Jump to content

kye

Members
  • Posts

    6,166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About kye

Recent Profile Visitors

13,800 profile views

kye's Achievements

Long-time member

Long-time member (5/5)

4.2k

Reputation

  1. Well, if I can't talk about cameras I haven't used, don't get to join the discussion even if I bring facts, and can't talk about the ones I do have, I guess you're banning me from having any involvement at all? I mean, you are the internet police, right?
  2. After my own experience learning video after being a stills shooter, and reading many threads on photography sites talking about learning video, I'm not surprised that there hasn't been a huge migration from stills to doing both. ...and considering the level of skill and speed required at weddings, I would imagine that would make such a transition even more daunting for those contemplating such a thing! TBH though, the biggest challenge that I saw online from stills photogs was that they simply weren't willing to try. Even when someone who had developed some video skills gave simple advice about how to start, most wouldn't even do it, despite how simple the assignment was. Combined with the mass layoffs of photogs from newspapers and magazines that was occurring at that time, I got the sense that most had just given up on trying to adapt and stay relevant.
  3. Do you have trouble comparing objects in photographs? I would have thought it was pretty straight forwards, but maybe not for everyone. ......but maybe those photos are somehow lying! Let's see, the C100 is ~1020g, and: Approx 135 x 170 x 129mm (thumbrest attached); => this is about 3L in volume Approx 182 x 170 x 129mm (grip attached); => this is about 4L in volume My 700D is ~580g, and: 133.1 x 99.8 x 78.8 mm => this is about 1L in volume So, the C100 with thumb rest is: Almost identical in width 1.7x taller 1.63x deeper about 3x as large in volume (however the C100 is quite curved, so this is much more subjective than the other measures) In terms of my 700D, I shot with it for years, and it is quite similar in size to my GH5 and XC10 once setup. I have shot many thousands of clips and tens of thousands of photographs across dozens of countries across many continents with those setups. Those cameras are not small. and yet, I am expected to believe that a camera 1.7x taller and 1.63x deeper is somehow TINY. Please.... Well said, however you have perhaps underestimated the attention that you get when you have a camera even the size of a GH5. Remember that a 5D is universally recognised practically the world over as being as professional a camera as you can get, and it's not so much larger than a GH5. Of course, the discussion wasn't about what was palatable in public, it was on camera size, and when I made a simple remark about an absolute statement, for some reason instead of clarifying, our friend just doubled down on an absolute statement, and then tried to make it personal.
  4. No. I looked at a bunch of pictures online that showed both the C100 as well as various other DSLR bodies and saw that the C100 was around the same size as other cameras that I knew to be large through my own experience. I know everything is relative, but if someone says "I drive a large sedan and I'm looking at the Tesla truck" replying with "the Tesla truck is tiny!" because the Tesla truck is a truck and you're now comparing it to a triple road train then it's still not really in context.
  5. I've seen this a lot on camera comparisons. Two images look like they have a different WB, but when you compare them the neutral greys are both neutral but there will be different tints with the highlights/shadows or on hues that are beyond a certain level of saturation. It makes looking and comparing images very confusing - they look different but sensible adjustments don't seem to be effective in making them match. The good thing with the FP is (I assume) you can CST back to a neutral point and then apply whatever colour science you want, side-stepping any oddities from a particular colour science or other.
  6. Hey - you've got to be careful saying crazy things like that around here... I'm reliably informed that the C100 is practically microscopic!
  7. kye

    Sigma FP

    Wow, that's definitely a neat setup!
  8. All I'm seeing is that it won't be that expensive to get into!
  9. kye

    Sigma FP

    Ah, that makes more sense. For some reason I was imagining the little electronic EVF accessory (EVF-11) and wondering how that worked! Yes, that is quite a neat package if that suits your shooting style 🙂
  10. kye

    Sigma FP

    Are you able to share a photo of the rig with the SD on top of the EVF? I'm curious as rig size is important for me.
  11. You have proven my point - they're huge cameras!! The C100 is tiny.... for a cinema camera... but it's not tiny... as a camera. If someone says "what cameras would you say are tiny?" your answer is much more likely to include GoPro or GX85 or maybe a 360 camera, but you'd be crazy to say "the C100!". The context of the conversation is Nikon Z6 - and the C100 isn't remotely tiny in that context.
  12. kye

    Sony FX30 (S35 FX3)

    Kids these days.... they can barely spell! In that case, let me talk about if you should buy a GH5 instead of an FX30...... don't.
  13. If you're concerned about breathing then it's worth mentioning that Sony have lens breathing compensation built into some of their newer bodies. The lenses still breathe, but the camera knows their 'profile' and crops into the image a small amount and as the lens changes focus the camera adjusts the digital zoom to keep a perfect frame and eliminate the focus breathing. In the tests I've seen the results are absolutely perfect and it's one of those things that I didn't think I cared about much until I saw images where it was eliminated and you see how much of an improvement it is to have it gone. I think that unless you have a huge amount of money to spend on lenses then you'd be better off going for a system like this that adjusts digitally rather than paying a lot for a lens without much breathing, as I'd imagine those are likely to be more expensive cine lenses. Happy to be proven wrong, but the Sony compensation seem to do a great job. Sony AF is also very impressive so you wouldn't be compromising there either.
  14. Umm... I'm sorry, what now? Only if you compare it to larger cameras. It's still huge if you're used to modern mirrorless bodies.
×
×
  • Create New...