|
I've been doing a video work with my 60D + 50mm to get a feel for it in preparation for making YouTube videos. Should everything I shoot with the camera come out blurry and grainy? It looks real cheap and not good at all. Am I just bad or are the video capabilities of this camera not worth using?
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
I think as long as you are shooting at a reasonable ISO a 60D should be ok for video, unless you need full-time AF. In video mode the 60D can't track and refocus on your subject if it's moving, if you want that from canon you need a body with DPAF like the 70D or 80D. If your video is really grainy it sounds like it might just be that your ISO is too high?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Every time I look at lenses and prices I'm reminded why I didn't buy an interchangeable lens camera this time around. Kilometers Davis posted:I've been doing a video work with my 60D + 50mm to get a feel for it in preparation for making YouTube videos. Should everything I shoot with the camera come out blurry and grainy? It looks real cheap and not good at all. Am I just bad or are the video capabilities of this camera not worth using?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:I've been doing a video work with my 60D + 50mm to get a feel for it in preparation for making YouTube videos. Should everything I shoot with the camera come out blurry and grainy? It looks real cheap and not good at all. Am I just bad or are the video capabilities of this camera not worth using? What's your room lighting? DSLR video is much better than home video used to be, but it still benefits from above-average room lighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 10:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I'll have to post an example when I can. With low ISO and in focus it still looks like a cheap camera phone video to me. It's a hard to explain issue but footage should clarify. I've used it in anywhere from mid Florida sun to a somewhat well lit room. Seems to be the same either way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:I'll have to post an example when I can. With low ISO and in focus it still looks like a cheap camera phone video to me. It's a hard to explain issue but footage should clarify. Are you sure the videos are set to record in the highest definition possible? Could be set lower for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Are you sure the videos are set to record in the highest definition possible? Could be set lower for some reason. Yeah I've checked that and it seems to be 1080p. It does look lower res though for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:Yeah I've checked that and it seems to be 1080p. It does look lower res though for sure. How are you viewing the video? I know with my 6D video looks terrible when playing with a standard video player. Switching to Final Cut makes a huge difference in video quality. I thought there was something wrong with the 6D because of this. Never had this issue with other DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Maybe there's a better thread. A friend asked me to do his wedding video, so I was like sure I'll use my T5i and it'll be swell. Doing research now, looks like I'm gonna need a couple 128gb cards to be safe, that's the easy part. The camera is limited to half hour clips, I can't see that working too well? I know it'll split the files in 4gb sections but I don't want any gaps every half hour. Obviously now nobody is expecting super profesh here but I want it to be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
I've never filmed a wedding so take this with a grain of salt, but I can't imagine anyone caring if every last second of the whole thing is documented. Doesn't that stuff get edited down to a five minute highlight video anyway? Point being a 30 minute clip is probably plenty. The real issue is it's going to be a full time job and you won't be able to actually enjoy any of the wedding. I guess if you hate weddings that might be a plus, but if it's a close friend maybe you do actually want to be part of the ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
If you're comfortable with running 3rd party firmware, magiclantern runs on the t5i and can auto restart recording when it hits the 30 minute cap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
mrlego posted:How are you viewing the video? I know with my 6D video looks terrible when playing with a standard video player. Switching to Final Cut makes a huge difference in video quality. I thought there was something wrong with the 6D because of this. QuickTime. Interesting point. I'll have to see it in iMovie and maybe something else. I wonder why that's a thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:QuickTime. Interesting point. I'll have to see it in iMovie and maybe something else. I wonder why that's a thing? Old video codec/software OS not updated/Canon happens etc,.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
codo27 posted:A friend asked me to do his wedding video, so I was like sure I'll use my T5i and it'll be swell. (...) The camera is limited to half hour clips, I can't see that working too well? I know it'll split the files in 4gb sections but I don't want any gaps every half hour. Unless your friend belongs to a religious tradition where every second of the hours-long ceremony is super important, I wouldn't worry too much. Your best bet is probably to talk with the officiant(s) of the ceremony and explain your situation: they can probably clue you in about times during the ceremony where there are a few moments of transition. This way when people are walking around or setting something up, you'll have time to do a quick stop/start into a fresh 30 minutes. If you're really paranoid, set up some kind of silent countdown timer so that you'll know how much time you have left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
I'm in the market for a basic telephoto zoom lens for a T5i. I think I've been recommended the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM kit lens in the past. I know the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM is a million times better, but I can't justify the cost at the moment. So I found this on Canon price watch: http://www.cameracanada.com/products/productdetail.aspx?pid=8546B002 $229 CAD, which is $179 USD. Has anyone bought from this company and shipped to the US? Will I pay an assload on shipping/customs, or is this a screaming deal that I need to jump on ASAP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I'm thinking about getting the Sigma 150-600mm Sport or maybe the Tamron G2 equivalent. Anybody have experience with either and thoughts? I've been happy with my 70-200mm Canon ƒ 2.8 for a long time, but I'm thinking of some nature & closer sports photos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:$229 CAD, which is $179 USD. i have never ordered stuff from Canadian stores but anecdotally i remember some people having customs issues when shipping across the border for goon secret santas. I don't know if it would be better/worse with it being an order from a business to a consumer
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I'm in the market for a basic telephoto zoom lens for a T5i. I think I've been recommended the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM kit lens in the past. I know the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM is a million times better, The 55-250 is a seriously amazing lens that can and does compete with older 70-200s in all regards except maximum aperture and (sometimes) autofocus. Also check eBay, you should be able to get one that's as good as new (maybe with a few scratches in the plastic but that doesn't matter) for a third less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I'm in the market for a basic telephoto zoom lens for a T5i. I think I've been recommended the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM kit lens in the past. Got rid of all my canon stuff so this is sitting in my closet. I am to tired to look up used prices but I'll sell it to you for what you find is fair. I'm in Los Angeles, would probably use priority mail. Condition I'd say is 9 out of 10. Only really used it on one trip. I can take whatever other pictures you want. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Hdip posted:Got rid of all my canon stuff so this is sitting in my closet. I am to tired to look up used prices but I'll sell it to you for what you find is fair. I'm in Los Angeles, would probably use priority mail. Is that the first 55-250 or the second 55-250 or the 55-250 stm? The quality of the things has increased quite noticeably over time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I'm thinking about getting the Sigma 150-600mm Sport or maybe the Tamron G2 equivalent. Anybody have experience with either and thoughts? I bought the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary for a trip to Montana and it was great for wildlife. I'll still default to my 70-200 though unless I need the reach, since that's the only thing it does better than the 70-200.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Tell me how to find out and I'll let you know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Hdip posted:Tell me how to find out and I'll let you know. You have the Mark II. The original model was just marked EF-S 55-250mm. The mark II had 'EF-2 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS II' printed around the front bezel and the last version has 'STM' added to the name on the lens. The Mark I and Mark II are identical optically, only the exterior got a redesign (the mark I had a silver focusing band, the mark II was all black and had a lower profile for the af/mf switch) . The Mark III is the good one and it got an optics upgrade and a stepper motor. The Mark II and the Mark III are both still in production. I can tell yours is a Mark II because the STM has a focusing ring that goes right to the front bezel, while the Mark I and II versions have a few mm between the front bezel and the focusing ring. Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:i have never ordered stuff from Canadian stores but anecdotally i remember some people having customs issues when shipping across the border for goon secret santas. I don't know if it would be better/worse with it being an order from a business to a consumer I've bought plenty of non-camera gear from the UK, and I've never had any issues. I did a quick search and it looks like generally people don't have issues getting camera gear in to the US from Japan. I'd expect it to be easier to get stuff from Canada. Some people seem to claim that due to NAFTA, anything from Canada or Mexico is golden. There are also some things floating around about anything under $2k being easy as well, so hopefully I'm in the clear as far as customs is concerned. The vendor's "Shipping" page has a blurb for US shipping. Says they haven't had any feedback from US customers about duty fees, so that's a good sign. They do say that they have to quote shipping special, though...can't imagine it'll be much, but when this is a brand new lens for $40 cheaper than a refurb from Canon, it's hard to say no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:You have the Mark II. OK, so probably not the one he was looking at. BUT, if you want to try out the length for cheap, just make it worth it for me to go to the post office.  $45 shipped?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I'm thinking about getting the Sigma 150-600mm Sport or maybe the Tamron G2 equivalent. Anybody have experience with either and thoughts? I like my 150-600 G1 Tamron. Definitely a big lens but great reach and pretty and reasonably good AF and IQ (you have to stop down a bit). I can only imagine the G2 is better, and the Sigmas are supposed to be great as well. These lenses perform well and are great values. If money isn't an object and maximizing reach isn't necessarily your goal, maybe look into the new Canon 100-400 which would double your reach in a faster and much more compact package.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:If money isn't an object and maximizing reach isn't necessarily your goal, maybe look into the new Canon 100-400 which would double your reach in a faster and much more compact package. And 400~600mm range brings me into new territory as a photographer. Price is an object too, but I have been wanting to buy a piece of glass for almost 2 years now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
What's the go-to upgrade from the kit lens these days?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
What sort of things do you want to shoot? Full-frame or APS-C? How much do you want to spend? Which kit lens do you have? As you've probably noticed there are a lot of lenses and they are all varying shades of good depending on what you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
lol there mr./ms. butt you could at least give us some real basic pointers like "wide angle or tele" or "zoom vs prime"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:What's the go-to upgrade from the kit lens these days? -Tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC (their image stabilization) -Either of the Canon 40 mm 2.8 or 24 mm 2.8 pancake primes depending on if you have full frame or crop (24 is perfect for that) -Sigma 30mm Art if you want an upgrade from the pancakes above -55-250 STM is the recommended zoom telephoto for crop (I think I have the version II without STM and it's also not bad and even cheaper) Those are good starting places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
harperdc posted:-Tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC (their image stabilization) this is a good and productive post but if you have a full frame lens, make sure that you aren't getting anything above that's crop only
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
My experience with the Tamron was bad. Slow to focus, noisy as hell, and it started coming unglued so I got rid of it. Replaced it with the version 1 24-70L and that thing is still my go to. Haven't had any of the issues with over 60,000 photos on it over 6 years. Many say it's great, but I'm just throwing in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:My experience with the Tamron was bad. Slow to focus, noisy as hell, and it started coming unglued so I got rid of it. Replaced it with the version 1 24-70L and that thing is still my go to. Haven't had any of the issues with over 60,000 photos on it over 6 years. You're also comparing something you can get for $250 to an L lens. Yes, the Tamron isn't super fast, but it's a step up from the kit lenses and is 2.8 throughout the range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
I'd second that the Tamron is noisy. I wouldn't say it's slow to focus compared to some other 3rd party lenses, but it's certainly not the quickest on the market. I've not had any quality issues with mine and the sharpness beats some much more modern lenses. For example, I just got the 24mm EFS pancake and in my brief testing the Tamron had better sharpness at the edges of the image. It's still the lens I most often have on the camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Look. You get what you pay for. Quality lenses are expensive for a reason. Sure the other options are cheap, but don't expect the attention to detail you would get from another more expensive lens. That being said, I'm curious about macro lenses for full frame. I bought a ring flash and want to learn how to take some of those super cool close up photos that I always never seem to be able to recreate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Soulex posted:That being said, I'm curious about macro lenses for full frame. I bought a ring flash and want to learn how to take some of those super cool close up photos that I always never seem to be able to recreate. Canon 100 mm macro is great, L version if you want to spend more. 3rd party lenses are cool too, but I'd prefer Canon lenses, easier to attach their macro flashes. Though after using it on crop camera, 1X magnification on FF camera is kinda disappointing... so MP-E 65 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
I'm a cheap rear end in a top hat and just use a 40mm pancake and extension tubes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Yeah, nothing wrong with that. There are so many options, reversing lens, extension tubes, macro filters... It just comes down to how convenient you want your setup to be. Dialing up whatever magnification with a MP-E 65 is just amazingly simple after loving around with extension tubes. Light is more important anyway, getting nice diffused light from flash is another rabbit hole to follow... Regular 1X macro lens, say 90mm or 100mm, is really great to have though and is useful in all kinds of situations
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:I'm a cheap rear end in a top hat and just use a 40mm pancake and extension tubes. Manual focus is pretty much required anyway. Extension tubes cost 0 photography dollars, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 14:10
|
|