|
SMERSH Mouth posted:
Can you link to an example of what specific photos you are looking at?
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html well hello there
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html This is a ridiculous price even for L glass
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
d0s posted:This is a ridiculous price even for L glass $300 more than the original version that came out almost 20 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:$300 more than the original version that came out almost 20 years ago? Not to mention , if that BR fancy pants does what Canon is claiming... that makes the competition for this lens very different from the sigma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Heyyyyyyyyyy, look at that sexy thing I can't afford! Yep. I'm going to wait for the coffee mug version to come out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Many people who take their photography "seriously" deliberately upload down-sized images to flickr to help combat people stealing their work. It happens a lot that pro photographers' work gets used without permission in billboards, signs, ads, etc. Sometimes they even leave the author copyright image on it! So, it's often recommended to just not upload a billboard-printable image to flickr. That also supports your later claim in court that you have the original, since you have a higher res file (or a raw file) which nobody else has. Ah, ok. I did notice that there seemed to be a correlation between scaled-down photos and tacky watermarks or 'signatures'. But your explanation makes a lot of sense. I've always figured that if I ever sold any prints of my work, that I would take the corresponding file down off my Flickr page (if it was up there in the first place), but yeah, it would certainly suck to have someone else take a high-res version from your Flickr and use it for commercial work without your knowledge. Sadly, I don't think that's something I'd have to worry about  Many of the photos in the various 5D2 groups on Flickr go a little heavy on the the HDR effect, too. Then again, many of them are from before 2011. (That's in part why I wondered why the majority of images taken with that camera on Flickr were scaled down... I thought maybe it was a storage or bandwidth thing.) It seems like HDR had its heyday along with the 5D2. mrlego posted:Can you link to an example of what specific photos you are looking at? It's more like what photos I'm not looking at, because I can go to https://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_5d_mark_ii/ (Flickr's 'explore by camera' page for the 5D2), but submitting a query into the search bar at the bottom returns either 1 image, or nothing. For example, the result for 'macro' in the 5D2 section is quote:Oops! There are no matches for “macro”. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
coldplay chiptunes posted:I'll wait to see comparisons to the Sigma ART which is 1/2 the price. The Sigma is a fantastic lens. My only criticisms with it are a slight amount of CA and a relatively pokey AF, which would probably be solved by upgrading to the Canon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:$300 more than the original version that came out almost 20 years ago? What makes lenses different from every other technology that gets both better and cheaper as time passes? Not trying to be a snarky rear end in a top hat I seriously want to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:The Sigma is a fantastic lens. My only criticisms with it are a slight amount of CA and a relatively pokey AF, which would probably be solved by upgrading to the Canon. After over a year of owning it, I'm still blown away every time I zoom in to 100% on a shot at f1.4. I agree about the AF, but the CA is pretty mild compared to the 85 1.8 or 50 1.2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
d0s posted:What makes lenses different from every other technology that gets both better and cheaper as time passes? Not trying to be a snarky rear end in a top hat I seriously want to know. High end lenses are made of glass (and sometimes fluorite) elements that take a long time to make, often by hand, and have high percentages of rejection which can only be determined at the end of the manufacturing process. Fluorite lenses literally have to be grown, which can take a year or more. The lens bodies are all hand built and calibrated. There is usually a ton of development time required as well, sometimes the better part of a decade. Here's a video of some of the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovxtgj4SsiI The other reason is economic - these aren't disposable electronics that people replace every other year. They are precision tools that people expect to own and use for a long time and to maintain their value when sold. They're more like cars than bluray players or cell phones in that regard. The cost to Canon/Nikon/Sigma/whoever to make these lenses might be significantly less than the asking price but they don't actually sell a huge volume of any given lens once you get past the kit zooms and such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Here's a video of some of the process: This EF 500mm F4 L IS USM video does a nice job showing how the parts of the EF 500mm F4 L IS USM are assembled into the completed EF 500mm F4 L IS USM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I would venture a guess and say that 1, maaaaybe 2 goons actually own a 500mm f/4L IS. Hell, I could sell every last piece of gear I own including my 5D3 and come up short of the 500mm's price tag. E: I mean the 2nd version.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I would venture a guess and say that 1, maaaaybe 2 goons actually own a 500mm f/4L IS. Hell, I could sell every last piece of gear I own including my 5D3 and come up short of the 500mm's price tag. Well yeah, why would they buy the 500mm when there's that 600mm available for only 2.5k more?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Checking out flickr's 'explore by camera' feature is my favorite way to find out just how green the grass always is on the other side. Now do a search for "confirmation bias"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Well yeah, why would they buy the 500mm when there's that 600mm available for only 2.5k more? Because you can always buy a TC to be more flexible and carry less weight? Also x 500 f/4 L IS USM II owner's club member checking in* *hopefully, soon-ish, have yet to find the money
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Yeah, like 1.5lbs lighter and a couple of inches shorter is nothing to sneeze at if you shoot handheld. Even if I could afford to get a 500/600, I'm not sure if I would want one since I already have a 300 + TCs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
I love my 600 dearly but given the choice today between the 500 or 600 I'd go with the 500 purely for weight reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Yeah, like 1.5lbs lighter and a couple of inches shorter is nothing to sneeze at if you shoot handheld. Even if I could afford to get a 500/600, I'm not sure if I would want one since I already have a 300 + TCs. Yeah, if I had the money, I'd go with a 300mm 2.8 with the TCs too. 300 really isn't tremendously long on full frame but get the 500 and you might find a situation where you can't step back far enough. Also that extra 2 lbs of weight is my camera body right there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Why are 5ds worth so much more than 6ds? Does the naming convetion of bigger number = newer not work on the Xd range?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Why are 5ds worth so much more than 6ds? Does the naming convetion of bigger number = newer not work on the Xd range? On the Canon full frames, smaller number = more expensive I guess. 1d>5d>6d
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Why are 5ds worth so much more than 6ds? Does the naming convetion of bigger number = newer not work on the Xd range? Each of the single digit cameras (1D, 5D, 6D, 7D) are their own line. 6D was released after the 5D Mark III and intentionally positioned at a lower price point by giving it a much less advanced autofocus sytem and making a couple other features slightly inferior (e.g. 97% viewfinder vs. 100%). It's still a superb camera in its own right though, and has some features the 5D3 doesn't, like Wifi, GPS, and what is still Canon's best low-light sensor after 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Why are 5ds worth so much more than 6ds? Does the naming convetion of bigger number = newer not work on the Xd range? With canon you gotta figure out what your needs are and then match those needs with the camera. You can't just grab the latest/greatest and have everything. I (really my wife) own a 5ds and it's great for anything you can have reasonable control over the light or if you are tripod shooting before late dusk/after sunrise. It's really an almost medium format studio camera that is more portable. I haven't tried to shoot birds or sports but I feel like it'll likely fall short there. And it fails as a "walking around" camera because without a pop flash, and middling low light performance, you really can't be inconspicuous at all. So, non-sports event, controlled (or at least augmentable) lighting, studio and tripod landscapes the 5ds (or 5dsr) are great choices. If you're looking to shoot other things you'll end up with one of the other options. Anubis fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
TheQat posted:On the Canon full frames, smaller number = more expensive I guess. 1d>5d>6d XXXX = Very basic models XXX = Basic consumer models XX = Mid range models X = high end models With the high end models, the numbers decrease as you move upmarket. EOS 1 has always been the professional camera line, the 3 was a very high end amateur camera, the 5 was an upmarket amateur line . With digital they had the 1 series, and the 5 series was slotted where the old 5 series was, until the mk3 came out at which point it became more like the old 3 series, and the 6 series became the new 5 series. Presumably they did not want to release a camera called the 3D even though everyone has been waiting for years for them to do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
I'm not looking at buying one, I just walked past the camera section to look at computer mice at a store to make sure they weren't horrible, and say that they had a "5d", no mention of mark, for 3500, and a 6d for 2000. gently caress buying those new.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:I'm not looking at buying one, I just walked past the camera section to look at computer mice at a store to make sure they weren't horrible, and say that they had a "5d", no mention of mark, for 3500, and a 6d for 2000. gently caress buying those new. 6D has been having some insane deals though. It's recently sold new for $1150 body, $1650 with the 24-105 f/4 (which is an excellent and useful lens). Both come with free big rear end Canon photo printers which are pretty cool to have. With prices like those I don't think it's even worth messing with Canon crop anymore. If someone is consider crop they would be way better off going with a Fuji/Sony/4thirds mirrorless. The only exception imo would be wildlife photographers who want crop for the reach and folks with friends who have lenses they can borrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:I'm not looking at buying one, I just walked past the camera section to look at computer mice at a store to make sure they weren't horrible, and say that they had a "5d", no mention of mark, for 3500, and a 6d for 2000. gently caress buying those new. What store was that? Current pricing for those is waaaaaaaay less, like a thousand dollars less for the 5d mark iii at b&h and adorama. Still expensive but not that expensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:What store was that? Current pricing for those is waaaaaaaay less, like a thousand dollars less for the 5d mark iii at b&h and adorama. Still expensive but not that expensive. I think those are aussiebux
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I think those are aussiebux Ah, poor aussies
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Yeah, if I had the money, I'd go with a 300mm 2.8 with the TCs too. 300 really isn't tremendously long on full frame but get the 500 and you might find a situation where you can't step back far enough. Also that extra 2 lbs of weight is my camera body right there. The versatility of the 300 is awesome to have. I have a TC on it 90% of the time, but on a handful of occasions I've needed a fast telephoto in low light situations. The images I got with the bare 300 were amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
1.4x? What does it do to max aperture and AF? I have the 400 5.6 on a full frame body and just throw it on my a6000 when I want more reach; you lose AF and/or it becomes f/8 when when you put a TC on it so I don't bother. I guess that's the luxury of having a second camera, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:1.4x? What does it do to max aperture and AF? I have the 400 5.6 on a full frame body and just throw it on my a6000 when I want more reach; you lose AF and/or it becomes f/8 when when you put a TC on it so I don't bother. I guess that's the luxury of having a second camera, though. 300 f/2.8 + 2.0 TC = 600 f/5.6 Loss of AF is non-existent with the 1.4 and barely noticeable with the 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Oh, f/2.8. That seems to be quite a decent lens. At least I would think so, seeing as how it costs more than my car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Oh, f/2.8. That seems to be quite a decent lens. At least I would think so, seeing as how it costs more than my car. It's not bad, but it doesn't have any leica glow
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
It's also the sharpest canon lens according to DXOmark
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:What store was that? Current pricing for those is waaaaaaaay less, like a thousand dollars less for the 5d mark iii at b&h and adorama. Still expensive but not that expensive. One of those department electronic stores in Australia. This is the country where your $150 lens is $450 even though our dollar is pretty close
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:One of those department electronic stores in Australia. Your dollar isn't very close at all. 1 USD = 1.43 AUD. The US Amazon price of a 5dmk3 body only is $2,499. 2499 * 1.43 = 3,573.57. 6d is $1,399 which is about 2000 aussiebucks on the nose. Sorry bud, but those prices are fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
http://tamron-usa.com/F012_F013special/index.html#/45mm-F18 So finally Tamron delivers what I've been wanting from Canon forever. Hope these focus well
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:49
|
|