December 23, 2014, 12:24:16 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 272
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: More Analysis of the C100
« on: August 29, 2012, 02:42:10 PM »
"...the major compromise is the codec which is now AVCHD at 24Mbit 4-2-0."

And the codec that they didn't use, presumably because it was too expensive, is used in the Canon XF100, which costs $3000 but does 4-2-2.

The Canon marketing people are trying to be a little too clever for their own good. Basically, the C100, C300 and C500 are all about double the price they should be. Doesn't Canon realize that they have competition?

They do realize they have competition. Sadly they think it all comes from various divisions within Canon only!
Look at how many little basics they crippled out of the 5D3. So instead of it continuing the revolution, getting mad praise, flying off the shelves like crazy to film people, and cementing themselves as the leaders in the market and making themselves hard to over thrown, they play stupid little games with internal market segmentation plus get greedy. What a waste.

EOS Bodies / Re: Any 5d vs 1dx low iso comparisons?
« on: August 28, 2012, 02:59:26 AM »
Like title says, any low iso comparisons? Like side by side same image with both cameras? I've seen some comparisons in videos, but its hard to really appreciate quality in a youtube vid. I'm trying to decide if I should start lusting after the 1dx, or just be happy with my 5d3. I've always liked the idea of the 1d body style and durability, but i need some more info. Does the 1dx have more DR at iso 100? Is the banding any better?

no i haven't, although i did look at black frames a bit to measure read noise and to look at the banding patterns

the 1DX has a little bit less read noise, bit not a big deal less than the 5D3

it has a fair amount less banding, but still a bit more than the 40D or 1Ds3 (it has a bit more horizontal than the 5D3 which has none of that, but definitely less vertical which the 5D3 has quite a lot of, although the 1DX still has some; 1Ds3 has a little bit of horizontal but basically no vertical, now if they could only combine the 5D3 and 1Ds3 they'd be set for banding  ;D although the read noise would still be way higher than exmor sensors or even the best non-exmor sensor in that regard, the one in the D4)

I'd say it has somewhat more usable low ISO DR but it's not a huge amount more like say a D4 or D800 or the like would offer, so yeah it would handle pushing around somewhat better than a 5D3 most likely, but not OMG! so by any means I wouldn't think, better in a noticeable but modest sense most likely.

Some of the Nikon are like 2-3.5 stops better than the 5D3, the 1DX is probably, at best, 1 stop better usable and perhaps only 1/2 stop so (ignoring banding, it is definitely not more than 1/2 stop better).

1Ds3 still probably has the best ISO100 by a smidge over the 1DX when it comes to Canon DSLR is my best guess

Lenses / Re: 100mm f2.8 HIS Macro question!
« on: August 28, 2012, 02:52:54 AM »
Just a question for owner's of this lens - I just got mine today from BHphoto and I noticed that the HIS system sounds kinda odd. Maybe I'm just not used to it - as most lenses I've owned haven't had IS/HIS - so it's just a new sound but it just seemed weird.

Turned it off too to make sure it wasn't the af system or anything else and it's only present when HIS is enabled.


i have to say it has let out some hideous noises at times, not so much lately though (hope it is still working as well as when it was noisy, sometimes I almost feel like not)

it was especially prone to horrible noises if you went to restart it before it finishing spooling down from the last shot

Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4 II vs new 24mm F/2.8 IS
« on: August 28, 2012, 02:50:06 AM »
So anyone actually owned both and compared them at f/4-f/10, for more landscape type apertures on a FF?

The 24 1.4 II, I know from personal experience, is totally crisp to the edges well stopped down on a 5D2 while say a 24-105L simply is not (the whole all lenses are the same at f/8 is an absolute, utter myth), so what about the new 24 2.8 IS??

I suppose the upcoming 24-70 II might be more flexible than either though.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 27, 2012, 09:24:49 PM »

There's A LOT of new cameras coming out promising way better video than the current DSLRs. Canon has been holding off on video improvements for over 3 years now, and if it weren't for the competition they'd milk it for as long as they could, but now they might feel forced to step up pretty soon.

The thing is they should be charging ahead. Now instead of having the market cornered they will just be barely hanging on or following. They are way too conservative, slow, internal segment and milking oriented though.

I bought two lenses and I prefer to take most of my shots near or on the mythical sweetspot in regards to aperture.  With the presumption of sufficient light, for my 50mm f/1.4 I try to stay between 2.8 and 4.0.  For my 24-105mm f/4 I make an effort to approach f/8, but that isn't always an option.

So that raises the aforementioned question.  What aperture range is the 100mm and the 70-200 the sharpest?  And don't hesitate to tell me that I was wrong about the 50 and 24-105... if indeed I'm way off.

Thanks a bunch.

Pretty much all of my lenses are sharpest around f/8.  That doesn't mean that lenses aren't sharp at other apertures.  That's just where they are sharpest.

you must have a bunch of very weird copies then

EOS Bodies / Re: No DXO results on 1DX until at least September...?
« on: August 25, 2012, 02:36:04 AM »
Hey, what's wrong with pissed aussie rowers?
(although technically, I gave up rowing at the end of highschool, a few months before I started uni and started drinking instead, so I was never both at once...)

One of my uni mates is in the Quad Sculls in a few hours, hope they kick your UK butts...

I have never seen a rower who doesn't drink.  You sound like a first.

Mostly, they are just drunks with a rowing problem.

actually i knew one who didn't drink his entire first year

EOS Bodies / Re: No DXO results on 1DX until at least September...?
« on: August 25, 2012, 02:34:30 AM »
It's more like, how is DxOMark going to spin the fact that someones noticed that DxOMark can't fully decode the CR2 file and has rated every Canon dSLR at the same DR (screen) since 2003.

not that man never landed on the moon stuff again....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D C Available?
« on: August 24, 2012, 01:29:52 PM »
would like to see the outcome of this camera!
you reckon cinema ppl will use this?

Yes, but mostly as a B cam in the cinema world and for low-budget productions.  Shane Hurlbut shot a short with it and loved it, had a lot of good things to say:

It does very well in low light, resolution looks great, and it shoots 4K onto CF cards for crying out loud.  I thought the footage on Vimeo looked better than the footage straight out of a 5DIII/1DX, even with Vimeo's crap encoding that creates artifacts and messes with the color. 

One thing I can't believe is that they are actually running with the $15k price.  I heard it may actually debut at $12k (kind of like the C300 was announced at $20k but debuted at $16k).  But I mean seriously what hardware on this thing is any different from the 1DX?  I know it has all the same still features, but I want to know what physical changes they made for this to shoot 4K or if it's just a $7k firmware update.  They said the price was due to "development costs," but they could have sold a hell of alot of these if they had priced it at $8k.

Yeah it's dumb. The video division probably wants protection.
Canon could've continued taking over the mini-cam end of things and had market domination sustained into the future, instead they went into stupid internal segmentation and protection modes and decided they had to go for huge margin per body and IMO are gonna let it largely slip all away from them. They will still get some sales to be sure but they will very much just one among many, at best.
Look at the simple basics they cut out of the 5D3 just for protection. So short sighted.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Chuck westfall on the sharpness of the 5dm3
« on: August 22, 2012, 06:18:12 PM »
As for his talk about no open apps and such (which I said I thought might likely more than pay for any extra customer support needed due to increased sales if they got there ahead of the curve) well....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 22, 2012, 05:49:08 PM »
Nikon fanboys dislike this news  ;D

why?? I'd rather 36MP a tons of DR than 46MP and old school DR. I'd rather options for 5 and 6fps than stuck at 3.7fps no matter what.  I'd rather a 5D3 or D800 than these potential specs.

You've made reference to poor DR in two posts now, regarding a possible 3DX sensor's performance.  First, a huge caveat - we're all arguing about a presently fictitious/rumored camera body - so claiming the status quo will remain, or that Canon will make some giant leap is in the realm of pure speculation.  That said, I'm going to speculate...  :)

The key thing I draw from the "leaked specs" is the point about it having improved heat dissipation for "industry leading low ISO performance."  This is supported by the leaked specs capping ISO at 6400, with ISO 50 being native, expandable to ISO 25.  As a result, I would anticipate significantly improved noise and DR over existing sensors.  Otherwise, Canon would be dead in the water with a 46 MP camera that is essentially a 5D3 with double the resolution.  Not much to gain there, and no one would dump the money on it.  But hammer home some sick new low ISO performance, and it could be a hot item.  I think this will be an offering on an entirely new level ... something we haven't seen yet from Canon.

As I've stated before, I just hope it's real.

OOPS my bad, I was so used to Canon being behind at low ISO and doing very well at high ISO that I read the 'specs' too quickly and thought it said industry leading HIGH ISO but you are entirely correct about everything. I agree with all you say above.

Well, first off these specs are probably just from some random person making stuff up, but whatever, yeah between ISO50 standard and "industry leading low ISO" and all you are correct, if we take the rumor at heart at does hint at superb low ISO so ignore all my posts above, oops.

If it had industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP that WOULD be a total landscape and studio beast!  ;D
In that case the 3.7fps for FF mode wouldn't be so bad at this point in time.

Once again ignore my series of dumb posts earlier in the thread. :D

(Although it would still be awesome if Canon gave it a crop mode at more fps, ala D800, because then it could be a total wildlife shooting camera beast as well as just a landscape/studio beast.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 22, 2012, 03:19:05 PM »
  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be.
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore.
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed.
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.

I've never used MF (well not in digital) or even looked at any test data from them but they might be using very tight color filters, perhaps, that make them less color-blind so they can distinguish more subtle shading differences in color and may have better DR at low ISO.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 22, 2012, 02:32:47 PM »
Being CR1, this is just someone's fantasy camera.  It has no more credibility than any of us just randomly emailing the CR guy with what we'd like to see in a big megapixel camera.  With the 1DX, 5DIII, T4i, and mirror less I just don't see another body being released so soon. 

There were tons of CR2's for months prior to all the previously mentioned cameras and not one for this camera, we would have heard something by now if there was a camera this big on the immediate horizon.

true enough, surely someone is sitting somewhere laughing at the 9, 10, 30, 100 pages being written on his random rumor submission.  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 22, 2012, 02:28:30 PM »
However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Not if it has the same old DR (i.e. not close to low ISO Nikon or MF), much slower fps, no chance for magic lantern, costs a lot more. You'd get better reach and detail but give up a lot since Canon won't give it cropped modes with speed or stay at a more reasonable 36MP to keep some speed and doesn't seem to have the sensor tech to deliver top quality low ISO pixels. I'd rather keep the 5D3 and wait for a 5D4 or D900 myself.
Of course, who knows, maybe they finally spring their miracle new sensor with this or it does have fast crops modes or better fps (46MP dual digic should go 4.7fps not 3.7fps and it could hit 6fps if they cut MP down a little).

EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast!  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 22, 2012, 02:25:12 PM »
So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800.  If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.

 If this is supposed to compete with medium format cameras a price between 3000$ and 6000$ is not a bad idea.

So you would pay thousands more to get from 36MP to 46MP while giving up the high DR at low ISO of a D800?

EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast!  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 272