April 23, 2014, 12:11:59 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 - bluegreenturtle

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
76
I don't understand why this thread has gone on this long and people still aren't getting that AUTOFOCUS DOESN'T WORK on LARGE SENSORS OR FULL FRAME OR SUPER 35mm FILM.  It never has, and while it might in the future, you almost certainly wouldn't want it to.  People seem to be thinking like still photographers, or people who use camcorders with 2/3 inch or smaller sensors. 

77
The Canon XF100/105/300/305 are all marketed as "professional" camcorders. For $3000 to $8000, they certainly don't seem targeted at the kiddie's birthday party market. And all of them have autofocus capability, and it's apparently fairly sophisticated. (They also have built-in lenses and fairly small sensors.) If "professionals" use manual focus, why is this capability included in these models?

Those cameras have sensors the size of a bee's prick, relative to full frame\super 35\aps-c.   Everything's basically in focus already.

78
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS 4K Camera [CR1]
« on: March 25, 2012, 04:08:47 PM »
They just keep letting down the video people time and time again.

Letting down?
I think Canon has made it rather clear that the video crowd is so important to them that they will not even produce a camera anymore without building it to meet their uses.  Videoagraphers are the current chosen people of Canon's marketing department.

And why in the world do you need a budget 4K camera in the first place?  The vast majority of video shooters will never be displaying their material in a medium that can actually show 4K.  Even a lot of movie theaters have not converted to it.   Is this just another version of the megapixel fetish?  I can see some people needing that resolution, like people who actually need a MF digial back and such, they are not doing budget range work.

acquisition format is not delivery format. 

79
I suppose if you really need autofocus you could always go with somthing like this...can't wait to see the reviews on it....oh, its over $2000 more....I can wait.

http://store.redrockmicro.com/microremote


Ummm...that's the opposite of autofocus - that's a wireless follow focus.  This is designed so that a focus puller can operate it without touching the camera - vital for some types of crane/jib work and especially (because I am a steadicam operator) steadicam work where focus is impossible without such devices. 

80
The video above demonstrates my point perfectly - that autofocus is completely unusable for any application except maybe some sort of personal use - a kids party or something, but otherwise I'd be horrified to turn in footage that had a focus pull like that to any client.  It'd probably mark the end of a career, I'd certainly fire any camera person I hired that focused like that, manual or auto.

81
I dunno, I've been in the film and video industry for decades and maybe my "pro" thinking is old fashioned, but I just can't imagine how autofocus could possibly work on a large sensor video camera.  There's a reason that no large sensor cameras have them - they just don't work and never really could, unless you're stopped way down.  Most video cameras have tiny sensors so no DOF, so they have autofocus and it's fine.  Still cameras are looking at a single image.  I'm a steadicam operator and I cannot imagine, dream as it might be, shooting with super35 or larger and having a non-human focus puller understand what's happening in the frame at anything greater than f8 or so.  Maybe I'm just stupid and not-forward thinking, but I'm just perplexed by the people saying this feature will need to be included in future large sensor cameras - it sounds like a lot of still photographers that dabble in video - to my way of thinking it's like saying all still cameras in the future should include a feature that automatically frames the photo correctly - how could the camera possibly know what's correct?

82
Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendations - Crop (7D) to Full Frame (5dMk3)?
« on: March 14, 2012, 10:59:45 PM »
The fast lens is essential for video (which is all I do, so I'm biased towards video applications for these lenses) since our shutter speed is fixed.   

83
Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendations - Crop (7D) to Full Frame (5dMk3)?
« on: March 14, 2012, 09:19:18 PM »
I just noticed there's a series of photos of this lens at Ken Rockwell on a full frame Nikon:






84
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: March 14, 2012, 01:10:45 PM »
I don't understand this idea that people will stay with Canon (or Nikon) just because of the lenses they already own.  One of the things that's touted so often about buying good (or even bad, really) lenses is that they keep their value.  I'm looking at all the lenses in my kit and I think I could sell them all for what I paid for them, or in a couple of cases, more than I paid.  The only thing that would be a waste would be a couple of cheap adapters I picked up so I could use m42 lenses.  But I could easily pick up those same adapters for nikon, too.  If all your lenses really keep value the way most people on this forum keep saying they do, then it should be no trouble to liquidate your lenses, and get whatever you actually want, regardless of body brand.

I personally don't like the operation of the controls of Nikons.  But that's probably not an issue for many people.

85
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Teases Exclusive Screening at NAB 2012
« on: March 10, 2012, 12:05:15 PM »
The question then will be will they bother?

True 4K HD is still at least 4-5 years away.
Even LG's new 4K tv's are of the 3840x2160 resolution (or if you play back a 3D blue ray disc you get dual 1080p screens instead of dual 540p on a standard Full HD 1080 screen when playing 3D)

Once there is a market for such stupidly high resolutions, i.e. when we have somewhere to display them where we don't have to sit on top of the screen to see the benefit. Then and only then will companies like Canon will come out with a true 4K camera.

It will be 8MP, there is no need for any more than that, its not meant to be a stills camera and the pictures you see are basically production stills to help with lighting and framing etc.

They don't need to be super detailed.

One of the reasons we shoot in 4K is for cropping and stabilization purposes.  If we're delivering 1080p and shooting 1080p we have no latitude to change the framing, or to cut out the borders to stabilize a shaky shot if it was handheld or vehicle mounted.  With 4K we get a lot more choices in post.

86
Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendations - Crop (7D) to Full Frame (5dMk3)?
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:06:18 PM »
I dunno, these aren't my images.  Admittedly EOSHD is not a reliable source for un-biased info.  BUT I have this lens and assure you that it works fine at 16mm on a full frame and has IQ that will compete with any Canon L lens.  I will post a photo of my own when I get a chance. 

87
Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendations - Crop (7D) to Full Frame (5dMk3)?
« on: March 06, 2012, 09:48:30 PM »
Since you said you like wide, here's a funny little thing that I think most full-frame users ignore: the Tokina 11-16mm, which is nominally an EF-S lens, can be used as a f2.8 16mm prime on full frame, and costs between $450 and $650 street.  If you look at the competition, there's nothing out there even close in IQ at that price.  It fits on just fine and clears the mirror without issue.


really? does it still work at 11 too?
i'm really interested to see pics at different lengths taken on a 5D2
so the lens actually has an EF mount bayonet then? because normal canon EF-S lenses wont even lock into the EF mount


Yes, it's a standard mount and because it's a Tokina it locks just fine.  AF works fine too.  It only works without vignetting at 16mm.  At 11mm there is significant vignetting.   All considered, it's an incredible deal for what it is - you're basically only competing with the Canon 14mm at that point which is $1500.   

Here are 2 images stolen from EOSHD:

16mm on 5dmkii


at 11mm:

88
Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendations - Crop (7D) to Full Frame (5dMk3)?
« on: March 06, 2012, 09:04:28 PM »
Since you said you like wide, here's a funny little thing that I think most full-frame users ignore: the Tokina 11-16mm, which is nominally an EF-S lens, can be used as a f2.8 16mm prime on full frame, and costs between $450 and $650 street.  If you look at the competition, there's nothing out there even close in IQ at that price.  It fits on just fine and clears the mirror without issue.

89
Lenses / Re: I'm in a lens pickle
« on: March 06, 2012, 08:55:51 PM »
So I have my 5d mark iii on pre-order and i also threw a 16-35L 2.8 onto the order. I already have a 24-105L 4is from my mark ii purchase in 2008. I am looking to spend $2000 on lenses for the new camera so do i return the 16-35? sell the 24-105? keep them both? i guess if i sold the 24-105 i would have $2800 to work with on building my glass artillery. I am basically just an all around photographer who does a significant amount of video work as well. would prefer to stick with canon L lenses. any advice would be great!

personally the 3 lenses I take when I travel are the 16-35 f2.8 the 50mm f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8
this combo covers everything, I also take a kenko 1.4 TC in case i want extra reach
If you sold the 24-105 you could get the 50f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II

I like the 24-105 but I love the other lenses

Do you not miss out on the 35 to 49 and 51 to 70 mm ranges or does it not really matter?

This is sort of the epitome, in my opinion of the problem with gear driven professions/hobbies.  Believe me, I've been there, and had the same thoughts you're having - looking at lens catalogs, trying to fill in all the "holes". 

But the problem is that WAY too many people enter a field like photography/videography and worry a whole lot about the gear that they should get without knowing if there is a need to actually get any of it.  I'm a full time videographer, using DSLRs, and I think one of the things that should answer your question is if you've been out shooting and thought "geez, I wish I could get wider/tighter/had a faster lens".  If you haven't noticed a "hole" in your work, then you're probably over thinking this.  A 24-105 f4 on a full frame can do a lot.  I zeroed in on your comment about the "missing" ranges - in answer to your question, and wickedwombat answered it as well, is no, it doesn't matter, unless you're disabled and can't move. 

In my kit, for videography WORK (not for myself), on a 7D (crop sensor) I have a tokina 11-16mm, a canon 17-55mm IS, a 50mm 1.4, an 85mm 1.8, and a 28-135mm IS.    I use 80% of the time the 17-55, which is a pretty narrow range, and 99% of the time I'm shooting at either 17 or 55 and never inbetween.  The rest of the time I've got the 50mm prime on there, and very occasionally I'll haul out the tokina for the 11mm and it's overall image quality.  I should sell the 85, but i might use it if i get the 5d mk iii.

For photography, I just shoot with the 17-55 (if working) or the 28-135 (if vacationing).



Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]