gt3rs

1 hour ago, Yannick Willox said:

That means BMD should not make the app available to other Iphone users. I get big file sizes, the stills look ok-ish, but when I press play everything turns into moving blobs.

BMD was released before iPhone 15… it gives much more options that the default camera does not offer. iFilmic exists since long time although now just priced crazy. BMD is just better plus is free.

Bottomline the only difference than 15 Pro offers is Log why should BMD not offer all the other features to all the iPhone users?

3 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

Two thoughts.

I shot a short second cam footage on my Iphone 13 with the BMD app. Next to my old P4K, the image is utter sharpened crap. I shot in prores...

Second, does anyone have an EASY way to get the footage from the BMD app into my PC ? If not, forget about it. It is useless. The BMD cloud also did not work, because you need to pay a subscription, just to get your (local) footage from the phone to your (local) PC.

I guess that having BMD app "Save clip to" to Files and using the Files app to copy/move to an external USB-C SDD/Card would be the quickest way. Alternatively you could set BM app to save on in-app and photo library (waste of space) and these filles will should show up when you connect your iPhone to PC. 

In Switzerland you can buy a new R3 for around 4700 EURO.... (add 12% more for France sales tax) it would be around 5k...    5k for a used one is way too much

32 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Does look good but as you say to make it a power zoom very expensive, wonder if it's par focal?

It is not, is par focal by software, so it uses the AF motor to compensate

This lens seems very interesting for videographers and event photographers. It is similar in size as the EF 70-200 2.8 and a tad lighter, for people used to shoot with an EF 70-200 2.8 it will feel the same. Sharpness from the MTF charts looks a tiny bit better than the RF 24-70 2.8.

The power zoom, and I would say finally Canon did it on a FF lens, is a great addition and I wish other lenses would have had it already too. The only thing that does not make sense is the price of the power zoom accessory.... way too much. The fact that is not an internal power zoom (like the Sony 28-135 F4) is imo good as for photo and quick zooming the manual zoom will have the normal feeling and speed. 

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

https://youtu.be/y_E2okzJCvY?si=6aOWpBVcY-ECZDhu

Interesting video, camera budget 1200 usd, total budget 1’000’000 usd 😂😂

1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

No D-log in 4K120p is a joke and deal breaker. Was planning on buying it to use exclusively as a slow mo wide angle gimbal cam.
Wish it had M43 sensor and 4K240p as well. 
 

Why is there essentially no 4K240 camera on the market except specialized tools? Is processing power in November 2023 the same as 5 years ago when 4K120p was already here? I don’t think so.

Yes there is only a few limited options for 4k240 .... RED and Blackmagic have models but are heavy crop, Freefly Ember but it is very specialized and expensive.

If you have a sharp and high shutter speed image at 4k 120fps to start with Davinci Resolve 18 with retime: OpticalFlow and motion estimation: Speed Wrap, does a quite good job interpolating frames, here a complex background and movement example that I tried a couple of weeks a ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5gxj6KVBoY

Look at the horse tail for me is quite impressive.

9 hours ago, ntblowz said:

It is fixed aperture so no aperture control

In 2017 DJI had a 1 inch sensor with aperture control (2.8 to 11) on the Phantom 4 Pro that was really good, I'm not sure why they did not take that one and evolve it... it would have been quite practical for a DJI Osmo Pkt.

I found a good test video of h265/LOG vs ProRes/LOG with the Blackmagic App.... for most cases you probably can get away with h265/LOG saving the clumsy SSD that defats a bit the concept of using a phone. Files are much smaller and you can do 4k 60p LOG internally.... good to have options

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpO06mdN7mk

20 hours ago, kye said:

Finally, a proper test... Let's try this again @gt3rs 🙂

 

To be honest, the differences between the SDR (processed) and Apple Log modes is quite staggering.

Now we are talking, the log footage seems very usable and night and day compared to the SDR over sharpend, oversaturated and too much NR. The skin tone and skin texture are much more natural... then if people want to create a plastic look out that I have no problem but the video really demonstrate that the starting image in log is indeed a big step up compared to the past. 

I'm still confused about the cinematic mode and log as many says that you can not have both at the same time but the above video clary use log with cinematic mode. Either is just BS or maybe the default camera app does not allow this but the Blackmagic one that seem to be used on the above video allows it. 

It would be nice to see if there is a any big difference in Blackmagic app h265/log vs ProRes/log.. I need to search if somebodies has already done this.  

Time to upgrade my iPhone....

Of course, I don’t judge the quality (hw, sw and video) from their stock price 🙂. But they are under enormous pressure to survive, it is not like being a private company. They did many miss steps so now they seem to be ripping off customers to try to stay afloat. Btw I was a GPRO stockholder.

My first Gopro was Hero 2 and went up Hero 10. In parallel I started using insta360 cameras and now I’m Gopro free 😊 although I use sometime some of my customer’s ones as backup cameras.

I filmed in harsh situations so my experience could be different than others.
I have mounted on Rally Cars in Lapland and Africa, on wings of Military Jet, on desert's Buggy, Alaska Heliskiing, MTB etc..

The number of freezes, overheats, battery draining (enduro battery was made because the standard one was basically useless in winter conditions...wtf) that I had it was just so frustrating.

Gopro Hero Max is so old that is insane that they still sell it and the software is ridiculously bad compared to the insta360 one.

Gopro Mini, Session etc they still don’t know what to do… seems a trial and error approach

Gopro 10 was probably the buggiest camera that I had from all the camera that I have owned. Just do a google search for freezes, overheats, battery drain... and you will see that I'm not the only one.

And let’s not talk about their subscription model that they try to “lock you in” with hw discount hoping that you will not cancel a pretty useless subscription.

I was a big gopro fan, but they failed so many times on me that I don’t trust them anymore.

The 12 should have been a FW fix of the 11.. but as quoted company you need to bring more revenue and is a declining market too as form many a phone is a better solution than a gopro.












 

On 10/8/2023 at 11:13 AM, powerman668 said:

 it's a standout in both form and quality.

They are a standout in term of bugs and bugs that they fix only by releasing new hw.... and let not discuss their software.... and useless subscription model.... stock price tell you the whole story of mismanagement of a potential great company and cameras....



 

5 hours ago, kye said:

@gt3rs - what do you think of the above video from @SRV1981 with the diffusion filter?

I thought the images looked pretty good with fine skin-tones (up until the DR of the camera failed and it went bizarrely saturated and then clipped).  The model has impeccable skin though, so it's hard to tell as there didn't seem to be fine chroma detail in her face.

Too me it looks like a too strong skin retouching filter... maybe to "sell" the diffusion filter they did use davinci or similar skin smoothing filters... it is wired as some parts are almost too sharp and others are blotchy and blurred...

From 0:45 onwards is imo unusable.

But as it use Cinematic so it cannot be Log so it is heavy processed already to start with.











Not a fan of this kind of video but here the image from iPhone looks much better than the above one less plastic/fake

On 10/4/2023 at 1:47 AM, SRV1981 said:

well done video 

Maybe is just me and don't get me wrong for a phone it is really good but it looks like an oil painting no details... and reading that for best DR you should shoot at iso 1250 and end up with the most aggressive NR possible dos not make a lot of sense neither. Just look at the skin in the above video it seems it went true a beautify filter ....

It seems really only minor updates with the only stand out improvement the Max Mod 2.0 that let you use shoot in 4k.....

Unfortunately no UVC support for the moment on iPhone 15 Pro like iPad has, so no easy way to turn it in to a hdmi monitor.... other than using powered accessories... like the Accsson big and clumsy one.

58 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/4. The EF 70-2000 f/2.8 was obviously never an option for gimbal use. 

It make sense then. Probably the RF 70-200 F4 is even better on gimbal but it does not have a tripod collar that can make it a bit trick as you need some support on the lens. 

46 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

For sure! I should've said "more compelling, for some" bcuz alot of people refer the fixed length style. Especially run n gun shooters using a gimbal (which is another reason many have stuck with their EF versions). Personally I prefer fixed - but nowadays I also value an L-level zoom that is pocket-sized (i.e narrow/longer vs thicker/shorter). Also the RF versions end up being similar in length to the EF f/4 version once they're extended.

All that to say, I think Canon missed a great opp to make that "narrow-enough to fit in your pocket" style, a continuing part of the appeal of the f4 versions of their 70-200mm L's. 

I use a lot the RF 70-200 2.8 on Gimbal and it was not possible with EF 70-200 2.8 is too heavy (front heavy too) and btw weight shift there also... All the 24-xx(x) are extending lens and used on Gimbal all the time.

My two most used lenses on Gimbal are RF 28-70 and RF 70-200 2.8 (the F4 would be even better) both extending lenses and rather heavy.

R5c + RF 70-200 2.8

Btw longer lenses cannot be made shorter on mirrorless ... so either you fake it like in realty they are 80-170 F3.2, or they will be the same or very similar length as an EF equivalents once fully extended. No magic possible on longer focal length. 

30 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Right on the spot ; )

 

I guess it should work in every recording mode but we never know if it is actually restricted to internal capture or not... No iPhone user over here yet ; ) Any iPhone 15 early adopters who can confirm it, please?

On the Apple Camera App only ProRes can be recorded on external SSD or CFexpress…. make no sense but is Apple. 

Not sure if a third party app eg BlackMagic can record non ProRes to external storage.

14 minutes ago, Django said:

hmm.. the RF 70-200mm f4 IS seems like the one RF lens to actually by lighter, way more compact, shorter focus distance etc than its EF counterpart:

so much more practical than the EF + adapter:

..that got you looking like a 90s paparazzi!

Is also 1400 USD + tripod collar vs. 500 USD used.... and I think is a bit the point I'm trying to make this middle ground lenses are more hard to justify that cheap or the really expensive one.

5 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Is the difference quality or the preference of using a dedicated body? 

For me is both, did you notice that most A/B test are in good light, minimal camera movements, static subject, using the main camera and not the wider and tele as they have less quality.

Just look at this when moving and using the wide camera a Gopro is much better than the iPhone 15 and a Gopro is so far away in quality than a mirrorless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEfFk5GR5y0

Somebody with great skills can make very good video out of in iPhone but imo there still no magic to make a super tiny sensor and lens look like a FF camera, the gap is narrowing but is still there.

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Can you guys see iPhone log and raw replacing a dedicated mirrorless for personal projects and use?

No way as I truly hate taking videos and picture with my iPhone, but is a great tool for the times that I cannot or is too impractical to take a larger mirrorless camera. 

I'm still not sold on the fake DoF although now you can do it after the fact so is less risky.
No aperture, hard to control SS, limited low light capability, max 120mm tele... and for me I just hate all the touch UI, no dials, no evf, etc... last but not least no removable storage.... so you need to resort on using external SSD or external CFExpress+Reader that defeated a bit the whole phone idea...

Do I use it now yes (13 pro max), will I move to the 15 pro max, probably, would it replace mirrorless camera even for private stuff?  Not for me but I'm the one going around in NY for pleasure with a R5+28-70 so everyone is different.

7 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Totally! The ND adapter never leaves my R5C and the extra stop you get from the .071x adapter really comes in handy (you usually need to put the R5C in 35mm crop mode to use it tho). Also thanks to those adapters, lenses like the OG EF 24-105mm f/4 IS and the 17-55mm EF-S IS have become more popular than ever. Especially with the C70. Personally I just discovered the OG EF 70-200 f4 IS - god it is so f*ckin' light with great IQ. So I ended up selling my OG EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Point is, thanks to these adapters - alot of R5C and C70 users in the groups I'm in are rediscovering the EF-L line in a big way. 

The EF 70-200 F4 IS is really a gem... on the opposite the OG EF 24-105 imo is one of the worst lens I had, the EF 24-70 2.8 II is much better. 

I don't think Canon have a lens problem as there are so many EF lens out there.... I think the strategy to offer first the two extreme makes sense. I'm sure more 1.4 options will come.

There was another thread complaining about no improvements of RF over EF counterpart and I don't want to repeat myself but people should try both before talking nonsense.


Btw Sony 50 1.2 is a also quite big and heavy 70g lighter and similar size as the RF, the Nikon one is 100g heavier than the  RF and much bigger: https://camerasize.com/compact/#903.787,634.975,907.934,ha,t ...

I think they got quite right, people that can afford expensive glass will go buy them at premium and sell their EF ones that allow people with less budget to get great lenses. The sport example is a good one just look how affordable a EF 200-400 1.4x has become..

Would you buy a mid range RF 85 1.4 or a cheaper used EF 85 1.2? Would you buy a mid range RF 24-70 F4 when you can get a cheaper used EF 24-70 II 2.8?

Most of the people criticizing RF lenses they don't own them, is funny to observe. 

I sold my EF 24-70 II 2.8, EF 50 1.2, RF 35 1.8 (btw very good lens for the price) and EF 24 1.4 for a RF 28-70 2.0, one of the best decision ever, but this also allowed people to get really good EF lens cheaper.

If the EF lens support would not be as good as it is on the R cameras, I would agree but they mostly work better than on DSLR.... so plenty of good options and some gets cheaper and cheaper, it is a good thing for people with limited budget.

Why Apple should invest on a shrinking and niece market is really not in their DNA and mission....