|
Verman posted:Sterlingtek is the brand I've used for the last 12 years or so. I used them with my olympus and then my canon dslrs. They've been around a while and their batteries are usually sold in a 2 pack and $15 each or less. Zero issues, they usually have the same or higher capacity than the original. Same, Sterlingtek had been my go-to for 3rd party batteries since my Rebel XT.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:It's good to have a secondary battery if you're an idiot like me who forgets to put the battery back after charging it when you leave the house
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Cool. KEH has a 50mm f/1.0 in stock. I’ve heard these are hard to come by, and this is definitely the first one I’ve come across for sale (not that I’ve been looking). https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-50mm-f-1-l-usm-ef-mount-lens-72-canon-50mm-f-1-l-usm-ef-mount-lens-72.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Cool. KEH has a 50mm f/1.0 in stock. I’ve heard these are hard to come by, and this is definitely the first one I’ve come across for sale (not that I’ve been looking). *looks at pricetag* 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
https://petapixel.com/2012/10/04/using-the-rare-canon-50mm-f1-0-and-its-bokehliciously-thin-depth-of-field/ dat bokeh is wiiild
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:https://petapixel.com/2012/10/04/using-the-rare-canon-50mm-f1-0-and-its-bokehliciously-thin-depth-of-field/
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Holy gently caress. They should bring this thing back into production but also not make it cost a million dollars. Well, the f/1.2 is really old...
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Get $5000 lens, take a bunch of instagram selfie style shots. We don't deserve such a lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
On the other end of the price spectrum - am I the only one who’s using an EOS-M body of any kind? I bought an M3 and the 22 f/2 prime (for ~¥54,000 all told) to be a small carry-everywhere complement to my bigger but not terribly portable 60D, and I have been very happy with it so far. Image quality is solid, and the controls/feel of shooting is good. Can be kind of a pain to use in bright light, but that’s a problem which can be handled. Also just bought the EF/M adapter mount, which I’ll put to the test more soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
^^^ Yeah, me. I'm still rocking an OG EOS-M, but loving 47th St. Photo sold me a goddamn Euro model, not a USA model, they literally just shrugged their shoulders when I bitched to them and spoke to like three managers who all looked like they were related but all said nope sorry you gotta keep it cause you opened it. Sigh. I am so stupid, not having taken enough of a beating with my Canon EOS-M (see thread title) I'ma gonna drink the Canon Cool-Aid one more time and get the M50. Yeah, everyone is telling me get a Sony A6300 you idiot, but I can't seem to justify in my mind spending money for a 2 year old camera that takes videos in a format I can't play directly on my computer. I had a store credit and some gift certs with B&H, so I ordered a starter kit, no I didn't get the 55-200 STM lens, figure i'll work my way up to it. Mind you, I did get some great stuff off of my M, but now that I think hard it was after I loaded the RAWs and shoved every slider in PhotoSlop Elements to max.. it did gather a lot of pixels back when I used it a lot. Not a full-time photo nut, just wanted a good point and shoot and found I couldn't pull myself away from the Canon teat; had Tragic Lantern installed and did some neat stuff, can't wait to see what Magic Lantern can do with the M50.. like give it better 4K? Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 16:51 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
I’ve picked up an M3 a few months back, it also sounds like every M since the first has improved and now they’re halfway decent. Slap the 22 pancake on the M50 and enjoy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:Yeah, everyone is telling me get a Sony A6300 you idiot, but I can't seem to justify in my mind spending money for a 2 year old camera that takes videos in a format I can't play directly on my computer. Wait, why's this?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
my guess is "sony"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
One of Sony's proprietary formats are gonna catch on any day now guys, just you wait. And Sony will finally dominate the world once we're all forced to use one of their in-house products.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
harperdc posted:I’ve picked up an M3 a few months back, it also sounds like every M since the first has improved and now they’re halfway decent. Oh, I certainly plan to. But isn't the autofocus supposed to be a little slow on the EF-M model? xzzy posted:One of Sony's proprietary formats are gonna catch on any day now guys, just you wait. And Sony will finally dominate the world once we're all forced to use one of their in-house products. The a6300 supposedly supports MP4 'transference' (it exports on the fly?) but it's limited to 4 GB (?!) and 1080p. 4K only supported in their wacky XAVC-S format. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 04:14 on May 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 03:17
|
|
xzzy posted:One of Sony's proprietary formats are gonna catch on any day now guys, just you wait. And Sony will finally dominate the world once we're all forced to use one of their in-house products. Sony will burn itself to the ground trying to recapture the sweet sweet dominance of the trinitron racket days
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
My friend is thinking of getting a prime lens for general purpose stuff (think 35mm on an APS-C sensor), but I have no idea on Canon's options nowadays. Her tentative budget is $200, which is really low--are there any vintage offerings on that price tier? I think she might use it on video and stuff. (her camera body is a 700D if that helps)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Not vintage but the 24mm STM pancake is a decent little lens. Well within budget too. I have one and I really like it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:My friend is thinking of getting a prime lens for general purpose stuff (think 35mm on an APS-C sensor), but I have no idea on Canon's options nowadays. Her tentative budget is $200, which is really low--are there any vintage offerings on that price tier? I think she might use it on video and stuff. (her camera body is a 700D if that helps) The 35mm f/2 from 1990 is surprisingly sharp and cheap. I got mine on ebay for $185 and I really like it. The autofocus is fast but it's really loud if she's planning to use it for video. The 24mm and 40mm pancakes aren't exactly 35mm but are both good lenses with silent autofocus and you can almost buy both of them for that budget.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
I promised myself that if I ever went on a really expensive vacation I would finally upgrade my walk around lens (and now I'm going to Japan so it's hard to think of a more expensive vacation). I currently have a 28-135mm lens (the old kit lens from ten years ago) and I'm trying to decide between the 24-70 and the 24-105. I mostly use the lens for walking around in a large variety of situations, but mostly outdoors and during the day, though sometimes I use it at night. I like the idea of the IS and extra reach, but I know the 2.8 will help when I do shoot at night. Lots of talk online about how much sharper the 70 is, but anything would be sharper than my current lens. Anyone go though this before and come to a decision? E: I have a 6D
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
24-70 II is sharp as hell. No comparison for image quality to the 24-105 (mk I). I have not used the 24-105 mk II. The difference between 70mm and 105mm max zoom is significant for me in a general walk around zoom. It would mean I would be carrying around my 70-200 just in case a bit more often and that would be a huge inconvenience for the situations I can't carry 2 zooms. I feel like I use the long end of the 105 a lot and I don't think trading the extra 35mm of focal length is worth the image quality difference. Also the loss of IS for cheap video stabilization is a factor for me. Rent them both and you'll figure it out. mrlego fucked around with this message at 23:14 on May 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I promised myself that if I ever went on a really expensive vacation I would finally upgrade my walk around lens (and now I'm going to Japan so it's hard to think of a more expensive vacation). I currently have a 28-135mm lens (the old kit lens from ten years ago) and I'm trying to decide between the 24-70 and the 24-105. I mostly use the lens for walking around in a large variety of situations, but mostly outdoors and during the day, though sometimes I use it at night. I like the idea of the IS and extra reach, but I know the 2.8 will help when I do shoot at night. Lots of talk online about how much sharper the 70 is, but anything would be sharper than my current lens. Anyone go though this before and come to a decision? It depends on your usage. Personally I would always prefer a faster, sharper (increased image quality) lens with slightly less focal length coverage (convenience) any day but thats just me. Depends on your usage and budget of course. If price is an issue, (24-70 2.8L ~$1,700) you could always go with a Sigma Art or Tamron 24-70 2.8 for $1000-1200) and you could get a 70-200 f4 ($500) for the same price of the Canon.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
mrlego posted:24-70 II is sharp as hell. No comparison for image quality to the 24-105 (mk I). I have not used the 24-105 mk II. Is the 24-70 sharp enough to crop and make up the 35mm?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Son of a bitch. I think the USB port on my 7D is busted. I’ve tried two different computers and two different cables. Nothing. Had it connected and working once this morning, hooked it up later and it was dead. Good thing I’m within KEH’s warranty period...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Is the 24-70 sharp enough to crop and make up the 35mm? I have not done cropping on the 24-70 II photos so I can't say for sure. I only had it for 4 days and mostly used it indoors at 24mm. I'll dig up some frames and see if they are as sharp cropped. I would say cropping is fine to do, especially with a modern full frame camera. I feel like Image noise at high ISOs would suffer a bit, but otherwise there is no real downside other than the work to do the crop. I guess it goes against my philosophy of "I'm getting what I want in the viewfinder or gently caress it". Which usually leaves me with no room to crop for printing an 8x10 a couple times every year.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Is the 24-70 sharp enough to crop and make up the 35mm?  Here's a severe crop that's probably a lot more cropping than you are talking about :  It's a very sharp lens. [edit] Another shot  
InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
You just convinced me to buy one and I don't even need another lens.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Very first photo from new Canon EOS M50, Intelligent mode, no flash
Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 04:26 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Not bad, is this the 22 or the 24 wide open? Decent bokeh if it isn't. Speaking of bokeh though - I can't go back to crop because FF can do so much more, especially at apertures you don't normally consider portrait like f/4 (and I can't afford any 2.8 zooms): 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:Very first photo from new Canon EOS M50, Intelligent mode, no flash Yeah, I think that looks pretty decent. What do you think of that thing so far?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Yeah, I think that looks pretty decent. What do you think of that thing so far? The manual is an absolute nightmare, visiting the website helped me out more. For example, at first glance you would assume the camera can take RAW or JPEG but not both. If I didn't own an older OG M, I wouldn't have known you can elect to save both. It took digging and I eventually discovered that feature is still there but for some reason it's only accessible via the live shooting menu, not the static menus, and even then by having to drop into an undocumented sub menu. Firmware is at 1.0 and boy does it show. The Image Transfer Utility app on both computer and IOS / Android is guided and super kludgey, if your laptop has a direct SDXC port it's so much easier to just shove the memory card into it. Having the built in flash, even though it's somewhat feeble IMHO, makes me feel better about the decidedly inflated price. And the optical viewfinder with diopter adjustment makes me feel like Canon felt guilty over loving users over with the 4K quality and tried to throw in as many widgets as they could. The M50 feels about as much of an improvement as the old AE-1 did over the original A-1, yes I am that old to be comparing film cameras... Image quality is excellent, no complaints so far with that. The camera feels lighter than the M did but that seems to stem from its mostly plastic construction. It's kind of unfortunate but the LCD display due to the design must be flipped open to use, I have no use for its selfie angles, I would have preferred the LCD have been embedded rather than flip around. I could always just use the viewfinder of course.. If you have any specific questions I'll do my best to answer..
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:It's kind of unfortunate but the LCD display due to the design must be flipped open to use, I have no use for its selfie angles, I would have preferred the LCD have been embedded rather than flip around. I could always just use the viewfinder of course.. if it's like the more recent x0D bodies you should be able to "embed" it with screen facing out and use it that way. My 60D is that way and I've used the LCD as such for 6 years without any ill effects.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
Cool. Thanks for the summary. The next time I’ll be rest for a new body in a few years I might jump from DSLR to mirrorless. Curious to see what these guys are up to. One luxury I have is that I don’t (at least fir now) give a rip about video.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:For example, at first glance you would assume the camera can take RAW or JPEG but not both. If I didn't own an older OG M, I wouldn't have known you can elect to save both. It took digging and I eventually discovered that feature is still there but for some reason it's only accessible via the live shooting menu, not the static menus, and even then by having to drop into an undocumented sub menu. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-e2FSBbkOM Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 10:40 on May 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I don't own a M50 and this video is in Indeed, you do NOT own an M50, and my choice -NOW- looks exactly like that because I managed to figure it. When you first start the camera up OOTB, it is NOT the default choice and you can only choose RAW or JPEG, not both. I am quite sure the guy who made the video had to go through the same poo poo I did and filmed his video after figuring it out. Seamonster posted:Not bad, is this the 22 or the 24 wide open? Decent bokeh if it isn't. Nope, not even either of those, though I plan on getting at least one of those 'pancakes.' It's with the standard 15-45mm STM lens that comes with the camera. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 04:55 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
For future knowledge when someone inevitably asks me about how to configure a Canon mirrorless, the issue is the Guided vs Standard option under Disp Level Settings?
Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 06:49 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
Saw a post on reddit kicking up a rumor mill that Canon is putting out new 70-200's later this year, both f2.8 and f4 versions. So that should make life exciting for gear hounds everywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Saw a post on reddit kicking up a rumor mill that Canon is putting out new 70-200's later this year, both f2.8 and f4 versions. Ah poo poo gotta sell mine off asap then.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I'd love to see what they can add to the f/2.8 model. Pretty hard to improve perfection.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I'd love to see what they can add to the f/2.8 model. Pretty hard to improve perfection. probably $500 MSRP
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 00:05
|
|
