|
Thin Privilege posted:Take good pictures? Do you have lenses already? Edit: sorry if I'm being short with you but your questions have been really vague so far so it's difficult to assess what body fits your needs without knowing what glass/accessories you have, what subjects you're shooting and where (studio, etc.). I also immediately  at anyone whose number one feature request is "full frame" without explaining why.Thin Privilege posted:And just to triple check, EF-S is the bad one, right? Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Mar 1, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
windex posted:The EOS Ms with the small full frame primes aren't too bad. E.g. the 35mm f2, 50 f1.8. With L glass weight it's retarded though. windex posted:You'd be better off buying a M mount adapter and Voigtlander glass if you wanted to shave prices off the tiny lenses. But no AF. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:Take good pictures? If we know more about what you plan to do with the camera, then we can tell you about that 5DmkIII refurb. It is a good camera and all, but I'm not sure if you'll be best served by putting that much $ into the body. What are you taking photos of? And in what kind of light? Have you used a DSLR already and do you want video capabilities? Is camera body size/weight an important consideration? What lenses do you have and what lenses/accessories did you have in mind to buy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:"compact body with all of my nice full-frame glass" sounds nice in theory, but for me it wouldn't have saved a significant amount of weight/size to make it worth it. When hiking the glass still made up the majority of bulk, and an APS-C mirrorless body plus adapter doesn't make significant enough of a size improvement. If you're lugging a 1D body or you have small full-frame glass then maybe there's a benefit, but for most setups adapting full-frame glass to mirrorless defeats the purpose to me. There's no perfect setup, so it all comes down to what you're willing to sacrifice. I just think you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you try to bring a bunch of heavy full-frame glass to a setup that you're trying to make compact. Yeah, I'd ditch Canon if there were a system that made sense, but the fact that the body would still be compatible with wacky lenses like the MPE-65 make it tempting for macro work. I don't need like 90% of the features of a regular DSLR, but something that's more compact and capable of focusing with an LCD at awkward angles when you're jamming the lens into an army ant nest would be cool. I might rent one to see if I like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:You don't necessarily need full-frame for that. I have a few lenses already in addition to the flash. I have good (maybe?, wrote them down later in post) nikon lenses, that's why I was asking about adapters. We had those at school as well. I have the top-end film canon (at the time) and a rebel. I've been using canon for over 15 years so that's why I'm getting one. At school I exclusively used 5D MK2 which I really liked. I did not like the 7D we had cause it was good at video but not so much at pictures. We didn't have 6Ds. Full frame requirement is because I'm insane, I can't really answer why. But it's probably becuase I did film photography for 6 years so I want to continue with the size thing. Sorry, I cant explain it very well. I have some awesome film photos if youre interested. Yeah I figured that about the EF-S, thanks. mrlego posted:If we know more about what you plan to do with the camera, then we can tell you about that 5DmkIII refurb. It is a good camera and all, but I'm not sure if you'll be best served by putting that much $ into the body. I am primarily doing pet photography currently with my Canon rebel xs and Nikon d5100, but currently I'm primarily using the Nikon since it is significantly better than the rebel. I desperately need help with lighting because I was unable to take the lighting class at school, so I am TERRIBLE at lighting, so I just take advantage of my good flash and the sun (and ok, Photoshop). Is there a thread about lighting, or a really good web resource or book about it? I've read generic sites but it still doesn't help. In terms of lighting, I do both outdoor and indoor photography, in ALL types of lighting situations. Like I said, I have a good flash which works super well, but I don't have an actual good lighting kit, mine is just a cold light currently. I don't want video capabilities. I know the 5D isn't a video camera even though it can do it for like, 30 min iirc. Size/weight doesn't matter. I carried 50+ lbs of equipment daily at school, and I have huge, strong hands. Lenses I currently have: CANON: 18-55 EF-S 28-80 EF 50mm EF (absolutely love this lens) 75-300 EF (this one is actually a really bad lens, I regret getting it) NIKON 18-55 VR DX i dont know Nikon so I dont know what the letters mean 18-140 VR DX 55-200 DX I need a lens at minimum 11mm but boooooy are they expensive. I'm gonna look at the off-brand ones that timrenzi574 suggested. Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:
Sigma just released a new 12-24 art, which isn't quite the 11-24 canon has, but is close. It's oh my expensive still (1600$) , but not oh boooooy expensive like the Canon (2700$) Edit: I'm not sure why you need this for pet photography? If you want to take wacky "super closeup pet photo with a wide angle lens" pictures you could probably use a diagonal fisheye and save a lot of money. 11MM is REALLY wide. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
If you're used to the 5D Mark II's autofocus performance and want to adapt other types of lenses anyway, I'd go with a refurbished 6D over a refurbished 5D Mark III. You lose some autofocus performance (closer to 5D Mark II), some controls (AF point joystick, buttons), a CF card slot (SDHC only), a bit of burst rate (4.5 fps vs 6), and a couple megapixels of resolution (20 vs 22). You gain WiFi, GPS, better low-light autofocus, less weight, and save a ton of money. Unless you're shooting action/sports, I'd say skip the 5D III in favor of the 6D and invest the savings in other stuff. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I've been our Humane Society's photographer for a bit under 7 years - I like a 24-70 (full frame) for indoor work and a 70-200 for outdoors. Have experimented with wides, but it doesn't suit the adoption portrait look. I use an Einsten strobes indoors - either a reflected umbrella or a big ol' octabox.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:If you're used to the 5D Mark II's autofocus performance and want to adapt other types of lenses anyway, I'd go with a refurbished 6D over a refurbished 5D Mark III. You lose some autofocus performance (closer to 5D Mark II), some controls (AF point joystick, buttons), a CF card slot (SDHC only), a bit of burst rate (4.5 fps vs 6), and a couple megapixels of resolution (20 vs 22). You gain WiFi, GPS, better low-light autofocus, less weight, and save a ton of money. Money is important yes, but I do really need the autofocus because my vision is horrific and I only wear glasses, not contacts so I can't really use the viewfinder too much. The low-light autofocus is definitely an issue I had with the 5D MK II but I assume it's better with the MK III? Hopefully also I'll get a good lighting kit to help that. I am not interested in wifi/gps. I need burst rate for pet photography because as you know those adorable douchebags move around like crazy. Wish I could afford the 1D X. Weight also doesn't matter to me. Side note: I hate when my flash overheats 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Piquai Souban posted:I've been our Humane Society's photographer for a bit under 7 years - I like a 24-70 (full frame) for indoor work and a 70-200 for outdoors. Have experimented with wides, but it doesn't suit the adoption portrait look. I will look into this
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:Money is important yes, but I do really need the autofocus because my vision is horrific and I only wear glasses, not contacts so I can't really use the viewfinder too much. The low-light autofocus is definitely an issue I had with the 5D MK II but I assume it's better with the MK III? Hopefully also I'll get a good lighting kit to help that. Fast auto focus + High Burst Rate + Full Frame is pretty much the 5DmkIII at the low end. I might even offer the 1Ds mk III as a lower cost alternative, though it is a generation older and it's auto focus won't be as advanced as the mkIII's, it is similar in burst rate, buffer depth and also takes CF/SD memory cards. It also has a large battery and is weather sealed. Viewfinder should be about the same (I have not shot either mkIII). http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx With the money saved over the 5DIII you could get a bigger flash unit like the Canon 600 which should put out more power and recycle faster than the 430. Also maybe a nice long L prime for daylight action (300mm f/4/400mm f/5.6) or nice L zoom like the 70-200 f/4 ($550) or the f/2.8, all of which will focus really fast with the 5DIII/1DsIII. The f/2.8 IS is also weather sealed so that is nice, but you really pay for the IS version ($1200 vs. $1700). How much $$$ are you looking to spend total for everything (Body, wide zoom, long/zoom, flash, memory cards/2 batteries)? ~~~~ As far as lighting, I have found the strobist a really great resource on off camera flash using little strobes. I have since graduated to larger plug in strobes, but the strobist info still applies to larger flash units. http://strobist.blogspot.com/ Here is a dog I shot using one 430EX with a Westcott umbrella, 2 Pocket Wizard Plus II Tranceivers and a black sheet:  Lighting is dead simple once you get out of your head and focus on fundamentals. Just got to do it over and over again until it clicks. I have a few books that helped me if you are interested. His "On Assignment" stuff are very informative with lighting diagrams and the mental game in where to put flashes when you only have minutes to setup. http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/on-assignment.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
If you're going to use your flash for off-cam lighting (it really makes a difference), you could get manual flashes without TTL. Many people swear by Yongnuo flashes, which are a fraction of the cost of Canon flashes. Personally, I would prioritize getting a lighting kit (and learning how to use it) over to upgrading to full frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
If a fast cycle time is important for your flash, you can get an external battery pack and plug it in a port on the side. That's a lot more economical than getting a 600EX (the output is probably overkill for pet portraits anyway). I always carry a Yongnuo 560 in slave mode so I can easily set up a second light source off camera. They're cheap and they work great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
mrlego posted:Fast auto focus + High Burst Rate + Full Frame is pretty much the 5DmkIII at the low end. I might even offer the 1Ds mk III as a lower cost alternative, though it is a generation older and it's auto focus won't be as advanced as the mkIII's, it is similar in burst rate, buffer depth and also takes CF/SD memory cards. It also has a large battery and is weather sealed. Viewfinder should be about the same (I have not shot either mkIII). The only 1ds mk IIIs I can find are either $6,000 new or 800-1000& used, and I'm iffy about used ones. Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:If a fast cycle time is important for your flash, you can get an external battery pack and plug it in a port on the side. That's a lot more economical than getting a 600EX (the output is probably overkill for pet portraits anyway). I'll look into this, but I thought it was just that the flash was ovreheating, and not a battery issue? Because it just stops working after a while and I have to wait. Can you do slave mode with the 430? I have the older model, not the newest one (can't remember specifically which one, I'll look when I get home)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:I'll look into this, but I thought it was just that the flash was ovreheating, and not a battery issue? Because it just stops working after a while and I have to wait. The batteries overheat and stop sending power. Sometimes expand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
mrlego posted:The batteries overheat and stop sending power. Sometimes expand. oooo that makes sense. e: you can't attach an external battery pack to the 430 ex ii. O well Re: lenses. I need one that's >10mm. Do they all make extreme vignetting on full frame cameras, even the canon 8mm-15mm? I am very confused. Also I don't need the low mm for pet photography, it's for portfolio work. Wait mayve I answered my own question. Ugh I am no smrt Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Plz learn 2 photo God bless
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Plz learn 2 photo Thank you for the blessing. I know how to take good photos and use the cameras (Canon ones but I'm learning Nikon) but I know jack poo poo about lenses and lighting and I'm also just a babby at flashes. I can post a pic if I remember when I get home. It is of a cat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
I might suggest Google image searching for photos taken with lenses of various focal lengths
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
durk onion posted:I might suggest Google image searching for photos taken with lenses of various focal lengths I did, they seem to all have that circle vignetting. I just can't seem to find a lens that's fisheye/wide angle, less than 11mm, that doesn't have that stupid circle, even the 8-15mm canon lens apparently does it. It's this thing  I red a ton of articles about different lenses and they all seem to do that vignetting unless you're using an APS-C sensor. Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:I did, they seem to all have that circle vignetting. I just can't seem to find a lens that's fisheye/wide angle, less than 11mm, that doesn't have that stupid circle, even the 8-15mm canon lens apparently does it. It's this thing I wish you the best of luck in your search.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
anatoliy pltkrvkay posted:I wish you the best of luck in your search. I don't mean to be rude or offensive, but are you being sarcastic? Do all small mm lenses do that. There are pictures of stuff with a low mm that don't have that stupid vignette, that's why I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
You want a rectilinear wide angle lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Go figure, apparently there is a 10mm rectilinear full frame lens, but it's only available for E mount and costs $1.1k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Why do you believe that you need a sub-11mm lens? What is your specific use case that can't be solved with less exotic gear?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:I don't mean to be rude or offensive, but are you being sarcastic? Do all small mm lenses do that. There are pictures of stuff with a low mm that don't have that stupid vignette, that's why I'm confused. Those are circular fisheye lenses. There are also diagonal fisheye lenses, which don't project a circular image (usually around 15mm for the focal length on FF) which are FAR wider than 11mm is. But they warp perspective to do it just like a circular fisheye, just in a more limited way. 11mm AOV (diagonal) on FF - 126 degrees 15mm diagonal fisheye lens AOV (diagonal) on FF - 180 degrees
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Why do you believe that you need a sub-11mm lens? What is your specific use case that can't be solved with less exotic gear? http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154640/close-up-animals-with-a-wide-angle-lens-wearing-hats
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
anatoliy pltkrvkay posted:Go figure, apparently there is a 10mm rectilinear full frame lens, but it's only available for E mount and costs $1.1k. The Voigtlander 10mm is also available in M mount, so it'll adapt to most mirrorless. It's also pushing the lens mount to an extreme, non Leica owners have had issues. They did the E mount version for video so it has a nicer focus ring. The focus coupler on the rangefinder version has huge gearing and is not very smooth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Why do you believe that you need a sub-11mm lens? What is your specific use case that can't be solved with less exotic gear? https://youtu.be/hkLNW38OVNo
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
secret contract for a new beastie boys album?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:secret contract for a new beastie boys album? Lenses wider than 10mm can see the dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Lenses wider than 10mm can see the dead. his ghost is always hanging around them but juuuuuuuust out of frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:Re: lenses. I need one that's >10mm. Do they all make extreme vignetting on full frame cameras, even the canon 8mm-15mm? I am very confused. Also I don't need the low mm for pet photography, it's for portfolio work. Wait mayve I answered my own question. Ugh I am no smrt Out of curiosity, can we see some of your portfolio shots?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:I did, they seem to all have that circle vignetting. I just can't seem to find a lens that's fisheye/wide angle, less than 11mm, that doesn't have that stupid circle, even the 8-15mm canon lens apparently does it. It's this thing I used the 8-15 for a project. It is a circular fisheye at 8mm and the image fills the frame at 15. Great lens. Fantastically sharp. Used for underwater photography, it's amazing. A little more challenging on land. Natural landscapes can look OK though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Out of curiosity, can we see some of your portfolio shots? I'm working on it currently and it's a huuuuge mess because I have 6 hard drives, but I can post some actual ones eventually. For now, here's a cat. I do lots of pet photography. Sorry for the watermarks, I'm paranoid and crazy. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
How much did you pay for art school?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Why do you believe that you need a sub-11mm lens? What is your specific use case that can't be solved with less exotic gear? This was a requirement for a job that they contacted me for, but perhaps they are dumb. As am I. timrenzi574 posted:Those are circular fisheye lenses. There are also diagonal fisheye lenses, which don't project a circular image (usually around 15mm for the focal length on FF) which are FAR wider than 11mm is. But they warp perspective to do it just like a circular fisheye, just in a more limited way. Learning about this now. I just contacted a professional photographer friend who I hadn't talked to in many years and he suggested lenses, and I'm going to hang out with him soon and he's going to help me out. He suggested a 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon lens for what I need. I'm going to play around with it when I hang out with them. SMERSH Mouth posted:I used the 8-15 for a project. It is a circular fisheye at 8mm and the image fills the frame at 15. Great lens. Fantastically sharp. Used for underwater photography, it's amazing. A little more challenging on land. Natural landscapes can look OK though. Maybe one day I will have money. Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:How much did you pay for art school?  e: if you are asking because I have minimal knowledge, I actually did video/computer work as a major and had photography as a minor, so I wasn't able to take as many photo classes. Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:This was a requirement for a job that they contacted me for, but perhaps they are dumb. As am I. considering they were asking for something so exotic that it basically doesn't exist (except that single example posted above) I think they were probably dumb. Or they were talking about APS-C lenses , not FF ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:52
|
|