October 23, 2014, 02:42:12 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 - AG

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
Lenses / Re: Minimalist photography
« on: November 13, 2011, 01:05:48 AM »
If we are talking fictional cameras (1D-X) id go:

50mm Cinema Prime
24-70mm f2.8 L

If i had to use currently available equipment:

5D Mk2
Canon 50mm f1.2 L
24-70mm f2.8 L

I mainly shoot video and as much as having a great selection of primes would be handy, these 2 lenses are the 2 main ones i fall back on.

Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 12, 2011, 04:29:12 AM »
I wouldn't worry as next year you'll see the 5DC for video and the 5DS for studio.

Just be patient. Enjoy what you have.

Think you will find it will end up being the 5D3 (specced up 5D2) and the 1D-C (The Cinema Prototype from C300 release)

But other than that i agree  ;D

Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 12, 2011, 01:05:23 AM »

What is with people and huge MPs?

i would prefer to have a lower MP camera that shoots great low light and is crystal clear when at these said low iso settings instead of a high MP camera that has lousy iso.

Mind you this is probably because I'm one of them photographers that hates using a flash.  ;D

For everyone that says you need fewer megapixels to get better IQ, riddle me this...

Why does the Nikon D3X (a full frame sensor), have more megapixels than the 5D Mark 2 *AND* do better at low light photography? Would everyone be willing to say "no, the 5DMark2's sensor with only 21MP is perfect, we don't need the 3 extra megapixels and the improved IQ of the D3X"? (If that were possible.)

Or that the 16MP IDs2 sensor should never have been replaced by the 21MP sensor in the 1Ds3?

The solution to the IQ problem is not simply "fewer MP = higher IQ" and quite clearly there are still gains to be had. Remember that when the folks at DxO labs crunched the numbers, the sensor in the S95 was performing better (for its characteristics) than the D3X, yet it is far smaller.

I mean seriously, some of the excuses for avoiding high megapixel counts on Canon cameras sound about as well thought out as those of Nikon users defending Nikon only having crop'd sensors before Nikon's first FF camera.

I would say that instead of comparing the MP count of the 2 cameras why not look at the algorithm that they both use. Obviously the low light one that the Nikon used was better than the one that Canon used.
If that wasn't the case then how can a camera such as the 1D-X (from test shots seen on net) beat the 5D2 if that camera only has 18MP compared to the 21 of the 5D2?

A sensor is just a capture source. once the photons hit the sensor its up the processors onboard to do the calculation and convert the information gathered into something of worth. If you had a good enough algorithm you could technically take a 10MP camera and have that process pictures at 12500 ISO crystal clear.
...well other than the pixel density problem, the micro lens issues and costs.

A simple reason to justify why people release super high MP cameras is MONEY!

Bigger is ALWAYS better, or so we are raised to believe.
You buy a 68CM CRT TV
I have to then buy a 32" LCD TV
So in return you go out and buy the 56" Plasma TV
Not to be out done i buy a projector.
You buy the 720P version
I then retaliate by buying the 1080p version... and so on.

At some point you have to look at what you are doing ad realise that in the size of your lounge room the 32" LCD TV was more than perfect size wise, so you eventually down size but buy the 3D,1080p, 200hz model (or whatever the best you can buy nowadays).

The same thing is happening with cameras finally.

At what point do the manufacturers realise that they don't need to hit massive MP figures if they are able to cover the industry standard image size, but at much better low light and super fast frames per second (remember once the FPS passes 24 your basically shooting video anyhow), and in an easier to produce (read cheaper) format without alienating the old pros that still haven't quite gotten over the fact that film is dead and for years have been investing in expensive equipment only to have Canon/Nikon etc make it available to mere amateurs.

It doesn't cost much to call yourself a photographer nowadays. The proof is in the work you produce.

Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 11, 2011, 11:22:14 PM »
The title of the thread caught my eye, but the content is a yawn. My NEX7 is on flood-backorder, so I have no comment on the sensor yet, but I am confident it'll blow the G12 into the weeds, and that is all I'm expecting and asking of it.

Re the comment " Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?" I think it'll be interesting to see if all those prosumers who've endlessly brayed for low MP's have managed to get Canon to clip its own feathers. The other pros I've spoken to, like me, are passing on the new EOS. We're all waiting to see what the 36mp Nikon is going to deliver, because those of us who can and do light our pictures want high MP's, and maximum quality at 100-1000 ISO. Much above that doesn't really matter to us, and we're all stunned that Canon has thrown us into Nikon arms, especially after showcasing a 100mp sensor a year or so ago.

I thought you said a few weeks ago after the 1D-x announcement, that you were leaving these forums?

Either way, you keep saying about high MP this and high MP that all the time, the problem being technically speaking high MP means bugger all.

Hell intel released a concept 6ghz processor back in the P4 days, yet today most commercial cpus sit at 2-2.6ghz range and servers (or pro chips) don't break 4ghz.
because they don't need too, they used slower cores but more of them.
in photography terms they reduce the MPs but make them more efficient.

Just because your camera has 36MP doesn't mean it looks and cleaner than a crappy 12MP point and shoot.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark II Firmware 2.1.1 Sighting
« on: November 11, 2011, 04:56:15 AM »
Super Random, but when I saw the post, somehow the advertisement below seem to complement it.

Yeah the Adam Elmakias Pro Lens Bracelets. Just add that air of class :)

EOS Bodies / Re: An Official Canon EOS-1D X AF Article & Cinema EOS FAQ
« on: November 10, 2011, 09:13:05 PM »
Would have been nice if they gave us a hint at the Cinema EOS HDSLR (1D-C?) in that article.

Hanging out for details on that more than the 5D3.

Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?
« on: November 10, 2011, 06:31:35 PM »

What is with people and huge MPs?

i would prefer to have a lower MP camera that shoots great low light and is crystal clear when at these said low iso settings instead of a high MP camera that has lousy iso.

Mind you this is probably because I'm one of them photographers that hates using a flash.  ;D

Speaking of price drops.

eGlobal has the 5D body only on sale atm $1940AUD


If you include shipping @$130ish thats cheaper than anyone that has the camera listed in Australia.

eg TEDs current price $2799AUD + Shipping

If your looking to buy a 5D2 then it looks like now is the time.

Personally I'm waiting to see how this 1D-C rumour pans out.

EOS Bodies / Re: Concept Cinema DSLR Official
« on: November 09, 2011, 04:42:26 AM »
If Canon added RAW video capture to a 1D Mark IV, you'd have your Scarlet X right now. The newly revised Scarlet X is nothing more than an APS-H sized sensor. Red no longer impresses me at all. They're just about marketing hype. The only thing Red does better than Canon is they have the good sense to realize not to use highly compressed codecs that negate the point of shooting with large sensors in the first place. If Canon ever figures that out, they will blow Red out of the water.

Don't forget the other things that RED does really well.

Such as drop frames.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D X
« on: November 09, 2011, 04:36:56 AM »
The product line according to me (after updates)

1Dx - Flagship - $7000
3D - 4k Video - $5000
5D3 - 25-30 MP - $2500
7D2 - 21MP - $1600
70D - 21MP - $1200
T4i - 21MP - $800
T4 - 15MP - $600

What is it with everyone thinking that they are going to make a 3D?

Unless they actually make a 3D capable camera it won't happen. Same reason why we won't get a 2D.
Similar to your ideal i now get the feeling that its going to go something like this...

1D-X Flagship - $7000
1D-C 4K Video DSLR - $5000
5D3 - High MP Full Frame, Basic HD video (similar to mk2 already has) - $2500
7D2 - Top APSC - $2000

The the usual such as, 70D, 700D, 1200D etc

The top 4 are going to be the key here.
From what Canon seems to be doing, they are streamlining their products.

Key being that the 1D X is the Photographers camera and the C being the videographers camera, for example the C will not have the high 12fps shooting speeds of the X or the ethernet connection, instead it has 4K video and headphone jack for audio monitoring.

And before anyone else decides to smite this post i understand the D and the Ds were different lines of the same family in basically the same situation. lets just see how this plays out this time.

EOS Bodies / Re: Two More EF Cine Primes in the Works
« on: November 08, 2011, 09:12:23 PM »
Any guesses regarding whether these EF Cine Primes will perform better/worse/not differently than their still lens equivalents, when used for still images on cameras like the 1Ds3 and 5D2?

Theoretically they should work better as they cover a larger area, have better light sensitivity and (one would guess) have better glass.

But then again they won't have autofocus ability so a lot of photographers will not like that (unless your totally old school and do everything manually)

EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS Development Opinion
« on: November 06, 2011, 12:39:43 AM »
Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.

Just because Canon is pricing the new lenses at $45-48k for the zooms and $6,800 for EACH of the primes doesn't mean the video community can readily afford these products.  At those steep prices, I'd have to have a huge project with an intense need in order to justify that expense.  With most of the low and restricted mid range budgets these days, I have a feeling that many will be sticking with their current lens lineup for awhile to come.

Firstly unless you are working in a film production house or television studio, the zoom lenses are not marketed at yourself.

And the Primes with their MSRT of $6800 is not that bad, especially when you take into consideration that this is not street price.
How many amateur photographers do you see walking around with a Sigma 200-500? (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html)
Ok i understand that its a $25,000 lens but its also not something that the average Joe will want for his kit.

The same goes for these lenses, they are aimed at the semi pro/advanced amateur videographer, that is using EOS equipment and wants to take it a step beyond a basic Canon 50mm f1.2 for filming (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-GREY/Canon_1257B002AA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html) which is $1500 by itself and not really designed for video.

Software & Accessories / Re: Off Camera Microphones
« on: November 06, 2011, 12:26:59 AM »
I have used both he Rode NTG2 and Video Mic on my camera when shooting recently.

Half way through shooting the NTG2 got broken (clumsy grip), so we had to just use the VideoMic (non pro). Stuck a dead cat on it and kept shooting.
Surprisingly once we were able to adjust the levels in camera on the 60D we got really good sound, as good if not better than the NTG2 on a boom pole.

Plus it meant we didn't have to lug around a heap of extra equipment.

The other thing to remember is the Rode Video Mics use a 9v battery for power. We got 5 FULL days of shooting from 1x Duracell Advanced 9v. Which is actually really good.

Lenses / Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« on: November 05, 2011, 06:53:36 AM »
Except that you'll have to focus it manually.

If you are having to use auto focus as a film maker your doing it wrong  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Dan Chung Talks EOS-1D X Video
« on: October 29, 2011, 01:34:47 AM »
If we were interested in Video we would have bought a video camera instead.

oh, really? why not to use canon a800 for still picture?
many of us are interested in high quality video not less than in high quality photoes.

Have to agree with astrocrab on this one.....kinda!

If you want to take 1/2 decent video then you take a dramatic hike in prices.

This was the beauty of EOS video, it allowed sensors closer to actual film dimensions at a fairly cheap price.
Plus it allows a very shallow depth of field that most budget videocameras can't even dream of getting.

As soon as you start buying "budget" video cameras that can do the same or similar style video of the EOS line your almost on a 1:1 $:$ outlay but with a camera twice the weight and 4x the bulk.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 20