March 05, 2015, 11:16:05 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 - Chosenbydestiny

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17
At the amount the 7D has dropped in price currently it is definitely the best value for the money and not much more than the 60D. One small thing that I didn't see anyone mention yet is the AF manual adjustment feature that you gain with the 7D over the 60D. I'm sure the 60D can keep up a little more or less in more average sports situations but if your focus is off the entire time and you can't adjust it... You gotta go home. You can stay in the game with the 7D if your lens stops landing focus after knowing for sure that it should have, not that I'd be too paranoid about it but it's a good thing to have just in case.

The idea of overheating is very much over exaggerated.
The overheating issue is claimed to be prevalent on the 7D more than the 60D. This is speculated to be caused by the dual digic and/or the fixed screen, but I have no idea to what extend the issue has been exaggerated.
Another thing about magic lantern, is that the 60D is the only body that makes full use of every ML feature. The 7D is still in alpha... You'll have to wait quite awhile before the port is finished.
True, the 7D port is still alpha, but alpha 2 was just released a month ago and from what I understand, all of the important features work now.(ML still has to be manually loaded though).
On top of that, I think that the final release is close seeing as the ML team recently aquired a few much anticipated tools for dealing with the dual-digic (dual-digic is what makes the 7D harder to hack)
I only just saw the alpha 2 yesterday and that (plus the assumption that overheating is a non-issue until you do very intensive shoots) has helped to make my choice of the 7D.

Unlike the OP, I do both Video, Stills, Time-lapse and stop-motion, so for me, in the end, the 7D seems to be a no-brainer.

CarlTN has stated that DSLRs cannot be used for video because of overheating, hence the exaggeration. I've used a 7D as well as a main camera before and I did get the overheat warning, but that was two times in less than a year of use. If it's your only camera it might be a bit scary even to get the blinking red warning one time, I agree, but I don't agree that it's the reason why you can't do video with it all.

I cringe at using a DSLR primarily for video.  They aren't intended to shoot video all the time.  The sensors do overheat.  The diodes blow out.  Then when you sell the camera, whoever ends up with it, has a ruined sensor.  I would just use a pro video camera.  To me, buying a DSLR to use for video, is like buying a sports car and pouring ground up french fries and garbage into the gas tank, because somebody on tv did it once.

Where I work, before we upgraded to full frame, we used 3 60Ds to shoot for a nonstop 5 hours on days we worked for a particular client, 8 days a month.... When the clips hit their limit we just hit record again with no overheat issue. Almost half the time we shot outdoors. We live in a country that is hot for most of the year, and humid all the time. We did this for almost two years. Yes, we did swing the screen out and use a battery grip to help avoid overheating the main camera, but the B-roll cameras didn't have a grip and didn't overheat either. The idea of overheating is very much over exaggerated.

I'm afraid a 14-24 will be insanely expensive, let alone you'd take a 16-35 and put up an IS to that... 2000$ pew pew.

+1 and it probably won't be available until quite awhile after announcement. Hopefully the price of the 16-35 II gets affected so I can get that instead =P

EOS Bodies / Re: New Cinema Camera & Lenses for NAB 2013
« on: February 12, 2013, 10:17:35 AM »
In other words, Canon will soon have 3 dedicated cinema bodies in the market, but still no dedicated landscape / studio body?.. Yawn.  :-\ This is just another sign that they shifting away from stills, and more towards video.

How about announcing the 14-24L, or at least letting us know if there is a big MP body coming this year or the next?

Indeed. I would like a real upgrade for the 7d mk II, not just some pointless iterations and a bunch of video junk. I have a camera; therefore, I am a photographer. If I had a camcorder or cinema duhickey, I would be a videographer. Photographer implies stills. Hook up the stills!

Although Canon does make plenty of still cameras, it's not their only field. You are also, not the only person in the entire world.

It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Keep the 7D.

I'm all for that saying although in this case I see a limit to it. Because if this saying were 100% true we should all own multiple 1Dx bodies for backup on the field and some at home. In this case, the OP wants to venture into video work. There were many issues for me with my 7D for video use in the past that caused me to sell it and buy 3 60Ds eventually. What people hardly factor in to video work is size and weight for support systems. Lighter is ALWAYS better in regards to DSLR video support systems, especially if you're in the exploration stage. You'll save more money than just the transition between 7D and 60D, you'll also save on the accessories in the future. The 60D is still a more perfect video body at this point than the 7D. Why? It's the lightest and most versatile body with natively adjustable kelvin, ISO 1/3 increments, and easier aperture dialing which you can't get from the lightest weight xxxd cameras without magic lantern. Another thing about magic lantern, is that the 60D is the only body that makes full use of every ML feature. The 7D is still in alpha... You'll have to wait quite awhile before the port is finished. The 60D works great NOW. The swivel screen is very useful for video and there's no problem getting another viewfinder like zacuto's zfinder on it for video. Like other says in this thread, audio is very important. The 60D's soundboard is also still the most adaptable and if you're planning to plug a zoom h4n, rode mics, lavaliers, etc into it you'll have no issues. I know this because I shot video with three 60Ds for over a year with many different support and audio systems. The 7D tends to have issues up to now even with the latest firmware, especially with the alpha ML on it as one of my colleagues ended up trashing ML and had to go blind with no audio monitor for the rest of the event. Not cool. I'm not saying that the 7D is incapable of doing good video, but you'll sure as hell have a much easier time on the 60D. It's really the best budget cinema camera out there. Now if you're a photographer all the way, different story, keep the 7D if so. But I'd still rather have two 60Ds than one 7D for video any day.

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: February 08, 2013, 10:14:25 PM »
Here's the thing. Everyone is coming into this thread already knowing that the 5D mark III is the better overall camera. But what I'm also seeing is people who need to justify their purchases again, and that's where all the flaming starts. The truth is, the 6D is a great full frame camera to build on, but it's not that far down below the 5D mark III, especially for normal use. The uneducated folks in this forum seem to use the word "rebelized" (a term which only applies to Americans, really) a lot, and probably never even used a rebel much less a 6D to actually feel and shoot photos with them to know the difference. Another misconception I notice is the justification of the 6D sensor being incrementally better. What is unknown to both DXO and someone who hasn't shot photos with both, is that the difference is barely if not at all seen in real world results. Fact is, the 5D mark III will always produce more keepers in some specific shooting conditions, and IQ is more than just nailing one good photo. IQ is also about nailing good photos all the time. And that's the main reason why people put the 6D down, not throwing into account that the 6D in general purpose will at least do more than half of the 5D mark III's job just as good. I.e if you're a landscape or macro/portrait shooter you will very rarely need the higher AF performance and will make up for it in a big way with its more robust, low noise, full frame sensor. That said, the 6D is doing quite well picking up from where the 5D mark II left off and the 5D mark III is a very good next generation camera.

I left the canon camp due to this primarily (PITA at weddings). Hopefully they fix the 12fps af servo issue on the 1DX but I am glad I didn't wait around for a fix.

Then why are you here??? ??? ???

+1 lol

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 40D
« on: February 08, 2013, 04:01:55 AM »
7D seems closest to what you need, at least compared to the 40D. A 1D mark III is also quite good... But it'll be very close in terms of low light ISO performance, if you can get a good used copy of it I'd definitely go for it but the 7D will be the best value for the price if you need extra cash for something else. The 7D also has a higher quality screen. My 1D mark III is still my favorite body, because of how it feels when shooting, despite the difficulty of finding a replacement battery in my area...

With all due respect, you seem to be repeatedly making this point in a variety of threads, but without substantiating it.  You also don't seem to own any full frame Canon camera body according to your signature, so where is the source for your information?

Asking for sources is perfectly fine - though since this is not a scientific article, skipping them unless asked to is imho also ok. While looking for the adequate ff camera (5d2/5d3/6d) I did a lot of research and downloaded multiple raw comparisons and had a look for myself in Lightroom. What exact source are you asking for - that the 5d2 is sharpest at low iso, or that the 6d is less sharp than the 5d3? If I can I'll try to post where I got the information from, though it were a lot of articles so I'll really have to look. Not to be misunderstood: I also think the 6d iq is overall much better than the 5d2, that's why I'll buy the 6d.

Btw: I'm not a big fan of the "you don't own that gear, you can't tell anything about it" argument - while this is certainly true for saying how some gear handles over longer periods of time, your 6d probably has the same sensor as any reviewer's 6d, so I'm confident I can come to valid conclusion when evaluating other people's raw files. If reading sources would be no viably way to acquire information, scientific or journalistic work would be confronted with quite a problem.

I don't think that I ever said that you could "not tell anything about it".  I do question trying to make such a strong point that seems to contradict prevailing wisdom without more evidence to back it up...and I don't recall you ever actually quoting a source. 

I think your policy of using other people's RAW files to get a sense of the camera's ability is a good one.  I think that doing research is very smart.  But I don't think just having RAW files is going to tell you the whole story about all the potential variables at capture or give you a real sense of the operation/workflow of the camera.  I'm not looking for an argument; I look forward to hearing your thoughts once you have had a chance to use the camera for yourself.

+1 it's a completely different perspective to own the actual product. I bashed the 6D when it was announced and bought one for my wife because she needed "just" the better ISO performance. Ended up buying one for myself as well because of the compact delivery of IQ nearly identical to 5D3. For still subjects at least. It's easily a level above the 5D2 for image quality and AF which matter the most, and several other features. The weaknesses are easily outweighed. I bashed the 60D when it was announced as well, but last year we ended up buying 3 of them instead of the somewhat noisier 50D. IQ just wins in the end over other features, especially since Canon is beginning to trail behind in sensor technology. Not saying it's the only thing that matters, but if you want to make the most out of your lenses I'm sure it's a good place to start.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Focus Assist Beam Fix On The Way!!!
« on: February 06, 2013, 01:23:00 AM »
Great news for us indoor event shooters...

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS
« on: February 06, 2013, 01:19:39 AM »
I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video.  You know, because stills photography is for old timers.  Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.
I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!

You're sure everyone here is educated?  I'm not...I meant, educate yourself in, go to film school.  Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market.  And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much.  Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself.  If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two.  Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you?  Sheesh.  Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think.  Control freak much?

I'm not against a 24-70 IS.  But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well.  I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills.  If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter or my opinion.  It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length.  I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.

You don't sound relaxed at all. Anyways, DSLRs are always going to be primarily for stills. I have no idea where you got the idea where people say that the future of DSLR usage is video. What I do believe is that it's a natural progression for both the market and people who are starting out and/or transitioning from stills to video because of the more appealing starting price point, which I may add, hasn't affected the pricing of DSLRs themselves. No one has to buy a C100 to prove that they're a pro just like no one has to buy a medium format camera to prove they're above DSLR users. People are going to steal customers, but not because of the quality of their gear, and more so because of the quality of their work. It's not like back in the day when we had less gear to choose from, requiring higher budgets. We are in modern times, we should have a modern mindset. They won't release an EF 24-70 2.8 IS for just video use. I am in no way scared that they will. Even if they do, it will be up in the cinema lenses line and cost a horrendous amount of money.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 04, 2013, 09:27:04 PM »

The simple fact of the matter, though, is the 7D gives BETTER IQ than the cheapest Canon APS-C. The notion that sensor is the sole factor in IQ is fundamentally flawed, and why so many on this forum do not understand the true value an APS-C camera like the 7D. There are numerous other features offered with the 7D, not the least of which are its superior AF system and higher frame rate over the xxxD and xxD lines, that lead to better results in more cases. An increase in the number of usable outcomes is a very valuable thing, and more often than not those features are in addition to the image sensor, not solely because of the image sensor.

Let's drop the notion that sensor is the end-all, be-all of image quality. It is not. I'd offer that frame rate and AF system are critical, if not the most critical, factors in IQ for a significant amount of photographic endeavors. Pretty much anything that involves automatically locking focus on non-stationary subjects, or requires actively tracking subjects in motion, can greatly benefit from the additional features the 7D offers over the xxD and xxxD lines. I'd also be willing to bet that the keeper rate for the 7D is far higher than that from either a 60D or 650D, or any other prior version of those lines, thanks to its superior features...despite the fact that the image sensor is the same.

Iv'e always regarded the lens as the most important factor in image quality.... It doesn't matter what camera you have, you need the right lens for the job if you are going to do it well. I smile to myself when I hear someone with a 5D3 and Lglass comparing themselves to a rebel with a kit lens and saying it's the sensor that gives them the better picture.... swap lenses and see what happens...

I did a bunch of comparison shots for resolving power about two years ago between a 5D2 and a 7D.... In poor light the 5D2 was always the winner. With good light and a crappy lens, the 5D2 gave better resolving power, but with a good lens, the 7D out-resolved the 5D2.... Different tool... different strengths... different weaknesses.
If one tool did it all, Canon would only have one model.... and it would be identical to the equavelent sony, nikon, panasonic, and Olympus model.

They can't swap lenses, the rebel's kit lens is EF-S =P Aside from my smart remark, +1. A better lens does make the entire, overall image better, even more so with an L prime.

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:23:17 AM »

First, the "comparison" plamen posted IS NOT relevant or the situation I have constantly referred to, I KEEP saying FOR THE SAME FRAMED IMAGE, that means moving forwards for the 100.

Exactly what I did. The error was about 10%.

I will post some more.

Why not just try and tell me which of the four images I posted many pages ago are shot with which lens, surely that should be easy seeing as how the 135 has a "unique look"? And that is my point, yet again, it is not about comparisons, it is about the FACT that nobody can RELIABLY tell what image was shot with which lens, nobody who alludes to this "unique look" can reliably identify it, if you can't reliably identify it it isn't "unique". If the look it gives isn't unique then there needs to be a better reason to choose between the two lenses. My thought was that, bearing in mind nobody seems to be able to differentiate the lenses when used for portraits, the macro has much more flexibility. Now why is that so controversial?

You're right, to an extent. But you're wrong to an even further extent. Yes, distance, the amount of light, composition, etc play a very big factor in creating an image. But macro lenses, like other lenses have very noticeable strengths and weaknesses. In terms of image quality itself, I don't know how you can't see it. I saw it right away after borrowing a 100L and comparing it to my 135mm and 85mm lenses. Macro images look horrible for head and shoulder shots. I can even see it in full body portraits. Color wise, sharpness wise, they're over the top. Fixing it all in post is no excuse, over saturation destroys the range from the standard portrait distances. So no, nobody wants to use a bloody 100L for portraits, mostly for those reasons, and some because of AF performance and speed which is another sacrifice. If you need to get close, it's no compromise, get a macro lens. But don't tell me it's equal or better than portrait lenses.

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 03, 2013, 02:02:14 AM »
Are some of you going blind? The short answer is yes, a macro lens can be used as a portrait lens, technically. But when you're taking a photo of a person who is facing your camera, and your trying to get a natural look.... Macro lenses are horrible for that. Most of them are too sharp, oversaturate and don't render skin tones naturally. If you can't see that in the sample comparisons alone I suggest getting your eyes checked. That's why specialty lenses are designed specific ways, to excel in the areas they were designed for. Simple as that.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17