Michael Steiner

On 1/22/2020 at 9:17 AM, Kisaha said:

The Sigma is not parfocal, "almost" parfocal is not a thing.

Zooming In, setting focus. Zooming out -> object is still in focus. 
Setting focus, zooming in -> Object not perfectly in focus, but close. 
 

That‘s what I meant with „almost parfocal“. It‘s not perfect but still better than any zoom-lens designed for photo cameras I ever used. 

13 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

I like parafocalness

The 18-35 is almost parafocal, at least the one I have... zoom outs are no problem, zoom ins... stopped down a little that works too.

13 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

drop sharpness easily and add more plastic for lighter weight and cost reduction

Please sigma, don‘t listen to him. You have been there, in that dark area when people only bought your lenses for budget reasons. The art lenses are the best thing sigma ever did. Sure, they come at a wheight. But they perform equal to lenses 2-3 times more expensive. Let other brands cover that cheaper, less sharp segment...

My favorite Morricone score.

37 minutes ago, Stab said:

the Sigma 50-100 f1.8 is pretty big as well.

True that. Maybe it‘s the wide aputure combined with the zoom-factor that affects size exponentially?

19 minutes ago, Stab said:

I just find it interesting that '3rd party' manufacturers come up with stuff which the big ones don't.

Very true. Maybe lazyness of canon/sony/nikon? Or other priorities like reducing size, weight... 

21 minutes ago, Stab said:

I'm not sure what makes that lens so big. Is it the the wide range or the long reach which is responsible for that?

I have no actual knowledge about this things but considering how rare and/or big fast wide angle lenses are I‘d assume the wider part of such zooms is the challenge (anything from 11-18mm)? 
Maybe someone with mor knowledge can chime in...

3 minutes ago, Stab said:

I doubt that the market is too small. And like I said, the lens is great, but could be improved upon with a slightly wider and longer reach. 

But, I agree that recently a lot of manufacturers seem to switch to or offer more full frame camera's. But why are we still sticking to f2.8 zooms?

Canon has made a brilliant 28-70 f2, but that's about it. Yes, it is big and heavy. Sigma had a 24-35 f2 which was awesome but a little limited in range. 

I would be all over a sharp zoom with a constant f1.8 aperture in the let's say 22-45mm (full frame) range. Which should be doable without becoming too large and heavy.

I‘m with you, such a lens would be great! But look how big, heavy and expensive the 28-70 F2 and the 24-35 F2 are already. So for fullframe a 22-45 F1.8 would probably be gigantic.
Now for apsc it’d probably be doable. But who other than video shooters would pay a premium price for such a lens? Not the casual hobby photographer that paid 300-600 for a slr/milc and is happy with a kit-zoom...

Look at the cameras canon and sony offer for apsc: nothing there gives hope for a high quality lens such as the sigma 18-35 or canons now very old but still great 17-55 F2.8 IS... 

But still the sigma 1.8-zooms are the two lenses i love most. Great IQ, very easy to pull manual focus without a follow focus but also with good working AF (on canon cameras). Only downside for me is the lack of IS and the heavy breathing of the 50-100. 

My hope is for falling prices on S35 cine lenses when everybody moves to fullframe...

20 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Because no one cares about APSC except for Fuji.

I would be ready to pay a grand for a 18-35 follow-up with IS and possibly a little more range. But I fear you‘re right. None of the manufacturers seem to care about APSC in this time. 
While I have no intention to switch to fullframe anytime soon, many seem to do just that. So the market might just be to small...?

59 minutes ago, aaa123jc said:

Once I switched to Capture One from Lightroom, there is no reason I keep paying them anymore. 

That‘s what I did too. Capture One instead of Lightroom and all the Affinity apps instead of Photoshop and Indesign. Works great. And one day I‘ll take the time to learn Fusion...

There are good alternatives to Adobe, most of them cheaper. And yet, if one wants to be hired as a freelance editor here in continental Europe it‘s probably impossible to avoid the CC suite as it‘s sadly still the most used...

3 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

Premiere is the easiest to learn

I‘d bet this is not true if your completely new to video editing. If starting from scratch, you’ll learn faster in fcpx than in pp in my opinion. Its easier but very powerfull too.

now if you want to get hired as an editor premiere is probably a must - and that i find very sad. 
Not many things can cause passionate hate. but for me premiere can.

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

Ironically I need AF in 60fps more than I need it in 24fps. 

You can have that, just with a crop... Presumably a 1.3 crop if it‘s a 1:1 pixel readout for 4k. If it was a bigger crop the 4k would need to be upscaled. 

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

But on the withe paper that I posted above they have a table with the max recording time per format that does not make sense if is 30min limit.

True... I guess we'll find out soon enough.

And now that I have scanned through the whitepaper I see there's no C-Log2 and C-Log3 on the 1dx3. It seems those are supported only in Cinema RAW light...

19 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

Unlimited recording time

On the official canon site they state 30min recording limit (7.5min for 120p)

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/eos-dslr-and-mirrorless-cameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-iii/

4 minutes ago, crevice said:

I think gt3rs nailed it. It’s some sort of raw, but it’s not their rawlite. Even the newsshooter articles says they wish it had rawlite. 

So they introduced a new raw-format too then?

I might be mistaken but the numbers seem more or less in line, don‘t they?

5.9k (19mp) = 2.1 gbs

5.5k (16mp) = 1.8 gbs 

4k (9mp) = 1 gbs 

4 minutes ago, crevice said:

You’re mistaken. This camera does not have rawlite. This is full on raw. It seems they are keeping rawlite on their cinema cameras. 

I dont think so. Compare it it to the datarates of the c500 2 and the sigma fp (that has uncompressed raw):

sigma fp 4k 8bit 24p: 1.6 gbs

sigma fp 4k 12 bit 24p: 2.4 gbs

(those are the numbers Mr. Reid states in his review)

canon c500 2 5.9k 12bit 24p: 2.1 gbs

I just saw 50/60p drops to 10bit on the C500 2 too, so the 1dx 3 is canons only camera offering 12bit raw in 50/60p...

2 hours ago, crevice said:

I do wish they offered their rawlite - these video files are going to be massive. Also very curious how much dynamic range this camera has for video.

This is RAW lite (as in the C200 and C500 2).  The 9mp for 4k on the c200 is 1gbs, the 16mp for 5.5k on the 1dx3 the corresponding 1.8 gbs.

Other than on the C200, 50/60p raw is not 10bit but also 12bit, meanig datarate is even higher at 2.6 gbs. 
Higher raw compression is probably not possible because of the red-patent...?

Pretty impressive camera. 

26 minutes ago, Django said:

I’m a C200 shooter and am considering 1DX3 as an A/B cam.

C200 can’t do 10-bit or FF.

Come to think about it the 1DX3 + Atomos V could probably replace my EOS R,  5D, C200 & FS7! ?

 

Are you doing projects where audio isn‘t crucial? Or have a sound-guy to handle that? 
As a one-man-band Audio is probably the main reason a DSLR/MILC could never fit my needs for an A-Cam... The C200 would remain my A-Cam even if I‘d get a 1dx3 for free... 

25 minutes ago, Django said:

Simple: none of those cine cams can shoot stills. 1DX3 is for hybrid shooters who are invested in Canon ecosystem and will be using it as a A/B cam. 

Besides, the C200 can't shoot 10-bit, and the EVA1/FS7 can't do internal RAW nor do they have DPAF. The FX9 is $4.5K extra and can't do internal RAW either.

So on the video level alone, the 1DX3 punches way above its weight/class despite what all the naysayers have to complain about it.

 

 

Fair enough, I didn‘t think of hybrid shooters. 
My main point was that for those shooting mainly video (and need good audio controls, nd filters etc.) there are better cameras in that price range imho. 
But sure: If i was a C500 2 shooter and had the budget, i‘d consider a 1dx 3 as a b-cam. 

I still don‘t understand why anybody shooting videos would spend 6.5k for this dslr if there are the C200, the EVA1, the FS7 in the same price range. Want full frame? add 3k and get the FX9. 
want full frame raw? Your „established“ alternatives (red and arri) are at least 50k $ more expensive and don‘t offer any AF at all... compared to those even the C500 2 looks like a good deal. 
considering that, i don‘t quite understand how the 1dx 3 can make some people so angry. It is still mainly a dslr optimized for photography... 

Two steps forward, one step back...

19 hours ago, IronFilm said:

No DPAF in 4K 60fps 10bit?

Good guess it seems. 
No info on video recording formats yet...

2 hours ago, leslie said:

i think i could do something creative with the 1812 overture or ride of the valkeries

Just need to hire an Orchestra to play it for you since performances and recordings are copyrighted too. That's the most frustrating thing for me: the search for royalty free classical music most of the time ends at a recording from some college orchestra that barely hits the notes...

@BTM_Pix  Thanks for the great write-up! 

2 hours ago, chadandreo said:

DPAF and color science will probably be their main selling point. 

For Video Shooters? Every current C-Line camera has that...

From what we know so far, the specs look good. But at that price, who would buy it mainly for video?

Is that in the US? As far as I know copyright is valid until 70 years after the artists death in the country I live (at least for music compositions)... I have no idea how copyrights are handled internationally. 

4 hours ago, Trankilstef said:

Raw is interesting too but if it's the same as on the C200 it will be a real storage eater !!

It likely will be the same raw format, meaning 1gbs at 4k. There‘s that Red-patent preventing more compressed raw formats...
 

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But who knows what weird and random "GOTCHA" they're going to give us with this? A massive crop factor? No DPAF in 4K 60fps 10bit?

A massiv crop would mean a massiv jump in resolution compared to the 1dx2, so at least that‘s rather unlikely...

But with gotchas or not: this will be a big and pricey camera, probably quite close to the C200. I wonder what kind of videoshooters would prefer a 1D to a C-Line camera. I can see it as a pricey B-Cam for highend shooters. But why pay 5-6k if you can have a Panasonic with comparable specs for less or a C200 with all the benefits for motion pictures for more or less the same price?

It has to be the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for me. From all my gear this is the most used part. Beautiful image, great focal range, almost perfect manual focus. 4 fast primes in on lens.