Messages

1231

Lenses / Re: 14mm + 24-70mm or 16-35mm?

« on: December 25, 2011, 07:47:56 PM »

I just got the 14 and I am trying to sell my 16-35. I also have the 24-105 and don't think I am going to miss the 15-24 range at all. The 14 is great! Like Axilrod I used the 16-35 at the 16 end 90% of the time.

Yeah I think I'm going to get the 24 1.4 II or Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 in place of the 16-35, then I would have 14,24L,35L,50L,85L,135L which is like my dream set.  Kinda wish I hadn't sold the 100L Macro, but that Zeiss 100mm Macro is incredible (I think its the only Zeiss ZE lens with optics from the Master Primes).

1232

Lenses / Re: So what kinda gear did Santa bring you this year?

« on: December 25, 2011, 07:44:09 PM »

A 24-105 which completes my zooms (at least for some time)--I must have been good this year.      However, the lens is defective--hmm, maybe I wasn't so good.     There is large piece of dust or air bubble in one of the elements.  Even though I've read multiple times on this site that dust and these minor defects do not effect IQ,  the lens is going back for a replacement.  I'm not paying L money for a defective or QC problem lens. 

Now time to work on primes

I'm pretty sure I was told that the tiny bubbles are a sign of quality glass, I'm pretty sure a few of mine have them and they work beautifully.

1233

Lenses / Re: Prime Lenses

« on: December 25, 2011, 02:02:29 PM »

I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question.  I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4.  I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D.  I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses.  Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another.  I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.

Nobody misunderstood anything, you left that information out completely.  There wasnt any mention of you owning any gear in your first post.  The information you gave would lead most to believe that youre new to photography and tryin to pick some lenses.  It just seems like someone that already owned a 24-70, 70-200 ii, and 50 1.4 wouldnt be asking such basic questions....

1234

Lenses / So what kinda gear did Santa bring you this year?

« on: December 25, 2011, 01:52:39 PM »

I had a good year, so I spoiled myself a bit:
14mm f/2.8L II
27" iMac 3.1, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD 6gb/s
1TB Lacie Thunderbolt drive
Dynamic Perception motorized dolly

I highly recommend that anyone with a 2010 or 2011 imac do Other World Computing's imac turnkey program.  Solid states make such an insane difference i cant even describe it, but i guarantee it will speed up your workflow tremendously.  Happy holidays

1235

Lenses / Re: 14mm + 24-70mm or 16-35mm?

« on: December 25, 2011, 01:44:40 PM »

Ive had a few 24-)70s and i have the 14mm and 16-35 currently.  As much as i love the 16-35 i really only own it for the wide end, i just got the 14mm so ill probably get rid of the 16-35.  The 14mm is much sharper and the colors are beautiful.   Its weird but the 16-35 seems to produce more saturated images than other lenses with the same settings. 

I think youll be best off with the 14 and the 24-70.  I just know the 24-70 is a great walkaround lens and youll use it more than the 16-35, and if you do want to go ultra wide youll have the 14.

1236

EOS Bodies / Re: "In Development" Canon Cinema EOS 4K DSLR

« on: December 24, 2011, 11:31:42 AM »

It sounds exciting and my group needs 4k solution but I will not be paying the *Canon premium. I get the feeling a lot of the pros feel the same. What is the target audience for this?

*Rip off

How is it a rip off / likely to be a rip off? because the C 300 is rumored to be $16k? and that's a rip off because the Red Scarlet package is $14k and offers 4K for 24/25fps? And I assume Alexa is a rip off because it is $60k and only offers 1080p, yes? same with F3, as with SLOG it sits closer to $18k (just for the body) and still only offers 1080p.

And yet, all of this aside, Cameras for film-making have never been cheaper than they are now. Not long ago were these tools well into the 6 figure range, and you're going to compare the cost of a Red Scarlet with Canon, claiming a ridiculous price point when Canon and Nikon revolutionized the film-making market by giving DSLRs fantastic video functionality, and keeping them under $6 grand. Why is a scarlet not considered a rip off when a 5dmkII is $2k? Well, because the scarlet is considered a better camera for quality and functionality. Well, why is a Nikon D3s twice as much as the 5dmkII? It's certainly not a better camera... but, its just another camera for another price. why is the Alexa not widely recognized as a rip off since scarlet offers so much more and is 1/4th as much? well, because Alexa is a brand name people value and trust more, and associate with being a better camera in terms of performance. However, is Alexa actually a better camera than Red? Or are you more willing to complain about the 2000 dollar up charge on a less impressive Canon product?

In the mist of this, through all tests and battles, the Alexa - the most expensive of the bunch - still comes out on top, heralded as the best camera for film / cinematic use. Furthermore, movies aren't even being projected in 4k publicly yet, so I find it difficult to understand how someone "needs" 4k to make a movie, when ultimately it will be scaled down for 1080p. Sure, it'll look great, but so far i haven't seen the public complain too much about the clarity in the movies they've been watching for the past 20 years. Buy what works for you from a company you trust and value. Enough people have complained about the functionality issues of the EPICs, but what can you expect with a new company making efforts to jump into advanced technological territory? Can you blame them? Afterall, if the Scarlet malfunctions on you during a scene, you can remind yourself and your crew that it was cheaper than the c300 and f3.

I'm not defending the power of the c300. As it stands, i'm not terribly interested in owning one. The Scarlet is a fantastic option too, but i'm not really interested in owning one either. Personally, I'd rather spend more and get the F3, because I know I'll have a sufficient product that will function well and produce a beautiful image. I'll also know that, should it have issues, I have multiple outlets to go to for repair or consultation.

Either way, at the end of the day, we have technology at our fingertips that are producing ground-breaking imagery for a fraction of the cost.. and believe it or not, they're all priced in a relatively similar gamut.

I personally doubt this DSLR, while offering 4k, will be more expensive than the c300 - as it still stands to be in the DSLR form factor and not it's own body type. but even if it is, let's say $10k, would that still be a rip off? It's cheaper than Scarlet.. but, will it produce a better image than scarlet?

Red certainly raised the stakes, and I absolutely respect the company for it. I applaud them. But do i think they set the bar for price standards and should-be's? Not at all. As a company, while they offer some serious product, they haven't earned the trust and value that consumers share in Canon or Nikon or Arri or Panavision or Sony as a whole. As a new freelance designer, photographer, or cinematographer.. even if you are capable of providing a more promising and impressive product than the renowned individuals in your field, do you deserve to set the bar for their rates? If you charge $20 an hour, while they charge $200 an hour for a less advanced or interesting result, are they now a widely recognized rip off? You'll certainly be the reason their prices come down as you grow in popularity.. but you'll have to earn that trust and respect of the many before you can stand at their competitive height. Your price often reflects your portfolio, client list, affiliations, and reputation. In time we'll see even more competitive pricing for similar product, but until then - gripe not with the cost of a product, but rather marvel at what we have access to for the general price points they exist.. and be happy you can be competitively creative like those you admire for a fraction of what it used to cost them.

I agree with what you're saying completely.  I think that the 4k DSLR will be $3k-$5k and will be the big seller for Canon and the answer for video people waiting on the 5D Mark III.  I think the 5DIII will be more stills oriented (as the 5DII was really, it just gradually turned into a video camera). 

1237

EOS Bodies / Re: Quick question about 5D mark II

« on: December 23, 2011, 03:56:59 PM »

Don't worry about it dude, the mirror is much larger and does make a lot more sound.  There are always going to be differences between professional and consumer cameras, so unless the pictures are coming out looking like crap or something looks way out of whack, youre fine.

1238

Lenses / Re: Deal on Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Wide Angle Lens - U.S.A. Warranty at Adoram

« on: December 21, 2011, 04:51:05 PM »

Got this guy in mint condition for $1100 yesterday : )

Congratulations - I've been looking for a few months now and haven't found anything I wanted to take a chance on. Do you think you will still use your 16-35? I have that too and am thinking about selling it to help pay for the new 14.

I don't know, the 16-35 is a damn versatile lens and the last of the zooms I've owned (70-200 f/2.8 IS, 24-70).  14mm is definitely super wide and I feel like in some situations it may be nice to still have 16-24mm covered.  But at the same time the 14mm is much sharper than the 16-35 (at the wide end).  More than likely I'll end up selling the 16-35mm and get the 24L II or the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 to fill the gap. 

1239

Lenses / Re: New lenses for me

« on: December 21, 2011, 04:43:50 PM »

Ive been reading here for a while and there is a lot of good advice that I have read, thus I want more!  I know most of you peeps shoot with mostly L glass, so my desires below might be a little low end but as a broke college kid i can only afford so much.  I have and XSi, 18-55 kit lens, nifty fifty (been having a lot of fun with this in low light) and some tamron superzoom that has less contrast than a fog bank.  I will not be a pro, just a someone who likes to shoot stuff and has another 30 years to get the perfect kit together.

Here is the deal, Ive been saving up for a while for a 70-200 f/4L IS, as I convinced myself that I needed it more than oxygen and was going to finally pull the trigger.  Wicked lens I know and sharp like a fox is quick.  Then I thought about how that lens would probably get used roughly 10-20% of the time.  I also want the EF-S 15-85 (I want the expanded range over the 17-55 fast apature for a walk around lens and cant justify the price for a 17-55) and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 or Canon 35 f/2 (an appropriate length on a crop rather than the nifty, and still the low light/DOF that I am having fun playing around with).

I bought a 70-200 f/4L NON-IS at my local camera shop (I have since learned that this shop is less than decent) and returned it a week after because I wasn't happy with the sharpness.  When I returned it, the guy processing the transaction laughed and said that THAT lens has been returned a number of times for the same reason so I am not sure that I want to completely write off the non-IS version.

I also know that I will get a new body within the next 2 years (I want higher than 800 useable ISO and better AF, dont care about higher MP), thinking whatever replaces the 7D or 60D and maybe whatever the low end full frame is out at the time.  With the FF, I know that the 15-85 and Sigma will be incompatible and am not opposed to selling them later down the line.

Here is what I can't decide: get the 70-200 f/4 IS and only have mediocre everything else, or get 2 of the others (70-200 f/4 non-IS, 15-85 or fast-ish prime) and have a more complete/quality range knowing I will probably get the 70-200 IS down the line.

I'm leaning toward the 70-200 non-IS and the Sigma 30 f/1.4.  I know the 15-85 would get more use than the 30 f/1.4 but would not let me learn DOF and low light as much.  I'm also thinking that the 30 f/1.4 would change my mind about the 17-55 or maybe twist my arm into a 24-70L.

I'm just not sure what to get but know that I want more than the kit lens.  Go forth and tell me how to spend my money!

With a APSC sensor I don't think you'll get as much use out of the 70-200 as you would the others.  All of the 70-200s are great, but I think you would get much more use out of the 17-55 or 15-85.  And although I've never used the 15-85, I LOVED the 17-55 (there is a reason its that much more %).  IS works very well, f/2.8 all the way through, and razor sharp (I thought it was easily sharper than the 24-70L and definitely the best non-L lens that I've used).
 
I would seriously consider looking for a used 17-55, it's a great walk around lens ands very versatile.  You could probably find one for $850-$900 used, I would recommend at least renting it for a bit before you buy the 15-85. 

As for the Sigma, I used the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 back when I had a T2i and it was a nice focal length, but wasn't sharp at all and the colors looked strange.  If you're looking for primes maybe try the 100mm Macro (non-L), as you can use it for portraits or close-up photography.  Or maybe a used 85mm f/1.8 (300-350 used). 

I'm not saying don't get a 70-200, I just think you would get much more use out of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (and you could always get a 70-200 later).

1240

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 21, 2011, 04:35:41 PM »

What if next 5d would have interchangeable sensors?
I don't think it's not possible from technical point of view. You can change a processor in a computer or put more memory. Some kind of transport and microadjustment would allow to avoid not proper embedding.
From marketing point of view - wouldn't you like to have a body with a choice of having ie 18MP 51200 ISO or 36MP 12800ISO?
What if they would also allow change (or add another) signal processor? 3 types of AF board?
Let's say 800$ sensor, 500$ - digic.

With some restrictions this idea wouldn't canibalize 1dx. You could for instance build a body of same capabilities but higher price summing all parts' prices than 1dx itself.

Red is going some simpler way with it's skeleton (they don't allow to change sensors but why not?)
What do you think?

I'm almost certain I read that one of the advantages of the RED Scarlet was the fact that it was "future proof" since you could upgrade the sensor later on....

1241

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you shoot video with your DSLR?

« on: December 21, 2011, 11:32:06 AM »

90% video/10% stills - I shoot live music all over the country usually the setup is:
5DII with 14L or 16-35L II as static cam
5DII with 85L or 135L on fluid head
7D with 35L or 50L on Shoulder rig
+$60k worth of audio gear = Pretty awesome quality
As much of a pain in the ass as these things can be to shoot with, the results speak for themselves.

1242

Lenses / Re: Deal on Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Wide Angle Lens - U.S.A. Warranty at Adoram

« on: December 20, 2011, 06:54:12 PM »

Got this guy in mint condition for $1100 yesterday : )

1243

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm and 100mm lenses with impurities

« on: December 20, 2011, 06:53:48 PM »

He may be talking about some of the tiny bubbles that you see in the glass?
I think thats actually a sign of quality glass...
How do the pictures look?  If good, don't worry about it. 

The likelihood that you ended up with 2 different bad L lenses in the same order is slim to none.

1244

Lenses / Re: Prime Lenses

« on: December 20, 2011, 06:49:51 PM »

Of the primes you mentioned, i have some concern with the 50/1.2 with the things i've read.
The 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 is often compared and i'm not sure if i would go with the 50/1.2L for what you get with the price.
I definitely would go with the 24/1.4, 85/1.2 and 100/2.8IS Macro II. I'd have to looking into the 35/1.4 and others.

I love my 50mm, sure the AF is a little slow (but not as bad as the 85L II) but when you "get the shot" damn does it look good.  A lot of people say its inconsistent, but I suspect this may have more to do with the super short hyper focal length...if the subject moves even an inch it can throw off the focus.

1245

Lenses / Re: Prime Lenses

« on: December 20, 2011, 06:42:47 PM »

I would seriously recommend not buying more than a couple lenses when you are just starting.  I went crazy and ended up with like 11 or 12 different lenses and all it did was make things harder.  I gradually narrowed them down to what's left in my signature.  But you have to take the time to learn each lens and its quirks, and sometimes having too many choices just makes things harder. 

You will be happy with any of the previously mentioned lenses, but it doesnt really make sense to buy one of the three you mentioned if its going to be your only lens.  But if you have to have one, I'd go for the 35L, like they said its pretty versatile on APS-C (7D, 60D) and FF sensors (5DII, 1Ds3). 

I also agree with the other poster about photography classes, as it does kind of sound like you know more about the equipment than photography itself.