|
Haggins posted:The 6D does this with the built in wifi and I love the hell out of it. There is an app for your phone (I use on my ipad too) and you can send it photos from your camera. Now I can post photos online when I'm on the road or out and about and not feel pressured to run home to the computer to do edits. The 6D has wifi transmit like the RX100's? Cooooool. How's the focus compared to 5d3? Too bad we can't make our cameras connect to a pocket Wifi/3g wifi router and auto upload home. I haven't tried Lightroom mobile yet, but I have subscribed to their Creative Cloud special offer, 10 bucks a month for LR and Photoshop, if only they had illustrator! Oh well, I will probably get a new camera, originally I was going to go for the 5d3. But the new wifi makes the 6D a lot more attractive. I don't really do super large prints or fashion, but I do take lovely product pictures and crop the heck out of it. If money is no objective (ie, I can use my 6d "savings" and buy a lighting rig") should I opt for 6D or 5d3? Im still ambivalent right now. Actually gear bodies be damned, I should go buy a Tilt shift huh  I take product pictures of metal parts and jagged edges. Maybe I can make everything aligned straight again?
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
If you're taking a lot of product pictures then you probably won't need the insane AF of the mark 3.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Why canikon can't be arsed to make a worthwhile wifi dongle for their high end cameras I just don't understand.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
So some images with my ghetto rig. I just cropped and slightly adjusted the exposure levels. I learned my lesson though, I really ought to shoot with a fixed perspective, fixed distance, and a small metal ruler to show scale. Now my pictures are all zoomed in. Meh, good enough for web promo I suppose  And I still got to touch out the minor blemishes. Being a goooony goon goon photo nerd, I'm more picky with photos and websites and computers.     All in all, good experience though. I think the next product shoot will be much better.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Why canikon can't be arsed to make a worthwhile wifi dongle for their high end cameras I just don't understand. They do? (Canon does at least) The 1dX & 5d3 have a dongle, and the 7D has a grip with wifi in it. And you can just get an eye-fi card for the sd slot on the 5d3 if you don't feel like giving canon your entire paycheck for wifi.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Canon slrs don't even have built in geo location function after all these years. Where as Nikon and other nifty action cams do.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:They do? (Canon does at least) The 1dX & 5d3 have a dongle, and the 7D has a grip with wifi in it. And you can just get an eye-fi card for the sd slot on the 5d3 if you don't feel like giving canon your entire paycheck for wifi. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 16:30 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I don't know about the 1dx module, but the WFT-E7 Wireless File Transmitter is like $700 and completely unreliable, which is quite the accomplishment when considering the 7d wifi grip was quite OK. Yeah they are laffo expensive for sure, which is why I thought for the 5d3 an eyefi in the sd slot is probably the better choice. WRT to the 1dx, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the expensive accessory woes of people who can afford a 7 grand camera.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
caberham posted:Canon slrs don't even have built in geo location function after all these years.  v
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
I've got a pretty good setup going for event photography with an EyeFi in the SD slot of my 5D3. It's pretty kludgy, but I don't know if the proprietary Canon version is any better. I've got a setup with lights and a background, and my 5D3 recording fullsize RAW to the CF and small RAW to SD. When I get a good picture, I mark it "protect" which tells the card to upload it to my computer. Laptop is running Lightroom and the EyeFi software, which downloads pictures to a certain directory. When Lightroom sees a new file in that directory, it auto-imports it, runs the adjustments that I have preset for that event. People look at the pictures, and if they want, I send it off to the pool of 4x6" dye-sub printers sitting there, complete with watermark text along the bottom to remind people that they got their picture taken at Billy's Bangin' BBQ Bonanza, home of the Radical Ribs or whatever. Sometimes I piggyback off of the venue's wifi, but usually I just do a direct Ad hoc connection between laptop and EyeFi, since that's going to be the fastest. Works out pretty well, though I really wish there were some sort of automated printing option that I could control from the camera, like if a photo is rated 5 stars, it'd print out 5 copies or something.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I've got a pretty good setup going for event photography with an EyeFi in the SD slot of my 5D3. Sounds pretty awesome! How do you light your venue? I guess you set up some lights for doorway entrances? Receptions? Or something? EyeFi is great but after all these years, you would think the camera manufacturers would be on the ball. It's weird that sometimes the regular point and shoot models like S1XX has GPS but some newer versions don't. Cell phone photography is picking up, and while their sensors still suck, they make good software. Auto sync to drop box, auto backup, in-camera lens correction, etc etc. If the newer 5D3 went the way of full LCD touch screen customizable UI, I think people would flip out though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
caberham posted:The 6D has wifi transmit like the RX100's? Cooooool. How's the focus compared to 5d3? Too bad we can't make our cameras connect to a pocket Wifi/3g wifi router and auto upload home. Everything I read says that the 5D3 and 6D have the same sensors. The main difference between the two is going to be the super duper autofocus system and being 1.5 fps faster. Great for sports/bird/action shooters but not worth the money for the rest of us. I just jumped from 50D and the AF on it was fine for me, so I have no complaints about the 6D's. To make up for the AF you get wifi and gps, which I love the wifi but haven't messed with the gps much. I think the 6D is a great way to get out of Canon's sinking crop ship with out breaking the bank (or avoid it completely if you're new). The biggest thing holding me back was replacing my crop lenses with lenses that were just as good/better. I figured if I wanted something to cover about the same range and dof as my $400 17-50 2.8 Tamron, I'd have to buy a $2300 24-70 2.8. However, I didn't realize that f4 on a FF camera is the same as F2.8 on a crop. I thought that the included 24-105 f4 was a downgrade, but it's not. This whole time I've been using a 27-80 f4 equivalent and now I got a 24-105 f4 with way better optics and and a way faster and silent focusing mechanism. The image quality seems up there with my 70-200 2.8 is II and I really don't need anything sharper. The only thing I miss is my Sigma 8-16. I'm kinda debating on getting either the Sigma 12-24 or maybe the Canon 8-15. The Sigma has me worried about IQ (doesn't seem as nice as the 8-16) and I worry about the 8-15 becoming too gimmicky since it's a straight up fisheye. Haggins fucked around with this message at 05:52 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Whatup 50D buddy  Yeah I love my 17-55 2.8 to death. If you want to go wide on the cheap, might as well try the new Samyang's. Man they are even making a 35 1.4 Samyang.If I upgrade what about... my... my EF-S~~~  Sigma 30 1.4 17-55 2.8 Tamron 12-24 Oh well, I do get to plug in my 17-40 and 85 1.2 So yeah, I'm going to upgrade to 6D. How's the video for 6D?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
caberham posted:How's the video for 6D?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
How can the 6D and 5D3 have the same sensor when they have different megapickles?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:As far as I know, roughly on par with the 5D III -- unless you're hoping for Magic Lantern RAW video. Alright I'm sold on 6d. Is magic lantern like black magic good?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
6D has less options, more aliasing, and less DR in video due to some secret sauce Canon included in the 5D3. But mostly the same. On the flip side, tests have actually given the 6D a slight edge in low light stills.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Haggins posted:This whole time I've been using a 27-80 f4 equivalent and now I got a 24-105 f4 with way better optics and and a way faster and silent focusing mechanism. The image quality seems up there with my 70-200 2.8 is II and I really don't need anything sharper. It's not really an 'f2.8 equivalent'. You get a similar DoF to f2.8 on a crop, but it's still a stop of light slower. You still need to double your shutter speed or ISO to get an equivalent exposure. (of course, your new 6D is a bit over 2 stops cleaner than your 50D was, so thats not really a problem) Also, you didn't have to pay $2300 for a 24-70/2.8 II. You could have bought a mkl for $1500. Or a Tamron with IQ equal to the $2300 Canon plus 4-stop IS for $900. That Sigma 12-24 gets bad press at 12mm, but from everything I've seen, it's about equal to most other UWAs over the same range (ie, 16mm onwards). And below that, it's pretty unique (outside specialist primes, like that Samyang 14mm/2.8 that the internet is obsessed with). I'd love to try out the Sigma, but I can't find anywhere that rents them, so I think I'll just get the cheapie 14mm prime for now and deal with it. INTJ Mastermind posted:How can the 6D and 5D3 have the same sensor when they have different megapickles? They aren't the same. The 6D version is slightly smaller (by like 0.2mm x 0.1mm) has slightly more DR and slightly less color depth. But outside of parents-basement-dwelling-test-chart-shooters, they are pretty much identical. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 07:45 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
caberham posted:Sounds pretty awesome! How do you light your venue? I guess you set up some lights for doorway entrances? Receptions? Or something? Thanks, usually it's just a corner of a club, and I'll set up with one Paul C Buff E640 inside a Westcott 50" Apollo softbox. Since it has a bounce design (rather than frontward-firing), it balances nicer, and I can back it up against a wall to get more distance. Keeping my poo poo safe from drunk people takes precedence over getting the best lighting. For floor stuff, I'll hand-hold an LED video light with a CTS gel over the front, to help balance with ambient light. I just ordered a Lowel video light, though, which I'm hoping will be a little better at that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Thanks, usually it's just a corner of a club, and I'll set up with one Paul C Buff E640 inside a Westcott 50" Apollo softbox. Since it has a bounce design (rather than frontward-firing), it balances nicer, and I can back it up against a wall to get more distance. Keeping my poo poo safe from drunk people takes precedence over getting the best lighting. That sounds really nice! Do you have an example shot from this setup? I usually roll with one or two 43" Westcott umbrellas and it works out ok, but I'd like to take the time to setup our softbox (it's a bit of a pain in the rear end to setup).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:Also, you didn't have to pay $2300 for a 24-70/2.8 II. You could have bought a mkl for $1500. Or a Tamron with IQ equal to the $2300 Canon plus 4-stop IS for $900. Agreed. I have only heard good things about the Tamron 24-70 VC and it was recently on sale for sub $1000 after rebate.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
mrlego posted:That sounds really nice! Do you have an example shot from this setup? I usually roll with one or two 43" Westcott umbrellas and it works out ok, but I'd like to take the time to setup our softbox (it's a bit of a pain in the rear end to setup). The 50" Westcott is great because it directs *all* of its light forward, and it's big enough that it can handle fairly large groups. Here's a few samples from this last weekend's event, a record release party for a local hip-hop artist.     The place was packed, so I had to set up in a back hallway, and most of the group shots ran out of background, but... who cares an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 16:21 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Nice! Group photos always seem to run out of background.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:It's not really an 'f2.8 equivalent'. You get a similar DoF to f2.8 on a crop, but it's still a stop of light slower. You still need to double your shutter speed or ISO to get an equivalent exposure. The original plan was to sell the 24-105 and buy a 24-70 2.8 with the money I saved over the 5D3. However, I decided to play with it first and fell in love. Stops of light aren't as big a deal to me as DoF. My biggest concern is that I'd lose what I had with 17-50 2.8 but I haven't. I've gained way more IQ, more reach, faster response, and IS. I probably will eventually buy the 24-70 2.8 II, but I'm in no rush now.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
You should just get the Tamron and get both, basically for free.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
I guess I never looked into it since I was so over my Tamron 17-50 2.8. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens and excellent value for the money, however it looks like poo poo compared to L lenses. Also, I was over the loud and slow focusing. It's hard to pinpoint, and I may sound a little silly here but I noticed the 24-105L has the same "look" (color, contrast, sharpness, whatever it is) as my 70-200 2.8 IS II L that I've been using for a few years now. I really loved that look and I shot mostly with my 70-200 before I got 24-105. In fact, it made me hate the pictures coming from my 17-50. Now that I switched, I only shoot with the 70-200 when I need the reach and not just for the L look. So with that I said, I don't know much about the Tamron 24-70. I'll take a look into it, maybe test one out.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I only shoot with the 70-200 when I need the reach and not just for the L look.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I guess I never looked into it since I was so over my Tamron 17-50 2.8. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens and excellent value for the money, however it looks like poo poo compared to L lenses. Also, I was over the loud and slow focusing. Sell your 70-200 2.8 (commit blasphemy) then get a 70-200 f4 IS and the Tamzooka (150-600) from the proceeds. Really though, I carried a 5d3, 24-105 and a 70-200 f4 for hours through 100 degree weather recently and I was at my absolute limit toward the end. Cannot imagine what it would be like with f/2.8 zooms.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Sell your 70-200 2.8 (commit blasphemy) then get a 70-200 f4 IS and the Tamzooka (150-600) from the proceeds. Really though, I carried a 5d3, 24-105 and a 70-200 f4 for hours through 100 degree weather recently and I was at my absolute limit toward the end. Cannot imagine what it would be like with f/2.8 zooms. If you're not breaking your back, you're not going hard enough. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Sell your 70-200 2.8 (commit blasphemy) then get a 70-200 f4 IS and the Tamzooka (150-600) from the proceeds. Really though, I carried a 5d3, 24-105 and a 70-200 f4 for hours through 100 degree weather recently and I was at my absolute limit toward the end. Cannot imagine what it would be like with f/2.8 zooms. Hah I couldn't ever give my baby up. I used to carry her attached to a 50d all day in the FL heat. It was fine with the black rapid attached on the lens tripod foot. Then again I'm a pretty big dude and lived in FL most my life so it didn't bother me (in Seattle now). I do still want to get the 2x III extender to turn it into a 140-400 5.6. I don't have a huge need for a super telephoto so I think it will fit the bill for me. My ideal camera bag is a 12(or14) to 24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and a 70-200 2.8. Throw in a close up lens (which I keep in my bag) and an extender and I've got a lot of capability with just 3 lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Pre-production 7dII's will supposedly be out in the wilds of Brazil for World Cup
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Looking to pick up a cheap prime lens for my T1i. I'm looking at the canon 40mm f2.8 or the 50mm f1.8. I'll be using it mostly as a portrait lens and was leaning toward the 40mm but I wonder if I'll be missing out on the extra f stops the 50mm offers. I already have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC and I find sometimes the pictures aren't as sharp as they could be. Mind you I'm very new to this so it is more than likely user error for the soft pictures. Ideas/opinions?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Get the 1.8 it's cheaper. For single portraiture you probably don't want something so wide anyways If you are new what's probably limiting you is technique than actually gear.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Yeah you pretty much already have a 40 2.8. The 50 will give you shallower dof.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Dunno if it's your technique like caberham said but the 40 2.8 is sharp as hell wide open. I'd definitely recommend it over the 50 1.8, which I think is a horrible cheap lens but if it's portrait work your doing, consider saving up and getting the 85 1.8 instead. It's SUCH a good portrait lens.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
He has a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, which effectively already gives him 40 2.8. The Tamron should be sharp as well.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
I have a 17-55 f2.8 and the 40 f2.8 is sharper then that thing and will have tons more contrast than the 50 1.8 which needs to be stepped down anyways to get any decent sharpness out of it anyways. I would look at flickr river and see what looks you prefer between the 2.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Best idea is to make friends and gear swap. Or rent them for a while.Quantum of Phallus posted:I'd definitely recommend it over the 50 1.8, which I think is a horrible cheap lens but if it's portrait work your doing, consider saving up and getting the 85 1.8 instead. It's SUCH a good portrait lens. Someone dissing the nifty fifty? Oh man :shotsfired: Yeah it is a cheap piece of plastic but I already went through 2 of em. But it's like one of the only lens to keep up with inflation. Like the stone of Jordan of lens. Do recommend the 85 1.8 Oh I cracked my 85 1.2 don't be an idiot like me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
I liked the 50 1.8 until I got the 40 and realised how horrible the contrast/colour reproduction is on the 50.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
I had both the 17-50 2.8 an the 50 1.8 and I still got the 40 2.8 when it was on sale, refurbished. Maybe I'm retarded (probably) but it's way sharper than the 17-50 and gives me just enough room (on a 60D) that I feel like I didn't have with the 50mm.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:43
|
|
