|
mclifford82 posted:I don't see why they'd get rid of the articulating touch screen. I love that thing. Because Canon?
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Because Canon? I can see them not putting articulating on a body they mean to be built like a tank (and the 7D was a tank - the DR TV guys seriously did every horrible thing you can think of to one in their durability video) - an articulating screen is something that can and will just snap off if you mistreat it. But dual pixel AF for video, without a touchscreen seems like foolishness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
'Pros' will be using fancy schmancy rigs with follow focus mechanisms so AF isn't even a concern (for that crowd).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:'Pros' will be using fancy schmancy rigs with follow focus mechanisms so AF isn't even a concern (for that crowd). For sure, but if they put the DPAF on it in the first place, not having a touchscreen to go with it seems weird. I have a 70D and I can't imagine the sweet AF being nearly as useful without a touch screen. For photos yes, I can move my AF point around with the keypad like I do in the viewfinder, but for video that would result in pulling focus to 20 different things in between where I was -> where I'm going
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I'm in a position to do something nice for myself before our second kid arrives and I'm weighing 3 options. 1) Turning my 70-300 IS USM into a 100-400L. (Upside, I love shooting birds and that much reach would be sweet; my zoom gets a ton of use. Downside, I have no reason to own L gear aside from having nice things is nice.) 2) Turning my 40D into a 7D. (Upside, birds again, and the extra 2 stops of useable ISO would be very nice. Downside, it's spending my entire roll on a body that's only 2 stops better than what I have.) 3) Turning my 50/1.8 into a 35/2 IS. (Upside, wonderfully reviewed lens; works as a standard on my 40D and a semi-wide on my film Canon. Downside, I would most likely have to buy it new or priced-as-new, and it doesn't really open me up to new possibilities the way a pro zoom or a speedy, high-ISO sensor would.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
40D -> 70D would be my choice (although that wasn't technically an option).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Get a used 7D and a 35, collect amazing babby pics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I'm in a position to do something nice for myself before our second kid arrives and I'm weighing 3 options. 7D sensor isn't really much better than the 40D (some say it's worse). You won't get more usable stops of ISO. You will get much better AF system and faster FPS. IMO they're nice to have but nothing a little skill can't compensate for. The 100-400 would be a good upgrade. You will probably never use it indoors (unless you did your own lighting) but it would be good for birding. Now don't get me wrong, I think the 50 1.8 is great for what it is (pretty sharp and only $100). However, over all, it's kinda crappy. The focus is slow and the colors don't look all that great. It would be worth upgrading it to a 35 f/2, however, as a crop shooter, you have a much better the choice. You have the Sigma 30 f/1.4, which is cheaper and faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
/2 IS over a /1.4 is really, really a matter of preference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
I found the 7d to be a great upgrade from the 40d and used it a ton for birding. If you can wait a couple weeks, Canon should be announcing the 7dII which should push down the prices of used 7d's
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
I think that's more or less what I've determined on 40D vs 7D IQ. People who typically shoot ISO 200-400 don't see it as much of an upgrade since the sensors haven't really grown much in that range. People who shoot a lot of 800-1600+ say it's a good IQ upgrade since the sensor is usable and goes two steps further. That said, it's just two stops. And yeah, the 50 is fine, but it's nothing to get excited about, plus it's way too tight on crop for me. I don't mind the 85 on crop but something about the 50 wants to be something it's not, at least in my hands. So the 35 (or 30 if I say to hell with film) is the sensible move, the 7D is the fun move, and the L zoom is the baller move that probably makes no sense once it's sitting in my cart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Quote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Huxley posted:3) Turning my 50/1.8 into a 35/2 IS. (Upside, wonderfully reviewed lens; works as a standard on my 40D and a semi-wide on my film Canon. Downside, I would most likely have to buy it new or priced-as-new, and it doesn't really open me up to new possibilities the way a pro zoom or a speedy, high-ISO sensor would.) The 35 f/2 IS has been ~$410+tax at Canon refurb. Keep an eye on canonpricewatch as they are really quick on refurb sales/stock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:The 35 f/2 IS has been ~$410+tax at Canon refurb. Keep an eye on canonpricewatch as they are really quick on refurb sales/stock. Thanks for this, I hadn't really poked around on their refurb site, but even now they have it for $480.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Thanks for this, I hadn't really poked around on their refurb site, but even now they have it for $480. Wait for the 15-20% sale. It comes around every now and then unless you need the lens right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:For weddings mostly. Bubbacub posted:Sigma 35 1.4. You'll need the aperture. Just shot a wedding this weekend, admittedly one of my first "not just doing a favor for a friend" weddings. For reception/cocktail hour type stuff, the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART absolutely kills. I was able to pick out groups of people, get them to watch the birdie for two quick shots, and have them back enjoying themselves without holding things up. The AF is a tad slower than most USM lenses I've used, but I feel like learning about the various focusing methods, finding out what works where, and knowing how to quickly switch between them will really allow any photographer to get more hits, whether in the studio or covering events.  evil_bunnY posted:Just get a used canon 85/1.8 Seriously, the f/1.8 is so freaking good. The f/1.2 has slightly better color, gives you two stops, and has *that* look, but if you're shooting for portrait sessions, the f/1.8 always delivers. I'm always happy when I get to use it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
So I had an interesting experience with my 6D today. I was doing some shooting with live view activated, and my third party battery I've got in there just dies with no change battery warning. So I pull out my OEM battery and stick it in. Turn on the camera, And my LCD screen is flickering like crazy. Eventually the flickering stopped and I haven't really noticed it come back. But I dunno, maybe a tale of caution when using 3rd party stuff?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Whats a reasonable price for which to try to sell my kit 18-135 (non STM) lens? I want to unload it on craigslist now that I have the tamrons. Its a year old and has about 10,000 shots through it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Phummus posted:Whats a reasonable price for which to try to sell my kit 18-135 (non STM) lens? I want to unload it on craigslist now that I have the tamrons. Its a year old and has about 10,000 shots through it. KEH rates EX ones in the 230$ range, so go from there I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Phummus posted:Whats a reasonable price for which to try to sell my kit 18-135 (non STM) lens? I want to unload it on craigslist now that I have the tamrons. Its a year old and has about 10,000 shots through it. Depends on your local market if you are selling via Craigslist. See what other people are selling it for locally. If nobody is, KEH and eBay sold auctions data is where I'd go next.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
So, Magic Lantern 2.3. Who's used it, and have they had any stability issues? I was looking for an intervalometer with bulb ramping, but apparently ML2.3 has that built-in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
I used it for the raw video hack on a mk3, seemed stable as long as you were using a good memory card. I've never encountered any of the problems people have mentioned while using Magic Lantern for all the years I shot Canon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Anyone have an opinion on the 24-70 2.8 Mk I? I borrowed one from work for a wedding, and I can't really say I'm terribly impressed. It was for my girlfriend who was the second shooter for the day, and I just stuck it at 2.8 the whole time, which might have been a mistake. Weird bokeh, CA out the rear end and hit-or-miss focus, although that last bit could be operator error. In related news, I offloaded my 10-22 for a bit more than that newfangled 10-18 is selling for, which is better, lighter and cheaper, so yay for that. More money to fund a 6D or the mythical 7D2 if Canon ever gets 'round to announcing it. Edit: white shirt/black suit and 24-70 mkI mixes poorly: 
bolind fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 07:21
|
|
The shirt is actually a luminous energy being in disguise and the lens saw through the illusion. 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
bolind posted:Anyone have an opinion on the 24-70 2.8 Mk I? I borrowed one from work for a wedding, and I can't really say I'm terribly impressed. It was for my girlfriend who was the second shooter for the day, and I just stuck it at 2.8 the whole time, which might have been a mistake. Weird bokeh, CA out the rear end and hit-or-miss focus, although that last bit could be operator error. That's insane - I just went through all the pics from my brothers wedding where I used one of these on a 10D all day, and there's a little bit of CA wide open but not even close to this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Apparently Canon cut MSRP on some L lenses? http://www.cnet.com/news/yes-canons-high-end-lens-price-cuts-are-permanent/#ftag=CAD590a51e
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Apparently Canon cut MSRP on some L lenses? http://www.cnet.com/news/yes-canons-high-end-lens-price-cuts-are-permanent/#ftag=CAD590a51e Now you only need to be a Kennedy to afford the 600/4, not a Rockefeller. Canon is slumming it. Edit: the 500$ cut on the 24-70 f/4 IS is pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Apparently Canon cut MSRP on some L lenses? http://www.cnet.com/news/yes-canons-high-end-lens-price-cuts-are-permanent/#ftag=CAD590a51e It dropped the refurb prices too, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That's insane - I just went through all the pics from my brothers wedding where I used one of these on a 10D all day, and there's a little bit of CA wide open but not even close to this. I think this particular copy has lived quite a rough life. According to our graphics dude it also backfocuses heavily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd guess one of the elements got knocked out of place or something. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 mk1 and I don't get anything like that edit: This is 27mm @ f/4 an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Can I get a recommendation for a wide angle lens (zoom or prime) for full frame, budget ~$500? Uses will be buildings, rooms, environmental portraits, & occasional landscape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 is all right, a touch of CA and distortion at the edges but you can usually find it for $150 on KEH
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Sigma 12-24
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
The new 400 looks pretty swanky http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/the-new-canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii/
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Having never used one, the 400 DO always seemed like an odd duck. It's small for a 400mm lens, but I'd still rather have a 300/2.8 plus a 1.4 TC for the versatility. Maybe the new version is a lot better?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Having never used one, the 400 DO always seemed like an odd duck. It's small for a 400mm lens, but I'd still rather have a 300/2.8 plus a 1.4 TC for the versatility. Maybe the new version is a lot better? I think at first it was more of a dick waving thing for Canon , like the 1200/5.6. Not really expected to sell a lot, but they figured out how to make lenses with this tech and wanted to. They plopped out the 400 and the 70-300 and then didn't revisit until now, so I'd have to assume they have made a big stride forward with the technology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Having never used one, the 400 DO always seemed like an odd duck. It's small for a 400mm lens, but I'd still rather have a 300/2.8 plus a 1.4 TC for the versatility. Maybe the new version is a lot better? Its a little smaller and a wee bit lighter, plus you can use it with a 1.4x TC to get to 560mm without the 2x TC AF speed/IQ hit. I can see people wanting something like this for a travel wildlife lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
What would you canonerds say a well cared for 7D with 24k actuations should sell for? I'm having a bit of an issue attracting a serious buyer for mine. It's priced at about $750, but I'm in Europe. I'm not in a particular hurry to sell it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
bolind posted:What would you canonerds say a well cared for 7D with 24k actuations should sell for? I'm having a bit of an issue attracting a serious buyer for mine. It's priced at about $750, but I'm in Europe. Canon 7d refurbs have been going for about $719 as of the latest sale if that matters. KEH has them for 700-900 (https://www.keh.com/207772/canon-7d-digital-camera-body-18-m-p).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
So I just rented the 135L and holy poo poo. I need to own this lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:26
|
|
