March 05, 2015, 07:22:41 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 31
Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:09:40 PM »
Thanks. Maybe I'll have to pick one up next time they're on sale. But even $700 is a lot to spend to get slightly better IQ and an extra stop at one focal length I already have covered decently. But it does look like a much nicer lenses for what it does.

The 100mm f2.8 macro is my other most-wanted and it was in stock, too. Hmm.

Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now
« on: March 24, 2013, 12:38:47 PM »
Passed on the 135 L but sort of regret it. Just for reference, how much better is this than the 70-200mm f2.8 L (non-IS) at 135mm? Is it much smaller? I dislike the weight of the zoom.

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens
« on: March 15, 2013, 04:45:00 PM »
I can advise to avoid the Tamron 70-300.  It costs less than $300.00, but very few photos were usable.  It seems that the autofocus does not work consistantly.  I could not afford a more expensive lens at the time so I rented a 100-400 and later a 70-300L.  This delayed my need, as well as making sure that I new what I wanted.   I saved up and when I found a refurbished 70-300L at 20% off the refurbished cost ($1039.00) I jumped on it. 

Avoid the cheap lenses, rent a good one for the short term.  When you can afford it then buy what you need.

Good Luck

Autofocus is spot on with the Tamron. It is significantly slower than the L zooms, however. Are you sure you're referoing to the VC model (which is $350) and not the non-VC one, which is not highly regarded? I'm not normally a Tamron fan, but this lens is a gem.

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens
« on: March 15, 2013, 02:34:02 PM »
I sold my 55-250mm IS for $100 on eBay. I sort of wish I hadn't! For the money it is a decent lens, but you say you want FF, so....

I am also extremely fond of the 70-300mm VC Tamron, which is a better lens in every way. The VC is awesome, it focuses reasonably fast (not that fast, though) and the size and weight balance well with a 5D. But it's super strong at 70mm and weaker at 300mm, so if you want fast AF and sharpness at 300mm I can't recommend it as heartily. In general I sort of prefer it to my 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS, but since I mostly shoot video (for which speed matters most) I will probably ditch the Tamron when push comes to shove. That said, I like it a lot!

Lenses / Re: TS-E 45mm & TS-E 90mm Finally Getting Replaced? [CR1]
« on: March 15, 2013, 02:27:08 PM »
Might finally sell my 4x5 if the 45mm is great.

Speed not a concern... strangest thing to ask for on such a lens. I would live with f8! After all these are used for deep focus photography and on tripods or in studio. T/S is about increasing depth of field.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark 2 or 5D Mark 3??
« on: March 10, 2013, 07:01:33 PM »
I recently upgraded from the Mark III to the C100 (and had a t2i before that). I rarely recommending waiting on a product that likely won't be released, but see if Canon has a C50 up its sleeve at NAB before buying because the C100 is incredible.

(And buy a Mark III over the Mark II at this point, but wait for a good deal. It's not that much better, but if you're a professional you'd do better being able to avoid skew and noise at high ISOs.)

If you're a pro you can likely pay off a C100 in a few months, less at the frequency with which it sounds like you're working, but if the C50 comes out and has the same sensor but is cheaper... why not?

I think the c100 could make your life a lot easier, but if you are really looking the biggest jump in IQ over your existing setup, i'd say the clear winner is BMC.

The pains of working with RAW are real, but being able to make the image look exactly like you want it too, without worrying about losing detail or banding, is a huge advantage.

But think about it this way,  even if you had to buy a brand new workstation to handle raw....

$3000 BMC + $3000 workstation< c100

Have you used either camera?

The C100 is an AMAZING camera. Very underrated. Awesome image and interface. It's closer to the Alexa than to the 5D Mark III. Resolution is great, colors are beautiful (if warmer/less accurate/more subjective than the Alexa, they're certainly way better than Red), and the interface and ergonomics are great and the battery lives forever. It's the prefect owner/operator cinema camera. One person can use it easily and yet the image quality is approaching other high end cinema cameras. It can be set to intercut with dSLRs, or used as a b-cam for the Alexa with an uncompressed recorder. WideDR mode has Canon Log levels of DR but in a linear space. The specs (AVCHD/8bit, etc.) are poor, but despite that it's great. It uses superwhites (watch these in post) and a wonky log curve to retain decent tonality despite the poor spec.

That said, DR is still not the C100's strength. It blows away dSLRs but it is not as good as the Alexa, F3 (though only a half stop away, though, from the F3 with slog and ACHD beats XDCAM, seriously), or Red with HDRx (it's, imo, on par with Red without HDRx, maybe better). Really only the Alexa has amazing DR out of the box. I haven't used the BMCC but my guess is it's decent, maybe better than the C100 in this regard.

The question boils down to if you want to do more work but have more control (BMCC), like if this were your hobby or if you wanted to do less work but have to do it right int he fist place (C100). It reminds me of the "pros shoot JPEG" mentality, but that's kind of how it is. The C100 can provide gorgeous footage but you need to be a competent shooter. With RAW you can do all sorts of dumb stuff (overexposure, WB shift) and salvage it in post, but that's so much more work.

In normally lit rooms during the day it holds highlights out the window way better than a dSLR, but worse than the Alexa. You might need to turn some lights on (bring in daylight balanced CFLs or something) or choose your angle and exposure carefully, but if you're a competent shooter it will blow away your dSLR. Unfortunately it's superior more for tonality, noise structure, reduced skew, color, etc. than for DR, but nonetheless it's in a whole other league from dSLRs without being more difficult to use. Love this camera.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Highest ISO for good quality video?
« on: March 06, 2013, 07:00:05 PM »
It really depends on the camera. And personal taste. The only way to know is to try for yourself in a controlled environment and then see what results you get in the field with the settings you've chosen... adjust until you're happy.

With the 5D3, I find the read noise is really gnarly but the gain is pretty clean. So I turn HTP off and try to shoot at 100, 160, 200, 320, 640, or 1280 ISO when possible. Beyond that it gets pretty noisy. Sometimes. I've used the camera up to 10,000 ISO and found the video acceptable, though. It really depends. The shadows are grainy, but the rest is pretty clean so if you keep your exposures good and don't mind losing some shadow detail in post you can get away with anything.

If you can light with very low contrast and expose properly at 160 ISO that will probably give you the best results, but I'd say up to 640, even 1280 is pretty safe if you keep HTP off and don't use cinestyle, which lifts the blacks too much and makes exposing difficult. Dynamic range should be pretty similar, though HTP will lose you a stop in the highs for cleaner mids and shadows.

For red, Alexa, and the canon cinema cameras, 800-850 ISO is the normal iso, but you can pull the image digitally and make it cleaner. I just saw some Alexa footage shot at 400ISO. Such great tonality. But the trade off is you need more light and highlights clip sooner.

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Just keep your ISO low if you can and avoid HTP, cinestyle, etc. "Professional" video is shot all over the place. (As are stills.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
« on: February 20, 2013, 04:32:52 PM »
I thought about how they could further strip the C100 down to justify a significant pricedrop without cannibalizing C100 sales. The 8bit 420 AVCHD is quite a limitation already and getting rid of 720 50p/60p (the C100 REALLY doesn't have that?? thats so hard to believe!) leaves almost nothing to cut down. basically they are approaching the video quality of a 500D/550D/600D/650D....and that at a pricepoint of 6500$ !!!

The C100's video is far beyond the 650D in my experience. I suggest processing your clips differently or respecting the superwhites if you're having DR issues. Can't help you with sharpness, the camera is already supremely sharp. Beyond that I can't suggest anything except metering and choosing your gamma carefully. From my perspective it out-performs (or at least is close enough to) the F3, which I prefer to anything below the Alexa.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 15, 2013, 01:02:13 PM »
You certainly could, although it's the first I've heard of that problem.

I know personally a fair number of people who consider the Epic borderline unusable. I considered the non-MX Red essentially unusable. Even with the Alexa we've gotten a lot of bad bugs. "Useable" says quite a lot in today's age of buggy computers-in-a-camera-box. I wouldn't take this so personally!

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 14, 2013, 02:26:53 PM »
For stills, sure. But if it's a video-only investment I'd pick otherwise. It's all personal opinion, of course, but even the GH2 has WAY better image quality (when hacked) than the t3i does.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 14, 2013, 11:45:17 AM »
The big thing against the GH3 for me is the choice of lenses.  I know you can adapt, I guess I'm just a bit wary.

Agree 100%. There are ways around it (the 12-35mm zoom, some of the expensive fast lenses, hopefully the speedbooster will be a good option), but the m43 sensor size is not ideal for video. FF and super35 are much better.

But if I were starting off and wanted a video camera kit (dSLR style) under $3,000 with lenses I'd still get the GH3. The GH2 really impressed me and this looks even better.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 13, 2013, 12:11:08 AM »
For whatever reason the lack of two dials never really bugged me, but for stills I could see it being annoying. I guess all these cameras are so inexpensive that a few hundreds dollars here or there doesn't really detract from the fantastic bang for the buck.

Fwiw, if you haven't invested in lenses yet and want to shoot video exclusively, consider the GH3. The image quality seems to be a lot better and it's way cheaper than the 6D and 5D III. Though the full frame look can be cool and the EOS system is fun. Canon has nice interfaces, too.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 11, 2013, 11:44:04 PM »
Both of them have better ISO options as well.

... unless of course you use Magic Lantern :-) ... but the swivel screen on the 60d definitely is a plus for video amongst other things as landscape/macro tripod work.

T3i has a swivel screen and is the cheapest with equal image quality. Magic lantern takes care of ISO options. For stills I'd take the other two, but for video the T3i is the best bang for the buck. All decent options, though!

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 31