October 24, 2014, 08:34:12 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 - studio1972

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 22, 2014, 12:03:36 PM »
Shame it hasn't got a touch screen like the 70D, great with the dual pixel AF.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: \
« on: October 13, 2014, 06:19:40 PM »
Is the lack of a touchscreen an opportunity to sell an aftermarket touchscreen monitor for videographers? Would the USB port provide an interface to allow this?

As someone who has ordered a 7D mkII and who will probably not use video much (if at all) I'm happy not to pay extra for the touch screen and software to be built into my camera.

Can't wait to get my hands on the camera!

Scott.
I would use a camranger or a DSLR controller along with a tablet if dual pixes is introduced on the next full frame. That screen is still too small, and touching the camera may introduce additional shake (unless you don't care).
This is why I am not screaming about the lack of touch screen and swivel. I wouldn't use them if I had them; just like pop-up flash.
Others need them, I understand.
I just assume that there must be reasons why they didn't put it. Maybe extra cost + additional software indeed are two of the reasons.

The 70d has it though, so the software already exists, and the parts can't cost too much as the 70d is cheaper than the 7d2.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 24, 2014, 06:07:21 PM »
Seems strange to me that Canon hasn't done more with their current mirrorless system. If you look at what Fuji are doing with a crop sensor, but pro level lenses and ergonomics. The problem with Canon mirrorless isn't that the sensor is too small (in fact, aps might turn out to be the optimum sensor size for mirror less), it's that they've made no effort to produce a system with fast lenses and pro level bodies.

I think they are (rightfully) hesitant to do that, as it's their golden goose. The EOS-M was them dipping their toes in the water and "beta testing" the EF-M mount, which I think could become the future native mount for all APS-C.

Canon is a big enough company, with a loyal enough user base, that they don't need to do what Fuji is doing right now. They can cede that market to the Fuji and the Sony, because once the market settles down and Fuji and Sony and Samsung have found the "magic formula" of what types of cameras people want, Canon can put their full weight behind doing the same thing except with a Canon nameplate, and full EF/EF-S compatibility, and then just steamroll the competition.

That is to say, Canon's strategy is not to tire themselves out with a flurry of punches early, but wait and play defensively until their opponents tire, saving their money and learning their opponents weaknesses, and when the time is right, go for the knockout blow.

It is just a market timing strategy, they are not neglecting the market.

I don't think that's a sensible strategy. I sold my canon gear and moved to Fuji, as I didn't want to wait for years for Canon to make a move, and Fuji have rewarded my leap of faith with great cameras like the XT1 and lenses like the 56mm 1.2. Many others are jumping ship now and if Canon leave it too long, it might be too late for them to join the party. Just look what happened to Kodak!

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 24, 2014, 04:49:53 AM »
Seems strange to me that Canon hasn't done more with their current mirrorless system. If you look at what Fuji are doing with a crop sensor, but pro level lenses and ergonomics. The problem with Canon mirrorless isn't that the sensor is too small (in fact, aps might turn out to be the optimum sensor size for mirror less), it's that they've made no effort to produce a system with fast lenses and pro level bodies.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 06:09:19 AM »
Honest question.  I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration?  How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce?  What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.
Yep, a good read. Making a lens with very tight tolerances, with aspherics in the mix is very difficult (centering issues with aspheric lenses can be tricky). While Canon/Nikon do make fast optics in the 50mm range with aspherics / special glass, etc, they are soft wide open. This one isn't :)

Remember the canon lenses are much older designs. Canon's more recent lens designs are much sharper, like the 100mm macro L.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 05:26:38 AM »
He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.

..No.
Me, neither, but if they release a 24mm, as is rumored, then I might consider it.  It would have to blow away the TS-E 24mm, though.

If you shoot 55mm all day long (think fashion or advertising pros) and do huge enlargements (think fashion or advertising pros again), I think this lens would probably be worthwhile.  For the rest of us, no.

I think the target market is not pros (who would be better served by the Canon 50L as it has AF, or a medium format system if they really need the resolution), but enthusiasts with lots of money who really need the 'best lens in the world' for their holiday snaps.

7
This is a lens for more-money-than-sense enthusiasts rather than pros. It was a smart move to give it the OTT price tag as for those types of people the high cost actually makes the lens even more desirable.

8
You are aware that buying from some places will incur extra customs, handling and VAT charges? This often more than cancels out any saving.

9
DOF is subjective?  Hmm.  If my DOF is 8 feet in a photo, that is, 8 real-life feet out in the field, how in the world does that ever change after I take the photo??  8 feet is 8 feet isn't it? 

Actually, I wouldn't even need to take the photo.  The DOF is still 8 feet.  :)

Are you suggesting that by being subjective, it could be 8 feet, or 6 feet, or 10 feet, or 7.23838383 feet?  How silly.

It seems you think that based on your equipment, there's a 'slice' of the photo that's in perfect focus, say 3.8 feet in front of where you focused, and 4.2 feet behind it, then WHAM like magic at 4.3 feet behind the focal plane, everything gets blurry.  That's not how it works.

Light from the plane of focus (which is best approximated by a plane in the geometric sense - 2D and infinitely thin) is focused on the image sensor (we're ignoring field curvature, of course).  Everything outside that plane, even a few millimeters, is blurry...and the further from the focal plane, the blurrier it gets. That's optical physics.  Whether it looks blurry to you depends on viewing size and distance and your visual acuity.

Tell me - how do you know your hypothetical shot has that 'real' 8 foot DoF?  Did you use a DoF calculator?  That calculator determines the 8 foot DoF based on an assumed specific print size and viewing distance (commonly 8x10" viewed at 1 foot).  Change those assumptions, you change the calculated DoF.

This is very correct. Before one can calculate DoF, one must first define what "in focus' actually means. A 300 pixel wide web image will have much more DoF than a 20MP version of the same original shot.

In answer to the original question, full frame sensors do generally allow more control over DoF than crop sensors, this is really to do with the lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 lens will have less DoF than a 35mm 1.4 lens (which is designed to do a similar field of view on a crop sensor based camera, all other things being equal.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Anti-Aliasing Filter
« on: February 11, 2013, 06:30:31 PM »
The question is, why is the 5D III so superior to the 6D in this area? Is it processing power or something else?

Thanks,
Drew

The 5D3 sensor is precisely 3 x the horizontal resolution of 1080p video, so all they have to do is combine each nine pixels into 1.

11
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo st-e2?
« on: February 06, 2013, 07:05:39 PM »
Here's a review you might find helpful (comparison with Canon version with pros and cons). It doesn't work with the 5DC but is fine on the 5D2.

http://sarahmcdonnell.co.uk/photo-gear/yongnuo-st-e2-speedlite-transmitter-review/

12
White balance a bit cold I think.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 21, 2012, 04:30:09 AM »
It's pretty simple.

Canon add an early adopter premium at launch, this reduces gradually until around a year afterwards. Incidentally, by this time, they have also worked out any quality problems/firmware glitches with the camera.

So, if you can wait a year before buying your camera, you will get a better product at a much reduced price.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D2 for a day after 5D3 for 6 months
« on: December 19, 2012, 05:30:21 PM »
Regarding switching between servo and one-shot, what is the appeal or benefit of the one-shot mode, and the switch between the two settings ?
I have always set my bodies to servo, and when the subject is motionless it seems to work fine.
Thanks

It allows the shot to be recomposed after focussing

15
Lenses / Re: leica 1600mm
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:17:58 AM »
Wow, but let's face it. Him buying that is similar to most of us lot buying a coffee! It won't even have caused a bump in his financial statements. Wonder what he uses it for?!

Novelty's probably worn off and he just hasn't got round to eBaying it yet.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5