March 01, 2015, 12:07:58 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 - NormanBates

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33
Lenses / Re: Why is a 50mm the easiest fast prime to produce?
« on: April 25, 2011, 06:43:31 AM »
I also wondered why the 50mm f/1.4 could be so much cheaper than the 35mm f/1.4 or the 24mm f/1.4, and why there could be a 50mm f/1.2 and not a 35mm f/1.2 (and why that situation was the same in every brand's catalogue)

TexPhoto's answer totally satisfied my curiosity; thanks

another factor must be focal flange distance: leitz has 50mm f/0.95 for leica-M mounts, but only 50mm f/1.4 for leica-R

Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010
« on: April 25, 2011, 06:32:56 AM »
I don't think you got what I wanted to say

I think canon's blindness towards the big-sensor compact market is a bad thing for canon

phones are quickly going to eat most of the point-and-shoot market; people will only buy a camera if it offers more than what they already have in their phones, and that means either superzoom (an already mature market) or big-sensor compacts

and on the other side big-sensor compacts will eat a chunk of the low-end DSLR market, as they offer similar image quality in a smaller package

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond
« on: April 24, 2011, 03:46:18 PM »
I know a guy who, a long, long, long time ago, spent 600eur on a 1GB CF card

I'm buying a CF card next week, and I'm choosing between two transcend 133x cards: 16GB for 34eur, or 32GB for 58eur

there's a lot of things you need in order to take pictures, along with your camera and lenses; just go with it and be glad that they're getting cheaper and better by the minute

Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010
« on: April 24, 2011, 06:13:08 AM »
totally agree on the big-sensor compacts blindness

I see the market for small-sensor compacts becoming much smaller in a couple of years, as people come to realize the camera in their new phone is just good enough in most occasions

so you'll only want to take an additional gadget with you if it really offers something more

but many people don't want to carry a big camera such as a dslr, and that's where big-sensor compacts will fill in, eating a big chunk of the market for high-end small-sensor compacts and low-end DSLRs

what amazes me is that the companies that are making big-sensor compacts (panasonic, sony, samsung) are also making phones, while the camera makers that don't make phones (canon, nikon) don't seem to be interested in big-sensor compacts either

wake up, someone's going to eat your lunch!!

Australia / Re: Starting Out
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:56:45 AM »
* on the wide end, consider the tokina 16-28 f/2.8

* primes offer much more than faster apertures:
- they are usually sharper, maybe just a bit if you're comparing non-L primes with some of the best L zooms
- but the main thing (at least for me) is that if you don't make a very bad choice of prime, they offer much, much, much nicer bokeh (though I think the 70-200 f/2.8L is one of the zooms with the nicest bokeh)

so I'd say: add a few non-L primes to that list (on full frame, I'd go for 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8)

whenever I have the time to go around changing lenses, nothing is shot with a zoom

edit: some people sharing similar opinions to mine:

EOS Bodies / Re: Question about RAW
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:42:19 AM »
not long ago I was told that RAW gets you a better RAW than RAW+JPG

I think that's wrong, but maybe someone here knows why this person had that idea in his mind; my guess is that it might have been so, maybe, in something like "nikon cameras from 1999", or some other early step in the evolution of RAW


Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:19:33 AM »
in my case, it's the video

and I know most people don't even use the video side of their canon DSLR, but people using canon DSLRs for TV and film are buying these cameras in big bunchs (well... they were: unless canon brings out something great real fast, the new big sensor videocameras will eat their lunch in no time)

EOS Bodies / Re: NAB Report - New DSLR Soon? [CR1]
« on: April 13, 2011, 06:01:27 AM »
Even if they did make the 1D/1Ds the flagship video camera, people would just go and buy a video camera at $7000-$10,000. The draw to the 5D Mark II for video is the $2500 price tag.

well, not quite...

it seems that the sensor on the 5D2 is much better than anything panasonic or sony could make at the moment; for example, Shane Hurlbut (ASC, big canon DSLR kool-aid maker, take with a grain of salt) said something to the tune of "canon has been making sensors for 20 years, the others are new to the game, the images just don't look the same, they can't compete quite yet"

and mind you: these are not people obsessed by resolution, but by dynamic range and things like "organic look", "color" and "falloff"

they do want the videocamera ergonomica (XLR inputs, SDI outputs, histogram, waveform, zebras, peaking, etc), but so far they've been happy exchanging all that for a better image

still: for me, yes, a sony F3 is out of my price range, and a 1Ds would be too; a 5D3 withoug aliasing/moire would be more than welcome

EOS Bodies / Re: NAB Report - New DSLR Soon? [CR1]
« on: April 13, 2011, 05:51:56 AM »
So...Canon chooses to announce a video-oriented pro DSLR a month *after* the biggest video show of the year?  I don't think so.

exactly; it would only make sense if this was an earthquake-related delay

in any case, if they did, would it make sense if it was a 1Ds? yes, it would
think about this market for a second: for the fully budgeted feature films that are using them, they're buying 50 5D2 bodies with L glass (and all these expenses usually come under "consumables" in the budget)
they buy the ones with the best image quality, irrespective on price; right now, that means 5D2 (the colors on the 1D4 are much worse); if canon could triple their revenue from high-budget filmmakers by making a 1Ds with better image quality in video, it would at least consider it, right?
plus: is a 1D body too big for serious video? you surely haven't seen a film camera, or an arri alexa...

but then video autofocus would be totally uncalled for, so this whole thing sounds pretty doubious

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you recommend for beginner?
« on: April 07, 2011, 10:54:59 AM »
I hardly ever shoot stills, it's mostly video for me, but my father does stills, and I recently had to get him a 50D and sell his 500D because of the lack of microadjustment

he was complaining that there was something wrong with the camera or the lenses, and everything came out blurred; he compared with images from a friend's 5D2, then complained to me, I run some tests, and it's a backfocus issue, present with all his lenses (with manual focus I could get sharp images, but with autofocus -center point only- everything came out soft)

I also tested my 550D, and a 40D, and none of them is able to consistently deliver sharp images unless I focus manually

my conclusion: if you're using autofocus, microadjustment is an absolute must

and none of those canons have microadjustment; I'd say go for a second-hand 50D, or look at some other brand

Lenses / Re: Old film camera lenses for DSLRs?
« on: April 05, 2011, 11:03:21 AM »
I've used the following two lenses:
* canon 50mm f/1.8 (2010)
* carl zeiss jena pancolar 50mm f/1.8 (ca. 1965)

they both cost around $130, and the pancolar blows the canon away in image quality
(edit: in the case of the pancolar, that includes a fotodiox M42-to-EOS adapter)

regarding sharpness, they're actually quite similar, as the canon is a really really sharp lens (and not just "for the price"), but in nearly every other respect the pancolar is worlds better (read: "amazing bokeh" vs "crap I don't want to see ever again in my images")

Lenses / Re: Old film camera lenses for DSLRs?
« on: April 05, 2011, 07:15:29 AM »
using canon FD lenses on EOS bodies is not a good idea: flange distance is smaller on the FDs, so adaptors need to have a lens element (which kills the lens completely) or lose the ability to focus at infinity

but you can use lenses for nikon, M42, leica-R, pentacon-six, and many more lens mounts, using cheap "dumb" adaptors (I get mine from fotodiox through ebay)

you'll have to focus manually (which I do anyway, because what I shoot is video), and you'll need the lenses to have an aperture ring (if aperture is controlled electronically, it will be stuck at maximum aperture, unless you use some pretty unconvenient tricks)

leica-R primes from the 70s and 80s are just as good as the best glass you can buy today (even better than the L primes in some respects) for a small fraction of the price
carl zeiss jena primes from the 60s and 70s are great too, but maybe not as much as the leicas (except for the sonnars: those ones are absolutely great!)
there are many other great brands and models but I don't know so much about them, my lens set is leitz+jena

you may want to visit this blog posts (video oriented):

EOS Bodies / Re: Lenses for filming
« on: February 23, 2011, 09:55:56 AM »

Do you have any examples of a video using any of these lenses? They sound awesome,and great value. Would like to see the effect of the flare in a positive way, and also the general tone some of these lenses give. Have you ever needed a faster aperture than any of the lenses your currently using?

if you want to look at sharpness, check this one:

on the right panel you'll find other videos of mine, many of them done with these lenses, BUT don't judge sharpness by any of those other videos, I was making a few mistakes
* used an ND fader, which softens the image big time compared to my current tiffen screw-ins, specially on longer lenses
* shot with picture profile with minimum sharpness and forgot to add sharpness in post in the uploaded version of "roman holiday"; I should upload the final version someday... (edit: I forgot: this one is done with the kit lens anyway)
* I'm just a newbie and still not very good pulling focus... (this also applies to "brown vs. green")

so look at "brown vs green" for sharpness, and "paella in colinas" for colors and contrast directly out of the camera (shooting with picture profile with minimum contrast) and that thing which I call "beautiful flaring"

Quote from: te4o
If you use the same aperture is there a difference in DoF between a APS-C and a FF sensor - I know there is a big difference for stills but DSLR film uses just part of the sensor?

unless you're using the crop mode / digital zoom, you're using all the sensor, so depth of field is the same for stills and video

to get equivalent full frame DoF, multiply your aperture by the crop factor, just as you do with focal lenght
for example, you get the same field of view and depth of field with:
* full frame, 50mm, f/2.8
* APS-C, 30mm, f/1.8

EOS Bodies / Re: Lenses for filming
« on: February 22, 2011, 12:15:49 PM »
Primes just draw better...


and you don't have to spend a fortune if you dare to go vintage

some lenses from the 60s, 70s and 80s are just as sharp as their current counterparts, but cost five times less, mainly because they are manual focus only and so photographers don't want them anymore

my lens kit includes:
- leitz elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8
- carl zeiss jena pancolar 50mm f/1.8
- leitz elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8
- carl zeiss jena sonnar 135mm f/4.0

you'd have to spend a fortune to build a set of modern lenses that can rival this one in terms of sharpness, bokeh quality, and pleasing images in general

on the other hand, these lenses flare like crazy (sometimes beautifully, but sometimes you just don't want that) and have very different tints that have to be compensated with the white balance setting

Lenses / Re: Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!
« on: February 22, 2011, 07:51:30 AM »
the panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is a great little lens, and costs $350
the samsung 30mm f/2.0 is not bad either, and costs $300
the samsung 20mm f/2.8 is not stellar, but again is on the $350 mark

what does canon have to fight that 20mm? a 20mm f/2.8 that can work on full frame (totally unnecessary for most people) and costs 50% more than the samsung

I agree that a 35mm f/1.8 would be the place to start
from there on, they should go to the wider end, with someghing like a 22mm f/1.8 and a 15mm f/2.8

or they can just watch how the new players eat their cake

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33