November 23, 2014, 02:54:53 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 ... 46
Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 10, 2013, 12:46:46 PM »
My wish list:

16-35 2.8L III ... sharper, and smaller, maybe even with IS for video
20 2.8 IS
50 1.4 IS
85 1.8 IS
200 2.8 IS ... 135 f/2L IS, compatible with teleconverters
100-400 4-5.6L IS
24-70 2.8 IS

and please don't gouge too much at release time.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can I choose between 1DX and 5D MARK III?
« on: November 09, 2013, 03:26:52 AM »
One question you fail to ask:

are the 5D3 and 1DX better than the current 5D2 I already own for landscapes at ISO100 and the answer is not at all and sometimes a little worse and sometimes a little better, respectively.

many a pure landscape shoot stuck with their 5D2 and are now eyeing the A7R+adapter. If you do video and general stuff and action and use AF a lot the 5D3 is a nice upgrade over the 5D2, nicer UI too (auto changing C1-C3, instant 100% review). If the non-landscape is almost all birds though, reach might be at a premium and some high reach, 8-10fps 7D2 might be a bigger upgrade than the 5D3, unless you tend to mostly shoot birds where you are really close in with the lenses you have (if all you have is a 70-200 that would be my guess never :D :D).
I upgraded to 5DIII from 5DII and I found a big improvement in IQ in every circumstance. Much bigger than the modest pixel count bump would suggest. Other's have noticed this too, pegging the improvement equivalent to a 15% improvement. It may be due to microlens improvements and/or processor improvements.
For a long time I thought it was my imagination, but then I read an explanation somewhere, can't remember where.
Anyway, the jump from 5DII to 5DIII is bigger than the specs would suggest.

Lenses / Re: I'm done part II - here are all of the lenses I've sold
« on: November 08, 2013, 11:23:24 PM »
I'll play too:

Canon 28-105 3.5-4-5 USM -Sold because it lacked IS. Wasn't a bad lens for the price though. Really compact.
Canon 70-300 non-USM - old lens, kind of crappy
Canon 85 1.8 - Sometimes miss it now, may buy another one
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM - Really sharp lens, great IS, fast focus, but really cheap feel, manual focus and zoom not smooth. Bought it for $850, sold it for $950 when I moved to Full frame
Canon 55-250 IS ... Came in a kit with a 60D. Took a couple of shots in the living room before selling it. No use for it. Cost $60 with the kit, sold for $190 on eBay, maybe a little more, can't remember.
Canon 18-55 IS ... Came in a kit with 60D. no use for it, sold on eBay Don't think I took a shot with it.
Selling the two kit lenses reduced the price of the 60D over buying body alone.
Sigma super-zoom ... older one, can't remember the details, but was pretty crappy

Lenses I might sell:

Canon 28 2.8 IS ... very nice lens, rarely used,  I think I would get more use out of the 24 mm version
Canon 40 mm 2.8 pancake ... almost never use it
Canon 50 1.4 ... if an update with IS becomes available
2x teleconverter III ... don't use it much, think I'd get more use out of the 1.4x
Canon 16-35L 2.8 II - if a really good 14-24 comes out, but probably not, this is my most used lens
Canon 24-105 f/4L IS- If Canon comes out with a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. I really like IS for video
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II - Only if I totally give up on Canon full frame (when I am too old to lift this lens? But will probably give it to my son if he stays with Canon)

My comment is redundant but :

... Holy pile of buck$$$, batman!

And for what it's worth, I'm happy in principle that Canon are offering this upgrade.

I'm not happy that a serious video camera like the C100 has AF at all.  Leave the trinkets for the muppets.

AF has no place on a serious video camera.

Some photographers used to say the exact same thing when AF was first introduced to stills cameras....

... Thank-god the innovators ignored them!

Yes, thank god.  AF is great on my stills cameras.

May I draw your attention to the distinction I made, and that was 'serious' video cameras.

Stills AF works really well because you only show one single frame.  Video is contiguous.  Every frame has to be in focus, or the sequence is binned.  Add in moving subject to camera distance etc and AF, particularly AF hunting is just a killer.

AF is great, really is, for stills, for hobby video, family video, super.

I'm making a clear distinction here.  I'm not talking about those guys.  Those aren't the guys the C100 etc should be trying to please.  Those guys don't manually WB.  Those guys don't understand why you always need ND filters in your kit bag for video.  Those guys don't understand f-drop. 

I know how well car analogies go down here, so it's like putting an autobox in a, hmmm, jaguar xk120.  Except that cameras aren't british racing green,  and you cant change the tyre on a c100.

You completely miss the point of the C100 ... it is a run and gun, news-gathering, documentary tool ... mostly for one-man bands, or very light crew. 

Have you ever tried to interview someone while operating the camera and focussing?  It is extremely difficult, and you risk not paying sufficient attention to the subject, and therefore not getting the best footage.

Sure if you are always working on a set, or you always have a dedicated cameraman for every shot.

BTW .. Formula 1 cars have used semi-automatic transmissions for quite a long time.

AF has no place on a serious video camera.

"Just don't use it. Just ignore it. Just put up with it. And no, it won't be cheaper without AF." 
same as video on each and every stills camera.

Haha, yes.  Very good.

The pedant in me would point out that video adds virtually no cost to a live-view enabled DSLR, wheras adding AF to a video camera body requires extra components.  The C-Series must be one of the first professional camcorders to have in body AF.

At a professional level, which is where these cameras are pitched, AF is not required.   It really isn't.  I've chucked folk off my sets for using AF on hdv cameras. 

For shooting crappy family videos, AF makes them a bit less crappy.  If you know how to manually focus video and have a well set up video camera, then AF really is absolutely superflous.

The C100 is aimed at documentary, news, run and gun. Often done by one man band, operating camera while interviewing a subject. As some have pointed out, this can help the videographer concentrate on the interview even while the subject wiggles all over town, instead of having to split attention to keep the subject in focus.

A tool is a tool. If it helps get a better result, then it's a good tool.

And for what it's worth, I'm happy in principle that Canon are offering this upgrade.

I'm not happy that a serious video camera like the C100 has AF at all.  Leave the trinkets for the muppets.

AF has no place on a serious video camera.

Some photographers used to say the exact same thing when AF was first introduced to stills cameras....

... Thank-god the innovators ignored them!

is this news real or just some joke?

HOW can the C100 be upgraded to dual-pixel AF without putting in a new sensor and (some) new electronics and new firmware?

Even if they used a 50mm 1.8 this should'nt be a problem. I think no one using a C100 or higher uses the built-in mic. Does the C100 even have a built-in microphone? Same goes for the 70D, als long as you use external audio, no lens could be loud enough to appear on your auidotrack.

The C100 does have a mic built into the handle, and it is apparently very good. Some doc makers use it when the subject is quite close to the camera. see Jonah Kessel at

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 05:06:23 PM »
If I were a Nikon afficionado, for the same price, why would I buy a Df over a D800?

Exactly what I was wondering. For $250 more, I'd rather buy a D800. Small, mirrorless bodies still aren't for me, but if I was in the market for one of these gizmos, I can't see any reason to buy a Df over a Sony A7R. With the Sony, you get a far better sensor, and more importantly, you can adapt it to work with Canon glass.

+1  ... Sony A7R ... I'm not a high MP user or landscape specialist, but this camera looks cool! and only 407g. It is begging for good lens options.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 12:48:53 PM »

Oh sheet, thats what I wear when riding my fixed gear.
Er, "fixie", a newbie, Hipster term I just can't absorb. Maybe, If I ever convert my Mixte to fixed gear, I might call that "fixte".

Do you also wear slightly to moderately oversized glasses?  And buy new releases on vinyl?
Nope. Ray Ban Aviators, they are set of nicely by my silver beard.
Nope again, sold off vinyl when it was only just old, not yet ancient. I do miss setting up tone arms though. I miss changing film rolls too, but I don't miss having to change film rolls.

You're not much older than me. But the only thing I miss from the days of my youth, is my youth.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:58:27 AM »
As a hybrid shooter, I am a little bias. But WHY would nikon make this camera have no video feature? The fact that it is missing video is what makes nikon, and ANY camera manufacturer lose my business and respect. At that point they are not trying to make the best camera they can, or push the market. They are just creating a gimic-ish product that WILL sell, because most people, don't know any better.

They may be responding to that small percentage of buyers who feel put-out, insulted, or diminished by the rise of video and the relative retreat of photography (especially in the pro arena). Some of these photogs resent  that their camera has a feature that costs them nothing extra, weighs nothing, and is easily ignored, but that other photogs embrace with success and enthusiasm.

I would not buy a camera today that lacks video, in fact I have the 5DIII because it is the best overall photo/video camera I could afford. I still love photography, but I am learning video as quickly as I can. But I', not particularly brand loyal. I am watching Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, and even Nikon ... but the sum of all strengths and weaknesses still keeps me in the Canon camp.

I am seriously hoping that Canon has a response to the Sony A7 series, that sony puts the RX10 in a true video body, that Canon makes an XA20 type camera with APS-C, that the C100 gets 60p, h.264, and a price drop, that my 5D3 gets focus peaking by firmware ,  .... the list goes on, but you get the picture

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:43:05 AM »
This reeks of desperation.

Every day I enjoy my 5D3 more than ever.

"Every day I enjoy my 5D3 more than ever."   I was thinking the exact same thing last weekend.

BTW ... with this Nikon DF, compared to the new Sony A7 and A7R, ... I think we are leaving the Canikon era and entering the era of SonyCan !

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:38:27 AM »
Anyone else think that thing looks hideous?

Yes, It's definitely not for me.

On the other hand, the new Sony A7 and A7R look awesome

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L $1259 at B&H Photo
« on: November 02, 2013, 12:11:22 PM »
The 24 1.4L at $1259 would interest me

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Sports Line Updates Next? [CR1]
« on: October 30, 2013, 03:02:26 PM »
Sigma is going from Stygma to Serious. Every photographer is watching them now.

I haven't pulled the trigger on any of their gear yet, but i am certainly happy about what they are doing. It seems only a matter of time before I own one or two Sigma lenses.

The first one will probably be the 18-35 f/1.8 . I am hoping to get a C100 if the prices ease up a bit more, and this lens is the only one of it's kind, it should be spectacular on the C100.

I must confess that after the price drop, I opted for the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, because IS is great for hand-held video, and it is half the size and weight of the Sigma. I love the Canon 35! I probably would have loved the sigma too, but I wanted the light weight and IS. The IQ on the Canon is great too!

 :-\ I have a terminal case of "Lens-Lust"   8)

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 46