)

cutting chroma resolution doesn't hit perceived resolution nearly that hard, the luminance resolution is still full
but yeah obviously going over HDMI unless it was HDMI with 10bit support it would lose a bunch of DR

Ah you're right, a lot of the sharpness will be held in the luminance (duh) but not even the C100 and C300 support 10bit HDMI so I doubt they included a 10bit HDMI port here.

I just talked to CPS Hollywood the other day and got into a conversation about what 3rd party accessories I should get, and they warned me not to use any 3rd party batteries because they might blow up in camera, I told them I've been using Canon DSLRs with only 3rd party batteries for about 10 years and not only have I never had that happen but I've also never heard about it either but the lady insisted that they have seen it...

I don't mean to be an alarmist but now with this extra warning in camera about 3rd party batteries and the fact they tweaked the camera to misread some chipped 3rd party batteries I can't help to wonder if they did something that might make this happen :/  like no longer restricting something on the higher capacity aftermarket battery. I've had batteries from other stuff blow up on me before (an Apple Macbook, an Avid portable M-Audio recorder and a few cellphones) they just bloat up and no longer work.

This is probably just some marketing trick to scare me into giving them more money but I wouldn't surprised. (who the hell is running Canon now a days anyway?)

HDMI won't work, Canon's HDMI out basically can't display that much detail; it's limited to 8bit, requires "debayering", 4:2:2 "sub-sampling", and needs to resize that 2K image down to 1920x1080.  Once you do all that "compressing" guess what we're left with?  Yep the 8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed (not RAW) image that Canon just gave us with this update.

Not so sure about that. Those DNG frames look a lot crisper don't they?

1. Those DNG are not true RAW are they?They are already de-bayered. No loss there.
2. As you say only 1920x1080 of the frame was valid info anyway. So no loss there.
3. Even if you lose the 4:4:4 and 14bits (not that canon seems to be 14bits to start though) won't we still retain all that extra crispness at least?

I am not sure what you mean but Magic Lantern's 14bit DNGs do not compete with HDMI.  Yes the DNGs are sharper because they are not compressed down like the HDMI image is.  The part of my post that you quoted is explaining why we can't send the 14bit DNG through the HDMI out as a 14bit RAW image (this HDMI can't handle that much detail) and that is why I think what Canon is giving us is the best its HDMI port can do.

1. DNG and CR2 are the same, both use the same lossless RAW algorithm and both are not de-bayered. The De-bayering is preformed in your computer (usually automatically) with a viewer or editor that supports De-bayering.

2. Unfortunately we can't send that 2K RAW image through HDMI and even if we could the 1920x1080 portion is offset to the upper right so without cropping and resizing the HDMI would likely keep a black bar on the left and bottom but cutoff the right and top sides of the actual image. 

3. Canon starts with 14bit RAW images for video (that's the nice sharp DNGs we're getting), but reducing that down to 8bit loses about 2 stops of dynamic range and potentially causes banding in fine gradients (usually the sky).  lowering the 4:4:4 to 4:2:2 will cause a 50% loss of sharpness (crispness) and 4:2:0 will cause a 75% loss.

Magic Lantern is working on a true RAW and 14 bit video recording along with 4:2:2 to the card, something we'll never see from Canon.
And they've already said it will never be something that will work for video they've gotten so far is 720 at 24fps for 2s...the reality is you'll never get long recording times because the camera has a buffer to deal with. 1080p wont happen.

Really, it's an upgrade for time lapsers and may have some cool other uses.

If this is the case, the soft output of the 5DmkIII compared to other cameras, as documented on many of his tests, may in fact be impossible to fix with a firmware update, at least one from canon.
That said, what they did find interesting was that the resolution of the DNGs they got from their RAW mode were way higher resolution than just the traditional h.264 video stream from Canon. Not sure if that means that Canon intentionally is crippling it, or if the h.264 encoding loses a lot of resolution, but, that could be useful for some purposes.

Of course, if you want Raw video at 2k, you'd just spend the same amount on a BMCC instead and get a much nicer workflow.

I wonder if they can feed that 'raw' DNG stuff into the h.264 compressor and get better quality out? Or if they can push it out frame by frame over the HDMI and delete each frame from the buffer afterwards so nothing would ever overflow and you could at least get an 8bit or maybe 10bit crisper image out over HDMI? It seems like it should be possible but it's hard to know the internal Canon subsystem, it might not be, or even if it is, it quite likely might require all sorts of knowledge far beyond what they have been able to hack out so far and might only be reasonably doable by Canon people with full docs and access?

I checked out the DNG file posted on Each file is about 5MB. Therefore, to get 30fps, you need a sustained write bandwidth of 150MByte/s (that is 1.2Gbits/s). That will be quite challenging even for the fastest notebook SSD. A 64GB CF card, even if it were fast enough, would only store about 7 minutes of video.

Therefore your suggestion to use the HDMI out is potentially the solution. HDMI 1.0/1.2 supports a bandwidth of 4.95Gbit/s and HDMI 1.3 supports about 10Gbit/s. BTW, does anyone know which version of HDMI is supported by 5D3?

Ofcourse, I am no camera engineer. These are just rough calculations that I came up with.

Lastly, pardon my ignorance in video, doesn't the 'uncompressed HDMI' output as provided by firmware v1.2.1 mean raw? Is the ML DNG just a higher resolution raw compared to the one provided by firmware v1.2.1?

So Magic Lantern seem to have found the source of the sensor scan for video, the "file" is a 2K resolution 14bit RAW image but the actual "usable image" is about 1920x1080 pixels, the rest of the 2K file are black bars.  Even the "720p mode" is still the same sized 2K file only with a "usable image" of 1920x720 pixels.

Alex (from Magic Lantern) then threw in CHDK's Canon DNG converter to save these RAW images to card. (which I think uses the same CR2 RAW converter already in the camera but instead spits it out as a DNG rather then a CR2) each frame (or DNG "file") is about 5.09MBs for all "usable image" resolutions. (1920x1080 or 1920x720 "useable images" are in the same 2K RAW file, just with more black bars on the 720 one so they are actually the same file size)

The "frame buffer" where these images were found only allows 7.5MB/s through it so it can't write the images to the card fast enough and when the buffer is all fill up with as much as it can take it stops the video recording, at most it's getting about 50 frames, which at 24fps is about 2 seconds of video. (setting the camera's photo mode to JPEG only seems to increase the buffer's write speed, having RAW+JPEG or RAW set limits to 4.9MB/s and about 30 frames before recording stops)

HDMI won't work, Canon's HDMI out basically can't display that much detail; it's limited to 8bit, requires "debayering", 4:2:2 "sub-sampling", and needs to resize that 2K image down to 1920x1080.  Once you do all that "compressing" guess what we're left with?  Yep the 8bit 4:2:2 uncompressed (not RAW) image that Canon just gave us with this update.

The only way to get these images to card is to "compress" them before sending them through this 7.5MB/s buffer.  I don't believe the Magic Lantern team has the ability...

I agree. They hype was targeted towards Laforet's readers while this tech's market is mostly Laforet himself and other similarly sized production studios. The price, the two (skilled) men required to operate it properly and hardware limitations that require more money (wireless monitoring) all preclude it from being a "game changer".

Yep I totally agree, and I told him that. (btw I heard the price includes wireless monitoring, may not be HD though and no wireless follow focus or exposure controls)

FYI, check these out! zenmuse, picloc, tarot,skyline, radian and alexmos

Peter Kent 20 hours ago
This is interesting but how is this on par with the first announcement of DSLR video? First off it's way too expensive to go mainstream and the end result isn't much different than what you could do with a steadicam. I get it's an improved steadicam that can do a bit more but come on, game changer is a bit much for this.
Vincent Laforet PRO 19 hours ago
You're not seeing it. The nearest thing that does only part of what this does is six figures.... Same thing happened w 5D came out btw... And look what happened since.
Peter Kent 17 hours ago
I get that but I think it's still a bit early to be calling the "MoVI" a 5D2 kinda game changer; this is at best a game changer for studio productions with tens of thousands of dollars lying around but means next to nothing for the DSLR Indie crowd that has followed you since Reverie. It's like the difference from the RED ONE and the 5D Mark II, I feel the real game changer there broke down barriers for EVERY filmmaker. I thank you for bringing this new and cool technology to our attention but I can't wait until you get to report on the real game changer, which is when the chinese start cranking out decent ones at $3000 a pop for every filmmaker to enjoy :-D but in the end if you don't need helicopter shots or literally jumping through hoops it still looks an awful lot like $500 glidecam footage.
AntonyMeadley 16 hours ago
"six figures" ?? As someone else pointed out, the Zenmuse is only $3500.
What are the differences apart from the remote joystick operation?
Peter Kent 16 hours ago
That's interesting Antony! these other names also popped up with Zenmuse stabilizer; Alexmos, Radian, Picloc, Skyline and Tarot.
Found this on the EOSHD forum: "MoVI do pans and tilt the same way as any other stabilized gimbal on the market that use 3 brushlees motors (roll, tilt and pan) and zenmuse does excatly the same thing..."
I don't know if it's true though.
Vincent Laforet PRO 10 hours ago
There are dozens and dozens of patents on what these guys have done... being able to control this incredibly well as a solo operator (and panning and tilting) is just but one of them and what other systems can't do. Staying locked on one horizon / GPS point has been around for decades (think military) - panning / zooming etc are film concepts and require tremendous finesse in engineering, sofwtare etc.
Richard Squires PRO 6 hours ago
With a steadicam you are limited to a great extent on the ability of the operator to not only hit marks but also frame and move at the same time. There are very very good steadicam ops (Jim Muro whose work is almost signature) they are that good but this is totally different. By making the operator/focus seperate you free the person or persons holding the camera to concentrate on that. Imagine someone on a crane descending to a window and passing it thru to someone out of frame to continue the the move inside. Then that person follows the action inside down stairs out of the front door and passing again to someone already in the car as your talent drives off. Amazing possibilities. Also the guy holding the rig can be a stuntman etc for amazing falling shots perhaps.
Peter Kent 1 minute ago
Thanks Richard, I understand this is a great product and there are a lot of things you can do with it. My issue is not with its usefulness, just with its overzealous reception from some and their willingness to pay "anything" to have it. It's like they're running around shouting they've found the Holy Grail to all of us using paper cups but it turned out to be a $15k thermos, sure it's better but doesn't change the way I have to drink my coffee every morning lol.

xCreative PLUS 18 hours ago
Stabilization result is really impressive. Also pleased that the device can be held with one hand. However, in my view, your words as "revolutionary", "Game Changer" is greatly exaggerated. When I read your blog entry (before the official video), I was expecting something completely unimaginable. There are many questions: first of all - the price. "The entry level M5 is $ 7,500 and the mid level M10 is $ 15,000." - After this words becomes clear that about any indifilmmakers, videography and other are not talking. Steadicam, type, Glidecam, Flycam, Merlin are ten times cheaper and yield similar results. Also not entirely clear how this device to shoot footage - top - down. And most importantly - on the Glidecam, Flycam can quickly "throw" camera monopod rig etc. using a quick release plate, and how to rearrange the camera on the device, from the video, it was not clear.
Old Dead Eye PLUS 7 hours ago
I agree. It's interesting when reading the blog that after the price is mentioned suddenly there are a lot of justifications and comparisons to other products. Almost as if Vincent Laforet feels that this could be sold for cheaper but is trying to rationalise. At $3000 this would've been a game changer, at $7500 the only revolution is might cause is with productions commanding a 5 figure budget or more. DSLR's were a game changer because for what they could do, they were pretty much within most peoples budgets. I think due to Vincent Laforet's association with the history of those cameras, there is some serious manipulative branding going on here. Nice device though and I'm sure it'll do well at the top, just a shame that it couldn't be a little bit cheaper.

The Shot Above PLUS 1 hour ago
At this price it is way beyond what I at least was expecting. I own the Zenmuse, and I use it with a hacked GH2 or simular sized DSLR. Others are currently working on this exact rig for an Epic and by summer, it will be available with the Alexmos control for under $1,000 I can build one. Your previous "Radian" system by Freefly cost $1,100 for the electronics plus another $1,500 or so for the rig and servo motors. Servo motors have [now] been replaced by brushless motors at the same price or lower, so the prices should be dropping not going up. I get it, your the first to do it with larger cameras, but this victory will be short lived for all of one more month. Get the price reasonable for what it is cause 1,000's more are coming.

The movie was meant to showcase the tech so the excessive use of it is understandable.

As for the Movi itself, it IS pretty cool but not so much of a game changer, me thinks.

I understand that and I agree, just to be clear I'm not disappointed in the technology of this thing:
"...Don't get me wrong; it's a good idea and very cool..."
But I am very disappointed in Vincent LaForet's use and hype of it.  It's not a game changer like the 5D2 and DSLR filming was.
DSLRs broke down barriers (both price and location barriers) and was useful to every filmmaker for every one of their shots, a true game changer.  This is actually putting up new barriers as its price is obviously not for everyone (or anyone really) and from what I've seen requires a bit of new training and experience to use properly.  Cool new technology? Yes. Game Changer? No.

This is interesting but how is this on par with the first announcement of DSLRs video?  First off it's way too expensive to go mainstream and the end result isn't much different than what you could do with a steadicam.  I get it's an improved steadicam that can do a bit more but come on, game changer is a bit much for this.

I am not convinced this is better or easier to use than a steadicam for most shots.  Most of it looked like footage from a bad steadicam operator, focus and composition was all over the place and it made me a little sick trying to watch.  Every shot had camera movement just for the sake of camera movement. Don't get me wrong; it's a good idea and very cool but in the wrong hands it could be the most annoying piece of kit ever.
This is not on par with the announcement of the 5D2, I think Vincent was just trying to get more traffic for his blog.

EOS Bodies / Re: What is missing from the 7DII specs
« on: March 29, 2013, 09:08:16 AM »
19 AF points?? No no no. We need some more!! And only one CF card slot? What the hell? Where's the SD slot like the 5D 3? And what was wrong with the weather sealing in the 7D?

I'd like to see a faster x sync speed and much better all round ISO performance. Especially ISO 100. It should be cleaner. I think wifi is more useful to me than gps. Now can you tether wirelessly to your laptop?? That would be cool.

Not that I was waiting for a 7D 2 as I only bought my 7D last year. No reason to upgrade really. The 6D got a lot of flak when we first heard about it and it turned out alrite. Maybe this will grow on us but theres nothin really ground breaking or exciting that has me jumping up and down with impatience.

Difference is the 6D had a neat low-light performance trick, what does this have? ...Oh wait 10fps is a neat trick, but only if it has the buffer and auto focus to keep up. 

Hmmm the 6D is crap except for it's low-light, which is almost but not as good as the 1Dx. 
These supposed 7D2 specs are crap except for the 10fps burst rate, which is also almost but not as good as the 1Dx.
Gasp! Could these specs be more real then we though?!!
No way! This must be an 8D or sumthin...

More AF points would be welcome, but even more important, make it a wider AF -area then on the 1DX.
That is my complain about the 1DX, I would love the AF-area more stretched. Imagine this area like a rectangle, then I'am  missing some points in the outer corners. That is based on my experience in the field.

The 1D IV and 7D are about tied for the broadest spread in both dimensions (relative to frame size). The 1D X has the same lateral spread as the 1D IV and 7D, and slightly less spread in the vertical dimension (about half a row shorter).

Basically, the 1D X is giving nearly the same spread (only the two points at the top/bottom of the 7D center column extend beyond the 1D X coverage), both have a point at the 'rule of thirds' intersections, and the 1D X rectangle's corners extend beyond the 7D's coverage, with the 1D X covering a larger area with a far more dense array.

I,ve just returned from a trip to Kamchatka, Russia about three weeks ago. I was there to photograph the mighty Stellers Eagle. Often I place the subject in the upper part of the image and then I, am missing the row on top. Especially when using the AI-servo mode and a moving subject. I all the time select a focuspoint wich is best suitable for the composition. With the MARK4 the problem was less often there, but I'll like the much better quality of the 1DX. And I,ll try to avoid cropping as much as possible. I know I,am a bit cocky, but making the picture without optimizing it by cropping is the sport for me. It,s a bit like the Russians do, why make it easy when one can do it also in a difficult way????/

+1 to Jan van, I find a wider spread of cross-type points on the 7D easier to compose with (I use the 5D3 with only cross-type points on)

To the topic; I want 22.3mp so it can 3x3 pixel bind to 1080p with less morie like the 5D3 does, I don't see a point to push the sensor this far without hitting that sweet spot.  Might as well leave them at 18, only a very small niche of pixel peepers would notice.

Other then that I expect better signal to noise ratios, something like the new Nikon/Toshiba APS-Cs but at least over a stop better than the 7D, right now I won't go over 1250 on my 7D but I'm ok pushing an NEX-5n to 1600, this just feels wrong as one of them cost double the other, now the GH3 is even better at 1600 (barely though).  7D2 (and 70D) NEEDS a clean 1600 and useable 3200 because there is no speed booster coming to save the EF mount and Nikon is right on the heals of a useable 3200.

I'm happy with everything else.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2013, 08:19:23 AM »

    21MP APS C
Fair enough for a APS-C sensor
Nooooo! I want a 22.3MP sensor so that it can pixel bind to 1080p instead of line-skipping so we can reduce morie like in the 5D3, why would they push it so close but not give us the clean 5D3 image.  I'd much rather prefer another 18Mp sensor with better image quality but if Canon is worried about marketing another 18mp sensor then fine go to 20 but why push it any further then that?!
    19 AF Points all Cross
:( maybe will be a faster AF ( due to the DIGIC 5 processors... I personally prefer a strong 19 AF point instead of  a crippled 51 AF.
Agreed, I kinda prefer the 19pt because it has a better spread of cross-type points, squeezing a "full frame" AF sensor into APS-C might not work as well

    On chip phase detect pixels for liveview and AF tracking
expected feature
Oh, well that answers my "Why are they still line-skipping?!" question, but again why push it so close to 22.3 needlessly?  ...(this better not be a 7D).

    GPS, WiFi
good for distance remote control when shooting wildlife
I think this is an 8D!   

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:25:32 AM »
Has anyone noticed that DPReview's overview of the camera lists MJPEG support?

Typo, error, or does the T5i/700D actually support MJPEG for video?

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that, the only other time Canon has used MJPEG in a DSLR is in the 1Dc for 4K video but I wouldn't get my hopes up for any of these models.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 21, 2013, 09:39:24 PM »
While I'm still disappointed about this release I have slept on it now and had some thoughts about the T5i.

    This is obviously the same camera as the T4i which is a serious problem for Canon and their retailers; even the "uneducated masses" I keep hearing about will ask a bestbuy or Canon salesman "what's the difference?" and thanks to all of us the word will get out around the internet that the 700D/T5i is for idiots and if there is one thing on the mind of someone buying something they don't completely understand it's "I don't want to look like an idiot".

    So Canon will obviously have to do something about this, and since the 700D/T5i's update seems to be software only I suspect that Canon will stop making firmware updates for the 650D/T4i.  So I wouldn't be surprised if Canon has given(or eventually gives) the 700D/T5i the "clean" 1080i60 uncompressed 4:2:2 HDMI out that is promised to the 5DIII in April (via a firmware update).  I mean this is currently in all of Nikon's low-end cameras and they obviously feel the pressure to compete with this feature if they are willing to add it to a firmware update for the 5DIII. 

This will probably be the big selling point difference between the two models, which isn't good news for photo guys but kinda helpful to video guys looking for a cheap B-Cam with decent video quality options.  Either way, Canon is screwing us by charging for firmware updates now and it's the price of a new camera none the less!

Interesting histories guys! I started with my dad's FujiFilm FinePix S1 Pro ( back in 2000 it was one of the first DSLRs and one of the first 6MP digital cameras (a 3mp "Super CCD" sensor actually but produced 6mp)  I had no idea what I was doing, shot only in auto and swore the built-in flash was helping my night landscape shots lol, didn't even know what lens I had on it nor did I ever take it off.

Later on I got a used Canon XL1 video camcorder for school and loved it, became a Canon fanboy that day so I bought a used Canon D60 (one of the first Canon digital cameras) with a Canon EF 85mm F/1.8 USM.  I was told 85mm is a good range but didn't realize about crop factors, so kept trying to do wide portraits and couldn't understand why I couldn't get what others did lol, eventually learned to use it as a 135mm and added some zooms but the 85mm on APS-C is still my favorite lens. 

Found a friend (another Canon fanboy with an XL1s and 20D) and started covering Weddings and Sport Events for peanuts ($300-400 a pop lol), learned manual controls and exposure settings on the job lol.  Then got a 9-5 in 2004 which took up too much time so my Photo and Video gigs got pushed to the weekends :( but I started using a Panasonic Lumix LX1 as my "always on me" personal camera and surprising learned a lot about composition.  Got published as a camera man for a documentary on the 2006 Formula Drift championship tour (I helped cover LA ;-D).  Got let go from the 9-5 around the time the 5D MkII came out and changed everything, so I sold everything and relearned shooting and editing video with a DSLR and instead of getting another job decided to go full pro lol.  Ended up getting a 7D instead (friend got the 5D2) been happily shooting Weddings and Events ever since.  We just sold the 7D and 5D2 for 5D3s and waiting for the 70D(hopefully) as I still prefer APS-C.

Canon General / Re: 700D and 100D it is!
« on: March 21, 2013, 05:37:46 AM »
DPReview just posted their "Hands-on Previews" for the SL1 and T5i (; the big difference they found so far with the T5i vs the T4i is ...(wait for it)

You get a new mode dial! You'll be the envy of all DSLR users as you switch modes in luxury with its full 360 degree spin (in both directions!), wider spaced smoother clicks to switch modes with greater ease and the newly designed RAISED labels providing a more noticeable selection in low light situations.

 ...seriously that's what they said, it seems to have the same sensor and everything else (even the same Phase-Detect Hybrid CMOS) as the previous T4i (oh and a slightly better kit lens) but good luck to any retailers trying to sell this for $1000 when t4i kits are going for less then $800 (that goes for $800 SL1 retailers too). 

Rebel updates have never been major but they at least had enough to peak an interest, I am really really really finding it hard to see any reason at all for the 700D/T5i.  Unless they find better image or video quality during their official proper tests (which I seriously doubt) then I'm sorry but if you have a 700D/T5i're an idiot... (like I said sorry).

The SL1/100D on the other hand at least seems interesting but it doesn't seem to have a better sensor, here are the differences found so far:

1. Canon says they just updated the "Phase-Detect Hybrid CMOS" to widen its range to cover a greater portion of the frame (up to 80% now).  It seems to have the same basic sensor as the EOS M (which supposed also has native ISO up to 12,800) and 650D except for the wider "hybrid" range. 

2. They also removed the dedicated WB, Drive, Picture Styles and AF mode buttons from its 4-way directional pad on the back (I don't see the point of this other then to screw users) and combined the Quick Menu and OK Selection button (that actually sounds like a good idea). 

3. They also reduced the AF points to non cross-type except for the center one at f/2.8 or faster (like the T3i).

The SL1/100D is a step-back in features from the Rebel T1i but its low weight and size almost balance it out, although it seems to be an EOS M with a mirror, a grip, added weight and size...

Pages: [1] 2 3 4