October 21, 2014, 08:54:22 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 44
Firmware is still in alpha dev for 5DIII. I've been waiting for a beta release

... the only real issue is that you cannot remove the bootflag if you've set it to enable ml, if that matters to you and you have panic Canon service seeing you're using ml.

"bootflag"... I don't even know what that means. I have an EOS-M, and might experiment with that first

Expanded Minimum Shutter Speed in Auto ISO
Exposure Compensation in Auto ISO with Manual Mode Set
EF Lens Communication
Audio Recording

Fyi: All these above features are already available with Magic Lantern for the rest of us :-) ... http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8931

Firmware is still in alpha dev for 5DIII. I've been waiting for a beta release
Getting impatient, might try the alpha

Lenses / Re: What lens do recommend?
« on: October 23, 2013, 06:09:00 PM »

Even though people do the 'math' of, 'well, it's a 1.4 crop factor times a 35mm focal length, so that's right about 50mm....', that is not accurate.  It's still the exact same distortion of a 35mm focal length.


Distortion is due to the focal distance (except for distortions due to lens design, which is mostly in ultra-wide zooms). 35mm on APS-C = 35 *1.6 FF Equiv =  56mm. Normally this would give little to no observable distortion in adult head and shoulder portraits. But for babies you have to get much closer, and distortion might be noticeable.

I have the 35 f/2 IS and it's a great lens, but if you're doing baby portraits you probably want something tighter. Most baby photographers use an 85 f/1.2 1.4 or 1.8 on a FF camera. That's pretty close to the 50 that you already have (80mm FF equiva.). Move in close to the baby and you should get nice portraits with shallow DOF. If you need tighter, go for the 85 1.8, which is sharp and shallow wide open.

"Exposure Compensation in Auto ISO with Manual Mode Set"

Great feature ...  add to 5DIII please

Canon General / Re: What's Next for Canon?
« on: October 18, 2013, 03:23:09 PM »
I can understand the M hate.

That said, I LOVE mine. Its a great purchase, primarily for its 22/f2 that has no full frame equivalent. 

Yes there is a FF equivalent ... the 35 f/2 IS ... on a 5DIII it is far superior to the EOS-M 22 f/2 combo (I have both). Not only does the 35 f/2 have IS, it generates a much shallower DOF on FF, and the 5DIII has similar IQ at ISO 6400 that the EOS-M has at ISO 800.

Interesting for sure, but where are the equally interesting lenses?

If they had a couple of really good pancakes, or even just a good 24 2.8 IS, and a 35 or 50 f/2 IS ready to go, I'd be on it like white on rice. But it's still a mirrorless waiting game for me.

The 24-105L IS is really good for general purpose video. f/4 is pretty shallow for video and the IS takes out the micro shakes in hand-held /shoulder-support work.

If I didn't do any hand-held video I'd probably sell the 24-105

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2013, 09:34:34 PM »
What could you add to the 70D to make it more video oriented?

Hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder?
Faster frame rates below 1080p?
Higher resolution (4k)?
Smooth digital video zoom from full-frame to 1:1?
Quad pixel for 4-way AF sensors on every pixel?
Some sort of power zoom lens system?

A ton! No line skipping for FAR less aliasing and moire and better SNR. Focus peaking, live 10x focus box, RAW video recording, non-mangled up compressed video/HDMI out video, zebras, zoomed modes including 1:1, 4k, etc. etc.

I know it's popular if you are a still shooter to laugh off video, but seriously why not expand your creativity to new world. 5D3 ML RAW video is pretty stunning! Some things work better as video, just as some work better as stills and many work equally as well.


Dissing video means you are afraid of the future
It's here to stay.

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2013, 03:03:42 PM »

 Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ?

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture.

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others.

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.


I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4.  I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time.  On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it  :)

f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2013, 12:49:37 PM »
I just got the 35 f/2 IS after the price drop ($550), and it's a good value at that price. Half the size and weight of the Sigma 1.4, very sharp, IS is a bonus!

I hope the new 50 comes out with IS, but I hope it is f/1.4 and sharp wide open. I'd go to $750 if it's 1.4 and sharp wide open. But perhaps $500 for 1.8

How about a new sharp 85 1.8 with IS? That would be worth $900

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:02:41 PM »

Only problem I've had is weight. Sometimes I leave it behind because I have a sore neck. My lens has been 100% reliable, and it's worth the price.

Lenses / Re: Do you usually shoot your lenses wide open?
« on: October 01, 2013, 12:05:29 AM »
Depends on lens and subject, but to generalize:

16-35 2.8L II .... usually between 5.6 and 16. Sometimes 22 for DOF, sometimes 2.8 in really low light
24- 105 .... usuall f/4 to 5.6. Occasionally 16-22 for landscape deep DOF
28 2.8 IS .... usually 2.8 - 4
40 2.8 .... hardly ever use it
50 1.4   usually f/2 ... sometimes 5.6 - 11 for incredible sharpness
70-200 2.8 IS II .... usually 2.8. Occasionally 4- 5.6 for easier in focus video

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« on: September 24, 2013, 04:39:25 PM »
I know this may have been beaten to death but im new to the forum.. Whats better 7D vs 5Diii for video? Pros vs Cons

5DIII has:

virtually no moire or aliasing. That is a huge advantage.
Excellent low light performance for both video and stills
Audio monitoring 3mm plug
Full frame makes a difference. Although 7D sensor is super 35, film cameras often will use very wide aperture lenses, equal to f/1.4 .  DOF at f/2.8 is very shallow on FF, not so much on APS-C
Audio levels can be changed while filming with 5DIII. This is important.
Although soft out of camera, the 5DIII footage can tolerate quite a lot of sharpening, and sharpens quite well in post.

However, if video is your main concern. A C100, or even C300 (almost 3x more $) is a better choice, if you want to stay in the Canon camp. Non Canon options abound: Sony FS100, FS700, but lens adapters can be a pain. Black Magic has fans too.

Personally I'm tempted by the C100, maybe if there's a price drop I can swing it. The C300 is just too much for me now.

Canon General / Re: Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:23:04 PM »
I wish they'd split it into two lenses:

24-35 f/2L IS  and
50-85 f/2L IS

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 02:34:04 PM »

You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire

Precisely.  I've posted this before: for pro and prosumer cameras I'd like to make the crop in post, or have manual crop selection on the body.  It would be a choice, like aperture.

36x36 would probably increase the camera cost quite a bit over 36x24. Would it be worth it?

The novelty of it would probably mean the cost would go up by $1000 or more. Then people would say it's a waste because you still cant get a 36x36 image, and "why don't they make lenses to cover the sensor?" etc. So, I doubt you'll see 36x36 unless there's accompanying lenses. And even then, "why not go medium format?" would be the next question.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 44