Camcorders vs DSLR and autofokus

TrixTrax9000 wrote: Some here might be old enough to remember level 6, which was a darkened room & multiple clattering trays of different shapes to "treat" the guests to a slide show of our holiday snaps.

"Oh my! How'd that one get in there?"


:blush:

Well, I guess it got in there because you didn't 'edit' your photo collection!

But seriously, I don't mind looking at peoples holiday photos so long as they have done some editing out of redundant photos. Nothing worse than looking at out of focus shots, and 20 variations of the same shot. Pick the best ones!

With all the interest in vintage effects these days I bet it wont be too long before someone designs a faux carousel app that allows you to project your instagram photos with an authentic clattering swipe effect.....

Neguah; the various levels of hell is simply a joke describing being in a situation you would rather not be in - looking at unedited holiday photos, or looking at an unedited wedding video falls in to those categories for me.

Good luck with your 6D; once you go full frame you will never want to go back! However, you might consider having a look at the new VAF-6D filter if you plan on using it a lot for video and don't want to have an aliasing issue (the 6D is meant to have worse aliasing than the 5Dmk2, something that was fixed in the 5Dmk3).

simonpwood wrote:
Good luck with your 6D; once you go full frame you will never want to go back! However, you might consider having a look at the new VAF-6D filter if you plan on using it a lot for video and don't want to have an aliasing issue (the 6D is meant to have worse aliasing than the 5Dmk2, something that was fixed in the 5Dmk3).

Ahh, fuck!
It was to good to be true.
And of course it´s recommended to remove the filter when taking still images.

I think Canon can give the 6D an overall and give this for free for every customer.

Thank you for the heads up!

However, the moire wasn´t so noticeable in this shot, was it? vimeo.com/54352877

Neguah wrote: Ahh, f**k!
It was to good to be true.
And of course it´s recommended to remove the filter when taking still images.

I think Canon can give the 6D an overall and give this for free for every customer.

Thank you for the heads up!

Yeah, well Canon has a habit of 'staggering' and 'crippling' their devices, so that they can justify the price on their high end products. They had to make a difference between the 5Dmk3 and 6D, otherwise the lower priced 6D would just cannibalise the sales of their 5D.

I had put aside the money for a new 6D with a lens, but after reading the video reviews I decided in the end to get the 5Dmk3 without a lens.

The final straw for me was the 6D's much touted wi-fi monitoring ability (so you could monitor with your smartphone) - which was something i was really looking forward to. When I read that Canon had disabled that option for video I threw in the towel....

That said the 6D has better low light performance than the mk3 (though it has worse moire, aliasing, lacks the headphone jack for video, and is not weather sealed). Its a tough choice, given the price difference.

Neguah wrote: However, the moire wasn´t so noticeable in this shot, was it? vimeo.com/54352877

I thought it was pretty bad in that video.

Just read all the comments below the video; even the person who posted the video specifically mentioned the bad moire in his description.

Look at the aliasing on the counter edges (zig-zags), and when the camera pans right (at 25 seconds) look at all the moire swimming around in the wood grain.

However, you will always be able to find videos to support or negate a theory!

Yes, now I see it.

Is it worth going for the filter? It says it removes 80% of the moire. Is that good?
Have seen the comparison, and find it quite satisfying. But I have not a trained eye. Do you have?
vimeo.com/58335679

If I had put down money on the 6D then I would definately invest a few hundred extra bucks on the VAF filter.

I dont have a good internet connection right now so I cant watch that comparison video in HD. But the previous video (about the chocolate shop) had some terrible moire - just look at the pan at the front of the shop at 1.27, the lines below the sign are crazy).

Recent reviews seem to show that the production 6D has had no improvement:

gizmodo.com/5970624/canon-eos-6d-review-...mmy-full+frame-video

So yeah, definitely go for the VAF. They have been very successful with the 5Dmk2.

The fact that you have to remove the filter when taking photos will be a bit of a hassle when you are on holiday and mixing formats, but during pro video shoots I have never stopped to take production photos with a DSLR thats being used for filming (thats what iPhones are for)!

I quote a sentence from this link:
news.doddleme.com/equipment/canon-6d-to-...nti-aliasing-filter/

"Course, the downside for photographers who like to shoot video is that the VAF has to be removed for still photography as the filter renders the still image too soft to be usable."

Wasn´t able to google any comparison. Do you have any examples? Is it that bad taking a still photograph with the filter?
How was it with the mk2?

I can alway return the 6D, as the shop I bought it from has very good return policy. But going to mk3 is quite expensive, and Im not ready for that just yet.

Can always go for the 7D, but google says it also has some moire issue.

What they say is true; the image will be too soft for photos. The filter is designed specifically for video (most modern CMOS video cameras have some sort of anti-aliasing filter in place) - but not good for still photos which have significantly higher resolution than HD video.

The 7D is pretty old now, and not full frame. If you cant afford a 5Dmk3, then the 6D with the VAF will be your best bet for FF video.

Moire only shows up under certain circumstances. In nearly 2 years of using DSLR's I have only had a handful of shots ruined because of it. You can work around it; but the VAF is the best tool for the job.

Hmm... I might want to consider the 5Dmk3...
I´m afraid I´ll always want 5Dmk3, so it might be stupid to go through with the 6D, especially since I mostly want to to video, but also still images. So the removal of the filter is not preferable.

I need to think about that...

And thanks again for great help! Can´t thank you enough!

My, oh my... I went for the 5D mk3. Sooner or later I would go for the mk3, so why not now... Just have to eat bread and water for some months.

Thank you again, simon for you valuable help!

Haha! Sorry man; I know how it is. You start off with a simple plan to buy something within your budget, and then you think, well for a few hundred extra bucks i can get this marginally better tool. And then you look at that, and think, well, for a few hundred extra bucks I can get this marginally better tool. And before you know it you have broke the bank and gone into debt....

But, I think you made the right choice. The 5Dmk3 makes great video, and makes even better photos. The resale value of this camera will remain high for a number of years just based on its photographic abilities, never mind its video. Just don't think about the Canon 1DC, ok?

But I have bad news for you. The camera is just the tip of the iceberg. Next you are going to go through the same process for lenses (you can never have enough)! Then rigs, support, tripods etc etc.

The most practical items you can get next would probably be a variable ND filter (so that you can keep shallow DOF in bright sunlight), and an LCD loupe (which will allow you to see the screen in bright sunlight).

Good luck, and happy filming!

Hehe, just laugh. I deserve it!

First it was 650D and a Sigma lens.
Wasn´t satisfied with lens, so I returned it.
I then bought the Canon 17-55 2.8 lens, used.

While the lens was on its way to me, I started searching for other lenses. And suddenly a cold day in Norway. I want a full format.

Since the 17-55 already was on its way, I put it on the net for sale. Got some responses, but I couldn´t answer. I didn´t have the lens. Luckily a guy wanted it anyway, so when it arrived, I put his adress on and shipped it.
While all that happened I ordered the 6D.

Before it even arrived, I decided I couldn´t live with that. So when it arrived, I returned it.
Still haven´t gotten back my money so I don´t have much to live for until I do. Within 7 days they say, and of course I trust them.

So, 5Dmk3 and 50mm 1.4 is on its way. Hopefully arrive friday or saturday.
Now I´m searching for my next lens, and it probably going to be the Samyang 24 T1.5(don´t no why its a T, and not a f. But they say its a killer lens for filming, and you recommended Samyang).

No, I wont go for the 1DC. I promise!

I know. This is going to be expensive!
I also do a lot cycling(nope, no drugs), so this year I cant spend any money on my road bike!

I´m looking at a grey filter. Or darkening filter.

What kind of filter do you recommend I get first?

Neguah wrote:
I´m looking at a grey filter. Or darkening filter.

What kind of filter do you recommend I get first?

Variable ND filter is the easiest all round option to begin with. Get one that matches the diameter of your largest lens (like 77mm), and then buy step up rings for all your other lenses. That way you can use 1 ND filter on all your lenses irrespective of their diameter.

Neguah wrote: Now I´m searching for my next lens, and it probably going to be the Samyang 24 T1.5(don´t no why its a T, and not a f. But they say its a killer lens for filming, and you recommended Samyang).

The Samyang 24mm is a nice lens, though its not the best value lens in the Samyang lineup (whereas the 35mm Samyang lens is very cheap). The 35mm might be the best starter lens in your foray into the wonderful world of manual lenses.

T stops are a film standard (as opposed to F stop which are a photographic standard).

F stops are worked out mathematically from the diameter of the aperture vs the focal length of the lens, but clearly f stop can vary from lens to lens.

T stops are worked out from an actual measurement of the light passing through the lens - so theoretically one T1.5 lens should match another T1.5 lens (in terms of exposure that is).

In practice I doubt this will be the case with inexpensive lenses like the Samyangs; but with expensive cinema lenses like Cookes or Leicas it should hold true.

Do you have a filter to recommend?
I found some, both I don´t know what brand or price which is best valued.

I was searching for a wide angel lens, that´s why I was thinking of the 24mm.

Before I got into all this camera, I had a cheap crop DSLR and kit lens(18-55). For comparison it actuall gave me around 28,8mm, and I wanted better wide angel than that.

There is not many 24mm 1.4 lenses. Only Samyang and Canon. And the Canon lens is expensive - at least when I´ve just bought 5Dmk3....

But perhaps I only need 1.8.

I use a LightCraft Workshop Vari ND filter (got it from Amazon). It works fine, but it does warm the footage a bit (also softens it a bit).

There are better ones out there though, like SinghRay and Tiffen, among others.

I would also recommend an LCD loupe for use outdoors. I have a Kinotehnik LCDF 3C which works with the screen on the 5Dmk3.

It´s a lot of filters. Can´t decide. Just need to do some research, and suddenly one day I´ll go for a filter.
Will probably follow you advice, and go for a vari ND filter.

Have seen some LCD loupe, and if I fine a good price, I´ll strike.

It´s said that if you want to shoot picture of a river or waterfall, and give the illusion of movement, you need to reduce you shutter speed. However, without a filter the picture will be to bright. A filter allows you to use long shutter speed, and also give normal light.
Why can´t you set you aperture to f22, and shoot with long shutter speed?

Neguah wrote: Why can´t you set you aperture to f22, and shoot with long shutter speed?

You can... but you get the depth of field that comes with f/22 that you might not want. The ND filter lets you shoot wide open for minimal depth of field while still using a slow shutter speed.

For shooting stills another popular filter is a circular polarizer. Lets see how many ways we can spend your money

Yeah, as Marchyman says this is to do with DOF (or rather a lack of control over DOF in varying lighting condition).

Using a DSLR has many disadvantages over traditional video cameras, but it has a few strong advantages that basically all relate to the large sized sensor, as follows (in order of importance):

1) You are able to achieve a very shallow depth-of-field (DOF).
2) Good low light handling.
as well as:
3) Ability to use a variety of different lenses.
4) Able to film discretely.

The aperture directly controls how much light is let in through the lens onto the camera sensor. However, the aperture also controls the DOF - a wider aperture (low f stop) means narrower DOF, and a smaller aperture (high f stop) means a wider DOF.

Traditional video cameras with small sensors were restricted to a very wide DOF (that is everything was in focus) helping to make that ‘video-look’ - yes it was possible to get a narrow DOF with video cameras by zooming in and opening the iris, but that’s a different story, and not possible for tight shots. So in order to not look like a video camera, and look more film-like, DSLR users want to be able to control their DOF under all lighting conditions.

Outdoors you cant open the aperture fully, because the image will be overexposed. The one option you have built into the lens is to close the aperture (like f22 as you say); which exposes the image correctly. However everything will be in sharp focus; which you would want for an establishing shot of a landscape, for instance. But for an interview outdoors you might not want this.

So the only way to control DOF outdoors is to apply ND filters in front of the lens, effectively decreasing the amount of light that reaches the sensor, allowing you to open the aperture. ND filters have been a staple of Film cameras for a long time (they are usually stacked in a matte box) - but for DSLR's a large mate box with filters is a bit cumbersome, so the variable ND filter is the best compromise.

Essentially, if you are planning to film outdoors and have control over your exposure and DOF, then you will need ND filters.

With regards to shutter speed; you generally want to have the shutter speed at double the speed of the frame rate in order to get a film-like sense of motion. So with a frame rate of 24p or 25p you would want to set the shutter to 50. Obviously you can alter the shutter speed for specific lighting situations (lower shutter will let more light in, but too much and the image will start ghosting or leaving image trails – good for a drugged out scene, but no good for regular narrative). Likewise, increasing the shutter will let less light in, but push it too far and you will have a strobing effect; kind of like the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan where they tried to show the heightened awareness of the soldiers storming the beach). Again it works for certain scenes, but it doesn’t give the traditional film look.

Some very good answers here. Thank you very much!

Then I´ve been thinking correctly, for once. It´s nice when I start to understand. Now it only remains to put this into practice...

At the end of you post you wrote that you need to double the shutter speed of the frame rate.
The only way to control how much light you want to let into the lens is to use the aperture and ISO?
You can´t put the DSLR on a tripod and reduce the shutter speed, as you explained.