Four more snaps.

Impressive features....

key features:

Shoots 4k, 2k, 1080 all simultaneously
Can be used for live events
Wireless transmission of video
120 fps in 4k
14+ stops of dynamic range


details:

http://blog.planet5d.com/2014/02/new-panasonic-varicam-35-announced-competition-for-redalexacanon/

mackguyver said:

alexturton said:

canon 50 1.4 - sold for 50L 1.2. Best decision I ever made. Wish I did it 3 years ago. It now lives on my camera.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% and actually sold my 50 1.2 and missed it so I bought another one

Also, I posted a similar thread a while back, that you might be interested in:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17987.msg333569#msg333569

Click to expand...

I did that with my 100L... fortunately I didn't lose any money on the deal.

Sweet! Thanks for posting! It looks pretty good

If anyone is around these parts, please go and film the AF speed on the distance scale and tell us!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9171

Based on the Moire Method! Many who have used that method know that's its virtually impossible to get any useful or repeatable results. I did not see any acknowledgement of the issues or what he might be doing to solve them.

the folks at Reikan FoCal found so many gotchas in the Nikon and Canon AF systems over the past two years that I'd even put dot tune as a small step above it.
Of course, if your AF system is grossly off, anything that gets it closer will seem to be wonderful.

Viggo said:

David Hull said:

With regard to the 400k ISO, IMO the real question should be "where does the ability of the AF to work crap out?" Super high ISO isn't of much use if you can't focus clearly.

Click to expand...

I've seen this comment by others also and one answer could be, and this goes for me, it's not about the pitch black use of it, it's about shutter speeds. I often use ISO 5000 outdoor in not too low light to get my 1/1000s-1/4000s shutters. When shooting sports indoors and you want some dof for example, it makes sense to have a very high iso. Have I ever needed above 51k on my 1dx, no, but I like to shoot with the widest of apertures.

Click to expand...

Well said. I'm really just curious how the rest of the ISO noise levels compare to the 1DX, which I assume we will see in the coming weeks when the tests start getting posted. It's entirely possible the D4S could pull ahead, even though its normal range still does not extend to 52k like the 1DX's. Time will tell.

I personally could make use of, and have used, ISO 102k with my 6D...but of course the noise is not good, and this was with positive exposure compensation. Not sure it would work at all with no compensation.

But yes, you could not use the D4S for say a 1/5 second exposure at ISO 400k, with a fast aperture lens. Its autofocus wouldn't work, in any case...neither would the 6D's. Although just recently I was able to get my 6D to AF with live view in very dark outdoor conditions, with my Sigma 24mm f/1.8...where the phase AF would not work at all. Obviously this is not a technique that would be useful/reliable for servo tracking, though. But then there are those that think servo AF can't even be done with the 6D in bright noontime.

I envy you for both the photos and the opportunity.

Jim

acafinecon said:

privatebydesign said:

acafinecon said:

1/ Canon has ALWAYS been inferior to Nikon in terms of sensor quality. especially DR (I have seen at least 3 professional lab tests including the famous DXO). 2/ Why do so many pros (more than 50% in a recent poll) own Canon bodies?

3/ If Canon does not release a new camera with better DR, I'll switch to Nikon forever.

4/ Canon fanboy of 25 years (FD, EOS, EOS-digital systems + 20 lenses)

Click to expand...

1/ No they haven't, they wiped the floor with Nikon sensors for years, now the seesaw is the other way. Heck for years Nikon said there was never any point to a FF sensor!

2/ Because taking the images that put food on the table is abut a lot more (a hell of a lot more) than one sensor metric. The difference in DR pales to insignificance when you need in focus images, for instance, ad Canon AF still beats the pants off Nikon AF, apart from that damn 1D MkIII mess up, which temporarily gave Nikon a sales boost.

3/ Bye, nobody cares, especially Canon. They have bean counters that work out how many people are expected to leave over any feature or non feature, you have been accounted for and ignored.

4/ So what? You don't owe Canon anything and they don't owe you anything. If more DR, or whatever you feel would serve you better by another manufacturer, is critical for your images get something else.

Click to expand...

ok, guys, I should have said that Canon has been lagging behind Nikon/Sony in the last 5 years (a long time) or so in sensor DR. I have seen too many published articles bashing Canon sensor technology and am upset becuase I have invested thousands of dollars in Canon gears. It is a shame that even the 1DX has a sensor much worse than Nikon/Sony cameras half its price!

I vote to have you promoted Director of Canon USA Customer Service (**).

Click to expand...

For every article published bashing Canon sensors I can link you to thousands of professionally shot and published images shot with that very gear.

Do you want to talk about it or use it? If you want to use it then show me some of your images where the DR of your current Canon sensors has seriously let you down where you have used the gear to its optimal capability. I am not talking flash misfires, incompetent use of M mode or exposure compensation, straight honest images you have shot that are ruined by the difference between Canon and Nikon DR. Until then grow up.

Now, after you have shown me your multitude of ruined images because you can't take a good shot with Canon sensors, I will point out that both Getty and Reuters, the two main shooters of the Olympics, use Canon cameras. I will then ask you how they manage to get better than good images in the highest pressure environments for sports shooters possible, yet you can't in everyday circumstances, what could possibly be the difference between the two?

As for calling me "Director of Canon USA Customer Service", why? Because I agreed with you that Nikon have "better" sensors? Because I said if Canon gear doesn't cut it for you go to a different manufacturer? Sounds kinda lame when put like that doesn't it? I am hardly pitching for Canon with those two comments

tron said:

mackguyver said:

CarlTN said:

Drizzt321 said:

CarlTN said:

...In my opinion the main reason to use tripods for daylight images, is when you want to blur water or other things that are in motion. Or if you are nuts about shooting everything at ISO 50 or 100. But if you're that nuts about that, you should be using a D800 and a Zeiss lens...at least until Canon bring out their high MP camera (and even then you'll need a Zeiss lens).

Click to expand...

Or, if you're really a purist, you'll insist on a 50 pound wooden tripod with 8x10 film plates with a donkey or two and an assistant to carry it all for you

Click to expand...

...but...but...but then you didn't do all the work yourself, so you can't truthfully do what those types do, and complain about having to hike 50 miles in the dark to the location while carrying said huge field camera with cast iron tripod on your shoulder!

Click to expand...

LOL and speaking of that, "When the Banner Peak photo became famous, Harold loved telling everybody, 'I held Ansel's ass while he made that picture!'"
Source: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/ansel-adams-wilderness/poole-text

Click to expand...

LOL, until I read the reference I tended to think that Harold was Ansel Adam's donkey ;D ;D ;D

OK donkeys don't speak but still that was deducted from above (without the url reference) ;D ;D ;D

Click to expand...

LOL!

Lens Foot Non-Skid

Added non-skid (no grit) tape to foot and grip feels more secure when carrying. Clear (don't be fooled by white backing), 1" was narrowest and least aggressive of three, by-the-foot, options at local hardware store. 99 cents per foot.

drjlo said:

Rienzphotoz said:

Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move

Click to expand...

At say 50 mm focal length, with adults "trying" to pose and not move, what minimum shutter speed would be typically required for subject motion?

Looking over my shots, I actually got some very sharp photos at around 65 mm at 1/30th.
Some of the moderately blurred photos were for example 61 mm at 1/16 th ! Didn't even realize how slow shutter speed was due to trying to run after people. So in these situations, IS/VC would not have helped anyway?

Click to expand...

It would help at those slow shutter speeds, but it doesn't help if people are moving...only if YOU are moving.

regarding your question about at 50mm focal length....I would say shoot at 1/100 for sharp shots without IS...if that requires you to bump up ISO to 3200 or 6400, so be it. The noise is easily removed in post processing, or if shooting JPEG, the 5d3 does an awesome job at noise reduction if you turn it on in the camera settings.

wickidwombat said:

i paid $25 for a pu120 for the tamron 150-600

another annoying note on the tamron is that the foot only have 1 hole for a lens this size i would have prefered a double hole for mounting the arca plate

Click to expand...

Easy. Drill another hole in the foot with an 11/64" drill bit, tap it with a 1/4-20 tap (use wax or other lubricant) and you will have a two screw connection. I don't think it's necessary though. I've carried my EF 70-200L IS II around on a sling extensively using the one screw plate attachment and have never had any issues. But if two screws or LockTite will put you more at ease, then it is certainly worth doing.

Got two 50 1.4 and tested them in order to keep the best w respect to focus shift. However, they behaved pretty much the same on my 70D. Interestingly, perceived accuracy from results w standard AF were better than results w precise manual focus or dual pixel AF.

I ended up keeping the one w better clarity, and AFMA for most used aperture/distance.

Hello !!

Thank you guys for your comments and for watching it

I don't know if we can consider it as "promo stuff" but it's an "identity" movie to present the club as a teaser before football match.

Cheers.

hoodlum said:

The Digital Picture has posted their initial test results.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9162

Click to expand...

I have posted a series of links to different comparisons in the "Shallow review" thread

some impressive looking AF tracking and fps videos on this page but I'd really like to see how well it would track AF and shoot with something like a 50mm or longer with f/2 or wider aperture.

www.dailycameranews.com/2014/02/sony-a6000-af-test/

edit - add another video link:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2f9ue2FJB4

If I had mass disposable income, I'd spend it on Stanko Abadzic's work. He channels Moholy-Nagy and works shadows like no other living artist.

Buying it is just like to buy a lottery. Will you?

Re: Canon Announces New Firmware Updates for Cinema Cameras & Camcorders

JesseKorgemaa said:

It most certainly won't come to the 1dx as its a different sensor. The C100/C300 share the same sensor and the technology for it was already built on the sensor, however it wasn't finished until implemented with the 70d.
This video should help you see its quality. https://vimeo.com/87006298

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing the video, I had not seen it. It is an excellent promotional video and plants the seed of me wanting one, as even though I do not do weddings I can see how useful it would be in different circumstances.

Let's hope Canon does not make any other similar videos but with a more general theme. ;-)

Fortunately, I just got my Helios 77M-4 50mm f1.8 lens yesterday. It's a nice, all metal build w/ manual aperture & focus. The creamy bokeh and smooth action is staving off my fantasies of either the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro or the 55mm Opus, and for only $140 w/ the EF adapter.

I'm having so much fun with it, I used it exclusively at my son's cub scout blue & gold banquet last night. There were a couple shots I missed that might have succeeded if I had an AF lens, but overall I was quite happy with it. I just feel a lot more involved with the photo process when I'm controlling the focus & aperture on the lens. Maybe it's because if the picture looks good, it was because of me, and not whether the camera decided to focus fast enough or on the right place.

Here's a few shots:


Love by yorgasor, on Flickr


Target Practice by yorgasor, on Flickr

StudentOfLight said:

IMG_0001 said:

...The key idea from the start of the discussion...

Click to expand...

is

Khufu said:

Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?

I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!

Thoughts?

Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook

Click to expand...

I wasn't quoting with my reply, I was replying to the OP. Perhaps I should have quoted him in the first place, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

Ok, but I still read in the original post that the guy (girl or whatever) wants to know about a compact APS-C body, with improved low-light capability through lower pixel density (APS-C sized sensor with the pixel density of a FF sensor).

I agree it would not provide as good an IQ or low-light performance as a FF because the absolute number of pixels would be lower and the total amount of light on the sensor is lower. However, the per pixel noise would be reduced by the simple fact that larger pixels get a greater part of the incoming light, providing a higher signal, and lower relative noise.

I then still think you oversimplified by saying :

StudentOfLight said:

This is a simplified version of events...
1) A given lens gathers an amount of light (x) through it's image circle.
2) Diffuse light (a) is cropped away at the aperture
3) Then the camera body crops from circular image into a rectangular image thereby losing light(b).

Light reaching the sensor = (x-a-b)

Canon APS-C bodies, by virtue of their smaller sensor design crop away 61% of the light from a full frame lens, which the full frame sensor wouldn't have.

Click to expand...

Because you did not consider the fact that larger pixel act at the sensor level just like larger aperture acts at the lens level. The photodiode is part of the optical path.

Hope you find a solution soon, otherwise take it back and get it replaced!

good luck!

Canon Europe has posted some PowerShot G1 X sample full resolution images taken at ISO 800 - 1600 (Images 14 through 20 can be seen in full resolution by using the magnify button below the image).

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/powershot_g1x_mark_ii/?WT.ac=SS_G1XMarkii_UK

Ada member dari Indonesia?
Yuk berbagi cerita di sini ;D

I know Chinese and visit the forum. Didn't see the post you mentioned. Probably just some forum members' words.