Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1dx, or d800e?

« on: October 13, 2012, 07:42:22 PM »

Rent the D800e for a weekend and see if it's all that.

If I'm you and money is this much of an object, I'd get the 200/2, maybe selling off the 7D and picking up a used T2i as a backup if you feel you need one.

Having to juggle two completely different systems and mounts would drive me nuts personally. If you're leaving Canon, leave completely.

The D800e has a better sensor and Nikon has the 14-24 and that is certainly a nice landscape kit. You don't have the money it sounds to play in that tool-for-the-job field, so stick with what you have and get more wedding$ till you do.

32

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 13, 2012, 03:36:12 PM »

I've come to the conclusion that the 1DX is worth paying double for vs. the 5D3. With Big Megapixel Talk on the horizon though, and Canon needing an answer to the D800e (which has a damn fine sensor and that's about it), maybe it's better I wait a bit before trading in this camera that I only got this year.

33

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

« on: September 21, 2012, 06:57:43 PM »

If Photographer B intentionally lobotomized Photographer A, ruining their photographic and earning ability for the remainder of their useful life, Photographer B would at minimum be immoral and unethical.

OK, we're getting a bit beyond the pale, but there are valid arguments that this behavior is immoral and unethical in that there exists some degree of compact between consumer and manufacturer that one won't unfairly take advantage of the other. The fact of transition costs from system to system (lenses etc.) mean that this can indeed rise to the level of betrayal. You can say that we should have known there was such a possibility beforehand, but that's like saying Photographer A should have known Photographer B might have been a sociopath.

It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...

It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument.

Photographer A and Photographer B both shoot a wedding. Photographer A charges $800 and Photographer B charges $8,000.

Photographer A's images are out of focus, improperly exposed, mundane and uninspiring. Photographer B's pictures are not only technically perfect, but they are absolutely luminous, capture the moments perfectly and positively soar.

But wait, Photographer B admits that he USED THE EXACT SAME CAMERA as Photographer A. All of the difference is in the software holding the camera.

Clearly Photographer B is immoral and unethical.

34

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade

« on: September 21, 2012, 04:34:46 PM »

Any software development types here that can give the masses an idea of how different the code would have to be to handle the 4K video stream?  It seems like the general thought is that its easy/free to 'turn on' this feature, but I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

-Brian

It may in fact involve doing _less_ rather than more in the pipeline. If they use the native resolution of the sensor for their 4K (which they do, it's simply cropped to native res) you won't have to do a downsampling step. The rest of your processing can be the same pipeline as stills as long as the processors can handle the throughput without power or heat problems. The codec at the end will have more data to process, but the codecs can handle that and are industry standards. In both cases, the 1DC proves that the stock 1DX hardware is capable of the feat.

If that is the case, then the 1DX is exactly a _crippled_ version of the 1DC: resolution-destroying code is inserted into the firmware of the 1DX that is left out of the 1DC. This might not be terribly hard to hack; I can think of two approaches off hand instantly.

35

Software & Accessories / Re: Aperture 3.4 Issues

« on: September 21, 2012, 12:05:07 AM »

Thanks.

Roll over, Steve!   

36

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

« on: September 20, 2012, 11:39:33 PM »

By making their products more exclusive based on price they are...

...charging what the market will bear (in their estimate) and thus maximizing profit, which in turn maximizes shareholder value, which is their obligation as a publicly held corporation.

...against the democratizing liberation of the independent filmmaker that made them so much money with the 5D2.

Democratic liberation of independent filmmakers isn't their goal or responsibility (see above).  Besides...those indies that were successful using 5DII's can now afford 1D C's, right?    If not, they should just buy used 5DII's from the ones that have moved up...   

1) For products that don't obey scarcity economics (such as firmware/software) the "price that the market will bear" is difficult to determine as it is the maximum revenue that can be extracted from all customers optimizing for price. A million copies sold at $1 is more profitable than 90 copies sold at $10,000 etc..

2) Maintaining brand equity is more important to shareholders than short-term profits. The future value of the company is what is speculated on; a price to earnings ratio of 20 or more is common. If investors were just interested in dividends they may as well buy bonds. Canon had a coup with the 5D2 and its message of universal empowerment; if I was a shareholder I would demand an explanation why the company had ceded this strategic advantage to Panasonic with only firmware differences as a cause.

I would be fine if the camera was an open platform like a computer and had open access to the internals and allowed different firmware vendors to provide their own codecs and features; right now we have to rely on unauthorized hacker groups to do this for us. Fine, power to the hackers, but I created a lot of Canon shareholder value buying all that EF glass and I would like a company that strives to make that investment pay off rather than dangle mere firmware in front of me at enormous cost.

37

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

« on: September 20, 2012, 07:55:00 PM »

Canon refuses to price and sell the firmware upgrade. 1DX owners are SOL and treated like dirt even though they shelled out for Canon's flagship DSLR.

It is gruesome bad PR for their brand. It's simply arrogant mistreatment of the customer. And to pay for the programmers, the economies of scale they are forgoing by overpricing the thing would have taken care of that.

When Sony released the FS700 they promised futureproofing with 4K output. RED has a camera upgrade policy. Blackmagic cripples nothing intentionally, they are just starting out but they give you RAW video for $3,000. Canon could let us record RAW to SSD just the same for $3,000 and make a tidy profit and pay all their programmers too. By making their products more exclusive based on price they are acting elitist and fully against the democratizing liberation of the independent filmmaker that made them so much money with the 5D2.

38

EOS Bodies - For Video / Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

« on: September 20, 2012, 05:49:56 PM »

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9044/exclusive-canon-confirm-1d-c-4k-dslr-is-same-hardware-as-the-1d-x

 

This is appalling enough IMO that any hacker who manages to get the 1DC firmware running on the 1DX ought to be...uhm...canonized as a saint.

I wonder if the C100 can similarly be turned into a C500.

In fact, I'm going to bet the 6D could probably do 4K video just the same if they wanted it to.

This is the sort of thing competition is supposed to destroy in a capitalist system. The companies should be releasing the best products they can at a fair markup, not artificially segmenting markets and dribbling out capability when it suits them.

The final indignity will be their refusing to *ever* send out decripple firmware for the bodies that could have ran it. They will ask you to buy a new body, just because we let them.

39

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 announced - $2100, let's see how Canon response!!!

« on: September 13, 2012, 11:09:29 AM »

Looking at the specs and starting price (which could drop in a few months) it could be popular with Videographers

Nah, the DSLR days for video are wrapping up. The GH3 will probably be the last relevant video DSLR. People are moving up to cameras that are designed for cinema use...Sony just put out a full frame VG900 with an E mount that you can use the Metabones adapter to host your EF glass on, and Canon's C100 with the addition of an external recorder is going to get you terrific output with no excessive rigging needs. The Nikons are still stuck in the line-skipping days so having clean HDMI out doesn't help terribly much, and the low light performance isn't so great either for video.

Commenting further above, the 650D sensor actually tests out a little worse than the 600D/60D/7D/550D. Canon would do better working off the 1DX sensor I think rather than the 5D3 sensor...the 1DX has better video resolution due to better in-camera processing. But they will probably build off the 5D3 sensor as it may be cheaper for them to make.

40

Lenses / Re: The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Made

« on: September 11, 2012, 11:37:12 PM »

Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.

I am very interested in this lens. In fact if they give a very good kit deal with the 1DX I could even see myself upgrading from the 5D3.

41

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony RX1 Full Frame sensor Compact leaked photos / rumor

« on: September 10, 2012, 07:39:43 AM »

It's sexy but I'm still very happy with the RX100, which fits in the pocket this won't. This is a Japanese Leica, it's supposed to hang in a nice leather case around your neck (thus no grip) and take decent photos anywhere (including low light). You are expected to crop down to zoom, and the sensor has enough resolution to do so pretty well for this type of buyer.

The bigger opportunity is the rumored E-mount (Sony's mirrorless mount) supporting this full frame sensor. That will allow Sony to accept anyone's lenses and provide a nice full frame image from a tiny NEX-style body. We don't have a Canon equivalent yet announced.

Can anyone confirm whether the Canon mirrorless EF-M mount is big enough to support a full frame sensor? Because if it isn't it may be a very short-lived mount that Canon is forced to abandon when FF E-mount becomes the rage.

42

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness

« on: September 01, 2012, 09:54:47 AM »

Right, does it blend.

But seriously, I would be worried things inside would now be misaligned and miscalibrated. Since the lens got hit the whole flange might be torqued etc. I would definitely send it in for repair and rent or use the backup in the meantime.

43

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: More Analysis of the C100

« on: August 29, 2012, 11:08:33 PM »

The only thing that's certain with regard to the color space is that AVCHD only accepts 4:2:0 color space. So the internal recording is definitely only 4:2:0, which is about the only reason you'd want a C300 instead.

The question under vigorous scrutiny right now is whether the HDMI output has 4:2:2 color or the half-resolution 4:2:0 color. If it cripples away 4:2:2 output to external recorders, I vote against this camera and Canon Cinema as a whole. If it allows 4:2:2, then there is no remaining resaon to shoot with a C300...you can get one of these, rent any add-ons you like and get back to the craft. If it doesn't offer 4:2:2 even externally, this camera is DOA in my view. EOS, as in End Of Story.

44

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: More Analysis of the C100

« on: August 29, 2012, 02:23:02 PM »

Sebastian at Cinema5D was unequivocal that the HDMI out was 4:2:2 uncompressed:

What's the difference to the C300?
The C100 records in AVCHD, a codec that will downcompress your footage to a 4:2:0 color space. Weird to see that limitation while many other specs are the same. There is no HD-SDI out, but the hdmi-out will deliver 4:2:2 for a better image recorded to a disk recorder.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=12761

He usually gets this sort of news first for some reason, so with his report and the Canon website I have to believe it's 4:2:2 vs. what one guy said he heard from Canon Support. The support people might not be briefed very well for a camera that's not shipping till the end of the year.

45

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: More Analysis of the C100

« on: August 29, 2012, 01:09:44 PM »

It makes sense though. Giving it external 4:2:2 would all but bury the c300.

Cannibalism is an essential nutrient for any company. Eat your own or be eaten by others.

I would say this camera is DOA if it doesn't have the external 4:2:2. That would be crippleware.