 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 2009FAB 5D2 SHATTERS THE MYTH!
Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/114565166/original Some might argue that video takes the element of skill (and luck) out of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do that. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 1:59 AM: > Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. > It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do > that. Here is a page with a little bit more than "little video" that demonstrates why a 5D2 will never replace a proper video camera and can't be used for ANY useful video unless it is superglued to something unmoveable: http://tinyurl.com/n78rm3 A video camera that can't be touched or moved while being used without ruining the capture is the complete negation of video capture. Now: do you understand why your 5D2 "video" is complete crap and your 5D2 video mode a total waste of money? > A video camera that can't be touched or moved while being used without ruining > the capture is the complete negation of video capture. > > Now: do you understand why your 5D2 "video" is complete crap and your 5D2 video > mode a total waste of money? Gee, I'll remember that the next time I'm filming a hummingbird at the feeder, a golf swing, birds in the nest, a batter at the plate, an oncoming train, or a bride & groom at a wedding. There are lots of scenarios where one might use a video camera on a tripod. If your point is that a 5D2 can't compete with a dedicated video camera when it comes to video capture of moving subjects, well no sh.t. It wasn't designed to do that. How do those cameras compare to the 5D2 on still captures? They get creamed. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 8:23 AM: > Gee, I'll remember that the next time I'm filming a hummingbird at the > feeder, a golf swing, birds in the nest, a batter at the plate, an > oncoming train, or a bride & groom at a wedding. There are lots of > scenarios where one might use a video camera on a tripod. Ah yes: videos of paint drying. Riveting! > If your point is that a 5D2 can't compete with a dedicated video > camera when it comes to video capture of moving subjects, well no > sh.t. It wasn't designed to do that. Ah well, if you're into taking videos of static objects... One wonders why bother with video, photos do that already. But there is no depth to your stupidity, so feel free to continue... > How do those cameras compare to the 5D2 on still captures? They get > creamed. How does the 5D2 compare to video cameras? it gets creamed. . > > How do those cameras compare to the 5D2 on still captures? They get > > creamed. > > How does the 5D2 compare to video cameras? it gets creamed. Really? How many video cameras could shoot this video in HD and with such a blurred background? http://www.vimeo.com/4492923 > . >>> How do those cameras compare to the 5D2 on still captures? They get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such a blurred background? > http://www.vimeo.com/4492923 None costing less than $62,000, pro video. Nice work. Good application of that gear. Some will still not get it, though.  Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Really? How many video cameras could shoot this video in HD and with > such a blurred background? > http://www.vimeo.com/4492923 You really need a 200/1.8. > > Really? How many video cameras could shoot this video in HD and with > > such a blurred background? > >http://www.vimeo.com/4492923 > > You really need a 200/1.8. Yeah, no sh.t. You got my address, right? >> You really need a 200/1.8. > > Yeah, no sh.t. You got my address, right? Keep an eye open for that big brown truck. Let me know when it arrives. > >> You really need a 200/1.8. > > > Yeah, no sh.t. You got my address, right? > > Keep an eye open for that big brown truck. Let me know when it arrives. Yeah, I'll hold my breath. Have you checked out lensrentals.com? They have this lens and almost every Canon and Nikon lens for rent. Lots of other accessories, too. I just rented the LensAlign Pro to do some manual focus adjustments on the Fab 5D2. >> Keep an eye open for that big brown truck. Let me know when it >> arrives. > > Yeah, I'll hold my breath. Hey, yeah never know. What, you're not expecting me to leave my pocket change to the NAACP, do you? > Have you checked out lensrentals.com? They have this lens and almost > every Canon and Nikon lens for rent. Lots of other accessories, too. > I just rented the LensAlign Pro to do some manual focus adjustments on > the Fab 5D2. All I have to say is WOW! They got pretty much any Nikkor or L you'd want. Kind of strange they have all those lenses in stock at the same time. I hope the economy isn't hurting them. The best part about it is I got pretty much all the Nikkors I want for my personal collection. Missed a 14-24/2.8 at a great price and I'm still kicking myself in the a.s over that one. How did the LensAlign work out for you? Why would you need it for adjusting MF? I thought this was more for AF calibrations? > > Have you checked out lensrentals.com? They have this lens and almost > > every Canon and Nikon lens for rent. Lots of other accessories, too. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > much all the Nikkors I want for my personal collection. Missed a 14-24/2.8 > at a great price and I'm still kicking myself in the a.s over that one. Isn't that supposed to be the daddy lens of all wide angle lenses? I thought about renting that one sometime along with an adapter. Is that considered a "G" lens? I think the adapters they have don't work with "G" lenses, but I don't have enough familiarity with Nikon lenses to know what a "G" lens is. I figure it means it's for kids. > How did the LensAlign work out for you? Why would you need it for adjusting > MF? I thought this was more for AF calibrations? I just ordered it yesterday and will get it tomorrow. And yes it is used to set the AF adjustment with the FAB 5D2. What I meant to say was that I will "manually" be doing the AF adjustments for each lens that I own. I suspect I have them dialed in pretty well now, but you can never be too precise. I like to see the fuzz on the bird's nose as I pan with my 400 f/5.6L. On Jul 8, 10:08 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...@shitstring.com> wrote: > > Have you checked out lensrentals.com? They have this lens and almost > > every Canon and Nikon lens for rent. Lots of other accessories, too. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > much all the Nikkors I want for my personal collection. Missed a 14-24/2.8 > at a great price and I'm still kicking myself in the a.s over that one. Isn't that supposed to be the daddy lens of all wide angle lenses? I thought about renting that one sometime along with an adapter. Is that considered a "G" lens? I think the adapters they have don't work with "G" lenses, but I don't have enough familiarity with Nikon lenses to know what a "G" lens is. I figure it means it's for kids. A "G" lens doesn't have an aperture ring......You have to control the opening from the camera. I don't know how you would use one with a different make camera...... > A "G" lens doesn't have an aperture ring......You have to control the > opening from the camera. I don't know how you would use one with a > different make camera...... Use an adapter and a piece of paper. I used the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor with my 1D Mk III. >> A "G" lens doesn't have an aperture ring......You have to control the >> opening from the camera. I don't know how you would use one with a >> different make camera...... > > Use an adapter and a piece of paper. I used the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor with my > 1D Mk III. Well, they could make an adapter that had an aperture ring built into it, so you could control "G" lenses, but as far as I know, they don't make such a thing. How do you adjust the aperture with a piece of paper? >>> A "G" lens doesn't have an aperture ring......You have to control the >>> opening from the camera. I don't know how you would use one with a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it, so you could control "G" lenses, but as far as I know, they don't > make such a thing. How do you adjust the aperture with a piece of paper? Probably just to wedge it wide open as the spring will stop it down all the way without a lever mechanism. Here's one for G lenses to Canon: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ Optional AF confirmation chip. Aperture is stop-down manual. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>> A "G" lens doesn't have an aperture ring......You have to control the >>> opening from the camera. I don't know how you would use one with a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it, so you could control "G" lenses, but as far as I know, they don't > make such a thing. How do you adjust the aperture with a piece of paper? Print this out Bill and you can do it too. take one side of the letter size paper lengthwise and make a cone out of it. Then as you want more or less opening twist the cone back and forth. Simple huh? Just a simple as the mind of the idiot who thinks it can be done. > take one side of the letter size paper lengthwise and make a cone out > of it. Then as you want more or less opening twist the cone back and > forth. Simple huh? > > Just a simple as the mind of the idiot who thinks it can be done. While I find the process much easier than rubbing two sticks together to make fire, I probably shouldn't expect you to understand how it's done since your sole purpose in life is to be a miserable piece of sh.t hell bent on arguing. Best to get your decaying a.s out in the sun once in a while. Hell, even a caveman can do it! >>>> A "G" lens doesn't have an aperture ring......You have to control the >>>> opening from the camera. I don't know how you would use one with a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just a simple as the mind of the idiot who thinks it can be done. Well I don't need to do it for two reasons. One: I have an F-5, so it will control a "G" lens directly from the camera, and Two: I don't own any "G" lenses. I had all the lenses I needed before they came out with the "G" type lenses, and I haven't bought any G lenses since that time. I do think, however, that it would be rather easy to design an adapter that had an aperture ring built into it, so one could control the opening of G type lenses with it. In general, I have never bothered to put other manufacturers lenses on my cameras......I even went so far as to buy a Leica R3 body once just so I could use a 50mm F2 Simmichron lens that I had acquired. I found the lens to be excellent, but I really couldn't tell the difference between it and the 50mm Nikkor F 1.8. It did sell for about 4 times as much as the Nikkor, however. So, if you believe in Voodoo.......... > In general, I have never bothered to put other manufacturers > lenses on my cameras......I even went so far as to buy a Leica R3 body once > just so I could use a 50mm F2 Simmichron lens that I had acquired. I found > the lens to be excellent, but I really couldn't tell the difference between > it and the 50mm Nikkor F 1.8. It did sell for about 4 times as much as the > Nikkor, however. So, if you believe in Voodoo..........- LOL! You're experience with the 50mm Summicron f/2 matches mine when I shot with it and the $80 Canon f/1.8. Like most things Leica, all hat and no cattle. >> Use an adapter and a piece of paper. I used the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor >> with my 1D Mk III. > Well, they could make an adapter that had an aperture ring built into > it, so you could control "G" lenses, but as far as I know, they don't > make such a thing. How do you adjust the aperture with a piece of > paper? Yes, they do make such a thing. It basically allows the lens to slightly rotate in three different detent positions and move the aperture arm. Wedging a piece of paper in there is a better way in my opinion. http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ > Isn't that supposed to be the daddy lens of all wide angle lenses? I > thought about renting that one sometime along with an adapter. Is > that considered a "G" lens? I think the adapters they have don't work > with "G" lenses, but I don't have enough familiarity with Nikon lenses > to know what a "G" lens is. I figure it means it's for kids. Yep! I got the 17-35/2.8 for my WA coverage, but wouldn't refuse a 14-24/2.8 if the price is right. The only negative to that lens is it doesn't take front filters. As for Nikkor/EOS adapters, someone came out with one that allows you to select three different aperture settings. Kinda sucks when you can simply use a piece of paper between the lens and adapter for that. You really should rent that lens for video. You might want one for sure. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 3:38 AM: > such a blurred background? > http://www.vimeo.com/4492923 Just about any. And another microscopic video screen presumably very high in definition? Ho hum.... > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 3:38 AM: > > > such a blurred background? > >http://www.vimeo.com/4492923 > > Just about any. You misspelled "Just about none." > And another microscopic video screen presumably very high in definition? > Ho hum.... ?? > A video camera that can't be touched or moved while being used without ruining > the capture is the complete negation of video capture. > > Now: do you understand why your 5D2 "video" is complete crap and your 5D2 video > mode a total waste of money? Hey Noons, I told the mama osprey what you said and she couldn't stop laughing. http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/gallery/6844882_BQCuC/1/#581405008_B58mQ-A-LB > Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. > It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do > that. I don't usually acknowledge trendy terms like "bokeh", but I noticed some irregularities in the point-source out-of-focus blobs in that shot, Bret. Is that typical of the 400mm? (Nice grab, BTW) -- Jeff R. > I don't usually acknowledge trendy terms like "bokeh", but I noticed some > irregularities in the point-source out-of-focus blobs in that shot, Bret. > > Is that typical of the 400mm? I've posted hundreds of shots taken with the 400 f/5.6L so you tell me. I suspect it is a result of the video processing. >> I don't usually acknowledge trendy terms like "bokeh", but I noticed some >> irregularities in the point-source out-of-focus blobs in that shot, Bret. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me. > I suspect it is a result of the video processing. Really strong highlights at certain angles or whatever voodoo can make weird blobs with any lens, sometimes. The shape of the ball in the still is a product of the video processing SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>> I don't usually acknowledge trendy terms like "bokeh", but I >>> noticed some irregularities in the point-source out-of-focus blobs [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > weird blobs with any lens, sometimes. The shape of the ball in the > still is a product of the video processing Yup - that prolly accounts for it. I was thinking originally that the light blobs looked a bit "donutty", kinda like a cat lens, bu the shape of the ball (as you noted) gives a better clue. -- Jeff R. > Yup - that prolly accounts for it. > I was thinking originally that the light blobs looked a bit "donutty", kinda > like a cat lens, bu the shape of the ball (as you noted) gives a better > clue. Perhaps what you are seeing are the tags on the back of the seats? They aren't exactly round and they have numbers in them that might produce that effect. Here's some more looks. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96060572/original http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96060576 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96061874 >> Yup - that prolly accounts for it. >> I was thinking originally that the light blobs looked a bit [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96061874 Thanks for those links, Bret. They go some way towards explaining my disquiet here - but not all the way. In the original ("shattered dreams") I wasn't so much looking at the tags on the seats, as the highlights next to them. They still look a little "donutty", but -hell- this is a really irrelevant observation. It's a great shot, and I'm happy to acknowledge that any "bokeh" issues are caused by the video conversion. (Movement of the frame in particular.) I'd like to gush a little more about your baseball shots, but my religion prevents that. Keep it up. Every one of your photo posts serves to bury a certain obnoxious countryman of mine just that little bit deeper - and that's got to be good. -- Jeff R. snip >Thanks for those links, Bret. They go some way towards explaining my >disquiet here - but not all the way. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Every one of your photo posts serves to bury a certain obnoxious countryman >of mine just that little bit deeper - and that's got to be good. I'll just second all those thoughts. That first shot of the cracking bat was pretty amazing, and I'm not even a baseball fan. >> Thanks for those links, Bret. They go some way towards explaining my >> disquiet here - but not all the way. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'll just second all those thoughts. That first shot of the cracking > bat was pretty amazing, and I'm not even a baseball fan. I doubt the donut look is due to video conversion, just certain lighting conditions will do that with even the best lenses. That isn't a $10,000 lens either but for the most part I've seen tons of creamy bokeh from it. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. >It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do >that. nice shot, nice movie... how did you get a movie on Pbase? is there a special way or just upload the file? thanks On Jul 3, 8:48 pm, L...@nospam.com wrote: > >Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. > >It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > is there a special way or just upload the file? The file is actually on SmugMug, but the link is embedded in the Caption section of the photo on Pbase. I didn't even know that Pbase had this functionality until recently. Here's a couple of others that include video links. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/114400539 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/114032939 > Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. > It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do > that. Careful suggesting that sports photographers might start getting their still frames from video - you may incur the full wrath of the Wolfpack. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com > Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. > It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do > that. Pretty cool but that damn tripod is going to ruin your image. What will people think seeing you using one? > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/114565166/original > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Pretty cool but that damn tripod is going to ruin your image. What will > people think seeing you using one? Monopod, baby! > Here's a little video capture made at the ballpark with the Fab 5D2. > It proves that the future of sports and action photography is video. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the equation, but if the goal is to get the shot then video will do > that. You might be right in that Bret. I just ordered a new Panasonic GH1 solely for it's video capabilities. These babies are everything that Canon rubbish you bought should have been in the first place. Just basic things needed for creating a quality production like: Focus tracking while shooting, IS during recording is no mean feat either, nor is the stepless exposure adjustment, stereo sound and the simplest of all... a stereo audio jack! They even provide excellent and workable editing software in the box. You know what I mean... The simple sh.t Canon couldn't figure out how to provide and ...at $1300 it sort of makes a Canon 5DII look like an overpriced toy when it comes to making real videos. Margie will most likely record the Mexico trip with it. Its digital still 'pics' aren't too shabby either but best of all... It's got a "designed for video" lens and a true variable aspect ratio sensor. How long a clip did you say the FABCRAP 5DII takes? LOL. I really like Leica's rendition of a contrast AF lens too. F/1.4 and sharp like a Canon owner can only dream about. http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2008/12/10/g1_026.jpg The world really is laughing at you Bret. I'd show you some clips I made with the demo camera but even those are saleable and I wouldn't want to encourage you to start stealing again after being a good little boy for so long. ROTFL. Like always... Bret rushes in and buys a new product - any new product and the makers only get it half right. Panasonic have had movies as part of their FZ cameras for years before Canon embarrassed themselves with the 5DII. Remember the flying speed boat Margie shot with her Crapasonic FZ50 on the way back from a beach wedding? Ha, ha. Part of a DVD advertising demo now. That DVD paid for her D700. How did you pay for your toy? Get the money off Helen again? It's not the first time Canon have prematurely ejaculated on the market and shot themselves in the foot either. All they do when this happens is drive a fresh bunch of customers over to other brands and make them bitter for being duped into buying Canon in the first place... When your photography improves, all those people who stopped giving you accolades when you went infra-red might begin telling you again... "You must have a good camera". LOL. Hey what about the Mexico trip mate? Ryadia II is a lot bigger in the cabins that the original boat. Our paying guests would love to have an "expert photographer from Chattanooga" on the charter to tell them all his secret methods of capturing stunning underwater shots. Oops! I forgot... No aquariums out at sea! Keep smiling Bret... You never know when someone is taking your photo! > You might be right in that Bret. I just ordered a new Panasonic GH1 > solely for it's video capabilities. These babies are everything that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is the stepless exposure adjustment, stereo sound and the simplest of > all... a stereo audio jack! Vincent Laforet says hi. >> You might be right in that Bret. I just ordered a new Panasonic GH1 >> solely for it's video capabilities. These babies are everything that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Vincent Laforet says hi. Is that as Bret Douglas exits the scene? > >> You might be right in that Bret. I just ordered a new Panasonic GH1 > >> solely for it's video capabilities. These babies are everything that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is that as Bret Douglas exits the scene? The point is that pros use the Fab 5D2, not some four-thirds sensor garbage with crap lenses and limited resolution on stills. That format is already dead and now they're making video cams for it? Talk about planned obsolescence! Kinda reminds me of you in a way. > Like always... Bret rushes in and buys a new product - any new product > and the makers only get it half right. Panasonic have had movies as part [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's not the first time Canon have prematurely ejaculated on the market > and shot themselves in the foot either. LOL! Canon sold more 5D2s in the first 5 minutes after it was announced than Panasonic has sold of the crappy FZ cameras since then. Tell us some more tall tales while you're on a roll. > Hey what about the Mexico trip mate? Ryadia II is a lot bigger in the > cabins that the original boat. Our paying guests would love to have an > "expert photographer from Chattanooga" on the charter to tell them all > his secret methods of capturing stunning underwater shots. Oops! I > forgot... No aquariums out at sea! Mexico? I thought it was Miami? You do know that Miami ain't in Mexico, right? Dammit Douggie, keep your stories straight! Geez, Douggie, if I was gonna fantasize about leaving that hell-hole you live in and going somewhere nice, I think I could do a lot better than Miami or friggin Mexico. > > Hey what about the Mexico trip mate? Ryadia II is a lot bigger in the > > cabins that the original boat. Our paying guests would love to have an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you live in and going somewhere nice, I think I could do a lot better > than Miami or friggin Mexico. Miami = Republico del Habana Norte Maybe Douggie will go out on a boat because somebody said, hey chum, come here...( cue Jaws..) > Miami = Republico del Habana Norte > > Maybe Douggie will go out on a boat because somebody said, hey chum, > come here...( cue Jaws..)- I've never been to Miami and have no desire to visit that cesspool. But you can bet that I'll be there before D-Mac ever does. Don't pay any attention that that delusional raving lunatic. One day he's talking about his photo galleries in Brisbane, Paris, and New York and the next he's talking about sailing the ocean blue from Miami to Mexico. The only reason I don't ignore the stupid fool altogether is the wonder of what stupid thing he'll say next. BTW, when pressed about the location of his galleries all we learned is that his daughter has some of his pics in her kitchen. >> Miami = Republico del Habana Norte >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I've never been to Miami and have no desire to visit that cesspool. >But you can bet that I'll be there before D-Mac ever does. Cesspool? It's like any other large city: some interesting and beautiful parts and some sordid and dangerous parts. From a photographer's standpoint, it has some great photo opportunities. If you are into street photography, South Beach offers an almost never-ending circus parade of people. Some great architectural scenes, too. Some of the Cuban enclaves (if you don't consider the entire of Dade County as Cuban) are a "people and street scene" dream. If you are into what I regard as "post card photography", any beach is a subject. Photography is not all about osprey, Bret. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.