Jump to content

Derek Weston

Members
  • Content Count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Derek Weston

  1. I don't know, I see plenty of prosumer gear reviewed still. I think you've got to remember that everybody here is a gear-head. So if you've got a chance to get your hands on something really interesting and give it a whirl, it's hard to say no. I don't think this takes away from the fact that most of the equipment reviewed here is clearly within reach of the low(er) budget prosumer sort.
  2. DR and lowlight look great. Just too soft. Wonder if HDMI would fix that.
  3. http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-official-gh4k-announcement-on-february-7/
  4. The sensor doesn't quite top 12 shooting raw stills. That'd be an incredible improvement, I kind of doubt we're talking about 15 actual stops.
  5. I think one of the main points the article was making was that due to the way the sensor is sampled with 4k (less data loss) we'll have better looking images as a result. We're using existing sensor technology -- it's been there for years. We're just starting to get the most out of those sensors in terms of video processing. This is a big deal even if you're shooting 1080p -- the 4k enabled cameras will flat out produce a much better image. He also pointed it out that the bottle neck for a greater image wasn't necessarily the codec in many instances recently, just the sampling of the sen
  6. Right. I mean, the foreground was REALLY bright for a midday exposure including the sky. At least that was my sense. I can shoot with my 14 stop d800 towards certain parts of the sky in a landscape shot and blow it out if I were to properly expose for foreground. I mean, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but, it seems a less aggressive exposure would stack up alright.
  7. Right. I mean, the foreground was REALLY bright for a midday exposure including the sky. At least that was my sense. I can shoot with my 14 stop d800 towards certain parts of the sky in a landscape shot and blow it out if I were to properly expose for foreground. I mean, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but, it seems a less aggressive exposure would stack up alright.
  8. Yeah, that puts it in play for me since I'll need something for this spring under 200. I was pretty much sold on the GH3 as was. Really eager to hear what the specific offerings are. May pre-order for the first time in my life.
  9. Focal lengths you want to shoot at is entirely up to you. Can't answer that for you, depends on what you want to shoot. If you have no idea I'd probably get something less expensive to start with. (or at least buy used) As for adapters... you don't want to compromise quality. Would be dumb to spend all that money on a really nice lens and then throw some shitty adapter on it. Research the adapters. I would think things that don't introduce anymore glass wouldn't be a problem. I'd worry more about adapters that introduce glass, that's where you can lose quality. (although the speedbooster h
  10. Lots of shots taken with very bright light. Most video solutions would blow out the clouds period if they were to have that much light on the foreground. That we saw minor blown highlights is no big deal considering the lighting and exposure. (again, really bright foreground, know it down a few stops and you'd be just fine with the clouds) I thought the first shot had a polarizer or something.
  11. Wow. That ain't bad looking. 1 inch sensor. Seems to be really good dynamic range too. 12x range? 4k? Handles highlites? Could be my run and gun cam. Although upon loading up high res and examining a bit... mediocre looking compression. (then again, it's on youtube) Wonder how much 4k will offset mediocre codecs. Will be interesting.
  12. My uncle happens to be a professional fitness trainer and can deadlift 580lbs and prefers the gh3 and panasonic stuff because he is into cavediving and there is no way a f35 would work underwater unless you had a death wish! Pick the best tool for the job!
  13. http://www.computingbits.com/photography/fstop/ If you look at the metabones page it says that it gives you one stop. So 1.2
  14. Is option 3 better than the F35 though?
  15. Any realistic release date on this thing? Just conjecture as far as I can tell, thus far. . .
  16. I'd like to see some video of the d5300 beating up the gh3. I haven't seen footage that outshines what I've seen people do with the gh3 yet. Maybe it can, but i'd like to see some evidence of it. It looks less detailed. Hopefully I can find some footage of hdmi out video with the d5300. Haven't seen it yet.
  17. Thanks for that. Very interesting. I've read flaat 13 is a little noisy in the shadows, but 12 should be useable. Watched a few other videos of d5300 and d5200... seem really good dynamic range wise. Man, the only thing that gets me is that the resolution just doesn't seem as good as the gh3. Those images have more pop clarity to them. But perhaps part of it is post processing, wonder how good the d5300 can look. Wish there were more videos.
  18. d5300's sensor has better dynamic range, but I've not seen that this translates to better dynamic range in video as compared to the GH3. Any evidence you can point to for this?
  19. From what I understand, d5300 should be better quality of video wise. Definitely a better sensor. It slams the 70d in photography. Not close. You're talking 24mp, no AA filter, and dynamic range at lower isos that easily trumps the full frame 5D III. So for me it'd be an easy choice: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Canon-EOS-70D___919_895 All that said. . . the Panasonic gh3 is going to produce better video quality, easily. (expect maybe in really low light situations compared to the d5300 perhaps) But would lag behind the d5300 a bit in stills
  20. No doubt. I'm going through some of my old canon t3i raw files right now and am still impressed how much I can get out of them if I'm smart. (and that sensor is pretty much in line with these) Reading these forums always leads me to analysis paralysis. If I had to grab something now I'd just get a gh3 and be done with it as it's the best tool for the job right now for me and produces really good looking video. (of course I have a few months to wait and see if anything really cool happens or is released, so, more analysis paralysis)
  21. Sure. Like I stated, the DXOmark analysis doesn't take into consideration video compression, so who knows what we actually end up with. Thought it was noteworthy because it would appear the sensor itself wouldn't seem to be any better if the DXOmark analysis is correct: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GM1-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3___920_901_842
  22. Interesting. Sensor itself doesn't seem to have as much dynamic range or low light ability as the gh3. (per dxomark) Of course, we're talking about processed video output here, not raw images. (which should bear out that the gh3 would be superior in low light)
  23. Bolex looks really neat and offers a more complete package than BMCC. I'm definitely looking forward to enjoying gobal shutter shooting some day. But man, I wish TBs of data cost what GBs of data do! If they did I'd be all over this. We'll get there, but man, cost/workflow in all raw is still tough for me to justify.
  24. Not scientific. May or may not make money on footage. Footage may be used for a doc or stock. (plus, I love storm chasing, period) I could afford an expensive setup, but I don't feel I can justify it. I know the gh3 (or gh2 for that matter) would be good enough. Just trying to feel out my options. I'd love to do 4k, but at this point don't think I can at a reasonable price with a reasonable workflow. Maybe something will come out in the next few months before storm chase season that uses the h265 codec, which ought to enable 4K as a legit endeavor for folks like me. (we're all going t
  25. Everything you say is true. Plus, if I got dramatic footage I'd like to be able to send it off to a network halfway quickly. Converting giant files isn't ideal. Anyway, reading more, apparently the cheaper blackmagic external recorder I was speaking of doesn't do the smaller codecs. So the cheapest option out there (that takes me down to 100mbps) is the atoms ninja II... but that's 600+ Basically eliminates the pocket. The regular bmcc would be more interesting if they had a firmware update that offered lossless compression of raw (down to around 3mb instead of 5mb) and other prores c
×
×
  • Create New...