LukeDuciel

LukeDuciel

Lives in China Beijing, China
Joined on Mar 21, 2010

Comments

Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

BaumBoyPhoto: This camera may be useful, and the ergonomics are intriguing to say the least. I will probably end up renting it as a B-Cam for one of my run of the mill video gigs just to see how it handles. I don't plan on buying it, though. Definitely not at this pricepoint.

I mean, Chuck repeats often that some limiting design decisions were made to reduce cost, but I fail to see him convince us that the $2,500 is worth what is offered. I just don't see it. It definitely feels like paying a premium for slightly better ergonomics, bit rate, and the Canon name tag, while sacrificing the flexibility of Interchangeable lenses.

$2,500 can get you solid photo performance.
$2500 can get you decent video performance.

If you are heart set on a 4K hybrid, just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how much $2,500 can get you in that market.

It's just not a great pricepoint for Canon.

a7s yes. not quite suitable for camera movements. GH4 is OK in my test. both in HD.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2015 at 11:38 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

BaumBoyPhoto: This camera may be useful, and the ergonomics are intriguing to say the least. I will probably end up renting it as a B-Cam for one of my run of the mill video gigs just to see how it handles. I don't plan on buying it, though. Definitely not at this pricepoint.

I mean, Chuck repeats often that some limiting design decisions were made to reduce cost, but I fail to see him convince us that the $2,500 is worth what is offered. I just don't see it. It definitely feels like paying a premium for slightly better ergonomics, bit rate, and the Canon name tag, while sacrificing the flexibility of Interchangeable lenses.

$2,500 can get you solid photo performance.
$2500 can get you decent video performance.

If you are heart set on a 4K hybrid, just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how much $2,500 can get you in that market.

It's just not a great pricepoint for Canon.

@BarnET thanks for the info. I almost gave up hope for this line up after AX100.

The X70 looks very very interesting. But I cannot find any pricing hint. Hopefully it would be affordable.

X70's XLR and power zoom are two key superiority for me. It is almost zero "still" compared to still+video in Canon's thinking.

I would still wait and see how the jello would work out for both Canon and Sony options. The AX100 failed this (and other aspects) big time.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 09:25 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Long: If one were to actually read the patent, you could would see that it claims to increase resolution by using the optical image stabilization system to move the image across a fixed sensor.

As opposed to similar systems on other cameras, which typically use additional actuators to move the sensor itself. And I see it as a typical Apple refinement, using the existing moving part (OIS) to accomplish the task instead of adding additional moving parts. Elegant.

So while the basic effect is the same, the mechanism by which that effect is accomplished is completely different. And as such, worthy of a patent.

finally a sane man to reply.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 07:31 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

BaumBoyPhoto: This camera may be useful, and the ergonomics are intriguing to say the least. I will probably end up renting it as a B-Cam for one of my run of the mill video gigs just to see how it handles. I don't plan on buying it, though. Definitely not at this pricepoint.

I mean, Chuck repeats often that some limiting design decisions were made to reduce cost, but I fail to see him convince us that the $2,500 is worth what is offered. I just don't see it. It definitely feels like paying a premium for slightly better ergonomics, bit rate, and the Canon name tag, while sacrificing the flexibility of Interchangeable lenses.

$2,500 can get you solid photo performance.
$2500 can get you decent video performance.

If you are heart set on a 4K hybrid, just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how much $2,500 can get you in that market.

It's just not a great pricepoint for Canon.

I won't argue with you for the capabilities GH4 has. It is truely a wonder for prosumer video shooters.

However, the ergonomics of its still camera design get in the way of video production.

I use to do corporate stuff from time to time. Between GH2 (back then) and AF103, I know GH2 is much more capable especially with all the ROM mods. I always pick AF103 as my main cam, just for the smoother operations and faster PP. As for the inserted / sideline photos going along with the video, RX100 level of still quality would be good enough.

One thing I see as XC10 big miss is the lack of reliable audio interface. This is also the ache I have with GH cameras. Of course, there's plenty options for affordable quality recorder but hey we are talking about lowest effort here.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 07:25 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

BaumBoyPhoto: This camera may be useful, and the ergonomics are intriguing to say the least. I will probably end up renting it as a B-Cam for one of my run of the mill video gigs just to see how it handles. I don't plan on buying it, though. Definitely not at this pricepoint.

I mean, Chuck repeats often that some limiting design decisions were made to reduce cost, but I fail to see him convince us that the $2,500 is worth what is offered. I just don't see it. It definitely feels like paying a premium for slightly better ergonomics, bit rate, and the Canon name tag, while sacrificing the flexibility of Interchangeable lenses.

$2,500 can get you solid photo performance.
$2500 can get you decent video performance.

If you are heart set on a 4K hybrid, just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how much $2,500 can get you in that market.

It's just not a great pricepoint for Canon.

From hybrid content production PoV, XC10 makes a lot sense. All the design choices aim squarely at productivity.

BUT Canon is too eager to turn around the bottom line. This camera should sell very well at $1500. At $1500, a lot of indie or small team / studios can afford owning 2 or 3 XC10, which would upgrade their business to handle much larger and more sophisticated jobs with 4K outputs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 05:14 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (814 comments in total)

Quite some people are comparing this to USRA mini. But they are indeed very different equipment for very different applications.

In terms of video production, XC10, as small TOTAL package one-stop solution, aims squarely at the absolute running&gunning situations.

Think of the reporters riding in campaign buses, the one-man band journalists lurking in shaken apartment in Yemen. These people need the tool that can be tossed in the bag of laptop, immarsat / cell phones, pens and notebooks. And most importantly the workflow must be as light as the camera, while the output video is broadcast grade after minor editing on a Macbook.

In above situations, the URSA mini would be a barrier to deliver. The barrier comes from "too capable" and too heavy a work flow - both the weight the camera+lenses and the time and resource needed to properly edit the raw/ProRes footage.

For my limited experience, I never touched RAW video as I just don't have time to finish the intended work with it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 06:42 UTC as 15th comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (814 comments in total)

interesting times.

I definitely look forward to the time RED 8K - like capability comes into nowadays DSLR size. It will help greatly my still works.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 06:10 UTC as 16th comment

losing WiFi does not sound logical.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 05:36 UTC as 2nd comment
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (649 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I absolutely love the Direct Aperture, exposure compensation, and Shutter speed control dials. However, I can get those exact same things on the Panasonic LX100.

What I can’t live with is a fixed focal length lens. At 16 Megapixels you aren’t going to be able to crop enough to overcome the fixed focal length.

This appears to be an excellent camera that I would never ever even consider buying simply because the LX100 fits my needs so much better for less money. However, I will say that their implementation of Auto ISO looks to be outstanding. I wish other companies would do the same thing.

Then buy a LX100. It is a wonderful camera. Buy what you want and you don't need an excuse for not buying something.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 15:15 UTC
On A Compact PEN: Olympus Stylus SH-2 Hands-on article (150 comments in total)

thumb up for adding 5 axis stabilization on a travel zoom, big competitive edge over all other in the same niche.

big thumb down for the proprietary port. I HATE this kind of design. I have a tg-2, you have to charge via that port, such a shitty thing. I have to taken care of the precious special cable, carry it and find it when needed.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 07:21 UTC as 42nd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Baron Sekiya: Canon has bought sensors from Sony in the past, and possibly present, for their compact cameras. My PowerShot had the recalled Sony sensor and had to be sent in to be fixed.

Canon has had a history of not be consistent across their lense line with quality. I've seen kit lenses what output garbage images with how soft they were and I owned their orginal EF 16-35/2.8L that was terrible. If they're going to put their name on a product it should produce quality images.

As for dSLR bodies Canon doesn't do a good job of listening to the American pro photo market and catering to their needs. They may listen to their own countrymen/women photographers in Japan but they are a go super slow company. I'd like to see mirrorless 7DMkII level dSLRs and higher that can shoot with minimal noise and higher flash sync speeds.

They also need to help with the legislation to get the EU to remove the videocamera tariff so dSLRs can shoot longer than 30 minutes continuous video.

The working pro (mainly commercial and events) I bumped into are not really moving to mirror-less right now.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 02:22 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan Brady: You STILL didn't ask (or at least didn't publish that you asked) about on-sensor ADC. You guys have asked them about DR in the past and when looking at the sensor, and ONLY the sensor, Canon keeps up. It's the off-sensor ADC that introduces all the noise and destroys the DR. So... why are you not asking about this VERY SIMPLE idea?

I guess Sony might have some patent that prevent Canon going for similar route of on-chip ADC pipeline. Similar to the dual-pixel, it work well for canon and Sony aren't making anything in similar structure.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 02:15 UTC

As an illiterate in optics, my 1st reaction is "renamed Fresnel lens?"

But I feel this might be the break through we have all been waited for. We know from high school physics: when the dimension of things are reduced to be comparable to the wavelength of light, a lot of strange stuff start to happen.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 01:59 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jim Keye: Interesting results, thank you for posting it!! 3 thoughts: 1) The sunburst stuff--the Nikon one really didn't look good next to the other ones. However, it also didn't have a giant flare-spot elsewhere in the frame. I'm kinda surprised there was no mention of this. Sometimes it's a nice effect, but it can also ruin a picture. 2) I'm really surprised at how much wider the Nikon ends up being. 3) It is great to see 3rd-party lenses perform this well. But, they're also not the smaller, lighter, and (significantly) cheaper alternatives any more either. Turns out Canon and Nikon weren't making large, expensive lenses just for the heck of it. ;-)

as a 14-24 user, I have to say its sunstar shape is not really appealing. I also used to use a 5DII system and I did like the EF1635 better for this matter. for what has been presented, I think the Tamron showed similar behavior vs. the EF1635.

Bravo for the article. Very interesting to read and very informative.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 02:31 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)

All my curiosity in to the camera went away when I clicked on the sample photos...

even the "hi-res" 40MP photos seem to have less real detail vs. my X100s.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 05:43 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

FocusPuller: Not so sure about the drone application. At $40k with lens and at least 6 lbs this isnt going on the toys everyone is obsessed with. Big-budget films, maybe, but that would be a very small market.

oh well, this very small market has bred quite some big yet unfamiliar names like arri, cooke, etc etc and our familiar Canon is trying desperately to squeeze into it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 03:04 UTC

The openness by Fuji is very helpful for creating the trust.

I currently use X100s. I like the color response very much and the raw file has a decent depth for color manipulation too.

I am thinking of moving into X-T1. But being taken as workhorse, X-T1's low total resolution is really an issue. Mr. Iida is right on for this point. IMHO, resolution should take higher priority even vs. AF speed at this time for Fuji.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 02:55 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Bach Photo: FujiFilm just gets it. They admit their failings and strive to improve. Are you listening Nikon? It's not wrong to admit short comings, just good business. Don't forget to give us a decent flash for your future camera!

You mean a new flash from Nikon?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 02:48 UTC
On More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) article (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: The electronics in the Pentax 645Z looks like something from the early 90s. It's not what I'd call compact, even cut in half.

@Karroly

Your comments make much sense. But, I think even for serviceability and EMC, the loose copper wire bouquet is not better than at least flat cable.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 11:01 UTC
On More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) article (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: The electronics in the Pentax 645Z looks like something from the early 90s. It's not what I'd call compact, even cut in half.

I get the point of necessary bulk for "medium format" - let's not forget the 645z is only about twice the sensor of 135 fullframe, far smaller than true 120.

But look at the two PCB behind sensor, one of them has a plug with copper wire and then basically nothing. This is not even 90s design. Why not optimize the PCB and save space for more memory / powerful processer and even flexibility for industrial design?

even 100usd cheap smart phones has better arranged PCB.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 09:45 UTC
Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »