Messages

I'll be that guy.
What lens did you use?

Liked it a lot, especially the night shot with the trafic seen from above.

The light from below is a bit distracting, was it intended?
Maybe you could have taken another shot afterwards with short exposure and combine the two (or 61).
The startrail looks beautiful though.

How come the water is rippled with such a long exposure time?
Is it because the thunderbolt works as a flash?

Amazing shot by the way.

Totally forgot about this thread.
Thank you for your comments,  you gave me some peace of mind 

This is unrelated to the build quality, but apparently I got a faulty 600D so I had to return it.
It wouldn't write photos to the SD card, very strange issue.
Got a new one and it is working fine.
Very happy with it now.

Nevertheless I think I'd recommend a 400D to people who only use their DLSR for photos though.
It's ridiculously cheap now and has better (at least perceived) build quality.

Ha! Not very long, but I bet you had to shoot for an hour or so?
Did you take a shot and then immediately after again for 35 seconds?

Can you half the ISO if you double the exposure time, or doesn't it work like that?

Did I actually just asked three questions in order to comment on your video?

Anyway, very nice goal to try all these nice features of ML 

Yeah its seriously an underdog cam, with the right lens and enough knowledge you can get some extremely professional looking results from it.

Very subtle, you 'forgot' to add: "As you can see." 
It's not really fair that real professionals get to use cameras that yield a good result more easily.
The same goes for chess, beginners wind up in the most difficult positions to solve.

As you say, the 600D really is an underdog camera.
I was inclined to whine about it here, but decided to do it here.

Dear all,

Yesterday I bought my very first DSLR, a 600D, meant mainly for shooting video.
Here in the Netherlands you can get it for $430 now, which seemed like a bargain to me!
I was very excited about it, until I got it out of the box.

The buttons are small and echo in the cheap plastic body.
The flip-out screen seems very weak.
Without exaggerating, it feels like a disposable camera!
The problem might be that my father has a 400D.
He's had it for more than six years now, and it feels like it can do another 10 years with ease.
The 600D feels like it will break down when I put it in a bag.

Are my concerns legitimate?
How come the build quality seems to have dropped that much from 400D -> 600D?
Why isn't this mentioned in any of the countless reviews I've seen and read?
Am I just a whiney bitch?

Thanks for your responses!

[n]

Haha.
I thought the moderator on this subforum was not available 

Anyway, this is very awesome.
Unbelievable that this is possible with a camera in this segment.
Without doubht we laugh about statements like that in the future, but even though, for now it's true!

I love how you list all your equipment, including but not limited to a cheap ass wobbly tripod.
What SD card did you use to record this?
Can you still edit the raw footage in FCP X?

How come the non-raw looks so washed out?
You're surely able to get better quality out of the camera, right?

Sorry for my ignorance, but 1080p won't be possible on a 600D due to hardware limitations, right?
720p is good enough, but still, it looks bad compared to 'normal' non-raw?

I just came here, sorry, I'll study.

EDIT: Cinestyle is as flat as possible, I see.
Why not compare then to non-cinestyle?
Wouldn't that be more fair?