Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: First photos with the EOS Kiss X7 (aka Rebel SL1 / 100D)

« on: May 06, 2013, 12:05:22 PM »

A lot of shots seem to have a bluish cast. i'm much more impressed with the output of the nikon 3200 which is > $200 cheaper than the SL1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/sets/72157629851394125/

Looks like it was a cloudy day and the white balance was a bit off, but that's easily fixable.  I agree, I like those particular shots from the D3200 more, but only because they are better shots overall, not because of a massive difference in IQ.

32

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

« on: May 06, 2013, 12:03:34 PM »

i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off, i was in egypt so light wasnt a problem, and i was also trekking in uganda and the landscape shots just lack punch. the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong. out of 1000 pictures and some extensive sharpening, there arnt that many im happy with!

id upload a few shots but frankly im embarresed. i feel a bit cheated out of money spent.  im gonna have to rent an expensive l lens and compare, but at the moment, im really disheartened.

Sharpening out of focus shots isn't going to help anything.  I wouldn't feel cheated unless no one had ever get a good shot out of that camera/lens combination, but that's not the case.  It may just be that you haven't quite gotten used to the gear or something is configured wrong.  It's much more difficult to shoot wide open on an FF sensor vs your old 450d though, DOF can get very thin, that's something to be mindful of.  I'd shoot with it some more, try shooting with some better glass and see if you're happy with those results.  If you're not go back to the 450D if you're happier with the pictures from that.

33

Lenses / Re: Best Lens for FF 6D

« on: May 05, 2013, 03:01:21 PM »

Some normal range zoom, 24-70mm or 24-105mm.  24-105mm is always a good choice on a budget, great range, IS, and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 the f/4 isn't too limiting.

34

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: May 05, 2013, 02:53:32 PM »

I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.

LOL have you actually seen the 4K from the GoPro?  Or even the 2.7K?  While it looks good for a GoPro, neither looks better than even the cheapest DSLR.  Data rates, sensor size, there are so many variables.  I mean an Arri Alexa is 4K also, but that doesn't mean the GoPro is just as good.  The 15FPS 4K on the GoPro is pretty much worthless, they only added it so they could put "4K" on the box and hope that people see "oh it's 4K, it must be the greatest camera ever" and buy it. 

35

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dc & 1Dx

« on: May 05, 2013, 02:49:52 PM »

No it's more like

1DX+$6000+firmware = 1DC

But yes, the 1DC does everything the 1DX does in terms of stills it just shoots 4K video in addition to that.  Canon says they did stuff for heat dissipation but that could mean one extra screw or completely redesigned parts, I'm not sure.

36

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Handicam, lens or other?

« on: May 05, 2013, 02:48:11 PM »

You need some kind of stabilization better than a "crappy tripod."  I'd try and get a slider of some sort, since they can add a lot of professionalism to the look of a video.  Your lenses should be fine, but lenses that are optimized for video will be much easier to shoot with (even the cheap Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm/24mm/35mm/85mm). 

Sanj is right, you need some type of monitoring outside of the LCD screen on the camera.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen people "think they got it" but then they pull it up on the computer and it looks horrible.  Some type of monitor/EVF, especially one with zebra stripes/peaking will help alot. 

I'd also say you need some ND filters, since you'll probably be shooting during the day.  With the shutter speed fixed at 1/50 even with the ISO at 100 you may have to stop down to f/16 to get proper exposure, so ND filters will help if you need shallow DOF during the day. 

A glidecam will help if you're trying to get moving shots, but if you don't have any experience with them you'll end up spending 1/2 the day trying to get it balanced.

I would honestly try and plan as much as possible in advance, there is no such thing as too much pre-planning with video. If you go out there and try to wing it things aren't going to turn out well.  I shoot video with DSLR's all the time, and while I know how to shoot pictures pretty darn well I still wouldn't feel comfortable taking on a photo gig.  You have the gear, but experience is definitely more important.  Either way, best of luck.

37

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Adding XLR connections to a 5D3

« on: May 05, 2013, 02:39:21 PM »

Hey Paulie, long time no see!  Hope all is well and GLWS!

38

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 05, 2013, 02:33:54 PM »

I think the Sigma 35mm and Canon 85mm f/1.8 would be an excellent, reasonably priced option.  Have you checked your EXIF data to see what focal lengths you shoot the 24-70mm with most frequently?  I'd try and pick between the 35mm and 50mm based on which you shoot with the most. 

And if you're looking to spend a bit more money, I'd check out the 100L in place of the 85 possibly.  The 100L has amazing image stabilization, macro capability and it's great for portraits as well. 

39

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: limit auto iso in video mode on 5D3

« on: April 30, 2013, 01:53:01 PM »

You shouldn't be using auto ISO in video mode, big no-no.  I'm not sure about the max setting though, probably something simple, I'm sure someone will have an answer for you before too long.

40

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview

« on: April 30, 2013, 01:50:23 PM »

The bokeh here is disturbing. The 135L can have its problems sometimes but I do not remember seeing anything that bad.

That's one bad example, it looks beautiful in the other shots.  I have a 50L/85L/135L and the bokeh from my Zeiss lenses has still always impressed me.

41

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: April 28, 2013, 08:01:41 PM »

I feel like you kind of answered your own question, go with the Rokinon 14mm.  It's cheap and it's really wide, you can go 40+ seconds on your exposures.  Also, I'd try shooting at ISO 3200, even with the Mark II.  Make sure your noise reduction is off and use mirror lockup. 

42

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: ML apparently discovers hook to 'raw' liveview feed

« on: April 28, 2013, 03:27:21 PM »

sqdstf wrote:
http://youtu.be/YOLDDrfpFO8

He seems to be too optimistic though. Sounds like 12-14fps may be the max. (unless they can find a way to feed  a 1920x1080 cropped version of those DNGs into the compressor engine and the engine doesn't clip to 8bits even if it did that at least it might maintain much better details)

But man I just don't get why Canon seemingly left so much on the table. Sure uncompressed is too much for the HW to handle but why in the world could they not have written out a compressed file with original DR left intact and not utterly massacred and with a few more bits? And what on earth are they doing to reduce the beautiful crisp 1920x1080 the fancy sensor the engineers developed for them and then turning it to utter mush! It's not the compression engine because using the HDMI out with ProRes HQ doesn't really seem to bring back any extra detail all (certainly not static detail). It just seems like they left a ton of ability on the table. They would've had an utter revolution if they had not mushed down the resolution that it is actually capturing and written it out with more bits and less DR compression done and put out a really crips compressed file with lots of DR room.

Maybe this DNG thing is not what they are able to use to drive the compression engine and some crappier source must be used?? I don't get it otherwise.

It has something to do with the buffer, but from what I've read most seem confident they will be able to get it to work.

43

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZE in Stock at B&H

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:50:46 AM »

+1

At wide aperatures and portrait ranges the DOF with a 135mm are razor thin.  Manual focus would be a difficult and time consuming.  I'm extremely happy with my Canon 135L, I can easily ignore this lens when/if it does go into production.

Have you ever shot extensively with Zeiss lenses?  The throw is so much longer and it has AF confirmation, it's far easier to shoot in manual mode on one of them than it is a Canon lens.

44

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZE in Stock at B&H

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:49:38 AM »

Zeiss is sharper, as expected.  And for the person asking whether it would really be worth the difference since the 135L is so great, I'll tell you this:  I loved my 100L Macro, but I really, really, really love my ZE100 (even though it was 2x the price and doesn't have AF or IS).

I'd love to replace my 14LII with the ZE 15, but $3k for 1 UWA prime just seems silly to me.  Might get the ZE 135 eventually, but I'm happy with my 135L and dont use the focal length too much anyways. 

45

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Feedback for first real estate video

« on: April 24, 2013, 02:16:47 PM »

Looks pretty good overall, I'd definitely try and get the balance better on your steadicam, it looks like it's swinging a bit.