|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Yup, I was surprised with how good the IS kit lens is. It isn't going to blow you away but it is really nice for the price you can find them for. I think we found some for $50 or so used .. pretty good deal! The IS kit lens is really pretty decent if you consider that a worthwhile upgrade like the Tamron 17-50 is like 300 bucks even used. Speaking of lenses, holy poo poo! Tamron also have the new 70-200 2.8 out with USM and IS, while the old one is now like $700. Luckily I probably won't have many opportunities to do serious photography in the near future so my bank account can chill out for a while.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Do the 45mm tilt shifts hold their value? It seems like they are selling at a discount on Ebay. What should I be paying for a used one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
I don't think many people even realize that lens exists. Yeah sure its as close to "normal" as you can get in a native EF mount lens but that just means its too tight for landscapes but not tight enough for portraits. Its the solution to a problem that hasn't been created...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Do the 45mm tilt shifts hold their value? It seems like they are selling at a discount on Ebay. What should I be paying for a used one? All the tilts hold their value, but if/when a 45 version 2 comes out, it'll take a drop. Problem is that it's kind of the 'worst' ts-e. 90 is awesome. 24 v2 is awesome. 17 is awesome. 45 is a little awkward/specialized comparatively, so you're slightly limited as to your resale audience. e: vv You're correct, my mistake - I forgot that recently the new versions are way more expensive, and generally caused prices to rise a bit on the older gear. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:All the tilts hold their value, but if/when a 45 version 2 comes out, it'll take a drop. Used prices for lenses actually tend to jump up a bit when Canon releases new versions. I saw it happen with the 24-70vII and back when the vII's of the big super teles came out. The new and improved price tags pulled up the prices on the used market as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
I've had a chance to start using my new 5DIII, and I have a question/annoyance. When focus is achieved, the focus points all blink red. But it's such a weak blink, that it's impossible to see in bright daylight, so I have to enable beeps to know that focus was achieved. The 5DII was plenty bright to see at all times of day, but not so with the 5DIII. Has anyone else noticed this and can anything be done about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Welp, looks like I'm going full frame too. I was planning on sticking with my 550D and only invest in glass until I make the jump to BMCC for video, but I ended up being offered a 5D MK2 for about 600bux. Bought it before my account even had time to weep. Guess that makes me a very, very late adopter, but I'm guessing it's still quite a step up from the 550D. Can't wait to see how my M42 collection fares with the full frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:I ended up being offered a 5D MK2 for about 600bux.  Nice. It's a great camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:Guess that makes me a very, very late adopter, but I'm guessing it's still quite a step up from the 550D. Can't wait to see how my M42 collection fares with the full frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Also it's decent enough to shoot sub 1080p raw video. Unfortunately I think there's a cap on the CF slots speed which prevents you from shooting continuously, but it's pretty drat good for $600 I'd say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Also it's decent enough to shoot sub 1080p raw video. Unfortunately I think there's a cap on the CF slots speed which prevents you from shooting continuously, but it's pretty drat good for $600 I'd say. Yeah I was thinking about putting Magic Lantern on it and using it as a backup/2nd camera alongside the BMCC. With Raw it's probably close enough to BMCC quality. I think it shot raw in something like 1800x960 or so. A friend of mine has a Mark 2 he's been using to shoot a lot of Raw, I'm going to ask him for some pointers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
It looks good in raw mode, just know that the dynamic range is way worse than the BMCC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Figured as much. 11 stops is what I've heard, but not sure about that. That's a bit of a non-issue as long as I acknowledge it, since I'm already accustomed to work around the limited DR with lighting and gradual ND:s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Hopped on a Photoprice.ca group buy special of a EOS 6D body w/ 24-105mm for $2,400 shipped with tax. Finally getting into that sweet, sweet full frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Hopped on a Photoprice.ca group buy special of a EOS 6D body w/ 24-105mm for $2,400 shipped with tax. Is there a saneal camera where you live? These have been $1699/2249 in store for the past couple weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Is there a saneal camera where you live? These have been $1699/2249 in store for the past couple weeks. I live in Canada so that's the cheapest I've seen it, including taking into account ordering from the US (which even with shipping fees/duties can be cheaper). That site's showing $2400 before tax for me though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with the old 70-210 f/4 Macro lens? I'm thinking that one is an EOS lens and not an FD mount, but not sure either. Was just wondering how it would be if you were to use it as a manual focus lens, and if wide open it was decent Although, would the autofocus be any worse than a 55-250? Assuming given it's price there's some real drawbacks compared to newer lenses, but you never know. Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Anyone have any experience with the old 70-210 f/4 Macro lens? I'm thinking that one is an EOS lens and not an FD mount, but not sure either. Was just wondering how it would be if you were to use it as a manual focus lens, and if wide open it was decent Although, would the autofocus be any worse than a 55-250? While I don't have experience with the lens, there's both a FD and an EOS 70-210 f/4 macro, probably identical or similar (the EOS is a very early lens in that series). It's a geared autofocus lens, you'll need to push a switch to use it in MF mode. Basically it'll be like a nifty fifty with a ring that you can actually grab onto. The autofocus is the same type as the 55-250 (geared motor), theoretically they should be pretty similar in AF, the body is more of a factor there. The drawback is it's not built to the same mechanical/ergonomic/autofocus standard of an L-series lens and it's 25 years old. It's not USM, it's not IS, it's made of plastic, and if you break it it's probably not going to be economical to fix it. On the other hand they're a $100 lens, so just buy another. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:I live in Canada so that's the cheapest I've seen it, including taking into account ordering from the US (which even with shipping fees/duties can be cheaper). They're only in Calgary I guess. They're kinda sketchy though and give prices lower than MAP in-store. *edit* I should add that Saneal sucks and I only use them to price match at the camera store I actually like (literally called The Camera Store). I did this last week to get a 5d3 kit for $3699. Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:While I don't have experience with the lens, there's both a FD and an EOS 70-210 f/4 macro, probably identical or similar (the EOS is a very early lens in that series). Just wondering if it's a viable option for a budget upgrade from the 55-250. If autofocus is similar be nice to pick up a full stop if it's good wide open, but an extra $100 on top of that for a Tamron 70-300 is probably the best option even if it's 2/3 of a stop slower at 200. On the note of older EOS lenses, anyone have experience with a 80-200 2.8? Although I guess it's not so much more inexpensive than a used 70-200 2.8 that it's incredibly attractive from a price standpoint. Might just be better off getting a 200 prime if I wanted to go for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
I should note that "it's a geared autofocus lens" presumes it's the EOS model. FD will not be compatible. The Tamron would be nicer if you wanted more reach. The Canon 70-210 would be nicer if you were satisfied with 210mm. The aperture on the Tamron varies continuously, so it'll only be like 1/3-1/2 stop slower tops for any given length between 75 and 300mm, and it does decent macro out of the box. I don't know about the mid-range bokeh on the Tamron, I didn't try it for portraits. I like to do my portraits on alt glass, but there's alternatives for that task. I thought it was pretty sharp at long ranges, and the bokeh was decent in macro. Both the Canon 55-250 and Canon 70-300 do have IS, that is a factor too. It won't do anything about motion blur from subject movement, but it will let you deal with your own shake better, which is probably a nice thing on old bodies where the unassisted handholding speed (1/35mm focal length equivalent, i.e. (1/(1.6 * FL)) for Canon)) is challenging for the sensor. If you're on a reasonably new body that can push the ISO I'd go with the 70-210 though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
5D Mark III bodies going for $2,695 on Amazon, I just ordered one: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/go/Amazon/EOS-5D-Mark-III/p=3868&m=20&d=5 My state just started charging sales tax on online orders. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Back up to 3299. 2:46pm cst looks like it's back to 2799 and I'm debating wether debt is worth it... Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Am I a crazy person or is this deal as good as it looks http://www.adorama.com/ICASL1K1HS2.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
That 75-300 is not stabilized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Jymmybob posted:Am I a crazy person or is this deal as good as it looks http://www.adorama.com/ICASL1K1HS2.html It's a pretty drat good starter package. Most of them from what I have seen contains an SD-Card, a bag and sometimes the worst tripod in the world. It depends on how much one values the printer. The SL-1 is pretty small so that may become a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
erephus posted:It's a pretty drat good starter package. It looks like they raised the price by $100 an hour after I bought it since it used to be $999 -400 MiR and now it's $1099 -400 MiR. I have my bets hedged because I ordered a new D3200 + 2 lens set from Adorama for $500 on Saturday so I'll check them out then pick one and return/sell the loser.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Canon refurbished is doing a Cyber Monday sale and some of the prices are nuts. The TS-E 24mm II for $1495 is already gone, as are the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II for $1699 and 5D III for $2719. Who knows if they'll refresh any stock today, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Canon refurbished is doing a Cyber Monday sale and some of the prices are nuts. EF-S 10-22mm for $442
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the hardware thread - I need an answer fast: I've got a 7D - how bad would I hate myself if I bought a 16gb/266x card? Am I gonna be buffering after two RAW shots? I don't need 30 or anything, but it's gotta be useable. This card's too cheap, my hunch is it's gotta be a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
The on-camera buffer can handle 94 jpegs or 15 RAW photos. The write speed of the card determines how long it takes to clear that buffer so that you can start shooting again. 266x is fine unless you are just constantly blasting away. I've never had a problem with the Kingston cards I've used.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:EF-S 10-22mm for $442 Yep, bought. Price is pretty ridiculous. (don't ask why I didn't have one already, because the story is stupid)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Just bought the 50 f/1.8. I've been putting off buying anything, but at that price I couldn't not do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
EF 40mm f/2.8 for $136 is a pro buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:EF 40mm f/2.8 for $136 is a pro buy. It's been lower refurbished in the past. You can get it new at amazon for 140 USD right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:It's been lower refurbished in the past. You can get it new at amazon for 140 USD right now. This is why I didn't grab it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Oh right, probably worth the extra 4 bucks then to get it new. I picked it up from some dude here for $100 about a year ago, it was such a lucky buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Canon Japan announced the EOS M2. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=8484 It's a bit smaller, adds Wi-Fi, and is a bit faster in both burst rate and AF speed. Also there's no word of a US release. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
But the same sensor? Darn. I was hoping for an improvement so that Canon would give away first gen M's for free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Yeah, I can't believe they wouldn't chuck the 70D sensor in it. Unless they keep selling these as a $300 kit I don't know that it's very attractive. I guess the wifi is nice though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:06
|
|
