September 17, 2014, 05:35:54 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 - Policar

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 27
196
Lenses / Re: Best landscape lenses
« on: December 15, 2012, 07:37:41 PM »
Did they discontinue all three versions or is 100 still available in 4x5? How about 120? Obviously 50 was my preference, but I can live with 100. And it was the greens, right? Green looks so good with Velvia. As for grain in the blacks, I don't know… it's certainly granier than digital, but the resolution was great even on 135. I really, really liked it and shooting film with a spot meter really improved my technique.

I might try the DXO emulation but I just can't imagine it would work. First of all Velvia has very tight color sensitivity peaks versus the pretty sloppy filters on bayer filters now to increase sensitivity, and amazing tonality since it has such low DR but such insanely thick DMAX. And beyond that it has such high contrast that any accurate emulation would map most pictures to blown highlights and crushed blacks and no one wants that (except me).

Haters always said it was cheesy, but that is why I loved it. You shoot a flat scene (four or five stops of DR) with it and use a normal lens (150mm on a view camera) and it becomes this amazing picturesque thing. Assuming you expose and compose well, that's what I struggled with. And loading film and getting focus. But try that with a digital camera and a 50mm lens and it's trivially easy but you get a very flat, boring shot even with a good composition and if it's a landscape or architecture and you've got trees the uncorrected perspective makes the leading lines point outside the frame and even the composition can never be great. So then the style with digital is HDR and UWA (without T/S to correct for perspective) and you get these super tacky, saturated photos with crazy contrast and colors but there's no actual sense of depth or reality since it's tone mapped to hell and the perspective is totally unnatural. Plus composing on 4x5 with a loupe felt big and composing in a viewfinder feels like a thumbnail. So the irony is the cheesy film turns out these beautiful elegant painterly photos, whereas digital, which should be all accurate and clinical and naturalistic, has made this really awful stuff suddenly popular.

</rant>

Did I mention I don't like HDR?

But anyhow, does anyone have much experience with the 45mm TS? Sample shots seem boring and have poor micro-contrast relative to the 24mm and 90mm, but still better than the Nikon 45mm TS. I might just get that and dump all the LF gear. Or take it for one last run (I still have a 6x12 back and access to a Nikon 9000 scanner) and bring the Canon along, too.

197
Lenses / Re: Best landscape lenses
« on: December 15, 2012, 05:18:07 PM »
What is this Velvia, of which you speak so reverently?   ;)

A transparent sheet of magic coated in pixie dust... DXOMark gave it a one billion.

(Of course they wouldn't; it has four stops of DR and is super grainy in the shadows at ISO 50 with terrible color accuracy.)

198
Lenses / Best landscape lenses
« on: December 15, 2012, 04:31:55 PM »
I asked this elsewhere, but I figured I'd ask it here, too:

I'm thinking of getting into landscape photography, which was an interest of mine I never really pursued.

I started with 135 (Velvia) and then went to 6x7 and eventually 4x5. And while I found 4x5 had everything I needed (amazing IQ, color, lens movements) it was too expensive and slow. I'm not a patient person I guess.

I'm thinking of selling off either my entire 4x5 kit or most of it and investing the money in T/S lenses for my 5D Mark III. I strongly, strongly prefer the IQ and color on 4x5 Velvia, but it is too much work to shoot and too expensive. I'm just too lazy.

My favorite focal lengths were 135mm, 180mm, and 300mm. What lenses should I get to mimic these? The 24mm TSE II seems like the best performer, but the 45mm and 90mm seem like they would give me the FOV I like. But the corner performance... yuck.

Then I'd get an ND 1.5 so I could do the long shutter speeds I like. Does that make sense?

Has anyone successfully been able to get velvia style color and tonality out of a Canon sensor? I'd overexpose a bit, meter so that the scenes I shot only had 4-5 stops of DR (very low contrast scenes), etc. But is there some way to match color (LUT)?

Thanks!

199
I personally find the difference most significant for portraiture, low light, and autofocus.

For UWA the difference isn't great unless you use tilt shift lenses, which make more sense on FF.

The 50mm f1.8 on a 5D is such a great combo. And autofocus with long lenses is stellar with the Mark III. Tonality, micocontrast, etc. are improved. A 1.5 stop advantage over the 7D sounds right.

Macro is worse.

200
Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 11, 2012, 10:50:06 PM »
anyone else interested in a 35mm tilt shift?  the 17 and 24 are great (have both), but sometimes a little wide still.  45 strikes me as a little long, but a 35mm would be fantastic!  that or an aps-h 7dii...

Yeah, I'd like one of those. I don't think 45mm is that short, though. It's a nice focal length at which landscapes look natural without feeling flat. 24mm begins to feel "wide" for sure.

Those who can manage good landscape photography at 60-90mm impress me most.

201
So after hours of reading, I'm still not sure about the answer to 2 questions about the 5D mkIII, both of which are probably known by anybody who's been shooting a lot of video with one:

1) Are SD cards good enough for video?  There is endless discussion about CF being faster, yada yada, raw burst rates, etc - I don't care, I only shoot video.  Are SD cards (assuming class 10) fast enough for video use in either video codec mode?

2) Has the ALL-I vs IPB thing been resolved?  All the reading I see shows a lot of disagreement as to which codec to use generally; All-I is better on paper but many people are getting same or better results with IPB.  Anybody know?  I generally have to shoot hours of interviews per day and so would rather have a more compact codec if there is no difference in quality.

There are rumors that CF cards (the fastest ones) can record to 100mb/sec instead of 90mb/sec.

I'm not buying it.

ALL-I is a lot better for fast motion, but IPB might be a little better for relatively static scenes. I'd go with IPB in your situation, though I use ALL-I for some stuff.

202
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8iii... L... Real or fake?
« on: December 11, 2012, 12:19:37 AM »
Of course it's a joke, but it's a joke on the kind of thinking you're exercising, fetishizing labels and marketing and such over performance. A good sample of the f1.8 is already as sharp as the others. It's not just for "amateurs" and I got my copy (my most-used lens on my 5D III by far) from a photographer who's published maybe like a dozen books and it's one of his favorite lenses.

The MF 55mm f1.4 Zeiss might end up being incredible as might the new Leica, seeing as they're using weird designs. But the normal fast fifties are already pretty good and similar performers at normal stops.

203
Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 08, 2012, 09:38:09 PM »
I'm interested in the 45mm if it's not too expensive. 24mm is a bit too wide for landscapes... Something closer to 150mm on a view camera could be great.

204
You know...

Just occured to me...this is all just DATA...wonder why there isn't some way to just stream off the image data via the USB port straight to computer or via a usb wireless dongle to a computer, and just bypass HDMI altogether?

Just a thought...

C

USB2 has a theoretical maximum sustained transfer rate of 480mb/sec. In practice, it's closer to half that.

HDMI video (8 bit NTSC) is 30fps*1080 vertical pixels*1920 horizontal pixels*8 bit color*3 channels=about 1500mb/sec.

Way too much data.

205
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon C100 praise & annoyances
« on: December 06, 2012, 03:29:19 PM »
Fimmakers shoot with film cameras, videographers shoot with video cameras. The C100 is a video camera, not a film camera.

Most directors don't shoot on anything; that's the DP's job and most capable DPs shoot both film and digital, though certainly they have their preferences. Also, film is going away very fast but I doubt the term "filmmaker" will.

206
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrade from 7D to 6D or MK3?
« on: December 06, 2012, 12:24:07 AM »
The 5D III falls far short of the BMC camera in terms of test charts and footage pushed far one way or the other, but you have to weight that against lens availability and how ridiculously easy it is to shoot and post with the Mark III. It's pretty darned good until it's directly in comparison with something better. For video I feel it is very underrated. If you do everything yourself and are very technical (you're either an amateur who shoots very little or a professional house that does studio stuff only) something like the BMC or Scarlet makes sense. But for ease of use and fast turn around times, the dSLRs are great.

The 5D also has darned nice color rendering. And FF lets you use a fast borderline UWA (24mm f1.4), whereas no 16mm f1.4 or 18mm f1.4 exists for APS-C. So for low light the 5D III is AMAZING.

Compared with the 6D I'd get the Mark III for sure--less aliasing, surely better low light, etc.

The 7D Mark II might be even better and you won't need to change lenses, though!

207
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:44:20 PM »
I have a 60d but I have an opportunity to upgrade it at a reasonable price and get a 5d Mark III. My only worry is that I will miss the extra reach I was getting with APS-C and the vari-angle screen(but thats more of a minor concern). I have a 5d Mark II and love the full frame but worried I am going to miss the reach.
I do weddings, portraits, concerts and videos of all sorts. I dont have any ef-s lenses.
Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?

You're asking for video specifically or for stills? Just wondering because of where you posted this.

Anyhow, you can always buy a longer, slower lens, but for concerts you'll lose something. The 5D has about a 1.6 stop edge in ISO for stills and a two or three stop edge for video and less skew. I thought the super shallow focus would bug me, but it doesn't. The Mark III is a good camera, underrated partially due to its versatility.

208
Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 11:25:05 PM »
16mm f1.4 for APS-C only.

For video. Samyang?

35mm TSE would be nice. 24mm is too wide for many landscapes.

200m f2 IS of course already exists.

209
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:19:36 PM »
I've done it myself. I took a picture with the following configuration and the pictures were identical.

Canon 7d with 18-135mm lens at 35mm.
Canon Rebel (film, so full frame) with 35-80mm lens at 35mm.

Why did the picture turn out the exact same? Because the 18-135mm at 35mm is at 35mm on my 7D. Since this is an APS-C only lens, the stated focal length is correct. It was not "zoomed" in to 56mm. The picture was IDENTICAL to the Canon film Rebel at 35mm.

Do it yourself and be amazed.

Get an APS-C-only lens and sent it to XYmm on a crop body. Then, get a EF lens and set it to the same XYmm on a full frame body and the two images will be the same. (I understand that the image will be different if an EF lens at the same focal length will be different when put on an APS-C body). Trust me, do exactly what I said and you will see that I am correct.

Do it right now and report back.

I don't know what to say, but you're the only person who's experiencing this. Everything everyone else is writing is both consistent and correct (even if there are arguments over semantics relating to focal length not being an absolute measure of field of view).

I had a 17-55mm on my t2i and a 17-40mm on my 5D III. Used both very frequently at 17mm.

One of them was a lot wider.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. "Equivalent" doesn't mean the focal lengths are mis-marked and 35mm on the EF-S lens is the same as 35mm on the EF lens exactly; what equivalent means is it's the equivalent field of view in terms of what 135 film or a FF sensor would see.

If this were true, the 10-22mm would be the widest Canon lens available for any dSLR. But the 14mm f2.8 is wider on FF than the 10mm is on a crop body.

All focal length means is the distance from the focal plane at which the lens's optical center focuses at infinity. That distance and the size of the sensor determines the field of view.

210
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle on a Budget
« on: November 30, 2012, 12:28:00 AM »
I would also recommend the Samyang 14mm f2.8 if its wide enough for you. I also have a 7D and I've been using the Samyang 14mm alot lately. Its really sharp for the price and my only complain is the distortion (which is expected for such a wide lens)

At the 14mm focal length its very easy to zone focus so the lack of AF wont be much of an issue.

Amazing performance for the money if you don't mind MF, but the distortion is much worse than it should be. The 14mm f2.8 L II has almost no distortion. Even the 17-40mm f4 L has much less. It's really, really bad and needs correction in post more often than not.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 27