Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

People would use AF for video if it worked right, and now that it does it's being used more The 70D is a great step in the right direction, and Sony is definitely going to follow up with something similar soon My Sony a77 has AF during video (translucent mirror so it has full PDAF) and while a bit limited in exposure settings it works well and is nice to have in a lot of situations where manual focusing us difficult like tracking

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;42099745]my dslr is currently dead and i have no idea where the charger went (i'm in the middle of trying to find a new flat to move to), so prepare yourself for some horrible phone pictures [img]http://i.imgur.com/QTkH5nw.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/k5vUJQm.jpg[/img] also, the whole thing can be disassembled fully (more than in this photo, i just didn't have anywhere nice to put the optical elements) [img]http://i.imgur.com/mNOrhQP.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] What did you use to dismantle it? I have a lens that needs to be opened and dusted.

my hands the whole thing is simply screwed together and comes apart really easily

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;42098991]Thinking of getting a new lens. Not sure if I should get the canon 50mm 1.4 or look around for something a little wider. Anyone recommend something 30-35 for under £300? Even if it's old. Also, anyone have any experience with the EOS 50 manual? Wanted to get into film again and was looking for something I could use my lenses on.[/QUOTE] I've had the Canon 50 1.4, not a bad lens but gives a very soft image when wide open Probably get just as good (if not better) off the 50 1.8, the 1.8 just feels cheaper and doesn't have a USM AF system On your budget I would suggest either, canon 50 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4 or Canon 35 f2 (35 is a very sharp lens, only downside is the AF is quite noisy but if thats not a problem its a perfect lens)

[QUOTE=Angus513;42108792]I've had the Canon 50 1.4, not a bad lens but gives a very soft image when wide open Probably get just as good (if not better) off the 50 1.8, the 1.8 just feels cheaper and doesn't have a USM AF system On your budget I would suggest either, canon 50 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4 or Canon 35 f2 (35 is a very sharp lens, only downside is the AF is quite noisy but if thats not a problem its a perfect lens)[/QUOTE] I would say canon's 50 1.4 is much better than their 1.8. It has better build (better plastics, metal mount, metal filter thread?), more aperture blades, ultrasonic focus motor (faster, quieter, more precise), focuses more closely, distance scale, it is 2/3rds of a stop faster, and should be better at focusing wide open. To me that's worth the extra cost, especially if you can find one used However the sigma 50mm is even better optically than the Canons, and unless you need a small lens I would highly recommend it. For the canon 35mm f2 also consider the sigma 30mm 1.4, it is a bit faster but won't cover full frame or 35mm film. The new art version has a better optical formula than the previous one, so it is a bit sharper across the frame and should have better autofocus accuracy [editline]7th September 2013[/editline] Not sure about the compatibility of the sigma 50mm focusing on a film body though If you want a good lens on film and APS-C, the 35mm f2 looks like a great option.

Local store has the T4i and T3i on sale. Personally I don't see the T4i being worth it for me (and it's $100 more) but the T3i comes with the stabilized kit lens for $599 with payment plans variable from 6-36 months. Does this seem like a fair deal?

If you don't need the stm lens compatibility, stereo mics that still suck, faster maximum write speed to SD card, the touch screen then yes, it's good for you.

I would pay $100 for the touch screen personally. Touch screens are great for manual focusing because you can zoom and magnify really easily. Canon's menu navigation via touchscreen is supposed to be excellent

I can zoom in digitally to pull focus by pressing the digital zoom button on a t3i. I believe it's the same button to press to do this on the T4i, 70D. Plus it's usually better and faster to just zoom in, rack focus and zoom out. Touchscreen makes operating things easier as you just tap what you want instead of using the d pad. It's just the amount of finger prints and smudges is just too much for some people.

I'm just saying, I would definitely spend the $100 for the touch screen because of the convenience alone. Getting the shot more quickly can be important, and ease of use is worth the money to me.

My Lumix has a touch screen, never use it - buttons are faster.

[QUOTE=rhub;42099373]Anyone have any opinions on the Canonet QL17 G-III? My dad has a friend that is trying to sell one for 60 bucks, I'm looking for cheap rangefinders.[/QUOTE] I have one and highly recommend it. When I got it, I was just looking for a 35mm camera with meter, but after a few days of owning it I was in love.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;42105465]Only noobs use AF in video mode[/QUOTE] Um no. That's like saying AF for photos is for noobs. There's a lot of professional photographers today that use auto focus on their lenses for their photos for a variety of reasons such as speed and accuracy not possible with the human hand. I'm going to now ramble on about how AF is not just for noobs by looking at usages on many levels of video production. There's professional videographer for TV broadcast that use AF. Some even use auto exposure. Ever see a camera pan from the sky to a building on TV? Notice how the exposure changes? It's the automatic exposure mode on. Same for focusing, but broadcast cameras have pretty small sensors anyways so more things will be in focus than your DSLR anyways. When you're doing run and gun, you literally have no time to pull focus. That's when you use AF. Let's look at it for film production, the vast majority is manually focused by a focus puller who's job is to pull and rack focus every single take of the shot. It's known to be one of the most stressful jobs in film making because you have to pull focus and do it perfectly every single take. The reason is because Computers don't know exactly what the director or whoever wants to rack focus on so it does lots of guessing and those heavy, expensive cinema lenses usually don't have auto focus built in anyways. Follow focus makes things easier for a camera operator to pull focus and often wireless focus pulling systems are used so the focus puller doesn't have to touch the lens it self and get in the way of the camera or steadicam operator. Or maybe the camera flies up on a jib or dolly. Now let's look at it at a much smaller budget production. Similar thing to the higher budget but minus the wireless focus pulling system because those are just pretty expensive and if you can afford one, get it. It will make focus pulling so much easier more efficient and eliminate some restrictions. Follow focus systems are cheaper. When you're dealing with DSLRs the AF for video sucks. The 70D, among other recent cameras provides a better but it doesn't mean everyone's going to use it. You will still run into the disadvantages of AF in general such as focusing on the background instead of the foreground, etc. Now look at the prosumer camcorders that Canon has, the fixed lens XA10 and above. Those have pretty good AF systems, you can manually focus of you wanted to using the programmable ring which can also be used for iris, gain, zoom. Now let's look at it when using steadicam systems. The high budget productions use a wireless focus pulling system. Lower budgets either pull focus ahead of time and hopefully get everything in focus or pull focus while the camera is rolling and on the steadicam. This poses problems because you're not really supposed to touch the camera and it causes vibrations and camera shake. But if you can do it well enough, it won't be noticible. I see this all the time with Devin super tramps behind the scenes videos or whenever he's pulling focus while using his glidecam. Another option is to use the AF on the lens. If you're using a DSLR it's going to suck and you might as well not use it. If you're using a camcorder, that's a different story. Usually you shoot pretty wide in a steadicam so small movements won't be very noticible so most things will be in focus anyways. Camcorders usually have a smaller sensor which increased the depth of field you get so less shallow depth of field. I worked on a music video earlier this year where a steadicam operator was using a Sony VG10 and 16mm f/2.8 pancake lens at f/2.8 with AF on and it worked. The budget didn't have enough for a wireless focus pulling system and that would also require someone to do that job. This allowed the steadicam operator to focus on the composition of the shot and the exposure. One less thing to really worry about. The footage looked fine and the final product worked fine too. Some people chose dedicated camcorders such as the XA10, VG10 over DSLRs because of the AF for video. Sometimes using the AF is the best choice. Now let's go to the consumer level. Consumers don't care about having manual focus or manual anything. Even if there was manual focus, it would be using the touch screen or pressing the left and right buttons to slowly pull focus which is very slow. Higher end consumer camcorders have a little dial that makes it much easier to pull focus and change other settings such as iris, gain, etc. Consumers want the camcorder to work and their AF systems are pretty good. I wanted more control when I ran into the focusing limitations. I couldn't do those fancy focus pulls from one object to the next on my old camcorder that used the d pad to do manual focus. My options was either a professional broadcast quality camcorder that costed 5 grand or more, or get a DSLR with the same image quality or better for a fraction of the costs. Since DSLR uses lenses built for photography, you'll be able to manually focus and zoom as much as you want. I still rarely use AF for DSLR video unless I want to, but I sometimes switch it on to lock the focus ring. Computers and AF systems are always advancing but they have their limitations. When shooting stuff, sometimes it's best to just let the auto focus do it's thing. How and when you use it is up to you. Sure manual focus and exposure will lock things down too but saying that AF is for noobs is ridiculous. Professionals use both. Amateurs like you and me use both. You're the camera operator or DP or whatever and you get to choose when to use what (unless the lens doesn't have AF itself). TL;DR: Saying AF for video is for noobs is ridiculous, everyone, even the professionals use both and it's up to you on what you use.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;42105465]Only noobs use AF in video mode[/QUOTE] AF is a tool, just like anything else if it works for a specific purpose, gives good results in those circumstances and saves time, there's no reason not to use it

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;42119889]AF is a tool, just like anything else if it works for a specific purpose, gives good results in those circumstances and saves time, there's no reason not to use it[/QUOTE] I can understand his point when shooting video, but it's probably because video AF has been shit in the majority of film-shooting DSLRs. I hope that the 70D will mitigate video AF's shitty reputation.

i think af on video could work really well if the camera had an accelrometer and the focus-o-meter reported focus distance and you had a relatively static subject

[QUOTE=Raygen;42119929]I can understand his point when shooting video, but it's probably because video AF has been shit in the majority of film-shooting DSLRs. I hope that the 70D will mitigate video AF's shitty reputation.[/QUOTE] Just DSLRs have bad autofocus during video. When the mirror is flipped up, the phase detection sensors responsible for autofocus info (PDAF) are no longer getting light from the mirror, which is the main focusing system for the camera. The autofocus must then be done by using contrast detection autofocus (CDAF), which is performed on sensor and is designed to detect when the most contrast has been achieved (so when the image is most in focus). DSLR lenses are not optimized for CDAF, so they focus slowly. In general CDAF rocks back and forth more because it isn't detecting actual distance like PDAF, but rather just contrast on the sensor Cameras and lenses optimized for CDAF work well for video, which is why mirrorless cameras have good autofocus during video, because they are always using that kind of focus so the lenses are made with that in mind. Phase detection pixels on the sensor haven't worked too well, but were something tried by most manufacturers. Sony made a slight "solution" where they used a translucent mirror that let 70% of light always pass through, with the rest always hitting the phase detection sensors. They are moving away from that though due to the amount of light lost during normal exposures (about 0.5EV, so they get worse low light performance). Canon's method is simulating PDAF, and that's why it is working well with the lenses and pulling focus accurately the first time. The 70D represents a good push toward better autofocus during live view, and will certainly be challenged by other companies soon (Sony is working in doing something similar for their cameras).

what happened to ultrasonic focus or whatever tbh wouldn't that fix everything

[QUOTE=Eltro102;42121642]what happened to ultrasonic focus or whatever tbh wouldn't that fix everything[/QUOTE] If you mean the lens autofocus technology, that does increase autofocus speed of the lens itself - but won't fix the fact that DSLRs with contrast-detection autofocus have to move focus back and forth repeatedly before finding peak focus.

no i mean [IMG]http://blog.the-impossible-project.com/images/1254.jpg[/IMG] that's what the honeycomb does [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] sonar autofocus yeah that

[QUOTE=Eltro102;42121642]what happened to ultrasonic focus or whatever tbh wouldn't that fix everything[/QUOTE] Not sure I'm familiar with that method, do you mean ultrasonic motors in lenses or as a focusing technique? [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Eltro102;42121701]no i mean [IMG]http://blog.the-impossible-project.com/images/1254.jpg[/IMG] that's what the honeycomb does [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] sonar autofocus yeah that[/QUOTE] Oh okay that, I'm not too familiar with it but I think it's not used because it requires the sound wave to be bounced back, and the bounce back can be obstructed by transparent objects. Like light would pass through them, but not sound. Windows would mess up the focusing for instance.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;42121701]no i mean snip that's what the honeycomb does [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] sonar autofocus yeah that[/QUOTE] I knew polaroid was ahead of their time but this is ridiculous.

that makes sense oh yeah still ir ranging would be cool

Wait, people actually use a DSLR for video? What ever happened to suing a real camera? You know, one that generates timecode and has XLR inputs? I could care less about the video quality on a T3i.

[QUOTE=pentium;42122912]Wait, people actually use a DSLR for video? What ever happened to suing a real camera? You know, one that generates timecode and has XLR inputs? I could care less about the video quality on a T3i.[/QUOTE] Two in one...? Also they made a whole house episode with a dslr

[QUOTE=pentium;42122912]Wait, people actually use a DSLR for video? What ever happened to suing a real camera? You know, one that generates timecode and has XLR inputs? I could care less about the video quality on a T3i.[/QUOTE] The image quality is generally better on DSLRs as far as price goes, so it's cheaper to get a better overall look so they've been a pretty popular choice since the 5dmk2. Like a $700 DSLR will make better looking video than a $700 camcorder. But DSLR's are becoming popular enough to where companies are making large sensored video cameras, like the Canon C, Black Magic cams, and the Sony FS series (though all of these are more expensive). Sony in particular is trying to address the mic problem and has an XLR module that fits in their new hotshoe, but it's a bit pricey at $800

Just ordered a 10mm Lens for my Nikon 1, since im new with cameras/photography it'll be my first wide angle lens. [IMG]http://www3.pcmag.com/media/images/328647-nikon-1-nikkor-10mm-f-2-8-lens.jpg?thumb=y[/IMG]

I hate how much of a gearlover I am. I am considering buying a camera just because I think it looks good even though it's totally impractical.

[QUOTE=Desuh;42125520]I hate how much of a gearlover I am. I am considering buying a camera just because I think it looks good even though it's totally impractical.[/QUOTE] dont turn into camera specs person who buys the best camera and takes shit pictures and then complains their $5000 camera doesnt work and they hate photography [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] "ugh my pictures suck and im using auto mode so they should look good idk wat im doing wrong plz help"

[QUOTE=Desuh;42125520]I hate how much of a gearlover I am. I am considering buying a camera just because I think it looks good even though it's totally impractical.[/QUOTE] I was like that for a while, then I made the rule that I had to take at least one photo I really liked with each lens I had In the end I sold a bunch of gear because it was impractical or not useful, and now I don't buy anything unless I'm sure I will have a situation to use it for, or that I can at least double my money if I sold it. [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=dwt110;42125764]dont turn into camera specs person who buys the best camera and takes shit pictures and then complains their $5000 camera doesnt work and they hate photography [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] "ugh my pictures suck and im using auto mode so they should look good idk wat im doing wrong plz help"[/QUOTE] Knowing your gear and owning nice equipment doesn't make you incapable of taking good photos. Gear knowledge is a great thing to have