Kong Fisso
Banned
This bothers me. I read in several tests that the 60D is great for video, but that doesn't make any sense if it can only record 12 minutes at the time! I'm holding off my purchase and subscribing this thread for more info.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
Ya, it's a great camera. The EX1R saves you a couple thousand if you're not too interested in the interchangeable lens setup on the EX3. They're comparable cameras.Looks definitely interesting, just going by the tech specs. Is this the best autofocus to be had in this price segment?
Oh, and ideally I´d like to use my EF lenses - aside from the C300 I´d be shit outta luck there, right?
And thx for helping me!
Not sure if it has the best autofocus in its class but it would be much better than manually focusing with a DSLR. At that price, the next thing you're probably stepping up to is either a Scarlet or broadcast camera. No go on the EF lenses unfortunately.
edit - Forgot the C300 doesn't have autofocus...
IIRC, the sensor gets hot due to extended use in addition to the filesize limits. What are you guys planning on doing that requires cuts that long?
Exactly. I saw a lot of video reviews and the 60D should be great for video, and it sure is, but 12 minutes makes no sense. That's not even good enough for vacations or the bedroom. :/
For vacations we tend to film a lot, sometimes for more than a hour, but I guess I'll need a video camera then. And i have no idea what's great.
By the way, 60D is an awesome camera!
345triangle
Member
honestly i don't think any traditional DSLR is "great for video". apart from time limit issues focusing is a pain, you can't use the viewfinder, and the form factor isn't really suited to it. the quality can turn out pretty good, but on something like a 60D i'd say it's a novelty at best anyone buying a 60D should be doing so 99% because they want to take great photos. anyone with a more even split of desire between photos and videos would be better off with something like a panasonic GH2.
I mean, DSLR's aren't well suited to being vacation camera video recorders. Unless you have IS is the lens, it's going to end up looking jerky, it'll be awkward to hold, it's sensor assembly isn't designed for prolonged periods of video recording, autofocus sucks, etc etc.
DSLRs are intended to be Still Photograph cameras, that also have a nice artistic video mode that'll let you get nice DOF and other effects useful for piecing together high-amature to low-professional quality looking video.
The new Cinema EOS cameras are the first canon dslr's to break out of that mould, and it's VERY EXPENSIVE.
DSLRs are intended to be Still Photograph cameras, that also have a nice artistic video mode that'll let you get nice DOF and other effects useful for piecing together high-amature to low-professional quality looking video.
The new Cinema EOS cameras are the first canon dslr's to break out of that mould, and it's VERY EXPENSIVE.
DSLRs can replace a typical video camera (well, maybe except for events due to lack of a few key features) but it requires quite a bit of support equipment to do so. External monitors, audio recorders, shoulder mount, etc.
I think they really excel at narrative work which is what I primarily use mine for if I'm doing video stuff.
I think they really excel at narrative work which is what I primarily use mine for if I'm doing video stuff.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
I believe the European regulation on max video clip length for digital cameras actually kicks in at 29 minutes. I personally can't imagine needing a longer clip length than that, given the nature of shooting video on a DSLR.
I once put my NEX into my camera bag with it in power save mode instead of completely powered off, and when I made it home I opened the bag to see the camera had been recording 27 minutes of lens cap. It was pretty warm, but probably would have made it to 29 minutes.
I had looked into the Scarlet, but the associated prices for batteries, media etc. are definitely offputting.
BTW, does anyone by chance know what cameras have been used for the ARTE documentaries "Big Five Southamerica", especially the Giant Otter docu?
Really at an impasse in terms of my next camera purchase. The question is what do I want to sacrifice or compromise. Currently I shoot with a Rebel XSi with the 50mm 1.4. My issues with this are the bulk of the camera (I really would like something more compact) and the effective 80mm focal length is too restricting. I shoot with the prime lens 95% of the time.
For a year I have wanted an X100, but I worry that fixed 35mm will be too wide. I think for day to day shooting a normal lens would suit me best. And of course, it is higher in cost (though not too high, IMHO). That said I would love the size of the camera and the sensor/lens combo is great, and the high ISO performance. I also obviously cannot add a zoom lens, which is something I need to consider as my kids get older (sports, etc.).
The other option is to stick with my current body and get some lenses. I am specifically thinking about the 28mm 1.8 (effective normal lens for day to day shooting) and the 70200mm F 4 L lens (for kids stuff and other occasional things). Downside is still a large camera and multiple lenses to worry about.
I was hoping the X Pro1 would be my savior but it's just too expensive. I'd rather get a 5D Mk II for that price.
For a year I have wanted an X100, but I worry that fixed 35mm will be too wide. I think for day to day shooting a normal lens would suit me best. And of course, it is higher in cost (though not too high, IMHO). That said I would love the size of the camera and the sensor/lens combo is great, and the high ISO performance. I also obviously cannot add a zoom lens, which is something I need to consider as my kids get older (sports, etc.).
The other option is to stick with my current body and get some lenses. I am specifically thinking about the 28mm 1.8 (effective normal lens for day to day shooting) and the 70200mm F 4 L lens (for kids stuff and other occasional things). Downside is still a large camera and multiple lenses to worry about.
I was hoping the X Pro1 would be my savior but it's just too expensive. I'd rather get a 5D Mk II for that price.
Rolling shutter on the iphone is pretty bad. Pretty much worse in every category that matters.
ISO, lens performance, compression, rolling shutter, audio... but it will do in a pinch.
I actually have seen the local news crew doing "personality" segments recorded on an iphone with a wireless mic and a LED hot light on a monopod. Made me LOL.
mclaren777
Member
You could fit 50 minutes into a 4GB file using a lower bitrate (qscale -1).
http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Bit_rate
I'm not sure about the 16mm pancake though, yes it looks pretty good and handy, but most reviews I've read says that it is pretty mediocre lens. :/
The Main Event
Member
Oh boy. I've been saving for the 21mm for quite some time now. But since I'd be using it on a crop sensor I felt it wouldn't be wide enough. I started considering getting a Canon instead.
Not anymore. Please be true!
mclaren777
Member
devon the dude
Member
My wife is traveling abroad at the end of this month and doesn't want to carry around my Nikon D5100, so we are looking into a compact around $150 or under. Any recommendations?
Looking at these, three but open to any others that take a decent picture
Panasonic lumix dmc-fh25
Sony cyber shot wx9
Canon elph 300hs
Looking at these, three but open to any others that take a decent picture
Panasonic lumix dmc-fh25
Sony cyber shot wx9
Canon elph 300hs
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I have a feeling this baby is gonna be expensive though. A price tier above the 21 Distagon (definitely in the +2K realm).
A used Panasonic LX3?
345triangle
Member
it's really useful for certain things, and the conversion lenses are actually excellent. i know i'll miss it if i don't replace it.
My dilemma above did not elicit any responses, so I'll be more direct with a specific question: I prefer to shoot with a prime lens as my walkaround lens and don't want to swap 95% of the time, which is one of the reasons I am considering the X100. If you have an opinion: would you use a ~50mm or 35mm as your only lens if that was all you could use?
I think my biggest concern with 35mm is having to be a step away from someone for a closeup.
I think my biggest concern with 35mm is having to be a step away from someone for a closeup.
35mm all day. 50mm is just too tight on a APS-C sensor.
I should clarify, I am talking about effective focal lengths. the X100 is technically 23mm, with crop effectively a 35mm.
For me the concern is now I am shooting with a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor for an effective 80mm. I slapped my kits lens on and kept it around an approximate effective focal length of 35mm and it was slightly jarring going so tight to so wide.
Kong Fisso
Banned
Does the GH2 have the clip-limit as well? And what is the advantages of hacking it? Just auto focus or?
I'm not sure about clip limits but hacking it allows you to record at different framerates. Look on Vimeo and see the results.
35mm (35mm eqivalent) is a hell lot more conformtible to me than 50mm. My theory about 50mm is that it became a standard lens in the film days becasue it was the cheapest to make. It had nothing to do with a "standard" field of view.
some people argue that looking through a 50mm lens the image appear same size as what you see with a naked eye, that's why its the "standard" focal length. But that has more do to with the prism magnification than anything else.
I've always thought 50mm being normal has to do with what you have in focus when you are looking straight ahead, not necessarily what you want in a photo.
Thanks for your comments.
The Main Event
Member
Besides that, it's also normal because it most closely approximates a normal human eye in terms of perspective, distance between objects, etc. This changes depending on sensor size, though.
Does someone have experience with the Minolta 50mm 1.7? Because I've read good things about this lens and I can get it for cheap, just looking for advice
Most manual 50/1.7 lenses have pretty similar design. Sharp, compact and mediocre bokeh. If you can find one in good condition for 60 or great condition for 80, it's a good deal.
I rather spend the money on a manual 55/1.4 though.
Can't believe that shadow noise at ISO 200 in the first pic.
Does someone have experience with the Minolta 50mm 1.7? Because I've read good things about this lens and I can get it for cheap, just looking for advice
Minolta 50mm f/1.7 MD Mount or AF Mount?
Is in really good condition for $70, AF Mount, I will use it in a Sony A35
I like this 80's prime on my Maxxum film bodies.
Pretty sharp stopped down and decent bokeh, but prone to flare.
The build quality is way better than my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II.
It has a metal mount, a distance scale, and focus ring doesn't feel flimsy like the aforementioned Canon.
The AF 50 f/1.7 should be a "75-80mm like" portrait lens on your Sony's APS-C 1.5x crop sensor.
This lens has a retractable hood that isn't obscured by filters, but I doubt you'll be using it much. Just make a note to use your hand to guard against the flare instead.
$70 is not a bad price. Go ahead and pick it up.
i cant believe all the dust on the sensor! holy cow.
they're birds, i know
seriously though, thats pretty awful shadow noise for iso 200.
slothmeister
Member
Hey guys,
Just about to get my nice little bonus through from work and will be buying the tamron 18-50 f2, however I'm also looking to buy a new superwide to go with my d7000, something like 10-20mm.
So, I'll have about £500 to spend on it, which would you guys recommend out of the sigma, tokima and tamron? Or is there a Nikon equivalent you'd recommended.
Thanks.
Just about to get my nice little bonus through from work and will be buying the tamron 18-50 f2, however I'm also looking to buy a new superwide to go with my d7000, something like 10-20mm.
So, I'll have about £500 to spend on it, which would you guys recommend out of the sigma, tokima and tamron? Or is there a Nikon equivalent you'd recommended.
Thanks.
Thanks, tomorrow it will be mine!!, but I didn't understand the bolded =S
Acid House
Banned
What he means is that shooting a 50mm lens on a 1.5x cropped sensor will give you closer to 80mm, coincidentally a favorite portrait length.
GamePnoy74
Member
Lots of people recommend the Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX AF 11-16mm f/2.8:
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-a.html
A GAFfer here in the camera thread is even selling theirs too but they're in the US:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35771112&postcount=9574
I'd want it for my D7000 as well but I'm saving up for m4/3 gear right now...
milkham
Member
did anyone else get one of these
http://lyt.ro/wDQ1MM#.T16jUtmEh2s
http://lyt.ro/wDQ1MM#.T16jUtmEh2s
- Status