|
timrenzi574 posted: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. A possibility on both. Not related: Canon support/sales over the phone are the best people ever and super helpful. Always contact them.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Thin Privilege posted: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. Gonna steal this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Gonna steal this. Post it in every thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
I have a Tamron 70-300 that causes my 550D to lock up, but ONLY when shooting between 180-300mm + using high aperture (11+) I get a 'communication between the camera lens and body has been lost' error on the screen and need to disconnect and reboot the body and reconnect for it to start working normally again. I dont think the lens is broken, Im guessing its just that the lens is incapable of running high apertures at long zooms? Im running it high because i was shooting some cars drifting in broad daylight and to get some nice motion blur I was using a shutter speed of 1/125 @ ISO100. is there a better way to do this? the lens itself isnt that great and I dont really need that much zoom (most of the photos are around 135-150mm anyway) but it is annoying when you accidentally go for that extra bit of reach and miss a shot, so upgrading it to a better lens is definitely an option. is the canon 70-200 a good buy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:Post it in every thread. I wouldn't want people to think it was mine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I have a Tamron 70-300 that causes my 550D to lock up, but ONLY when shooting between 180-300mm + using high aperture (11+) There are several different 70-200 versions, after renting it a few times I can at least attest that f/2.8L IS II USM is amazing piece of kit that makes you not want to use anything else...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
ugh whatever jeez posted:You probably already did but... tried cleaning contacts on body and lens? To be fair, that's a $2700 lens. If you're shooting a 550D as your main body, I doubt that you're looking to drop that much on a single lens. There's an f/4 70-200 which is about half the price and isn't as good (it's not just the extra aperture that you're paying for on the f/2.8) but still decent. The Sigma/Tamron offerings in that range are about on par with it and marginally less expensive. I use a Canon 100-300 for my long lens requirements. It's pretty old and you can often find it used for less than $100 or so. It's not as fast as the 70-200 but it's good enough for daylight. The new version seems to be the 75-300 which is about $200 new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:To be fair, that's a $2700 lens. If you're shooting a 550D as your main body, I doubt that you're looking to drop that much on a single lens.  I've also used the old f/2.8 non-IS, it was also great. Don't have experience with other third-party 70-200 lenses but from my experience with Tamron normal zooms I'd hanestly prefer Canon if possible. F/4 Canon is also pretty light, not 1.5 kg monster like 2.8 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
You can find the non IS 70-200 2.8 L for under $1000 and they're great lenses. I believe you can even find the first version of the 2.8 70-200 L IS for just over a grand if I remember correctly. I bought my 2.8 70-200 L NON IS for $800 used in perfect new condition with the canon zip up padded lens case, canon collar, hood and caps. The 70-200 f4 is also hard to beat for the price as long as you don't need the 2.8
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Verman posted:You can find the non IS 70-200 2.8 L for under $1000 and they're great lenses. I believe you can even find the first version of the 2.8 70-200 L IS for just over a grand if I remember correctly. Canon Europe added the IS MK1 to it's end of service list today, which likely means it will shortly follow elsewhere. So I wouldn't recommend that one anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Isn't CPS support different from calling Canon as a consumer and asking for a repair?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Isn't CPS support different from calling Canon as a consumer and asking for a repair? they made them uneligible for CPS, because, as the email stated "Canon Europe can no longer guarantee that repairs will be possible due to the supply of spare parts."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:I wouldn't want people to think it was mine. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
The nikon-> canon lens adapters all have lovely reviews (except ones that are like $200). The main thing they complain about is that they're impossible to remove and/or get stuck to the camera. Some people said they bought an adapter for every lens, but the ones with the better reviews are still $60 and I have 3 Nikon lenses so that's super expensive to buy 3 adapters for $60. Do you all have any suggestions? gonna x-post to Nikon thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
I have one that I bought for $5 in a crappy camera store in Kyiv. It's fine. Once I thought it was stuck to the lens but then I realised that I was being dumb and that I wasn't pressing in the catch that releases the locking pin. It#s purely mechanical, it doesn't allow any communication between the camera and the lens so there's no focus confirmation and obviously no autofocus or aperture control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:The nikon-> canon lens adapters all have lovely reviews (except ones that are like $200). The main thing they complain about is that they're impossible to remove and/or get stuck to the camera. Some people said they bought an adapter for every lens, but the ones with the better reviews are still $60 and I have 3 Nikon lenses so that's super expensive to buy 3 adapters for $60. If your professional work requires everything working 100% of the time, adaptors sound a bit sketchy and I don't know if I'd trust them. How about spending a day with one adaptor, switching lenses and shooting to see if it works ok before buying 2 more adaptors? If the adaptors work 100% then $60 per lens doesn't sound unreasonable compared to buying equivalent Canon brand focal lengths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:The nikon-> canon lens adapters all have lovely reviews (except ones that are like $200). The main thing they complain about is that they're impossible to remove and/or get stuck to the camera. Some people said they bought an adapter for every lens, but the ones with the better reviews are still $60 and I have 3 Nikon lenses so that's super expensive to buy 3 adapters for $60. Sell your Nikon lenses and buy Canon lenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Sell your Nikon lenses and buy Canon lenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
So, TP is a recent grad? Wants to do serious photography, maybe as some kind of a job? Has a lot of student debt that will take years to pay off anyway? Put some icing on that debt cake and pony up for these: Used 5D Mark III Canon 17-40 L or Sigma 24-35 A Canon or Sigma 50mm of your choice. Canon 70-200, f/4 or f/2.8 IS, depending on how much you want to spend. Used, if you can find in good condition. With the above, you will be able to do whatever kind of general photography you might want. You could probably do some small-time portrait or event gigs with such a setup. That's a fairly complete kit with which you could do a lot of stuff. Of course, if you're doing this as a hobby (edit: or just don't mind using a sub-FF camera system), there are cheaper routes to go. But if you're set on full-frame, all I can say is that I would go with a basic Canon rig out like this absent any specific purpose that would drive me towards another brand. I like Canon's default color rendition, and think that Canon and Sigma stuff is more robustly constructed than Sony FF gear. Still, that's like $3500 at the low end. Edit: you can get into full-frame for cheaper (Canon 5D original or Mark II, Nikon D700) but performance will not be up to equally-priced, newer sub-FF cameras, and the lenses will still be expensive. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
If it was me in that sutuation I'd buy hobby level gear while waiting for the end of financial year. In Aus atleast you could claim the hobby gear on your tax return this year, then sell it in July (Aus eofy is June) and use that money + your tax return to buy the 5d iii etc. You'd then claim that next year and get it back in your next tax return. This is assuming your countries system works similar to Australias and that you use the gear to make an income. You cant claim personal expenses, so you need to use the camera enough to justify it as a business related expense. In Australia, you can claim tools as a business expense and get that on your personal tax return, stuff like a chef's knives or a mechanic's tools. Figure out how to game your countries system like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:The nikon-> canon lens adapters all have lovely reviews (except ones that are like $200). The main thing they complain about is that they're impossible to remove and/or get stuck to the camera. Some people said they bought an adapter for every lens, but the ones with the better reviews are still $60 and I have 3 Nikon lenses so that's super expensive to buy 3 adapters for $60. In order to really continue with this, you need to accept two things: -$100-200 is nothing in photography gear terms -It's worth more to invest in glass than in bodies Yes, adapters aren't generally considered to be standard operating procedure for most people -- they serve a purpose, but it's definitely a niche. And while I don't remember which lenses were listed previously, if they were each ~$1,000 or more, you really should be looking for Nikon bodies instead and staying in that environment. Or re-selling those expensive lenses if you're set on having a Canon body. I know you've taken some flack in the last few pages but it's because what you're asking for is contradictory. You can get a lot done without insisting on top-of-the-line gear; it doesn't make sense to use bad adapters for (comparatively) cheap lenses that you want to use because "you already have them".
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
harperdc posted:In order to really continue with this, you need to accept two things: All of her Nikon lenses are for crop-frame bodies.  Thin Privilege posted:Lenses I currently have:
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Sell the lot and start over, in my opinion. There's no way you can use lenses from two competing manufacturers on the same body without nasty compromises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Rolleyes has it right. Let's recap. You want a full-frame Canon camera and are looking for Nikon-Canon adapters because you prefer your Nikon lenses to your Canon glass. But, even with adapters, those lenses aren't usable on a full-frame body. The only lenses you have that can be used on the 5Dii are your nifty-fifty (it's possible you have the f/1.4 50mm, but as the rest of your lenses are kit lenses, I'm going to assume it's the f/1.8 version), and two kit zooms, one of which you hate. So, your options are. Sell everything and buy the gear you want without trying to shoehorn in your existing stuff. Buy a crop-frame Nikon and sell your Canon glass. I don't know your financial situation and I understand the desire to try and re-use stuff as much as possible, but nothing - repeat - nothing in that collection of lenses is worth investing into a system over. You have a bunch of kit lenses that can be had second hand for a hundo each or less. My advice to you is to reframe your priorities. Tell us what kind of pictures you want to take - so far you've only mentioned cats and some vague project that requires science fiction glass. Tell us what kind of budget you are on and whether you can write the cost off as business expenses. We can help you figure out what gear you'd need for that and how to work around budget issues. At the moment you're fixated on full-frame without having explained why that is important to you and you're also somehow trying to figure out how to make incompatible lenses work. That's not going to end well. I know you took some photography classes at college and you think you have something of a handle on things. I've never taken a single class and even I can tell that you're so far to the left of the Dunning-Krüger graph it's not even funny. There are people here with decades more experience than I will ever have who can help you, you just have to be clear about what you actually want to do, not what you think you need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:The nikon-> canon lens adapters all have lovely reviews (except ones that are like $200). The main thing they complain about is that they're impossible to remove and/or get stuck to the camera. Some people said they bought an adapter for every lens, but the ones with the better reviews are still $60 and I have 3 Nikon lenses so that's super expensive to buy 3 adapters for $60. The only way I'd ever use an adapter to mount a lens to a camera for work (i.e. not for your own free time art photography on ye olde manual rangefinder or lomo from ebay) is if 1) the lens was manual, super specialised, with no new equivalent available from the camera manufacturer, and super necessary for a specific use and 2) everything gets set up once and then you never touch it again, so really nothing matters beyond having a focus and aperture ring that you may or may not hotglue in place after setting things up. This restricts the use to static photography in a specific studio setup, and really even there the only sensible use case that wouldn't be much better served by a modern lens of the same manufacturer is some sort of rarely-used macro/reproduction setup (in this case, a good reproduction tripod/stand will be the most expensive part anyway). suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 19:16
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I will reply to your guys posts soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Thin Privilege is the best and weirdest troll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
anatoliy pltkrvkay posted:Thin Privilege is the best and weirdest troll. Why do you think I'm a troll? I'm just dumb and asking for advice. Yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
So what do you actually need to do with a camera? What are your use cases?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
THE LONG REPLY Ok first off, I’m going to say that I’m not a troll, I am just very stupid. Already stated, but I majored in Video and 3D animation/modeling, with photography as a minor, and so I wasn’t able to take too many classes in photography that I really would need, that’s why my knowledge is pretty minimal. The reason I want a full-frame camera is because I’m getting job offers in photography for some reason. I guess my school stuff/portfolio was good? I was using a 5D Mk II, so I obviously need to upgrade to something similar if I’m going to have A Real Job. Helen Highwater posted:I have one that I bought for $5 in a crappy camera store in Kyiv. It's fine. Once I thought it was stuck to the lens but then I realised that I was being dumb and that I wasn't pressing in the catch that releases the locking pin. It#s purely mechanical, it doesn't allow any communication between the camera and the lens so there's no focus confirmation and obviously no autofocus or aperture control. mrlego posted:If your professional work requires everything working 100% of the time, adaptors sound a bit sketchy and I don't know if I'd trust them. I’ve decided to not use any adaptors/the nikon lenses I have due to you alls advice. Erwin posted:Sell your Nikon lenses and buy Canon lenses. I’m going to keep the nikon but I’m going to sell my old Canon Rebel. Star War Sex Parrot posted:Also this because I went back to look at the list and realized that they're all crop lenses anyway and she's fixated on a full-frame body. I realize funds aren't limitless and every penny counts (especially if you're dead set, perhaps misguidedly, on full-frame) but I feel like Thin Privilege is still approaching this whole new camera thing completely wrong and making this way more difficult than it needs to be. How am I making it more difficult? Please explain  SMERSH Mouth posted:So, TP is a recent grad? Wants to do serious photography, maybe as some kind of a job? Has a lot of student debt that will take years to pay off anyway? Yes, recent grad. See explanation above. I settled on the the 5D Mk III. I can explain why if you all want. I already have a canon 50mm (the f1.8 not the 1.2). Why 17-40? And why the 70-200 specifically? At school we used the 24-105 f4 and I really liked that lens. Most of my pics were done with that, or the 16-35 f4. There is a 16-35 f2.8 that i am drooling at. underage at the vape shop posted:If it was me in that sutuation I'd buy hobby level gear while waiting for the end of financial year. In Aus atleast you could claim the hobby gear on your tax return this year, then sell it in July (Aus eofy is June) and use that money + your tax return to buy the 5d iii etc. You'd then claim that next year and get it back in your next tax return. In USA  you can’t claim hobby gear on your taxes. My next tax return I owe $500 due to a stupid loan that was nullified in 2009 but I took it out in 2008 (this was due to housing crisis). That’s too many words, sorry, I don’t want to get into this.I worked as a personal contractor at one point so I was technically my own business, so I know how that works, but I don’t really have anything I can legitimately claim as a business currently, and I have no income in regards to the photography, so I can’t do that right now. harperdc posted:In order to really continue with this, you need to accept two things: -yes I am well aware, photography is $$$$ -also know to invest more in lenses that’s why I’m like. only wanting to buy canon lenses because I am paranoid of getting a crappy lens. I know there are other brands that are good but it’s hard to figure out which ones are good. I don’t really trust online reviews. That’s why I ask for help here from you guys, because you guys are good. I don’t feel like I’ve taken flak, you guys have been helpful. I’ve probably just been very vague and also not knowledgeable enough so I said stupid stuff that made no sense. Helen Highwater posted:All of her Nikon lenses are for crop-frame bodies. Yeah, I realized that. rolleyes posted:Sell the lot and start over, in my opinion. There's no way you can use lenses from two competing manufacturers on the same body without nasty compromises. Realized this too. The reason I was asking about the adapters is because in video we used the 7D and there was a nikon lens we used with an adapter because it was better than the canon lens. That’s probably just a super unique situation. Helen Highwater posted:Rolleyes has it right. I do have a crop frame nikon, so I’m going to keep it (it was a gift and I talk to this person every day so that’s just not going to happen). I’m going to sell the ef-s and the camera that came with it, the rebel. I’m going to keep my other lens that came with my film camera because it’s a full frame lens. Prob not going to use it—the film I mean—but who knows. It’s a super fancy film camera. Canon also. I’ve given up on the incompatible lenses thing. I looked up Dunning-Krüger thing, and I do not think that I am more competent than anyone. I know I am incompetent, I keep saying that. That’s why I’m in here asking (albeit stupid) questions. Disregard the science fiction glass thing, my photographer friend told me it was stupid. At this point I am mainly looking at pet photography (yes they say you shouldn’t work with babies or pets). I've photographed other people's pets and they were very happy with the results. But I'm not sure I want to do that as a business? I also am not sure what to add to a portfolio, my art school stuff is weird (it’s art school). I mean, I could be an ~artist~ and keep taking weird photos, I’ve considered it. I was offered jobs in primarily photographing products and food. Not sure why, like I said, my portfolio is weird. I guess this is where I don’t really have an answer. I definitely don’t want to do wedding or baby photography, so there’s that. I’ll have to think about it. Budget is variable, definitely not more than $5,000 or so. I’m cool with non-canon lenses, but again I’m not sure which ones are good. And the business expenses aren’t possible at the moment since I obviously don’t have a business currently. blowfish posted:The only way I'd ever use an adapter to mount a lens to a camera for work (i.e. not for your own free time art photography on ye olde manual rangefinder or lomo from ebay) is if 1) the lens was manual, super specialised, with no new equivalent available from the camera manufacturer, and super necessary for a specific use and 2) everything gets set up once and then you never touch it again, so really nothing matters beyond having a focus and aperture ring that you may or may not hotglue in place after setting things up. This restricts the use to static photography in a specific studio setup, and really even there the only sensible use case that wouldn't be much better served by a modern lens of the same manufacturer is some sort of rarely-used macro/reproduction setup (in this case, a good reproduction tripod/stand will be the most expensive part anyway). Not gonna do the adapter anymore. Thin Privilege fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
The underlying premise that you need a full-frame camera if you're getting paid for photography is false. If your budget is limited, spending the money on more/better lenses will make much, much more of a difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
I think someone needs to go dig up the digitalrev pro with a cheap camera series to demonstrate how the gear doesn't define the talent. You certainly want quality tools that make your job easier but they won't make you a pro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The underlying premise that you need a full-frame camera if you're getting paid for photography is false. If your budget is limited, spending the money on more/better lenses will make much, much more of a difference. I get some paid work and have won some contests with my 70D. I also shoot 35mm/MF film which I use as a USP over my digital stuff but no-one has ever sent me home from an assignment because I had a crop-frame DSLR. If I were in your situation, this is what I would probably get with $5k to spend on photo gear (assuming that it's mostly for outside work and not in a studio): Refurb 5Dii or a new 70/80D. ~$1000. You should have a backup body too. Canon 17-40L f/2.8. $800 Canon or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 $350 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 $1300 A couple of Yongnuo 600 speedlights. $300 including radio controller Then spend the rest on spare batteries, SD cards, tripods, light stands, modifiers and gear bags
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Is Canon still doing the loyalty program by any chance where you send in crappy point and shoot and get 20% off on a refurb camera? I did that with my 50D years ago, but I want to pick up a bargain 5d3 and was wondering if I need to source a broken point and shoot again ...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
You cant claim hobby gear in Australia but you can claim tools. If you get employed here as a photographer, then you can claim it, because its analogous to a chefs knives. If you need it for work its not classified as hobby gear. Surely America has a similar loophole? Just buy the minimum you need now and buy anything else after your next return?
underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I think someone needs to go dig up the digitalrev pro with a cheap camera series to demonstrate how the gear doesn't define the talent. The series is located here, wherein they give pros not just cheaper DSLRs, but actual toys, etc. Technique and eye matters. Helen Highwater posted:Agreed. this would be a good idea I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Just go with a 2nd hand 5D2 or 5D3, then get a 2nd hand 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Those 2 lenses will cover almost all your needs until you get more specialised jobs. I did a lot of jobs with that combo and it's really all you need. You can keep the 50/1.8 since you have it already. If you're going to focus on food & products like I did, get the 100/2.8 macro instead of the 70-200.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Seconding the 24-70, 70-200 combo. Best combination of price and performance to cover the widest range in as few lenses as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Agreed with the above suggestions. If you go Canon, 24-70 and 70-200 (plus a good 50) are solid choices, both in that they are literally solid and unlikely to fail immediately when you inevitably bump into something camera-first and in covering a useful focal length range that's good for any general application. You want more (or newest-model) lenses if you want nice-to-have features like IS or for more specialised applications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Hey all, I'll be joining the Canon club with my first ever DSLR very shortly!! I found a factory refurb for the 80D that was priced really well so I jumped on it. I know it's considered more mid-level than beginner level so I'm hoping it's not too difficult to learn. Any recommended internet websites or guides for beginner DSLR folks or is YouTube going to be my best friend?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:34
|
|
