One week into owning the T2... at DVinfo.net

John Vincent · March 30th, 2010, 10:01 AM

...And I'm loving it.

THE GOOD:

1. Lenses - the ability to strap on sweet, (basically) cheap glass has been awesome. With the JVC 100, you had the stock lens or a $10,000 wide angle - that was it (although now I believe there are adapters). Not only can I goto my local camera store or Best Buy and pick up a lens (which I've already done once), but the lenses will tend to keep their value for much longer time.

When you're locked into a video camera specific lens, the lens only really holds its value as long as then camera is in vogue.

2. Size. Just took some footage driving through the country-side - held the camera on the door with the window down. I never would have been able to that with normal video camera. I know other DLSRs would be able to do this as well, but it is a positive none the less.

3. Instant file access. Having come from either tape and/or film, the ability to drag and drop footage instantly has been amazingly freeing. Again, other cameras have this, but it is a plus. It works and it works fast.

4. The look. I haven't extensively played with the color/style settings yet, but there's no doubt that to my eye, the footage it reproduces is very life-like. Some have complained about grain, but compared to fast 16mm film or the JVC, the grain is much lower. With a fast lens on, I'm getting some amazingly sensitive, low grain footage.

5. Media storage. On cheap ($40 for 16gb/48 minutes or 1080 recording time) SDHC cards that you can buy at a multitude of places. Again, other cameras have this option, but it sure is great to have it on the T2.

THE BAD:

No dedicated white balance button. And sort of magic lantern firmware should address this first.

THE UGLY:

No manual sound control. Again, I come from film where you always have separate recording, but it would have been nice.

More as I learn. If you have any question, please ask away...

john

Marc Faletti · March 30th, 2010, 11:16 AM

Hey John!

One thing I'm trying to understand as I transition more to DSLRs at home is how to minimize shake when off the tripod. Now, none of my lenses have image stabilization, so I'd love to know if you have played with IS lenses and whether they make a big difference....

Thanks!
marc

Robert Turchick · March 30th, 2010, 11:52 AM

The best ways to stabilize are shoulder mount or steadicam type of stuff. Even handheld with the z-finder (or other loupe) pressed against your face seems to do a better job than the lens IS. Brings back the days of the old 8mm cameras!

Sam Kanter · March 30th, 2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Faletti

Hey John!

One thing I'm trying to understand as I transition more to DSLRs at home is how to minimize shake when off the tripod. Now, none of my lenses have image stabilization, so I'd love to know if you have played with IS lenses and whether they make a big difference....

Thanks!
marc

IS (or other stabilization) is almost essential for hand-holding, unless you have a very wide lens. This was a test I did with T2i and Sigma 18-200 OS, all hand held. No competition for Fellini, just a casual walk through the park with the camera, cut together quickly.

YouTube - Central Park West

John Vincent · March 30th, 2010, 01:50 PM

I'd agree with the above - for handheld video, it can't hurt.

But the reality is - and this goes for "normal" video cams too - you have to put the camera on sticks or some sort of shoulder mount/stedi-cam or it's going to look very non-pro.

This is even more true if your film has even a remote shot at being shown on a large screen (such as at a film fest), where the size of a large screen makes even little wobbles seem huge. This was one of the huge beefs some people had against THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (the constant camera movement made people sick).

IMHO, IS is nice, but it's not worth paying extra for if you're shooting a narrative film that's going be 95% supported by a tripod/shoulder mount. The reality is IS can only do so much. Personally, I think it's of much more use for stills.

Let me put it this way - if you have two lenses where everything else is equal other then price (assuming the IS lenses is more), go with the cheaper lens. Of course, your needs might be different then mine, so milage may vary.

I'm going to be putting picks up soon of my DIY gunstock/mattebox/Zacuto viewfinder (I have to find another still cam first!). Hope this helps -

john

Sam Kanter · March 30th, 2010, 06:52 PM

Sure you need sticks for most professional applications, but you might find you're walking with just the camera (see something great you want to shoot), balancing it on something, and the IS/OS will save the shot. For me this is quite valuable for many situations.

David St. Juskow · March 30th, 2010, 07:25 PM

I have to say, a lot depends on the shooter. I'm definitely of the old 16mm film camera school- a heavy thing on your shoulder is 1000x better than any of the dv / hdv cameras ever made for steadiness... however, having shot with them all in the last 10 years, I don't think you NEED sticks or steadicams or shoulder mounts. A calm, steady shooter with a good eye can shoot good stuff even on tiny little dv cameras, and this camera is no exception... my only caveat to that is that I am discovering already how essential the flip screen can be. Old-skool viewfinder pressed against my eye is one thing, but with these lightweight digital cameras, their strength lies in how versatile they are- hold the camera way up, down, whatever, you can position your arm and body in almost any contortion and get a steady shot, no matter how cramped the room. Great, but now with the DSLR's you're stuck having to be BEHIND the camera, and that sucks! An external monitor is great, but now you're introducing more gear, which negates the point of having these tiny little machines. That's a bigger concern to me than steadiness- I haven't played the rebel enough (I've only had it a few days) but I see no reason why it should be any harder to get a good, steady shot than all the other similar-weighted digital cameras...

...and when you realize that so much television these days loves that horrible "guerilla hand-held" style (i.e. let the interns shoot- they're cheaper) with no aesthetic thought whatsoever, the bar is pretty low as to what constitutes a "professional" shot.

Practice makes perfect, seriously! No need for any extra gear, unless you need a specific visual style that requires it (i.e. steadycam)

Khoi Pham · March 30th, 2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Kanter

IS (or other stabilization) is almost essential for hand-holding, unless you have a very wide lens. This was a test I did with T2i and Sigma 18-200 OS, all hand held. No competition for Fellini, just a casual walk through the park with the camera, cut together quickly.

YouTube - Central Park West

Sam, you have a dead pixel, near the bottom, a little to the right of the center, put a lens cap on and turn up your ISO and you should see it, do a manual cleaning and see if it goes away, if not exchange it if you just got it.

John Vincent · April 3rd, 2010, 01:27 AM

Some night footage I shot in my home town yesterday (my first at night):

john vincent's videos on Vimeo

12 days in and I feel like I have a pretty grasp of the basics at this point (not that the clip shows that so much, but you know what I mean).

john

Bob Krieger · April 3rd, 2010, 04:59 PM

Noticed some reflections/flare in the lens. What was the lighting like? What lens were you using?

John Vincent · April 4th, 2010, 03:43 AM

Lighting was just from the natural environment - a decently well lit street corner.

The lens was the Canon 50mm/1.8 (retails for about $120 - it's been called one of the best bargains by some).

I had a uv protector over the lens which I believe cause the excessive flair (although since the new STAR TREK came out I wonder if there can be such a thing).

Review of the 50mm lens:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Review

Still shocked at how much better in low light the T2 is over my last camera....

john

March 30th, 2010, 10:01 AM	#1
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	One week into owning the T2... ...And I'm loving it. THE GOOD: 1. Lenses - the ability to strap on sweet, (basically) cheap glass has been awesome. With the JVC 100, you had the stock lens or a $10,000 wide angle - that was it (although now I believe there are adapters). Not only can I goto my local camera store or Best Buy and pick up a lens (which I've already done once), but the lenses will tend to keep their value for much longer time. When you're locked into a video camera specific lens, the lens only really holds its value as long as then camera is in vogue. 2. Size. Just took some footage driving through the country-side - held the camera on the door with the window down. I never would have been able to that with normal video camera. I know other DLSRs would be able to do this as well, but it is a positive none the less. 3. Instant file access. Having come from either tape and/or film, the ability to drag and drop footage instantly has been amazingly freeing. Again, other cameras have this, but it is a plus. It works and it works fast. 4. The look. I haven't extensively played with the color/style settings yet, but there's no doubt that to my eye, the footage it reproduces is very life-like. Some have complained about grain, but compared to fast 16mm film or the JVC, the grain is much lower. With a fast lens on, I'm getting some amazingly sensitive, low grain footage. 5. Media storage. On cheap ($40 for 16gb/48 minutes or 1080 recording time) SDHC cards that you can buy at a multitude of places. Again, other cameras have this option, but it sure is great to have it on the T2. THE BAD: No dedicated white balance button. And sort of magic lantern firmware should address this first. THE UGLY: No manual sound control. Again, I come from film where you always have separate recording, but it would have been nice. More as I learn. If you have any question, please ask away... john

March 30th, 2010, 11:52 AM	#3
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	The best ways to stabilize are shoulder mount or steadicam type of stuff. Even handheld with the z-finder (or other loupe) pressed against your face seems to do a better job than the lens IS. Brings back the days of the old 8mm cameras! __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

March 30th, 2010, 11:16 AM	#2
Marc Faletti Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 50	Hey John! One thing I'm trying to understand as I transition more to DSLRs at home is how to minimize shake when off the tripod. Now, none of my lenses have image stabilization, so I'd love to know if you have played with IS lenses and whether they make a big difference.... Thanks! marc

March 30th, 2010, 01:50 PM	#5
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	I'd agree with the above - for handheld video, it can't hurt. But the reality is - and this goes for "normal" video cams too - you have to put the camera on sticks or some sort of shoulder mount/stedi-cam or it's going to look very non-pro. This is even more true if your film has even a remote shot at being shown on a large screen (such as at a film fest), where the size of a large screen makes even little wobbles seem huge. This was one of the huge beefs some people had against THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (the constant camera movement made people sick). IMHO, IS is nice, but it's not worth paying extra for if you're shooting a narrative film that's going be 95% supported by a tripod/shoulder mount. The reality is IS can only do so much. Personally, I think it's of much more use for stills. Let me put it this way - if you have two lenses where everything else is equal other then price (assuming the IS lenses is more), go with the cheaper lens. Of course, your needs might be different then mine, so milage may vary. I'm going to be putting picks up soon of my DIY gunstock/mattebox/Zacuto viewfinder (I have to find another still cam first!). Hope this helps - john

March 30th, 2010, 06:52 PM	#6
Sam Kanter Major Player Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: New York Posts: 205	Sure you need sticks for most professional applications, but you might find you're walking with just the camera (see something great you want to shoot), balancing it on something, and the IS/OS will save the shot. For me this is quite valuable for many situations.

March 30th, 2010, 07:25 PM	#7
David St. Juskow Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: new york city Posts: 113	I have to say, a lot depends on the shooter. I'm definitely of the old 16mm film camera school- a heavy thing on your shoulder is 1000x better than any of the dv / hdv cameras ever made for steadiness... however, having shot with them all in the last 10 years, I don't think you NEED sticks or steadicams or shoulder mounts. A calm, steady shooter with a good eye can shoot good stuff even on tiny little dv cameras, and this camera is no exception... my only caveat to that is that I am discovering already how essential the flip screen can be. Old-skool viewfinder pressed against my eye is one thing, but with these lightweight digital cameras, their strength lies in how versatile they are- hold the camera way up, down, whatever, you can position your arm and body in almost any contortion and get a steady shot, no matter how cramped the room. Great, but now with the DSLR's you're stuck having to be BEHIND the camera, and that sucks! An external monitor is great, but now you're introducing more gear, which negates the point of having these tiny little machines. That's a bigger concern to me than steadiness- I haven't played the rebel enough (I've only had it a few days) but I see no reason why it should be any harder to get a good, steady shot than all the other similar-weighted digital cameras... ...and when you realize that so much television these days loves that horrible "guerilla hand-held" style (i.e. let the interns shoot- they're cheaper) with no aesthetic thought whatsoever, the bar is pretty low as to what constitutes a "professional" shot. Practice makes perfect, seriously! No need for any extra gear, unless you need a specific visual style that requires it (i.e. steadycam)

April 3rd, 2010, 01:27 AM	#9
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Some night footage I shot in my home town yesterday (my first at night): john vincent's videos on Vimeo 12 days in and I feel like I have a pretty grasp of the basics at this point (not that the clip shows that so much, but you know what I mean). john

April 3rd, 2010, 04:59 PM	#10
Bob Krieger Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Abita Springs, LA Posts: 245	Noticed some reflections/flare in the lens. What was the lighting like? What lens were you using?

April 4th, 2010, 03:43 AM	#11
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Lighting was just from the natural environment - a decently well lit street corner. The lens was the Canon 50mm/1.8 (retails for about $120 - it's been called one of the best bargains by some). I had a uv protector over the lens which I believe cause the excessive flair (although since the new STAR TREK came out I wonder if there can be such a thing). Review of the 50mm lens: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Review Still shocked at how much better in low light the T2 is over my last camera.... john