|
rolleyes posted:If I'm looking at the right one then that's f1.4? If so then I guess it's all relative and inexperienced me thinks it should be significantly better than the Tamron set to the same focal length.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Thanks for all the advice guys. A friend has the 50/1.8 which I've played around with a bit and I was finding that there were occasions where I couldn't stand back enough, e.g. taking informal portraits around the table at a family gathering would have required me to stand back through a load bearing wall. If you're saying I won't notice much change from the Tamron then I guess maybe I need to experiment more with the 50 and stick with the Tamron for the rest. My only complaint with the Tamron is that it's very bulky compared to a prime so is a lot more "in your face" for relatively short range work - people notice it a lot more than a more compact lens. Also, while I have your attention, maybe you can explain something I noticed while playing with the 50/1.8. I was taking comparison shots with it vs. the Tamron with identical settings (so 50/2.8 on both) and noticed that even at the same aperture the prime had a shallower depth of field. What's up with that? I thought it was strictly a function of focal length vs. aperture, but I guess there must be more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Thanks for all the advice guys. A friend has the 50/1.8 which I've played around with a bit and I was finding that there were occasions where I couldn't stand back enough, e.g. taking informal portraits around the table at a family gathering would have required me to stand back through a load bearing wall. Zooms are often not exactly the focal length they claim to be, especially near or at MFD. So it's possible you were comparing more like 50/2.8 vs 45/2.8
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:On canon the 35/2 IS is a great option as well. For what it's worth, I got this lens a little while back and haven't taken my Tamron 17-50/2.8 out of the bag since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Thanks for all the advice guys. A friend has the 50/1.8 which I've played around with a bit and I was finding that there were occasions where I couldn't stand back enough, e.g. taking informal portraits around the table at a family gathering would have required me to stand back through a load bearing wall. You could look into the 40/2.8 pancake lens. It's about the same price as the 50, but gives you a little more room to play with on a crop sensor. Or do what I did and get fed up with it all and buy a full frame camera haha. That's an investment though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
You'll never get any real subject isolation on the 40 though. (Still the best lens Canon have released in years)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm sort of looking for a recommendation here. I'm a hobbiest and have owned canons forever. I recently upgraded an old t3 to a t5i, and for some strange reason my wife has suddenly become interested in what I am doing with my camera. So interested, in fact, that the other day she pointed out to me that a t5 bundle was on sale somewhere. Clearly she'd like a camera, but it occurred to me it would be kind of stupid to get a bundle with a bunch of lenses I already own. So my question is this I guess, if she wants a camera is it worth it for me to buy a full frame camera and give her my t5i, or should I just get her a t5 body and save a bunch of money? On paper, as a hobbiest who wants the best body possible, it is a great idea! Having said that, I guess I am questioning if I really need to spend the extra money, since I'm pretty happy with the t5i as is. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Less noise, better lowlight, shallower DOF. Your glass may not fit, if it's EF-S, DC, DX and whatever else crop lens designators there are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Also all your existing lenses will become noticeably wider, so if you do tele stuff you'll end up cropping more. If you don't actually need the wider field of view, it's worth considering a crop pro/higher level body instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Less noise, better lowlight, shallower DOF. Your glass may not fit, if it's EF-S, DC, DX and whatever else crop lens designators there are. Yes, this might be a big issue. I would have to take inventory first over which of my lenses would actually work with the new body. Elliotw2 posted:Also all your existing lenses will become noticeably wider, so if you do tele stuff you'll end up cropping more. If you don't actually need the wider field of view, it's worth considering a crop pro/higher level body instead. Right, and this is the problem I am having. I do not need anything better than what I am currently using. I do use my tele lenses sometimes--I did today actually--but it's not my most used lens by any metric. Often as not these days since I've been doing a whole lot of walk all over the place, in who knows what the light conditions, with who knows what subject I'm using a straight 50. Pretty much all of my lenses get some regular use though. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
A used 7D might be up your alley. Much faster shooting and controls, but your image quality won't be any better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Isn't the t5 non-i also to be avoided like the t3 non-i?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
If I was in your place, I'd buy a used 7D and spend the potential full frame money on lenses or whatever. The used 7D comes out to be about the same as a new T5i anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
The 70D would probably be better. I don't know why anyone would get a 7D over a 70D unless they needed the slightly better framerate and buffer. The 70D has a better sensor, DPAF and a touch screen which would probably be missed on the 7D. Basically the same general price used as a 7D, too. Although, comparing the 70d to the T5i, I'm not really sure there is a big enough difference there to really justify an upgrade. In ZombieLenin's case where they are looking to buy a second camera, it might be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
I sold my 7D and all my EF-S stuff and immediately spent the proceeds on a 6D. I have the 35 Siggy Art and the 24-105L. Any good instructional videos I should watch? Any other tips for getting the most out of my new setup?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
bolind posted:Any good instructional videos I should watch? Any other tips for getting the most out of my new setup? What exactly are you trying to do? Everything works pretty much the same, though you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at how much you can push the ISO now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Just take photos, I'm not much into video although I'm thinking I should. Is the AF system much different? I've almost exclusively done center point so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
bolind posted:I sold my 7D and all my EF-S stuff and immediately spent the proceeds on a 6D. I have the 35 Siggy Art and the 24-105L. Any good instructional videos I should watch? Any other tips for getting the most out of my new setup? DR still won't be as good as on the other side of the fence, but high ISO will be markedly better than on a 7D so have fun with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
I need some new lenses in the 70-200mm range for wedding photography and studio work. I'm deciding between using two primes OR the 70-200 ii. The 70-200 will cost me about ~$2600 while the two primes ~$800 and ~$1200  I can't decide! I already have a 85mm so I figured 135 and 200 would cover me
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:I need some new lenses in the 70-200mm range for wedding photography and studio work. I'm deciding between using two primes OR the 70-200 ii. I'd go with the 70-200 for the versatility and also because I assume you're doing this full-time. I have used the prime trinity before for both event photography and studio portraiture but it's really quite a pain in the rear end to keep changing lenses, unless you have multiple bodies. Otherwise if this is something you do on the side, just go with the prime trinity. I don't think the 200/2.8 is really needed because you can just step in with the 135L.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Oh yeah I should've mentioned I'm carrying 2 FF bodies
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
35/50 prime and 70-200 is probably my favorite combo for shooting social events.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Are you in a country with a crappy exchange rate? Canon refurb 70-200s have been going for about $1800 lately. I've never tried it, but if you stick a 1.4x TC on the 135/2, you end up with a 189/2.8. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Are you in a country with a crappy exchange rate? Canon refurb 70-200s have been going for about $1800 lately. For such a nice prime, the 135/2 takes TC's very poorly for some reason. The 70-200 (any revision IS or no) and the 200/2.8 especially, leave it in the dust quality wise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
bolind posted:Just take photos, I'm not much into video although I'm thinking I should. Keep using center point, the AF system on the 6D is actually a downgrade from the 7D because Canon hates you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Keep using center point, the AF system on the 6D is actually a downgrade from the 7D because Canon hates you. I've found the 6D center point to be considerably more accurate than the 7D at all apertures big and small. Definitely not as responsive, but it's absolutely spot on rather than needing live view in really precise situations. Even better, the precision focusing screen lets me know this before reviewing a bunch of botched shots at 10x.  Obviously for any sort of action the 7D is much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:I've found the 6D center point to be considerably more accurate than the 7D at all apertures big and small. Definitely not as responsive, but it's absolutely spot on rather than needing live view in really precise situations. Even better, the precision focusing screen lets me know this before reviewing a bunch of botched shots at 10x. The 7/70 points are freaking gigantic is why. Its great for tracking handoff from point to point but it's hard to get precision in a busy area when each point overlaps like 1/2 of the points around it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
B&H has a pretty good review of the 7D MkII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7THzK2fr4hU
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
That's just a 10mn long advert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Well, yeah, B&H gotta sell some bodies, but it still enlightened me about some of the features of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
I'd rather get a 70D for half the cost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:I'd rather get a 70D for half the cost. I can confirm that the 70d is a great camera, but absolutely blows in low light. That said, it's better built than expected, and is a helluva lot better than it's price suggests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the sensor was exactly the same between the two. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:I was under the impression that the sensor was exactly the same between the two. Maybe I'm wrong. Canon says "tweaked" - I highly doubt there is much difference at all - any perceived high iso improvement is based on JPEGS and the better processors in the 7DM2. The 70D does fine in low light if your expectations are that it will perform like an APS-C camera anyway, because that's exactly what it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
A few months ago I got to use a friends speedlite, but I never got it to fire. Thought it might be the flash as the contacts on the camera appeared to be fine and it was detecting the flash properly (internal one won't pop up, external flash menu worked). But now I my own Yongnuo arrived and it doesn't work either. In the menu it says "incompatible flash" or something, but it's probably just because it's manual. The only explanation I can think of is that a while ago the camera fell out of my bag from around knee height and that might've hosed up something inside since there's no visible damage on it anywhere. Is there any way to open that part of the camera to see if anything's broken? It's a 550D (maybe I should just buy a 5D already).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I've been using a well worn 1000D/XS for 5 years now. Over the time I have had a lot of fun with landscape and long exposure photography. I've finally gotten into reasonable paid work and am thinking of upgrading my camera body. I know the advice generally is glass before body, but for me what I really want is fast sharp wide low light photography, and I think in many ways that full frame might be the way to go to make my existing (full frame) 28-75mm f2.8 tamron wider and work better in low light. So I guess my main questions to the goons are 1) Has the sensor tech in the canon lineup significantly improved over the last 5 or so years? 2) Can i get a decent jump up by going to say the 70d/60d vs what I have now, or is it mostly peripheral features/ ergonomics you're buying by jumping up the prosumer line? 3) Should I just nut up and spend two months of disposable income on a 6D body? Trambopaline fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
If a 6d is literally 2 months of play-around money i'd probably go for it. The AF isn't too terrific, but it's a good camera. If you have only EF-S glass you might want to look across the fence (D750). When you're coming from a 1kD everything will be an improvement, but you'll want glass that keeps up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
The 6D (as well as the 5D3) can go two stops higher in ISO compared to the crop sensors while maintaining a similar amount of noise. On top of that, they have way less color noise and it looks generally more like film grain. Plus the larger photo sites may make your Tamron a little sharper. That said, since FF uses more of the image circle, sharpness and aberration issues off-center, that the crop camera didn't care about, may become visible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
At the very least, stepping from using a Rebel-style entry level body to...well, anything above that (70D, 7D, or the full frame bodies) is a major step up just in terms of controls and layout. The body feels bigger, there are more independent controls (the back wheel helps so much), and it just is a much better tool to do the job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Also the xs is an 8 year old sensor in a 6 year old body so literally anything available today crop or full frame will be a significant upgrade in all categories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:20
|
|
