April 25, 2014, 01:04:43 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 - Policar

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 25
46
Once again, it's baffling that there isn't more demand for 50+MP cameras.

How well do Phase One cameras sell?

Given that back in the day virtually all "serious" photographers shot not only 120 but 4x5 (or larger), not nearly as well as affordable medium format gear could.

Canon has had some luck branching out into "cinema" and is attempting to branch out into security cameras. The super-high-end might be the market to pursue.

47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:02:50 AM »
OMG ... we are talking image capturing gear here, not religious stuff.

Why can't video folks not understand and accept the fact, that a very substantial segment of the market wants cameras for "pure stills photography". At a price significantly lower than cameras offering "stills and video capture"? Why do videogrpahers expect stills photographers to just put up and shut up and pay for the video capture crap in any camera, including any DSLR?

If the Nikon DF will really be "pure photography" only, without "videography" [=video CAPTURE] and comes at a price siginificantly lower than the Nikon D610 ... it will be a BIG SUCCESS.

If Nikon would offer the DF at an "incredible" 999 USD/Euro it would be a HUGE SUCCESS like the "Canon digital rebel" in 2003 re-visited.  This time by the team in yellow and ... in full frame. 36x24mm - as it was always meant to be for "pure photography". Not 16:9 or some other ugly towel-shaped TV/video format. And Canon would really take another hit. Would love to see how stupid they'd loook with all their expensive stills-AND-video stuffed-down-your-throat-DSLRS. I'm afraid, Nikon is not smart enough either to make the DF a true and "Pure stills" home run.

And .. even a pure-stills "FF-rebel" Nikon DF at 999 would be the last hugely succcessful Nikon DSLR before mirrorless cameras of the Sony A7/R type quickly kill off all "affordable" DSLRs [= up to USD 2000].

If Nikon charges more for the DF than for the D610, it will be just another niche product that will sell very poorly. 

hehe!

They will charge more for the DF than the D610, because it is a niche product, because it lacks major features like... video.

$999? Get real.

48
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 02, 2013, 01:39:10 PM »
I use my DSLRs for video - ML does what the Philip Bloom wannabes want, it's not a stock canon feature.
Zebras etc can be added on external monitors also.

I've not asked for either.  Ok. a headphone socket would be really really really nice, but my beachtek (at extra cost to me, not developed by canon or detracting from canons work) largely solves the problem.

Video is 99% live view.

It's really not worth going on so much about.

No, Video is NOT 99% live view. Video on a DLSR means a sensor which is compromised because it is "optimized" to being ON for 30 minutes at a time and longer. Not needed for liveview or stills. Video is about all sorts of awkward hardware and firmware manipulations on a DSLR that are not needed for stills capture or even in the way. Video means, R&D funds are misappropriated for something only a tiny minority ever uses in a DSLR, rather than being directed at the issues, Canon should be solving and which would be beneficial to the overwhelming majority of stills photographers: fully competitive sensors! Vastly improved DR at low ISO! Far less banding/noise, better S/N at high ISO!

Personally, I really don't understand why you and other avid videographers are not buying a true videocam. If I was into video, I would definitely NEVER EVER put up with ANY DSLR to capture video. Not even a 1Dc. I'd rather buy a C500 or something along those lines then. And I would beat on Canon to sell those video gagdets at more reasonable prices. Since obviously lower price is the sole reason why people would ever consider buying large sensored DSLRs and (ab)use them to capture video.

If Nikon brings their new DF DSLR without video, that will be the only feature about it, that I will commend them for. Otherwise I don't care for that camera not at all. I hate retro looks on modern gear, whether it be cameras or cars.

Given that video was first introduced as a gimmick enabled by live view (on the D90 and the Mark II), I'm pretty sure it is 99% live view. The only camera that's been in any way "compromised" by it is the Mark III, to the extent that the resolution was designed to downscale conveniently to 1080p. That's about it. That and the 1DC. (Not the 1DX.) In fact Canon has pretty terrible video relative to some of the competition! They certainly haven't compromised stills performance for video, despite the fact that Mark II and 7D sales were driven STRONGLY by their video features.

Sony's advantages in sensor tech are not related to a lack of video. The D800 has video. The Alexa IS a video camera. They all benefit from superior dynamic range because Sony has better sensor fabs and has patents on on-chip ADCs that Canon refuses to license.

But yes, I would rather have a C500 than a 7D! I would not, however, rather BUY a C500. It's $30,000. If anything including video helps dSLRs be more competitive and drive a larger base to buy them, making them cheaper for still photographers.

49
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon EOS C100, C300
« on: October 29, 2013, 05:45:31 PM »
$k sounds great, but where are you gonna watch it?

Doesn't matter. Owner/ops who got screwed buying mini-DV are scared. 4k may be a marketing tactic, but it's working.

Personally I could do without.

50
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon EOS C100, C300
« on: October 29, 2013, 05:25:00 PM »
I think Canon will respond to the F5, not to a 1/3'' 4k ENG-style camera... Not with a firmware update, of course, but a new, expensive body.

4k maybe... a better codec probably... we'll. The thing is, the CX00 does have a really good image. Surpassed in some respects by the BMCC and in others by the F3, but in my experience it's in the same league as the Epic, better than the MX, competitive with the F3 for the most part, and a lot easier to use than the rest when used with an external recorder... I do expect an update in a year or two, yes, because the specs are poor and slow motion and resilient built-in codecs are increasingly popular.

51
Maybe try the Rokinon/Samyang/whatever 14mm 2.8, from what i hear it is a great lens, even rivaling the Canon 14mm L at a fraction of the cost. Since you're doing video, the manual focus and iris could come in handy. The distortion is kept very low for such a wide angle lens from what I've been reading and it's just about 300€ (don't know the US price) around here. You should consider it. :)


Are you kidding? The Samyang has the worst distortion of any non-fisheye. It is very sharp but awful for video:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=1

OP, if you're shooting with the 5D then the 14mm f2.8 L II is a good option. Low distortion. With APS-C/super35, try the 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina.

Faces still distort a ton around the edges because these are UWA lenses... you won't find an UWA without distortion because that's just perspective. But lines are kept straight rather than wavy with these lenses.

52
Lenses / Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« on: October 23, 2013, 10:28:45 PM »
On APS-C the 17-40mm L is optically poor. I would take the (significantly optically superior) 18-55mm kit zoom over it any day UNLESS weather sealing were a factor.

The 17-55mm is a very good lens and affordable now, but not that much better than the kit lens in some respects. However it is SO much better than the 17-40mm L. You get a faster lens by a full stop, IS, decent macro, more reliable AF (imo), and a focal length that is useable for portraiture. No comparison.

The Sigma is GREAT but focus is unreliable, which kind of kills the deal.

53
Lenses / Re: Big question sir " 50 mm. VS 55 mm."
« on: October 08, 2013, 12:55:08 PM »
It's up to you! For many reasons this lens seems to be far and away the best normal lens available for FF digital cameras (apparently exceeding Leica's expensive options), however if you need autofocus (this seems to be more of a studio lens) I would skip it.

For astophotography I can see it being amazing and the apochromatic correction means that colors are much purer in out of focus areas. If you have the money and want the best image quality I think this is a no-brainer, but if you're happy with your Sigma (I have one, too, and like it for what it is), why upgrade unless you feel you're missing something?

I find the longitudinal chromatic abberation on other fast 50mms very ugly, whereas I find the sample photos from this lens to be flawless and have a look I associate with medium and large format photography.
.

Thank you, Sir, Dear Mr. Policar
Sorry, I do not understand what you talking about " For astophotography I can see it being amazing and the apochromatic correction means that colors are much purer in out of focus areas."----I do not try to get involve of Astophotography yet, Just try to shoot the Moon and the comet( Comet Panstarrs) in past 5-6 years---Just Try.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


The moon isn't the best example of astrophotography since it's so bright. For photos of stars you want to shoot wide open to minimize the time your shutter is open and most fast lenses have coma and soft corners:

http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2013/02/overcoming-coma-aberration-part-2.html

50mm is a little long for astrophotography, but this could still be really great for that.

Apochromatic correction eliminates "bokeh fringing." In these photos (with the excellent 35mm f1.4 G Nikon lens) you can see that the out of focus areas take on green/magenta fringes:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/35mm-f14-afs/bokeh/D3R_3745-14.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/35mm-f14-afs/D7K_6803-crop-0600.jpg

This is most apparent in the second photo (white against black), but it makes all colors look cloudy and muddy.

If you look at photos taken with the Zeiss lens, they do not have this aberration:

http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html

To me this is a really big deal. The 70-200mm f2.8 II IS is also near-apochromatic by most accounts and people praise it for its beautiful color rendering. Current fast 50mm lenses have lots of bokeh fringing, which I find very distracting and ugly in color.

54
Lenses / Re: Big question sir " 50 mm. VS 55 mm."
« on: October 08, 2013, 12:03:11 PM »
It's up to you! For many reasons this lens seems to be far and away the best normal lens available for FF digital cameras (apparently exceeding Leica's expensive options), however if you need autofocus (this seems to be more of a studio lens) I would skip it.

For astophotography I can see it being amazing and the apochromatic correction means that colors are much purer in out of focus areas. If you have the money and want the best image quality I think this is a no-brainer, but if you're happy with your Sigma (I have one, too, and like it for what it is), why upgrade unless you feel you're missing something?

I find the longitudinal chromatic abberation on other fast 50mms very ugly, whereas I find the sample photos from this lens to be flawless and have a look I associate with medium and large format photography.

55
Only to change aspect ratio or to correct for perspective distortion.

56
Performance looks unreal. Great that they're taking apochromatic performance seriously as it makes a huge difference. These photos look incredible.

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica rangefinder - with lens cap on
« on: September 29, 2013, 06:23:44 PM »
If it were film, he'd have an excuse. The finder operates fine lens cap or no so there's be no indication until looking at the camera.

I don't have many lens cap photos, but I do have some nice dark slide ones.

58
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« on: September 24, 2013, 03:54:07 PM »
Both are awful by today's standards and incredibly by two year ago's. The 5D has three or so stops better low light, but both look fine at low ISOs. The sensor is obviously bigger. There's no aliasing or moire. Both are very soft and flat and difficult to post with and have mediocre DR.

While the argument for the 5D having shallower depth of field and thus a "film look" is indeed kind of silly (as the 7D has a super35-sized sensor, and the 5D's is oversized, requiring you to stop down) the availability of f2.8 zooms and a 24mm 1.4 prime are a big deal because the 5D has much better low light due to the larger sensor and in effect the 24-70mm f2.8 is like a 16-45mm f2 lens on a super35 camera... pretty close to ideal. Then you get f1.4 and faster primes (24,35,50,85, 135mm at f2), and that's basically like an f1 set of primes on super35. And dirt cheap relative to cinema lenses. So there's that. But usually I like to shoot around f4, anyway, and on the 5D f5.6; the shallow focus look is played out.

Long story short, get an C100 (or better).

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Tidbits from the Week [CR1]
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:01:38 PM »
Why would you buy a 44mp camera to shoot 4K video?  Seems like overkill or is there an advantage I'm missing?

One possibility is that the video isn't derived through bayer interpolation and downscaling, but rather through an algorithm like on the C300, which is much faster (and sharper).

60
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 02:27:19 PM »
My 18-35mm f1.8 only autofocuses accurately on my 5D III, which is frustrating...

Meanwhile my 50mm f1.4 Sigma and 17-40mm L focus correctly on everything but. *sigh*

But Sigma's AF is uniquely poor. The 17-40mm L is an anomaly for Canon, usually they focus right.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 25