Messages

46

Video & Movie / Re: I want a better quality video For the 5dm3

« on: February 29, 2012, 11:55:04 PM »

Moire needs to be reduced to the point where it won't ruin a shot. Don't expect 60FPS in 1080p, because not even the C300 offers that, which I find ridiculous for a $12,000 camera.

The 5D Mark ll and other Canon HDSLR's don't actually shoot true 1080p video, it's actually rated just a bit higher than 720p, so hopefully Canon has improved the sensor/pixel downsampling for better resolution.

...Are you kidding me? That is not true at all. They do in fact shoot true 1080p video.

Sorry, but it's true.  The current Canon HDSLR's only capture a bit higher than 720p of actual resolution in 1080p mode.  It's been proven with test charts.

47

EOS Bodies / Re: You think Canon will release a more affordable Full-Frame HDSLR?

« on: February 29, 2012, 08:34:12 PM »

That's great news for photographers, but videographers on a budget want something with better video  quality than the Canon HDSLRS we are currently using. The C300 would have been the answer if it was $3,000, but at $12,000 it's obviously aimed for the rich. I don't see why Canon would think an HDSLR built specifically for video at a fair price wouldn't sell well.

Actually, photographers who are primarily interested in still photography have been griping about all these video features being shoved into DSLRs... but anyway.

I think the bigger question, why do you need something 'better' then the 5D2?  If you are on a budget, then use a budget device.  The 5D2 is already used in professional productions for both TV and movies, so unless you have needs that outstrip those two fields, I am not seeing why you need Canon to produce something 'better' at a low price point, esp since they already have a whole like of FF DSLRS to choose from.  Or you could upgrade to a XHAS1 which is fairly well regarded.

And I would not say the C300 is aimed a the 'rich', it is aimed at professionals and companies.  When film making is your business, $12,000 for a major piece of equipment is not a big deal in the same way buying a $10k server is pricy for home use but budget for a company.

I just want Canon's answer to Sony's FS100, which is an amazing video camera for the price. If I didn't have so much invested in Canon glass and the ergonomics were better I'd probably get a FS 100 myself. The C300 is Canon's answer to Sony's F3. I don't consider the 1DX, or 5D Mark lll a stripped down C300. 

48

Video & Movie / Re: I want a better quality video For the 5dm3

« on: February 29, 2012, 08:22:07 PM »

Moire needs to be reduced to the point where it won't ruin a shot. Don't expect 60FPS in 1080p, because not even the C300 offers that, which I find ridiculous for a $12,000 camera.

The 5D Mark ll and other Canon HDSLR's don't actually shoot true 1080p video, it's actually rated just a bit higher than 720p, so hopefully Canon has improved the sensor/pixel downsampling for better resolution.

49

EOS Bodies / Re: You think Canon will release a more affordable Full-Frame HDSLR?

« on: February 29, 2012, 04:15:22 AM »

I don't know what the 5D Mark III will be like, but if HD video is your focus, the Nikon D800 goes a long way towards an affordable full-frame video solution. Unlike Canon, Nikon has more interest in gearing a DSLR to your video needs in lieu of pushing you towards a professional video camera line; they haven't had one since the Hi8 days. Only downside is that it may not have PAL support initially if your target audience is in Europe.

If you can excuse having to buy a special adapter to get audio monitoring and don't need 60fps, the Unified Branch of the community-driven Magic Lantern firmware effort will probably have a stable release for the 5D Mark II soon, giving it some much needed video love, and with used 5D Mark II's going for ~1800 USD, that's *really* affordable. Magic Lantern's manual focus helpers are probably better than you'd find on even the D800.

My fingers are crossed for a stellar 5D Mark III. Maybe it'll have an equivalent to the 1DX sensor as you hope.

If your definition of HD is 4K+ resolution, you'll probably not see anything close to that from HDSLRs in 2012.

I've already invested in some Canon glass, so I'm not willing to switch brands. I'll just have to wait and see how much better the Canon 5D Mark lll is in regards to video quality over the Mark II. The headphone jack is a big plus.

50

EOS Bodies / Re: What If the rumored specs for the 5DIII are actually that of the new t4i?

« on: February 29, 2012, 02:37:38 AM »

IMHO, 18 MP was already stretching it on a crop sensor camera, anything over that would be overkill. I want High ISO performance to be improved over my T2i, not remain the same, or perform worse. 

51

EOS Bodies / Re: You think Canon will release a more affordable Full-Frame HDSLR?

« on: February 29, 2012, 02:18:02 AM »

Yes...

It will be called the 5D MkII.

That's great news for photographers, but videographers on a budget want something with better video  quality than the Canon HDSLRS we are currently using. The C300 would have been the answer if it was $3,000, but at $12,000 it's obviously aimed for the rich. I don't see why Canon would think an HDSLR built specifically for video at a fair price wouldn't sell well. 

52

EOS Bodies / Re: You think Canon will release a more affordable Full-Frame HDSLR?

« on: February 29, 2012, 02:09:53 AM »

Wouldn't that be, ahm, a video camera?  I believe Canon has a whole line of those....

Yeah, a whole line of 1/3" chip automatic point and shoots. The reason people shoot video on HDSLR's is for their larger sensor sizes (Better Low-Light performance, Shallow DOF) and manual exposure controls.  The C300 is not the answer for most people shooting video on HDSLR's as it's cost is way too high. All we want is a HDSLR built with video in mind first at a price that most can afford. 

53

EOS Bodies / You think Canon will release a more affordable Full-Frame HDSLR?

« on: February 28, 2012, 09:01:28 PM »

Possibly a full-frame geared more towards video and perhaps have the same sensor as the 1DX, but without all bells and whistles for stills?

54

EOS Bodies / Re: If 5d3 really is 22Mp, what will low light (ISO) performance likely be?

« on: February 28, 2012, 08:30:47 PM »

LOL, your expectations are way too high. I don't see more than 1 stop of ISO low-noise improvement. If the 5D Mark lll had the same 18 MP sensor as the 1DX, then you could have expected a big improvement over the Canon 5D Mark ll. I want Canon to release a full-frame 12 megapixel low-light beast HDSLR made for video.

55

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: February 25, 2012, 07:05:19 PM »

I noticed a interview with Canon from the CP + in Japan. 
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040

"Q: The new 24mm and 28mm seem to be really perplexing, they are not extremely fast, surly not cheap and have image stabilization which doesn't seem to be that necessary in such a short focal length. To top this you have the 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS which admittedly isn't a prime lens but can give you much more flexibility – so who is the real target audience here – videographers?

A: Videographers are indeed an ideal market for these lenses, but the main group who prompted the design of these lenses where in fact photojournalists. While a f/1.4 lens is desirable, they do tend to feature quite large optics. So for example in situations where photographers are trying to blend in and be less obtrusive, a lens with a smaller diameter is more suitable. We included IS to help these photographers to continue shooting in low light, even with smaller aperture that these lenses offer. It’s also worth noting the original versions of these lenses are nearly 25 years old. When designing their replacements we wanted to look forwards to ensure that these lenses enjoy a life span to match their predecessors."

People shooting video on crop sensor cameras are going to choose the 17-55mm 2.8 IS over those 2.8 primes, so I guess they mean these new lenses will appeal to Full Frame videographers.  Why the heck would someone pay $800 for a 2.8 prime when they can spend $200 more for the 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens?

I will gladly pay $600 for a 35mm F2 IS lens, but I'm betting they will release a 2.8 version for $800.

56

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: February 25, 2012, 05:15:42 AM »

If it's more than $600 then count me out. The only thing that needs to be improved is more aperture blades and less vignetting at F2. Canon needs to release a nice cheap standard lens for us crop sensor users. Nikon released a very good performing and inexpensive 35mm 1.8 designed for crop sensor cameras, so what about us Canon users? The Tokina 35mm 2.8 is the best option for the price.