Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D C Available?

« on: August 24, 2012, 06:27:23 PM »

Hopefully their retort will be a 5D-C that records 1080 raw for $4000.  But that'd piss off so many purchasers of the original 5D3, that I doubt it will happen.

Personally (as a 5D3 purchaser myself) I'd love to see them come out with a 5D-C at a price point below the 1D-C.  I have no need of 4K - it would be cool to have, but I'm also realistic.  As for being pissed about the 5D3, I knew what I was buying when I got it, nobody put a gun to my head, have been very happy with it, but I still look forward to what might come out next

32

Lenses / Re: 50mm lens. I Need advice!!

« on: August 23, 2012, 05:43:07 PM »

Regarding the 50L, if you're seriously considering it, RENT IT FIRST.

The 50L is one of those where some people just fall in love with it (like RLPhoto), and other people get it and then end up hating it (like Studio1930 and myself).  For me, it was missing focus very erratically, sometimes front-focusing, sometimes back-focusing, so MA didn't help.  It also didn't have the same sharpness at f/1.2 that you get with the 85LII.  Even at it's sharpest point, everything has a sort of haze over it.  Stop down just a bit, and it's sharp as hell - but if I have to stop down, what's the point of paying the premium...

But again, that was just MY experience.  Some people would save their 50L in a house fire before their wife... You never know which camp you'd fall into till you try it (rent the sucker)

33

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 100 L 2.8 macro for video?

« on: August 23, 2012, 05:33:09 PM »

Ah, I may stand corrected - well - yeah, either way.  Whatever they changed with the Mk2, "hybrid" or not, it's improved over the Mk1 - smoother and noticeably quieter IMHO.  I rented the 70-200 Mk1 several times for video shoots, and that thing clunked around like there was a squirrel on a wheel in there - don't notice it nearly as much on my mk2.   Never really cared all that much about IS noise though, because I never use camera-mounted mics.  Very true that IS noise is a consideration if you're recording sound with the onboard mic or even a hotshoe mic.

34

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 100 L 2.8 macro for video?

« on: August 23, 2012, 02:18:13 PM »

Macro is only part of what the 100L does well.  I shoot plenty of video, and yes - the 100L is awesome for video.  The hybrid IS is fantastic, and it's tack sharp. 

I don't use it quite as often nowadays, since picking up the 70-200 2.8 IS II (also 2.8, also hybrid IS, also tack sharp), but before I had that in my bag, the 100L was one of my most frequently used lenses for video.

The 135 also produces a gorgeous picture in video, but isn't quite as versatile, performing best when you have it locked down.  Since there's no IS, you get micro jitters like crazy.   Get focus, then for the love of god stop touching the camera!  ha

35

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Chuck westfall on the sharpness of the 5dm3

« on: August 21, 2012, 12:16:46 PM »

I didn't quote any exact numbers, didn't claim that without it, it would cost 4 or 5 grand.  We can quibble about the meaning of the word misconception if you want.  Look, you guys feel free to tell yourselves that the camera would've been cheaper without video all you want.  The fact is, guys... EVERY DSLR in today's market includes HD video.  Furthermore, there is no additional hardware being added to achieve it - it's all in the firmware.  To "leave it out" would have accomplished nothing, other than excluding a whole segment of the market, making it sell fewer copies, and thus making production of each unit less profitable at any given price point.

36

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Chuck westfall on the sharpness of the 5dm3

« on: August 20, 2012, 02:02:03 PM »

I would be happier if my 5dmkiii didnt have video and, as a result, its price were cheaper bcause actually Ive never shot video. I have no choice but am happy with its sharpness in still (after doing AFMA). LOL!

This is one of those misconceptions that never goes away.  The inclusion of video most likely LOWERED the price of the mk3.  With video, the camera appeals to two market segments.  Without video, it would have only appealed to still shooters (selling fewer copies - Canon would have to price it higher to make up for lower sales).   Also, software R&D is SO much cheaper than hardware R&D, and video in DSLR's is almost all about the software...  So you might want to thank your video-centric brethren, rather than curse them. 

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III and green RAw!!!

« on: August 06, 2012, 02:21:26 PM »

I've read somewhere, that the most often reason for damaging computer memory modules was cosmic radiation.

I once received a box of Kodak BioMax MS (ultrasensitive autoradiography film), a sealed package of 100 sheets, and after developing the first one (following a 5 day exposure to a radioactive sample), I noticed a ~6mm diameter black spot on the film that didn't come from my sample, and could not be attributed to a light leak in the film cassette.  I pulled a few more sheets from the pack and developed them immediately, they had the same spot - stacking the whole pack together after developing showed that the spots formed a complete column passing through the stack at a slight angle, and I suspect the pack was hit by a cosmic ray during shipping. 

RE the green RAW wedding photo, I suggest you contact all the guests and a random sample of individuals nearby the locale but not present at the event.  Check your watch, the watches of the guests, and the watches of the people not actually at the event.  I suspect you'll find a small temporal difference between those there and those not there, indicating that the entire wedding party and all the guests, and you, were abducted by aliens.  Your shot was taken just as the matter transmitter beam was collecting you all for transport, and while the aliens eliminated most other traces of their presence, they missed your 5DIII.  I would not report this to Canon, but to the National Enquirer, instead.   

Now see.... THIS is why I frequently skip ahead in a thread, and just look for a post with Neuro's avatar

Don't ever change your avatar bud

38

Lenses / Re: Your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...

« on: July 31, 2012, 01:21:31 PM »

Just buy it.  You'll freaking LOVE it.

Easily my most frequently used lens.  If I'm shooting something that I can afford to miss focus on, or deal with IQ issues to get a different look, I may use another lens from my bag.  But if I absolutely, positively have to have it nailed, tack sharp, for a paying client, this lens is on the camera.

39

Lenses / Re: Help Choosing My Next Lens? :)

« on: July 18, 2012, 02:22:43 PM »

Agreed!  The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.

Does adding EF 200 F2 to them make it the holy quadrity?

Could be  But average immortal have to sell a kidney to get one 

Ooof, yeah, the 200 f/2 takes the "trinity" to a whole new level of awesome. drool
And, if you're immortal, you wouldn't need your kidney, so definitely sell that #$%&

40

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 18, 2012, 01:30:41 PM »

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8.  The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.

Agreed!  I bought the 35L and shortly thereafter sold my f/2.  Bought the 85L II and sold my 1.8.  Bought the 50L, and ... sold the 50L.  I do understand why some people love it, gorgeous bokeh - every pic I took with it looked amazing as a thumbnail or at web resolution, but when I'd pixel peep the sweet spot of the in-focus area of the razor thin DOF, it went from blur to almost sharp, and back to blur - but never really hit it.

I'm curious if, out of the people who love the 50L, any of them also have the 85L II.  To me, that one is what f/1.2 sharpness is supposed to look like.  I reaaalllly wanted to love the 50L, pined over it for more than a year before taking the plunge - perhaps I would've felt differently about it if I wasn't comparing it to the 85 already in my bag.

41

Lenses / Re: Help Choosing My Next Lens? :)

« on: July 18, 2012, 01:13:03 PM »

ah, I miss the days of lens lust - having those lenses you eyeball for months and then finally buy and check the tracking number 10 times a day...  nowadays, I've only got like ONE I might like to get at some point.  boring

if I had your bag, and 2500 to blow, I'd probably pick up the 24L II and the 135L

or if I really wanted to toss some high mm telephoto in there and some macro, maybe the 100L and a 100-400L

...so many possibilities

42

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Insane video noise canon 5d mark iii

« on: July 18, 2012, 12:52:57 PM »

http://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Shoot this instead of Cinestyle and generally you'll get better footage post grading. It retains skin tones much better as well. Hope this helps a bit...and yeah, go for 160 vs 100 etc etc.

YES. 

43

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: So, which memory cards for video?

« on: July 17, 2012, 05:50:24 PM »

Any suggestions for cards that aren't 150?  The Sandisk look good, though you said you dont shoot a lot of video.

Like I said in my post above, this is the card I use http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Compact-Flash-Card-400X/dp/B002WE4H8I/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1342561773&sr=1-2&keywords=transcend+32GB
and I do shoot a lot of video

EDIT - or do you mean SD card?   sorry, dunno, I don't use SD's due to the slower write speed on the 5D3

44

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: So, which memory cards for video?

« on: July 17, 2012, 03:54:45 PM »

I'm sure that UDMA6 monster would be great (especially if you want very high burst capabilities while shooting RAW stills).  For video, 600x is actually a lot more than you need

I've been using the Transcend 400x 32GB (about 1/3 the price), and haven't ever had any issues while shooting video

The SD slot in the Mk3 isn't UHS, so even if you put a super fast SD card in there, it will work, but will only read/write at class 10 speed.  My SD slot is usually left empty.  Would've much preferred dual CF slots, but whatayagonnado

45

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:51:41 PM »

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft.  Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing.  At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.