|
 oh okay, gotcha.I suppose the EVF wouldn't be any use while the mirror is down, hence it only works in video mode and also I'm assuming live view.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
That LiveView mode would be essentially the EVF mode. If that camera is becoming real, or at least one coming with hybrid VF, I hope LV/EVF photo mode is a thing. Of course, knowing Canon, there's probably a drawback. As in the inability to keep LCD turned off, if you're not looking through the VF, as such decimating the battery and heating up the sensor, causing more noise. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
If anyone can charge extra Canon can, how small off a feature it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
They have the luxury of taking their time with any EVF stuff if they want because of how many people are locked into their system/how good it is as far as OVFs go. My only real hope is that DR improves on the newest Canon sensors, and obviously a 36 MP Canon 5D would be neat too. Sony will take a while to catch up in terms of a system that can match, and everything can change in 2 years regarding Canon's camera philosophy. I think that all the excitement for the A7 will fade a bit once everyone realizes it's not good for wide angle lenses which kinda futzes the whole point of having a light weight small system to replace a Leica body, though obviously it's great for manual glass & will have a better Zeiss lens set soon enough. It's very much the first version of a camera. Point is that Canon, R&D wise, is probably way ahead of Sony in terms of stuff like colour science and whatnot. They'll be able implement a good enough EVF quickly on every level of their camera line, but they won't do it unless they think they're actually losing customers over it in the lower price ranges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Sony doesn't need to compete head-to-head as long as Nikon is willing to put their sensors in their cameras; I'm assuming those orders will keep Sony R&D going for a while. At the same time, Canon already has an established system for video/cinema and as long as people look to them as the first choice, they have little reason to really push the tech. And as much as I like to bitch, the C300 is a real solid camera and when the budgets don't permit using it, a hacked 5Dmk3 is a great alternative. The only thing I wish is for someone to try to crack Nikon's firmware because getting raw video out of a D800 would give me everything I really need out of a DSLR. And you're right, Sony color science is way behind Canon and Nikon. Hell, Blackmagic Design does a lot better job compared to Sony
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
The same rumors said that it's not going to replace any of the existing lines. Maybe this will be the fabled EOS 3D? In that case, going by the numbering scheme, it'll probably be more expensive than the 5D. As far as I know, there's two recent Canon patents that may be relevant to such a new camera. One is dual amplification per photosite, giving you the effect of dual ISO, i.e. bigger dynamic range, without that alternating scanline bullshit that's currently hacked into Magic Lantern. Another patent was about RGB capture per photosite, which may be another possibility, considering a relevant Foveon patent blocking this is about to expire (maybe even has already).
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The same rumors said that it's not going to replace any of the existing lines. Maybe this will be the fabled EOS 3D? In that case, going by the numbering scheme, it'll probably be more expensive than the 5D. Well one relevant complaint that professionals have made about Canon is the lack of a high MP studio camera, so they've probably come up with the sensor for it finally. I wonder how much they'll really innovate with it, past the higher resolution. Maybe they'll come out with some crazy lenses for it too, but I wonder if they'll actually go Medium Format. Most MF systems so far aren't great in low light, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
But you don't need low light in a studio?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:Well one relevant complaint that professionals have made about Canon is the lack of a high MP studio camera, so they've probably come up with the sensor for it finally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The D800 is only out for a little more than 1.5 years, what else beyond 20-24MP on a 35mm sensor was there before? Well, a high MP 1D series camera with the same build quality but built for MPs. 1st AD posted:But you don't need low light in a studio? Yeah I guess, just interesting to see if they can push the envelope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
So I'm currently shooting with a 7D and have only the EF-S 17-55mm and the EF 50mm f/1.4. I want something that shoots a bit wider, and the EF-S 10-20mm seems like it is a great lens and would fit the bill. It is about $530 on Amazon at the moment, but I am wondering if anyone thinks this will get any cheaper to help me stretch my budget a bit further.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
That's one of the lowest prices I've ever seen for that lens, so no, it probably won't get any cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Every now and then Canon releases a batch of refurb lenses through their online store. I think the last time they did the 10-22 was around $450 but they vaporized instantly. KEH has EX-quality used units for $430 right now, it'll be basically indistinguishable from new (their grading is very conservative) and all their used gear comes with a 6-month warranty that I have used successfully in the past. Their site is making GBS threads a major brick today though, more than usual even. There's also a couple very well respected third-party wide-zooms, but I don't know enough to tell you which are good and which are bad. I think the 12-24 was one of the better ones, but I'm not really sure. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Every now and then Canon releases a batch of refurb lenses through their online store. I think the last time they did the 10-22 was around $450 but they vaporized instantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:
Yeah, KEH is having a pretty solid (for them) discount on a lot of stuff, so their website is a dog. I think if there is ever more than like, 15 people browsing at once the hamsters in back get overloaded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:Most MF systems so far aren't great in low light, though. Phase One's IQ and IQ2 backs would like a word with you.  Hasselblad, on the other hand... Yeah, they seem to have decided bodies are more important than sensors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's also a couple very well respected third-party wide-zooms, but I don't know enough to tell you which are good and which are bad. I think the 12-24 was one of the better ones, but I'm not really sure. For crop cameras, the Sigma 8-16 is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:OH GOD I BOUGHT IT WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, thanks for ensuring the 400/5.6L Mk II IS will be released next week. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/ef-400mm-f5-6l-is-on-the-way You bastard. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:28
|
|
. It was sitting there, right on ebay. It was mocking me. "Newly Listed!", it said. "Free Shipping," it said. Opening it sealed the deal. "This item is getting 8 views per hour". I knew it wouldn't last long. BUY. $950. What have I done? I'm going to have to sell my 40D and the 2X extender to begin to afford it. I am now the owner of a Canon 400mm f5.6L telephoto.
|
Bubbacub posted:For crop cameras, the Sigma 8-16 is amazing. Seconding this. 8 vs 10mm may not sound like a lot, but on the wide end ever mm makes a huge difference .
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
The one downside to keep in mind on that lens is you can't put filters on the front.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Can I have some advice? What are the difference(s) (other than price) between the 100D, 600D and 700D explained in simple terms? (Canon's naming convention has given me a headache - I can see why the 600D and 700D are current but I'm less clear on why the 100D (surely that one should be pretty old?) is still sold) And are those differences relevant to someone looking to buy their first DSLR? The general gear thread seemed down on the 700D. But some review sites have said that it's a solid upgrade to the 600D. I'm a bit confused. I should add that I've settled on canon because my girlfriend has a canon and it makes sense for us to share lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
I'll give it a shot; I own a 600D and would choose it again over both the 700D and 100D for the price/benefit ratio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Amok posted:I'll give it a shot; I own a 600D and would choose it again over both the 700D and 100D for the price/benefit ratio. Thank you; this is all very useful. I can see why the small size of the 100D would be a selling point - but I suppose if you're committed to carrying around a DSLR and a few lenses then it's going to be chunky whatever you do. Looking at it again, it seems as though the 60D is about the same price as the 100D/700D. This camera seems to be a step-up, but a generation-back! Choosing a DSLR is difficult. I suspect that, for a beginner, these are all decent cameras and whichever I get will be fine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 23:35
|
|
Crivens posted:Looking at it again, it seems as though the 60D is about the same price as the 100D/700D. This camera seems to be a step-up, but a generation-back! Choosing a DSLR is difficult. It's hard to explain the real benefit of the xxD cameras over the rebels without actually holding one in your hands, because even though the technical specifications may not be hugely divorced from one another, the gulf in ergonomics and comfort is huge and the improvement of having an actual prism rather than a pentamirror cannot be ignored. If you have the money for it there's basically no reason to buy a late-model rebel when there's a 40, 50, or 60D in your price range.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Crivens posted:I suspect that, for a beginner, these are all decent cameras and whichever I get will be fine? I think this is a pretty good attitude. Get what is in your budget and use it; if you grow out of any of those, you'll know what features you want and can narrow down your next upgrade accordingly. For a beginner, just get something, shoot with it, and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
What does everyone recommend in terms of a super wide for a T3i? I finally have enough to money saved to spend $0-900 on a wide lens, so I am looking for a non-fisheye that goes quite wide (maybe 10mm) or a super wide pancake lens (again, somewhere around 10mm would be great but I could go lower.) I think I've heard good things about the Sigma 10mm, but what else is there? Edit: I'd like a f-stop of 3.5, if not lower. timeandtide fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:What does everyone recommend in terms of a super wide for a T3i? I finally have enough to money saved to spend $0-900 on a wide lens, so I am looking for a non-fisheye that goes quite wide (maybe 10mm) or a super wide pancake lens (again, somewhere around 10mm would be great but I could go lower.) I think I've heard good things about the Sigma 10mm, but what else is there? First off why do you need f.3.5 or lower on the lens you are looking for? You really don't need more then f4 really with an ultra wide as you can handhold at really low shutter speeds, stupid low if you just brace yourself on something. With the way ultra wides work there isn't much opportunity to get great separation from background/other creative aspects with a low aperture with their really big dof at all apertures. The pancake thing is doable if you switch systems but I don't think Canon has one in its system that I can recall. I have a canon 10-22 and I think it's low aperture is 3.5 and 4.5 on the wide end. It's a work horse and was basically attached to my 7d while in Rome, and I had a 40 STM for a bit of reach. I really liked that combo. Sigma has an awesome 8-16 but it's at f4.5 at its widest. That said I would have used that instead of my 10-22 in a heartbeat. Tonkia has a f2.8 ultra wide that's held in good regard but I don't recall if many people around here have used that one. Here's a picture shot at a low shutter speed with a railing for a brace with my 10-22 7d combo  _MG_6736.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
For Christmas, my lovely wife bought me a 6D. Or, more accurately, let me buy a 6D. Which sounds awesome, until you add the part where she 'let' me buy it because I backed my car over my camera bag (that she left behind it) and destroyed my 7D + 17-55 + 50/1.4 + 580EX (along with my Contax 645, Fuji GF670, Fuji x100, Instax wide, mac air, nexus 7 and kindle). Anyways, I've done a bit of research and have a vague roadmap to getting back to the beginning... but if anyone has any suggestions for better alternatives, I'd love to hear them. I mainly shoot people, either in portraits or ~*aRtS*~ but also travel a fair bit (or did... a 1 month old might throw a wrench in that wheel) so all the usual landscapey/cityscapey stuff you do while bumming around overseas. The only serviceable EF mount lens I currently own is now an 85/1.8. And an old non-USM 100/2.8 macro. Stuff I need: - normal zoom: Tamron 24-70/2.8 seems to be 95% of the performance of the Canon but with IS and less than half the price. Does anyone have one of these? The last Tamron lens I owned was terribad and fell apart, so I'm wary of spending $900 on one. - normal prime: Sigma 50/1.4 seems to trounce most of the others, but there must be decent alternatives. - Some kind of flash that isn't a $600 Canon one. I dunno about this. I only use it for bouncing when out and about, or as a quick and dirty fill. I have Quadras for when I need big boy lights, so I guess I just want something that has a decent amount of power, easy manual controls and an optical slave? - a battery grip... are the generic ones okay? the canon is stupidly overpriced, but he 6D feels weirdly small and awkward in my hands so I think I need something. Stuff I'd like to replace sometime in future when I'm not dead broke: - wideish prime: Sigma 35/1.4 ART looks to have it all over the Canon 35L, but the 35/2 has IS which I guess would be nice - again, if anyone has one of these, some feedback would be great. But do people actually use this length on FF that much? I did all the time on crop, but I guess that's where the 50mm fits in now. Can't say I ever really felt like I needed a 22mm or whatever. - a wide zoom: Canon 16-35 seems to be the only real option, but it's really drat expensive. I only ever used my 10-22 when I was overseas, and that won't be for at least a year at this stage. - a tele prime or zoom: 135L or some flavour of 70-200, I guess. I really liked the 85mm length on aps-c.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
The Sigma 35/1.4 is a stellar lens and works well on FF. I prefer it over 50mm, because often enough, there isn't enough room behind my back to step back and frame things properly. Yet, it still gives you enough bokeh. As far as IS goes, depends on whether you want to shoot in relatively dark. The 6D as a FF has more than a stop better ISO performance than your old 7D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Crivens posted:Looking at it again, it seems as though the 60D is about the same price as the 100D/700D. This camera seems to be a step-up, but a generation-back! Choosing a DSLR is difficult. First: your last point is spot-on. You'll be fine with any of those options (though I suspect the 100D might be hard to hold for some since it's so tiny). They'll all take pictures and take them well and if you like photography you can learn more and in a couple years move to something that suits your goals and what you've learned. That said: save the money and find a 40D, 50D or new cheap 60D instead. They are bigger cameras with better ergonomics that will help as you become a better photographer. And that raising of the ceiling comes at the same price (or cheaper) as the worse option? It doesn't always make sense to jump up to higher-quality gear but I think it does in this case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
I'm glad there is some wide angle chat going on, because I just went on a trip to the Grand Canyon which really showed me how much I need one. The problem is there are a lot of choices and I'm not sure which to get. This would be almost certainly for landscapes with maybe the occasional cityscape. I have a Canon 40D and my widest lens is my mediocre 28-135mm. I'm torn between the Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm and now the Sigma 8-16mm! I kind of do want to be able to use filters; right now I live in the desert and being able to use a polarizing filter can make a huge difference for some shots. Any suggestions on how to narrow down the choices? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
I think the Canon 10-22mm is the sharpest lens of the bunch, but the Sigma is probably the best value. All take 77mm filters IIRC. I have the Canon and it's pretty loving sharp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I think the Canon 10-22mm is the sharpest lens of the bunch, but the Sigma is probably the best value. All take 77mm filters IIRC. I have the Canon and it's pretty loving sharp. I don't think the Sigma 8-16mm takes filters but would love to hear more about the differences. Definitely deliberating between this and Canon's 10-22mm which is a stop faster and about $100 cheaper, but I have the 17-55mm and kind of like that the 8-16mm doesn't overlap at all. Hmmm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
The Sigma 10-20 takes filters, which is what Jadeilyn was considering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Tenderloin posted:I don't think the Sigma 8-16mm takes filters but would love to hear more about the differences. Definitely deliberating between this and Canon's 10-22mm which is a stop faster and about $100 cheaper, but I have the 17-55mm and kind of like that the 8-16mm doesn't overlap at all. Hmmm. Like Ferris Bueller said, aperture is almost meaningless when it comes to ultra wides. Depth of Field is going to be very large and there is nothing you can do about it. 1 stop will make no difference. The other part of a fast lens is letting more light in for faster shutter speeds. Once again, it's not an issue since you can handhold at very low shutter speeds with an ultra wide (like 1/8th shouldn't be too hard). The last thing you have is "freezing motion in poor lighting conditions." With ultra wides, I find that things move generally take up a small part of the frame. Small enough that I don't care if they're tack sharp. In fact most of the time, I find I prefer a little motion blur. I've been shooting with the Sigma 8-16 since it was first released and haven't ever cared about freezing motion on it. As for the filter thing, I don't see it as a crippling problem. I don't use filters often but I figure if I do, I can just use my 17-50 which is pretty wide on it's own. If anyone wants I can post some 8-16 shots. It's really a top notch lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Like Ferris Bueller said, aperture is almost meaningless when it comes to ultra wides. Depth of Field is going to be very large and there is nothing you can do about it. 1 stop will make no difference. The other part of a fast lens is letting more light in for faster shutter speeds. Once again, it's not an issue since you can handhold at very low shutter speeds with an ultra wide (like 1/8th shouldn't be too hard). The last thing you have is "freezing motion in poor lighting conditions." With ultra wides, I find that things move generally take up a small part of the frame. Small enough that I don't care if they're tack sharp. In fact most of the time, I find I prefer a little motion blur. I've been shooting with the Sigma 8-16 since it was first released and haven't ever cared about freezing motion on it. That would be awesome. There's only one camera shop here and it primarily deals with used equipment. They didn't have any of the wide angles to try out so I'm trying to figure out other ways to make my decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Like Ferris Bueller said, aperture is almost meaningless when it comes to ultra wides. Depth of Field is going to be very large and there is nothing you can do about it. 1 stop will make no difference. A fast UWA is an excellent travel companion precisely because you don't have to worry about DoF when shooting wide open. The extra stop or two you get out of the Tonika 11-16/2.8 comes in pretty useful when handholding indoors in some dimly lit cathedral or whatever. That said, I'm hella jealous of your 8-16. That thing is badass. I'd easily take it over the 10-22, which I own and loved (before I got the 11-16). My list would go something like - Sigma (because wide angles should be god drat wide) - Tonika (speed, IQ) - Canon (excellent allrounder) - Sigma (great budget choice) BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:A fast UWA is an excellent travel companion precisely because you don't have to worry about DoF when shooting wide open. The extra stop or two you get out of the Tonika 11-16/2.8 comes in pretty useful when handholding indoors in some dimly lit cathedral or whatever. Just to be clear, the top Sigma is the 8-16mm and the bottom one is the 10-20mm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Jadeilyn posted:Just to be clear, the top Sigma is the 8-16mm and the bottom one is the 10-20mm? sorry, yeah. in reality, you can't go wrong with any of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Here ya go, some shots from the 8-16 Chichen Itza by Ryan-Tamm, on Flickr  Magnolia Plantation by Ryan-Tamm, on Flickr  Charleston by Ryan-Tamm, on Flickr  Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge by Ryan-Tamm, on Flickr Edit: It's a really fun and challenging lens to use. It's challenging in that the view from an UWA is very different from your normal vision. I still feel like I need to go out and shoot nothing but the 8=16 for a few days. Haggins fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 02:47
|
|