October 25, 2014, 07:33:36 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 - Axilrod

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 92
1321
EOS Bodies / Re: T2i vs. 60D vs. 5dMKII
« on: November 29, 2011, 12:15:57 PM »
I think the T2i was a great camera when it came out, but as cheap as the 60D has gotten it seems like a better solution.  I don't think the 5D needs to be in this comparison, it's 4x more than a T2i and at least 2x more than a 60D.   
The 60D is somewhat newer, has more control options, and the swivel screen helps.  I just know out of the 7D/T2i/60D the T2i's menu feels the most consumer-ish.  Don't get me wrong I loved my T2i, image quality was great, amazing bang for the buck, etc., but I could never go back after using the 5D this long.

The thing that kills me the most about the T2i is the ISO increments (100,200,400,800,1600) with no 1/3 stop increments.  Sure you can get Magic Lantern firmware or whatever, but not everyone wants to put third party software on their camera.

1322

WWW.LYNDA.COM

$25 per month and you can watch all the tutorials you want on photoshop CS5, Lightroom 3, and any other program that has anything to do with photography.

It's a great site.

Personally I like the tutorials that Chris Orwig puts together there.  He has beginner and advanced tutorials for Photoshop.  Both are about 14 hours long and he goes through the whole program and all the tools. 

His Lightroom 3 tutorial is about 12 hours long and covers absolutely everything you would want to know about the program. 

The best thing?  You can cancel the membership after a month if you finish the tutorials and subscribe at a later time to learn about something else or refresh a program you haven't used in a while.  $25 for this service is a steal and well worth it.  I recommend you give it a try before you spend $650 for a 6 hour course.

+1 for Lynda, I've learned so much from that site it's not even funny.  It's broken down really well, and you could use it for 2 years for $650.  It's all very visual and all of the tutorials are high quality.  They have courses on everything from actual photography to pretty much every single CS5 app, as well as highly complex 3D applications and whatnot. 
Try out the Lightroom course on Lynda, and if you still feel the need to take the class after that, go for it.  But to hell with $650 for ONE day...regardless of how good the course is, you can only take in so much in that amount of time. 

Cliffnotes: $650/1 day course < $25/class for a month + $625 of new gear 

Kudos to you either way for taking the time and effort to learn proper techniques (something so many ignore nowadays).

1323
Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« on: November 12, 2011, 07:53:19 PM »
If you are using aps-c tokina 11-16 is the way to go. I cant see why people want to use 16-35 on aps-c. 17-55 f2.8 is a more viable solution.

Absolutely, the 17-55 is one of the sharpest zooms I've ever used, I mean I was shocked when I saw how sharp the pics were.  It has a great range, the IS works well, and it's just an all around great lens.

OP I have the 16-35 II and it's an awesome lens, BUT if you want true wide angle on an APS-C sensor go for the Tokina 11-16mm.  Youll have the same field of view as the 16-35mm on a full frame camera, so it'll be ultra wide and you'll have a ton of fun with it I promise.

You could probably find the 11-16mm used for about $500, and you could find the 17-55 used for $850-$1000.  You could have BOTH of those for about the same or less than the 16-35mm.   

1324
Lenses / Re: Minimalist photography
« on: November 12, 2011, 07:46:36 PM »
I'm more of a video guy, but if i were restricted to stills I'd probably take a 1DsIII (of course a 1DX if it were available).  I like the 1D4 but I'd rather have an FF sensor. 

Lenses - I love my primes, so picking a zoom is tough.  But considering the 16-35mm f/2.8L II is the only zoom I kept out of the 4 I had at one point, I would have to pick that and probably the 50mm f/1.2L.

I shoot wide to medium-telephoto for the most part, so that would work if I HAD to.  Now could I?  I doubt it, too hard to leave the 85L behind, as well as the 35L. 

Alternate combo: 24-70 and 100mm Macro L, You would have a great walkaround lens and the macro lens is a great multi-purpose lens. 

1325
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3 Information & Poll (your thoughts)
« on: November 09, 2011, 11:20:55 AM »
Strangely, I keep reading around the web many people believe that while the 1DX will be the still photographer's camera (obviously true), the MkIII will be the video camera.

Not so.

Chuck Westfall, Canon Tech Advisor on the 1DX: 'It will be the most desirable product for people wanting movie shooting in a DSLR."

Of course Canon's tech advisor is going to say this, and as of the moment it may be true.  Canon is trying to use the 1dx to squeeze some juice out of the video market, but it's clear there is going to be a better option coming soon. 

If the advisor said "the 1DX is the most desirable product for movie shooting on a DSLR, but we have an even better camera coming soon that will be cheaper," no one would buy the 1DX for video.

1326
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D X
« on: November 09, 2011, 11:16:25 AM »
I'm highly doubtful the next 5D will carry an "X" moniker.  It wouldn't seem prudent for Canon to take such a large gamble with a larger segment of their market - they're free to gamble with the 1D X (and I think that until the reviews come in many photographers are going to be on the fence, if not extremely wary) but the "X" signifies a large overhaul of the system.  To do that with the 5D - well, would they do that for the lowly Rebels, too, or the 7D?  Meshing together the marketing isn't a good enough reason; the X would most likely signify comprehensive changes to the format and I don't see those changes being too likely for other cameras in the range.

Are you saying you wouldn't buy a camera because of the name?  5D Mark III, 5DX, I don't care what it's called, if it has great specs, I'll buy it.

1327
EOS Bodies / Re: T2i vs. 60D vs. 5dMKII
« on: November 08, 2011, 01:47:51 PM »
Everyone is making great suggestions/recommendations, but no one is mentioning the fact that dslrs are not great for documentaries.  It's hard to run and gun and you're limited to 12 minute clips, which can ruin a great interview.  Just a thought, but if you have to get a DSLR go witha 60d.

1328
United States / Re: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or EF 16-35 f/2.8L
« on: November 08, 2011, 01:00:22 PM »
While the 16-35 looks awesome on an aps-c, that 17-55 is seriously sharp, possibly the sharpest zoom I've ever used....sharper than the 24-70 I had at the time.

1329
EOS Bodies / Re: Concept Cinema DSLR Official
« on: November 04, 2011, 06:39:43 PM »
I'm extremely disappointed by this announcement.  These are the features many of us wanted, but they should just be part of the evolution of DSLR.  Canon is forcefully separating camps into (likely highly expensive line of equipment) which really goes directly AGAINST the reason DSLR video had such widespread success in the first place.  Pro-equipment being affordable (or at least with-in reach) in the hands of the masses was largely the point and this seems to miss that entirely.

They just fractured a business model that was working perfectly for them.  I fear they have done something quite so very stupid.  If this doesn't interfere with the natural progression DSLR video was on, then fine, no harm no foul, but only time will tell, and I've smelled this smell before.  It's a distinct smell.

I'm not at all impressed, the 5D Mark III and the 7D Mark II (and probably even the 1DX) should be/have been launched with 4k capability, as it's quite essentially useful for editing 1080p format.  It allows the editor the ability to re-crop and or pan the image and as well use digital image stabilization and then have some room around the frame to crop after stabilizing the content.  Similarly, higher than needed framerates, etc. etc., all things Canon could have been working on and figuring out for our replacement models instead of this....

The sensors on DSLR are already capable of 4k pixel wise, and so are the lenses.  Regardless, I'm going to have to simply ignore all the new products, let Hollywood blow their wad on it, I just hope it doesn't interfere with one of the main reasons I got into Canon DSLR video in the first place.  I'm not happy or excited, in fact I feel kind of used and stupid for playing along.  Time will tell, but if they don't eventually release the features we need on the budgets we have someone else will, and then where will they be?

p.s. I am not going to waste precious budget splitting my photography and film needs across multiple product lines, why do you think I got a DSLR?  Oh and, I'm already sick of the new marketing term "EOS Movie".

This has been your negatively honest announcement for the day, enjoy your breakfast.

You think it's a bad announcement because they didn't announce what you wanted.  They had to start somewhere with their EOS Cinema line, and debuting a camera good enough for Hollywood to use was a good way to establish themselves as major players in the industry.  This is a totally different division of Canon, they had to bring something big out.

We all know they're working on a 4K DSLR, just have some patience and it will come.  Your film-making capabilities are not any less today than they were a week ago.  You can still make something great with a 5D/7D, our time will come soon enough.

1330
Lenses / Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« on: November 04, 2011, 06:24:56 PM »
Sure it's out of most everyone's price range, but it wasn't meant for the masses.  Canon released this first to come out strong introducing the whole EOS Cinema line and make an impression on Hollywood and get some cred with the bigwigs. 

Next logical move would be to release a more prosumer level (but capable) Cinema DSLR, which they are in the process of doing.  They know how hungry we are for a reasonably priced, really awesome camera, and I'm sure they'll deliver.  Business is business, and I think they made the right move.

1331
Lenses / Re: How much!?
« on: November 04, 2011, 01:11:28 PM »
Arri Master Primes are $22k+/each
http://www.abelcine.com/store/Arri-Master-Primes/

And it's not uncommon for PL zooms to be that expensive.  Those are MASSIVE lenses and quite complex and produced on a much smaller scale, I don't think the price will be much of a shock for Hollywood folks.  And I'm sure people will opt to rent these, they are just too expensive to own.

1332
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE 2* The Red Dot EOS DSLR
« on: November 04, 2011, 01:04:15 PM »
It really looks likecanon rushed for this event. Personally, i think that camera there is indeed 1dx. The only difference is the badge on it. Thats why they dont let any one hold it or test it because they rush to this event that the prototype might not be on par to show to the public. They just put the camera there just as a show to all the guest.

I think Canon knows EXACTLY what they are doing.  They made a splash in Hollywood to get "cred" with the bigwigs and establish themselves as a new, big player in the industry.
It makes more sense to do this than to release 1 new Cinema DSLR and THEN release all the big stuff.  I wish there was something that had been announced "for me" too, but business is business.  I'm sure there is something great coming. 

1333
EOS Bodies / Re: Concept Cinema DSLR Official
« on: November 04, 2011, 01:00:14 PM »
For $6800/each it better be something more than an old L lens in a new housing

The value of these lenses is not just in the optics but also being able to set the distance marker for focus at, say, 20', and for the focus to be exactly that each and every time you move the focus ring to that distance.

Normal stills camera lenses (such as the 85/f.1.2) do not have properties such as this.

Yeah I get that, there are definitive focus marks versus just spinning to infinity, better housing, similar size so you don't have to change your rig too much when swapping lenses.  I see the advantages, but damn the Zeiss CP.2 do the same thing and they are almost half the cost.  Don't get me wrong, I think the Canon Cine Primes are BEAUTIFUL, but they seem pricey.  Then again, compared to $47k for the zooms I guess they aren't that bad a deal. 

1334
EOS Bodies / Re: Concept Cinema DSLR Official
« on: November 04, 2011, 11:45:59 AM »
I actually think the hybrid DSLR / Video will be a huge seller.

1) It will be a very good, full frame stills camera. Probably limited to 12 mp for stills, since that's about the max / ideal mp for good 4K video. For me 12k stills is perfectly fine. I'm sure with Digic V, the still will be top quality.

2) Unlike some people have mentioned, I'm sure you have the option of shooting 2K or 4K video. You don't have to just shoot 4K. Even the current DSLRs give you and SD or HD option.

3) The reason why I like this is because it's more an all around solution. I love Full Frame video (only Canon offers this), yet with this upcoming DSLR, you can still do cool stills oriented stuff like Time Lapse photography (which you can't do with video cameras); and yes, take good photos.

4) It probably won't have the 1Dx 64 pt (is that correct?) auto focus and maybe not as high performing ISO, but will probably be a better stills performer than the upcoming 36mp Since it will have lower MP which translates to less noise. I'd be fine with a 7D style auto focus, even if it does have way less points.

That just means, less cameras to carry around. If you can deal with being limited to 12mp, I think this will be a great balance of both worlds. You'll get top performance in stills and a great video camera.

I agree 100%, that is going to be their moneymaker.  Considering the 1Dx is $6800, if you removed some of the still features and added some video features it seems like it would be easy to get it priced around $4k-$6k.

1335
EOS Bodies / Re: Final shopping list for tomorrow..
« on: November 04, 2011, 11:36:29 AM »
I just checked out your gallery by the way, really really nice work man, I'm sorry for giving suggestions as if you were an amateur ;)

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 92