M&A stoke

12989892:Balto said:
Now all these things would be forgivable if the lens had some character, but canon hasn't been able to do that since they stopped making rangefinder glass (example canon 50mm f1.2 LTM or 0.95 dream lens)
Click to expand...

The 1.2 isn't all that nice, but the 0.95 is. The 1.4 is really good for it's price (300-400$). The 1.8 (which I have) is also really good. Beautiful little lens! I love Canon LTM glass. Aesthetically so pretty, but the way they render also do it for me.

12990967:DingoSean said:
If you're going to whore out on Bokeh with an EOS lens, skip the 1.2 and buy the f1.0

At least in that case, the build quality is at least as good as the 85 f1.2 (same body) and it delivers very interesting bokeh results.
Click to expand...

The 1.0 is an even worse performer than the 1.2 though...
 
12991399:TijmenDal said:
The 1.2 isn't all that nice, but the 0.95 is. The 1.4 is really good for it's price (300-400$). The 1.8 (which I have) is also really good. Beautiful little lens! I love Canon LTM glass. Aesthetically so pretty, but the way they render also do it for me.

The 1.0 is an even worse performer than the 1.2 though...
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point that all these lenses suck other then for their character in rendering and that is what makes them interesting.
 
12991399:TijmenDal said:
The 1.0 is an even worse performer than the 1.2 though...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but when you buy something that fast, you don't buy it to be sharp. You buy it for it's effect.

...nobody shoots a 1.0 as their walkaround.
 
12991399:TijmenDal said:
The 1.8 (which I have) is also really good. Beautiful little lens!
Click to expand...

Honestly I would say the only Canon 50mm worth the money is the 1.8... You can snag one for what, 60 bucks? at least for photography, I can imagine for filming it might not be as nice with the focus ring being shitty plastic but for AF you don't have to deal with it. The 1.8 is arguably as sharp as the 1.4 i highly doubt the 1.2 is THAT much sharper.

Also, I don't really understand why you guys care so much about character though, I care more about the images it produces...
 
12991845:JuliusJ said:
Honestly I would say the only Canon 50mm worth the money is the 1.8... You can snag one for what, 60 bucks? at least for photography, I can imagine for filming it might not be as nice with the focus ring being shitty plastic but for AF you don't have to deal with it. The 1.8 is arguably as sharp as the 1.4 i highly doubt the 1.2 is THAT much sharper.

Also, I don't really understand why you guys care so much about character though, I care more about the images it produces...
Click to expand...

For video, just get any vintage 50mm if you're shooting Canon. The focus will be easier to handle, and the IQ will be plenty for video.
 
12991845:JuliusJ said:
Honestly I would say the only Canon 50mm worth the money is the 1.8... You can snag one for what, 60 bucks? at least for photography, I can imagine for filming it might not be as nice with the focus ring being shitty plastic but for AF you don't have to deal with it. The 1.8 is arguably as sharp as the 1.4 i highly doubt the 1.2 is THAT much sharper.

Also, I don't really understand why you guys care so much about character though, I care more about the images it produces...
Click to expand...

We're talking about LTM lenses here, not EF mount...
 
12989892:Balto said:
See if you knew anything about camera gear (which you clearly don't) you would realize there is so much more that goes into making a good lens then a fast maximum aperture. It has way too much distortion, fall off, isn't particularly sharp, lacks mico contrast, is built like a toy and has a focus ring thats about as smooth as gravel. It's slow to focus on anything other than a 1 series body (or 5d3 with '1dx focusing' which I laugh at because it's BS) and even then it's still slow. Now all these things would be forgivable if the lens had some character, but canon hasn't been able to do that since they stopped making rangefinder glass (example canon 50mm f1.2 LTM or 0.95 dream lens)
Click to expand...

you can't even be serious. Rather than arguing with you, I'm gonna edit a video I shot with the 50 1.2 and wait for my 5,000 check from the client
 
12992166:SourSteezle said:
you can't even be serious. Rather than arguing with you, I'm gonna edit a video I shot with the 50 1.2 and wait for my 5,000 check from the client
Click to expand...

getting paid has nothing to do with the lens being shit, if you knew anything about optics you wouldn't have wasted your money on that turd. Do a little research before talking, these things are measurable.
 
I'm just gonna break up this Canon L Series fanboy fuckery to post that I'm stoked about selling my GH3 and buying a BMPCC rig. The footage this thing produces is mind blowing for a sub $1000 camera. 13 Stops of dynamic range, 12/10 bit recording, and easily the most detailed 1080p footage I have ever worked with. The image quality is definitely worth working around all of its quirks IMO. Stoked to start shooting my senior thesis film with it in about a month.

scc0aa.jpg
 
12992259:Balto said:
getting paid has nothing to do with the lens being shit, if you knew anything about optics you wouldn't have wasted your money on that turd. Do a little research before talking, these things are measurable.
Click to expand...

^reiteration.
 
12992166:SourSteezle said:
you can't even be serious. Rather than arguing with you, I'm gonna edit a video I shot with the 50 1.2 and wait for my 5,000 check from the client
Click to expand...

Optical differences between lenses has little to do with one's ability to make a good video; this is the pretense of all gear discussion (or at least it should be). Any person whose skills command $5,000 shoul know this.

Take a deep breath...they're tools. Only douchebags define themselves by what they use. Get over it.

P.S. The fact that you felt the need to claim your paycheck in order to qualify your abilities (instead of something that's actually relevant) further demonstrates that you are missing the point.

12992384:plorr said:
I'm just gonna break up this Canon L Series fanboy fuckery to post that I'm stoked about selling my GH3 and buying a BMPCC rig. The footage this thing produces is mind blowing for a sub $1000 camera. 13 Stops of dynamic range, 12/10 bit recording, and easily the most detailed 1080p footage I have ever worked with. The image quality is definitely worth working around all of its quirks IMO. Stoked to start shooting my senior thesis film with it in about a month.

scc0aa.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm so tempted to upgrade to a BMPCC system. Hows the rolling shutter, among other things? Are the quirks as bad as they say?
 
12992633:lIllI said:
Take a deep breath...they're tools. Only douchebags define themselves by what they use. Get over it.
Click to expand...

This just about sums up this whole huge argument. Also, super interested in hearing more about that black magic camera, I have heard opposing opinions on it, it doesn't look super useful for my purposes but it seems perfect for others, and I have seen some beautiful footage from it.
 
To further ourselves from that stupid bickering, I bought a 32GB lexar 1066x speed card today, and am excited to see how my in cam buffer and transfer speeds improve with it. Might have to sell all my old 60mbps Sandisks if it works out well
 
I'm so tempted to upgrade to a BMPCC system. Hows the rolling shutter said:
The rolling shutter is slightly worse than the GH3. Manageable but definitely not useable handheld without a rig, especially with longer lenses. Not a deal breaker, just means you have to be careful to stabilize it well.

Haven't seen any moire or aliasing yet.

60p would be nice but for me not a big deal since I do still have access to a GH3 when we need slow motion.

The in camera audio is abysmally bad. Not useful for anything but reference for syncing external audio. For me this isn't an issue because the project I'm working on now we will have external sound from a boom and lavs all the time. With a juicedlink adaptor or something you could probably get useable in camera audio though.

Battery life is also abysmal. Pretty much changing batteries about every hour. This is an easy fix though. I just bought a shitload of batteries, they're like 12 bucks a piece. You could also rig up a V-mount or something too if you had that kind of cash.

Not being able to format cards or delete clips is a bit of a pain. But really it just means you have to have extra SD cards and be prepared for your shoots and not forget to format your cards before hand. Not a big deal at all IMO. Nobody has ever had the ability to format a roll of film and people still shoot movies on film all the time. This is also supposedly getting fixed in the next firmware release.

Overall, it's just a camera that makes you work a little harder. It has the features you absolutely need (the focus peaking and zebras are awesome by the way) without any bells or whistles. But no compromise in image quality. For the price, I'd say that makes it an ideal camera for narrative filmmaking. For filming action sports or weddings or any kind of live event, it probably sucks.
Click to expand...
 
12992673:plorr said:
For the price, I'd say that makes it an ideal camera for narrative filmmaking. For filming action sports or weddings or any kind of live event, it probably sucks.
Click to expand...

That was my impression, stoked to see what you do with it!
 
Been fucking around with an Atmos Ninja... streaming uncompressed HDMI video out of my D600. Results have been very hell yeah.
 
12992645:Walter.1337 said:
I bought a 32GB lexar 1066x speed card
Click to expand...

>2014

>Not getting the Lexar Profesional 1066x 256 GB CF card

>Not boasting on forums how your memory card is more expensive then other people's DSLR's, cars, Homes, children, etc...
 
12994014:BlackcountryBill said:
Have you tried the nikonhacker patches too?
Click to expand...

I don't even know if they have anything or the D600/610 yet. Most of what I've heard they have are for the last-gen Nikons. Last time I checked them out, there were still too many people asking for "Aperture in Live View" as a firmware hack (LOL).

Either way, I don't care too much about things such as 1/48th shutter speed too much. I'm pretty happy with most of what the camera already comes with. (though I would fucking love a live-view histogram)
 
12994026:DingoSean said:
(though I would fucking love a live-view histogram)
Click to expand...

Besides the functional aspect, those things are so bloody obnoxious these days

>Go to camera store.

>Pick up random EVIL/MILC camera

>Look through viewfinder

>Histogram covers 30% of the image and is slap bang in the centre complete with attitude director indicator.

>Spend 40min in menus

>Find option, select view histogram mode two out of three.

>Histogram now covers 70% of the image

>Spend another 40min in menus

>Find option, select view histogram mode three out of three.

>Histogram is now a translucent fucking bar graph covering 90% of the image.

tumblr_mgmu918vET1s33fqgo1_500.gif
 
12994026:DingoSean said:
I don't even know if they have anything or the D600/610 yet. Most of what I've heard they have are for the last-gen Nikons. Last time I checked them out, there were still too many people asking for "Aperture in Live View" as a firmware hack (LOL).

Either way, I don't care too much about things such as 1/48th shutter speed too much. I'm pretty happy with most of what the camera already comes with. (though I would fucking love a live-view histogram)
Click to expand...

There's a higher bitrate video option which is pretty good.
 
12994047:omnidata said:
Besides the functional aspect, those things are so bloody obnoxious these days
Click to expand...

Hahaha yeah, no shit. I just want a small one at the bottom of the image.. you know.. where it's fucking blacked out anyway to make 16:9? That's literally all I ask for. Nothing else.
 
12994052:DingoSean said:
Hahaha yeah, no shit. I just want a small one at the bottom of the image.. you know.. where it's fucking blacked out anyway to make 16:9? That's literally all I ask for. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

That's what Fuji did with the XT-1, at least they are slightly sensible despite being a skincare brand.

But stuff like this should be forbidden, lens blocking the viewfinder/screen?

No, fucking histograms.

Olympus790_live_histo.jpg


RwyT2c9.jpg


Still cluttered but much better already, thank you Fuji.

xt1-viewfinder-2.jpg
 
Hmmm, looks like Sony updated the RX100 again..

Sony-RX100-III-4.jpg


Same old stuff, slightly larger aperture, lesser zoom range, boring... let's look round the back...

RX100_IIIEVF.jpg


Is...is... that a collapsible EVF!!??!

tumblr_n0ty3maGmC1scdjooo1_1280.gif
 
12994821:Balto said:
>implying I have a fancy 120 capable scanner

the reason I dont shoot 120 is because of my v600
Click to expand...

Sometimes you just have the most useless ability to piss people off. You are just one of the most condescending people on here in 4 words or less. I have heard of what a pain in the ass using a v600 can be or any other flatbed for that matter, but it is a perfectly fine option in my price range and for how often I will use it.

Instead of simply expressing your apparent hatred for the v600, you chose to say two words, i'm sorry, which with even just a little previous knowledge of your posts, most people on here would likely assume that you are just being a douche because it isn't the nicest out there.

I no doubt believe that you could be one of the most knowledgeable people on here regarding a lot of things camera related. You could easily be helpful and be a teacher and spread stoke, but you flush that down the shitter and continue to be a douche.

end rant
 
Lol once you get it and use it you will hate it like every other single person who owns it does. There isn't a good cheap option for scanning 120, you either suffer with a flat bed, pay for labs, or dish out 2k+ (plustek might be a bit cheaper but good luck finding one). Hate to break it to you. I did the exact same thing you are doing now (rz kit + v600 + not knowing what I was getting into) so I know what I'm talking about.
 
Dude, who cares. He's pumped, and he has reason to be. Sure, it's annoying to use a flatbed with 120, but it's what so many people, including myself use (I actually use a V500... I know... you're sorry because I can only scan 2 negs at a time)

Is it the best option? no, but it works, and that's what matters. Medium format delivers a unique image and experience. A V600 is an affordable way to scan it and come out with a very useable result.
 
12994058:omnidata said:
That's what Fuji did with the XT-1, at least they are slightly sensible despite being a skincare brand.

But stuff like this should be forbidden, lens blocking the viewfinder/screen?

No, fucking histograms.
Click to expand...

Kill that shit with flamethrowers.
 
12994840:DingoSean said:
. A V600 is an affordable way to scan it and come out with a very useable result.
Click to expand...

Time is money and at minimum wage the time it takes to scan/clean/correct an entire roll is what it costs to send 3-4 rolls to a lab and have them scanned on a better scanner with vastly better results that are actually consistent and you can be out shooting. The v600 is usable for B&W only basically because it's damn near impossible to get consistent results out of it making shooting sets impossible, not to mention you will never get the kind of results the neg is capable of with color neg film, ever.
 
I shoot black and white, and scan with a flatbed. I'm perfectly happy with the results. If something I capture gets enough praise, I have the negatives. I can go take them in and scan them in a lab later if I need something that high-quality.

...What you're saying is all akin to that if you don't have the best of the best, you might as well give up because it sucks.

Shit, You can 'scan' a Medium format negative with a DSLR and a Macro lens to get a useable image out of it. I've seen folks that have accomplished pretty unreal results just doing THAT.
 
Sean you're argument is simply retarded and shows you don't give a shit about how your images actually look. If all you want is a 'usable' image then there is no point to shoot medium format at all, you shoot medium format for the quality and you can not get that quality out of a v600. I can make a 'usable' image scanning with my cell phone, doesn't mean it is good or reflective of the true image on the negative or anywhere close to it really. Basically what you are saying is you should settle for mediocre results, so in that go buy a thrift shop minolta and get your stuff scanned a walgreens, at least the colors will be mostly accurate and you won't spend hours slaving away trying to color correct.
 
No. It's not simply retarded in any light.

I shoot medium format for the unique look that you can't entirely replicate with smaller format (and because I was given a very nice MF system, so I feel like an straight idiot not using it).

Yeah, the maximum resolution is great and all but if I'm going to make a digital print of a medium format image to put on my living room wall, do I really care if it's absolutely impeccable? I mean fuck, it's going to be like 2'x2' at most, what with the premium on wall space I've already created. a V600 is absolutely good enough for that. If I'm putting a shot on flickr or a website? Totally fine. Pixel peeping is for geeks and jerks, anyway.

I get where you're coming from with the colours being 'meh' out of that of a flatbed. Sure, it's time consuming to edit the colours, but isn't that half the fun anyway? Shit... It's hardly the task that colour correcting is in video post production, so what's the deal? You're shooting film for fucks sake - speed isn't exactly what you're going for here.

Yeah, if I have some gallery showing of my photography, or if somebody wants to buy a print, I'll go get some awesome pro-scan done, (or, better yet, make a fucking real print because digital isn't purist enough to be real artz, right?) but until then, I'm absolutely happy with 'useable' - meaning, good enough for my wall and my own personal enjoyment.

So enough of this bullshit scoffing at Jake's stoke for his scanner. I'm stoked to see him come up with good stuff in the future regardless of your pretentious pity towards him.
 
Also, lets not forget... sending in film to get scanned/prints made isn't always as easy as riding your bike down the street.

I used to live 4 blocks from where I could get E-6 any time, but now, I'd have to mail my shit in and wait a few days anyway - talk about time consuming and costly. This is the biggest reason I don't really shoot slide film or colour anymore. I'd rather just develop my own and scan it at my convenience.
 
12994997:DingoSean said:
BACK TO STOKE.

any cool projects coming up this summer for you folks?
Click to expand...

I''ve just borrowed a friends Hasselhoff for capturing pictures of fit birds at my championship match tommorow.
 
12994930:DingoSean said:
I'd have to mail my shit in and wait a few days anyway - talk about time consuming and costly.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. That's not time consuming or costly because there's less opportunity cost when you send it out - the only cost involved is the measely postage and the 15 minutes it takes to drop it off.

Everyone's butthurt notwithstanding, Thomas makes a very valid point that you cannot possibly argue against - flatbed scanners involve a relatively high opportunity cost.

Having said that, I use a v600 for 120 and it works for me. But then again, I'm not a skilled photographer whose work demands top-notch scans, which is a perfectly reasonable pretense for anybody who considers themself a "Photographer."
 
I'm not saying send it out to be drummed, that would be a top notch scan. You can send it to a number of places, Justin Parker over at Little Film Lab for example, $10 per roll large 120 scans on an sp-3000 fuji. That means you could have say between 16-20 rolls scanned for the price of the v600 new depending on what you paid, even more if you decide to get an ANR insert. Now I still highly recommend you dev at home unless you just don't feel like it, but if you do get a loup and download a light table app on your phone(or buy one at a craft store) and check out your negs, pick the good ones, and only send those. Cut 3 rolls down to 1 and only get the shots that actually matter, properly color corrected, sharp, and ready to go for a client or online or to print. Slides you are already sending them out so might as well just have them scan and do a better job then you can. Having quality results will allow you to use film for client work which will either pay for your lab fees or allow you to save up to get your own pro level scanner and do it in house.
 
That's how I use my scanner(s). I use the Pakon to check out my negs, same with the V600 (which I hate as much as Thomas. And yes, I rarely shoot medium format too, because it's such a pain scanning). If I want to get a couple of shots scanned professionaly then I can drop them off at top-notch labs that aren't more than a 15 min bicycle ride away.
 
OOOH Thomas, look at this

"Leica Camera Maker Teams Up With Valbray Timepieces For 100th Annniversary Watch"

valbray-EL1_TITANIUM_OPEN_CLOSE.jpg


Price for the Leica Valbray EL1 Chronograph watch is 17,999 Euros each (about $24,700).

I must admit, the diaphragm is already worth the 18k.

And an unrelated Samsung camera with a viewfinder erection:

nLsUSD8.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top