July 23, 2014, 04:59:16 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 [2] 3 4 ... 92
EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: The 2nd ff camera in 2014 will be...
« on: November 28, 2013, 06:32:22 PM »
What do you think - will the 6d be updated with a above-mediocre af system and dual pixel af for the masses, or will the 5d3 at last get a real sensor upgrade above the good ol' 5d2 and become the even more expensive 5d4?

The 5D3 did get an updated sensor from the 5D2....sure it wasn't a big jump in megapixels or anything but it's definitely a better sensor overall.

I like this guy's idea  8)
Actually, since Sony and Zeiss often make AF lenses together, I wonder if there will be an AF-version of Otus 55 mm for Sony.  That would tip the scale for me for sure..

Sony A7r Zeiss Otus 55mm by drjlo2, on Flickr

This belongs in the pornography section...you're a lucky man

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« on: November 06, 2013, 05:42:50 PM »
I thought lots of folks were getting Philip Bloom for his semi-downer 'enthusiasm' when it came out.

Anyway lots of folks use ML RAW because it is THAT awesome. SOOOOO much more detail than you get from 5D3 internal or Ninja recording and SOOOOOOO much more processing latitude. SOOOOOO much richer colors! I

It is amazing, but it also requires SOOOOO much more hard drive space, SOOOO much more computing power, and processing is SOOOOO much more involved  ;).

Get a monitor or EVF, but even then it's a bit difficult since the HDMI drops to SD when you hit record.

5DIII is a joy to work with compared to the 5D2. Better codec (which leads to much more reasonable file sizes), better low light performance and an overall cleaner image. Also the HDMI out doesn't drop to SD when you hit record like the Mark 2, so monitoring is much easier. And it's a far superior on the stills side, so if you do shoot stills there is a big advantage there.

As I wrote, photographers who actually need more DR than Canon offers should already have switched.  These Sony sensors have been out for a while.  During that time, many photographers have looked at their options and decided to stick with Canon.

Likewise, there is no problem with 3fps (or 6 or 8fps, etc.), but if someone actually needs more then they should buy it.  Why would someone buy 3fps and then blame the manufacturer?  The same goes for megapixels, etc.  Offering less than the maximum mp doesn't mean there is a problem or deficiency.  Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it.  A manufacturer chooses which measures to prioritize, such as high ISO performance.

I don't think Pi really cares what you or anyone else has to say, it seems like he's just obsessed with being "right."

Maybe try the Rokinon/Samyang/whatever 14mm 2.8, from what i hear it is a great lens, even rivaling the Canon 14mm L at a fraction of the cost. Since you're doing video, the manual focus and iris could come in handy. The distortion is kept very low for such a wide angle lens from what I've been reading and it's just about 300€ (don't know the US price) around here. You should consider it. :)

While the Samyang 14mm is a solid lens, especially for the money, it has terrible distortion, I mean super ridiculously bad. 

Holy cow, grats! Can't wait to see some images produced from it..
I just sold my 50L and bought a Zeiss 50 f2 Makro and LOVE LOVE LOVE it to bits. I've never used manual focus prior, but after seeing the images from my Zeiss, I couldn't care less about no auto focus, plus it allows me to slow down a tad and channel my creativity rather than run and gun photos. And if I were shooting photos of fast moving subjects, such as kids, I'd just use my 24-70 ii or 70-200 is ii as I'd need more DOF anyway.

I gave my 50L up for a 50mm f/2 Makro as well and have not regretted it. There have been a few times that I missed that creamy bokeh from the 50L but overall I find the Zeiss far superior.

Canon General / Re: Official: Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: October 14, 2013, 02:15:38 PM »
People guessing about the price, keep in mind that if someone had said the 18-35mm f/1.8 was going to be $799 you would have said they were crazy.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 18-35 F1.8
« on: October 07, 2013, 06:34:41 PM »
I've only used it for video on the Sony FS700 but I was very, very impressed.  Razor sharp, excellent color/contrast and it's very well-built.  For $799 you can't go wrong.

Why is everyone so upset about the price of this lens?  Don't buy it if you think it's too much.  Price aside I'm sure it performs like a dream, I've never been disappointed by Zeiss glass.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5d mark III external monitor, problems?
« on: October 01, 2013, 01:58:07 PM »
I know this is old, but to answer your question, no there is no delay, no flashing or anything like that, the monitor pretty much mirrors exactly what you would see on the liveview screen.

The Liliput has a great review so I'm sure that's probably one of the better options in that price range.  My monitors were $500 and $1000, so $200 seems like a great deal.

I wouldn't bother with ALL-I, there is no difference in image quality and the file sizes are ridiculously huge.  Yes they play back faster in an editor, but the H.264 IPB files play back just fine in FCPX or Premiere with no transcoding.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« on: October 01, 2013, 01:51:22 PM »
5D3 all the way, the 7D is almost 4 years old.  5D3 has better codec, way better low light performance (ISO3200 is my limit for pro work on the 5D3, but for the 7D it was 800), and it's full frame of course.  The footage just looks much cleaner overall IMO.  It's a no brainer for me. =

Premiere has the keyboard shortcuts for FCP7, I've never used FCPX (I think for the reasons you are confirming) but they may be in there to assist the transition.

Good work on the video front.

CT and eradicating mixed lighting is often the bane of my life, and the curse is that when you spend HOURS doing it properly nobody even notices.

I found FCPX to be a great tool so far, but likely this was easy for me to pick up, since it was my first NLE I'd ever tried to work with and learn.

I can see with Premier, the older multiple tracks system is a bit different. I've been studying and watching some creativelive classes on Premier and After Effects, and I'm very impressed.

I think I'll pick Premier and AE up a bit quicker since I know FCPX and cut my teeth there on the concepts first...than I would have just trying to learn editing techniques and concepts starting off in Premier.

I'm gonna do my next episode as something simple and short shooting...so that most of my efforts are channeled not into heavy editing, but into learning to use the tool.

I hope that Magic Lantern can get the RAW video working and ready for prime time (not alpha) for the 5D3..I'm dying to try my hand shooting and color grading true RAW so as to have tots of leeway for color grading....


Nice job Cayenne, it's always fun to see people's videos improve over time.  But I have to ask, why are you switching from FCPX?  Especially if that's what you're used to.  I can't think of much that Premiere can do that FCPX can't, I mean I edit some pretty damn complicated stuff in FCPX with no issues whatsoever.  I mean Premiere is great, and I always said that if I had something super complex that I'd use it over FCPX, but that has yet to happen. 

Also, After Effects is an amazing program and the sky is the limit with what you can do with it, but it has a hell of a learning curve. Don't feel bad if you can't figure it out, it took me a long time and a lot of tinkering to figure that one out.  But if you're set on learning it, I'd suggest Lynda.com, there are loads of great tutorials on there! Good luck with everything!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 92