|
Right, I've decided to update my photo gear. For the past five years, I've been using a Canon 7D with a 17-40mm lens. It's a good setup but it's starting to show its teeth. The 7D has been to hell and back. I've even subjected it to a dremel to fix a small-ish problem. It still works but I'm not exactly sure if it'll be able to handle another five years, though it's got another year to it I bet. I figure there are two avenues I could go. Either replace the 7D with a 6D, keeping my current lenses and flashes. Or I could buy the new Olympus OMD EM-5 MkII with a 17mm f1.8 as a supplement and most importantly, lets me carry a camera around more often and more casually. Only thing that's holding me back is I'm not sure about mirrorless cameras. As far as I can tell, they've improved tremendously but I'm still a bit hesitant tl, dr: Increase or decrease my sensor size by ~50% EDIT: I seem to have been blinded by all of the recent press for the Olympus and overlooked the Fuji XT-1 which actually has a larger sensor than my 7D... Fragrag fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 19, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
If you don't feel like you'd like mirrorless, don't go with it. You could always rent something for a weekend and give it a try if you're not sure how you feel. I don't shoot mirrorless myself since the SLR size isn't a big deal to me. I'm a big dude and having a 6D with a 24-105 swinging on a black rapid on it is nothing to me. If there are times I need a smaller kit (and there are) I'd rather just pull out something like a RX100 than something as big as a micro 4/3ds. With that said, I have yet to hear anyone complain about going mirrorless. In fact, it seems most people who switch never want to go back. I'm sure others will chime in on this. If you do decide to stay with Canon, I think the 6D is great way to go. You get a lot of bang for your buck and there are some great deals out there. In fact I saw one earlier today for $1200 for a new body.. I got my kit for around $1700 and it came with a 24-105 f/4 and a pretty good big rear end canon printer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Apparently some French retailer accidentally leaked the release date of Lightroom 6. Supposedly you can preorder it for March 6. Facial recognition and GPU acceleration are the only new things mentioned. I'd be okay with this, especially if GPU acceleration improved performance with complex adjustment brush masks. It would at least make the Lightroom half of my Creative Cloud Photography subscription worth something though, since I bought LR5 like 3 months before I signed up for CC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:
The X-T1, while an awesome camera, is APS-C, same size as the 7D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
The 7D has the 'Canon APS-C', which is just a smidgen smaller than the standard APS-C sensor funny enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:The 7D has the 'Canon APS-C', which is just a smidgen smaller than the standard APS-C sensor funny enough. Yeah, Canon uses a x1.6 APS-C sensor because...reasons. Do they still have that dumb APS-H x1.3 poo poo going on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Yeah, Canon uses a x1.6 APS-C sensor because...reasons. Do they still have that dumb APS-H x1.3 poo poo going on? Nah, that ended when they unified with the 1dx
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Nah, that ended when they unified with the 1dx Good, it was unnatural.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Good, it was unnatural. I think they were just trying to get frame rates as fast as possible with as big a sensor they could until technology caught up to being able to read a full frame one out that fast
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
so, i have gotten back into photo after some years of snapshots with my phone. I have an old 5d (mark 1) and i am in the process of building up my stable of glass. I have a terrible 70-300mm f3,6-whatever, no is that i got with my 350d back in the day. i have also picked up a Sigma 50mm 1,4. i love that lens. i feel i need two more lenses in the short term, a normal zoom and a proper tele. i have decided on a 24-105 F4L as my normal but i am conflicted over what telezoom to get. i have narrowed it down to two canon 70-200mms, the old 2.8 non is and the F4 is. they are both similarly prized in my market at about 6500 NOK used. Usage. i normally take pictures of my kids and dog, along with the youth kayakers i am coaching, i also want to be able to take pictures of fast moving rc cars at the track. I see the benefits of F2.8 for freezing action on sub 800 iso (my 5d does not love high iso) but i also see the benefit of IS and lower weight of the F4. anyone have input?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
I would take greater control over dof (shallower) over IS any day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I would take greater control over dof (shallower) over IS any day. As a medium format photographer, I completely cannot understand or relate to this. I envy 35mm and smaller format shooters at times, because they have more DOF - not - less. I have had a couple of shots ruined (shot on rangefinder) because the DOF was to shallow to cover the entire subject ruining the mood... I don't get the obsession with bokeh anyway, good bokeh is neutral. And what if your image is comprised to 95% of neutral stuff? Right it's neutral, saying nothing and by that I mean it's .... shi... I mean popular on Flickr, probably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:As a medium format photographer, I completely cannot understand or relate to this. Because when you can't control the background it's nicer to have blurry stuff than trash cans, dead trees, and other people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Is $800 good for a used Canon 70D body with a 3rd party battery grip and two batteries?
frogbs fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Hey gear thread. I somehow got you conflated with the general questions thread, so I'm going to repost my gear question from there.quote:I like taking photos of wildlife. Right now my setup for doing that (XSi, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS) is leaving a bit to be desired, so I'm looking for something new. Besides generally better image quality, there are two factors that are driving my desire to upgrade. One is that I need better reach than the 250 can provide. Solution is kind of a no-brainer there: get a 400mm lens. Does anyone knowledgeable in the world of cameras actually think that the newer Sony mirrorless crop bodies would be a good fit for 'serious' nature and wildlife action photography, even ignoring that Canon's weatherproofing is much more extensive?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:I don't get the obsession with bokeh anyway, good bokeh is neutral. And what if your image is comprised to 95% of neutral stuff? This is pretty ignorant thinking. It's not like shallow dof is some HDR/Instagram filter gimmick. Dof, shallow or wide is fundamental part of photography. Sure people stupidly obsess over "creaminess bokeh" but having the mere ability to create a shallow dof in camera is quite a useful tool to have in your arsenal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
quote:The other is focusing. The 250 on the 450D's AF is fairly fast and decent for handheld shooting, but it often fails to get focus on the right spot in the instant that I need it. Usually this is because there are a lot of sticks, twigs, and vines hanging around in the frame. I've missed a lot of good shots because the camera either keeps trying to focus on of those things, or it gets focused on the right spot but won't let me activate the shutter because (I'd guess) the focus motor is still running. This leaves me falling back to manual focus whenever I'm moving into thickly vegetated areas, which is ok, but not as fast or sharp as AF when it works properly. First, the sticks and twigs, or when you're trying to focus on something layered in something else, will throw off any AF system no matter how good. It doesn't know what you want. Best way to deal with this to use the AF to get part of the way there then use the manual focus override ring to fine tune it. Higher end lenses will have a free flowing manual focus ring even with AF activated (like the Canon 70-200). Secondly, your shutter won't activate because it's linked with the AF button. This is easily fixed by decoupling the AF function from the shutter button, better known as back button focusing. You'll have to check the manual or google how to do it in your camera, but it should be in the custom function menu on your camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Is $800 good for a used Canon 60D body with a 3rd party battery grip and two batteries? Seems a little high-- a refurbs from Canon and used from KEH show under $600 for the body, and I don't think those accessories would add $250 in value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Seems a little high-- a refurbs from Canon and used from KEH show under $600 for the body, and I don't think those accessories would add $250 in value. I messed up in my original post. It's actually a 70D! I think that makes it a stronger deal, yes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I would take greater control over dof (shallower) over IS any day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
fjelltorsk posted:so, i have gotten back into photo after some years of snapshots with my phone. I have an old 5d (mark 1) and i am in the process of building up my stable of glass. I have a terrible 70-300mm f3,6-whatever, no is that i got with my 350d back in the day. i have also picked up a Sigma 50mm 1,4. i love that lens. I would tell you to get the 2.8, but it's a seriously heavy piece of glass and one that you might not want to lug around all day while you'll hardly notice the weight of the 4 IS. I'd try both out (in a store or from a friend) and/or walk around with the 5d and the 24-105 first. If the latter already seems heavy to you, get the 70-200/4 IS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 09:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Haggins posted:This is pretty ignorant thinking. It's not like shallow dof is some HDR/Instagram filter gimmick. Dof, shallow or wide is fundamental part of photography. Sure people stupidly obsess over "creaminess bokeh" but having the mere ability to create a shallow dof in camera is quite a useful tool to have in your arsenal. A quick trip to Flickr pretty much shows, that like many other techniques people love to use bokeh to make otherwise completely uninspired images seem appealing. Such images are generally visually pleasing, but utterly devoid of anything interesting and do little besides providing visual stimuli. Now - I do realize that my comment was a bit harsh. What set me off was, that I felt it was implied shallower bokeh = my pictures will be better. This is mostly untrue, and dorkroom posters of all people should know this. I'm frustrated with having to deal with people who believe that a more expensive camera/lens combination will give them better pictures, when this is usually not the case. But since this is a digression of the discussion at hand and doesn't really matter to this thread I will keep it to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:A quick trip to Flickr pretty much shows, that like many other techniques people love to use bokeh to make otherwise completely uninspired images seem appealing. Such images are generally visually pleasing, but utterly devoid of anything interesting and do little besides providing visual stimuli. This is important to reiterate. In the lovely photographers thread, a unifying theme was over-reliance on gimmicks rather than creativity to make photos 'better'. A guy HDR'd a blank brick wall shot with dutch angles and unironically declared himself the 'new wave' of artist-photographers. And there was the dentist who was also a professional wedding photographer purely because he owned two 5d2's (both named THE BOSS) and L glass. All the bokeh in the world can't save a boring photo. Flickr has an 'interestingness' algorithm, which could be gamed (probably still can) by having bright colors and lots of comments & favs. Hence why there are thousands of 'FAVE THREE COMMENT TWO EVERY DAY' groups full of HDR photos with saturation turned up to 11. red19fire fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I would tell you to get the 2.8, but it's a seriously heavy piece of glass and one that you might not want to lug around all day while you'll hardly notice the weight of the 4 IS. I'd try both out (in a store or from a friend) and/or walk around with the 5d and the 24-105 first. If the latter already seems heavy to you, get the 70-200/4 IS. I have handled the 2.8 and find it heavy, but no too heavy. but as i live in a part of the world where it allways rains. (seriously, the record is 98 days straight or something) should i be worried that it is not weather sealed? My main reason for going for 2.8 if i choose to is to be able to freeze motion on overcast days without pushing the iso too much? thanks for the replies. Here, have a snapshot of my dog to show my gratitude  IMG_5095 by barebjarte, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
I went with the 35mm dx prime lens as recommended and I love it. It forces me to think a bit more about how I am framing my shot and I move more rather than rely on my zoom. I can get that sweet thin focal plane that I want because I love ~my bokeh~ for certain shots. f/1.8 vs f/4 or whatever the max aperture is at 35 mm on the 18-140 is a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
frogbs posted:I messed up in my original post. It's actually a 70D! I think that makes it a stronger deal, yes? Assuming good condition, that seems like a good deal, but probably not suspiciously/outrageously good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Yeah the 2.8 is heavy but personally I have never had an issue. I've spent many a days in the Florida summer carrying it around attached to my black rapid (using the tripod ring) in crowded environments. At the end of the day I don't feel any more worn out than if I had a 17-50 or 24-105 attached to it. To each their own though.VomitOnLino posted:Now - I do realize that my comment was a bit harsh. What set me off was, that I felt it was implied shallower bokeh = my pictures will be better. This is mostly untrue, and dorkroom posters of all people should know this. I'm frustrated with having to deal with people who believe that a more expensive camera/lens combination will give them better pictures, when this is usually not the case. It's all about creative control over the image. As the photographer I want to be able to choose what I have in focus and what I don't. For example sometimes I'll shoot a portrait with the person in focus and the background blurred. Not because I want to show off my L glass' *creamy bokeh* but because the photo isn't about what's in the background but the emotion my subject is conveying (or the dress, their body, hair/makeup whatever). Sometimes I'm not shooting on a white background in a studio and I want to eliminate the distractions. And it's not about spending a ton more money at all. The 70-200 2.8 costs $150 more than the f/4 IS. In photography money that's basically the same price. For me the 2.8 provides more creative control over the images while the f/4 IS just has IS which is nice to have but not a deal breaker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Yeah the 2.8 is heavy but personally I have never had an issue. I've spent many a days in the Florida summer carrying it around attached to my black rapid (using the tripod ring) in crowded environments. At the end of the day I don't feel any more worn out than if I had a 17-50 or 24-105 attached to it. To each their own though. think i am going for the 2.8.. but will i mess it up if using it in light to medium rain?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
No. Use a filter if it needs one (transparent, not UV).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
This is a shot from the other day when I was shooting in the rain. It's my 24-105 but I did used my 70-200 a bunch that day too. I probably should have go something to cover the hot shoe (the Canon suggestion is to put a 580ex II over it  ) and next time I'll get a UV filter for weather sealing. Had no issues during or afterwards.  by Ryan-Tamm, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that water getting into a lens may not always cause any immediate problems, but could lead to internal rust/corrosion issues over time. I'm not suggesting you have anything to worry about, it just seems there's a misconception that because nothing immediately failed, everything is OK (e.g. some folks praising the X-T1's weather sealing while using non-weather sealed lenses).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
I don't think anything got in. That particular lens is weather sealed with rubber gaskets around the switches and rings. The only part that concerns me is the zoom extension but I guess that's sealed somehow too. One thing reassuring about the 70-200 is the zoom function is all internal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Haggins posted:First, the sticks and twigs, or when you're trying to focus on something layered in something else, will throw off any AF system no matter how good. It doesn't know what you want. Best way to deal with this to use the AF to get part of the way there then use the manual focus override ring to fine tune it. Higher end lenses will have a free flowing manual focus ring even with AF activated (like the Canon 70-200). See, that's part of what has me interested in the newer Sony alphas. I've seen some limited demonstrations of their focus peaking feature and it seems like something that would accelerate my manual focusing speed, so I wouldn't have to worry about the AF getting confused. I guess now I need to track down some reliable opinions on how well the a6000 and NEX-7 are for wildlife/nature photography.[/quote] quote:Secondly, your shutter won't activate because it's linked with the AF button. This is easily fixed by decoupling the AF function from the shutter button, better known as back button focusing. You'll have to check the manual or google how to do it in your camera, but it should be in the custom function menu on your camera. I've definitely used back button focus on a borrowed 5dmkii before. I'm not sure that the XSi even has it as an option but I'll definitely check now. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Haggins posted:This is a shot from the other day when I was shooting in the rain. It's my 24-105 but I did used my 70-200 a bunch that day too. I probably should have go something to cover the hot shoe (the Canon suggestion is to put a 580ex II over it I poured wine into my 40D's hot shoe. It's still working four years later. SMERSH Mouth posted:I've definitely used back button focus on a borrowed 5dmkii before. I'm not sure that the XSi even has it as an option but I'll definitely check now. It has. Check the C.Fn.s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Cool. Another question: Can anyone identify this piece of camera equipment? It came bundled with a Minolta maxxum 7000, sigma 70-300mm AF lens, and a big rear end hotshoe flash, if that helps clue anyone in.  (Sorry for the lovely photo in the pretty picture forum)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
I don't think it belongs to any of the material you mentioned. It looks like it's some kind of lens cover for an old fashioned camera, like this.  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Yes, I think it's some kind of adapter lens for an old rangefinder film camera. It doesn't go with the rest of the camera accessories. That's eBay for you. The bundle I bought looks like it came straight out of someone's storage unit, with nothing done to prepare if for sale. The Minolta is absolutely mint, though. Got a nice camera bag and some batteries too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Hey gear thread. I somehow got you conflated with the general questions thread, so I'm going to repost my gear question from there. Man, gently caress sony for that sort of poo poo, go get an OM-D EM-5 or EM-1 or something. Weather sealed body, better ergonomics, IS, better glass, higher fps, etc etc etc. The crop factor works out in your favor for that sort of stuff too. The 40-150/2.8 and 300/2.8 when they come out later this year will be loving nuts too. Shits all over canon's weather sealing on all but the top tier bodies too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
On paper the EM-1 does look like pretty much everything I need. Is there a high-end 400mm lens for that system, that's well-regarded? (Not that I'd be buying it right off the bat, especially when there's apparently a shitload of cheap old OM tele lenses available on eBay for me to mess around with until then.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:On paper the EM-1 does look like pretty much everything I need. Is there a high-end 400mm lens for that system, that's well-regarded? (Not that I'd be buying it right off the bat, especially when there's apparently a shitload of cheap old OM tele lenses available on eBay for me to mess around with until then.) The thing to keep in mind is that m43 is a 2x crop. A 200mm lens on an em-1 gives you the same FoV as a 300mm lens on the nex-7. There's a 40-150mm f/2.8 that just came out that's supposed to be real good (but you pay for it, it's around 1500 bucks), panasonic and olympus both make 70-300 zooms (that's 140-600mm equivalent fov!) that are solid in the 500 dollar range, and there's the 300/4 PRO that's due out later this year most likely, which if it's anything like the other lenses in the pro line that oly have been putting out will be loving awesome http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/02/12/new-olympus-7-14-2-8-pro-and-300-f4-pro-announced/ Personally I use an old nikon 180/2.8 EDIF (such a good lens) for most of my shooting, and I prefer having one of my back buttons to toggle zoom focus assist over using focus peaking. Bit more accurate that way. (also I use an e-m5, which doesn't have focus peaking)  P8290251.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr P9160310.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr P9160332.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr P9160161.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:18
|
|