September 18, 2014, 03:52:00 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 - Policar

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
16
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:12:02 PM »
Besides that they sell for the price, what does a Cine lens offer than a regular L lens does not?

Flip side - could a Cine lens be used as a still lens?  How sharp would it be?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

1/3 of the way down.

17
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:31:47 AM »
So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

That's a point where the relatively low overall turnover rates for MF come into play. Some of the current lenses for small frame have leveled the playing field quite a bit, and we won't see many MF lenses that benefit from the same technological advancements.

This is more the case with zooms than it is with primes, however. The recent Hasselblad lenses are very sharp. The Mamiya 7 series lenses and even RZ67 lenses are as sharp as good dSLR lenses and the recent tech camera lenses are amazing:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:56:17 AM »
it's not just a flatbed scanner heeds, if he takes the advice to shoot medium or large format film, then he's going to need a drum scanner too.  Deep pickets required here, he must be very very good.

Maybe he is. Also I was just recommending large format because I find it vastly superior for landscapes. Not everyone does!

19
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:53:22 AM »
Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.

The interesting part here would be: why does one want to go medium frame?
For raw sensor size/resolution the D8x0, A7r are, compared to the new CMOS-sensor, almost there. To make the step worthwhile one of the full 645 sized sensors would be helpful.
LS-lenses are an actual added value, at least with HBlad and POne; that can make sense from a bookkeeping point of view.
Some legacy stuff? Would be a reason, but tough to capitalize on for a new manufacturer.
And then there is the factor "prestige", either to impress someone or to caress ones own ego.

It helps to impress clients, sure, but the same way 24MP full frame looks a lot sharper, especially int he center, because the lenses only need (1/1.6) times the MTF to produce a certain amount of sharpness for a given print size, lenses don't have to behave as well on a tiny scale for a larger sensor. So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

But is it work it? Probably not. Look at the sales figures. :(

20
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:35:10 AM »
Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line."  While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc. 

I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation.  It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.

The Canon CN-E primes appear to be VERY similar optically (if not identical in some cases) to their L counterparts. The cinema zooms are obviously dramatically different designs, however.

Medium format lenses have to cover a much, much larger area (while still autofocusing...) so while the optical designs might resemble scaled up stilll lens designs more than they resemble cinema zooms, they would have to be pretty much all new.

My [mis?]understanding of the motivation behind film MF was the limitation on how much film could be enlarged. MF lenses weren't as sharp as FF lenses, because MF film wasn't enlarged in printing as much as FF film.

As example, FF film was always enlarged 16x area just to get 4"x6" from 24x36 (mm) film, while 8x10 film (large format, I know, just illustrating) was printed 8x10.

So, how useful would MF lenses from the film era for digital MF sensors? Wouldn't the manufacturer have to make an all new line of sharp-as-FF lenses for the new sensor anyway?

Sort of.

Film enlargements might be based more on grain and film sharpness than on lens sharpness, but lens sharpness had to be sufficient for enlargements, too. In my experience, fine grain 135 ("FF film") can be enlarged to about 8''X10'', maybe a bit larger; 8X10, while often contact printed to 8''X10'' can flawlessly be enlarged to about 80''X100''... The ratio is always about 10 times in each axis for irreproachable quality, but it's a little smaller for smaller prints due to the viewing distance. Black and white grain looks nice and scales up nicely, however, to larger sizes. I think FF digital can easily scale to 11X17 and I am sure soon MUCH larger; it is on par with good 6x7 medium format in terms of sharpness but with less grain and also less resolution.

The thing is, those 6x7 lenses had to be adequately good wide open for film... meaning they are often stellar stopped down. The 50mm f1.4 Nikon AI lens is not great wide open on digital (the Otus is surely better), but by f5.6 it is still good enough for digital, especially for APS-C. 6x7 lenses stopped down will be perfectly sharp for high pixel density digital. Large format lenses are a bit softer.

Irrelevant... Canon will never go in this direction!


21
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 04:42:27 PM »
Ha Ha Ha   ;D 

Dear Mr. Surapon,

I would like to see that camera hang-on to you while on your next photo expedition.  ;D

Have a great weekend Sir.

Yes, Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear Friend Click.
If I have this Camera, I must hire the Strong/ Beautiful  Helper,  who can help me carry this big camera.
Good day, Sir.
Surapon

There are a lot of photographers still using 8X10. Of course all the great landscape photographers were 4x5 or 8x10.

I saw a few stills from this photographer:

http://www.lauramcphee.com

Great stuff! Worth the extra effort for sure.

Fwiw, Canon won't do this because they don't have lenses for it. Yes they made a PL mount C300 for some reason (they also sell PL mount lenses), but the C300 was VERY expensive because they weren't necessarily going to push lenses with it. And they only entered the market once the EF mount become a competitive "cinema" mount and now Arri and Red are building (very expensive, since they don't sell lenses to subsidize the cost) EF mount cameras.

Besides, FF is pretty much on par with 6x7 in everything except "film look." MFDB is more competitive with large format, especially the tech and view cameras... and that is a much smaller market even than 645/6X6/6X7 was.

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 02, 2014, 06:47:39 PM »
I'd wait for the 3D mkII. It's going to have better dynamic range and other amazing technology that will make you want to delete every photo you have ever taken and start over. For realz.

In all seriousness, this is why I recommend 4x5 or 8x10. Sure, film will all dry up and it's expensive to shoot, but there's nothing terribly competitive on the horizon:

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

And when you consider that every lens is a tilt/shift lens (imo, necessary for landscape photography), it's even better. :)


23
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 02, 2014, 01:53:34 PM »
Pretty certain they won't ruin their entire release strategy to appease one needy shooter.

Besides, 4x5 is the only format for landscapes. :)

If you need it now, buy it now. D810 looks nice and Nikon's 45mm tilt/shift and 85mm tilt/shift (the only two lenses I'd use for landscape work, but I know some prefer to go wider) look nice, too.

24
All I'm saying is that at the DSLR level, Canon is no longer even a consideration.

Except for stills, which is, like, what dSLRS are made for.

And rolling shutter is a HUGE issue for most. If it's not for you... lucky you!

Yes, it's no fun buying a $6500 C100 and a $3500 5D Mark III (what I paid when I bought them) when an A7s can get close to both for $2500, but each Canon is the best in class for the price. Best price/performance... maybe the Sony.

But for me the rolling shutter is way too strong. Looks cheesy during pans. Gives a gross look. But if you keep the camera still and need low light it looks AMZING... I do want one.

25
If you are a pro cinema photographer, customer support is a huge factor.  Sony forces customers to wait weeks or months for consumer camera support, while Canon has set up shop in Hollywood for almost instant service.  They have not only not abandoned the segment, they are moving in in a big way.

Look for new dedicated cinema products, the consumer and prosumer stuff is fine, but they are indeed looking to bring in a lot more $$ by producing cameras designed primarily for video.
[/]

Spot on.

26
Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of.  So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it.  I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras.  But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it.  It's a little bit ridiculous.  The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price.  I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs.  Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K.  That would sell like hot cakes.  Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer.  Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.

Canon are currently market leaders in high end stills and low end professional "cinematic" video. Their current cameras already sell extremely well. The 5D Mark III, C300, and C100 outsell all direct competitors (based on what little reliable information is available regarding marketshare). Lenses sell great because bodies sell well. It's as healthy an ecosystem as any company can have in this difficult industry.

Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR. How much have you used the CX00 cameras to be such an expert on their feature set, which is extensive and really powerful?

Why would Canon undercut itself in markets in which it is already the leader and already selling cameras with high prices and presumably high margins? Sony and Panasonic are undercutting Canon and that is why you see the better price/performance there... If you want what they offer, buy it. Canon won't offer that line of video dSLRs you want until Sony and Panasonic start eating up their market share so, maybe in 5-10 years, not now. Panasonic already offers it. Why not buy it from Panasonic? At the worst it will encourage Canon to make the camera you really want.

If there's any market they need to address it's the high end. The C500 is not a serious Alexa competitor. The C500 Mark II needs to be. This is a high margin, mature market and it is completely controlled by one camera.

Indeed they are market leaders as of now, but as I pointed out the 1DC doesn't belong where it is and at the price tag, when you have an a7s and GH4 at a significantly lower cost producing great imagery.  It won't be long before one of these companies does get it right (much sooner than 5-10 years) with internal 4k , better codec.  Regardless of where Canon is now, and how well their gear sells everyone else is catching up quickly.  Sony arguably has better sensor technology than Canon as of now.  I do envision and predict that Canon will release an excellent video capable dslr in the near future, one that competes with the current offerings.  Canon has even stated itself that they need to improve the video on their dslr offerings.

The 1dc delivers built in 4k with acceptable skew and a standard lens mount with native cinema lenses. The gh4 has one of these things... A7s has none. And it's also a top of the line $7k stills camera. The only camera I'd take over my mark 3 is a medium format back... Only cameras I'd take over my c100 would be a c300 or Alexa/Amira. Canon offers the best gear for the price and it sells accordingly.

Fwiw Canon has been on top longer than Apple ever has. Windows and Android beat Apple's OS market share even now.

If you disagree, buy elsewhere. Not everyone can afford the best, fewer still are willing to pay for it.

27
Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of.  So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it.  I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras.  But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it.  It's a little bit ridiculous.  The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price.  I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs.  Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K.  That would sell like hot cakes.  Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer.  Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.

Canon are currently market leaders in high end stills and low end professional "cinematic" video. Their current cameras already sell extremely well. The 5D Mark III, C300, and C100 outsell all direct competitors (based on what little reliable information is available regarding marketshare). Lenses sell great because bodies sell well. It's as healthy an ecosystem as any company can have in this difficult industry.

Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR. How much have you used the CX00 cameras to be such an expert on their feature set, which is extensive and really powerful?

Why would Canon undercut itself in markets in which it is already the leader and already selling cameras with high prices and presumably high margins? Sony and Panasonic are undercutting Canon and that is why you see the better price/performance there... If you want what they offer, buy it. Canon won't offer that line of video dSLRs you want until Sony and Panasonic start eating up their market share so, maybe in 5-10 years, not now. Panasonic already offers it. Why not buy it from Panasonic? At the worst it will encourage Canon to make the camera you really want.

If there's any market they need to address it's the high end. The C500 is not a serious Alexa competitor. The C500 Mark II needs to be. This is a high margin, mature market and it is completely controlled by one camera.

28
Quote
Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, upgrading to the C series is definitely an option, but my gripe/complaint is that Canon has stopped innovating their DSLR video capabilities. They teased us with the 5D2 and then continuously dropped the ball on every single DSLR since on the video front. Not everyone can afford C series cameras and cine lenses. Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video? I do not believe Canon thinks video is unimportant. I think they're just protecting their more expensive products by gutting the lower-end ones. Our company is not a full movie studio so moving up to an army of C300's isn't feasible (a few C100's, perhaps). IMO, Canon has indeed abandoned the DLSR video market in favor of greener pastures (can't blame them for wanting to make a profit). If Sony and Panasonic can do this (and they also make pro cameras), why can't Canon?

When I referred to the A7S and GH4, I was purely referring to them as video cameras (serious still shooters would wisely go with other options). These two absolutely kill the 5D3 and have advantages over the 1DX (low light / continuous autofocus / better audio solutions / 4k 4:2:2 recording).

The 5D Mark III was definitely designed with decent video in mind. If it weren't for Canon's poor debayer algorithm (which plagues their JPEGS, too) it would have really great video, maybe the best of any affordable dSLR. You can see the potential in what people do with the raw video. It's not bad at all, just soft and without a lot of extra features.

Other leaders in the stills market have poor video, too: the D800 is by all accounts not excellent. Fuji makes amazing cameras, but they have poor video. Leica has poor video. I haven't heard great things about Pentax's video.

Canon had surprisingly success with the 5D Mark II and split its line: dSLR-style video cameras and dSLRs. Canon makes amazing cinema cameras... and clearly the form factor is inspired by dSLRs. Other market leaders make video-specific cameras, too. The Alexa is video only. The red (not doing quite as well) is marketed as both stills and video but is really just video. Sony's professional offerings are video only.

Sony and Panasonic are not market leaders so they have to make alternative and hybrid products. Both have major flaws... the GH4 has skew and poor audio; the A7s has TONS of skew and poor battery life. Both are ergonomically awkward. If you're a business and you can afford a $2500 camera but not a $5000 camera, that's a deeper issue than Sony having slightly better video quality than Canon. (Because the 1080p out of the A7s is not leagues ahead of the 5D Mark III; it has much, much more skew, slightly better resolution, and significantly better DR.)

Just get a C300. :)

It has a lot of awesome features way beyond what the 5D Mark II offered.

29
My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.

Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

30
People LOVED this lens (preferring it to the 50 f1.2 L) before the new version.

Interesting how spherochromatism was once heralded as improving bokeh (and built into lens designs) and now people hate it. The 135mm f2 AI-S, for instance, is intentionally a bit soft with spherochromatism wide open as a portrait lens. The 135 L seems to do this a bit, as do most fast primes. I like apochromatic lenses on large format for landscape, but now FF digital lenses are beginning to tend toward apochromatic, too.

I suppose now that people are printing much larger (since FF digital "feels" about like medium format film) the softer lenses designed for 135 film are going out of favor, but I'm not sure I like the look of these clinical new lenses.

Then again, I rarely print that large.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27