rosy said:

if you are looking for a 'filmic' look, a problem with hd in general is that it's often too sharp and determined.
therefore always looking to use 'older' and softening lenses for film like imagery. preferably produced before the 70ties.

Click to expand...

Wow! I was sure I was only idiot who thought the same way))
I was working in small production and one director told me that the problem was not in lanses but in light (picture was toooooo sharp). We were arguing for an hour and decided to test some combinations. We'll do it.

although i like most of the canon lens range a lot, even the zooms which are great in their field, in general for a more filmic look the imagery is rather sharp most of the time. colors blend less than with exposure on film.

Click to expand...

Canon lens are good for no art movies, I think. Or you should know how to use aperture right. Or how to change aperture and shutter speed at the same time and without step-effect.

preferably anamorphic

Click to expand...

Yes! This is the only way to cinema.

and then you can be lucky in russia finding those kind of 'home' made obscure lenses with a nice drop in depth of field.

Click to expand...

I have two soviet lenses, Gelios 44m & Industar 61 L/Z and Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestor 135 mm f/ 2.8 («Bokeh King»); will show you how it works on 5D Mark III.

afaik, over here (Swtzerland) you cannot send your DSLR to another than an official Canon Rep. Even though you take it to your brick and mortar shop where you bought it. They'll do that anyway due to guarantee reasons...

brad goda said:

I think more important to consider is what rig you are using for your set up... focus pulling... T adjust (...) yes any or most lenses will be good... but what kind of mechanics will your film making require. there will be many adaptations you will have to make to make EF lenses fit matte boxes and rigs...

Click to expand...

I understand this and I realize that my post was very vague.
To begin with, we're doing a very crude setup for the pilot (its just a 2-3 day shoot), I will mostly be doing landscape beauty-shots (big panoramas and star-timelapse), so I think we might do the first shoot without any real rig. Probably a nice tripod, a merlin glide and a simple slider. Maybe a very simple follow-focus, but this is not even certain. In future shoots, (if all goes well) we'd be going much more cinematic, eg. more narrative shots, more characters and much more focus pulling.
Maybe I should distinguish between questions that have to with optical qualities and questions pertaining to ergonomics and other non optical considerations.

brad goda said:

the EF and ZF lenses are good.. but NOT cinema lenses... focus racking and seamless T adjustments are made way different on Canon cinema and Zeiss CP.2

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by this?

From what it looks like today, we might start off with one or two zooms and a few primes. I assume that eg. 24-70II+70-200 2.8II is a sturdy combo, but what if we want to go wider than that?
From an optical standpoint, are there any L-glass that you would NOT recommend using for 4K?

Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

Already discussed here on forums and elsewhere.

Thanks gentlemen for the advice.

Meanwhile my used 17-35 L has arrived and I'm shocked. The Tokina 11-16 2.8 blows this lens out of the water in any discipline. Sharpness over all, Sharpness of corners, felt stability and even with the accu drill sound the AF seems on par with the Canon USM.

So I know that it will be the Tokina to cover the lower end and I will invest in the Chinese second hand market for a used 70-200. That leaves the question between the 28-70 L and the Sigma 17-50 2.8 which has failed me once already in regards to build quality but which is small and light and is stabilized.

I am shooting a 5D3 since last August. And it was a big step up for me in low light, coming from a 30D. The 1Dx is definitely not my expenditure league. But If you do birding, although I am not into that, I guess the 1Dx surely has a stellar AF and is a lot more forgiving at higher ISOs relating to what I've heard so far. It has a 0.5 to 1 stop advantage in RAW over the 5D3 according to neuro. How many f-stops do you lose with a 1.4 converter and the 100-400? Anyway you'd have at least a 560mm on the long end. If I were you I'd go for the body...Because neither the 1Dx nor the 5D3 will see an upgrade within the next year. But, that's my 2 cents.

with zeiss and the canon 1.2L on your list its obvious budget is not a problem
but check out the canon 50 2.5 macro... it has a noisy slow non USM motor and a thin plastic manual focus ring BUT its a underdog performer... all my Japanese studio friends swear by this lens and I do to... check out this review.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=287&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

ha! a fun look. and scary comparison.

Hey thanks for the comments, sorry I forgot to reply it gets lost in the vast amounts of posts on this site, the indoor group shot was just 2 580ex ii's and the outdoor shots were just natural light.

sorry I checked and the actual policy is with Vero AON are just the brokers

Wireless control for shooting video.

Big step up cash wise, fancied the samyang for a while.

Bit stung by my recent sigma experience tbh.

Here are some 100% crops top 2 are 300 +2x TC on 5dmk3 wide open then 1 stop down
second 2 are the eos M with 70-200 +2x TC wide open and 1 stop down

To my eye the 17-40 appeared a bit sharper in the centre with only marginal corner improvements found in the Zeiss 18. All my tests were at f8. I rarely shoot UWAs wider.

(And colour, contrast etc were not much different to my eyes).

As for the reference to corner sharpness in the 16-35 and by recognized extension, the 17-40, there is some general sponginess at F8 in the corners/edges vs the results I've seen from the TS lenses and the Zeiss 21.

Canon will survive

Aglet said:

but still no 5d2 samples for me to compare.. from anyone?...

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Since none of us bother trying to recover images where the flash didn't fire, none of us have ever had problems with noise in Zone -2 shadows. And none of us care what kinds of noise may or may not lurk in Zone -2 shadows.

You're the guy claiming that brand X car is complete junk because it can only do 45 MPH in first gear, while brand Y car is totally awesome because it can do 50 MPH in first gear. All the rest of us are telling you you're an idiot for waiting so long to shift gears, and that we're not at all interested in seeing how fast we can drive in first gear.

And then you have the nerve to insult us for not bothering to test-drive our cars way past redline for you to see just how fast we can get them to go in first gear.

(Of course, the car analogy breaks down at this point, as there's no danger from exposing images in a pointless manner. But why bother wasting our time on something as stupidly pointless as seeing what kind of noise there is in a lenscap-on shot with enough digital gain to put it in Zone III?)

Cheers,

b&

Unfortunately to my eye - more and more there are less 'true' foreigners participating in Trinidad Carnival. It is to a large extent patronized by locals and returning 'locals' who have expatriated themselves in foreign urban areas of the world - Florida, New York, Toronto, London etc., and make an effort to visit Trinidad once every two years to visit family/friends, childhood places and take in Carnival at the same time. (Niki Minaj is an example of one such person who came back to film one her recent videos (pound the alarm) in TT with a familiar carnival setting.

So any sx160is successor rumored or announced ?

My recent experience has been...switching color profiles when viewing/editing a RAW file, from Adobe RGB to ProPhoto RGB...sometimes gives a more natural color palette via my monitor, but it also always makes the apparent color saturation, less so. This translates the same when I convert to jpeg. So, even though the image portrays more of the dynamic range (there's little need for recovery of the shadows or the highlights when I switch to ProPhoto)...it also seems to "crush" much of the tonality and color in the shadow areas...especially after converting to jpeg.

I don't usually see a reason to shoot in jpg mode, but when I do it, I still leave the camera set to Adobe RGB, and haven't noticed a problem with the color when viewed on my monitor. I don't print many of my images that were originally shot as jpg.

I really see no reason to ever shoot in sRGB mode, because again, the resulting jpgs after conversion, look as good or better via web-sized images, as those done in sRGB. What makes more difference for a small jpg viewed on the web, are the various attributes the host web page decides for you...especially how they decide to make the thumbnail-sized images "pop" or not. I admit I don't comprehend their methods very much.

If theres only a few I'd do them for you.
What software are you using?

Set the render disks to the fastest available non systems disk, there will be audio and video render, put both in same place.

Set the capture disk to the slower USB disk, and copy your camera files here, and take them into premiere from here.

The main thing is that premiere is pointing the renders to the fast drive.

64gb isn't an awful lot of space. If your system is running happily from the 64gb then let it be, use the new bigger one for renders. They pile up when you start making changes, adding colour correction, text, tweaking audio etc.

You can always trash renders once your project is completed and you have a high quality finished version.

NANPA (North American Nature Photographers Association) is holding their annual Summit in Jacksonville, FL, Feb 28 - Mar 3, 2013. Canon Professional Services will be there. I'll be there, too, and was wondering if any other CR Forum members are planning to attend.

https://vimeo.com/59613233

https://vimeo.com/59642343


Used Equipment:
Canon C100
Zeiss CP2 18mm/35mm/85mm

“A human being is only breath and shadow.” – Sophocles
This quote from Sophocles inspired me to shoot this short film.
It was a really nice experience to work with Canon C100. I pushed the ISO up to 4000
because i wanted to see how much noise will be generated.
Of course there is some grain in the picture but the low light ability of the Canon C100
is still amazing.
Working with the Compact Prime Lenses was uncomplicated. The Magnifier Button, which operates also during
recording is an amazing tool.
The form factor of the C100 is very handy and you are able to make your shots in a quick and comfortable way.

wickidwombat said:

Rienzphotoz said:

wickidwombat said:

Rienzphotoz said:

wickidwombat said:

this lens cap works well
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/82mm-82-White-Balance-Lens-Cap-WB-Custom-Filter-Mount-/320912060671?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item4ab7d970ff

see in the pic there is a seperate ring? that is supposed to screw into the filter thread and the cap is a snug pop on or off fit its snug enough that by not bothering with their supplied ring the cap will fit tightly over the outside diameter of the filter.

they actually also work quite well for custom white balance too even in mixed lighting and are much more convenient than a grey card

Click to expand...

If it fits snugly without falling off on a 82mm slim filter, I'd rather get this than a expensive XS-Pro ... but I didn't quite understand the concept of this cap ... do you use this? how does it work?

Click to expand...

yeah its easty to use
with the cap on the lens flick it over to mf
point camera at scene you are going to shoot with AWB enabled
take a pic
set that pic as custom white balance pic
flick AF switch back to AF (annoying when you forget this part)
carry on shooting

Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I didn't ask the question correctly ... I am not talking about the WB ... what I wanted to know was how does the cap fit, because you said:
"see in the pic there is a seperate ring? that is supposed to screw into the filter thread and the cap is a snug pop on or off fit its snug enough that by not bothering with their supplied ring the cap will fit tightly over the outside diameter of the filter"

I am a bit confused, do I need to attach the separate ring in order to fit the cap snugly on to my 82mm slim filter?
I am not interested int the custom WB part as I already have a Rogue ExpoDisc and a WhiBal ... I am only interested in the cap for my 82mm slim filter.

Click to expand...

oh it fits because you just forget about the mounting ring it comes with and it snuggly fits over the filter itself
ie the inside diameter of the cap = the outside diameter of the filter

Click to expand...

OK, thanks.

dr croubie said:

You'd seriously hand over $6k of camera plus lens to a random guy on the street?

Click to expand...

At least check he don't look like sprinter body build type, or wear running shoes