|
After shooting film for years, I honestly can't stand tiny viewfinders. EVFs also suck rear end forever.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Haggins posted:Does anyone who bought a 6D regret not going with a 5D3? The biggest difference I can see is the better AF, but I do fine with the 50D's AF so I'm sure I'll be ok with the 6D. I would really like the 100% viewfinder (I hate having to crop) but I don't think that's worth $1000 more. I get annoyed at the controls from time to time, and the lack of a PC sync terminal... but it's a pretty excellent body and a thousand bucks can buy many, many things more awesome than better AF. Like food, shelter and heating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Yeah I'd really like to use that money towards a 24-70 2.8 II. I'm hoping to pick up the B&H Deal for a 6D, 24-105, pro 100 printer, 32gb SD card and some printer paper for $2100 after a $400 mail in rebate. Hopefully the deal will be there next week when I can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Went and bought a Canon T3i today. My first time in the DSLR waters. I'm excited to see the difference in results from my 5 year old P&S. Hopefully I can start posting some shots in here and learning from everyone. Next stop is reading how to use this thing and maybe picking up the much heralded nifty fifty. *Speaking of which, how is the included Canon software? Is it worth fooling with? Hughmoris fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:
DPP has all the adjustments for editing, which is fine in the beginning For a casual shooter or student it's a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
mrlego posted:DPP has all the adjustments for editing, which is fine in the beginning For a casual shooter or student it's a good starting point. Yeah it's a good raw converter, the workflow is just a little wonky. I prefer ACR
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I don't regret it. The sensor is just as good and I don't really shoot sports or birds so the af is fine for me. Plus the wifi has been an extremely pleasing bonus. Then again I feel like I am exactly the kind of customer Canon was shooting for; a casual shooter who wants to try full frame but can't justify the cost of a 5diii.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
^^^ Yeah I don't do sports or birds so it's probably not a big deal. I think wifi would be cool since when I travel I'd like to do a quick edit on the iPad and post to Facebook or whatever. It's always silly when I have to take a photo on both the SLR and the iPhone and post one right away and the other few days/week later. Hughmoris posted:Went and bought a Canon T3i today. My first time in the DSLR waters. I'm excited to see the difference in results from my 5 year old P&S. Hopefully I can start posting some shots in here and learning from everyone. Next stop is reading how to use this thing and maybe picking up the much heralded nifty fifty. Are you on a mac or PC? I don't know what's good for PC but if you're on a mac just use iPhoto.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Yeah it's a good raw converter, the workflow is just a little wonky. I prefer ACR This. I use it as a converter because of how it handles noise but it's total bullshit to use as an editor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This. I use it as a converter because of how it handles noise but it's total bullshit to use as an editor. Same here. It is okay as free software to fine tune and convert raws. But I wouldn't call it a "photo editor". It is definitely worth fooling with as one who is new to DLSRs just to learn to appreciate how important it is to shoot in raw. You will screw up exposures and white balancing starting off, and the free Canon software can take a not-so-great raw and turn it into a decent photo. It snowed where I live recently. Doesn't snow often in this part of Oregon, so I don't really have any experience shooting in such a bright white setting.  Blown out. Looks like crap and I should have trashed it, but I shot it in raw+jpeg and had that Canon software. A few minutes of playing with the sliders.  This shot isn't going to win me any awards, but it turned trash into a decent snapshot of a snowy day. Most of these tweaks are stuff that can be done in the camera, and is what the camera tries to make best guesses at when it makes jpegs. The software lets you play with these settings after the fact, and it is worth it just for that. Obviously, if you get serious about photography, you'll want to buy some better software. But the free stuff from Canon at least gives you an idea of what is possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
So I have the Tamron 17-50 on my 40D and am really enjoying it, but want something faster for portraits and evening light and such. Everyone seems down on the 50/1.8, saying it doesn't sharpen up until 2.8, which is redundant with my Tamron. The 85/1.8 looks great for portraits, but I'm afraid it's too long, since I do a lot of shooting indoors. So is the talk of the 50's softness overblown DxO-only stuff that doesn't really apply to a sensor as old as the 40Ds? Or am I going to be disappointed with it, seeing as I intend to shoot it at faster than 2.8 as much as possible? Or does having the 2.8 zoom and a 50/1.8 seem pretty redundant anyway and I should just grab the 85, even if it means more situations where it's just a bit too long? Also, folks seem pretty weak on the 1.4, and I'm not sure three aperture blades are worth another $200. Huxley fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Does sharpness really matter that much when you're shooting at f/1.8?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Does sharpness really matter that much when you're shooting at f/1.8? This. This is like the problem with the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 with haze wide open in bright scenes. I don't shoot them wide open in bright light, I shoot them wide open in dark scenes, so it's not really all that relevant. I guess if you're a narrow DOF junkie, but to me, ultra narrow DOF is a sacrifice I have to make for available light, not a desired trait. I don't want ULTRA DOF where everything is in focus, but conversely I also don't want pictures where nothing but half of someones eyelashes are in focus either. As always, YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Huxley posted:So I have the Tamron 17-50 on my 40D and am really enjoying it, but want something faster for portraits and evening light and such. The 50 1.8 is kinda of lovely image quality wise when compared to something like the 85 1.8. I had both and I really miss my 85 and never use my 50. I think I heard the Sigma 50 1.4 is pretty good but I'm sure someone else can chime in. The bottom line is it's awesome for $100 but not so great when you compare it to real gear. timrenzi574 posted:This. This is like the problem with the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 with haze wide open in bright scenes. I don't shoot them wide open in bright light, I shoot them wide open in dark scenes, so it's not really all that relevant. I guess if you're a narrow DOF junkie, but to me, ultra narrow DOF is a sacrifice I have to make for available light, not a desired trait. I don't want ULTRA DOF where everything is in focus, but conversely I also don't want pictures where nothing but half of someones eyelashes are in focus either. As always, YMMV. Aside from wanting to conduct a limitation exercise to spark creativity, I think the only good reason to use primes in this day in age is for shallow DoF. In fact, the only reason anyone should want fast lenses (zoom or prime) is for the added creative control it gives you over your images. If you're having problems with not getting enough light, you should either add in some strobes or buy a better camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
The 50mm is usable at 1.8 it's just not great. f/2.8 affords you better corner sharpness and wider depth of field so it tends to work better in practice. The main draw is that it's a $100 lens. For the money you should also consider the 40/2.8, which was on sale for $130 over the holidays. The 40mm will be closer to a "normal" perspective and will be much more usable especially indoors. The reason the more expensive 50s get poo poo on here is they're a lot more expensive for not a lot of gain. Canon's 50/1.4 in particular is significantly less sharp than pretty much anyone else's near wide open and has a reputation for the AF motor crapping out. If you feel like waiting Sigma is putting out a 50/1.4 Art which should compete with the Zeiss Otus pretty well. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Well, duh. The $100 lens is not as good as a $300 lens. But honestly, that $100 is good enough at 1.8. And you can often find it for less than $100 on Craigslist. I got one for $50.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I'd seriously avoid the 50 1.8 for portraits, even On a crop body, it's really not a great lens . The 85 1.8 is MUCH better and I personally don't think it's too long, even indoors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
I went from a 50mm 1.8 to a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. Not exactly a fair comparison between a $100 lens and a $900 lens 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
I guess that's the nice thing. I can get the 50/1.8, and in a couple of years if I hate it or feel like its time to go faster/longer, I can turn it into almost what I gave for it. Assuming Canon doesn't randomly update a lens they've changed once in 25 years. I thought about the 40, but I definitely felt like it was redundant with the 17-50. Plus I have a Nex3/Sigma30 combo for when I want to travel light. And yeah, it's not perfect. But there's no way I should spend the extra $200 on a better lens yet. It's why this one exists at all. My skill does not yet warrant extravagance. Basically I'm a little all over the place gear-wise starting out, trying to discover what I actually want a system to do/be. Thanks for the help. Huxley fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Huxley posted:. I thought about the 40, but I definitely felt like it was redundant with the 17-50. Don't discount the 40 just because you have it covered On a zoom. It's a great lens, probably the best Canon have put out in years. Colour reproduction is leagues better than the 50
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I guess that's the nice thing. I can get the 50/1.8, and in a couple of years if I hate it... Get the 50 1.8. You will learn much and can gift it to a child. You will also gain an appreciation for good auto focus. And when it breaks you will then know what kind of lens you'd rather have. It's like buying your first beater car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
mrlego posted:Get the 50 1.8. You will learn much and can gift it to a child. You will also gain an appreciation for good auto focus. Yeah the 50/1.8 doesn't start to annoy you until you know what you want, and what it's not giving you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
So, considering how to spend my refund. I have a 7D, tamron 70-200 2.8 vc and 28-75 2.8. I'm considering the following: a refurb 6D, used 5dmkII both of wich i think the wide end of the 28-75 would be wide enough for close space indoor. Or buying an ultrawide zoom (tokina 16-28 2.8, tamron 17-50 non-vc, or getting really greedy, and grabbing a used 16-35L mkI) I really don't lean towards a particular subject, so I'm trying to have general purpose kit. The reason I'm aiming for faster lenses is that I semi-regularly do indoor architecture, and some places don't allow tripods or flash. Can you guide me goons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
The 17-50 is a great lens, but it kinda overlaps your 28-75. Along with the wide-zoom lenses, you might also consider the Samyang 14/2.8. It is manual focus and manual aperture on EOS, but it's sharp and cheap. Manual focus is not really a big problem with ultrawides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The 17-50 is a great lens, but it kinda overlaps your 28-75. Along with the wide-zoom lenses, you might also consider the Samyang 14/2.8. It is manual focus and manual aperture on EOS, but it's sharp and cheap. Manual focus is not really a big problem with ultrawides. That's why I was considering the Tokina. The issue with that one is that it has a spherical front element that I can't put a filter over without a pricey adapter. Any of these options is in my price range, so any will work. Would 28mm be wide enough on a full frame, or is my assumption there wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
28-75 is kind of a crappy range for a crop camera. It's not wide at all and the extra reach is not a big deal. I'd suggest getting some kind of ultra wide like a Sigma 8-16 (which I use and love).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Haggins posted:28-75 is kind of a crappy range for a crop camera. It's not wide at all and the extra reach is not a big deal. I'd suggest getting some kind of ultra wide like a Sigma 8-16 (which I use and love). I actually find that It's the lens I turn to most often. The ultimate endgame is that I intend to get a full frame at some point in the (relatively) near future, and would like to have my bases covered. 8-16 doesn't sound bad, but how is it going to perform indoors without a flash and no tripod?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
"[ts posted:xenophobe" post="425957701"] Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, now you don't need a flash or a tripod. (Full frame  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, now you don't need a flash or a tripod. (Full frame And it's even reasonably close in price to the tokina. Are there image samples anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
"[ts posted:xenophobe" post="425959550"] http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/ sure there's some in there spoiler: it's probably one of the sharpest zooms ever made
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/ sure there's some in there And I am continually amazed that people don't know about it. When I bought mine, the guy said it was the only time anyone had asked about it, much less bought one. It stays on my camera 80% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
There was a lot of hype surrounding it when I was researching the 70D for purchase, but yeah I haven't really heard much about it lately. I guess the price is a little on the higher end for someone just getting into the pro-sumer level of things, but drat if it isn't the perfect lens for 80% of my casual shooting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Shellman posted:And I am continually amazed that people don't know about it. When I bought mine, the guy said it was the only time anyone had asked about it, much less bought one. It stays on my camera 80% of the time. I keep forgetting about it too but probably because I'm ready to abandon the crop ship. With the Sigma 8-16 I already own and the 18-35 1.8, I almost want to stay crop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
You can always chant "SEVEN DEE MARK TWOOO" while sacrificing a chicken or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Been doing that for years. The gods have abandoned us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
I don't know why it's taken me so long to discover the Dorkroom, but I've read a little bit of this thread and I think you guys/gals could definitely help me out. I am a journalist by trade, not a photojournalist but at my last gig I was required to shoot everything for a weekly newspaper in rural Montana. I really got into shooting and started purchasing my own equipment. I currently have a 60d along with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 24-70 f/2.8 (not sure what version of it but its an old L-series and doesn't have IS). What I have been wanting to do for a while is upgrade to a full-frame body. However, being a poor journalist makes it tough to scrounge up even the $1,500 or so dollars for a 5D Mark ii. Reading a little bit of this thread I have seen the 1D series highly recommended so here's my question: On Ebay there are several different versions of the 1D for under $1,000. Are these a good alternative to something like the 5D Mark ii? What model should I be looking for? Basically I just want something full-frame for a couple of long-term photojournalism projects I am about to start. None of these projects will really require super fast frames per second. Thanks for the help in advance. If my question is too vague I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
broken boy soldier posted:
It sounds like you are looking at the 1Ds or 1Ds mk II. Both are full frame and are low fps with good auto focus. Can you link us to the ebay sales you are looking at? How important is image quality at very high ISOs (1600-3200)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
mrlego posted:It sounds like you are looking at the 1Ds or 1Ds mk II. Both are full frame and are low fps with good auto focus. Can you link us to the ebay sales you are looking at? How important is image quality at very high ISOs (1600-3200)? This one in particular caught my eye: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-1...=item3cdcb1120e As far as high ISOs go, as a rule of thumb I never really shoot over the 1600 ISO mark and the majority of the work I will be doing won't be printed. So noise isn't a really big concern for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Adding to 50 vs. 85 chat, I've got a trip to Iceland planned in a couple months and I want to get a new lens before I go. Right now the lenses I have are the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and the Canon 50 1.8. I probably won't be shooting many (if any) portraits over there, but for closeups/DOF, am I going to want to upgrade to the Canon 50 1.4 or the Canon 85 1.8? I'll have landscapes covered with the wide end of my Tamron. I've read reviews on the 50 1.4 vs. the 85 1.8 and they both seem like great lenses in the same price range, but I haven't been able to tell which would be the better buy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Go for the 85 1.8 since you currently have nothing longer than 50mm
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:29
|
|