Amook

I do need a safe place, and you've hurt my feelings. So are you going to continue to bully or will you delete me account?

They already have them.... Here's England imposing a similar ban. http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/uk-us-flight-ban-laptops-electronic-devices-donald-trump-muslim-middle-east-latest-a7641796.html Look it's not about safe space. I'm just tired of it. You see it absolutely everywhere. Is it even possible to delete your own account by the way?

I actually didn't read the thread at all. It is even possible to delete your own account?

how?

It's a shame Andrew Reid feels like he needs to turn this forum into his personal political rant. I hope he understand stands it's a huge turn off for some people. So I'd like my account deleted. Thanks

The original Red One MX's are cheap, kits for the 3k to 5k range but Epic MX's are still out of the 3k range.

How much does a used Epic MX sell for though? Still around 10k? Some day I'd like to try one out.

What about a sony f3 with external recorder? I've been experimenting with mine a lot lately and the image is really nice, great color and dynamic range. The 10bit pro res files are very easy to work with. It also has good audio and internal ND filters.

Opps Looks like the dvxuser thread was already posted. Sorry about that.

I'm using the "slog to cineon" from MacGregor, found here http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2014/05/sony-f3-resurrected-luts/ then apply the arri Alexa cLog to Rec709 lut in DaVinci Resolve with good results. I'm not very experience with color grading but for me it's producing pleasing results. Here's a quick upload of some random f3 footage that I applied the lut's too. I think I could have easily upped the contrast and saturation, but I was more interested in how it looked on my TV instead of the computer which seems to be much lower contrast.

I have a quick question about the nikon ED AF 80-200 2.8 push/pull lens. I'm looking for a good zoom in this range and can either get the push/pull a very cheap price or the 80-200 2.8d version at nearly three times the cost. So just wondering if anyone have any experience with the push/pull vs the D version. Is the extra money worth it? I'll be using the lens on a sony F3. Thanks

@gatopardo Nope, sony f3. I gotta say I love everything but the bulk of the camera. The image even with just the internal recording is so far ahead of anything i've used before. I really liked the xc10 but the quality just drops off a cliff after iso 800, which with the slow lens happens in all but direct sunlight. I think canon tried to over sell the specs and cover up the ghosting which they fixed with a new version of the camera. Thats the reason I'll never buy anything new from canon again. I hope they are reading this thread.

Doesn't look like the xc10 to me. You can get shallow depth of field at th very long end but if you notice a lot of the shots the people are much closer to the camera. Also the shot where you see the camera it looks much smaller. The xc10 would also be ghosting in a situation like this.

I can see why you would say the d750, the softness makes me think the same. Here's a couple more that help show off the sharpness better. The original baby shot was an old nikkor 50mm 1.4 wide open which is pretty soft. Here's a couple more, it's an older camera.

I have to say I'm very happy I decided to dump the xc10. I simply could not achieve anything like this.

I sold mine as I couldn't get over the ghosting problems. I don't think I'll buy a canon for a while. Customer service was pretty bad.

So I'm noticing that if I shoot at 60p the ghosting is greatly reduced at higher iso's. Anyone else notice this? Never mind, more testing, it's still there....

I have to say this thread and Ed Davids other thread are ruining eoshd for me. This was my safe space from the political talk. He's now brought his hate and bias into this forum. I'm out....

I think your right, worthless post...

So canon said that since my camera is just over a year old it's not qualified for warranty work. My question is if this can be repaired via a hardware or software, didn't they sell me a defective unit in the first place? Has anyone sent in their cameras and has it improved anything?

I've already contacted then and sent samples showing the ghosting. At first they said they weren't aware of the problem and then after seeing a couple examples said they would pass it along to the engineering program. That was a week ago so haven't heard anything back. I know they are well aware of the issue as well as the thread on this website. I don't have huge expectations I'd like to be able to confidently shoot people at 1600iso.

Some great work here. So I'm really trying to like and use this camera. I just got a contract to document a language class. It includes some event shooting, interviews and classroom shoots. They want to keep the shoots as low profile as possible which means no lighting. The xc10 would be perfect except I have a feeling I'll need to crank the iso in some situations and I'm seeing strong ghosting even at iso 800. What do you think the chances are that canon does something within the next few weeks? I know probably not good. So I'm thinking it might be time to upgrade. I'm thinking a original c100 would be all I'd need for this project as it's just documenting. I'm curious if people think the auto focus upgrade is worth it? I'm also seeing some c300's with the duel pixel upgrades for about $4k.

Here's some random footage and frame grab from my XC10. Don't remember the settings but it shows it very clearly.

Here's a quick frame grab and video from my XC10. I don't remember the setting on this one just found it with some random footage. I think it shows the ghosting pretty clearly though.

I'm curious if anyone has hooked the xc10 up to an external recorder? Is there any chance it would help with the noise reduction and ghosting?