- mini smoke machine - need to figure which one

In what plots will you need it?

Quote from: Rage on October 25, 2024, 23:05

- mini smoke machine - need to figure which one

In what plots will you need it?

Mostly for product shoots that i do on the side. But i can imagine it being useful for stock also

This is a nice camera for slow motion, something like 1 million+ frames a second a bit out of my budget at the moment:
https://petapixel.com/2021/07/20/the-entry-level-phantom-tmx-5010-can-shoot-1-16-million-fps/

Stock agencies do not accept videos with such low resolution.

I think the one I want is actually more like $150-$200k USD.

What is the video resolution and fps there? 

For stock agencies, it's better to buy a camera like this for 100 thousand. 1000 fps in 4K, this is a good option.
https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/4kmedia/flex4k

or buy T4040, get 10.000 fps for full HD, which is also not bad.
https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/tseries/t4040

 

The new iphone 16pro looks interesting as a walk around video photo camera in daily life low light, like christmas markets.

On the other hand my iphone 13 pro works fine and if I really want to work I can bring along a real camera.

Maybe next year.

I already have upgraded to iPhone 15 Pro Max this year and happy. But hopefully o can upgrade my old 7D M2 to R6 M2 mostly for videos and my YouTube channel.

Lol, no - the sony rx5 is not necessarily "better" than the p900. The are a different class of camera. It's like saying apples are better than shoes. Makes no sense - they are different. Both are good.

The RX5 is good for night shots, slow motion (1000 fps), and has a 1" sensor. Unfortunately, the zoom is very poor.
The P900 is very good for 'general' zoom shots. It's not great on quality though.

And lol - yes, I have both - so I know what I am talking about

With the $15k camera - I don't recall. I was just going through some brush (I think I was doing some bird shots) and ran into him - and was like 'what what kind of camera is that?' (Because he had the super supppppppppppppppppper long lens). I think it was a DSLR with a 1200 mm lens, but don't recall. But it was huge/massive. Kind of like the picture pete posted, except I think it was white. Don't recall which brand, just that it was a big massive setup.

Lol, no - the sony rx5 is not necessarily "better" than the p900. The are a different class of camera. It's like saying apples are better than shoes. Makes no sense - they are different. Both are good.

The RX5 is good for night shots, slow motion (1000 fps), and has a 1" sensor. Unfortunately, the zoom is very poor.
The P900 is very good for 'general' zoom shots. It's not great on quality though.

And lol - yes, I have both - so I know what I am talking about

With the $15k camera - I don't recall. I was just going through some brush (I think I was doing some bird shots) and ran into him - and was like 'what what kind of camera is that?' (Because he had the super supppppppppppppppppper long lens). I think it was a DSLR with a 1200 mm lens, but don't recall. But it was huge/massive. Kind of like the picture pete posted, except I think it was white. Don't recall which brand, just that it was a big massive setup.

Sony's quality is definitely better than Nikon's. It's strange that you don't see it when you have two cameras. Although why would you need two cameras of roughly the same style?
As for 1000 fps, the quality will be poor.

If we talk about the quality of a telephoto lens, then a Panasonic 100-400 (Micro 4/3) plus a teleconverter will be a normal option with a focus of 1200-1600 and a cost of $1000.

Lol, no - the sony rx5 is not necessarily "better" than the p900. The are a different class of camera. It's like saying apples are better than shoes. Makes no sense - they are different. Both are good.

The RX5 is good for night shots, slow motion (1000 fps), and has a 1" sensor. Unfortunately, the zoom is very poor.
The P900 is very good for 'general' zoom shots. It's not great on quality though.

And lol - yes, I have both - so I know what I am talking about

With the $15k camera - I don't recall. I was just going through some brush (I think I was doing some bird shots) and ran into him - and was like 'what what kind of camera is that?' (Because he had the super supppppppppppppppppper long lens). I think it was a DSLR with a 1200 mm lens, but don't recall. But it was huge/massive. Kind of like the picture pete posted, except I think it was white. Don't recall which brand, just that it was a big massive setup.

Done for the humor of, yes you can hand hold one of these. It's a 400mm Canon f/2.8



The Sunshade makes it look bigger. 5.37 kg = 5370 g = 11 pounds and 13.421 ounces kind of heavy. I sold it, as the lens was worth more than my car and I didn't use it often enough.

I managed to find a used, pristine, 200mm f/1.8 which I plan on keeping forever. If I have to sell all my other good lenses, I want to keep this one. Originally released November 1988, discontinued 2003, EF. Some would say the f/2 new version is just as good and balanced better. Yes, I could buy a used car for what I paid for this one. The 300mm I have now was much more reasonable.


200mm f/2.8 - 200mm f/1.8 and the 300mm f/2.8 with the R coming in, I'm pretty sure that all of these are discontinued. Or in Canon speak, may be made on demand, in the future.

I've seen many of these, not my cup of tea, and $4,000 and up? Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens (Canon EF) I suppose it would be nice for someone birding. Maybe that's what you saw? For sports it's a nice variable length. Something looking like this, with the lens hood and a Lenscoat:

Uncle Pete, only dinosaurs walk around with such heavy lenses. 
Smart people buy micro 4/3 optics and put all the telephoto lenses in their pockets. 
Stabilization in Panasonic cameras allows you to shoot with any lens without a tripod. 

Correct on all of that.  And I am a dinosaur, someday, maybe soon, probably extinct.

I did get an EOS-M6 last year (already had the original which didn't have the features and quality I wanted) and the Japan zoom, that I don't believe was sold in the USA? Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM, which is smaller than the hole in the catch fences at the race tracks, so I can shoot through the holes in the wire mesh, instead of using a big white Tele and shooting through the mesh.

The EOS M6 camera has 5-axis Digital Image Stabilization and an APS-C sensor, 24MP. I can clip it on my Black Rapid as a grab camera. Being mobile is important for motorsports. Even if there's almost no demand and not much money, it's what I do and love. Long days, Sunrise to Sunset, hours of culling and editing, and the news demand is somewhere between 1 hour and the next deadline. 

But... those big heavy lenses have great sharpness, brighter colors and you have to admit a 200mm f/1.8 is a nice toy for the collection? Add an extender and it's a 300mm f/2.2


M6 photo with the 55-200, shooting through the chain link holes.

Uncle Pete, You are not confused, at focus 200 you have aperture 6.3 or 1.8 ? 

I'm not sure what you mean. F/1.8 with a 1.5 extender would be f/2.2 and 300mm

I understand that you want to keep the heavy lens with aperture 1.8. The only thing that is not clear is what to shoot at 1.8....

And I understand the small setup, which I also take with me. EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 so that one will never shoot at f/1.8! And to answer the question and another question, I don't use IS and I don't shoot at f/1.8.

It's kind of like going to buy a six pack, driving a 400HP V-8. You can only go the speed limit and have so much fun. I will say though that the quality is more than the f/stop. The images are brighter, sharper and if you put them side by side with a smaller, lighter lens, you can see the difference. How much does anyone need for Microstock? Not the big white lenses.

My Saturn Vue (the current piece of junk car that I'm driving) will go get groceries the same as well as a  2023 Dodge Challenger SRT� Demon 170 with 1,000 HP. Maybe better, but when it comes down to stepping on it, if you need to, the Dodge can do 0-60 mph in 1.66 seconds. The Vue has a Honda v-6 which is actually pretty sporty. 0 - 60 mph 8.4 s

So what I'm getting at is, I can have fun with a brighter, sharper, old bulky clunky white lens and if it needs to go fast it can? 

Kind of like, why would I want a 1200mm lens? Not very useful, maybe for some special interest, astronomy or birding or something, but really, I wouldn't be driving around in a car that cost less than my camera or the lens. 

I don't use live view, I don't chimp a whole lot, once I get my settings, I've never owned a 30-D, but I had a 1DS that was too slow, even if it takes wonderful photos. My best camera right now is a 50-D, which is good enough. I tried an R, I don't like the ELVF flickering.

EOS 10D    Feb 2003    6.3 mp
EOS 20D    Aug 2004    8.2 mp
EOS 30D    Feb 2006    8.2 mp
EOS 40D    Aug 2007    10.1 mp $50
EOS 50D    Aug 2008    15.1 mp  $99

They all use the same battery, memory cards and lenses.