Jump to content

mikegt

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mikegt

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

810 profile views
  1. This is definitely one of the more obtuse posts I've read on this forum - you are deliberately trying to distort what I'm saying. > $100 some phones/cameras from "insert Chinese brand" that record 4K video You can't change the lens on a phone, or even change the focal length. We are talking about cameras made for enthusiasts here, not for selfies. I never said anything about the price having to be $1,000. If you want 4K and a full-frame sensor, the Sony cameras offer both and cost thousands less than the 1DXII, plus Sony includes the video features left out of the 1DXII (see below). In any case, decent 4K does not require a full-size sensor. You seem to be deliberately missing the point here, which is that Sony, Panasonic and BlackMagic offer 4K cameras that are affordable for most folks. Canon chooses not to, and this is not due to any technical reason - they are protecting their high-priced Cinema line. They are protecting their Cinema line to such an extent that even the $6,000 1DXII has been compromised to meet that goal, by leaving out features like modern codecs, focus and exposure aids, Log, 4K HDMI out, raw video, etc., etc - all features Canon is willing to give you in the $16,000 C300, which is their cheapest Cinema line camera that can do 4K.
  2. I looked up Canon's specs on the 1DXII body. Canon says it is "weather resistant" but not weather-sealed. They don't say it is compliant with any of the common industrial MIL-STD ratings used to test ruggedized equipment. In fact, they don't claim that the 1DXII can or is designed to survive drops of any kind, or full immersion in water. Also, Canon says the operating temperature is only between 32 to 113°F. So it will not work in freezing temperatures or near volcanoes. I'm sure the 1DXII is more rugged than the average consumer camera. But saying you can safely drop it off a building or use it in extreme temperatures is a bit of a stretch.
  3. To be accurate, the issue is it doesn't fit the idea of a camera optimized for recording video. To reiterate: No focus peaking, no zebras, no articulated screen, no 4K HDMI out, no built-in WiFI, no modern codecs, no raw video and a viewfinder that doesn't work when recording video. The price is perhaps the biggest issue. For $6K you can get a lot more camera as far as video features go from other makers. For stills, I think the 1DXII looks like a great camera. Finally, I can't speak for everyone of course but I know that a lot of Canon fans (I am one of them) have been waiting for a 4K capable camera from Canon that is in the same ballpark price-wise as offerings from Sony, Panasonic, BlackMagic, etc. If the $6,000 IDXII is going to be Canon's only answer to that need, that is really disappointing. If you don't like me daring to say that then please don't read my posts. If you like the 1DXII at the price it costs and the features it offers then buy one. If Canon ever releases a 4K camera that matches or exceeds what you can get from other makers priced in the same ballpark as what the competing models cost I will be the first one to praise them for it.
  4. I will do axe grinding on anything that appears to be over-priced and under-spec'ed. Speaking of motivations, you do seem to be intensely trying to sell us on the 1DXII; I have to ask, do you work for or get compensated by Canon or any of its affiliates ? That is a false statement. I've posted a lot of stuff on Nikon, Panasonic and other cameras lately. You on the other hand have been trying to sell the 1DXII like it was the Holy Grail. Very weird.
  5. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    The Alexa is in an entirely different league from the cameras we have been talking about. The body alone costs as much as a brand-new BMW 5 series, it's built like a tank and records at a much deeper color depth than anything ordinary mortals can generally afford to buy. This is why 4K makes so much sense on the cameras we can afford - not necessarily for making the final product in 4K, but for being able to intelligently (a computer is needed) interpolate down to very high quality HD. Mathematically at least a proper interpolation of 4K down to HD can give you 4:4:4 color depth. You also reduce the picture noise as well (since you are making it four times smaller). In many ways you can say that 4K is the best thing to ever happen to HD. I'm sorry that you are not able to see the virtues of shooting in 4K. Like it or not though, it is the future.
  6. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    Well, your previous post did seem like a rant, so I think you did get upset. > But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the G7 is superior for video compared to You are getting a bit fixated on just the G7; I was speaking in more general terms in regard to other cameras compared to the D750. If you want a big sensor then get a Sony A7 series as I previously said; don't get a G7. I really don't know what you are talking about in regard to color, the D750 does not appear to have any particularly overwhelming advantage in that regard. Obviously you have invested a lot of money and faith in your D750. Perhaps it would be better if you did not read my posts, because having owned one I will never say that it is superior to all other cameras when it comes to video.
  7. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    Mattias: Obviously I have upset you. Let me be very clear where I'm coming from here: If you are happy with your D750 then I'm happy for you and will not say that you made any kind of mistake in buying one. But telling folks shopping for a film-making camera that the D750 is superior for video compared to cameras that can do 4K, and telling them they are better off without modern focus aids, EVFs, etc., is a bit misleading and is not IMHO just a matter of personal taste.
  8. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    > Again, there is no clear answer/winner here. Its all down to the users needs. There is no one solution that fits everyone and every situation, but that does not mean that there is not a solution that would be a better fit for most situations and most people. I'm only writing advice here, take it or leave it as you wish.
  9. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    No fog, and yes the lens was clean !!! Settings were out-of-the-box, nothing customized. Also no post processing whatsoever. I do agree with a lot of what you said, thank-you for posting a lot of info on how to get the most out of a D750. In regard to your examples, obviously you have taken considerable care with both camera settings and sharpening the image in post. Your results do look better than what I got out of my D750; but they are not 4K quality, as you said. BTW, the G7 I think is improved over the GH4. The G7 is about one stop better in low light performance, and rolling shutter in 4K mode has been reduced. I compared the D750 and G7 for rolling shutter; the D750 was a little better but not by much. I would not consider either camera really suitable for recording super fast action! Also it's not an apples-to-apples comparison: The G7 is recording a lot more pixels (four times more) in 4K mode than the Nikon is in HD, if we could get the Nikon to record 4K it's rolling shutter would probably be worse than the G7 due to the sensor being double in size. While you appear to be very happy with the D750, I'm not sure we should advise someone shopping for a film-making camera that the two cameras would be equally good for that purpose. For one thing, with no custom settings and no post-processing sharpening, one can still get sharper more detailed images out of a camera that does 4K than one that does not, all other factors being equal. Also, as you mentioned the less expensive G7 and the Sony 4K cameras have a lot of video features (focus aids, an EVF, etc.) that Nikon doesn't provide with the D750. Full frame sensor cameras undeniably have a definite advantage in low light, but does that fully offset the shallower depth of field that can make keeping moving subjects in focus more difficult? My other concern with the D750 as a film-making machine is value-for-money as far as it's video feature set is concerned; you can buy a Sony AS7II for just a bit more money, or at least three G7 cameras with lenses for the price of one D750 with it's kit lens, and these cameras give you 4K which the Nikon cannot do. If low light were a priority, to be honest I would tell someone to not buy either a G7 or the Nikon, but instead to consider the Sony A7SII. I spent $3K to buy a D750 and had high hopes for it; I really wanted it to work out but for film-making it became clear that at least for what I wanted out of it, this camera was not going to be the best solution for me. I believe the most important thing I learned from having my D750 was that I had made a mistake trying to get one camera that would be equally suitable for stills and video. IMHO it is better to get a mirrorless camera for video, and keep your old DSLR around for taking stills. Then take the money you saved and buy some nice lenses...
  10. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    Thank-you - high detail scenes are indeed the problem. The Nikon has a 24 megapixel sensor and 1080p HD video is only about two megapixels. So 90% of the sensor data has to be dumped which does tend to kill fine detail. With a powerful processor you could interpolate the image data down in a way that would preserve the detail, but it appears that most DSLRs don't have the computing power or sufficient cooling to do intelligent interpolation; instead they just dump the extra pixels. Hopefully the next version of the D750 (the D760?) will have 4K recording.
  11. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    As I said previously, the D750 with it's full frame sensor does have an advantage in low light. However, in good light, recording in 4K, the G7 just blows away the D750 in regard to sharpness and detail. I can (and will if needed) post tons of comparison shots that prove what I'm saying. If the D750 could record in 4K it would likely beat the G7's video quality, but it can't so it doesn't. I think there is a perception here that cameras that cost more will automatically do better than the "cheap" models. This is not always the case. And big sensors don't automatically make better movies than small ones (in fact the tiny sensor in my iPad Air 2 makes sharper more detailed movies than my Canon DSLRs). What the camera maker does with the data coming off the sensor is perhaps the most important factor - pixel binning and line skipping will turn even the most perfect image into a blurry mush. > low DR, colors and firmware quirks...Lowligt was of course very bad...sold the G7 and got the D750 for its imo superior video.... You must of had a defective G7. Or perhaps you didn't know how to turn 4K mode on (by default out-of-the-box the camera records in HD, you have to go in the menu system and select 4K recording). I haven't encountered any of the issues you mentioned with the G7. Like any camera the G7 is not perfect, but I have been very happy with the sharpness in 4K, colors are good and reasonably accurate, and I have not seen any firmware "quirks" in the four months that I have had the camera. As for low light, it's no A7S but up to ISO 6400 it's pretty clean in average room light. I will say that the D750 makes better movies than my Canon DSLRs; but it just can't match the detail and sharpness of good 4K cameras such as the G7, GH4 or any of the Sony 4K models.
  12. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    No, the fence is not the point of focus. It just looks slightly sharper because it's closer to the camera. If you look at the detail on the fence it is not sharp, so even if it was the point of focus it would not be very impressive. In any case, focusing was done manually, and carefully set on the trees, not the fence. The camera was also mounted on a rock steady heavy-duty Bogen professional tripod, so motion blur was not a factor. In regard to diffraction, the aperture was set to F8 (ISO was at 100), so diffraction was also not a significant factor. The lens used was Nikon's standard kit model, the 24-120mm F4.
  13. mikegt

    Sony a6300 4k

    I think you might be disappointed with the D750. I owned one for a month but returned it; one of the reasons why is that the video resolution is limited to HD and Nikon is doing some pixel binning or line skipping. I found the level of picture detail & sharpness, while better than most Canon DSLRs, to be disappointing. I replaced it with a Panasonic G7 (similar to the GH4 you sold). Shooting in 4K on the G7 and "down-rezzing" it to HD yielded a much sharper image than the D750 was able to produce. The one advantage the D750 does have is better low light capabilities thanks to it's full frame sensor, but for me at least it was not enough to offset the lack of sharpness and detail in good light. If your priority is good low light video then an A7SII, which costs only a bit more than a D750, would probably make a better choice. I uploaded a frame grab from a video I shot on a D750. As you can see, fine detail on the trees and grass is getting lost due no doubt to line skipping or pixel binning. (you'll need to click on the image and then expand it to full resolution by clicking on the "full size" link on the lower left of the screen to see the lack of detail I'm referring to).
  14. As I thought, you don't have an intelligent response. Thank-you, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make here all along, The 1DXII does look to be a fine stills camera, as I've been saying. I totally agree that someone who needs a *proper* video camera should look elsewhere. As the owner of four Canon cameras (two DSLRS, one HD camcorder and also one of the tiny IXUS models) I think it's a bit shameful that in early 2016 we can buy for around $1,000 interchangeable lens cameras from Sony and Panasonic that record 4K video, but are being asked to pay a minimum of $6,000 for the same thing from Canon - with less video features than the other manufacturers offer on their $1,000 models ! I know I will get a lot of angry responses from Canon fans for daring to say this, but it is the truth.
  15. I stuck around for three pages worth, so your statement is a lie. But you already know that. As long as I'm still here, would it be too much to ask you to make an intelligent response to the points I raised regarding the 1DXII: No focus peaking, no zebras, no articulated screen, no 4K HDMI out, no built-in WiFI, no modern codecs, no raw video and a viewfinder that doesn't work when recording video. And it costs double what you would pay for the full-frame A7SII, and six times or more what you would pay for a 4K capable cropped sensor camera that has the video features Canon chose to leave out of the 1DXII.
×
×
  • Create New...