Jump to content

Damphousse

Members
  • Posts

    913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Damphousse

  1. There is no way Windows 8 deleted anything, you've obviously done something wrong when you installed it. Also there are plenty of HDD recovery programs out there that will get most if not all your data back without having to pay a professional service.

     

     

    This is true.  Unless you do a low level format (which takes forever) the data is still there and easily recoverable.

     

    I've had hard drives go bad on me and I purposely did a total low level format and it took FOREVER.  This was not one of those multiple writes.  It was a one pass low level format.  It was a very deliberate and time consuming thing.  Can't imagine a program doing something like that incidently... and hearing about it on eoshd.com vs the evening news.

  2. Never heard of this.  I use the 3x crop mode on the t3i along with high bitrate courtesy of 1% and Tragic Lantern.  Best video you can get for $350.  Moire/aliasing under control and a picture that you can actually grade a little and sharpen without it falling to pieces.

     

    I use the older 1% bitrate hack with more control.

     

    What I have found is giving the sensor plenty of light keeps noise under control.  I shoot fast glass (ie f/1.4) and high ISO 1250 if necessary.  Going past 1250 to me just introduces too much noise and underexposing is just shooting yourself in the foot noise wise.

  3. One piece of advice I have for anyone upgrading or installing Windows 8 is to disconnect every drive other than the one you are installing to.  I didn't have any problems with it erasing data from drives but it literally took over my computer.  I have a variety of boot disks.  I have Windows 7 and OS X Mountain Lion installed on a couple of drives.  When I point my BIOS at the OS X Mountain Lion drive it utilizes the Chameleon Bootloader which allows me to then choose my OS.  Well when Windows 8 showed up it scanned all drives on the computer and usurp all other bootloaders and left itself as last man standing.  And of course it has no idea what Mountal Lion is or how to boot it.  Not good.  I had to reinstall Chameleon and fiddle with diskpart to make the OS X disk bootable again... at least I think that is how I fixed it.  Not cool MSFT.  Not cool.


  4.  

    You're absolutely right that a small component cost is the difference between having an iPhone camera and having a phone with no camera.

     

    But I find it strange you pick up on the affect that feature has on the retail price and not the affect that feature has on sales and revenue.

     

     

     

    I didn't mention it because we all know the camera on the iphone has a significat positive effect on sales and revenue.  But we also understand video on a DSLR will NEVER have the same positive effect on camera sales.  It will have some positive effect but your estimates on the size of that effect and mine diverge.  That's a whole other debate.  I was just illustrating with my example that what we perceive as a cheap little component ends up have a large impact on final retail price.

     

     Huge demand for enthusiast DSLR video.

     

    I think that is the main sticking point.  I don't think the demand is as large as you think it is.  I thought the same as you at one point.  Frankly I held that view for years.  But once I actually started digging a bit deeper I realized most photographers pretty much ignore the DSLR video feature.  I didn't do a survery it's just the anectodal stuff I've seen in my own life and stuff I read online.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.  Trust me I wish there was more enthusiasm but I go to video sections of camera sites and there are hardly any posts.

     

    There is a reason I come to this website.  I learned about the Sony RX10 here.  I got very enthusiastic about it based pretty much on your statements regarding it's resolution and lack of moire.  I always like to check multiple sources but NONE of the stills sites are posting any meaningful information about the Sony RX10.  They review video as an an afterthought or not at all. That's why I am conservative in my estimates of the size of the market.  The Sony RX10 is far more of a landmark camera to me than the Nikon Df but if you go to the photo sites the Df is getting all the buzz.  Anyway time will tell.  I hope I am wrong and you are right, but in life you don't always get what you hope for.


  5.  

    Now Nikon need to grow some balls. They have been incredibly poor at diversifying their business. Passing up on chance to own Adobe before they were big. Passing up on chance to apply their existing optical and imaging tech to a video or cinema camera.

     

    Where's the business logic here?

     

     

    Okay.  Let's be honest with everyone here.  They were NEVER given the opportunity to buy Adobe.  That is 100% false.  Two brothers approached Nikon to see if they would purchase the rights to market a program called Photoshop.  Nikon as well as a bunch of major photo industry players turned them down... Including Kodak.  Only after all that did Adobe buy the marketing rights to Photoshop.

     

    The reason given for Nikon headquarters turning down marketing Photoshop was Nikon was not a software company.  Which is 100% true.  There is a good chance if they bought the rights the program's development could have been botched.  It could have been a success but there is a very real possibility it would have been mismanaged or at a minimum no where near as good or ubiquitous as it is today.

     

    There is an old saying on Wall St.  You can't drive a car by looking in the rear view mirror.  Yeah it's fine now in 2013 to Monday morning quarterback some business deal from 80s, but how it's done amongst real investors is you show us your audited trading tickets from the last quarter.

     

    The same question could be asked of you.  How come you weren't buying Apple at $7 and change ten years ago?  If you did you would be making home movies with an Alexa.  Did you miss out on this wonderful deal because you are stupid? I don't think so.  I think it is a lot harder to commit investor capital in real time than it is to peruse 25 year old stock price lists and make up a dream portfolio.

     

    Business is a lot more complicated than people are giving it credit for.  Warren Buffet never bought Microsoft stock.  You think Warren Buffet is poor?  You go with what you know.  People that go on buying sprees buying a bunch of disparate entities they know nothing about go broke.  Ask the management of Aol Time Warner, Daimler Chrysler, HP Palm, etc.

     

    Besides you haven't posted the 1 billion other money losing ideas Nikon was pitched at trade shows that they turned down.  When you are in the investment game long enough you realize that it isn't all about picking winners.  An even bigger chunk of the game is preserving capital by avoiding disasters.

     

     


    Cinema EOS is doing very well for Canon's bottom line. High value, lots of mark-up.

     

     

    Canon has been in the CROWDED video market for eons.  Besides some half backed DLSR offerings Nikon has nothing.  They would be entering an entirely new market from a cold start as a small player.  It may work but it is nowhere near the same dynamic as Canon introducing the Cinema EOS line.

     

     


    Putting a decent codec in a DSLR is not expensive or hard for a company like Nikon... Just get on and do it.

     

    I just don't know what gives you the level of confidence to make these statments.  10 bit 4:2:2 is not something the average DSLR user knows about let alone cares about.  And the processing power, pipeline, and storage media to record that in a bullet proof manner is not inexpensive if you have to add it to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of units.  The consumer electronics business is notoriously competitive.  Every single penny, megabyte, and gigahertz that goes into a device is scrutinised and stripped down to the bare escentials to get the job done.

     

    All the cameras in an iphone 5 cost $18.00.  The iphone 5 in the US retailed without contract for $650.  So think about it.  $18 seems inexpensive when compared to the $650 retail price but that $18 is literaly the difference between an iphone with a front and rear camera and an iphone with no cameras.

     

    I personally think the iphone is overpriced but you get the idea.  The $20 in raw parts you think should just be tossed into the camera culminates in a much bigger price change on the retail level.  Couple that with the fact the majority of the consumers won't even notice your upgrade and it's not hard to see why companies aren't falling all over themselves to break their budget for these features.

     

    The other thing is that codec is not going to be able to be written to just any old card.  Now you are going to have to deal with the customer support hassle of thousands upon thousands of people wondering why their buddies SD card that worked beautifully in their friends Canon is throwing up errors in their Nikon.  Or why their friend with a Canon can shoot on cheap cards but they need special cards.

     

    Again I'm not saying Nikon or Canon are making the right moves.  But at least on a certain level I am willing to admit what I don't know and giving people the benefit of the doubt where appropriate.


  6. The point of the topic, and the article, was that the Japanese camera companies regard video as a distracting sideshow to the main event and that is not how it should be.

     

     

    That's the problem.  What are you basing this declaration on?  These guys are running a business not a not-for-profit or some type of religious organization.  The video on DSLR/mirroless camera market is tiny compared to the stills market.  And people keep underestimating the cost and technical difficulty of implementing our dream features.

     

    I guess in addition to releasing this new camera Nikon has released quarterly results and the google news feed has had several articles written about what ails the DSLR market.  NONE of them mention video.  They all talk about smartphones.  I am not saying these articles are written by the most knowledgeable people but if the video market was really an expansive virgin untapped font of profits you would think someone somewhere would have mentioned it.

     

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107

     

    http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/smart-phones/smartphones-destroying-high-end-camera-s/240163727

     

    Read the comments on this article... http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/09/to-save-itself-the-dslr-market-should-look-to-smartphones-and-revalue-each-press-of-the-shutter/

     

    I think maybe two people mentioned video out of all of those comments.

     

    Here's the Wall Street Journal... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183643696236868

     

     

    Be thankful there is a site for DSLR video and people pushing the industry in a favourable direction. When GH4 comes out, you guys will be raving about it. Stuff doesn't happen by sitting on your hands and accepting the status quo.

     

    Being realistic≠"sitting on your hands"

     

    I want more video oriented features but I am realistic about the size of the videography market and the cost and difficulty of implementing the features I want.  I've noticed something interesting.  No one has thus far implemented an APS-C sensor without moire and aliasing for less than $2,000.  All the cameras that have moire and aliasing decently under control, Panasonic GH2, GH3, G6, BMPCC, Sony RX10 have smaller sensors.  It's plausible it is not economically feasible to implement this feature in an APS-C sensor and sell a camera for less than $500.  Who knows?  But to just assume there is a conspiracy or mass incompetence just seems a little lazy to me.  That to me is a diagnosis of exclusion.  You really have to eliminate all other possibilities before settling on "it's a corporate conspiracy" or "they are just morons."

     

    Trust me I was mighty pissed off when I got my T3i and it was moire and aliasing city.  But in the months since after lots of research I am beginning to understand why things are the way the are and perhaps why the rate of change in the Rebel line has been glacial... if glaciers didn't move.

     

    Anyway my next step is not to "sit on my hands" indefinitely.  I am waiting for more decent sample video from the Sony RX10 and I am waiting for the price of the RX10 to come down a bit.  When those two things happen there is a good chance one of my Canon lenses gets sold and I move over to Sony for most of my video work.

     

    I don't know what is going on with Canon but it seems to me it is pretty plausible there simply aren't enough film students and low budget DPs to justify implementing a slew of features in DSLRs that sell for less than $700.  I am sure they are protecting their 5D MK III and C series cameras as well but there are other pretty practical dollars and cents reasons they haven't gone crazy with video on the low end DSLRs.

  7. Get the Blackmagics into that list...

     

    That list I posted is just DSLRs.  Even the GH3 isn't in that particular list.  The problem with the Blackmagics is the demand especially initially was not reflected in the number sold.  Because they never produced enough of those things.  If they filled all the orders on time it would have shot up in rank.  This Amazon rank is a very crude measure.  It is only one store and I don't know what percent of certain kinds of cameras are sold there.  I can see the average Canon Rebel selling a lot there simply because Amazon prices are decent and it is a name the average person trusts.  As for me I purchase all my gear from various NY/NJ stores most people have never heard of.  And I'm sure the type of person that buys a BMPCC knows about B&H and has no problems purchasing there.  So there will be more BMPCC purchased but not calculated into the Amazon rank.

     

    The number one DSLR on the Amazon list is the Canon T3 12.2 megapixel camera.  That is the T3... not the T3i.  The camera that shoots 1280 x 720 at 30 (29.97) or 25 frames per second.  So just stopping at the 5D MKIII and declaring advanced video shooters as the winners is disengenous.  The top sellers are actually the cameras with severely crippled shooting modes.  And that's not really a problem.  The people that buy those cameras have no interest in ultra high megapixels nor 1080p 24 fps video.  Just because a ton of Toyota Corollas are sold each year doesn't mean Bentleys aren't sweet.

     

    You just can't use sales volume to say Bentleys are nice cars.


  8.  

    The DF did not have as good debut as the D800 according to this - http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/07/nikon-df-demand-not-as-strong-as-the-d800.aspx/

     

    The Panasonic GH3 is under the DSLR category on Amazon. It currently ranks at 30. Selling about the same as the D800 at 29. Flagship vs flagship. The 5D Mark III is fairing slightly better at 23. Seen as those these cameras have been on the market for ages, that's not a bad performance... steady sales.

     

    So there you have it... Looks like the more future facing video orientated D800 and GH3 will be more successful than the DF.

     

    On Amazon in the US the Df currently has a sales rank higher than the D800.  Also EVERY camera this year is doing worse than similar cameras from when the D800 came out.  That really isn't an apples to apples comparison.  You don't compare IPOs in the middle of a recession to IPOs during the 1990s tech boom.  Also the D800 is designed for a much wider market.  And the GH3 is much cheaper and again designed for a totally different market.  There is just very little you can do with these numbers.  You can say this week Amazon sold more of this camera vs another one.  But honestly wouldn't you expect a $1,000 camera to sell more than a $2,800 camera... assuming it is a finished product (ie not BMPCC)?  A lot more people can see themselves buying a $1,000 camera than people that see themselves picking up a $2,800 retro themed camera.

    2j3fzfk.jpg

     

    The Df is not my cup of tea.  If I had the money that is not the way I would choose to spend it.  But the comparisons you made glossed over a lot of important points.

  9. Meanwhile on photography websites this is the camera creating the most buzz.

     

    2nu117n.jpg

     

     

    I'm shocked the Sony RX10 isn't even on the list.  But there you go.

     

     

    The Nikon Df is not designed for videographers.  In fact since most DSLR owners don't own full frame cameras it isn't even for most of them.  It doesn't bother me that there are camcorders that don't shoot stills.  And it doesn't bother me that people recommend them over DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.

  10. the main reason pompus Nikon users ask for no video mode is because they simply don't understand how to get good things from video.

     

    Is this what people tell themselves to get to sleep at night?  You can't be serious.  People that I know that have DSLRs with a video mode frankly even forget the mode is there.  And judging by how many iphone video clips I get from them they seem to know how to hold a camera kind of steady.

     

     

     

     wedding photographers who can diversify and offer (good) movies of a wedding are stealing jobs from the guys who can't deal with pulling focus, working with limited DR, editing, sound etc.

     

     

    Every wedding photography situation that I have seen that involved photo and video had at least two operators.  I don't see how someone can photograph a wedding (stress) and be fiddling with pulling focus.  That seems like a nice way to miss a critical moment.

     

     

    A more pertinent question is where's Nikon, Canon or Sony's answer to Blackmagic?

     

    There isn't one and there won't be one.  Blackmagic puts out beta devices for people that have the luxury and desire to fiddle with beta products.  Nikon, Canon and Sony put out solid tested production models ON TIME.  And another nifty feature of Sony, Nikon and Canon products is they do what it says on the tin.  BMPCC raw anyone?

     

    The problem is a lot of people don't know how to run a business.  A big thing in business as well as life in general is the 80/20 rule.  Getting a CMOS and tossing it in a metal box with some basic features and a crapload of stuff missing gets you 80% of the camera.  The last 20% is a fully working, nonglitchy, polished, ergonomic camera that is delivered in quantity... ON TIME.  That last 20% though is probably 80% of your R&D time, trouble, and expense.

     

    Nikon, Canon, and Sony can't turn out Blackmagic sensor in a box, because they have impeccable global brands.  Blackmagic has nothing to lose.  It's taken Nikon, Canon, and Sony decades to build their reputations and brands.  They are not about to through it all away for either a noncore business or to undercut their pro line of cameras.  Frankly they aren't going to throw it away for anything.  Canon cameras may not have most exotic features but when a feature is advertised it works 100% of the time.  The worst feature on a Canon camera is the autofocus on the rebel line.  But even that abysmal feature is light years ahead of the BMPCC.  People cherry pick all the things they like about the BMPCC and just skip over all the other stuff that Canon has been doing for YEARS that Black Magic won't or can't do.

     

    When Blackmagic starts churning out FINISHED products in quantity ON TIME.  We'll talk.  You can't turn out a finished BMPCC that works, that does what it says on the tin (raw), ON TIME and sell it for less than $1,000.  Canon, Nikon, and Sony are not in the beta device business.  Never will be.

  11.  Often the kit lenses are not wide or long enough and start if your lucky at f2.8 although more likely f4. They want you to buy their line of better lenses. That's why you get all the different formats to force consumers to part with money, Whats that if it isn't conspiracy to get as much money out of the consumer as possible.

     

    The lens you describe (faster than 2.8, zoom, low distortion, sharp, well controled CA, ≤$200) has never existed in the history of photography.  And your explaination is a 100+ year global conspiracy?

  12. But honestly you get what you pay for.

     

    Really? I think you get what a seller can get away with.

     

    In the consumer lens category not really.  It's competitive enough that if someone could produce an amazing zoom lens for $100 and turn a profit they would do it.  Specialty lenses have a bit more of a captive audience.  If there is a conspiracy I wouldn't think it would occur in the consumer kit lens space.

     

     

     

     

     Stock lenses are known to be shitty.

     

     

    Compared to what?  He was talking about consumer gear for $600.  No camera lens combo beats something like a t3i/kit lens combo in the sub $600 as an all rounder camera.  Some beat it in terms of size (iphone) but they get whipped on image quality.  m4/3 are nice but there isn't a financial savings.  They are even more expensive than the t3i/kit combo.  And they come with kit lenses as well that in a number of cases don't perform as well as the canon kit lens.

  13. Maybe it's time for them to sell the cameras with a lens that actually gives good quality, I think 80% of the people who buy an entry level dslr never get another lens (maybe the cheap tele lens every brand has)

    I mean, these 18-55 1:3.5-4.5 lenses are so shitty you can't justify 600$. Some will just stay with the iphone/droid others will take a m43 which will be even better suited for these kind of people.

    I can see these hipster girls and bald british/german/dutch tourists everyday walking around with their 18-55, and I can't stop thinking to myself ,why do you even bother to carry that shitty bulk?

     

    I haven't seen anything in the iphone line or in micro 4/3 line at $600 that bests a digital Rebel + "Sh-tty" kit lens as far as optical quality and features.  All these camera form factors serve different purposes/niches with some overlap.  But honestly you get what you pay for.

     

    And as far as video I actually initially shot more with my "sh-tty" kit lens than my weather sealed expensive L zoom simply because the kit lens has IS.  If someone sees handheld video from an iphone and thinks it looks anything like hand held video taken with the "sh-tty" Canon kit zoom then they need their head examined.  With the rolling shutter on these sensors stabilization of all kinds is imperative.

     

    There is more to camera/lens combinations than pretty test charts.


  14.  

    Also market saturation could play a big role. Average Joe who buys a dslr isn't going to upgrade anytime soon.

     

    Couldn't have said it better myself.  The people I know that use DSLRs hardly ever use the video function... if at all.  The stills side of the equation is a mature market.  I hear internet forumites complain about niche features they want in Canon Rebels but the average Joe Blow on the street that uses the latest 3 models has no complaints.  They have no reason to upgrade.

     

     


     

    I bet companies like BMD are making inroads into the big manufacturers sales and that is going to get worse for them.

     

     

    The little old lady that bought my DSLR when I upgraded recently is never going to be a BMD customer.  Canon and Nikon will continue to have declining sales simply because DSLRs in regards to stills are a mature product and current markets are saturated.

     

    Look at hard drive manufacturers.  Everyone has accepted the physics and realizes the capacity gains and price drops of the past are gone.  I remeber a time when the megapixel count on cameras doubled in just a few short years.  Those days are over.  I remeber Canon taking the world by storm with the first true consumer DSLR.  Unfortunately all the low hanging fruit has been picked.  Further large jumps in innovation are going to come a lot more rarely and require far more resources.

     

    Video is still in it's infancy.  It can be improved a lot.  But of the millions of DSLR users I don't think the video crowd is that big relative to the whole.  Even if Canon put out the most mind blowing video update for it's Rebel line it won't make up for the hordes of still photographers that are happy with the camera they already have in hand.

     

    Look at the comments section for this preview of the Sony RX10.  Post after post from photographers that TOTALLY ignore the innovative video features.  Sony has done something very interesting with this camera and absolutely no one commenting mentioned 4:2:2, clickless apeture, lack of moire/aliasing.  No one even mentions the built in ND filter!  Plenty of people dumped on the camera and even the few defenders didn't mentioned some of the most compelling feature.  No one said a word about zebras or peaking!

     

    If you see that as an exec at Canon do you think to yourself spending millions on those features for the Rebel line is going to halt the slide in sales?

  15. I think you're totally wrong in your estimation, consumers thrive on innovative products that are worth it.

     

    I never said they don't like innovative products but I haven't seen anyone come out with an innovative spoon or fork in my lifetime.  Sometimes things are just mature and you have to differentiate with price, fashion, and/or just marketing.

     

     

     

    The car industry is a good example with increasing safety standards and better gas mileage, people buy new cars every few years because they feel that the newer models have compelling new features that simply weren't available a few years back.

     

    Most people get a new car because their old one has too many miles.  Hardly anyone gets a new DSLR because the shutter is worn out.

     

    And cars are not a mature product.  Most cars on the road work on the exact same principle as Ford's model T.  Any DSLR is on a fundamental level doing things that you couldn't even explain to the people that used the first cameras.  And besides it's a car.  There are infinite uses for it and infinite things to change and improve.  A camera is a box that exposes light to something that records it.

     


     

    Look at GoPro, those guys are innovating mofo's, if you owned a 1st gen GoPro, upgrading to the latest model is a very compelling proposition. The fact that years have passed and Canon cameras still can't manage to shoot 60fps at 1080p is ludicrous. On the photography end, even if resolution is not compelling to you, how about built-in wi-fi and a GPS? How about a higher quality screen that is easier to see in direct light? How about built-in support for remote operation through a smart phone? How about a freaking built-in intervallometer for chrissake?

     

    The video stuff is immaterial.  Most Rebel users don't use it extensively.  I've already posted many rants about what I wish Canon would improve about video.  My remarks were about the Rebel's main market photo.

     

     

    The GPS thing would be nice if it worked all the time when you instantly turned your camera on.  And the wifi thing could definitely have some mass market appeal.  But like I said they are already available in certain Canon models and I don't know how well they work (battery drain, locking on to a signal).

     

    The stuff you listed was either irrelevant to the majority of Rebel users or had some substantial negatives for a very dubious amount of upside.  I would be very hesitant to put an intervalometer into a mass market product.  The shutter is only good for about 100,000 snaps.  I can see tons of aholes ruining their shutter within the one year warranty period making inane time lapses just for fun.  I guarantee if you ask the average Canon Rebel owner how long their shutter is projected to last and 99.9% of them won't give you an intelligent answer.

     

    Megapixels.  First of all I do care about resolution.  The problem is once you get to 18 megapixels you have to increase the megapixel count A LOT for it to make a substantial difference in the print.  Going from 18 to 20 megapixels is meaningless.  And I'm glad someone at Canon HQ realizes that.  I shoot a Rollei 6008i medium format film camera.  I've looked at digital backs for the thing.  Trust me I care about resolution.  But wasting your time and resources cramming an extra two or three megapixels onto an 18 megapixel aps-c sensor is not going to impress me.

  16. Just to add my 2 bit coins to the conversation:

     

    I think if DSLR's are going out of business, Canon and Nikon have only themselves to blame. Lack of innovation and lazy development cycles has not gone unnoticed by consumers.  When the t3i, t4i and t5i are essentially the same exact camera with minor tweaks, what is the motivation to upgrade? Same could be said with the 5D2 and 3, I have too many friends with the 5D2 who don't feel any need to upgrade to the newer camera since the benefits are relatively minor all things considered. I suspect the 7D will follow the same path.

     

     

    First of all most people that buy a Canon rebel either rarely or never shoot video with it.  It is for most people almost solely a stills camera.  Having said that what "innovations" could canon bring to the stills features of the Rebel line that would revive sales?  If Canon called me up and said we noticed you bought a refurbished T3i a few months ago; what could we have done to get you to spend $600 instead of $350 from a stills point of view.  My answer would be nothing.  The camera is already 18 megapixels.  24 megapixels is not worth almost double the price.  Faster frame rate?  Well they already sell models with faster frame rates.  What else?  The thing is a mature product.  Every product has this life cycle.  Innovation slows down and the market is saturated.  Adding a cup holder won't make people spend $600 on a new one.

  17. I just want to say thanks to Andrew for his great reporting on these innovative Sony Cameras.  I was on the web trying to find more information about the Sony RX10 and I went to bizarro world.  Check out the numerous and contentious comments.  Photographers are arguing back and forth about the cost of the camera.  Only a handful of times were general comments made about video and no one mentioned the lack of moire/aliasing.  No one mentioned HDMI 4:2:2.  No one mentioned the clickless apeture setting.  No one mentioned zebras or peaking.

     

    I wonder how many of these Sony is going to make and how many they plan to sell.  A lot of people on that photo site are looking at it as a mega zoom stills camera.  They are totally ignoring the amazing video features.  It's crazy.  When you look for a camera with very little moire/aliasing, peaking, zebras and an image stabilized 24-200 lens what are your options really?  I can think of very little if anything in that price range.

  18. The local cafes see them all sporting iphones and tablets , but unlike other areas in the world, you see them actually using the big cameras.

     

    Go to NYC.  You'll see plenty of DSLRs.  They won't necessarily be $2,000 models but they are there.  The problem is all the speculation on this thread was based of of a few months of NEW camera sales data.  All the cameras changing hands on craigslist and ebay are totally ignorned.  I just bought a 50D off of craigslist.  According to the industry reports that sale didn't happen.  That 50D I use to shoot raw movies is "dead."  I sold my old Rebel on craigslist to a mother.  Apparently that sale didn't happen either and that camera is "dead."  I guess the underlying assumption is once most people that want a DSLR have one and they are so good there is little reason to upgrade "the DSLR is dead."  Well as someone who shoots multiple film cameras that are "dead" by this definition I am glad people still make lenses, film, and do repairs for those "dead" cameras.

     

    One of the absolute worst things about public corporations is their sick need to live quarter to quarter.  When a DSLR is produced that is perfect and can serve someones needs for 5+ years with no need to upgrade that is a boon for consumers and a bust for Canon.  We are consumers here fellas not corporations.  Having a perfect working camera that doesn't need to be upgraded (from a photo point of view) is not something to cry about.

     

     

    Marshall Macluhan said sometime ago, 

    Steve Jobs,  pulled a Macluhan here,

     

    he invented a device (iPhone) that made several devices obsolete. One of them is the DSLR camera...

     

    The bulk of the nice photography I look at is done on some kind of SLR be it film or digital.  iphones may rule the dross on facebook but that's where it ends.

  19. Saw on 43rumors.com that GH3 body is $799 at Unique Photo today. 

     

    Nice find.  I was going to tell you that it's too good to be true but I checked it out.  The price is up to $850 when you click view in cart.  It intially shows $799 but changes.  I've never ordered from Unique Photo.  It doesn't pop up on my usual price search engines.  But it seems like a legit outfit.  The website is robust.  Tons of information about the store on there.  Doesn't look like the usual NYC/NJ scam site.

  20. Yes but the point of the 1dc is you just shoot 4k and take your stills from the footage.

     

     

    I understand that.  What I was saying is that ONE of the examples given could have been easily accomplished with two cameras and minimal effort and it would have looked a lot better.

     

     Therefore you don't need a stills camera.

     

    No pro photographer in their right mind would go all that way into such a remote place to do a paid job with one camera.  If a photographer shows up to do a job for you like that with one camera start worrying.

     

    Its better just to shoot with one camera so that way you can reframe.

     

    Again I understand that which is why I confined my criticisim to the tripod shot in the fixed blind at the fixed watering hole.  What I said is not applicable to shooting sports.  And yes even while shooting something like that on a tripod having the option of a bit of reframing is good but it doesn't outweigh the fact you are getting a lower resloution JPEG with less than ideal settings and no raw for your still image.  Both options have their pros and cons.  I just thought that ONE example was a bit weird.

     

    I am saying this again I do not have a problem with the concept in general.  It works in a lot of scenarios.

  21. I think you're missing the point The film was AN AD for the 1dc and how you can take stills from the 4k footage.

     

    No I get it.  I just though the African Safari example with a big blind where you can set up multiple tripods and cameras was a dumb example.  That's not to say there aren't situations where you would want to pull a frame.  But that is one where even a modicum of planning would yield much better results with negligible effort and two cameras.

     

    If I was paid to shoot something like that in Africa I would take two cameras minimum.  One for stills and one for video.  Heck I would take two if all I was shooting was stills just in case of failure.  I mean a $350 T3i is going to be way better than a 4K video cell from any camera.  As they said in the ad you are basically working with a lower resolution JPEG.  And you are locked into one shutter speed and DOF.  When I shoot I use polarizer and no polarizer.  Shallow depth of field and deep depth of field.  I am constantly changing things and experimenting.  I would set up both cameras and wait.  When the moment looked like it was going to happen I would hit record on the video camera and then start snapping away with the camera set for photo.  Wouldn't touch the video camera till it was over.  If I was shootings sports then yes it would be impossible to do that.

     

    Anyway just niggling about that one example.  The rest of the uses seem legit.  And while you are fiddling with your photo camera between shoots changing settings the elephant might do something interesting that the video camera captures.  Which is great.  You can use the shot.  But I wouldn't rely on 4K and fixed shutterspeed in a scenario like that.

  22. Why think so small about resolution, imagine inventive crops you can do like you do in photography, maybe you don't like the composition that you made in the field and you change it, maybe you want to do a creative zoom in your video, fast, slow, extract precious moments from video that you can print.

    Some of you probably seen this but for everybody else http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRDIV0trv_Q

     

    So the guy goes on an African Safari with one camera?!  I'm an amateur and I own multiple DSLRs, multiple medium format FILM SLRs, a 35 mm FILM slr, a 35mm FILM p&s, and of course the ubiquitious camera phone.  If I was sitting in a blind in the African wilderness I would have a minimum of three tripods set up and be going crazy.  I break out in cold sweats thinking about traveling.  How many cameras to take?! I regularly hike with four cameras on my person including camera phone.  Going on an African safari with one camera as a professional is malpractice... especially if you are doing video.

     

    The African watering hole blind was a terrible example.  There is no way I would be caught out in that situation.  The other thing that bothers me about that scenario is don't wedding photographers routinely show up at jobs with at least two cameras?  You really should treat shooting an African safari for money with at least the same level of care and thought as shooting your cousin Bill's wedding for free.

  23. Used hook's lut in resolve, then a little FC after. I directed the color stuff, a buddy directed the zombie shots. I specifically shot mostly close up & intimate with the band to take advantage of that anamorphic space. Lots going on in the de-focused z axis :)

     

     

    Lol.  You shot that color stuff with a 50D.  It's amazing Canon put out a 100% stills camera half a decade ago that shoots awesome video and in 2013 no one can match it at reasonable price point.  If some Canon executive could go back in time and "break" the 50D I bet they would.  I need more horsepower to process raw files.  It's such a chore.  I have some much stuff in my back log right now.  I need to get into shooting more dynamic stuff with my 50D.  What I have shot on tripods is amazing.

     

    If I had all the money in the world I would get a much faster computer and start getting into this anamorphic stuff.  Thanks for posting and good job!

×
×
  • Create New...