|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The on-camera buffer can handle 94 jpegs or 15 RAW photos.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:But the same sensor? Darn. I was hoping for an improvement so that Canon would give away first gen M's for free. The current sensor already has PDAF, so it could still end up being usable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Oh absolutely usable - Just waiting for when I can get a complete EOS-M kit with the 2 zooms, the prime and flash for the same price as a used S110...and then I'll give it to my mom or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Picked up a 24-105 for a good price on a recent trip. Very nice lens, but I have a question: what does the "macro" it says on the focus indicator mean? How do I macro with it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
You don't (MFD is 1.5').
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
bolind posted:Picked up a 24-105 for a good price on a recent trip. Very nice lens, but I have a question: what does the "macro" it says on the focus indicator mean? How do I macro with it? A true macro lens will give you a 1:1 (or greater) ratio between the size of an object and how it is focused on your sensor. The macro designation on that lens means that you can get better magnification, I don't know how good without looking it up, but not as much as a true macro lens. It is nice to have, but basically marketing crap. In short, you can focus a little closer on smaller stuff at that focal length.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
I've got an old 70-300 lens, the minimum focus distance on it is something like 6.5 feet. Still has that damned macro icon on it, though. Canon should just stop doing that on their L lenses; anybody good enough to be using one knows better than to believe it anyway (or ought to).800peepee51doodoo posted: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 4, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:A true macro lens will give you a 1:1 (or greater) ratio between the size of an object and how it is focused on your sensor. The macro designation on that lens means that you can get better magnification, I don't know how good without looking it up, but not as much as a true macro lens. It is nice to have, but basically marketing crap. Yeah in marketing terms if the lens does around 1:4 magnification, they tend to stick the macro label on it because most of the people buying such lenses don't usually shoot small enough things that a real 1:1 macro lens is needed for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Is a 1Dmk2n actually worth anything now. I've still got mine but haven't used it for a couple of year (I've a 7d and 5dmk3) Looking to pass it on, but in todays world it's only 8 meg, and it is really hard to educate on why a 8meg pro camera is better than a 20 meg poo poo camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Looking to pass it on, but in todays world it's only 8 meg, and it is really hard to educate on why a 8meg pro camera is better than a 20 meg poo poo camera. They still go for about $500 on ebay if they are in good shape but it might be a hard sell on craigslist or somewhere else. I really wished I'd gotten mine before I had gone out and got a 40D when I was first getting into wildlife shooting. The AF on the 1dIIn is still better than on any other camera body short of the 5dIII or more current 1 series. Megapixels dont matter if the shot is out of focus. Its also got a high burst rate, weather sealing, integrated grip, awesome AF and the APS-H even at 8mp punches above its weight for IQ. The only real (major) downside is the poor high ISO performance. If you can find someone who wants to get started in sports or wildlife shooting but doesn't have much money it should be easy enough to sell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Is a 1Dmk2n actually worth anything now. If you end up selling it I might be interested in buying it off of you
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
I just bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC...for $210 brand new in-box from Amazon Japan. I didn't want to spend more money on stuff (and I'm honestly perfectly fine for photo gear at the moment too) but once I saw that yesterday I spent 20 minutes saying "holyshitholyshitholyshit" to myself and double checking to make sure there wasn't a catch. No catch, just almost 60% off list price for some odd reason. Time to go take more photos I guess! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:They still go for about $500 on ebay if they are in good shape but it might be a hard sell on craigslist or somewhere else. I really wished I'd gotten mine before I had gone out and got a 40D when I was first getting into wildlife shooting. The AF on the 1dIIn is still better than on any other camera body short of the 5dIII or more current 1 series. Megapixels dont matter if the shot is out of focus. Its also got a high burst rate, weather sealing, integrated grip, awesome AF and the APS-H even at 8mp punches above its weight for IQ. The only real (major) downside is the poor high ISO performance. If you can find someone who wants to get started in sports or wildlife shooting but doesn't have much money it should be easy enough to sell. I recently jumped from a mkIIn to a 7D and after hammering the 7D for a few weeks I have to say that aside from ISO performance and weight/bulk, the mkIIn is still clearly a superior piece of equipment. It's pretty cliche at this point but there really is something about the 1D cameras.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
6D arrived along with the 24-105L First full frame and L glass. Jesus stepping up from a 60D is phenomenal and the wireless iPhone trigger looks like it'll be pretty fun. How's the video on it? Now I should probably sell off my 550D. I've got a 3rd party grip, 2 3rd party batteries (1 official), 18-55 kit lens and a 55-250 zoom. Any idea how much I could get for it? I may pick up the Canon 50 1.4 so I could probably toss my nifty 50 into that mix.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:6D arrived along with the 24-105L The 50/1.4 is a great lens, so selling the 1.8 to give yourself both extra cash and extra motivation to pick it up is a good plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
50mm 1.4 is nice for the extra stops but the high ISO on your 6D is good enough that you can just rock a 40 pancake all day. Comical vignetting on your full frame is the only "downside".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
I'm looking for a little advice. I've got a T3i with the kit 18mm-55mm, Canon 50mm F/1.8, and Canon 75mm-300mm lens (which was $9 new, or else I wouldn't have bought it). I'm more on the budget/hobby side than the prosumer side of photography, if that isn't apparent. I do really like the 50mm for portraits and subject photos, but it's got a lot of reach on my crop frame, and I'd like something more wide-angle for times that I'm shooting close-in or shooting landscapes. I'm liking the look of the Sigma 20mm F/1.8. Is this a good lens? Or would I be better served with something more like a 28mm or 35mm? I'm also leaning towards prime lens - I'd rather have the speed than zoom capability to keep the cost on a new lens down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I'm looking for a little advice. I've got a T3i with the kit 18mm-55mm, Canon 50mm F/1.8, and Canon 75mm-300mm lens (which was $9 new, or else I wouldn't have bought it). I'm more on the budget/hobby side than the prosumer side of photography, if that isn't apparent. I've been using a 28mm 1.8 as my go to for years on crop and I love it. It's not the super duper sharpest in the corners, but it's also a lot smaller and cheaper than the 35 1.4s that are available. That 20 1.8 sounds like a chainsaw when it's focusing, and has weird colors and all over softness unless you stop it down. I was not impressed, sold it forward quickly. Very different lenses though - one is moderately wide on a crop camera, and one is about the same field of view as a 50mm on full frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I'm looking for a little advice. I've got a T3i with the kit 18mm-55mm, Canon 50mm F/1.8, and Canon 75mm-300mm lens (which was $9 new, or else I wouldn't have bought it). I'm more on the budget/hobby side than the prosumer side of photography, if that isn't apparent. I got a Sigma 30 1.4 and never looked back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:I got a Sigma 30 1.4 and never looked back. This, great lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Finally got a 5D3, and it's a dud. Error code 40, which seems to be some kind of battery/electrical problem. I'm using a battery that my 60D is perfectly happy with. Anyone else had this problem?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I'm looking for a little advice. I've got a T3i with the kit 18mm-55mm, Canon 50mm F/1.8, and Canon 75mm-300mm lens (which was $9 new, or else I wouldn't have bought it). I'm more on the budget/hobby side than the prosumer side of photography, if that isn't apparent. Look at the pancake 40 too -- compare 40 mm and 50 mm on your zoom lens. It's appreciably wider, the pancake focuses pretty quickly (hunts a little at night) and it's really well-made and light. It's also only about $150-200 depending on what deals you find.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
I just picked up the 40mm on amazon for 139 with prime. It's adorable on my SL1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Look at the pancake 40 too -- compare 40 mm and 50 mm on your zoom lens. It's appreciably wider, the pancake focuses pretty quickly (hunts a little at night) and it's really well-made and light. It's also only about $150-200 depending on what deals you find. The pancake 40 does look nice, but it seems like the difference between a 40 and a 50 is just a couple of physical steps back from my subject, and maybe some cropping of the image in post. A 20-30mm is a much bigger difference. I looked at some reviews of wide angle primes like that Sigma 20mm, and the chromatic aberration was pretty bad wide open, enough that I'd step the lens down substantially, at which point I could probably get similar results with my kit zoom lens. But the advice has been helpful - it would scratch my new toy itch to get a new wide-angle lens, but I think I'll play with what I already have more and see if I can't get the results I'm looking for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
CA and fringing can be fixed automatically in post with Lightroom 5, and I found that CA and purple fringing practically disappears for me at f/1.8 on my Sigma 30mm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
I did a horrible, irresponsible thing and bought something, but can't bother to dwell on it right now cause it arrived and I'm too busy shooting black cats in the dark with full autofocus. 6D + Sigma 50/1.4 =   How is this even possible?  Infinite Karma posted:But the advice has been helpful - it would scratch my new toy itch to get a new wide-angle lens, but I think I'll play with what I already have more and see if I can't get the results I'm looking for. The Sigma 10-20 is pretty cheap, built like a tank, and a very fun option if you're interested in really wide angles. That or replace the 18-55 and 50 with the Tamron 17-50/2.8, another drat fine lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
For all of you 7D shooters who own the Wi-Fi adapter (nobody) there's a new firmware out that resolves some corner case issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Oh man this wireless shooting through my iPhone on my 6D is pretty awesome to show off but I can't think of much use besides *~selfies~*
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Oh man this wireless shooting through my iPhone on my 6D is pretty awesome to show off but I can't think of much use besides *~selfies~* Those are quite important however. Also if you need to put a camera right back against a wall, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
Did you guys buy the $1400 6D deal on Black Friday? Because I did and got mine today. And yes, this thing is just amazing. The low light capability is crazy! Good bye T3i. Now to get rid of my crop only lenses and get some new glass!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Oh man this wireless shooting through my iPhone on my 6D is pretty awesome to show off but I can't think of much use besides *~selfies~* Ive used the eos remote app to shoot family portraits, for firing off the camera for night sky/landscape shots, macro shots, etc. Its pretty useful all around and unbelievably reliable. Its nice to not have to wonder where the remote shutter cord is (as long as you have your phone on you). Its also useful when I was on vacation and away from a computer to upload photos. I just fired up the ipad and transferred photos that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:Ive used the eos remote app to shoot family portraits, for firing off the camera for night sky/landscape shots, macro shots, etc. Its pretty useful all around and unbelievably reliable. Its nice to not have to wonder where the remote shutter cord is (as long as you have your phone on you). Ah that's good to know. I only just tried it out for a few minutes. Shame it has that horrible focus hunting as it's in Live Mode when using you phone as a shutter remote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:
When using the phone as a shutter remote can one use the lens' focus motor wirelessly (pseudo manual focus) and choose focus distance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
...I know you can touch the screen and tell it where to focus but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:...I know you can touch the screen and tell it where to focus but that's about it. Weird, that didn't seem to work for me. It just focused on the centre square thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Hmm I'll have to check when I get home later and see if I was telling the truth or not. I seem to remember you could, but I could just be thinking of the iphone itself. edit- I looked it up and yeah I was wrong. However on the phone remote shooting screen there is a slider button in the bottom right of your screen that lets you change aperture, iso, shutter speed as well as manual focus. it gives you 3 increments each of front or back focus. dont hate the playa fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Is the ef-s 55-250 is worth it for $125 for someone who is getting started with photography and wants something longer than the 18-55?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:Is the ef-s 55-250 is worth it for $125 for someone who is getting started with photography and wants something longer than the 18-55? I don't think you'll find anything better at that price point with IS and that kind of range. If you are just getting started, it should be perfectly fine and it compliments the kit lens quite nicely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Its perfectly good considering the next step up is the 70-300 IS for like $350.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
After a decade of service I'm retiring my EOS 300D and planning on treating myself to a shiny new 6D with 24-105mm kit lens. As I am Australian (WA to be precise), do any Goons know the best place/price I could go in order to acquire this new toy? E: I may as well get the thread's opinion on what I am going for and why. Many years ago as a bright eyed and bushy tailed young university student, I liked photography. Animals, landscapes, pets, people, they were all a lot of fun to take pictures of. My father owned an old SLR camera when I was younger (Minolta rings a bell, but I'm not 100%) and he's always loved photography too, although mainly for birds. So of course being young and a poor university student, I blew a whole bunch of money on an EOS 300D with EF-S 18-5mm f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens and a 70-300mm f/18 million telephoto. Long boot up times, woeful buffer, slow glass with CA everywhere and it just felt clumsy and plastic-y to use with focus shift and zoom creep, didn't matter because I loved that thing. My father asked me if I still had it, since he is going on safari to Africa to celebrate his 30th wedding anniversary and he wanted a chance to get some practise in and he wanted to take my old EOS 300D! He practised on birds using an EOS 300D with a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens. To his credit, he has been getting some amazing photos and it reignited my passion for photography, but he had all the same complaints (magnified!) that I did. To put myself through university I used to sell photography equipment and I remembered the 24-70mm F4L IS was considered the king of general use, while the 70-200 F4L IS was king of the midrange. Maybe a little short for safari shots, but nothing a 1.4x extender couldn't fix given that you spend safari in a vehicle. I would be happy to hear goon opinions though! Spending that sort of money on glass seemed insane to put on an EOS 300D, so I did a little bit of research and the 6D looked like the only camera that would last me another 10 years. I'm used to centre point focusing and recomposing because you pretty much had to do that with the 300D anyway. Limited buffer is still far more amazing that 300D. GPS inbuilt an absolutely huge plus. Weight and dimensions are similar, but actually properly constructed. ISO ratings that appear to have come from some sci-fi future where we all have hovercars. I simply can't see myself ever needing another camera for a decade (Ok, maybe more than 11 AF zones, but I've been using 7 for so long I won't miss what I never had) with the 6D, especially since the kit lens is an amazing price and while I have heard the 24-105mm F4L IS isn't as sharp as the 24-70mm F4L IS, I suspect I probably won't ever be good enough to be picking faults with that equipment outside of a lab. So goons, tell me why I'm an idiot and shouldn't get a 6D, 24-105mm F4L IS and 70-200mm F4L IS. shalcar fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 09:26
|
|
