August 31, 2014, 12:26:03 AM

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 - unadog

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
46
Landscape / Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« on: August 28, 2012, 01:37:05 PM »
I understand that 16-35 is much more $$$ and the 2.8 lets in twice as much light, also the components used are better and you get 1mm more
..................

Can I assume that the shutter speed of the f2.8 would be half that of the f4? and with a tripod would the IQ be so different?

As other have explained, that is only true when shooting wide open.

What is true, and the reason why I bought att 2.8 lenses when I could - is THE VEWFINDER WILL BE TWICE AS BRIGHT with a 2.8 as with a 4.0

That is also important in low light conditions.

Good luck!  Can you test and compare somewhere? How often will you use teh lens?

What camera are you using?  I sold my wide lens, I rarely used it on a full frame.  24 was wide enough for 99% of my use on the 24-70.

Michael

47
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D C Available?
« on: August 27, 2012, 03:35:45 PM »
Hopefully their retort will be a 5D-C that records 1080 raw for $4000.  But that'd piss off so many purchasers of the original 5D3, that I doubt it will happen.

No, it is coming I am pretty sure.

It won't have RAW, but it will have Canon Log Gamma, like the C300/C500/1DC. basically a "little brother" to the 1DC.

I am 99% convinced that Canon has not released a video-centric camera yet this year. The 5D3 is definitely a stills camera with improved video.  The T4i is our same entry level.

I am just worried that Canon will put out the High MP camera instead of the 3D-C, 5D-C, 7D-C because of Nikon's D800.


Just to correct a few things:

1) The 1DC can shoot 1080 HD full frame, or 4K at Super 35 crop - a very standard cine size.

2) The 1DC will have uncompressed HDMI out.  Internal codec to cards for proxy editing, external capture for final edit.  So will the C500.

3) Some things require hardware bandwith/processor power/memory, and cost a certain amount to start. Some things like HDMI, codecs, etc. are firmware related.  Those will show up  in the 7D-C.

4) The BMCC is a niche camera. It is great for long form video, cinema, etc. Not so good for Run & Gun, ERG, broadcast, sports, that requires a fast turnaround.

5) The BMCC is a video only camera. I bought my 5D3 for stills. High ISO quality in low light, excellent autofocus.  The fact that it shoots the best/tied for best video on a DSLR (along with the D800) is great!

So the question is not: BMCC or 5D#. It is $3,000 for 5DC. Then, can I afford/justify another dedicated, niche video camera? And also need a cancorder like the X1-AH, FS100, etc. too?

6) Canon announced last November that the C300, C500, 1DC would be 4K front end enabled, with better than 8 bit back end coming later.  That is what they have done.
 
7) there are a lot of people using the C300 to make high end documentaries, movies, weddings, etc. right now. They are very happy with the camera.

If you have never spent more than $5,000 for a camera, you might not understand teh economics of the $15K to 25K tools.  People buying those are probably in a position where they pay for themselves in 3-6 months.  Or, they rent them for a job, and the c ost is a pure "pass through" expense to the client, or amortized against thje 3 week, $50K income from the job, etc.


When I bought my Canon 1DsII for $8,000 in 2004, I used to to completely replace medium format (6x7) film, taht cost me 1 dollar per frame.  I shot 40,000 images per year on that for 2 years, then sold the camera for $5,000.

Fro 1998-2004, I spent a minimum of $5,000 a year on film and developing only (no prints, etc.)  that I was nopt reimbursed for by clients (for personal projects, etc.) I also bought 2, $3,000+ medium format scanners during thjose 6 years.  Computer costs were equal, because I scanned, edited, and printed film from 1998 on. Digital files were 1/10 the size of film scans, requiring a **less** powerful computer.

So my net cost for the 1DsII was $1,500 per year, versus $5,000+$1,000 = $6,000 a year for film & scanner.  Basically, it paid for iteslf in 3 months each year - the rest of the year it was "free" to use, saving me $4,500 a year. Plus I rented it out at $300 per day. 

We are basically at the same place in video now, as we were in 2004 with the 1DsII. Today you can buy the Canon T4i for $800, with basically the same still image quality and decent auto focus, as the $8,000 camera from 8 years ago.

The same thing will happen with video, this year and next. In teh mean time, things will change every 3-4 months as new cameras are announced, though they may take 6+ months to get to market. 

To compare systems, you have to look at the whole "ecosystem" & workflow.  A niche camera does not replace an all-around camera.  A landscape camera does not replace a sports camera.  Log codec will give you 75% of what you get in RAW at much lower bit rates. How good is the auto focus on the BMCC? Etc.

Canon either needs to have high profit margins (C300, C500), or sell 2,000,000+ copies (T4i, 5D3, 7D2, etc.) to justify devoting scarce internal resources to a project. 

That is why the niche playes can beat Canon, et al to the market by 6-12 months. They can make an "adequate" profit at a volume of 1,000 to 10,000 units.  For Canon, a $5 million profit would only offset a rounding error from their currency arbitrage. 

Cheers!

48
Third Party Manufacturers / Zeiss for Video
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:54:01 PM »
Here is a comparsion of the Zeiss lenses to the older Canon FD lenses for video use:

https://vimeo.com/48208549


It may be more specific to folks doing video, but it is a fairly well done comparsion.

One of the comments is worth reading, about how that person prefers the rendering of the FD over the Zeiss for portraits, despite the improved Zeiss image quality & resolution. 

I will say that my 16MP Canon 1DsII had plenty of detail for portraits, and taht I almost always had to add blur in Photoshop to soften facial features. 

There is also a companion video to the above (link on site) without the text labels identifying the lenses, in case you want to judge the comparison first without bias.

I am planning on using the Zeiss 35 mostly for video to start, so this is of interest to me. Not sure about others. It is not on a Canon camera. (Sony FS700, a high end video camera.)

Best,
Michael

49
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Does Zeiss glass ever go on sale?
« on: August 26, 2012, 10:14:47 AM »
Sorry folks, a bit OT, but Adorama's reputation was brought up previously ...


Thank YOU, Michael......I remember this; Adobe said we weren't an authorized reseller! Strange....

I think their "outsourced/off-shored "Customer Service Reps" have very little lattitude or discretion.

That presents a bad corporate image for a company that is so service oriented in other ways - having a reputation for a quick response to software update requests, etc.

When I had a different product registered at Adobe as "M T Murphy" (which I use for my business), and my receipt said "Michael T Murphy", they delayed servicing my request by a day to ask: "Can you clarify, what is the relationship between M Murphy and Michael Murphy?" 

Duh? You are wasting my time, and delaying support, by having me respond to this stupid question, for a simple request?  ::) :P

That emphasizes to me the importance of positions such as yours: Customer Service "ambassadors", or "liasons", who are a public face for the company, and can help cut through the bureaucratic Catch-22's that all companies manage to create.

I think it is interesting, too, how this conversation started a few months ago on Fred Miranda, where I was familiar with you; to an e-mail request from me, on a Sunday; to a post 3 months later on another board about Zeiss lenses ....

The reason I am be-laboring all of this, is to remind folks: Please reward good customer service with your repeat business! 

Otherwise all we will have left is endless, mind numbing calls to off-shore CSR's, who read from the same script you just read on the web site before you called ........   :'(

Cheers! Thanks again Helen! 

Best,
Michael

50
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Does Zeiss glass ever go on sale?
« on: August 25, 2012, 11:08:19 AM »
The ZE 35 2.0 is great.  Have 1 myself

That is good to hear!  I wasn't looking for it. Someone offered to trade for some film equipment I am selling. I thought about it for 3 minutes and said "OK" - no research, etc.!  ;D

I am too old & stupid for manual anything for the most part.  But I am doing video with the T4i (which I love by the way) & 5D3, so I thought I would give it a try!

I have never been big on alternate lenses because I had 7 Canon L lenses.  The color is often so different on the Zeiss, Leica, etc. that I just stuck with Canon. 

Oddly enough, I was just trying to sell off down too 3-4 lenses, now I am going the other way. Time to play with the Zeiss though - maybe I will pick up a 50 or 85 to have more of a set.

Thanks!

Michael

51
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Does Zeiss glass ever go on sale?
« on: August 25, 2012, 12:40:50 AM »
FWIW, I am just in the process of trading some equipment to get a Zeiss ZE 35 mm 2.0

I am not sure if I can afford to keep it yet - I need to pay that $8K bill to my credit card!   :P

I also have an older Zeiss 28 2.8 I think, with a C/Y adapter. You can PM or e-mail if you are interested. You are in Atlanta? I am in Michigan.

Best,
Michael 

52
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Does Zeiss glass ever go on sale?
« on: August 25, 2012, 12:38:01 AM »

I was sorry to see this; can you tell me more about the issues? You can email me directly: Helen@adorama.com

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

Helen was great when I had an issue with Adobe recently, after I bought the Adobe software through Adorama.

I can't say enough about how much I appreciate her help!

I have used other stores from time to time, but I appreciaite and always try to reward good customer service.

Since her help in June, I have spent about $8K with them - a Canon T4i kit with 18-135, a Canon 5D3 kit with 24-105, a Pixma Pro printer, etc.

Thank you Helen!

Best,
Michael Murphy

53
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else preorder the EOS M yet?
« on: August 23, 2012, 08:27:31 PM »
I have the T4i. I pre-ordered the M as soon as it was announced.  It would be a great camera for video - basically the T4i in a slightly smaller form factor.

For video, I planned on using the 40 mm STM, the 18-135 STM (that comes in the kit with the T4i), and the 22 mm kit lens that is also an STM I think?

I actually just cancelled my order today, as I bought a 5D3 that I had not planned on. No need for 3 cameras, I barely need two. 

I might swap the T4i out for the M for video though. It would be a nice small kit, especially with the 40 mm and 22 mm.

Michael

54
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation to replace 18-135mm IS
« on: August 11, 2012, 01:05:15 PM »
From your list:

24-105

A lot of serious photographers and video people choose that as their go to lens.


Personally, as a pro I would say the 24-70.  As a fashion and studio photographer, I used that 85% of the time, even with 7 L's and 14 total lenses available.Then add the 70-200. That is a basic, must have kit for a pro.

Or: Wait and pop $2,300 for the 24-70 II.  That lens will be killer.

Good luck. FWIW, I didn't have time to read the other posts in the thread, so not dissing any counter opinions.  :o

Cheers!
Michael

55
Lenses / Re: First L Lens... OH MY #^(*^!& GOD
« on: August 11, 2012, 01:01:05 PM »
Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?
From my own experience 5d 6400 looks a lot like 7d's 1600. So I think you 'll be happy with what you ll get!

Thanks so much! And RLPhoto too.

Good luck guys. 

I also agree on the 24-70 II.

The existing 24-70 is the one lens I would pick if I could only have 1 lens for life.  If I had to sell every other lens to get the 24-70 II, I think I would! Gonna be awesome.

That and the 70-200 and you are covered for 90% of pro work, then fill in with your specialty: 24L, 200L, Tilt Shift, etc.

Cheers! Michael

Best,
Michael 

56
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Color Run 2012 + 5d3's
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:03:56 PM »
Thanks for sharing!

Michael

57
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Recording time cornfuzion?!
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:00:06 PM »
It would certainly be worthwhile to run at least 1 DSLR, maybe 2, if you are going to get the C300 and another semi-pro camera.  You can also throw some cheap, older HD Canon camcorders in the bag

(Canon has 45% off on clearence, refurbished consumer camcorders right now. Do a search at fatwallet.com, etc. About $150 for small HD cam.)

There is no easy way to get that beautiful large chip, cinematic "look" with a smaller chip camera. That is why the DSLR's sparked such a huge video revolution only 4+- years ago.

You might find more detailed information on a site like dvxuser.com


As far as the T4i, a few small things:

a) It will automatically restart a second, third, etc. file as the first file comes up to teh 4GB size

b) It has a two stage heat warning built in.  It will show yellow when it is getting warm, then red before it shoyts down.

c) In good light, the face tracking algorithm, along with the touch screen and Servo Auto focus will do an excellent job of tracking a persons face and keeping that. This will help the T4i reach more into what was, traditionally, "camcorder" territory.  How far depends on your needs and use.

If you want to see some beautiful large chip depth of field, this Nike ad is beautiful (not sure what camera, this is big, big budget stuff too, etc.):

Nike: "Voices"


Good luck!
Michael

58
Thanks for sharing!

I just bought a 5D3 for concert photos. I needed the better quality high ISO over my T4i, so this is very useful for me.

The best camera I have ever owned was my Canon 1DsII.  I am not making much money with photography any more, so I can't justify the 1 series cost any more either. 

But if you could e-mail my wife and tell here that the 1DX is 1 stop better at 12800 ISO, I'm sure that would convinvce her!  I gotsta have it!  8)

Cheers!  Thanks again - have fun!

Michael

59
Lenses / Re: First L Lens... OH MY #^(*^!& GOD
« on: August 09, 2012, 03:20:26 AM »
Quote from: Drizzt321
I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies.

Thanks Aaron!

I spent about 10 years doing medium format & then digital studio and location strobe work. Highest quality, big prints, never never never above ISO 100.

Time to explore some new terrain I guess.  Amazing tools we have today!

I did a lot of blurry, grainy, challenging images when I was a Photograpy undergraduate, and in B&W.  When I went to almost all color in 1998, I kept going to more refined, pure, beautiful color, smooth tonalities, big prints on my 7600 & 9600.

Time to mix the two I guess. 

Dang, I ordered the 5D3 2nd day from adorama and paid $51 to get it here Friday.  A Canon 9500 II printer, with free ground, ordered and shipped the same day is also getting here Friday.  You think they might have said hey, free will get there ....  (Free said 7-10 days.)

Oh well ... Back to our regularly scheduled L glass fest!  :D

Thanks for helping.  And nice web site too, nice images. Have fun!

Best,
Michael

60
Lenses / Re: First L Lens... OH MY #^(*^!& GOD
« on: August 09, 2012, 12:58:34 AM »
high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!

For truth on the High ISO?

I have a 5D3 coming on Friday. I am shooting a musical group 2x per week. On my T4i I was shooting tonight at 1600 ISO, 1/50 sec. I need 1-2 stops more, to 3200, 6400, or more on the 5D3.  That is the one reson I bought it.

Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?

On the "L" lenses: I had 7 L's, plus 6 other lenses. I decided to downsize to only 3+- lenses.  It didn't work - I am right back up there, with the 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 70-200 4.0, 24-105, 45 TS-E, 90 TS-E, and need to add some prime L's. 

Once you use good glass, everything else sucks!  The 40mm pancake is right in there though, very nice.

Looking forward to the 24-70 II! If I had to choose 1 lens for life, it would be the 24-70.

But good Canon glass holds it's value very well. As prices go up over 5-8 years, you might even break even on it.

Good luck!
Michael

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6