Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Damphousse

  1. Soooo... You've been a reader of EOSHD.com for at least 2 years but yet somehow you saw the Canon 6D MK II and thought to yourself "let me try this for video"?  And then you are mad?

    Read this...

    Exactly 1 week ago the dirty secret was revealed.  Welcome to the party.

  2. Unfortunately the Fuji 16-55mm 2.8 lens in the picture is $1,199 vs $829 for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8.

    I haven't perused the rest of the lens lineup but if you have to pay almost 50% more for their lenses that's a deal breaker for me.  The body might be okay but I can't get invested in a system that expensive... and niche.  So many things cater to the EF mount.  And then the glass is cheaper on top of that.

  3. 27 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

    You know when Samsung exited the ILC market, I thought it was a precursor to teaming up with either Nikon or Canon. In my view Sony enjoys a competitive advantage in cameras because it is an electronics company in a business where cameras are rapidly turning into electronics products (a bit like telephones). And Samsung has shown (and certainly has the tech) that it is the one company that can easily out Sony, Sony.

    I still think that say a Samsung/Nikon partnership makes so much sense. Samsung would bring Nikon all the bleeding edge sensor, sensor af, processing and Nikon would bring its optics, camera infrastructure and commitment. The NX1 showed that even with the best tech in the world, Samsung couldnt make a meaningful (and especially meaningful to a company as large as Samsung) dent in the market. 

    That's the thing.  Obviously there is something there at Samsung.  Who knows how these things go.  I mean Nikon could put out one camera with a Samsung sensor.  It's not like they would have to completely switch over.  Maybe the R&D for color science etc isn't worth it unless it is used in quite a few shipped bodies.  I have no idea.

    It is just bizarre they came out with such an aggressive product and folded up shop in record time.  You look at what Sony went through in the DECADE they were on the market before they started getting respect.  If I was going to launch a new camera system I would be prepared for at least five brutal years.

  4. 5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    NX1 owners are a very satisfied bunch. I should know, I am one.

    If they satisfy as many customers as they did the last time we know how things will end.

    2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    They wouldn't do it for large volume sales.

    They would do it for larger Galaxy S9 sales.

    Marketing it as Exynos / 4K 120fps

    Headlines all over the web... Then customer knows Exynos for the powerful chip it is, and associates the S9 camera with market leading camera specs.

    Exynos is not sold in The United States, China, nor Japan.  So you can eliminate the largest consumer electronics countries from that unorthodox marketing campaign.  Remember CDMA=Snapdragon.

    2 hours ago, salim said:

    I see your point with this. Yes, there are niche users like Andrew and others here, who like the NX1. But for other users, the possibility of investing on something that might once again face a dead-end is a no go. So because of that, I think Samsung will have an uphill battle to get large enough buyers to buy this, for it to be justifiable. 

    With Canon and Nikon lining up with their mirrorless camera, and Sony having a huge lead, I just don't see Samsung doing this, unless they can justify a secondary benefit to another product vertical. 


    1 hour ago, Trek of Joy said:

    Samsung isn't about to re-enter the same space they abandoned a couple years ago with little/no chance of turning a profit.

    Yeah it is basic marketing.  First you have to define your target market.  They were sloppy.  I guess they figured their camera takes pictures and shoots videos so they thought they would capture both markets.  In reality their market was a small niche.

    And I warned the forum about a brand new camera system with a limited number of expensive lenses.

    ANY new camera system in 2018 is going to have a tough road ahead.  They are going to have to have a massive amount of dry powder and be prepared to battle it out for YEARS.  That's the grim outlook for a system with no track record that is getting the benefit of the doubt.  Now a company that has already closed up shop on its customers once in the last few years?  They are going to have to overcome even bigger hurdles.

    2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

    A NX2 would be a no brainer imo.

    The NX1 with the two S-zooms and a couple of primes surfaces for sub $2k every now and then. With just the short S-zoom and one or two primes they touch $1k. If this rumors reaches "probably" I will go for it just to have the lenses ready.

    Makes sense.  Once the NX2 hits I'll let the suckers buy it and pick over the wreckage at bargain basement prices once it is canceled.  You've got a good strategy.

    Samsung has trained everyone to wait for the fire sale.

    Honestly I really hope they bring something nice out and succeed.  But there is going to have to be a fundamental change in strategy.

  5. Oh, brother.  They burned a lot of people with their last outing.  Expensive lenses that were obsoleted within a couple of years.  Who is going to want to build a system around yet another Samsung camera?

    Maybe they should have some type of active m43 mount and a super 35 sensor.  At least that way we wouldn't be held hostage by a lens line that may evaporate at any moment.  Or an active version of some legacy mount so we can buy cheap lenses on ebay while we wait to see if they are going to kill off the system in two years.

  6. On 2/2/2018 at 5:01 AM, leeys said:

    Here's a new example: In a completely unrelated site, someone was saying that the best camera for vlogging is a Canon 6D because some YouTuber recommended it. Turns out Canon has been sending 6Ds to high-profile YouTube vloggers to push the camera for that purpose.

    Yeah.  It amazes me how many vloggers use cameras I wouldn't touch.  You always wonder how they arrived at that choice.

    Can't argue with Canon's marketing campaign.   Sadly stuff like that works.

  7. On 2/1/2018 at 10:46 AM, EthanAlexander said:

    I've also come to realize that 90% of viewers don't care if blacks or whites are clipped, so long as people (skin tones) look great and there's a smooth roll-off.

    Does anybody care about that?  The problem I have with so much digital stuff is the highlights clip like crap.  Only two solutions.  Either don't let the high lights clip or have some awesome roll off.  If highlights clipped with silky smooth roll off it would have taken me a long time to notice.

    I see so many videos where someone will be shooting human skin in sun light and as the person turns and their body goes from partially shading them from direct sun to full sun.  The skin on their hand or forehead clips the same way a silver ball would.  I notice stuff like that a lot more than the supposed loss of fidelity in mid range skin tones with log.

    There are so many beautiful images shot with log.  You just have to have the right camera.  The $500 BMPCC trounces cameras costing thousands of dollars.  If I have enough light and expose correctly I have never felt let down by the 10 bit 422 Prores the BMPCC uses.  Raw seems sharper but I have never really felt the midrange color was lacking in prores.  I don't use the camera a ton though so some pros may have some better insight.

  8. On 2/3/2018 at 11:12 AM, OliKMIA said:

    Different experience here with PC, everything is smooth on my custom built computer.

    There are literally millions of software/hardware configurations for PCs so it is objectively impossible for a videographer to have tested every combination and declare PCs "crash all the time" or are "buggy."  For most people's uses ie MS Office, web surfing, and a little media playback if your PC is "crashing all the time" something is wrong.  I find a lot of issues people have with PCs are self inflicted.  They install a bunch of random stuff and frequent dodgy websites.  It's not like the PC or the OS is inherently broken.

    Another issue is sometimes people buy bargain basement PCs made out of cheap components.  I've had components on a cheap PC go bad and cause system instability.  I just ripped out the offending part and for a few dollars replaced it.  One part went bad after six years.  The nice thing was the parts were serviceable.  I'm just not into this nonserviceable thing.  It is best if things don't break but anything built by man is capable of breaking.  I've seen Macs break.  After seeing a Macbook's screen have a weird deterioration that cured me of ever wanting a monitor fused to my computer.  It is just dumb for one bad component to take the entire multithousand dollar system down.

    PC and Mac are two different philosophies.  They both have merit.  I'm glad they both exist.  They force each other to improve.  The more people we have out there creating hardware and software the more interesting things happen.

    But this idea that the Trashcan or the iMac doesn't present some serious limitations and issues is nuts.  I get it that it works for some people but it is not a universal solution.  I don't buy iphones but I can see an argument for an iphone being a universal solution... if you ignore the price.  Iphones have the most apps and besides the lack of headphone jack they have all the core functionality people need.  They are missing bells and whistles like extra memory expansion and until recently wireless charging but they get the rest of the basics right.  The Trashcan and iMac?  No.  They are too radical a set of departures to be pushed as some no brainer choice.

    Also Apple is a phone company.  It is odd to tell someone not to buy a computer from a computer company and instead to buy one from a phone company.  Should I buy a washing machine from a tractor company too?  The very reason that video was shot was because Apple has ignored computers for so long.  It is amusing to watch Apple fanboys twist themselves into knots justifying half decade old technology.  When I start looking at buying... or more accurately building a PC I read about where tech is going to be 3 years from now to figure out which features I should be looking for or ignoring on a motherboard.  I don't go and look at 5 year old tech!

    The reason I love PCs is you can buy a solid case, power supply, M.2 drive, monitor, keyboard and mouse and then you are just left upgrading your motherboard, CPU, and memory every few years as needed and you have a bleeding edge PC.  Graphics card can be upgraded as needed.  For most people current motherboard graphics is enough.  I bleed money on so many things nowadays I just can't imagine buying a computer where I have to toss everything including the monitor when I want to make the next leap in power.

    Mac Pro minimum price $2,999!  No USB C.  No Bluetooth 4.2.  No M.2.  Only one HDMI port.  Just taking a cursory look at basic must have every day specs I wouldn't buy a $1,000 computer missing all those features let alone computer costing 3 times more.  I also don't understand the idea of going with a minimalist design and then cluttering your desk with wires, graphics cards, and external storage.  I like a monolithic block that I stick under my desk and all my storage and graphic cards sit in there out of sight and out of mind.  What is aesthetically pleasing about having six things strewn about instead of one thing tucked away neatly?  Again this is such a forced thing with Apple fanboys.

    The ridiculous kludges people are doing to get M.2 shoe horned into the Trashcan are ridiculous.  I get pissed off if I see a mother board that doesn't have two M.2 slots ready to go right out of the box.  Just stop forcing this stuff.

  9. 14 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

    "They were going to kill him, so he had to stop them." BUT WHY? This is what I mean by "he did it because the plot needed him to."

    Please don't excuse poor writing.

    His character had no traits that indicated he was concerned for his partner, or anybody but himself and his family. If anything, he should have killed his partner because that would have been the best thing to do for his family. 

    See, now if killing his partner would have somehow meant his family would be in danger, that would have been at least excusable, but the way it went down was very, very poorly done.

    Most people will not kill at all let alone an innocent person...


    From these responses it seems that Americans in Vietnam had little hesitation to engage their enemy. Yet the observations of these veterans prompt the question of why, on average, nearly two of every 10 men were not firing when their unit was in contact. The apparent problem was not of the magnitude Marshall had reported for World War II, but losing the firepower of so many soldiers was still no small matter. In a unit with 500 riflemen, some 80 would not engage. Unlike the numbers from Marshall’s work, these estimates came directly from the men who had fought in the cities, jungles, firebases and rice paddies of Vietnam. Why did so many not fire?


    Bright was an action movie with all kinds of senseless violence.  I'm not going to knock the one part of the movie where someone shows some realistic humanity.  People in real life don't just stroll through the neighborhood slinging it around like John Wayne constantly.

    I respect your opinion, but if you pay attention to the scene Will Smith is way deep into a confrontation with the other cops well before orc killing comes up.  Will Smith gets into a shoving match with multiple cops over stealing the wand alone.  The orc killing only comes up later.  Will Smith is a cop.  He didn't wake up that morning planning on robbing and killing.  Of course there is going to be some hesitation.  Also even when Will Smith indicates he is going to kill the orcs the other cops decide they are going to kill him regardless.  I mean they are cops.  They know they can't have any wild cards in a criminal conspiracy.  And once Will Smith has some time to think about it he realizes they are going to kill him anyway.  That's why he is ready for them when they come out of the building.  After Will Smith's first hesitation at stealing the wand he was screwed.  Killing the orc wasn't going to fix that.  The guy was thinking on his feet in real time and it took a while for him to figure out what was what and what to do about it.

    By the way I liked your "fish out of water" thing.  I am not a writer so I appreciate you pointing that out.  I think we all agree you are dropped into this world with little to no explanation and everyone in the movie knows most of what is going on.  You are left to just tag along for the ride as a clueless friend that nobody talks to.  And oddly I think that is why a sequel is such a popular idea.  People are left with so many questions they want to see more.

    I have seen this in a lot of fantasy/sci fi movies.  They try and introduce a whole new world and have some epic struggle along with a resolution all in one two hour movie.  The idea of having a slow paced less exciting first movie just to get people up to speed makes more sense to me.

  10. 12 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

    You guys must be mad high when you watched bright. As the movie was such a let down.

    I was told by every critic it was the "worst movie of the year".  How does one go "down" from there?

    3 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

     at best it was a so-so action film.

    But was it the "worst movie of the year"?

    That's my point.  There are plenty of so-so movies put out every year.  None is universally called the "worst movie".

    The other thing you guys are glossing over is it got a stratospheric audience rating and got a sequel deal signed within days.  I'm just wondering about the predictive power of certain people or groups of people.  There are some movies that people love that I think are "so-so".  I don't call those movies "the worst movie of the year".

    13 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

    Plus, Will Smith's character didn't start out likeable at all. He was a dick, and a complainer, and his "turn" to good guy basically happened out of thin air. He goes from hating his partner to killing other cops in an instant, and there was really no reason in the story for him to do so other than the necessity to get the movie to the next plot point.

    He had to kill them because they wanted to keep the wand at all costs... including murder.  Being a racist dick doesn't make someone a murder.

    Anyway, the movie was not Oscar material but I was just shocked at the universal outcry... and the subsequent stunning success.

  11. *Thread may contain spoilers*

    We were told by all the critics "Bright" was the worst film of 2017.  I finally saw it.  It was actually a pretty decent movie.  There are so many movies that win Oscars that I find unwatchable.  And now there is universal hatred for a pretty solid movie.

    Have the critics gone completely mad?  What do you guys think of the movie?

    I wasn't expecting it to be really deep.  And dealing with the topic of race relations is always going to be tricky.  This movie wasn't an Academy Award winning MLK biopic, but it was never meant to be.  Some stuff was cringe worthy.  Some stuff was a bit ham fisted, but overall?  Hardly the worst movie of the year.

    It is amazing to me how universal the condemnation of this movie was... and how many days it took for a sequel to get the green light.  Is there a precedent for a movie getting that much horrible press and becoming an instance hit with a guaranteed sequel within days?  A lot of critics lost credibility with that film.

  12. 1 hour ago, User said:

    Oh? I'd be curious to hear who has said this. I'm mean, maybe for gimbal work. But if I heard this from a doc shooter, I would send them home to their mother.

    You are over analyzing a hyperbolic joke.

    The point is "pros" are sh-tting all over the GH5 because it lacks a feature they used to ridicule amateurs for enquiring about.

    Don't get me wrong.  I love DPAF.  It is just I've always found "pro" autofocus snobbery amusing.

  13. On 1/27/2018 at 2:27 AM, Mattias Burling said:

    Im not really on board this lust for a middle codec. And I never really got it either. On a bmpcc I shoot raw or proxy. Lightest or the best. No in between or half ass.



    So what you are telling us is you always shoot at least 10 bit.  I think you just proved everyone's point.  Also...

    BMPCC new $500

    Canon C200 new $7,500

    On 1/27/2018 at 2:27 AM, Mattias Burling said:

    Remember how we used to joke about Canon actually making a great camera and forums still finding flaws. You know how many cameras today have everything we asked for two years ago and we promised that would be "it". All happy. But we then turn every single rock in search of something to be unhappy about.

    If you check posts from this forum from 5 years ago you will notice numerous posts requesting 10 bit 422.  It has been the most requested thing for years.

    Now DPAF is a different animal.  5 years ago you would be ridiculed as an amateur for even requesting any kind of autofocus.  Now the "pros" tell us it is impossible to shoot a documentary without it.  That I find hilarious.  But 10 bit 422?  Where have you been?

  14. 1 hour ago, maxmizer said:

    however I can not understand all this excitement for this stupid boy.
    Where I live, it is the same Italian state that publishes killings, people laughing for the dead after a tragedy, and much more, without any restraint or compassion !!!

    Uhhh...  Yeah.  I think you proved our point.  We are definitely not trying to go the Italian way.  Despite the best efforts of the Orange Führer some of us in America would like to hold on to at least a shred of our former dignity.


  15. 19 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

    However, this leaves very little room in the highlights. The DR of the 5D3 is around 11.5 stops. So there's three and a bit above middle grey, and around eight below. If you were to meter correctly, you would be very much in danger of blowing out highlights. To help combat this, it appears that most camera manufacturers use 12% grey as the basis for metering. The effect of this is to provide an extra stop or so of highlight headroom. And in fact, this is borne out by checking values in ACR, where actual 18% grey sits at around 185 and 12% grey sits at around 119 (the given RGB number for middle grey in a 2.2 gamma).

    That simply doesn't work and is assuming a lot.  If you are in a studio setup with a gray card then it is valid, but then that begs the question why you don't just look at the histogram and the highlights and adjust your camera then lock it off for the photo shoot.  Outside of a studio setting without a gray card there are so many things that factor into how the camera comes up with an exposure that delving deeply into one factor while completely ignoring the rest is pointless.

    With a digital camera it doesn't matter if the camera under exposes or over exposes.  As long as it does it consistently.  You are always going to have to make adjustments to whatever the camera thinks up because the camera simply doesn't know what it is looking at and it doesn't know what your creative intent is.

    Your outside shots are simple.  If you are shooting and the light isn't changing rapidly just take a shot with clouds in it.  Adjust exposure till the highlights in the clouds aren't blown out and then lock everything off.  Only change exposure when light changes.  Don't change exposure just because the subject changes and you will be fine.  Depending on where you are on the planet, the season, and time of day you could shoot for a couple of hours without making any changes to your settings.

    Also there is bracketing.  Since the cost of shooting a picture is nil just set your camera up as I indicated and then tell the camera to bracket +/- 2/3 of a stop and you will always have something that is as close to perfect as one can get.

    There are so many tools on these cameras now that with a little bit of knowledge and common sense it is easy to get great exposures.

    What I would like to see is a camera with multiple manual settings.  For example if you could assign one function key to a present set of manual settings and another to a different preset set of manual settings you could rapidly switch back and forth between them.  This would be helpful if you are going from sun to shade.  Most of the time all I really need is two sets of settings.  Honestly with digital cameras it would be easy to have a bunch of preset manual settings that can be rapidly selected.

  16. 5 hours ago, jonpais said:

    Not overly fond of bright night scenes that are more intense than direct sunlight. Maybe in small doses? I use lights - in fact, I love having control over lighting - so high sensitivity isn't a big deal to me. 

    As a novice that's something I always have trouble with.  Judging how bright a low light scene should be in the final product.  You're right.  Night should look like night.  I tend to over do it with boosting ISO and boosting things in post.  Then you run into noise issue and it really isn't necessary and actually detracts.

  17. 14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    Then why not just turn off stabilization? Is it still going to cause vibrations?

    I think because with IBIS off it isn't clamped or bolted in place.  I think it still floats in position via electromagnets.   So unlike a sensor that is soldered in place a sufficient amount of force can be applied to send the camera in one direction and the sensor in another.

    Found the source.  DP Review...


    Sensor-shift IS systems operate by 'floating' the sensor using a series of electromagnets. Even when they're 'off' they're not locked in place, they're simply set so that the electromagnets aren't attempting to correct for movement. This has the side-effect that, which mounted on a professional stabilization rig, there's a risk of the sensor being shaken around.

    For high-end video work, Panasonic says its users would prefer to use dedicated gimbals and dollies, rather than internal stabilization, and that means physically locking the sensor in place to avoid unwanted interactions between these systems and a floating sensor.


  18. 3 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

    I also thought that in the early beginning but thinking twice, I now guess they simply didn't want to cannibalize the GH5 sister. Sad but that's my finest bet. They would certainly find a way of it and I still bet they will adopt it for the upcoming GH6S.

    And you are basing this on?

    That's not how cannibalization works.  Any manufacturer would be happy if people passed on their lower priced offering and bought the higher priced product.

    I just think a $2,500 10 megapixel micro43 camera is a niche product.  This isn't a photo shooting camera.  Heck I think paying $2,000 for a micro43 (GH5) camera to take pictures is ludicrous.  I don't see how a photo shooter goes from the 20 megapixel GH5 to the 10 megapixel GH5s IBIS or no IBIS.  Maybe what they should do is make a GH5s with IBIS to satisfy yet another niche.

    Panasonic seems to be really gunning for niche markets instead of taking Canikon head on.  It makes sense.  They can't win playing Canikon's game.

    I think the hybrid camera thing is going to be a niche for awhile.  It seems with current tech you have to make trade offs.  I currently have a T3i and a BMPCC.  I use my Canon lenses on both.  If I ignore video I can get a photo camera pretty easily.  If I ignore photo I can get a video camera pretty easily.  But if I want one that does both the trade offs go through the roof.  At this point the play may be a photo camera, a video camera, and a hybrid.

    I've just made peace with the fact no camera is going to do it all.  The only time I get pissed off is with cameras like the C200.  The lack of 10 bit 4:2:2 option even to external recorder is unforgivable.

  19. 15 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    Does this target market, the specialists using these $2,500 camera bodies as crash cams on big productions, watch reviews on YouTube by Kai, TCSTV, Gordon Laing, Wex Photo, CRFTSHO, Peter Gregg, Photo by Richard, Dan Watson, Max Yuryev, Three Blind Men and an Elephant, Art of the Image, Photo Joseph and Max Yuryev? I'd wager not. And why have so few (if any) of the Luminaries shot video with the camera mounted to a vehicle?

    I don't know.  All I know is what Andrew put in his article...


    At the meeting with Panasonic, Richard Payne of the big UK distributor Holdan made an interesting point – the GH4 and GH5 were being used regularly on a big budget TV shows like The Grand Tour (Amazon Prime) rigged inside supercars and racing cars and here the vibration was playing havoc with the sprung IBIS sensor in the GH5. TV DoPs can now sign a breathe of relief as the sensor in the GH5S stays-put and you can still rely on optical stabilisation from the lens.

    That was a great bit of reporting I guess Kai, TCSTV, Gordon Laing, Wex Photo, CRFTSHO, Peter Gregg, Photo by Richard, Dan Watson, Max Yuryev, Three Blind Men and an Elephant, Art of the Image, Photo Joseph and Max Yuryev didn't have the journalistic skills to deliver to their audiences.

    The thing is I read a chunk of Andrew's article and then spent a couple of hours wincing as I watched video after video speculate about something Panasonic had already addressed.

  20. 18 hours ago, mercer said:

    I never said the GH5s is a bad camera, I’ve said I think it was a mistake not to have IBIS and that maybe it should be priced lower than the GH5... with all features consider

    Not singling you out but have people not read the technical and practical reasons for no IBIS?  It has been said multiple times that the sensor in the GH5 moved around even with IBIS off when the camera was mounted in things like cars.  The target market does not want IBIS.

    This is a new custom chip in this camera.  This camera is presumably going to be a lower volume product than the GH5.  They have to recover their costs.  I don't know for sure why this camera costs what it does but I'm not surprised.

  21. 4 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

    I didn't mean keep your kids off of YouTube, but just show them the better content and hope it sticks. It's the ole adage "no one knows what they want until you show them."

    The problem is once they are on it you won't be able to control what they see 100% of the time.  Their friends will send them stuff, youtube will push stuff on them, after a decent video ends youtube will autoplay junk or something pornographic.

    That's my problem with it.  I'm an adult and I can navigate around youtube albeit with some degree of irritation.  But I'm chatting with parents who are saying their innocent kid is looking some stuff up on Disney princesses and getting treated to porn.

    1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

    Oh hey there, I share stuff on Facebook! :cry:

    Okay.  I was a bit extreme.  There is some good stuff on Facebook but there is way more toxic stuff.

  22. On 2/7/2016 at 3:45 AM, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

    And I hope they make great drones, but great drones are already being made and have sold in milions figures.

    It's official.  Gopro is out of the drone business.  You should be a business consultant.  You called it almost two years early.  Do you have any stock tips?

    Gopro stock plunged 27% today.  Stock was halted.  Revenue projects have been slashed.  Mass firings are to ensue.


  • Create New...