March 02, 2015, 12:02:42 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 - transpo1

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 09, 2014, 12:53:51 PM »
I'm a filmmaker and video guy so will buy this lens in a heartbeat and sell my 16-35L F4 IS if it's good enough. The wide angle and 2.8 will be indispensable for crop frame (Super 35mm) movie shooting.

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:10:32 PM »
The rumors need to start materialising as lenses. The newer cameras (before we even get to 45 or 85MP as been rumored here) such as the 6d show up the problems of the EF-17-40mm f4L,  EF24-105mm f4L both of which have pronouced chromatic abberations at 17mm and 24mm respectively. As sensors improve the faults of lenses masked at 8, 10, 12 or 18MP now show up and this undermines the system ability to produce great results. Sigma have shown improvement are possible (so has Zeiss at a price) and still remain competitive to Canon pricing.

A 24-105 II L really would be nice, especially mated with a 100-400 II L combo. Very versatile!

+1 for the 24-105L II lens. This is the most versatile lens Canon makes.

Also, Canon- a 14-24 2.8 for under $2500 please.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF16-35mm F4 IS test
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:08:43 PM »
Thanks for the comparison!

I took my 16-35 F4 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS to Beijing last week and although I got those nice wide angle and telephoto shots of the Summer Palace I wanted, I found myself constantly missing the all-in-one reach of my 24-105.

I'm a video guy, so I prefer to have one lens that does it all. Still, good to know that I have a sharp 16-35 when I need it.

I also find that the IS on the 16-35 F4 is not as powerful as it is on the 24-105 when doing video. Anyone know why that is?

By the way, these are what they call "Uptown problems" :)

They really need:

4k that is real 4k and not like 1080P

forget all the stupid DNR where they turn even ISO 100 to wax unless it's extreme contrast edges, we want natural 'grain' and detail and we don't want fine surface detail to be turned to mush from plasticky fake looking DNR!

we need 10bits not bits recorded internally, 10bits 4:4:4, compressed, detailed, 4k recorded internally would be great (4:2:2 at worst). (and it should allow 1080p RAW like ML)

and how about just building the zebras and focus 100% box and focus peaking in? basic stuff!

+1 here. Zebras and focus peaking are really needed. And compressed 4k and 1080p RAW please  ;)

Does Canon want to lose that 10% of video buyers? I don't think so- then their 5D sales go down 10%.

4K isn't a fad like 3D was- it's here for the long run. Canon needs to take a lesson from Apple and cannibalize themselves (their Cinema EOS line) before someone else does it for them.

Putting 4K and 1080p RAW in the next 5D is essential- otherwise, video shooters will be buying something else.

And how many Cinema EOS buyers started out with a 5DII? A lot. Then they graduated to a C300.

If the next generation of shooters starts out with a GH4 or A7S, they'll be much more inclined to graduate to a higher end Panasonic or Sony cinema camera. And whoops, then those C300 sales will start to drop, too.

I'm not being a pessimist here, and I'm not a Canon hater- I LOVE their products- the quality is just incredible. But they have to stop protecting Cinema EOS market share and start giving people what they want.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:54:19 AM »
4K video or not? I'm a filmmaker, so I know I'm in the minority here.

If it doesn't come with 4K H.264 or built-in RAW video, I won't even think of buying. Canon needs to step up their game for us video folks.

I'm not excited about a 16-35mm F4 but would be about a 12-24 or a 14-24 F2.8.

This price reduction makes me now think (even more) that there'll be a 1DC2 unveiled at the NAB show. 

-- peer

Interesting thought- I feel like if there were any big announcements like that, they would have come this week but one can always hope :)

And there it is- Canon's current answer to the under $10K 4K market :)

These are fixed lens camcorders. I know they serve a purpose, but...snore.

Have to hand it to Canon- despite the cost, this is great for its video customers and pretty innovative. I, however, will be renting, not buying ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: March 31, 2014, 01:15:11 PM »
mkabi, to my knowledge, those RED sensors have never been released. I remember seeing them talked about years ago, but I never heard anymore than that.

Back to the lens, it's probably going to be over $20k. Likely in the $30k's, at least, but we'll see in a week or less. Spec wise, I haven't heard exact numbers(more correctly, I've heard two or three different, but similar zoom ranges) and I don't want to say the exact numbers that I have heard, but it's supposed to be wider than 20mm and longer than 105mm.  Aperture, I haven't heard either, but hopefully a constant T2.9.   And regarding the picture, I was told this morning by someone that officially they have to say it might be fake, but it's not- unofficially...

But, until Canon releases an announcement it's all rumor.  By this time next week, we should know for sure. NAB really gets cranking Monday.

Despite the price, this sounds like it really would be a great addition to the Cinema EOS pro body toolkit, as it would help those cameras compete with the documentary ENG-style Amira. The cost of a Cinema EOS body plus the new lens would be less than the Amira's base price of $40K.

And many people, including myself, love the 24-105L, so a powered zoom of that length would be incredibly useful...

PowerShot / Re: Canon EOS Smart 1 Phone - April Fools Joke? :)
« on: March 31, 2014, 10:24:21 AM »
Oh, come on  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: March 31, 2014, 09:50:57 AM »
Is the *optical* quality of a Canon CN-E50mm T1.3 L F better than the IQ of a 50mm 1.2L? If yes, it would be interesting to get compared to the Zeiss Otus 55 f1.4...


Should be the same or virtually identical, different coatings maybe so maybe better contrast, more aperture blades I think, better mechanics.

Smart, if this is true. But it doesn't address the pressing need for a 7DC or 5DC 4K DSLR or Cinema EOS equivalent for under $10K, does it Canon?  :) ;)

What need?

You personally not having a need for it does not mean there is not a need for it. The fact that there is so much interest in ML and Black Magic cameras clearly proves the point that there very much IS a need for it.

There's interest, but relative to the CX00 line.... there aren't sales. The BMCC and ML products are "alternative" products that cater to niche audiences (primarily high end hobbyists) that Canon does not need to cater to because this market is much smaller (with significant competition) than the market (low end tv/indie cinema/high end event and wedding) they are doing exceptionally well in. C300s rent very well and are ubiquitous on reality shows as A cams and dramatic tv as B cams.

Besides, since the Black Magic cameras and 5D hack already cater to this market... there are already products here to choose if you are not interested in what the CX00 line has to offer. Hence what need is there for the same product but Canon-branded (and inevitably much more expensive)? Were Canon to add raw and 4k to its dSLRs it would cannibalize 1DC and C500 sales, which are already workflow nightmares, and force immature workflows onto consumers who are likely not as ready for them as those willing to drop huge price premiums are, compromising the company's reputation for easy-to-use production-ready hardware. Black Magic caters to an enthusiast crowd (similar to Red) that is willing to put up with workflow issues and immature hardware for what they perceive to be significant image quality gains... Canon is interested in the "good enough for your client and really easy to use" market.

When 4k tvs, monitors, and post-production workflows are mainstream Canon dSLRs will shoot 4k. (Maybe a few years after even, Canon dawdles a bit with such tech it seems.)

This may be true, and yes, Canon is responsible to its shareholders and needs to maintain profitability by choosing carefully what markets and niches to enter, but --

What some of us are trying to say about this mentality is that, from a product standpoint, it's not forward-looking. Yes, an introduction of a 4K camera under $10K will cannibalize **some** of its higher end products. But Apple has proved that you can pinpoint where a market is headed and leap forward to cannibalize yourself before others do it for you. You put out a product that is ahead of the curve and sell on volume.

Any prosumer or high-end enthusiast who buys into a $6K-10K priced 4K DSLR or Cinema EOS body will be prepared for any workflow issues. And the amount of these bodies Canon would sell would make up for any cannibalization of the higher end. Pros want the higher end bodies anyway- reality shows are not going to give up their C300s for a DSLR form factor or crippled, lower end Cinema EOS body just because it does 4K.

Canon can really have their cake and eat it, too, here- we just don't want them to be too afraid to try  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: March 30, 2014, 04:13:10 PM »
This makes sense if Canon is trying to enhance the usability of the C100-300-500 as documentary-style ENG cameras to compete with the new Arri Amira.

For the price of an Amira ($40,000 starting price), users could buy a C300 or 500 and this lens, which is sure to be in the $20,000 range at least. And it would also compete in the rental market.

Smart, if this is true. But it doesn't address the pressing need for a 7DC or 5DC 4K DSLR or Cinema EOS equivalent for under $10K, does it Canon?  :) ;)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8