Messages

61

Lenses / Re: 40mm Pancake Killed the 50mm??

« on: July 16, 2012, 03:20:20 PM »

I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body.

On a crop body you use the sweet spot of a FF lens, so it's far more likely to be sharp at the borders... The sigma 50/f1.4 is known as sharp in the centre and soft at the border...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1

62

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How should I spend my cash?

« on: July 16, 2012, 02:32:43 PM »

Maybe 5dm3 with a set of 35/50/85/125 primes... High ISO + fast prime = lowlight win.

And with the 60d as a second body you can cover 2/3 of wide/standard/tele at any one time. Although if you find you struggle with organisational factors, maybe the versatility of the zoom would suit you better

63

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Best External Microphone for a Canon 5D Mark II

« on: July 16, 2012, 02:28:23 PM »

What if you can't/won't ask the bride/groom to wear wireless mics?  Is it possible to get a remote recording device that you could pre-stage at the alter ahead of time and would record what was being said within 25 feet?

To kind of threadjack, I have the same question, but I would like to know what is the best and simplest shotgun stereo mic that is easy to hike, travel, camp with?  Or would it be best to get a general omni-mic that will record sound in most directions?  Think birds, waterfalls, streams, crikets.

Basically the pre-amp on the 5Dm2 is quite noisy when running a shotgun mic straight through - something like the rode videomic pro that has a +20db gain switch actually helps a lot as it means you can turn the camera's audio levels down and reduce the amount of hiss you'll pick up (although there will still be some, and it's probably worth cleaning it up in post if you can). Cheap and decent shotgun mic... depending on your budget the Rode NTG2 or 3 (3 is a lot more expensive and phantom power only, but sounds considerably better) The other option is to run the mic into a portable sound recorder (zoom h4n or tascam dr40) or something like a juicedlink preamp which will give you far cleaner sound.

    What if you can't/won't ask the bride/groom to wear wireless mics?

 

Then grow a set or knock back the job

Dude he said this was his cousin's wedding. Throwing back the job would be pretty harsh. And we still haven't heard what kind of video they want - a 10 min highlights package or ceremony/speeches/etc in full with crystal clear audio...

64

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

« on: July 16, 2012, 02:18:20 PM »

The 5D MkIII sensor, 7D like autofocus, and a pop-up flash (probably with flash control) and it's not an upgrade over the MkII for the same price?. 

if canon would be the only camera maker it sure looks like a good deal.
compared to the rumored D600... well... no.

and you have to understand the different needs.

for me the 5D MK3 sensor has no real advantage.
i shot below ISO 1600 99% of the time.

i shoot landscape, macro and home studio studio stuff.
85% of the time i use the center AF point.

i shot no video.

so why should people like me update to a 5D MK3 or this new FF camera?

from a company point of view it sure makes sense.
but we are individuals here, with individual needs.

So you're happy to accept that the 5Dm3 is better for people who shoot video
...and for those who shoot weddings
...and those who shoot events
...and those who shoot sports
...and of course anyone who does any of the above and studio or landscape work

The main complaints about the 5Dm2 were around AF and FPS, not image quality, and these things have been improved. To be honest the 5Dm3 isn't the world's greatest studio camera, and it clearly hasn't been designed to be a specialist studio/landscape camera...

...Maybe wait for the Canon big megapixel camera? It sounds like it'll offer you the upgrade you clearly think you need. And if you can't wait for it then buy a D800 or go MF both will do what you do better than a 5Dm3. However, for most studio needs that 5Dm2 was fine. The 5dm3 isn't any worse, and it adds a lot in other areas. If those other areas don't interest you then fine, just accept that it isn't the right tool for you and get on with your life.

65

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

« on: July 16, 2012, 11:40:51 AM »

I find that a lot of users do not understand the upgrades over the 5D Mark II:

Autofocus system:  beat to death

More important:

Auto ISO over the full range in manual mode,
In-camera HDR and in-camera ME, 9 shots max each
ISO safety shift in Av mode with a min shutter speed and auto ISO over full range

That is why it is $1400 over the 5D Mark II.

You forget a couple of my favorites:

*** Silent shutter option -this can be priceless
*** auto-save setting changes when in custom "C1 - C3" modes

and

2 extra stops of usable high-iso video
no moire and significantly reduced anti-aliasing
headphone jack
audio gain control and levels without magic lantern

While you may continue to complain that none of these changes make the blindest bit of difference to you - the simple fact is that they do for an awful lot of other people, which is why they're prepared to pay for them.

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: One way to win customers

« on: July 12, 2012, 10:12:50 AM »

If you're in the UK check http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod2676.html for 5D prices... and there is someone selling them for under £2799 who is an authorised UK dealer.

I picked one up on new from ebay for £2400 - UK stock with a UK warranty - but do watch out, a lot of the ebay seller with super cheap prices are grey imports. If you're happy to take the chances with a store which offers their own warranty on imported stock you can find them for around £2250, but make sure you understand the warranty issues, and ensure that the item's in the UK, or you might have to pay 20% custom tax

67

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5d Mark III (Is it worth it for me?)

« on: July 06, 2012, 08:50:45 AM »

Seriously, you can't blame the camera anymore, you can make just about anything for anyone with a 5D3.  Sure there may be cameras that have a better dynamic range and a little bit better resolution, but to your average joe they still think the 5D3 looks incredible and won't give a damn if you're telling a good story.  STORY IS EVERYTHING.  I could give you an Alexa or Epic, a set of master primes, and Chapman dollys and $300k cranes and $20k steadicams and all that, but if your story isn't good it doesn't matter one bit how glitzy the shots are, people aren't going to like it.

+1 (and that applies to documentary as much as fiction)


Some of the most emotionally involving films I've seen recently have been no-budget documentaries shot by people with minidv cameras with little formal knowledge of cinematography, but who told beautiful stories about their communities.

And also think of the crew costs involved in using an Epic, loads of lights, cranes etc... If you're making low budget indie work, or shooting promos for local businesses, or people's weddings you'd be losing money on every project if you were using that stuff. Not to mention freaking out the bride by turning her perfect day into a film set (sometimes having a small DSLR is great because it doesn't draw attention to you in the way that even an EX3, let alone an Epic does).

Consider what you're going to be making, what kind of budgets you'll have, and plan appropriately.

68

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5d Mark III (Is it worth it for me?)

« on: July 06, 2012, 08:41:14 AM »

@syder

No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.

Well there was some reason:

G1 (D4 based) Canon video DSLRs cannot handle that bandwith reliably.

How long would you get on G1 D4 cameras with 4GB cap per clip?

Cards would need to be huge and expensive.

Whilst I would not use any DSLR, or mpeg based, or single chip camera for heavy duty compositing, I have seen plenty of stuff broadcast that was shot on DSLRs.  Including a couple of my own TV adverts. (7D)

50MB/s and 90MB/s is breaking XDCAMHD and approaching original HDCAM territory.  How much are XDCAM cameras costing?

Temporal codecs sucks as origination format, but then I recall MPEG2 being fine for broadcast when folks were shooting with z1's etc.  Spatial codecs better for editing.  Uncompressed is really what you want for decent grading.  I suppose some folk would be annoyed that the 5D3 stills camera with video lumped doesn't record RAW.

You had better tell Darren Aronovsky to reshoot black swan, as if the codecs aren't broadcast quality then they certainly can't be cinematic quality.  Can they?

I DO see your point, but it's an unrealistic expectation for the cost.  Canon not giving YOU everything YOU want isn't them crippling a camera.

Actually no. Canon had been hyping the 5Dm3 saying that there would be a new codec - which many people expected to be the 50mb/s 4:2:2 codec they used in the xf line. D4 cameras perhaps can't handle that, but if D5+ can do 90mb/s intraframe I'd be very surprised if they cant do 50mb/s 4:2:2 - hell the 1dc is going to do mjpeg at 4k 500mb/s with d5+ (albeit with 2 of em and extra cooling systems) so claiming that 50mb/s isn't possible just aint true.

Similarly your file size thing just makes no sense - how is a 50mb/s file any bigger (and therefore more problematic with regards to storage) than the 90mb/s intraframe codec which they implemented on the 5dm3? If you're concerned about how long you get on a card then surely you'd rather have a smaller file? How long would you get on a 32gb CF card at 50 mb/s - about an hour. Given that they cost just over £50 and with several you'd be fine for most things (and its not like you want DSLRs for reality anyway). Compared to the cost of, say Panasonic P2 cards (which are damn cheap now compared to what they were in the past) at around £375 for 32gb that seems pretty reasonable? no?

The difference between shooting for broadcast, and the heavy imaging work that goes into cinematic images is apples to oranges, and I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand this. They used the 5Dm2 on House - so you can broadcast it - but only after a long, complex and expensive process in post. This is worlds away from what you have to do with footage out of C300 or even an EX3 before it can be broadcast - and the cost of doing this effectively prevents production companies using a 5Dm3 as a cheap camera for broadcasting material.

Canon using codecs which prevent particular uses of a camera (without extended post-processing) to protect other aspects of their product line is effectively crippling a camera. Not including simple features which the cameras are capable of such as zebra bars is similarly meant to distinguish their DSLRs from their video line. The 5Dm3 is great for many things, but pretending that Canon haven't deliberately taken particular decisions to prevent particular usages (or to make them far more effort than is necessary) just isn't true.

However, unless you're main line of work is broadcast this doesn't affect you. Increasingly people are making content for the web - and for that the 5Dm3 is more than enough of a camera to make stunning work.

69

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: EOSHD 5DmkIII OLP delete verdict

« on: July 06, 2012, 08:15:16 AM »

I'm all but convinced a Sony FS100 or FS700 is going to become my video rig. DSLR video is just not keeping up.

Canon 5Dm3 = a sub £3k pro stills camera with very capable video features
Sony fs700 = a £6500 dedicated video camera

Seriously, on what planet would a dedicated video camera which costs more than twice as much be inferior to a hybrid device? Whining that a DSLR isn't better than a FS700 makes about as much sense as whining that a FS700 isn't better than an Alexa or an Epic.

sorry but that there is a better camera, doesn't excuse canon or any other DSLR from not delivering decent 1080p period. Mention not the fact lesser cameras can deliver better resolution than a 3500 dollar DSLR.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7722/5d-mark-iii-vs-gh2-vs-nex-7

excuses excuses. I want results not excuses.

?! If you think the gh2 is a better camera for your video needs than a 5DM3 then buy one. But for the 99.9% of filmmakers who don't rely on wide landscape shots to make their money that simply isn't the case. Posting links to a hobbyist who has a massive resolution fixation isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference to people who actually make a living through video work. Resolution wasn't a problem for Act of Valour or the Avengers in using Canon DSLR's - what is it that you do that is so much more demanding than those productions?

If you genuinely believed that a gh2 is the way forwards, why state that you think you're going to buy a FS700? If you think it's unreasonable that a DSLR which can be had for £2500 isn't a better device than a £6500 dedicated video camera I'm sorry but I don't think I can help your ridiculous expectations. You may as well be arguing that a 650d should be better than a 1dx irrespective of cost. Oh hang on... the 650d has the same resolution for stills and video as the 1dx... How the hell can Canon possibly justify charging more for one than the other!? 

If you want results, go buy a camera and stop whining on the Internet. If you think a gh2 is an amazing camera, great: go buy one. If you think a FS700 fits your needs: great, go buy one. If you expect any manufacture to suddenly release a DSLR which will outperform video cameras which cost several times as much in every situation, put down the crackpipe and come back to reality.

70

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Best External Microphone for a Canon 5D Mark II

« on: July 05, 2012, 10:53:41 AM »

Not sure I'd be all that keen to shoot purely on a canon DSLR for a wedding, unless it was something that breaks the 4GB barrier or at least allows continuous recording beyond 12 mins...

Depends on what kind of material you're being commissioned to create... For a 10-15 minute highlight package of the day a DSLR is great. If they want several hours worth of material with full ceremony, speeches etc then its probably the wrong tool and you'd be far better off with something like a Sony ex1.

71

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5d Mark III (Is it worth it for me?)

« on: July 05, 2012, 10:50:17 AM »

How did canon cripple their cameras?  By not putting advanced professional controls that most folk don't want or need on consumer products?

No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.

The guys and gals at ML do sterling work, but they tend to add features via firmware rather than unlock anything that was already there (audio levels and intermediate iso aside)

This is not true. ML's only firmware change is a flag to allow the cameras to run the ML software.

The question isn't is the 5DM3 crippled (it is), but do the restrictions matter for you? Lets be honest, if you're doing broadcast work where the restrictions matter, then the cost of a body is not a big problem, and would be significantly less than any of the alternatives (C300/FS700/Scarlet). If you're planning on doing lots of wide shots of landscapes (I don't personally know anyone who does this outside of nature documentaries) then the resolution is probably an issue. If like most people you're subjects will mainly be humans it really wont be a problem.

Better cameras will come out in the future, but you have to ask yourself whether you need a camera now, and if so what you need it for, and how much money it will bring in in terms of work. The 5DM3 is a significant improvement over the 5DM2, which people have used to create a variety of stunning material. It almost certainly wont be the limiting factor in the quality of your work.

72

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: EOSHD 5DmkIII OLP delete verdict

« on: June 28, 2012, 04:15:17 PM »

I'm all but convinced a Sony FS100 or FS700 is going to become my video rig. DSLR video is just not keeping up.

Canon 5Dm3 = a sub £3k pro stills camera with very capable video features
Sony fs700 = a £6500 dedicated video camera

Seriously, on what planet would a dedicated video camera which costs more than twice as much be inferior to a hybrid device? Whining that a DSLR isn't better than a FS700 makes about as much sense as whining that a FS700 isn't better than an Alexa or an Epic.

73

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: EOSHD 5DmkIII OLP delete verdict

« on: June 26, 2012, 06:04:11 AM »

In MY experience, and the projects that I've shot with DSLR's, I've personally never had a single client question the sharpness of the picture, or ask about why something isn't sharper than it is.  I HAVE, however, had to deal with very irritated, paying clients who wanted to know what the heck was up with dancing lines.  Explaining moire, with my tail between my legs, and offering to schedule a reshoot was MY low point. 

So for me (and this is only for ME), when Canon released the Mk3, I could not possibly have been happier.  In side by side tests against my Mk2 (which my clients were already impressed with), I saw slightly better resolution, footage that holds up better to post processing, and NO MOIRE.  I know for a lot of people that doesn't mean much, because they're lucky in never having had to deal with it. 

I do understand people wanting to see more progress in other areas though, such as the resolution.  didn't mean to demean your points, just pointing out my vantage point as well, and got off topic in the process.  My original point was simply that DSLR's do excel at video.  The length to which they excel is going to be in the eye of the beholder.

Basically this... Everyone who actually makes work with DSLRs and relies on them to make money absolutely loathed moire issues. That the 5DM3 basically resolves the single biggest image quality issue with these cameras. I've also never had a client complain about resolution, but I have had numerous well-paid jobs where the client (who have been people who've worked in production for decades) have been absolutely gushing with praise over the quality of the images produced by a DSLR - and that's after watching them back on a 40ft cinema screen. That said I don't film wide shots of detailed landscapes for a living - and if I did I probably wouldn't choose to use a DSLR because it would be the wrong tool for the job.

The only other issue that came close to moire for irritation was sound (it was workable, but a pain in the ass, I've never had to reshoot because sound had horrible noise issues). and while ML gave those of us who hacked cameras audio monitoring and audio levels/controls, they're now baseline features. Zebras and focus peaking would have been nice too, but I guess we'll wait for ML or a possible firmware upgrade to have those up and running...

I think people forget how frustratingly limited the 5DM2 was for video when it 1st came out, it's only been a long succession of firmware upgrades and ML that made it as powerful a filmmaking tool as it has been for the last couple of years. Hopefully we'll see a similar improvement over the life-cycle of the 5DM3.

The biggest disappointment for me is the codec/bitrate. Broadcast (in the UK) is 100mb/s intraframe and 50mb/s long GOP... The 5Dm3 currently pitched to be just under both so that it isn't a broadcast solution that steps on the C300's toes. There was no other reason why the camera didn't use the 50mb/s 4:2:2 long GOP codec Canon used in the XF100. Unlike resolution that genuinely is an issue which limits the utility of these cameras for video work.

74

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D Mark III Magic Lantern wish list poll

« on: May 03, 2012, 07:40:39 PM »

I believe the combination of sub-sampling, bit-depth, image size (e.g. 1920x1080) and frame rate (e.g. 24/s) are all combined to create a bit-rate for the movie. This is how many numbers are passed through the system per second. It is this final number that states the overall quality of the system and also the type of storage media requirements involved.

Not really... The codec - the type of compression used to store the data is massively important in understanding bitrates. For example the 5DMIII has a 90mb/s intraframe codec and the far lower long GOP codec, which have the same subsampling ratio, image size, bit depth and frame rate.

Describing the bitrate as the 'overall quality of the system' is also quite misleading... I'd take the 1080p 24mb/s footage off a D800 over the 25mb/s 576i minidv footage off a pd150 or xl1 anyday

75

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D Mark III Magic Lantern wish list poll

« on: April 29, 2012, 06:48:53 AM »

I know that the camera is 22 MP, but the Bayer pattern is set up at a 4:2:2 ratio, which that means that their are effectively 11 M Green photosites, 5.5M red and 5.5 M Blue. 

If they are alternating lines still, then there just isn't enough information for them to end up with a full HD picture using equal ratios of color information without interpolation.

When expressing chroma subsampling ratios the 4:2:2 doesn't refer to primary colours as G:R:B, it's Y:Cb:Cr which refers to Luminance (Y) and two colour difference components Blue Difference (Cb) and Red difference (Cr)