Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inside the Canon EOS-1D C

« on: January 09, 2013, 05:15:16 AM »

And changing some flags in the 1dx firmware via ml probably wouldn't be illegal either, Canon doesn't make you sign a contract "no 3rd party firmware allowed" when selling the camera. But as it is, even targeting a whole department of lawyers on a single person might have some impact :-o

actually, when you download any canon firmware update you agree to these terms:

You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D

There's a big difference between what corporations put in end user license agreements (ie what they wish to happen) and what is actually legal.

For example Apple said much the same thing about all iOS devices in their EULAs - however when they went to the US library of congress to ask to have iOS jailbreaking formally declared to be an illegal act, their case was thrown out as it was decided that once a consumer has purchased a device they are free to install whatever (legally created and obtained) software they wish. That doesn't stop Apple releasing firmware updates which patch the methods by which jailbreaks occur, and Canon could certainly do this, but simply saying it's illegal to install software on devices which own isn't true.

I would imagine that in the US at least this would set a very strong legal precedent should Canon actually decide to go after anyone for writing custom firmware for a 1DX

17

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 II Or Primes Particularly 50MM 1.2L

« on: January 07, 2013, 07:34:25 AM »

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.

I use both the 24mm and 24-70 ii. They're different tools for different purposes. The 24mm lets in up to 4x as much light, and allows you to create wide shots with a shallow depth of field that simply cannot be achieved with the 24-70. If you don't use it for low light or shallow dof, say for example if you're mainly shooting landscapes at f8 then there's little reason to keep the 24mm.

However, the 24mm is a great lens which does things you cannot do with a f2.8 zoom. Whether its worth keeping alongside a zoom lens which covers 24mm depends on your style of photography/cinematography.

18

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests

« on: January 05, 2013, 10:41:30 AM »

People posting here (gearheads probably with 15 years worth of L lenses) really aren't the target market for this lens.

As a general walkabout lens with macro capabilities which will be good enough for many hobbyists this lens makes a lot of sense compared to the 24-105. Its sharper, has less distortion, hybrid IS and means people don't need to invest a separate macro lens. For someone moving up from a rebel to a 6D this lens would be great. For those who already have the 24-70 f2.8 mark i or ii or the 24-105 along with the 100L or another dedicated macro lens this offers very little unless you really want a two lens setup to go on holiday and take lots of macro pics. A 24-70 (with macro) + 70-200 is a lot more versatile, and will probably get better images than a 24-105 and 100L.

As with other lenses the price will drop in a few months time (see the 24-70 f2.8 mark ii as a reference).

19

Lenses / Re: Moving on from my 7D to 5D MK III 24-70mm, 24-105mm or prime

« on: December 30, 2012, 04:30:00 AM »

the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8

This isn't true. The 24-70 ii is sharper than any prime @ 24mm - ie where it is sharpest. The 40mm f2.8 50mm f1.4 and 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are all sharper at the edges and corners than the 24-70 ii. As are lenses like the Sigma 70mm macro.

20

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 29, 2012, 08:09:10 AM »

Dylan, your comments are based on your own, personal, biased, limited, non-scientific experience with one copy on of one lens and one copy of the other.

Now, nobody denies that it is enough for you - or even better, that this is the most important review to you.

That said, all the main in-depth reviews agree on the value of this lens and on its superiority to Canon Mk1. It goes by itself that if someone was happy with the Mk1, he will be only happier with more sharpness and IS at a very good price.

Is it better than Canon Mk2? Optically and mechanically quite likely not, but it has IS, and many people like this feature a lot. Also, it costs a half, and even more people like this feature.

So please stop this pointless crusade and try to understand that better can mean a lot of things, and ultimately it means "it suits my needs better".

Exactly

'Testing' one copy of a lens that hasn't been calibrated with something like FoCal to your camera body in a shop means absolutely nothing in an objective sense.

Also IS is helpful, but IS has not been around forever. People have been shooting without it for a looooong time.

Anyway ye useful, but a deal breaker? For a pro no... You will always shoot in a range that will produce a sharp images. Although I will admit IS does help with creativity, shooting in lower light, but with better high ISO camera performance you can rely less on IS. Also the subject is more of a concern than camera shake, if you are an experienced photographer you know the limits you shoot in, its also down to technique.

People took photos for a long time before autofocus was around (and still do using their zeiss/nikon ai/leica glass on ef cameras). That doesn't mean that AF is useless to professionals.

For certain types of video (particularly run and gun documentary/documentation/wedding reception footage), IS is a massive plus to the point of quite possibly being a deal breaker (and this is where you're likely to be using a standard zoom quite heavily - for fiction where you have controlled conditions and time to set things up then you're likely to be using primes). Or do people making money from video count as amateurs now?

21

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 28, 2012, 06:14:16 PM »

It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

Its impossible to have a debate between quantifiable data on the one hand and your personal opinion on the other.

You complained that the Tamron was nowhere near as sharp as the Canon Mark ii wide open. When tested under controlled conditions this has shown to be untrue - while the Canon is generally a bit sharper, the Tamron is sharper at 70mm at the borders and corners.

Rather than admit you were wrong your response is to obfuscate this simple empirical fact and post a photo. Without even bothering to post details of focal length/aperture etc and a corresponding image from the other lens which you don't have for comparison. Well Done. That clearly proves... Well... Nothing.

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 28, 2012, 11:10:58 AM »

So we now comparing 2012 model lenses from 3rd party Vs Canon +10yrs old lenses?

For those saying the new Tamron 24-70 is almost near good as new Canon 24-70 II, I want to see your images in real life situation,, not controlled. Besides IQ, we need to put all the factors on the table - AF speed, build quality, resale value etc...

There are video reviews of the Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mk II (and 70-200) that look into AF speed.

Strangely, none of the reviews I read consider resale value, rather what they all consider is the cost to buy.

long term reliability and optical performance are the main reasons i will not buy 3rd party lenses (excluding zeiss though i only own that brand for my hassi).

even with the hype of matching or exceeding performance, these new 3rd party lenses haven't been tested for durability or reliance. only time in the field will tell if they hold up.

Your "L" lenses are so good that Canon will only provide warranty for 1 year.

Tamron will provide warranty for 6 years.

It is good to see that Canon back up their excellent build quality with a warranty to match, isn't it?

The length of warranty period tells me what the manufacturer expects from the product they make.

I don't comment on the products that I haven't touched nor giving advices based on 3rd party reviews. I'm more hands on type of guy. Tamron sharpness at f2.8 is no where near Canon ver II. AF speed is a joke...If you find my statement is not true, let go down to local camera shop and try both lenses. I had the opt. to shoot with Tamron before my 24-70 II arrived, if this was good as the new Sigma 35, I wouldn't spent that much money into Canon ver II.

I don't plan to keep my 24-70 II forever and do not wish to lose 1/2 of what I paid for when newer and better lens comes out in the future.

I don't think anyone is saying the tamron is sharper than the 24-70ii. It is however by and large sharper than the 24-70i plus has IS. For 95% or more of users that is going to be more than adequate especially when you consider the price difference. Even if resale value on the tamron ends up sucking (which I don't think it will) you'd still have to lose more than $1000 to come out negative with respect to the canon and that assumes the canon loses no value. Different strokes for different folks I guess. At least for me, the price difference was not enough to overcome the relatively small iq difference and very slightly slower af performance especially when I considered the IS of the tamron.  If the canon were say only $500 more I may have gone that direction but at a $1000 IMHO it wasn't worth it. That being said those that buy the canon do so for a reason. I am sure you had yours and no doubt they are valid.

Where did you get the 95% data?

The Tamron is a better lens than the Canon 24-70 mark i - its sharper and has IS. Its also cheaper than the mark i. For anyone for whom IQ was not an image with the mark i (which was an awful lot of people) the Tamron is better than fine.

For anyone who considers IS and f2.8 to be important, the Tamron is the only 24-70 option.

The Canon mark ii costs over twice as much but is slightly sharper at most focal lengths. Photozone's review shows that at 70mm and f2.8 the Tamron is sharper at the border and extreme of the frame but the Canon is sharper in the centre. Certainly your claims that the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp aren't borne out by the quantative data generated by detailed reviews. The Canon also lacks IS. Its an excellent lens, but compared to the Tamron it's very hard to justify the price differential. Especially when you consider that it lacks IS.

23

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 22, 2012, 03:40:53 PM »

It depends on the lens...

Something like the Canon 70-200 2.8L ii still significantly outperforms the third party alternatives, so for many the superior performance is worth the extra cost. In other places like the mpe65 and tse lenses there still isn't much to compete with Canon's own offerings (although it will be interesting to see what the samyang 24mm ts lens is like when it's released).

On the other hand there are places where the third party options have been superior for a while now... On crop cameras the tokina 11-16 f2.8 is imo the best ultra-wide you can pick up. Certainly if you do video, then it blows away the Canon 10-22 which is slower and lacks a constant aperture. Similarly many of the zeiss lenses have long been considered to outperform Canon's own lenses (albeit for a high price and without AF).

I've owned numerous lenses, both Canon and third party, and can't say I've had any major problems with any of them. Some of the third party lenses had worse image quality, be it lack of sharpness or distortion issues - but then that was the cost of buying significantly cheaper glass. Then again the Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 kit lens is comfortably the worst lens I've ever owned.

On the other hand my Tokina 35mm f2.8 macro is sharper at f2.8 than my canon 50mm f1.4 and at least as sharp as the 85mm f1.8 are at the same aperture (ie the tokina is wide open and the two canons are stopped down, it is however a crop only lens so wont work on the 5dm3). I also sold a Canon 100mm macro to buy a sigma 150mm macro which I have to say I far prefer (the focal length suits me better and it's also an f2.8 lens)

The Tamron 24-70 f2.8 looks like a great lens - and I probably would have bought one by now if it wasn't for the fact that one of the places I work have some Canon 24-70 mark i and ii's that I can borrow. The sigma 35mm looks even better.

People should be happy that third party manufacturers are producing such high quality, (relatively) affordable glass. Some will undoubtedly refuse to consider any third party option, no matter the quality or the price... Let them, and go grab yourselves a bargain 

24

Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?

« on: December 20, 2012, 01:55:55 PM »

Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user.

The fact that it's nearly a true macro lens means that one lens gives you fairly wide to short tele and macro capabilities. That's a lot of versatility in one lens, and for people stepping up to full frame, being able to buy a single lens which may cover most of their needs (i would imagine a 70-200 of some description would be the next lens people would buy, which overlaps with the extra reach on the 24-105 anyways) may seem attractive.

...And its rumoured to be significantly sharper, particularly wide open.

25

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon C100 praise & annoyances

« on: December 06, 2012, 11:51:13 AM »

The 5D3 is a great stills camera, but was it really worth the price increase, and after 4 years? IMO, only if you really needed those extra fps.

The extra fps... Or the professional autofocus system. Or Moire free video. Or anti-aliasing free video. Or the upcoming HDMI out (remember how crippled the 5dm2's software was at launch before complaining about the 5dm3 at launch). Or the better lcd screen. Or bigger viewfinder. Or the improved high ISO shooting. Or the improved video codec. Or the AGC disable. Or the headphone out.

Do any of those quite major improvements sound like they might make a small cost increase worthwhile? For an awful lot of people the answer is obviously yes.

26

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon C100 praise & annoyances

« on: December 04, 2012, 07:00:50 PM »

Some of the complaints about the 5Dm3 being crippled were just rubbish... The only thing that irked me was the choice of codec - 90mb/s all-I seemed deliberately just under the 100 mb/s datarate that is what places like the BBC demand for broadcast work (or 50mb/s for log GoP - and Canon have a good 50 mb/s long GoP codec they could have used).

It did feel a lot like Canon situated the camera so that it was good but not quite good enough to be a budget option for broadcast work.

With the addition of HDMI out in April that should change though - and I think largely that's come about as a result of the criticisms that have been levelled at Canon (and the fact that the Nikons clean HDMI out allows for that).

...And the video improvements over the 5Dm2 are actually a hell of a lot bigger than people like to give credit. By the far the biggest being no more moire - which was thing that would occasionally make DSLR footage a real headache, even if you spotted the issue, having to do things like ask an interview subject to change their jacket/shirt because it didn't agree with the camera is hardly the way to put someone at ease and get a good performance from them. The high ISO performance is also a big step up. The audio capabilities (whilst still somewhat crap) are distinctly better. The codec is a definite improvement (although not quite what people wanted). And we have clean HDMI out to look forwards to next year for 220 mb/s 4:2:2 DNxHD goodness.

The idea that on top of those major improvements on the video side there should be 4k/raw video/240fps added to a hybrid stills/video camera that doesn't really cost that much is just silly. The only thing that comes close is the BMC camera, which has a really resource demanding workflow, 2x crop, built in battery, and a few other issues which mean that while its an amazing studio camera it isn't that versatile. Oh, and its a dedicated video camera, rather than a stills camera that does good video. By the sounds of things the C100 w atmos setup would work better for a lot of production companies/indie shooters who need to be versatile so that they can adapt to the demands of a wide range of gigs (documentary/events/weddings/fiction) - for which things like 4k video and uncompressed raw video are as much if not more of a ballache than a blessing.

27

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon C100 praise & annoyances

« on: December 03, 2012, 01:24:04 PM »

Either way I quickly came to the conclusion that this camera exceeded my expectations, so many people were saying that Canon wouldn't sell any of these purely based on specs, but the IQ speaks for itself.

Funny that... Gear heads all over the internet were frothing at the mouth when the C300 spec was announced, they said no one in their right mind would buy one... And yet it's been the go to camera for a huge range of broadcast work because it performs so well out of the box with a very straightforwards workflow for tv.

28

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D3 - ML: Is Clean HDMI out working? Using it? Info...?

« on: December 02, 2012, 06:03:50 PM »

But we don't want to shoot 30p or 60i (both are offered on the C100 btw), for cinema the standard frame rate is 24p,

This really depends on what your output is going to be. And of course where you are. In the UK we don't use 30p - its 25 - and because it's what material is broadcast at, its what most clients will ask for.

And the BBC requires intraframe HD material to be 100mb/s+ (50 for long gop material) so using the hdmi out of 5dmiii should be acceptable.

...and you're describing a reverse 3:2 pulldown - reverse as the tendency was always to go from film (high quality 35/16mm material) to video rather than vice-versa (crap low quality video to film)

Thanks for the 4:2:2 link - that should mean you have a lot more leeway to grade footage harder. Will be very interesting to see what emerges in April... And also thanks for the C100 thoughts, I've don't know anyone with one yet.

29

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inexpensive lens for Video

« on: December 01, 2012, 06:29:31 PM »

If you can't hand-hold a DSLR and manual focus the 50 1.8 with one finger, your skill level doesn't warrant handling anything more expensive if you ask me.  Moving up to the 1.4 is a marginal improvement for a 3x price difference... and getting into that price range, you might as well invest in a slightly more expensive Tokina 11-16

If you're spending as much as $500, I would DEFINITELY recommend the tokina 11-16 2.8.  At infinity focus, everythign a meter out or farther will stay in focus.   For filming kids, wide and already in focus should be a big plus for convenience factor.  Not missing a memory is more important than bokeh quality

?! The tiny amount of travel on the 50 f1.8 makes manually focussing ACCURATELY very hard. The lens is blatantly not designed to be manually focussed, and doing so is a pain in the ass. By contrast the 50 1.4 has over 360 degrees of travel meaning that you have far more fine grained control over focussing. That isn't a marginal improvement, its the difference between useable and not.

And suggesting a UWA as an alternative to a 50mm prime is just bizarre. Unless you want the extreme perspective distortion that comes with a UWA lens (great for landscapes/cityscapes/particular look how enormous my nose is portraits - crap for any kind of close up) this is awful advice.

For the use that the op suggested the tamron 17-50 2.8 (with or without VC) is a far better choice for less money.

30

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Question about Canon L Lenses vs. Canon Cinema Lenses for 5d MKIII

« on: December 01, 2012, 06:19:06 PM »

The price difference is huge, but I wanted to know if im not using a 4k camera and I don't need the extra cinema features. Is the picture quality at  1920  that much better to justify the price over L lenses, such as 50mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 etc.?

In a word... No.

They're designed mainly for production companies who'll spend serious money on C500s/C300s and will be using them for features and tv drama series. They really aren't made for run and gun budget shooters with DSLRs