|
For some reason looking through the viewfinder of a Nikon D3200 was amazing, quite a bit better than the 7D's or even the 5D. Something about the size of the viewfinder's image and the clarity. I only had the 5D to compare at that moment though. Otherwise I find Nikon's bodies too busy and weirdly laid out.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Yeah I hate on Canon quite a bit, but the 7D is the D300 nikon never got
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
mrlego posted:For some reason looking through the viewfinder of a Nikon D3200 was amazing, quite a bit better than the 7D's or even the 5D. Something about the size of the viewfinder's image and the clarity. I only had the 5D to compare at that moment though. Otherwise I find Nikon's bodies too busy and weirdly laid out. You're insane then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
$250 in EX condition on KEH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Haggins posted:The 50D is even cheaper and has a comparable sensor. ehhh.... the noise on the 70D is a lot less patterned. If you're the person who wants to leave luma in to avoid killing detail on high ISO shots, the 70D is a lot better sensor because the noise doesn't line up in marching stripes down the picture. If you're going to scrub it soft anyway, it really doesn't make a difference as long as your product of choice can deal with patterned banding noise. Canon made big strides in that department with the 70D's sensor. The AF is also fantastic if that sort of thing tickles your fancy, although it's missing the spot & expansion modes from the 7D. Edit: Oh, the 50D isn't the 18mp sensor, sorry. My bad there - I don't know if that 15mp one has the banding problem or not. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
mrlego posted:For some reason looking through the viewfinder of a Nikon D3200 was amazing, quite a bit better than the 7D's or even the 5D. Something about the size of the viewfinder's image and the clarity. I only had the 5D to compare at that moment though. Otherwise I find Nikon's bodies too busy and weirdly laid out. I'm guessing the diopter adjustment was off on the 5D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I ordered an EE-S screen for my 5D. I'm looking forward for it to arrive - I have my back button set for focus and my lenses have easy accessibility to manual focus so I should own from what I've read. They are 2.8 zooms, though, so hopefully the viewfinder won't darken too much from the stock screen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I have the Eg-S in my 6D and it's bright enough. Certainly brighter than a cheap Canon with pentamirror.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Mine unexpectedly arrived today. It is a lot brighter than expected, and definitely worth the small loss in overall brightness to get that higher accuracy in visually confirming focus. I did manage to scratch it, though, because I was rushing... so I have a nice eighth inch mark at the top when looking through it 
rio fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
My refurbished Tamron 60 f/2 Macro that I got on eBay for a few hundred less than retail arrived earlier, and my initial impressions are that it loving rules. The box it was delivered in had a ton of packing peanuts, and the lens came in the original box with warranty card, hood, lens cap, etc. Everything was packaged perfectly and still in plastic wrap, so I don't know if that's part of the refurbishing process or if the lens is just very close to brand new or what, but that was awesome. Then I took it out the box and saw that there was no visual wear on it whatsoever. It focuses stupid fast, like faster than I think my 50 1.8 does, and can get sharp as hell and the DOF can get beautiful. That's what I really wanted out of a lens and this one definitely delivers so far. Here's a few shots I took of random poo poo in the backyard of my parents' house, straight off the camera with no editing applied:       I haven't been this excited about photographing nothing special in a long time. It makes me want to try shooting everything I can see. I can't wait to try shooting portraits with this thing. So basically I feel like I got the right lens for me and I got a screamin' deal on it by buying it refurbished on eBay  Thanks to whoever recommended that I get that one!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Correct, the Tamron 60/2 basically stays on my camera at all times. If I need something a little wider I've got the Sigma 18-35 that I can switch to. Basically between those two lenses (and a generic Canon 55-250 I snagged off of eBay for $100 for the longer stuff), I no longer feel the constant urge to spend money on lenses... for now. EDIT: Bit of advice though is to stop it down a bit unless you're going for crazy dof. It get's quite a bit sharper north of 2.8. Whirlwind Jones fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Correct, the Tamron 60/2 basically stays on my camera at all times. If I need something a little wider I've got the Sigma 18-35 that I can switch to.  Thanks for the tip! The sun's going down pretty fast so I'll probably test it out more tomorrow and report back if I get any cool shots, which I'm sure I will. I ordered a 64GB Class 10 90mb/s SDXC card the other day too, so that'll come in soon and I can shoot and shoot and shoot without having to worry about how much I'm shooting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Tax return should be coming soon so Ill be lookin to get my 70D. Ill be sellin my t4i as well I have heard conflicting reports that getting the kit lens is advisable as it is better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Is this horse poo poo? The difference is cost for body only and kit is minimal, about what Id make for sellin the Tamron. I just want to make sure Im not buying the kit thinking its better then staying on my Tamron most of the time. Itd be my all around lens. The Sigma 120-300 is next unless I find a killer deal for a 70-200 F4L with an extender. I like the Tamron a bunch and would keep to that but it seems the Sigma is the best one so far. Id go prime but I am still new to sports photos and would rather not be limited to a 300 in case hit gets close to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Is the kit lens f/2.8 through the whole range? That's always the deciding factor for me. I'll take being able to do shallow DOF and not having to worry about my exposure changing on me than faster/silent AF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Tax return should be coming soon so Ill be lookin to get my 70D. Neither kit lens is better than the Tamron you already have for stills - however, the STM motor is bloody fantastic for video. It's silent on the video track, unlike USM/HSM motors, and it also has the ability to slowly rack into focus instead of just zipping there which is kindof distracting in a video. If you're looking at a kit with the 18-55 and it's not too much money, I'd just get that so you have it for videography, and keep your Tamron for stills unless you don't mind losing the nice bright aperture of the Tamron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Tax return should be coming soon so Ill be lookin to get my 70D. I vote for sell all your crop gear, forget about the 70d, and buy a 6D+ 24-105 f/4 for $1999.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Neither kit lens is better than the Tamron you already have for stills - however, the STM motor is bloody fantastic for video. It's silent on the video track, unlike USM/HSM motors, and it also has the ability to slowly rack into focus instead of just zipping there which is kindof distracting in a video. Seconding this. My boss just used his tax return to get a deal on the 70D + 18-55 STM + 55-250 STM. He's selling the 55-250 STM and keeping the 18-55 STM for video only. The STM tracks focus on the 70D silently and quickly. This video demonstrates nicely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I vote for sell all your crop gear, forget about the 70d, and buy a 6D+ 24-105 f/4 for $1999. He wants to shoot soccer games IIRC as a major thing. Not that the 6 couldn't , but it would be not nearly as pleasant as the 70 about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I vote for sell all your crop gear, forget about the 70d, and buy a 6D+ 24-105 f/4 for $1999.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Well I don't think anyone else read it either because I don't know who can shoot sports with a 70-200 f4 and an extender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Well I don't think anyone else read it either because I don't know who can shoot sports with a 70-200 f4 and an extender. loving lol man 600mm or  I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Well I don't think anyone else read it either because I don't know who can shoot sports with a 70-200 f4 and an extender. Go back a couple days, he said he wants to upgrade from his t4i to shoot some soccer team and some motorsports.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Well I don't think anyone else read it either because I don't know who can shoot sports with a 70-200 f4 and an extender. It seemed like a decent step. I will be shootin sports primarily. Thats why Im looking at crop. If the 70-200 is gonna suck for that then fine. Point taken. I asked someone shooting a game a week back and he said thats what he used. This is new territory for me. What once was a hobby is now turning into a passion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Soulex posted:It seemed like a decent step. It's not going to suck at all. It would suck at night or indoors in poor lighting, because you'd be stuck at 6400 or 12800 if even that worked, but you'll be fine for well lit and daytime stuff @ 5.6 or 4, it's not an issue. That 120-300 you're looking at will be great for less well lit stuff though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
How does the Tamron 90mm 2.8 compare against the Canon 85mm 2.8? I'd like a prime for portraits and I like the idea that they'd be close to what I was used to with the 50mm on crop now that I'm on full frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:How does the Tamron 90mm 2.8 compare against the Canon 85mm 2.8? I'd like a prime for portraits and I like the idea that they'd be close to what I was used to with the 50mm on crop now that I'm on full frame. I can't speak to the Tamron 90mm, but the Canon 85 f/1.8 (not 2.8) is absolutely brilliant and a steal for the price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Ok, stupid person question time. All apologies for interrupting with ignorance. Wife has a Cannon Rebel XS, something like 5-6 years old by this point. We have the standard 15-55mm that came with it and then picked up a Sigma 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 DC for a vacation awhile ago. She enjoys the camera, mostly taking portraits and child/animal action shots. Now we are planning a nice cruise up to Alaska this year and are talking about all the scenic stuff we were planning. Which got me thinking that a 200mm might be pretty weak for trying to do anything like shooting wildlife from the balcony or whatever. Which made me think that it'd be nice to gift her something that can handle a little longer distance... After looking online for awhile I found the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, with a $200 rebate. It's a little pricey but not completely out of range if it'll do what we want, which I'm not really sure 400mm would totally do but it would get us closer without turning it into full manual mode at a price that isn't a new car. Then I started looking at a Tamron 2x Teleconverter, which of course looks interesting but is getting well beyond my personal knowledge or experience. So, I guess I'm just looking for any kind of thoughts or opinions on if I'm just about to piss away money or if I'm missing a better solution for our amateur vacation pictures and her hobby photography. I got a couple weeks before I'd have to order anything, so thanks to anyone who puts the effort in responding. Alternatively: Buy a 60D, rent a long distance lense like the one listed above and have both cameras to shoot with.
Anubis fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Ok, stupid person question time. All apologies for interrupting with ignorance. I personally love my 100-400, and it's a very popular lens. Tamron just released their 150-600 though which is getting very good reviews, and by all accounts is just as good as the canon @ 400, but gets you that extra reach. It's a bit cheaper as well, but about a pound heavier, so I guess take that into consideration. Canon also makes a 400/5.6 which is quite sharp, and cheaper than the 100-400 but without IS (although chances are you're going to be using it for purposes that would require a fast enough shutter speed to negate the need for is) - if you think you'd just be using the long end for sniping far away stuff, it's a good option and lighter still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
If you are looking for long range on a budget and the Canon 100-400 is in your price range, you might also look at the new Tamron 150-600. Its been getting really great reviews and the price is pretty amazing for a lens with that kind of reach and IQ. Don't bother with teleconverters on a rebel with a slow lens. 2x teleconverters drop you two stops so you'd be at an effective f/11 with that 50-200 at the long end. You'll be stuck manually focusing a long lens with a dark, bad viewfinder and it will be very frustrating. e: Anubis posted:Alternatively: Buy a 60D, rent a long distance lense like the one listed above and have both cameras to shoot with. Buy the 60D but also buy the lens. If you don't think you'll ever use it again, you can resell either the Canon or the Tamron for essentially what you paid for it, maybe even make a small profit if you work it right. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Wife has a Cannon Rebel XS, something like 5-6 years old by this point. We have the standard 15-55mm that came with it and then picked up a Sigma 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 DC for a vacation awhile ago. She enjoys the camera, mostly taking portraits and child/animal action shots. Now we are planning a nice cruise up to Alaska this year and are talking about all the scenic stuff we were planning. Which got me thinking that a 200mm might be pretty weak for trying to do anything like shooting wildlife from the balcony or whatever. Which made me think that it'd be nice to gift her something that can handle a little longer distance... FWIW, I took a Sigma 150-500 to Africa, and it was rock solid and goes for half the price of the Canon L. It's sharp enough for most people, a bit slow at the long end compared to the newer models, and has some excellent IS - enough that I could handhold it at dusk after five gin and tonics and get something usable. You can get a matched extender for it, too, but you probably don't want to lose that stop of light at the long end. Haven't used the new Tamron 150-600, but it's getting pretty kickass reviews all over the place. Also, if you don't have to carry it much, that's a big plus. Because I'm pretty sure it's built out of spare 16" barrels from the Missouri. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Soulex posted:It seemed like a decent step. 70-200 is gonna be fine if you're up in the stands and just using shots for personal use. If you're on the field, it'll be even better. The 70-200 4L is a great "baby's first L" and that length and aperture is fine for most outdoor sports (and even for night if it's floodlit well). I'd suggest getting that because it's a good next step up without being too much. You can find one used if you want even, and if it turns out you REALLY like it but need more reach, it's not too hard to sell that on and buy what you know you need. Problem is now you THINK you know what you need and it's tempting to buy too much for now. The best advice in the Dorkroom regarding gear is "go shoot and find out what you need." Take a game or two or even 10 to find what you REALLY need and to hit your head on the gear's ability ceiling. The only way you'll find out what YOU need and what YOU want to shoot is by doing it first, and even if that's with lesser gear, that's fine. It's photography, there aren't many gear absolutes since there are so many use cases out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Thanks for all your help guys, I'm certainly looking into the Tamron 150-600mm at this point based on your recommendations. Unfortunately, it looks like it's back ordered everywhere online currently. If it doesn't get back in stock by a month I'll end up going with the Sigma 150-500mm since she'll want to play with it a bit before the trip (and just in case there is anything wrong we can replace it before flying out too). Either way I'm currently hunting for a used 60D now, so if you know of any good deals... Thanks again, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
I'm selling my 60D as soon as I can find a deal for a 5D3...from a legit source.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
e; I'm a dumbass and totally missed the "My first DSLR" thread. Sorry.  Reposted in that thread instead.
sirbeefalot fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:I can't speak to the Tamron 90mm, but the Canon 85 f/1.8 (not 2.8) is absolutely brilliant and a steal for the price. How is it on a crop for portraits? Thinking about a Tamron 60 f/2, but since I'm already covered to 50mm, wondering if I'd be best off just paying the extra $100 and getting the 85 1.8.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:How is it on a crop for portraits? Thinking about a Tamron 60 f/2, but since I'm already covered to 50mm, wondering if I'd be best off just paying the extra $100 and getting the 85 1.8. The Tamron 90mm has some exceptionally slow AF. I recommend the 85/1.8 instead if you want portraits and don't care about macro - if you want macro, get the Canon 100/2.8.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Slow AF is one thing you don't need to worry about with the Tamron 60 f/2 Macro. I haven't really had the chance to play around with it since the little bit I did when I got it a few days ago and still haven't taken any portraits with it (planning to rectify both of those soon), but during the playing around with it I did do the other day, it focused nearly instantly. It was like a dream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Anyone using Magic Lantern on their 7d? If so which build are you using and what are your impressions thus far? I want to try out the dual ISO maybe AETTR features, plus the usual cool ML stuff like the Zebra stripes and what not for still images.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
I tried it out on my 5d2 and ended up taking it off after a few weeks. The delayed startup time was too much of a pain and all of the extra work you had to go through to process the dual ISO shots made it all not worth it. Plus the horror stories of people bricking their cameras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
What horror stories? I've used it on 5D2's, 5D3's, and Rebels, and I've never bricked a single device. Dual ISO is pretty useless, but raw video is a very useful tool since nowhere else will you be able to find a raw full frame camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:40
|
|
