Jump to content

emgesp

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by emgesp

  1. I'm going to upgrade from a T2i, yes that 7 yr old camera, please don't laugh. Right now I'm thinking GH5 with Speedbooster, the A99 Mk.ll or possibly wait for the A7S Mark.lll 4K is great, but I'm perfectly happy just to be able to get true high quality 1080p with minimum moire/aliasing and more frame rate options for slow mo. A full 2 stops of better low light than my T2i would be ideal as well. I think the GH5 with Speedbooster might be only one stop better in low light than my T2i, but not sure on that. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
  2. The 40mm 2.8 pancake lens would be really nice with this adapter on a NEX, or EOS-M mount. Small,cheap, good optics, versatile FOV and with the speed boost it becomes a F2.0 as far as exposure goes. 
  3. Would the M/43 version be able to achieve the same 1.07x crop factor when using FF lenses? If so I'm buying me a GH3 a.s.a.p.  Being able to achieve FF DOF on a M/43 camera would be amazing. Also, wouldn't the light hitting the sensor be even more concentrated on the M/43 sensor if using this adapter? 
  4. Exactly, it just squeezes a Full-Frame sensor FOV onto the smaller crop sensor. Technology is amazing.  Canon needs to start making some solid EOS-M bodies now. 
  5.   Too bad Canon doesn't have a decent Mirrorless body out yet. 
  6. This adapter doesn't actually make the lens wider. It just keeps the same FOV as you would see on a Full Frame body. So a 50mm+Speed Booster on a Super 35mm sensor will give you around the same FOV as a 50mm on a FF body. Pretty neat. It also means you won't have to upgrade to a FF Body to achieve that FF shallow depth of field. Basically, you pay $600 to turn your APS-C camera into a FF body. It's just too bad it will only work on mirrorless cameras.  
  7. Whenever Blackmagic releases a S35 camera for under $5k you can count me in.
  8. Higher bitrates and ND filter would be awesome. 24Mbps is fine for Soccer Moms, not people that take their videos seriously. 
  9. [quote author=filipeG link=topic=812.msg5951#msg5951 date=1339363972] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=812.msg5846#msg5846 date=1338859239] [quote author=marike6 link=topic=812.msg5845#msg5845 date=1338851642] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=812.msg5840#msg5840 date=1338848228] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=812.msg5839#msg5839 date=1338847948] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=812.msg5838#msg5838 date=1338847593] 20MP P&S is beyond overkill. I guarantee that 90% of the stills taken with this camera will not be printed. 12 MP's would have been a more practical choice. [/quote] They said 36MP was overkill for the D800. It wasn't. [/quote] The low-light performance says otherwise. Great camera would have been greater with much less MP's. [/quote] Is that so?  Here's what DxOMark testing said about that: D800 2835 ISO score 14.4 EVs DR score 25.3 bits Color Depth score D700 2303 ISO score 12.2 EVs DR score 23.5 bits Color Depth score D3s 3253 ISO score 12 EVs DR score 23.5 bits Color Depth score D4  2965 ISO score 13.1 EVs 24.7 bits Color Depth score 5D Mk II 1815 ISO score 11.9 EVs DR score 23.7 Color Depth 5D Mk III 2239 ISO Score 11.7 EVs DR 24 bits color depth   Notice that only the D3s and D4 do better than the 36mp D800 at high ISO, and only slightly. [/quote] I'm talking about video. The Nikon D800 is a lot noisier than the 5D mark lll. [/quote] Yeah, but 3200 iso equals 6400 iso from canon. So it´s almost the same. D800 at 6400 has more noise than canon at 6400, but the 3200 from D800 has the same light that 6400 from canon. [/quote] The D800 at ISO 3200 is noiser than the Canon 5D Mark lll at ISO 6400. https://vimeo.com/42381520
  10. [quote author=MichalGajdos link=topic=812.msg5856#msg5856 date=1338887183] [quote author=Maxine link=topic=812.msg5848#msg5848 date=1338869540] Someone please tell Sony to stop making 60p video mode.Only soccer moms & dads will want this.And that is their market methinks. Where's 30/24P? It's just really annoying... [/quote] I as a professional skier thank to Gods that someone like Sony has the guts to do fullHD60p not just simple 24p , we wan't at least a small slow motion and not just in HD but fullHD. 60p is enough for twixtor and it looks amaxing, you can still get your 24p love but with addition of slow motion. Even Hobbit is filmed at 48p please stop complaining about new things and simply get used to them. It's just the matter of time when the higher framerates will become a common thing. 24p is just not enough for action shots. I am very amazed how far Sony is taking their chances. I admire them for being so innovative. Like apple or Teslamotors with electric cars. Even if it's more expensive (which sony definitely IS NOT) it's worth your money. [/quote] If 48p becomes the standard for films then God help us. I don't like my films looking like Soap Operas.
  11. [quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=812.msg5849#msg5849 date=1338869706] well, for video, you should be lighting your shots properly and deliberately to best suit your camera; so it's really a non-issue. [/quote] Not all of us want to bring expensive lighting gear for every shoot. I like to keep a low-profile when I'm shooting in certain places like clubs, or bars.
  12. [quote author=marike6 link=topic=812.msg5845#msg5845 date=1338851642] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=812.msg5840#msg5840 date=1338848228] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=812.msg5839#msg5839 date=1338847948] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=812.msg5838#msg5838 date=1338847593] 20MP P&S is beyond overkill. I guarantee that 90% of the stills taken with this camera will not be printed. 12 MP's would have been a more practical choice. [/quote] They said 36MP was overkill for the D800. It wasn't. [/quote] The low-light performance says otherwise. Great camera would have been greater with much less MP's. [/quote] Is that so?  Here's what DxOMark testing said about that: D800 2835 ISO score 14.4 EVs DR score 25.3 bits Color Depth score D700 2303 ISO score 12.2 EVs DR score 23.5 bits Color Depth score D3s 3253 ISO score 12 EVs DR score 23.5 bits Color Depth score D4  2965 ISO score 13.1 EVs 24.7 bits Color Depth score 5D Mk II 1815 ISO score 11.9 EVs DR score 23.7 Color Depth 5D Mk III 2239 ISO Score 11.7 EVs DR 24 bits color depth   Notice that only the D3s and D4 do better than the 36mp D800 at high ISO, and only slightly. [/quote] I'm talking about video. The Nikon D800 is a lot noisier than the 5D mark lll. 
  13. [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=812.msg5839#msg5839 date=1338847948] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=812.msg5838#msg5838 date=1338847593] 20MP P&S is beyond overkill. I guarantee that 90% of the stills taken with this camera will not be printed. 12 MP's would have been a more practical choice. [/quote] They said 36MP was overkill for the D800. It wasn't. [/quote] The low-light performance says otherwise. Great camera would have been greater with much less MP's.
  14. 20MP P&S is beyond overkill. I guarantee that 90% of the stills taken with this camera will not be printed. 12 MP's would have been a more practical choice.
  15. [quote author=mike_tee_vee link=topic=783.msg5712#msg5712 date=1338230065] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=783.msg5666#msg5666 date=1338029679] [quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=783.msg5662#msg5662 date=1338007994] you're comparing it to an 85mm, and you should be comparing it to a 150mm. [/quote] No, because a 75mm lens is not built the same as a 150mm lens. It only has the same FOV as a 150mm lens on a Full Frame.  A fast 75mm lens is much cheaper to make than a fast 150mm lens. [/quote] Exactly.  Similarly the hood (not included) and lens cap should cost about the same as the ones for the Nikon 85mm 1.8, NOT a 150mm 1.8.  I hope no one is defending the $100 cost of the hood simply because we should be comparing it to a 150mm lens hood. [/quote] LMAO, I didn't know the lens hood wasn't included. Ok, this is without a doubt one of the most overpriced lenses I've ever seen. $1,000 for a 75mm 1.8 with lens hood is ridiculous. I don't see why anyone would defend the price of this lens unless they make 6 figures a year.
  16. [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=783.msg5694#msg5694 date=1338146058] I don't think it's overpriced. Internal focussing Very fast and silent AF IS is in the body (and as I'm finding with my OM-D - it is f***ing good!!) Very high build quality Optical quality is outstanding from the reviews I've seen A lens is a much more worthy investment than a camera body. Would it be nicer if cheaper, of course. And I was expecting it to be a bit cheaper than it turned out to be... But there are good reasons for the high price. Sometimes there isn't, and that is when something is classified as 'overpriced' for me. [/quote] I just think it's priced that high because there isn't any competition in the 75mm 1.8 range for M/43 cameras.  It's basically the only option out there.  I'm not saying this lens should be cheap, just cheaper. It has a nice build quality and optics, but it's still just a 75mm 1.8 lens which is not that complicated to make compared to fast wide angles, or super telephotos.
  17. [quote author=hoodlum link=topic=783.msg5677#msg5677 date=1338087386] [quote author=emgesp link=topic=783.msg5660#msg5660 date=1337996164] "But it's an optically superb lens." So is the new Nikon 85mm 1.8, but Nikon isn't charging $900 for it and it's a full-frame lens too.  If this was a macro lens, or had IS I could understand the price, but it doesn't have either. [/quote] The new Nikon 85mm doesn't seem to be as sharp wide open.  It also has slower AF and a plastic body.  The 9 aperture blades on the 75mm should give a nicer bokeh vs the 7 blades on the Nikon.  I don't think the pricing is that far off considering what you get.  But I do agree that some would be willing to sacrifice in some areas to get a lower price. [/quote] The Nikon 85mm 1.8 might not be as sharp as the 75mm 1.8 at max aperture, but it's still sharp wide-open. Just check out these resolution scores. http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/718-nikkorafs8518dx?start=1
  18. [quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=783.msg5662#msg5662 date=1338007994] you're comparing it to an 85mm, and you should be comparing it to a 150mm. [/quote] No, because a 75mm lens is not built the same as a 150mm lens. It only has the same FOV as a 150mm lens on a Full Frame.  A fast 75mm lens is much cheaper to make than a fast 150mm lens.
  19. "But it's an optically superb lens." So is the new Nikon 85mm 1.8, but Nikon isn't charging $900 for it and it's a full-frame lens too.  If this was a macro lens, or had IS I could understand the price, but it doesn't have either.
  20. I mean if it had IS I could see the $899 street price justifiable. IMHO, it's $300 overpriced.
  21. This is what happens to all my T2i files on my PC.  VLC doesn't crush the blacks, but it clips the highlights, Windows Media Player crushes blacks and clips highlights, and Quicktime player keeps all the shadow and  highlight detail, but it has gamma curve that makes everything look washed out.  In Sony Vegas I choose full range and then use basic contrast/brightness controls to make everything look right before final encode.
  22. I've only seen a few sample videos, but so far the video quality is impressive. I wonder what Canon/Panasonic will do if this camera really takes off.
  23. [quote author=dangerzonerj link=topic=613.msg4454#msg4454 date=1334953181] [quote author=garypayton link=topic=613.msg4452#msg4452 date=1334951171] Correct : we STILL love the 5d mark II...;) [/quote] I love mine that's for sure!  :D And it will be a great pair with BM. Also I'm not a big fan of the stupid little DOF people insist on MKII/III. So critical that any move from the cast and you re done, must be always hacking focus... I'm often working on 5.6-8f to get a decent focus area... We can have a good shallow DOF with GH2 so I guess it will be the same on BMCC . I guess with a Tokina 11mm-16mm 2.8, a samyang 24mm 1.4, samyang 35mm 1.4 and a canon 50mm 1.8 for those on a tight budget and you're ready for basically everything... Besides old nikons F. Put a 70-200mm an you get an amazing telephoto camera... [/quote] I can't stand the shallow depth of field on Full Frame HDSLR's with fast lenses. It's too extreme and makes focus pulling a pain in the arse. 
  24. [quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=613.msg4439#msg4439 date=1334938323] [quote author=TC link=topic=613.msg4401#msg4401 date=1334888422] [quote author=moebius22 link=topic=613.msg4399#msg4399 date=1334886943] The internal battery is wrong headed and a problem. [/quote] Agreed.  Two bad design decisions with this camera: internal battery and EOS mount.  Everything else is all we could hope for (and more) at $3000. [/quote] EOS mount was actually a much better business decision than M43 mount. Would a M43 mount make the camera more versatile? yes. But EOS mount speaks volumes, it tells the consumer, "Hey, we're listening. We see that you have lots of canon glass, please feel free to use it on our camera." Right now, Canon has a much larger share of the consumer market than m43, and it's much wiser to cater to that larger share INITIALLY to get that consumer base behind the camera before telling the consumer what mount is better and what they should want. [/quote] Why not offer a M/43 mount as well?  It would have made sense to have an EOS and M/43 mount option.
×
×
  • Create New...