|
Casu Marzu posted:Where do you live that they have 13 or more months in a year? Ferris Bueller posted:I'm guessing they mean tax return. The phenomenon where people let the US government hold onto to their money for a year then treat it like they're getting a bonus.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Company bonus, every year we get another month worth of pay. Of course, it's taxed to boot, but still. We also do have a 14th, if that blows your mind, but it's "just" 40 hours of pay. That's cool with the bonus. I get sick of it over here when supposedly intelligent people talk of their tax return like its pennies from heaven, or in this case Uncle Sam, hence the slightly snarky reply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
I am thinking of buying a used 5dc. I think I will be fine for most uses, but I do worry about keeping up with moving kids. If I have a moving subject am I going to feel like bludgeoning myself with the camera or is the AF generally useable? My main reason for heavily considering a 5dc is because I am into mirrorless but want a "normal" full frame dslr for professional use since I am getting more paid gigs and I am really feeling the limitations of the NEX line (but will love my x100 forever). Since everything I have is legacy lenses, mirrorless gear etc. I don't have anything invested in Nikon or Canon so I would be starting from scratch. With a tax refund coming up, the timing is perfect. Knowing that glass is ultimately where money should be spent, the 5dc would definitely leave me with the most money left over but I guess I am worried about buying a camera from 2005. Also, what lenses would you recommend if you were starting from scratch and going to spend a couple grand or so on lenses? I have been reading constantly for days - my eyes are going to fall out - there are so many differing opinions on the same lenses. The canon 24-105L looks pretty nice on paper but I would love something with a 2.8 constant, and since the Canon one is so much that leaves me looking at Tamron, which people seem not to like, and the Sigma which seems great to some but not good to others for this and that reason. For something around 70-200, the canon f4 constant looks good unless there is a smarter choice. From the OP, the 50 1.8 seems worth it over the 1.4 from Canon or Sigma, correct? And the 85 1.8 also sounded good. Thanks for any help - not at all sure what to do and I'm not in a situation where I can drop cash on rentals since I want every dollar going towards these purchases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
I have the 24-105L. It's pretty good, especially for the price, image quality is very good and the IS helps a lot. Where it lacks is, of course, the relatively slowness of the f/4.0 and, at least on my 7D, it can sometimes have a heck of a time finding focus in poor light. My colleague has the 85 1.8 and he raves on about it. I've seen some pics and it looks very good, especially for the price. It's a good portrait lens, both on FF and crop. I've never played with the 5DMk1 but I'd assume that it becomes quite noisy at higher ISOs, quickly. Consider this as well as what you shoot normally. Poor light + no flash (for whatever reason) + poor high-ISO performance + slow lenses is my biggest gripe right now with my 7D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
The 5dc is still an excellent camera. The AF isn't particularly great, but in practice I haven't had a problem keeping up with kids. I think you'd be pretty frustrated shooting sports, etc. You wouldn't want to bludgeon yourself with one; you could probably take down a good sized elk with it if you had to. The image quality is very, very good under iso 400 - as good or better than my 6d. Within that limitation it can easily resolve anything a 24-105L can put into it. The biggest problem I have is that it can't be tethered to a modern operating system. It also has no Live View feature, no video capability, and the onboard LCD is tiny. Some have reported reliability problems - with the mirror, I think - but mine has worked flawlessly and it was very well-used by the time I got it. Because it won't interface with a modern OS, you can't use the EOS Utility and parts of the EXIF data (like the previous owner's name) can't be changed because there's no way to do it on-camera. Presumably if you've got the original driver disk and access to an XP or Vista computer you can address all that. I have the 24-105L, 17-40L, 70-200 f4L, and 85mm 1.8. They're all great, but save up for the IS version of the 70-200. Having said all that, if you absolutely cant afford more than $600 or so, sure, get the 5D. But I'm seeing used MArk II's going for $1000 - $1300 these days and it's an awful lot more camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Where do you live that they have 13 or more months in a year?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
flummox posted:Having said all that, if you absolutely cant afford more than $600 or so, sure, get the 5D. But I'm seeing used MArk II's going for $1000 - $1300 these days and it's an awful lot more camera. Maybe you're a good person to ask then; I'm considering going FF, either my colleague's well taken care of used 5DMk2 or a new 6D bought in Hong Kong in a few months. Price is about the same. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
6D, absolutely. The sensor is supposed to be better than even the one in the 5DIII, and the AF system is the same between the 6D and 5DII* *This opinion is sparsely researched and may be total bullshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
rio posted:I am thinking of buying a used 5dc. I think I will be fine for most uses, but I do worry about keeping up with moving kids. If I have a moving subject am I going to feel like bludgeoning myself with the camera or is the AF generally useable? I'd recommend skipping the 50 1.8. I was never really a fan. Get the sigma 50 or wait for the new art one. The 85 1.8 is a great lens. Could you pick up a used 24-70 I? I got mine for about $1200, and it's so worth it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/0...t&ref=title_0_1 Average build quality, probably worse image quality than the 28-300L, vignetting and CA on the short and long ends but man is it light and handy. I can see this and a 40mm on a 6D partying so hard on travel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
bolind posted:Maybe you're a good person to ask then; I'm considering going FF, either my colleague's well taken care of used 5DMk2 or a new 6D bought in Hong Kong in a few months. Price is about the same. Thoughts? I'm told the Mark II has somewhat better video, for reasons I don't understand well enough to say. 6d has a bit more low light capability; it's lighter and more compact than the Mark II and built just as well. You can also control the 6d via your smartphone - which is incredibly useful if you're using a tripod to do HDR or blended images. Aside from that they're both excellent. I'd go for the 6d, if only because it's newer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Only reason I'd suggest a 5D2 over a 6D would be if you needed dual memory cards. I had a failure ONCE and it's still enough to make me paranoid. 5DC is an amazing camera if you have lots of light, but others are right that it starts to shows its age above ISO400, or when you need magicfocus. Still, nothing that some creative editing and planning your shots can't help with. Concert photographers swore by it until the 5D2 came along, and even then, many saw no need to upgrade. rio posted:Also, what lenses would you recommend if you were starting from scratch and going to spend a couple grand or so on lenses? I have been reading constantly for days - my eyes are going to fall out - there are so many differing opinions on the same lenses. You'll be able to use a 24-105L for damned near anything, though it doesn't really excel in any particular area. I'd almost certainly look into Tamron/Sigma offerings for an all-purpose lens. I'd take a look through your favorite shots and see what ranges you like shooting at before settling on a prime or two, especially with moving to a full frame platform. For portraiture, the 85mm f/1.8 is stellar. If you plan on shooting a lot of events, like wedding receptions and parties, you'll want something wider, like a 35 or 50mm prime with quick AF. The 50mm f/1.8 is good for an I'm-just-taking-pictures-of-my-own-kids type of situation, but when you need it to perform in high-pressure situations, you'll spend a lot of time watching it hunt for focus, which is no good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The mk2 is not better than the 6D for video unless we're talking about using Magic Lantern and recording raw, but it's a waste of time on that camera because of the bottlenecks in recording media. For just the stock features, the 6D is better and much MUCH better at higher ISO's if that's your jam.
1st AD fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
flummox posted:I'm told the Mark II has somewhat better video, for reasons I don't understand well enough to say. 6d has a bit more low light capability; it's lighter and more compact than the Mark II and built just as well. You can also control the 6d via your smartphone - which is incredibly useful if you're using a tripod to do HDR or blended images. Aside from that they're both excellent. I'd go for the 6d, if only because it's newer. I thought this would be the gimmickiest feature in my 70D, but it is really really handy. And being able to grab pictures quickly and upload somewhere if you want is great if there's something you love so much you want to share it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Only reason I'd suggest a 5D2 over a 6D would be if you needed dual memory cards. I had a failure ONCE and it's still enough to make me paranoid.  the 5D2 has one CF slot and zero SD slots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
Whoa, really? Well then I'm left with zero reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Only reason I'd suggest a 5D2 over a 6D would be if you needed dual memory cards. I had a failure ONCE and it's still enough to make me paranoid. I'll add that the 6d is good enough at high ISOs that f4 zooms are perfectly fine for most situations. The 24-105L is dirt cheap on the used market and the IS is very good. It's not a Zeiss but it and the 6d can do some pretty amazing things together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Company bonus, every year we get another month worth of pay. Of course, it's taxed to boot, but still. We also do have a 14th, if that blows your mind, but it's "just" 40 hours of pay. So you finally got a government together eh?  Paying 57% income tax over here in sunny Sweden, probably even worse than you have to suffer....
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
^^^ e: As an American I would gladly pay 57% to have Sweden's social infrastructure. rio posted:I am thinking of buying a used 5dc. I think I will be fine for most uses, but I do worry about keeping up with moving kids. If I have a moving subject am I going to feel like bludgeoning myself with the camera or is the AF generally useable? The 5Dc is still a great camera, at least for the price. I don't agree that its noisy; it was noticeably less noisy than my 7D. The physics of the larger sensor, even with older tech, lends itself to better noise handling. The AF is slow but will be functional for almost everything that isn't action intensive. That said, if you can afford the jump to a 6D I think you'd be a lot happier for more reasons than just the better sensor. Lenses are going to depend on what you want to do with them. The 24-105L is an incredible value imo and the IS lets you ignore the smaller max aperture for the most part. I only sold mine because I am moving away from DSLR to mirrorless (fuji supremecy crew) for everything that isn't wildlife/sports. I've read that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is supposed to be good? For the long zoom, I would take a look at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 as a possible alternative to Canon's f4. I've got the version previous to their current version (no OS) and its fantastic for what I paid for it, which was about what Canon's f4 goes for used ($600 or so on ebay). It's not as good as Canon's 2.8 but it was like $500-$1000 cheaper for a perfect condition used copy and the differences are very minor. The Sigma 35 1.4 Art is supposed to be blessed by the gods of fast, standard primes so maybe look into that. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:So you finally got a government together eh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
flummox posted:I'll add that the 6d is good enough at high ISOs that f4 zooms are perfectly fine for most situations. The 24-105L is dirt cheap on the used market and the IS is very good. It's not a Zeiss but it and the 6d can do some pretty amazing things together. I recommend skipping the 24-105 and picking up the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC instead. It's like a kilo of solid glass sex. The only real downside is that it's huge and heavy. But it's fast, stupid sharp, doesnt flare or CA or any of those other things that only matter in test charts, and the IS is rock solid. And it will save you the hassle of later selling the 24-105 and buying a 2.8 anyways. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Anyone whos gotten a 24-105 as part of a FF kit has more reasons to keep it than sell it. Especially true for 5D3 and 6D where you can just pile on the ISOs. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC may only be a couple hundred bucks more than the 24-105 and therefore pretty attractive if you buy body only but don't forget about that 82mm filter size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC may only be a couple hundred bucks more than the 24-105 and therefore pretty attractive if you buy body only but don't forget about that 82mm filter size. I think for me if I were making the 25-105 24-70 decision that would be a killer for me. Everything I have uses 77mm or smaller, and it would be a pain in the rear end/expensive finding new filters for a do all lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Anyone whos gotten a 24-105 as part of a FF kit has more reasons to keep it than sell it. Especially true for 5D3 and 6D where you can just pile on the ISOs. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC may only be a couple hundred bucks more than the 24-105 and therefore pretty attractive if you buy body only but don't forget about that 82mm filter size. The 24-105 is quite nice, but I sold it and now have a Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I prefer. There's probably sample variation being a relatively inexpensive lens, but my copy is razor sharp wide open and renders beautifully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:I recommend skipping the 24-105 and picking up the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC instead. It's like a kilo of solid glass sex. CarrotFlowers posted:I'd recommend skipping the 50 1.8. I was never really a fan. Get the sigma 50 or wait for the new art one. The 85 1.8 is a great lens. Could you pick up a used 24-70 I? I got mine for about $1200, and it's so worth it. I didn't realize when I posted earlier that I was looking at version ii of the Canon 24-70 2.8 - I could swing the price of the version 1 or the tamron since they are around the same price. Tamron looks like the better option with the stabilization, any reasons that I am missing to opt for the version 1 canon lens instead? I would definitely prefer a 2.8 constant to the 24-105, and since I am planning on some kind of longer lens too I don't think I would miss the longer end of the 24-105. I am wondering if for now I could just get away with the two zooms actually. Get a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 IS (might be able to afford the 2.8 - keh is showing a couple for 1269) and call it a day - if I got the 5dc that seems like it would just about be what my max budget was going to be. Do you think that would be a wise choice? I never really considered going with not even one fast prime... I have always considered myself a prime guy but that was partly due to the necessity made from the NEX range having poo poo zoom options and non stabilized manual lenses were an exercise in frustation. Thanks sooo much for the help so far, this is helping me try to get together a game plan in ways that I could never do just sifting through info alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I can't speak but for what I've read in my own research, but I've seen a few places call a "typical" pro kit the 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8. Covers the whole range (of what most pro work would require) quickly, and it wouldn't be hard to dump the super wide-angle and just cover 24-200 in two lenses. I guess in those situations people shoot portraits with the telephoto if they need the extreme separation a normal-length fast prime would give. I guess? I also feel like I'm going to dump my Nex, mostly because I want to keep one interchangable system and be able to shoot longer than 50mm (and not pay $300 for a 50/1.8). A year from now I might be selling all of this stuff, too, because I never take it anywhere, but I guess only time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Eh I wouldn't call it a typical kit at all unless you need to have those ranges available to you on every shoot (so like an event/wedding photographer maybe, but I've never seen one carry all 3 of those).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Eh I wouldn't call it a typical kit at all unless you need to have those ranges available to you on every shoot (so like an event/wedding photographer maybe, but I've never seen one carry all 3 of those). I think it was written from that perspective. Everything between macro and safari at 2.8, though obviously it costs you $5k for just those 3. But again, I'm not a pro or even very good at this. I've just also done a ton of research because I'm stuck at a desk all day and it's dark when I get home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Depends massively on who that "pro" is. A photo journo would probably love the zooms, while a pro portrait photographer would never leave the house without a 85mm. A sports photog would laugh at you 200mm range
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
A "generic" pro in our minds would probably do well with just the 24-70 and 70-200. In fact the 24-70 is usually enough for most things, the 70-200 comes in very handy when shooting events and it doubles up nicely for portraiture as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Yeah the super wide lenses seem like overkill for most events, a 24 should do fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Arstechnica has an interview of a sports photojournalist which has an interesting bonus at the end of the article, where he details the equipment that he would recommend for starting out:Adam Pretty via Katie Collins of Wired.co.uk posted:
As was discussed
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
I guess he does a lot of planning, so he know when he's going to be in a position where he's using either the 70-200 or the 400.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
That's NOT if you're starting out, it's "If you had unlimited funds," which is a BIG difference. the way access and coverage is for sports, if it's anything big (collegiate on up) you're not moving around much anyways. As well, we'd usually have multiple people covering multiple angles and I'm not sure how much they would move around. Usually there was one person on each sideline who would move but a lot of the time you're stuck in position. I feel like the different distances are for different situations -- shooting the back of an offense in football going to the opposite end zone versus the offense coming at you from the back of the end zone, for instance. The other side of that has to do with lighting. Note how all those are wide aperture, but if you're a poor college student, you might want a cheap prime versus the more expensive slower zoom if you're shooting high school sports with questionable lighting conditions. The professor I had in my one college photo-j class said he would much rather take the 85/1.8 with him versus a 70-200 f/4, for instance, if it's high school and the lighting is bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
I should probably note a couple of caveats that were discussed in the article but that I neglected to include in the quote.
I agree that f/4 under crap lighting is unlikely to produce "pro" photographs. celeron 300a fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Won't f/4 start to become "less crap" as performance at high iso continues to improve? Way I see it at the entry level is you can choose either f2.8 OR 400mm, but not both. But if you can handle f/4 there are a ton of options. They still aren't cheap, but they're within the grasp of an average joe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
The Canon G1X II is looking good. Canon Rumors has leaked photos and final specs.Canon Rumors posted:Specifications Canonwatch.com also adds "Shorter start-up time, and faster shooting time and continuous shooting". Some things I noticed is that they dropped the lovely optical view finder, put in a built in lens cap. and slimmed it down a bit. Expected price should be around $700. I was ready to buy a g1x with my tax return but decided to hold off to see if these rumors panned out. I really like the idea of a big sensor point and shoot that has a zoom lens and allows me to shoot with a view finder. Sure there are a lot of mirorless options, however I didn't want to go that route because I don't want to invest in another system / carry a support bag around with me. I plan to preoder once it becomes available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Don't forget that this also means that canon will be releasing an accessory EVF that should also work on the EOS-M. That's pretty cool, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Still no panorama mode  Canon hates fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
No 7D2, Canon? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:42
|
|
