Jump to content

Amook

Members
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Amook

  1. Just now, HockeyFan12 said:

    I found it to be superior technically to the Epic MX when shooting both side by side with the same lenses. Better DR and less low light noise, truer color, no magenta highlights. However, the Epic has a "thicker" quality to it that is more cinematic when treated appropriately.

    It and the FS100 are really solid for the money. A lot of crews shooting network promos are using these I believe. 

    How much does a used Epic MX sell for though?  Still around 10k? Some day I'd like to try one out. 

  2. I'm using the "slog to cineon" from MacGregor, found here http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2014/05/sony-f3-resurrected-luts/ then apply the arri Alexa cLog to Rec709 lut in DaVinci Resolve with good results. I'm not very experience with color grading but for me it's producing pleasing results. Here's a quick upload of some random f3 footage that I applied the lut's too. I think I could have easily upped the contrast and saturation, but I was more interested in how it looked on my TV instead of the computer which seems to be much lower contrast. 

     

  3. I have a quick question about the nikon ED AF 80-200 2.8 push/pull lens. I'm looking for a good zoom in this range and can either get the push/pull a very cheap price or the 80-200 2.8d version at nearly three times the cost. So just wondering if anyone have any experience with the push/pull vs the D version. Is the extra money worth it? I'll be using the lens on a sony F3.  Thanks

  4. @gatopardo Nope, sony f3. I gotta say I love everything but the bulk of the camera. The image even with just the internal recording is so far ahead of anything i've used before. I really liked the xc10 but the quality just drops off a cliff after iso 800, which with the slow lens happens in all but direct sunlight. I think canon tried to over sell the specs and cover up the ghosting which they fixed with a new version of the camera. Thats the reason I'll never buy anything new from canon again. I hope they are reading this thread.

  5. Doesn't look like the xc10 to me. You can get shallow depth of field at th very long end but if you notice a lot of the shots the people are much closer to the camera. Also the shot where you see the camera it looks much smaller. The xc10 would also be ghosting in a situation like this.

  6. So canon said that since my camera is just over a year old it's not qualified for warranty work. My question is if this can be repaired via a hardware or software, didn't they sell me a defective unit in the first place? Has anyone sent in their cameras and has it improved anything? 

  7. I've already contacted then and sent samples showing the ghosting. At first they said they weren't aware of the problem and then after seeing a couple examples said they would pass it along to the engineering program. That was a week ago so haven't heard anything back. I know they are well aware of the issue as well as the thread on this website. I don't have huge expectations I'd like to be able to confidently shoot people at 1600iso.  

  8. Some great work here. So I'm really trying to like and use this camera. I just got a contract to document a language class. It includes some event shooting, interviews and classroom shoots.  They want to keep the shoots as low profile as possible which means no lighting. The xc10 would be perfect except I have a feeling I'll need to crank the iso in some situations and I'm seeing strong ghosting even at iso 800. What do you think the chances are that canon does something within the next few weeks? I know probably not good. So I'm thinking it might be time to upgrade. I'm thinking a original c100 would be all I'd need for this project as it's just documenting. I'm curious if people think the auto focus upgrade is worth it? I'm also seeing some c300's with the duel pixel upgrades for about $4k. 

×
×
  • Create New...