Canon Thread: "I tried to give an EOS-M to a clown at the circus and he punched me"

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Canon Thread: "I tried to give an EOS-M to a clown at the circus and he punched me"

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

casa de mi padre posted:

Is there a list of the "better than Canon" lens options? It feels like a list that somebody would make.

I'd love to see a list along this line.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 16:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 17:08

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

1st AD posted:

The 5Dmk2 does NOT have better video than the 6D. Though everything else about it is a lot better, especially the construction and how it feels in your hand. The 6D also has built-in wireless control, even though it was flaky as hell to use (with the Android app at least).

D600 would be my bet (I own one of these) and the dynamic range is pretty insane. Plus you get 2 high speed SD card slots.

The sensor in the 5d2 is pretty inferior compared to the 6D's sensor.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 18:43

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

So has anyone with a 6D tried the beta version of Magic Lantern yet? I'm considering giving it a try, since focus peeking looks really cool and I'm hopeful that dual-iso mode will come to the 6D eventually. Any trip reports out there before I dive in?

# ¿ Jul 23, 2013 18:26

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Combat Pretzel posted:

Yeah, that. If you set a "regular" lens to MF, a mode where it does nothing, it'll work because its electronics tell the camera it works in MF mode. A true MF lens without electronics, it won't work for whatever dumb reason. Unless you're glueing a third party chip on it, signalling the camera about MF mode. Something fiddly I don't intend to do.

Magic Lantern's focus peeping mode seems like it would still work in that scenario though, as it works by analyzing the live view image in realtime and overlaying a series of dots over points of critical focus, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the feature.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2013 20:55

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Huxley posted:

XTi sets usually eBay around $250 for body, kit lens, bag, card, battery and charger. Is that such a bad deal to get started? I will say I wasn't super impressed with the borrowed XT tonight, but I'm trying to keep it under $300-400 for everything plus a 50mm if I could.

A 40D blows an XTi out of the water, and a 50mm lens can be had secondhand for around $90 to $100. The XTi wasn't a bad starter camera, but you're looking at not very much more outlay to get a vastly superior body with the 40D.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 02:29

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Gambl0r posted:

Is the 6D at least as good as the 7D when focusing in low light? I find that to be the worst part about the 5Dmk2, and I know it's significantly upgraded in the mk3. Concert photography is all about focusing in low light so that might be extremely important to him... Food photography could easily be done with either.

The center AF point in the 6D is probably the single most accurate low-light AF point in Canon's lineup. The non-center AF points suck. So if you're good with focus->recompose, you're fine.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2013 01:47

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

pseudonordic posted:

I love my 50 F/1.4.

My 50/1.4 is the lens that stays on my camera 90% of the time. I love that thing.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2013 19:36

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Seamonster posted:

star trek abstinence parakeet you're not telling the whole story:

Canon price increases

�EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM went from $1149 to $1349
�EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM went from $1399 to $1599
�EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM went from $1899 to $2199
�EF 17-40mm f/4L USM went from $739 to $839
�EF 50mm f/1.2L USM went from $1439 to $1619

Ugh. I was strongly considering the 70-300 as a tax return purchase next spring.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2013 17:46

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Spime Wrangler posted:

Problem solved

Sure, unless the used price jumps too. I'm worried that with new units going up a couple hundred, that the used market will sweep upwards as well.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2013 18:05

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

doctor 7 posted:

6D arrived along with the 24-105L

First full frame and L glass. Jesus stepping up from a 60D is phenomenal and the wireless iPhone trigger looks like it'll be pretty fun. How's the video on it?

Now I should probably sell off my 550D. I've got a 3rd party grip, 2 3rd party batteries (1 official), 18-55 kit lens and a 55-250 zoom. Any idea how much I could get for it? I may pick up the Canon 50 1.4 so I could probably toss my nifty 50 into that mix.

The 50/1.4 is a great lens, so selling the 1.8 to give yourself both extra cash and extra motivation to pick it up is a good plan.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 19:49

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Seamonster posted:

I'd suggest something 85mm because while the 135 is great its also a bit tight for portraiture indoors - unless you're doing that sort of thing exclusively outdoors.

See if you can't swing a 40mm pancake. The plain old 50mm is getting really long in the tooth and is pretty horrid wide open. The pancake on the other hand is totally usable wide open, aside from heavy vignetting.

I'd note that the f/1.4 version of the 50mm is quite a bit better than the f/1.8 version though; I shoot with it wide open or stopped down one stop and it's still sharper than my old 1.8 stopped down to f/4-ish.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2018 14:56

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

SMERSH Mouth posted:

Still not very efficient though. Fast-paced professional photographers rely on CO2 lasers to get the maximum amount of light on to their sensors as possible.. but not before removing the AA and IR cut filters.

I tried this and now my sensor is emitting a cloying green smoke, does that mean it's working??? It smells like good photos!

# ¿ Sep 24, 2018 15:32

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

So, my 24-105 f/4L got damaged a couple months back, and I finally got around to shipping it off for repairs. Canon just quoted me almost $400 for the repair, which feels like a lot when I could just replace it outright for very little more than that. I've never been super impressed with the image quality out of it, so I'm considering maybe replacing it with something else. I have a Sigma 24-35 f/2 DG Art, a Canon 50mm F/1.4, and a Sigma 150-600 DG ISM as my other 3 lenses. Currently I shoot on a 6D, but I'm very strongly considering upgrading to an R6 Mark II in the immediate future (roughly 95% of the way towards convincing myself to pull the trigger).

Any suggestions on whether I should just bite the bullet and spend $400 have the lens repaired, pay an extra $100 to replace it (and maybe get a sharper copy?), or save my cash and buy a different walkabout lens? I was pondering maybe the Canon RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM or Tamron 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 DI VC PZD as a replacement, if anyone's got experience with those. edit: If I'm replacing it with a different lens, I'm hoping to stay under the $1k mark, I'm already about to be out $2.5k.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2022 22:42

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

dank glitterqueef posted:

How would you say this compares to the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II? Do you know if they're comparable in terms of quality? That one just seems a little more doable for me in terms of price...

The Sigma 150-600 blows the non-L 70-300 completely out of the water, IMO. There are some focus issues for mirrorless systems apparently (though my new R6II *seems* to get along just fine with the Sigma), but if you're on a DSLR I'd say the Sigma is a windmill slam pick over the 70-300.

Also, I've now had my R6II for about 24 hours and I am absolutely floored at how amazing it is compared to my beloved 6D. The autofocus is SO GOOD. The only issue I've had thus far is that when I threw a flash on, it seemed like something with the exposure compensation broke, because every shot was coming out about 3 stops underexposed, but I wasn't able to adjust EC through any of the controls that I could find. I'm sure there's some combination of settings that adjust that, but I haven't had time just yet to figure out what was going on.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2023 01:04

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

ugh whatever jeez posted:

Using third-party lens? I have Tamron 35 mm 1.8 that sometimes does this with mk I (and then sometimes works perfectly). Other than that, perhaps flash settings in menu, ambience priority, flash priority etc

I was using my Sigma 24-35 f/2, so yeah, it could be that. I'll do some testing with my Canon 50 f/1.4 and see if that's the issue, thanks!

sb hermit posted:

Hmm. Looks like those pictures are from last year. I think we're gonna need some fresh pictures of that dog.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2023 17:36

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

ugh whatever jeez posted:

Using third-party lens? I have Tamron 35 mm 1.8 that sometimes does this with mk I (and then sometimes works perfectly). Other than that, perhaps flash settings in menu, ambience priority, flash priority etc

Got some time to test it and it is indeed only happening on my Sigma lens and not on my Canon one. I'm super confused about why it's doing this.

edit: Looks like the issue may actually be the speedlight - I was using my Neewer NW985. I switched to my old Canon 430 EX II, and both lenses got "proper" flash exposures (they did not, however, match the exposure simulation).

However, with the Neewer flash on, the Sigma was 3 stops underexposed from what the exposure simulation showed, while the Canon 50mm matched the exposure simulation exactly.

Guess I gotta buy some new flashes. :negative:

Lights fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 3, 2023

# ¿ Jan 3, 2023 20:32

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Bottom Liner posted:

24-105 2.8 L being a power zoom is a game changer for a lot of videographers. Also a great single lens choice for a ton of photo situations.

The fact that you can have 24-300 range at 2.8 on just two lenses is wild stuff. Your back and wallet will hurt, but drat.

That 24-105 f/2.8L is a goddamn siren song and I'm extremely tempted. I might see if I can trade in my EF 28-70 f/2.8L, EF 100 f/2.8L, and Sigma 24-35 f/2.0 to get the cost down to maybe only $1.5k. Ouch.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2023 18:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 17:08

Lights: Dec 9, 2007; Lights, the Peacock King, First of His Name.

Anyone have any ideas where to find a 24-105 f/2.8 in stock? Every single place I've checked is out of stock / preorder only.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 00:50

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Canon Thread: "I tried to give an EOS-M to a clown at the circus and he punched me"