|
There's a little slack on the button that's the half-press, and then a greater resistance you push through for the full-press.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Yeah, don't sleep on the Rebels. My Rebel XT took this photo with the popup flash and kit lens and I still use it in my sports portfolio: AppPor-4 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickralso, the 70-200 f/4 was the best purchase I ever made early on:  Kil-Kare by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
It could be a slight variation in light from interior bulbs that cycle. Lots of fluorescent bulbs are at like 60hz or something
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Just Lmao if u think u can make it in photography without being willing to be a sperg
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Wow. Canon came so close to making close to my ideal camera in the 5D Mark IV. My 5D3 died last Friday so I had to rent a body for the next weekend's wedding, and figured I'd try out the 4. The focus system is great, and the live view focusing is unreal. The bump is resolution, the improvements to the senor, and the incremental upgrades to frame rate and autofocus are so welcome, but then they go and cock up the 4K video capture completely with this motion JPG nonsense, and couldn't (or wouldn't) squeeze in 120fps for the 1080p capture. It's still a hell of a camera.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
Ouhei posted:Yeah, I figured the 50 would be my indoor portrait lens. I haven't heard about it sucking wide open either, but I will look into it more. The discounts basically make it worth buying everything new, checking on prices I'd still save money over buying a used flash. I was looking at adding the 17-40 to get ultra wide coverage. My thinking was that the 24-70 would be my "bring one lens" setup for when I don't want to carry multiple lenses. ...huh. I always wondered why the 50 1.4 was so cheap as well. It looks like it does kind of suck at 1.4.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
landgrabber posted:it's mainly like, everything is a touch too soft, even when i play with the camera raw sliders to correct it - i want sharp subjects and softless backgrounds kinda. i've never been able to actually shoot with a great lens - the best one i have i think is the lesser often seen $200 tamron 28-75 f2.8. it has a gold band on it Post some examples, especially SOOC and then your edits, if you'd like someone to take a look and let you know if there are other factors going on that are influencing this you could fix without a new lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
KennyG posted:I'm headed on a 3 week trip to New Zealand in February. The fiance is letting me go a bit nuts on glass and a new body with the one caveat that I need to deliver on a photo of a penguin (to which I plan on leveraging to my first white lens) I am not about to look this gift horse in the mouth and have been lusting after a FF body since the 5d II and especially lately as my 7D is feeling a bit long in the tooth. I have mostly crop only lenses (17-50 2.8, 10-20 etc) at this point, with the exception of a nifty 50 and a 70-300 4-5.6 Sigma. I had initially thought the 6D2 was my easy goto answer paired with a glass investment in a 24-70 2.8L II and a 70-200 2.8L IS II. The past ten pages here and many of the online reviews are not very fond of the 6d2. The real knock on the 6D2 is that it's a little more expensive than it deserves to be. The biggest drawback on it is the autofocus system, which lacks sophistication and doesn't cover a whole lot of the frame with points, so you end up needing to focus and recompose sometimes. I have an original 6D that I use as a second body to my 5D3, especially during weddings, and when it gets dark I do know the 6D just won't focus as well as the 5D3. That said, the 6D2 does improve on the 6D's autofocus a good deal, with a bunch more focus points and all of them being cross-type rather than just the center point. When my 5D3 needed repair, though, I did rent a 5D4 and it is one hell of a camera. The dynamic range and noise levels are pretty outstanding, and will be objectively better than the 6D2 especially if you bring up shadows in post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the mirrorless thread: Canon's full frame mirrorless system was officially announced today. Things that jumped out at me: $2300 for the body, $100 for the EF -> R adapter 5 fps burst rate if you want servo AF during it, which, who doesn't? 8 fps without AF Video is hit and miss: no 1080p at 120fps like the A7III -- it maxes out at 60fps -- though there is 4k @ 30fps in a useable codec with Canon Log internally, and 10 bit 4:2:2 via HDMI. Caveat: 4K is with a 1.7x crop. That said, the focus system and controls look pretty dope, and it's sounding like adapted lenses work really well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Re: Canon, Sony, colors, and video. I shoot professionally - most weddings, portraits and formerly sports - as well as have a full-time position in higher ed involving photography and videography. Personally, I own a 5D3, 6D, 17-35, 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.8, 70-200, and 2x tc. At my full time job, I had them invest in an A7III, 12-24, and 24-70. My impressions so far are absolutely that the Sony is heads and tails above anything a Canon DSLR or mirrorless body offers in terms of video, and that it definitely keeps up in terms of stills. For video, the flexibility that 4k offers for editing and reframing in post is a huge benefit, as is 120fps at 1080p for slow motion. It also lets you record in log gamma for some additional color and dynamic range wiggle room. The video autofocus is also very quick and accurate, and makes run-and-gun video production a lot easier and more accessible. You can produce some great results without going hog wild on follow focus rigs and gimbals. Next to the footage out of my 5D3 and 6D, there's no comparison. The detail and dynamic range from the Sony are really staggering. Downsampled 4K to 1080p is gorgeous, as well. I will echo the sentiments on color. It definitely does render colors differently than Canon tends to, and I struggled a bit with the Sony RAWs to get back to how I prefer my skin tones to look, especially under mixed color temperature lights (like when indoor lights and window lights mix). In the end, it wasn't impossible - it just took a bit of practice. One massive advantage the A7III has over the 5D3 is ISO invariance. I'm sure I'll get the technical details all wrong if I tried to explain the specifics, but in practice it lets you boost the exposure from a lower ISO image up without introducing significantly more noise than you'd get if you'd shot it a higher ISO and not boosted it in post. What this means in addition to helping preserve a photo you underexposed is that you can expand your dynamic range a good deal by exposing for highlights and then bringing up the shadows, often while preserving a lot of detail in those boosted shadows. Where a 5D3's shadows would get noisy and start to have banding when boosted a fair bit, the A7III (and 5D4's) stayed very clean. This is a characteristic of the 5D4's sensor as well, and probably other Canon cameras. I know the 5D3 and 6D don't have it, and having shot a wedding with a 5D4, the difference was huge in practice and extremely useful for me. When comparing autofocus, the A7III has some advantages with face detection and eye focus for a lot of applications. When you're shooting in dark conditions, I'd put the sensitivity and accuracy on par with the 5D3 and 5D4's cross-type points. The 6D's AF is hot garbage, so it beats the hell out of it, but that's a low bar. I can't comment on sports / action performance like football or basketball with the A7III - the particular challenge here being in tracking fast-moving subjects - because I don't have a typical lens like a 70-200 to use with it, nor do I shoot that sort of thing at my day job with it. I did take it home to learn it though, and the 24-70 did great tracking my running dog. While the Sony certainly feels well-made, I do feel more confident in handling my Canon DSLRs, especially in adverse weather and during all-day shooting. I imagine a Sony battery grip would make the A7 a bit more comfortable, especially with heavy lenses. The one giant missing piece here is evaluating how the Sony performs with adapted Canon lenses. I haven't tried that so I have no idea, but if the autofocus is still on par, I couldn't imagine someone in my situation - shooting stills and expanding more and more into video - sticking in the Canon ecosystem if the goal is to have a hybrid system.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Why oh why is there is an RF 70-200/2.8 on the horizon and not a 70-200/4? I prefer the smaller and cheaper version, instead of the stupid expensive thing. Wondering how the RF/2.8 is going to compare size wise to the EF/4+adapter combo. Canon has a patent out for an RF 70-200 f/4. Measures at about 8.5 inches long and looks like it's internal zooming rather than extending as it zooms.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:What's the typical price for a "near mint" graded used 6D? I have a shop that has one with the box and accessories for $735, and I'm wondering if I should go back and get my first full frame body It's a touch on the high side compared to what you might be able to find on photography-on-the.net or Fred Miranda buy / sell forums or eBay, but given that it's a local sale and you don't have to deal with PayPal and shipping and all that, it's not terrible. It's definitely better than KEH.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:
A 600 f/4 would be faster and sharper in that case 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Encrypted posted:the 70-200 2.8 II and the 100-400 II works fine with the sigma adapter on the r2/r3 though Encrypted posted:Something like the 135 f2 or even the 85 1.2 ii works better adopted on the a7r2/a73r with higher eye hit rate than the crappy af on the 5d4 For anything of consequence, the 70-200 2.8 II on a Sigma adapter on either an A7III or A7RIII is effectively unusable. The focus hunting and unreliability make it really only a choice for still life. Eye AF is definitely a huge pro for Sony, but I'd argue the 5D4's AF is far from crappy. The 50 1.2 and 85 1.8 work pretty well with Eye AF, but its ability to lock is hampered by lower light and at distances, and AF tracking speed in general using the adapter is noticeable slower than native. For example, tracking a couple briskly walking down the aisle at the end of the ceremony is about the limit for the 50 1.2 + Sigma adapter + A7RIII at the distance of framing the couple waist-up -- and that's expanded large point lock-on AF, not Eye AF. It's a game-changer, for sure, but it's not as perfect and superior as you make it out to be in comparison to Canon's native offerings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Thanks for the opinion. I don’t think the size would put me off. I used to use battery grips with my Canon bodies. If you're mostly shooting stuff that can be well-controlled — landscapes, macro, portraits — where you can get the settings right and minimize high ISO, motion blur, etc, then I don't think you'll find the 5DIV's resolution will result in perceptibly better prints than the 6D's unless you're planning on cropping a lot. The larger you print, the lower the PPI needs to be because you view larger prints from farther away. I've made 24"x36" prints from my Digital Rebel XT (8MP) and they look great. I used to own a 6D and 5DIII, and rented a 5DIV for a wedding. The real upgrade of the 5DIV from the 6D is the AF — including great DPAF (live view AF) — and ergonomics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
xzzy posted:GASing hard for this new body and review units aren't even out. I am (almost) regretting my Sony switch. Because who am I kidding -- of course Canon'll disappoint me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
gently caress's sake, canon, I switch to Sony last year and now you drop this on us? https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/product-showcases/cameras-and-lenses/eos-r5 12fps mechanical / 20fps silent Internal 8K raw and 4K 120fps 10-bit 4:2:2 IBIS Face, head, and eye AF Rumored ~45MP
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:How big a print do you think you could get away with for a 20MP sensor? The biggest prints of my pictures in my house are 16x24" and those are taken with my 6D Mk2 at 26.2MP and I think they look good from a detail perspective. I've printed 24x36" from an 8mp Digital Rebel XT and kit lens through a cheapish polarizer and it looks fine from normal viewing distances.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I won't have an R6 for a while as well but I'm just glad I don't need to think about switching to Sony anymore as that would've been a huge huge headache. I'm trying to imagine what I'd do if I still had my 5D3 and 6D and was looking to upgrade. What I did a year ago was sell those two bodies and buy an A7RIII, and then after it performed like dogshit with the adapter I sold my Canon 70-200 and bought the Sony version. A year later, I definitely don't regret it. I wonder if I'd've been willing to shell out the extra grand for the Canon R5 over the Sony A7RIII for the beastly video, extra speed, and better lens performance. As it is now, I'm happy with the AF of all my adapted lenses on the Sony, but it does make me wonder what could be. Maybe if I book a bunch of 2021 weddings...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:The EU classifies any device capable of recording 30 minutes or more of continuous video as a video camera and those have a different import tariff to stills cameras. These days, with high power chips, massively energy dense batteries, and compact form factors, heat management is more of an issue than a tax markup. There's a reason why actual pro-grade video cameras have active cooling systems in them and don't even try being weather sealed. Do external recorders take care of the heat? I had my A7III plugged into a CamLink4K and recording to my computer, and, uh, accidentally left it on for 8 hours. The recording was fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:A computer powerful enough to process that 8K video in real time is going to cost you...around the cost of another R5 lol There's not a whole lot of need to process 4K or 8K in real-time, though, when you can just use proxies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Sigma lenses in general seem to have a bad rep for softness, I have their 35mm f/1.4 and I don't think I've ever hit focus wide open. Just an anecdote, but my Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 lenses have all been stupidly sharp — both are EF mount and were good on my 5D Mark III and now are 10x better with Eye AF on my A7RIII through the Sigma MC-11 converter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:I tried a 6D with 85/1.2 II in low light. AF speed to still targets was around 5-10secs. I have never used anything so slow, even manual focus is faster.. it was excruciatingly slow. I hated every moment of that poo poo rear end camera-lens combo pitifully trying to find a focus. The 6D has one of Canon's worst autofocus systems in recent years, and the 85 1.2 is one of the slowest-focusing lenses in their lineup. I'm not surprised to hear you struggled in low light. Even in the best of light, it's not going to be a super fast-focusing lens. It's made for portraits, and that's where it shines. I adapt a 50mm f/1.2 to my Sony A7R III with the Sigma MC-11, and it works great for almost anything I throw at it. I'm not sure how the 85 1.2 would fare; I adapt the 85 1.8 with great results, but that's known for its speed — I've used it to shoot basketball, even. I think you'd have better luck getting the Sigma 85 1.4 to scratch that itch.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
^^ the problem with that is that it eliminates your ability to shoot wide open, because by recomposing you'll shift the focal plane.jarlywarly posted:My 100-400 on the the 1.4x at f/8 on my 80D focuses way faster than that, so I feel something was wrong with gear/settings. I wouldn't necessarily think so. Especially if you're in low light and not using the center point, it could easily hunt for a while before settling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:That is where I'm at. Late 2000s early 2010s I thought I'd make a career out of photography. Not only are clients endlessly annoying with how little they know about budgeting for photographers, other "photographers" are constantly undercutting each other all the way to unprofitability. You can't complete with someone who lives with their parents who will do a wedding for $500. I'm sure their photos are poo poo but clients only care about the bottom line, not what you're actually offering. By the time they learn their lesson, the wedding's over and most people won't book another event photographer for the rest of their lives. It's blood money and I won't do it on anything short of my terms. My quotes are built automatically based on what my time is worth and I don't offer deals on them. If a client doesn't want to pay what I quote, then they simply can't afford me. To actually earn a living with photography, it's like 90% business and marketing savvy — building a name for yourself with your local school districts for senior pictures, mastering the art of in-person sales, catering to high-budget weddings and networking with similarly-positioned HMUAs/venues/florists/etc, getting in with corporate clients with marketing budgets, etc... The people looking for a $500 wedding or $50 family portraits are not interested in paying more for better-quality photography, and that's a side-effect of how accessible photography has become — that the market is saturated with hobbyists and dabblers that can produce semi-competent photography and don't (and shouldn't) charge a lot for it. These clients were never going to pay for a professional in the first place — they were never yours to compete for if your aim is to make a living.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
I've resigned myself to the fact that most of the time, I will have a big and heavy kit. I went mirrorless because it simply offers better features for me — better AF and frame rates, better video, eye AF, focus peaking, etc — and the size was a bonus. It is nice to have the option of creating a compact walkaround kit, but that's more of a fringe benefit than a driving decision factor for me. At times, the size can be a bit of a drawback when using long lenses. Years of using big chunky DSLRs with vertical grips have definitely spoiled me to ergonomics with 70-200s and longer lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
melon cat posted:I used to feel this way up until I had to lug around the EF 70-200 F2.8 Mark 2. It's a loving caber. Any benefits it had were immediately outweighed by its unwieldy size. it's not that bad 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2020 15:38
|
|