[RBellavance]

cant understand why someone would go to so much trouble to set up various OCF's and then ruin the shot by using the on board flash, straight on, un-diffused onto the subject matter.

You do realize that the onboard flash can be turned off for exposure purposes ? I.e. it can be set to only trigger the OCFs.

a PC sync socket is far more versatile and useful for my needs than the pop up flash that i never use.

I say more options is better. I really hope the new camera has an on-board flash.

[janneman]

Well... I belong to the school of thought that believes the hood should never come off a lens...

Wim

Did you believe everything they tought you at school??

[Parallax]

.....................Here's another saying: You get what you pay for

Not always, and it's a good thing. Just think of the mess we would be in if we were getting all of the government we are paying for!

[elkarrde]

Not always, and it's a good thing. Just think of the mess we would be in if we were getting all of the government we are paying for!

true, true!

[thibs]

Hey, Hello Richardday, ISTeve, BEN!!! What happened to you. Oh! NDA so much obliged.

Rui

ps: Hi Ben, your previous record blown to pieces,

RichardDay will not bother posting here anymore. He wrote it clearly in DPR forum.

[redpigeons]

Commercials, and i mean REAL commercials, like national ads, ones for brands like McDonalds, Ford, Budwesier, etc, ARE NOT shot with DSLR's, more commercials these days are definately shooting RED more and more, but the RED is geared much more to the pro FILM level than ANY DSLR. The only thing i could think of seeing the 5dmkII used for on commercials of these levels are as action cameras, or car mounts, or timelapse. It's about the same price to buy a canon 5dmkII and have it destroyed for an action shot then to have an insurance claim on a pro level film camera that was destroyed because the crash housing failed (which i have persoanlly seen happen).

we used the D90 for a McDonalds commercial ... I work in one of the biggest production houses in he US and UK..

[falconeye]

An APS-C camera needs to have a larger than 1.0x viewfinder to match the viewfinder of an FF camera.

You're so right.

My MX is 0.97x 95% and my K20D is 0.95x 95%. Looks close.

But in reality, because of the crop factor, the K20D is only 0.62x @ 95%! The focussing screen looks MUCH smaller.

It would have to be 1.48x 95% to match the MX. This is so because magnification is measured at 50mm. So, 1.48x@50mm becomes 0.97x@33mm.

A 0.75x magnification which once was considered to be the minimum to be accepted at 100% is 1.15x for APS-C.



What Art Vandelay II and gazonk said.



True, a 1.48x focussing screen would be dimmer. But at a given physical aperture in mm and a given FoV, an APS-C lens would have a smaller f-stop figure to compensate for exactly!

It is the cheaper (smaller) APS-C lenses making the viewfinder dimmer and the smaller magnification obfuscates this fact from the consumer.

A pro camera (even APS-C) should be made for larger lenses and have higher magnification. Theoretically, the eye piece could be replaceable to make this property adjustable.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 04-21-2009 at 08:04 AM.

[Parallax]

[.................................so stop harping about a camera that does not exist and enjoy the one you have
Dave

My good sir, this is at least the second post you have made chastising someone for talking about something that "does not exist". You even called the OP an "arse" for starting the thread.
I fear there may be some sort of misunderstanding here that I would like to, hopefully, clear up:

This is a discussion forum, not merely a database of substantiated facts. It's purpose is for members of like interests to talk about those interests. I am most curious though as to why, if the fact that others are talking about it distresses you so, you keep reading and participating in this particular thread.

[Art Vandelay II]

The Physics is the larger the finder magnification, the dimmer it will be.

To compensate for the light "loss", then the focusing screen needed to make brighter. To make it brighter, the focusing screen will have greater DoF then it should be. The worse is stopped down or wide open metering will be wrong (over/under).

Damn, that stinks, but I am I the only one that doesn't really care about DoF in the view finder? Back in the film days that could have been an issue, but now I just use the view finder for composition, then fire off a test pic for and look at the LCD for DoF.

With my Nikon I actually use a similar method to check focus. When previewing a photo on the LCD you can simply press the D-pad and the LCD automatically magnifies 100% to the point of focus. You find out real quick if your photo is in focus. I've found this to be incredibly handy so far.

The metering issue is a problem though, but it seems like they could account for that in the cameras software. If Olympus can make a 4/3's view finder look better than most APS-C prisms I've seen then surely Pentax can at least magnify their APS-C view finders a bit to make it closer to what you see in FF.

[jensm]

I'd buy the camera without a flash. and either use wireless triggers or hot shoe mounted flash gun to trigger OCF's. (off camera flashes)

cant understand why someone would go to so much trouble to set up various OCF's and then ruin the shot by using the on board flash, straight on, un-diffused onto the subject matter.
if you settng up OCF's then you should at least be conscience of your light ratios - assuming thats why you set them up in the first place - then to compliment your effect you should ideally be using bounced or diffused light from a flash gun, not the pop up flash.

The K10D/K20D allows you to use the built-in flash for triggering only, while not actually contributing to the lighting of the scene.

/Jens

[spence.nicholson]

we used the D90 for a McDonalds commercial ... I work in one of the biggest production houses in he US and UK..

I imagine it was not the primary camera, or the director and or creatives wanted a very specific look, i.e not traditional commercial look. I work in one of the biggest production houses in the US and UK as well

[lol101]

RichardDay will not bother posting here anymore. He wrote it clearly in DPR forum.

Let me guess... too much rumors in here??

[thibs]

Let me guess... too much rumors in here??

It may be due more to behaviour of a couple ones but should ask him exactly why if you want to know more.

[redpigeons]

I imagine it was not the primary camera, or the director and or creatives wanted a very specific look, i.e not traditional commercial look. I work in one of the biggest production houses in the US and UK as well

ha! which one? maybe we work for the same studio.. I am in NY and you are in LA...

I also must say that I am talking about a post production house and not a production house. our work based a lot of CG and the HD video available at all time from a dslr opened a new world for us

any way... only wanted to stand that our studio is using it... obviously not every one did the switch we did, and different studios are using different tools

[RuiC]

It may be due more to behaviour of a couple ones but should ask him exactly why if you want to know more.

I understand that. Anyway I think that Richard is above those. Quoting someone else, the fool says what he knows and Richard knows what he says.

Rui