|
Bubbacub posted:Mine feels just right. The Internet suggests the resistance can be pretty variable. If it's really that loose, it can probably be serviced to tighten it again. I'll have to check that out. Barely touching it gets it to move.
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
JacobRyan posted:I have a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, purchased back in 2010 so it's out of warranty, I lent it to what I thought was a trustworthy friend (yeah I'm a dumbass but her being a "real photographer" and me being a putz with a fancier than average camera I thought it'd be okay) and when I received it back the autofocus no longer works. Upon further investigation and the interrogation of my friend, they admitted to placing the lens in the same compartment that held an "empty" bottle that had milk in it. My question to you fine folks since I'm on my own for this repair, since said friend is being a douche and refusing to help fund the repair and I need/want this lens in working order. Would you ship it to Canon for this repair which I believe the repair estimate was about $130 or do you think a local reputable shop could handle it as well? If local, I live in Metro-Detroit so any local shops you could recommend that you know that handle repairs well would be greatly appreciated. Are you sure it's your friend's fault? I've stayed far away from that particular lens because there are plenty of reviews out there where the AF either just stops working or works very intermittently (and even when it works as advertised, I've heard it's not the best anyway). I'm not saying this is the case, but I've been following this lens and these comments for a while. This review, coupled with supporting comments, are what keeps me from investing in it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1LC9HTN344H7X/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00009XVCZ&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=#wasThisHelpful
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
JacobRyan posted:You may be right but I was using it without issue for almost 4 years, and it was in their possession for 2 weeks and came back with the issue. Mainly that anecdote was to ensure that you don't think I'm a complete idiot, though it was fairly stupid to lend it out. Regardless, would a local shop just charge me and then send it off to Canon? Also, is there other online repair labs that may be a better/faster/cheaper alternative to Canon's online repair? I appreciate the response and info. I'll have to see what they when they do the repair and if they can pinpoint it to the liquid or if its' just this natural occurring issue. I've yet to have an issue with a lens that required sending it in so I'm afraid I can't help you there. I'm sure someone will weigh in and drop some knowledge soon enough. Best of luck!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Shellman posted:I'm sure this has been asked before, but any recommendations for telephoto (probably zoom) on a full frame? Seems like 70-200 f/4 L non-IS is basically the bare minimum for entry. Is there anything comparable to the 55-250 for crop, or are the cheap ones mostly crap? I don't do a TON of work that the 24-105 isn't long enough for, but it'd be nice to have the longer end of the range covered. You'll more than likely want longer than 70-200 on a FF. I rented the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L this past weekend and while I really enjoyed using it (even the push-pull zoom mechanism), I wasn't at all impressed with the IQ. The range was great though. I actually might check out the one Mr. Despair brings up this weekend to see how I like it. The price is definitely right. I used the Canon 70-300mm USM on my T4i a lot and that's also a good choice I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Just Announced: Canon EOS-1D W: The Professional DSLR Designed Specifically for Wildlife Photographers also announced to be in development: EF 200-600mm f/4 L W IS USM/STM Lens http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9393
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:I might be a bit too cynical, but surely this is an april fools joke.. It is. I particularly love the 24 FPS burst rate it gets. Totally unprecedented. Whirlwind Jones posted:Please don't post dumb April fool's day jokes. Yeah, that's a great way to make sure I don't do that. mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Portfolio posted:I guess I'm mostly curious as to what specific situations I'd notice the shortcomings of a Rebel over a 70D. The T4i with a Class 10 SD card will burst (in RAW) 5 FPS, then drop significantly down to ~2 FPS. I this would be the most limiting factor if you're going to be covering anything requiring a burst rate that's decent. I own the T4i and I love it, but it's not for bursty shooting whatsoever IMO. The body of the 70D is also much more comfortable to me and doesn't feel as awkward with heavy glass on the end of it. If you have a local shop that will let you try each out untethered (unlike a Best Buy where holding it more than 2 ft from the display will sound the alarm), then I'd go and try each one out. If not, rent them and try them out ($106 for both bodies + 18-135 STM kit for 4 days on LensRentals.com). I did this when deciding between a 6D and 5D Mark III and consider it a great investment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Yeah but it's 100% of an APS-C sized sensor so it'll be smaller than a 5D (I think!) You're still seeing 100% of the effective field of view. So if you have a 50mm lens on it, your effective FOV is 80mm. Your viewfinder is showing you 100% of that 80mm, which is what you will end up with in your image. If that is incorrect, please let me know. That is my understanding.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The Canon 40mm/2.8 pancake if you're cheap. The Sigma 35mm/1.4 if you like shallow DOF and/or low light. I've never been able to get used to using wider angle lenses. My 16-35 2.8 sits around collecting dust for the most part. I should probably sell it. Definitely going to be picking up that Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART, however. That focal length is a sweet spot for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:As mentioned, one stop is probably not make-or-break given how high you can turn up the ISO on modern bodies (particularly FF) and still get good results. The difference between 3200 and 6400 on a 6D is nothing. The IS will also help compensate somewhat - as long as your subjects are not moving. So it helps for low-light landscapes or whatever, but for sports or action-stopping you need aperture, not IS. Also if you bring a tripod you solve a bunch of these problems at a single blow, it's probably the cheapest thing that will improve your photos if you don't mind the weight. Maybe I'm alone, but my first thought when considering a 2.8 vs 4.0 aperture lens is the depth of field difference as well as the 2.8 likely being sharper at f4 than the f4 is wide open. I know that's not always the case, some lenses are sharp as hell wide open, but generally speaking you want to stop down a peg or two to increase sharpness, especially in the corners. As you and others point out, with ISO performance being what it is today, it's not really something I think about when deciding between a 2.8 and 4.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Shnikes posted:So I was thinking of buying myself a new DSLR but just waiting to get the right deal. I came across a 7D body for $879. Should I bite the bullet? http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-48095-k-canon_eos_7d_180_megapixel_digital_camera_body.htm If that's the camera you want at a price you'll pay, sure. Kind of a difficult question to answer any differently.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Shnikes posted:I'm looking to spend around $600-700 for a body but it seems like such a good deal it is probably worth it for the extra cash. I'd get the 70d from amazon for 1099, I think it's worth saving up for. Pros over 7d: Better ISO performance Touch screen (it's not a gimmick, it's fantastically implemented) Articulating screen Pretty much feels like a 5d mark iii (awesome) Awesome video focusing voodoo Cons vs 7d: 1 frame per second less on burst Uses SD and not CF (debatable / personal pref) 98% viewfinder vs 100% on 7d They're both great crop bodies, so I guess weigh those differences to see if it's worth the extra scratch. You could also save the cash on the 7d and get some glass. Options options. Edit: realized I skipped your question entirely. Yes that is a good deal for the 7d. Keh has a used EX one for like 850 mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
I totally spaced the 70d's wifi. You listed the 7d's build quality; is it better than the 70d's? I'd have assumed they'd be the same.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Add this to your RSS reader, this is where I find all my Canon deals from: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News-RSS.aspx Got a 100mm 2.8L Macro new for lower than refurb cost from an eBay link they posted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Drewski posted:Is there any good reason not to buy the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II refurbished? I see it on Canon's site as in stock for $1839. I am so tempted to buy that RIGHT NOW. No, there is no good reason not to. Their refurbished lenses are awesome, and I have gotten two from them that might as well be brand new except for the white box. Go for it. Shellman posted:except 200mm just won't seem that far anymore. This is so depressingly true. I had a T4i with 70-300 USM and went to a 5D3 with 70-200. That's a double whammy in the reach dept. mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-6d-body-refurbished http://www.ebay.com/itm/151103797004 -- 24-105 f/4L for $658 with US warranty. I've done bidness with GetDigital for my 100mm L Macro and it was fantastic. KEH has the same lens for the same price used or it's $900 refurbed (lolwut?) Got the deal from http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9543 ... add it to your bookmarks for Canon deals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
TheMirage posted:Here is what I'm currently scoping out: Honestly, I think you have chosen the same setup I'd go with, though I'd recommend the 100mm 2.8 Macro (non L). I've owned both the L and non L macro lenses and can't say I notice a difference in sharpness; the non L is super sharp. It only lacks the IS of the L version, which I didn't find I needed on macro work anyway. The 60mm is awesome also, but the 100mm is in a league of it's own for the price IMO. Also gonna recommend generic batteries like Photive. I've found they last as long, if not longer (in my case) than the Canon battery. If you think you're going to get into off-camera flash ever, I'd pick up some YN 603 wireless transmitters. They double as a remote trigger for the camera so you can get some use out of them now, and then when you get into flash stuff they work really well as a off-camera flash trigger. Quite a versatile 30 photobux if you ask me. That's a setup to be excited about, nice picks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art Picking this bad boy up tomorrow assuming my local shop gets it in. All of the online shops have it listed as 4/29 release, but who knows when my brick and mortar and tax free shop will get their stock.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM lens, $1199 Costs twice as much as what?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
caberham posted:Oh I cracked my 85 1.2 don't be an idiot like me. I immediately went and hugged my 85 1.2 after seeing this. That sucks so bad  I still also have the 85 1.8 because I think it's much better for anything that moves at all. Nothing wrong with the nifty fifty except the focus (speed and noise).
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
I don't see why they'd get rid of the articulating touch screen. I love that thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 21:26
|
|