October 01, 2014, 01:27:16 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] 7
76
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 29, 2012, 12:27:55 PM »
This sort of issue crops up in any gear-centric profession or hobby. 

Basically, ever since it was possible to gain entry to an activity simply with money, by buying a piece (or pieces) of equipment, you have many people who feel that somehow getting better equipment will improve their performance.  Sometimes this is true, and in the case of cameras, it's partly because of all the astonishing things they can do these days, allowing somebody with no clue what they are doing to put out an acceptable image.   

But the fact is that for the most part, it really doesn't matter what the piece of equipment is, it matters who is holding it.  That's not ego, it's just the truth.  I'm also a musician, and I experience this every day - the music instrument market is not driven be professionals - far from it.  Most pros don't even materially participate in that market - they either have the instruments they are happy with and retain them most of their lives, or they are given them through endorsements.  All the instrument manufacturers stay in business because of the people such as the complaint is here; people that desperately hope that trading a few thousand dollars will net them a better end result and performance.  They're not willing to put in the THOUSANDS of hours that it takes to truly master a craft or art. 

The problem with photography is that cameras, lenses, etc cost money.  This gives the buyer some false sense that by paying, they are getting something and are owed something - a response we're all conditioned to.  Consider writing, as a professional.  The cost of entry is exactly zero - one can begin writing a novel, or newspaper columns, or articles, or whatever, for the cost of a pencil and piece of paper, which are freely given out in our society, and then by adding their time and talent.  You don't see any of these discussions in pro-writing forums - because at the end of the day, there's nothing to blame but yourself if the end result is not what you want.  The same is true of photography/videography, but it's hidden behind this mask of the cost of the gear.

77
wider aperture makes it harder to focus manually. Try manually focusing f/1.4 in video on a moving subject ...
why would you even try that? Video at f/1.4 already has a razor-thin DOF, and all the videos I've seen that go to that level look horrible, because someone breathing makes their face go out of focus. You need a completely still scene and static shot to even go to that aperture.

Autofocus at f/1.4 would be a nightmare, it'd jump back and forth so much

You ever seen Barry Lyndon?

78
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. 

79
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.

80
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. 

81
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. 

82
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.

83
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?

84
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.   

85
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:






86
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.

87
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.

88
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. 

89
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:

90
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.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7