|
shalcar posted: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. Going full frame from a Rebel is quite nice. I remember going from 300D to the 30D to a 5D and each step was like a revolution in features, especially when needing wide shots with the 5D. I do remember getting great photos through the 300D; it had it's own kind of magic, especially when learning the basics of photography and working with it's limitations. It's perfect for learning because it's so slow to write from buffer. I have both of those lenses (minus IS in the 70-200) and they've been great so this all sounds good to me. The 200mm + 1.4 or 2x tele converter still might feel short on Safari as sometimes the 200mm on my 30D feels short when shooting animals at distance. Your dad could take the 300D too just to have the option of switching to a crop body with teleconverter if he finds the need for that little bit of extra reach (and has enough light to burn). Teleconverters do mess with autofocus speed/accuracy if I'm remembering correctly? Something to consider when shooting moving animals at distance. mrlego fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Dec 12, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
mrlego posted:
You lose an effective stop with a 1.4, and 2 stops with a 2, so autofocus can slow down. With an f/4 and a 1.4 you're going to f/5.6 which is still fine for any Canon body to AF within spec, so it won't be drastically reduced. The 1X bodies (and I think the 5d3 now with the firmware update) are rated for f/8 on the center point. Some teleconverters either won't report the change in effective aperture and distance, or will report it but somehow still hide themselves (kenko pro's do this) and the camera will still try to AF, but it becomes hit or miss then. Once it locks it can be decent at tracking though - my 70D and 100-400 do ok with both of the kenko pros if there is very good light. Oddly, better on the outer points than the center, and others online seem to report the same thing. Not sure how it will do on the 6d's system - since the center point is supposed to be very sensitive in garbage light, it might be ok. One thing to note, is that if you're using the kenko pros (distance/aperture reporting, but not "hey i'm a TC" reporting) on an AFMA capable body, you will have to turn off AFMA for the attached lens or it will lock the camera up. (assuming you had it on in the first place) Using the canon TC's and going over f/5.6 it will just lock out AF unless you use live view, in which case you're only going to be snapping pictures of dead animals. Edit: For comedy, try stacking 3x , 2x, 1.4x on a 400mm on crop body and try composing a picture with the .4 degree angle of view. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
To note if you're doing bird/wildlife photography a crop sensor essentially gets you 1.6x extra reach compared to a full frame (ie. a 200mm lens on a 6D is 200mm but on a crop sensor, say 60D, it's effectively 320mm on a 6D).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
I have a tamron 2x teleconverter along with the tamron 70-300 vc on my 6d. The pictures at 600mm aren't that great but it does seem to focus okay at f8. At f11 it's hit focus a few times but most of the time it just racks back and forth. I'm sure there is a way mathematically to figure it out but there must be a breaking point of when it's better to use a crop for the 1.6 versus a full frame and then manually cropping the shot in post for long distance shots. I would guess in most cases the crop would win because it would have more pixels crammed into it's picture versus the amount you would lose by cropping a full frame to match. dont hate the playa fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
The crop sensor is mathematically no better than a full-frame if you're going for reach. The "extra" reach is because the sensor only captures the center 60% of the image, which is exactly the same as if you cropped that percentage of pixels from the center of a full-frame. A full-frame sensor has the same pixel density as a crop-frame, it's just a bigger area being exposed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The crop sensor is mathematically no better than a full-frame if you're going for reach. The "extra" reach is because the sensor only captures the center 60% of the image, which is exactly the same as if you cropped that percentage of pixels from the center of a full-frame. A full-frame sensor has the same pixel density as a crop-frame, it's just a bigger area being exposed. Yeah, comparing a FF shot with an equivalent crop sensor focal length and your FF will look better. Still, whether you want to drop an extra grand at least to bump up to full frame, especially if you're shooting sports/wildlife, I'd say it's something to consider. Plus the 60D has dropped in price a hell of a lot and is an excellent camera. doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The crop sensor is mathematically no better than a full-frame if you're going for reach. The "extra" reach is because the sensor only captures the center 60% of the image, which is exactly the same as if you cropped that percentage of pixels from the center of a full-frame. A full-frame sensor has the same pixel density as a crop-frame, it's just a bigger area being exposed. I though the pixel densities were lower on FF. By my calculations the 70D has ~48K pixels/mm2, and the 5D3 has about ~26K.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The crop sensor is mathematically no better than a full-frame if you're going for reach. The "extra" reach is because the sensor only captures the center 60% of the image, which is exactly the same as if you cropped that percentage of pixels from the center of a full-frame. A full-frame sensor has the same pixel density as a crop-frame, it's just a bigger area being exposed. Depends on the resolution of the sensors / pixel density Canon pixel sizes of current bodies: 18MP APS-C canon is 4.3micrometer (7d/60d/t5i/t4i/etc) 20MP APS-C canon is 4.1micrometer (70d) 20MP FF canon is 6.54micrometer (6D) 22MP FF canon is 6.25micrometer (5dm3) 18MP FF canon is 6.9micrometer (1dx) So you do get more resolution from the 18/20MP APS-C than you do by cropping the fullframe to the equivalent size, although if you're shooting above 1600 ISO the detail gains from the FF sensor not having to smush everything likely makes up for the difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
EPICAC posted:I though the pixel densities were lower on FF. By my calculations the 70D has ~48K pixels/mm2, and the 5D3 has about ~26K. I'm pretty much out of my element as to the technical aspects of FF to crop but I was under the impression that crops and FF are essentially the same but the crops are physically smaller (thus cheaper). So the density is the same but the surface area is smaller, so less light can hit the crop resulting in the FF producing the superior image (especially in low-light). Am I embarrassingly off base?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:I'm pretty much out of my element as to the technical aspects of FF to crop but I was under the impression that crops and FF are essentially the same but the crops are physically smaller (thus cheaper). So the density is the same but the surface area is smaller, so less light can hit the crop resulting in the FF producing the superior image (especially in low-light). Pretty sure the pixels are actually larger on a FF sensor, making them more sensitive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
EPICAC posted:I though the pixel densities were lower on FF. By my calculations the 70D has ~48K pixels/mm2, and the 5D3 has about ~26K. doctor 7 posted:I'm pretty much out of my element as to the technical aspects of FF to crop but I was under the impression that crops and FF are essentially the same but the crops are physically smaller (thus cheaper). So the density is the same but the surface area is smaller, so less light can hit the crop resulting in the FF producing the superior image (especially in low-light). The density of a crop can be different (and frequently are) between crop and full frame. This is pretty good reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/sensor-size-matters-part-1 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/02/sensor-size-matters-part-2 BetterLekNextTime posted:Pretty sure the pixels are actually larger on a FF sensor, making them more sensitive. Yes. Think of Full Frame sensors containing nice big glasses to collect water. Crop sensors use test tubes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The crop sensor is mathematically no better than a full-frame if you're going for reach. The "extra" reach is because the sensor only captures the center 60% of the image, which is exactly the same as if you cropped that percentage of pixels from the center of a full-frame. A full-frame sensor has the same pixel density as a crop-frame, it's just a bigger area being exposed. Like the other guys said, there's a difference in pixel pitch between a full frame and a crop, generally. Usually the reason that someone would want a 7D over, say, a 5DII for birds/wildlife is that the crop has a lot more pixels/mm which, in theory, will give a higher level of detail over a smaller section of the frame. More pixels on subject, better feather detail. In practice, there's barely a difference because noise becomes an issue really quickly and a full frame will handle noise much better, even cropped down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted: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? From last page- don't remember if anyone replied to this but just saw this on CanonRumors. Apparently the new firmware in the 5D3 checks for authentic Canon batts, nominally to avoid "counterfit" batteries but apparently affecting other 3rd party replacement batteries as well. e: fixed link BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
There was something posted here (or somewhere in The Dorkroom anyway) a while back about how like FF cameras from years ago are technically better than most modern crop sensors, I think it was in terms of sharpness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:There was something posted here (or somewhere in The Dorkroom anyway) a while back about how like FF cameras from years ago are technically better than most modern crop sensors, I think it was in terms of sharpness. Full frame sensors are better with noise just because they are physically larger. A 5D classic will tend to be better in that regard than a more modern crop sensor. Of course, modern sensors will have other advantages its just that the technology available can only go so far to mitigate the physical differences in sensor size when it comes to noise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:From last page- don't remember if anyone replied to this but just saw this on CanonRumors. Apparently the new firmware in the 5D3 checks for authentic Canon batts, nominally to avoid "counterfit" batteries but apparently affecting other 3rd party replacement batteries as well. That's really lame of Canon. Both of the batteries I tried are authentic Canons, including one that came in the same box as the camera, so I'm sure that's not the issue here though. Sent the camera out for repair today (and of course booked a video gig this weekend  ). If it's not back in time for a wedding I'm working in early January, I'll really be pissed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:From last page- don't remember if anyone replied to this but just saw this on CanonRumors. Apparently the new firmware in the 5D3 checks for authentic Canon batts, nominally to avoid "counterfit" batteries but apparently affecting other 3rd party replacement batteries as well. (your link goes to a New Reply). http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/eos-5d-mark-iii-third-party-batteries/ I read something on petapixel about Nikon doing the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
whoops, sorry- fixed that up above.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:There was something posted here (or somewhere in The Dorkroom anyway) a while back about how like FF cameras from years ago are technically better than most modern crop sensors, I think it was in terms of sharpness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
geeves posted:(your link goes to a New Reply). Just in case anyone glossed over this: Canon and Nikon are actively making your third party batteries nonfunctional in some of their bodies. My wallet is furiously shaking its fist 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:Just in case anyone glossed over this: Canon and Nikon are actively making your third party batteries nonfunctional in some of their bodies. My wallet is furiously shaking its fist Maybe. There's some evidence that it's a communication error with circuity in some 3rd party batteries that aren't fully compliant with the protocol. When the battery maker fixed the chip in their battery, the problems went away. It's reasonable to fault Canon for not issuing a new firmware to fix compatibility with the wayward batteries but at the rate they release firmware it doesn't surprise me too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:Just in case anyone glossed over this: Canon and Nikon are actively making your third party batteries nonfunctional in some of their bodies. My wallet is furiously shaking its fist That's pretty much why they always tell you not to get 3rd party lenses or accessories - because they can't guarantee they will work after firmware updates. It's the risk we take when we go 3rd party. I don't think Canon gives a drat and from what I'm reading out there, they're not going to correct this. That said, seems like some 3rd party battery manufacturers already have batteries that work with the new firmware so you might have to wait and see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
It's 3rd party and i can cry if i want to you would cry too if canikon hosed you
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:It's 3rd party and i can cry if i want to I'm not telling you not to cry, I'm just telling you the probable solution might to buy new 3rd party batteries because the old ones will likely never work in the camera again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:That's really lame of Canon. Both of the batteries I tried are authentic Canons, including one that came in the same box as the camera, so I'm sure that's not the issue here though. Sent the camera out for repair today (and of course booked a video gig this weekend If you're a working photographer and have enough equipment points for CPS, get CPS. Don't wait in line like a scrub. (Also: gently caress the points system. My gear's all been superseded by updated versions and now I'm stuck at Silver.  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
EOS M Question: I've now got an EF digiscoping adapter that I'd like to use with my M. So the set-up is: Digiscoping adapter > Canon EF/EFS - Eos M adapter > Eos M Body. The digiscoping adapter is something that mechanically positions the camera over the scope eyepiece. It locks into the EF>M adapter, but doesn't look like it touches the contacts. The image looks OK on the screen, but I can't get get the camera to take a picture, presumably because there's no lens attached. I don't have any other old fully manual lenses to play around with. Anyone know how to over-ride and get the shutter to engage? Thanks. e: nm- finally found the "release shutter without lens" option under one of the custom functions. BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:If you're a working photographer and have enough equipment points for CPS, get CPS. Don't wait in line like a scrub. Aw, 1 point shy of gold. Yeah, they're clearly loving with you with the points. None of the crop bodies are worth anything, but a bunch of EF-S lenses are?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:That's pretty much why they always tell you not to get 3rd party lenses or accessories - because they can't guarantee they will work after firmware updates. It's the risk we take when we go 3rd party. I don't think Canon gives a drat and from what I'm reading out there, they're not going to correct this. That said, seems like some 3rd party battery manufacturers already have batteries that work with the new firmware so you might have to wait and see. I don't think there is a legitimate concern about buying 3rd party lenses. I've never heard of Canon trying to block lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't think there is a legitimate concern about buying 3rd party lenses. I've never heard of Canon trying to block lenses. There have been some incidents in which Canon deliberately shut off lens codes for obsolete Canon lenses that they knew Sigma was using, because Sigma reverse-engineers the protocol instead of paying licensing fees. Sometimes the lenses can be rechipped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Even though it hasn't been a problem for like 15 years that concern is real enough for people that Sigma made a USB docking station for their new lens lineup so you can (hopefully) update the firmware to be compatible if Canon ever changes their protocols.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Like the other guys said, there's a difference in pixel pitch between a full frame and a crop, generally. Usually the reason that someone would want a 7D over, say, a 5DII for birds/wildlife is that the crop has a lot more pixels/mm which, in theory, will give a higher level of detail over a smaller section of the frame. More pixels on subject, better feather detail. In practice, there's barely a difference because noise becomes an issue really quickly and a full frame will handle noise much better, even cropped down. I specifically tested this with a rented 5DIII and my 7D. I shoot birds for fun using a 100-400 mm lens. I didn't want to spend more on a longer lens, but I did want the FF camera for other non-bird shooting. I set up on a tripod and shot birds on my bird feeder from the same distance, at the same focal length and aperture, using both the 5DIII and 7D. When I blow up the 5DIII center of the frame to match the subject-size of the 7D image the apparent sharpness is the same. Put another way, the 5DIII cropped image had less pixels than the full 7D image, but those FF pixels were sharper, and could support cropping better. I was satisfied that by switching from my 7D to a 5DIII I wouldn't be giving up anything noticeable in my bird shooting. This is not to contest the fact that if I had been able to reframe the image so that the bird filled the frame on the FF camera, it would look better than on the crop. But for some types of shooting you can't reframe the image (1:1 macro where you can't get more than 1:1, and bird photography where you can't get closer without buying $6k in glass).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Anyone here ever use the Canon 400mm f/5.6L? I just discovered that if I'm lucky I could score one for $1000. I want to make sure it's worth the purchase. It would be a specialty lens that I would only use for sports and birds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Anyone here ever use the Canon 400mm f/5.6L? I just discovered that if I'm lucky I could score one for $1000. I want to make sure it's worth the purchase. It would be a specialty lens that I would only use for sports and birds. Clayton Bigsby had one for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Clayton Bigsby had one for a while. My spidey senses tingled, summoning me here.  The 400 is a superb lens, with its only fault being that it doesn't have IS. That said, depending on what you shoot and how IS may not have much of an impact. For birds in flight you generally will find yourself at shutter speeds of 1/1000 and faster, at which point IS is not only no help but might indeed make things worse. For slower shutter speeds you have to either find some support (a monopod works wonders), and/or practice a lot. I was able to get decent results handholding at 1/250 on a regular basis and had a passable hit ratio even with the 1.4x extender (560mm) at speeds as low as 1/160. For the money it's damned hard to beat. Super sharp wide open with excellent autofocus performance. Light weight. Have a 500/4 IS now and while I appreciate the extra stop and the stabilizer, the 400 certainly did not lag behind for in flight shooting and was a fair bit easier to handle!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I set up on a tripod and shot birds on my bird feeder from the same distance, at the same focal length and aperture, using both the 5DIII and 7D. When I blow up the 5DIII center of the frame to match the subject-size of the 7D image the apparent sharpness is the same. Put another way, the 5DIII cropped image had less pixels than the full 7D image, but those FF pixels were sharper, and could support cropping better. I was satisfied that by switching from my 7D to a 5DIII I wouldn't be giving up anything noticeable in my bird shooting. 36MP), it's more prone to showing issues with the lens design. The lens in question probably doesn't resolve enough to generate maximum sharpness on the 7D, but well enough for the 5D3, getting you the results you've had.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Anyone here ever use the Canon 400mm f/5.6L? I just discovered that if I'm lucky I could score one for $1000. I want to make sure it's worth the purchase. It would be a specialty lens that I would only use for sports and birds. Yeah, I used one for quite a while. Its pretty great. Super sharp and very lightweight. I'm actually a little bummed I sold mine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Welp, off to e-bay to see what I can score. I appreciate the input. Right now I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and a Canon 2x Extender I (I know). The 400 f/5.6L will get me the same focal length and aperture, but I bet it will be wonders sharper. I can even sell the 2x extender to help pay for it. Though, I wonder what 800mm looks like haha. rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
If you can't afford even a second-hand 500/600/800 don't ever try one. They're like crack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:If you can't afford even a second-hand 500/600/800 don't ever try one. They're like crack. Yeah. A friend of mine just got a 500 and let me use it for a bit. So nice. I've been (slowly) saving up for a 500/600 and after using his I've been racking my brain for ideas that will somehow magically make $6000 materialize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
I can't afford anything larger than that 400. But I've tried a Nikon 600mm f/2.8 and some sort of 1000-2000mm lens that I can't seem to find the name for but here's a picture of my buddy using it. Am I doomed? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 17:00
|
|