July 31, 2014, 06:31:47 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 - Videoshooter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Lenses / Misbehaving Aperture on 24-105L
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:01:42 PM »
Hi All,

Just wanted to check if anybody has experienced the below problem before. I purchased the lens 2nd hand but the seller denies any knowledge of the problem (yeah, right!). I suspect a trip to Canon is in order for this lens but thought I'd run it by everyone here first in case there is some simple solution I've overlooked like shaking it vigorously or perhaps performing a rain dance.

My 24-105 f/4L is having problems with the aperture behaving erratically. When the camera is set to any aperture other than f/4, the iris will constantly change between several different settings. When zooming in, it gets darker (ie the lens doesn't compensate by widening the iris at longer focal lengths as it should to maintain the same aperture ratio. I'm not talking about a flicker, I'm talking about an obvious ~2-stop darkening of the image through the viewfinder) but when zooming out again it stays dark still.

The aperture setting in the camera is not reflective of what the lens iris is actually set to. Eg: the camera might read f/4 while the lens is actually at f/22. Changing the aperture does sometimes cause the iris to adjust, but only within the range of the camera - ie: if the camera reads f/5.6 but the lens is actually at f/22, I can only open up by one stop, because even though the lens is now only at f/16, the camera now thinks it is at it's limit of f/4 and so will not adjust it any further.

And as a precursor to all the usual generic responses, so far I've tried the following: same lens on multiple cameras, different lenses on same cameras, every combination of IS/AF on/off, cleaning the contacts on both the lens and cameras, camera powered by a fully-charged battery, in M mode, live view/movie mode and regular stills, and played around with the DOF preview button. Curiously, the DOF preview does not do anything but when using live-view AF via a half shutter press it does open the iris up to brighten the image, but only temporarlily. And yes, it is definitely the iris and not the shutterspeed/ISO messing up because a) it's in M mode with nothing on auto, and b) because I can see the iris blades flickering erratically through the front of the lens.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.... even if that help might be to tell me where my nearest Canon repair centre is!

2
Canon General / Re: You know, sometimes, when one is tired...
« on: August 08, 2013, 08:51:32 AM »
Plenty of times I've left behind batteries, SD/CF cards or tripod plates. Or had silly mix ups like putting the SD card wallet into the bag with my 5DmkII, or some CF cards into the 60D bag. Luckily I usually do this when leaving home pre-dawn, shooting sunrises or surfing - on paid jobs I always have everything packed the night before then double check it all in the morning. Also a few times I've left the charger plugged into the wall at a wedding reception.

The worst brain fart I've ever had though, was packing up at the end of a shoot. I Took the camera off the tripod and packed it into the backpack, then turned around and packed up the tripod. Picked the backpack up, swung it onto my back, and quickly realised I'd forgotten to zip it up as I saw 2 cameras and half a dozen lenses fall to the floor. Lucky it was on grass and not concrete, or I would've destroyed my entire kit in one go!

3
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DM2 as a FF? Hmmm...
« on: July 24, 2013, 06:01:27 AM »
I think the 70D is a HUGE step up compared to the 60D. I mean, when the entry level Rebel T5i has pretty much the same burst rate as the 60D, you know things need updating. And if we're talking burst rates, the 70D is the first time since the 40D that the rate has gone above it (7fps vs 6.5fps). There's also the brand new 20.2MP sensor, Digic 5+ processor, Wi-Fi, articulating screen, 7D AF system, AFMA, 12800 native ISO, etc. The 70D is a much needed upgrade for the mid-tier crop cameras.

Now the 70D still has a couple things the 7D does better, such as burst rate and buffer, magnesium body, better weather sealing, 100% VF coverage, and maybe a couple other things, but for the most part the 70D beats the 7D.

What I think this means is the 7D MK2 will be something quite special, and as another poster pointed out, the APS-C version of the 1D X. The 70D you could argue as the APS-C version of the 5D MK3.

Yes, but these are exactly the things you would expect from a replacement camera that is three years newer. I don't believe that (as a few people in this thread have suggested) the 70D is a move upward in the Canon line. On paper, the 70D competes with the ancient 7D quite well, but that still does not mean that wildlife professionals or sports shooters will choose it over the 7D - because it still does not have the build quality for their needs.

As for the 70D being a APS-C version of the 5DmkIII, well, I think that is rather far-fetched. Much closer to a mini-6D, I think!

I see the 70D as being essentially the same camera as the 60D but updated to today's technology - if the 7DmkII delivers an equal improvement over the 7D as the 70D does over the 60D (and I expect it will), then it is sure to be one fine camera... and after the long wait, I damn well hope it delivers!

4
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DM2 as a FF? Hmmm...
« on: July 22, 2013, 07:17:44 PM »
I'm curious to know, who thinks the 70D actually is a move upward in the Canon line-up as this rumor says? Personally I think it sits exactly where you would expect an upgrade to sit after three years. It does seem a little skewed though right now when compared to the even older 7D, but the 70D certainly does not move up to occupy the space the 7D - or even the 50D - used to occupy.

Regarding the 7D2 FF rumor, I think it's rubbish - looking at the date the rumor was likely some crossed wires regarding the 6D before it's announcement. Even before the 6D rumors though, it seems ridiculous to think the 7D would've been a FF, without dumbing it down significantly to the point it would no longer resemble a 7D. Can you imagine if instead of the 6D they had released a FF camera with build quality to rival the 5dmkIII, similarly professional features, which shoots at 8fps, and which costs less than the mkIII?

5
The 60D (and all the Canon DSLR's) lack a lot of the exposure & focusing aids that professional cameras have - things like focus peaking, zebra's and focus magnification while recording.

They also lack any real audio inputs, controls or monitoring options. A professional camcorder will give you 2 xlr inputs with line/mic levels, phantom power (to supply power to microphones) audio meters on-screen and dual volume knobs.

The list could go on with missing features such as full time histograms/waveforms, headphones, time-code, (though these two were added to the higher end Canon DSLR's) smooth exposure adjustment, silent buttons, power zoom lenses, genlock, HD-SDI output (or locking pins on any outputs), DC-in, dual-slot recording, unlimited record times, etc, etc.

The truth is though, the image from these cameras is so good compared to camcorders in a similar price range, that many videographers are willing to put up with the missing conveniences. Focus on what your camera can do, rather than what it can't, and you'll find it is a very capable video recorder.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: May 05, 2013, 07:30:20 PM »
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill). And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224?

No, it is about the bad downscaling. The 1080p video files have a true sharpness that is a lot lower - closer to 700 lines of resolution or roughly what proper 720p is (and less than that HDTV's downscaled Full HD can display). Improved processing could no doubt get these cameras to deliver some extremely sharp 1080p video, and I think that is far more of a priority than 4K

Look at 1080p from a 5dmkIII side by side with 1080p from a Canon C100 and you will see what is meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p."

You say that it all doesn't really matter because consumers just want to see flashy images - while I agree that audiences are often easily impressed, and that they have incredibly short attention spans - they are not the only people you have to impress. Clients, marketing managers, producers, broadcasters - all sorts of people along the production pipeline scrutinise your image quality to the highest degree, and if it doesn't pass their test, then your easily impressed audience will never get to see it anyway, which equates to lost income.

What If I said to you that most people are only viewing photos on the web at about 1200x800 pixels, therefore your DSLR's only need to shoot 1mp photos? Would you agree with that?

We can always use more resolution, for stills and video, and it is just a matter of finding the balance point between what is possible and what is necessary. At this stage, for most working professionals, proper 1080p is necessary, and for many consumers, who have bought the best TV they can afford, proper 1080p in these cameras will deliver a noticeable IQ difference at the ideal viewing distance. However, in the past 5 years Canon have not made any improvements to the soft video in their DSLR's.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: April 30, 2013, 02:15:36 AM »
There's plenty of reasons why we haven't got 4K video in (non "C") Canon DSLR's yet.

- They want to keep that as a high-end feature, to keep selling the 1DC at $12000.
- Most people don't need it yet, and very few really want it too badly (keeping in mind most DSLR owners don't even care if their camera has a video mode at all)
- It requires more expensive hardware = lower profit margins or higher cost for the consumer.
- They are primarily still cameras - they are not built from the ground up with 4K video in mind.
- The negative feedback would be a PR disaster - look at GoPro's situation as an example. They've delivered quasi-4K video, 2.7K video, and 120fps video in a consumer device, but have copped all sorts of complaints from people who do not own a fast enough micro-SD cards, or whose computer is too slow to even play back the footage. The same would happen if Canon started delivering 4K video to customers who do not yet understand the demands of 4K video.
- Very few CF cards can handle the demands of 4K video (see previous point).

And, most importantly:

- They are selling more cameras that anybody else is right now. Why change what's already working? When sales drop, they lose sales to a competitor who is offering 4K video in DSLR's, then perhaps they will too.


Personally, I would rather see the video improved so that they offer proper 1920x1080 video (or perhaps even 2K - for that little bit of extra res for slight framing adjustments). The C100 footage is a whole lot sharper, as is the GH2 - especially hacked - and I wish Canon would at least attempt to get their DSLR footage up to this level. It is just frustrating that, aside from the moire-free (albeit softer) video of the mkIII, Canon has done absolutley nothing to actually improve the processing and image quality of their DSLR video performance since the mkII came out all those years ago.

Personally I would love to see proper, clean 1080p at 50/6060 &  proper, clean720p at 100/120fps in h.264 format (with increased bitrates to accommodate the extra frames), and an option for 24/25p 2K recorded to a better codec like Cineform RAW or Cinema DNG. That would offer a significant increase in IQ, while still keeping it well within realistic confines of the average persons recording/editing/playback workflow.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 23, 2013, 05:37:59 PM »
Pictaker, perhaps you could tell us exactly which Nikon camera you plan on switching to that will give you weather sealing and good video AF? There's not one that I can think of, especially not in the same price range as the 60D/7D. The closest would be the D7100 which still does not offer proper video AF.

You might want to take a look and the Panasonic GH3 though.

9
GoPro!

Hero 3 Black and Hero 2 - They go everywhere with me. If Canon implemented a video mode that had the similar features as the Hero 3 Black (720p120, 1080p60, 2.7k, different FOV/crop modes, Protune-style mode) on their next DSLR's, or even in an EOS-C or EOS-M camera, then I would pay 1DX money for it, even if it was a Rebel series camera shooting h.264.


10
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How did they make this vid?
« on: January 16, 2013, 05:21:29 AM »
Looks like it's possibly a dolly - It doesn't have that floating feel that steadycam gives, though it could just be an incredibly talented operator. No focus puller required because (a) they have shot with a fairly deep DOF and (b) the camera stays roughly the same distance from the actor in all the steadycam/dolly shots.

11
I'd say sell it, but to be honest the used prices for 60D's are quite low. If you never think you'll need the reach or you don't shoot critical events (eg weddings) where you should always have a spare body,  then sell it, but don't expect too much return from it.

12
Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8
« on: January 07, 2013, 04:40:38 AM »
Those sort of lenses are in broadcasting. I once saw a 18-300 (I think...) f 1.4!!!

These lenses are designed for 2/3 inch cameras outputting 1080p, not FF DSLR's resolving upwards of 20mp. It's much easier to design a lens for a smaller sensor.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]
« on: January 07, 2013, 04:27:56 AM »
Well, it would be a whole lot more useful than the C100.

14
Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8
« on: January 06, 2013, 08:10:23 PM »
I think everyone is severely underestimating the size, weight and price of such a lens.

The closest lens to compare to is the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 (three feet long, one foot wide, 15kg, $25,000), which has a bit more on the long end but is still only less than 1/5th of the zoom range of a hypothetical 28-400mm. It's also priced in Sigma dollars from the mid-90's so compare that to current Canon prices and the price would be a lot higher for the hypothetical lens (ie hundreds of thousands).

Plus there's a few other issues too - a lens that big needs a lot of gears and motors to drive the zoom mechanism which makes AF a lot slower. My guess is that, like the Sigma, it would also need it's own independent battery as well.

And even if you had this lens, how are you going to shoot with it? You'll probably need a geared industrial head mounted on some very sturdy sticks (so add another hundred grand to the equation).

All things taken into account, it's easy to see why they do not make such a lens. A 30kg + lens that costs more than your house and requires a three-man team to set up and operate? No thanks!

15
EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]
« on: January 04, 2013, 06:15:15 PM »
If it's not going to have 4K then it better have some other benefits!

RAW is not a necessity for me but it would be very nice to have on certain occasions. ProRes is no good for me and anybody else working on a PC, but some other (proprietry?) high bitrate intraframe codec would be nice.

2.5K would be good as it would downscale to produce very sharp 1080p. True 1080p would be very nice, and to achieve that you'd most likely need a sensor designed from the ground up with video as a primary consideration.

Canon has been very slow to add fast frame rates to any of their cameras (not a single camera with 720p120, compared to Sony & Panasonic who have several) but, if it lacks 4K maybe Canon will adorn it with a higher fps instead? 1080p 60 is a must, 1080p96 would be delightful, and 720p120fps (with proper 720p, not the soft mush most Canon DSLR produce) would put it on par with Scarlet in terms of higher frame rates.

Of course the 30 minute limit would need to removed (very annoying for interviews), and it should include some video specific features such as zebras, waveform, peaking, zoom while recording for focus confirmation, as well as audio levels and manual audio control, headphones etc as on some of the newer models.

If Canon was able to deliver all this in a 7D/5D style body then I'd gladly pay $6000+ for it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6