|
ShotgunWillie posted:Get the 40. It's awesome. I just shot a cheap test-roll of Fuji C200 on an EOS5 with the 40mm, it was sweet:  Just stuck a roll of Portra 400 in that bad boy 
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The verdict is in: That's like just about 3 16gb cards of raw 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Does't Magic Lantern do shutter count?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:If by generation you mean an actual human generation then yeah probably. Yeah basically this. Nikon are putting Canon to shame.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:I wonder if it'll have an aliasing filter in the hopes of making it more video friendly. I'd hazard a guess and say Canon are totally reluctant to put too much improvements into the video on their DSLRs while they're flogging the C-00 video camera series.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not a huge advocate of the C-series. The low-light on them is pretty good though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
plasmoduck posted:I love my 50/1.8, but for many occasions 50mm is just too long on the crop body, so I'm looking for a cheapish "effectively normal length" lens. Canon has a 28/1.8 and a 28/2.8 IS in a similar price range, how do they compare? Which would you recommend for casual low-light/indoor shots, or as walk-around lens? I cannot recommend the Sigma 30mm 1.4 highly enough for what you want It offers the same Angle of View on a crop as a 50mm on a full frame (but it still retains the wide characteristics of a 30mm so prepare for that). It does portraits and has great DOF:  James as Beast by Quantum Of Phallus, on Flickr  Amy in Norway by Quantum Of Phallus, on Flickr And it's wide enough to do landscapes:  Otta Trainstation by Quantum Of Phallus, on Flickr  Gjendesheim Park by Quantum Of Phallus, on Flickr I bought the original model from the Buy/Sell thread right here in the Dorkroom, there's also a newer model which has a USB dock and is supposedly even better. Either one should do nicely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
Also while the 30mm is a great standard-type lens, it is quite heavy. The Canon 40mm 2.8 is an exceptional walk-around lens on a crop or full frame and is that bit wider than the 50mm. It's very cheap second hand, I picked it up here for a bargain of less than €100 last year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:For real tho, the 30mm f1.4 isn't that heavy. The original sigma 30mm is nearly as heavy as a 600D so it tends to feel front-heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
I'm just saying it'll feel heavy compared to the Canon 28mm lenses is all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
If it's another T/Kiss model I don't know what to say. Canon are taking the piss at this stage.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Just wait for the Mk4/ Canon White Rebel
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
That's the 22mm for the EF-M...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:I ended up being offered a 5D MK2 for about 600bux.  Nice. It's a great camera.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Canon refurbished is doing a Cyber Monday sale and some of the prices are nuts. EF-S 10-22mm for $442
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
EF 40mm f/2.8 for $136 is a pro buy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Oh right, probably worth the extra 4 bucks then to get it new. I picked it up from some dude here for $100 about a year ago, it was such a lucky buy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:I got a Sigma 30 1.4 and never looked back. This, great lens.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
There was something posted here (or somewhere in The Dorkroom anyway) a while back about how like FF cameras from years ago are technically better than most modern crop sensors, I think it was in terms of sharpness.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Yep, should do fine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's amazing to me that people who would have bought 800 speed disposable cameras 15 years ago on vacation, or paid a wedding photographer a lot of money for pictures taken on portra 800, will spend a lot of time on internet forums ranting about how 6400 ISO is just UNUSABLE on their whatever camera. If I have to take a picture at 12800, I'd rather take it and downsize it than not take it at all. I think it's more the fact that, unless you're shooting black and white, digital at higher ISOs looks much worse than film (or it used to anyway). With high-ISO film, you just had lots of grain but with digital you start getting weird colour issues. Like, if you bump up any of the Canon T3i/550D/60D sensors to over 6400, the colors start looking awful. Saying that, the 5D3 and newer models are all starting to look really good a super high ISO.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:The IQ is gonna be pretty similar between this generation of Canon crop cameras. Save your bux and go full frame if you want better IQ. Yeah just save the money until you can afford FF. 650D is a fine camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
We've been saying this for ages but Canon really need to up their game soon. Sigma have been totally embarrassing them on the lens front and Nikon's full frames seem to have the edge at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
C100 is Canon-mount only I think, which is p. useless for cinematography. The C500 is really good for low light though :vidtalk:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Have to say this, I'm sure you all already know though but for anyone who's in doubt: A 50mm is a 50mm on a crop or on a FF sensor. It's the angle of view that changes. Your lens will still retain its characteristic ie even though a 30mm on a crop offers the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF, it's not great for portraits as it'll still look wide. Heck, even a 50mm on a crop isn't the most flattering lens you can use. Stick an 85 on and just move further back.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Pretty obvious one but buy a few spare batteries!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
After shooting film for years, I honestly can't stand tiny viewfinders. EVFs also suck rear end forever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
I'd seriously avoid the 50 1.8 for portraits, even On a crop body, it's really not a great lens . The 85 1.8 is MUCH better and I personally don't think it's too long, even indoors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Huxley posted:. I thought about the 40, but I definitely felt like it was redundant with the 17-50. Don't discount the 40 just because you have it covered On a zoom. It's a great lens, probably the best Canon have put out in years. Colour reproduction is leagues better than the 50
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Go for the 85 1.8 since you currently have nothing longer than 50mm This. 85 1.8 should be one of those lenses every Canon shooter buys (I still haven't bought one 'cos I keep borrowing it from a friend like a cheapass). It's such a good lens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I think the XXD line became pointless after the 50D/when the 7D came out. I've had a 600D for years but I always regret not spending a bit more on a 60D (or a lot more on a 5D2 but anyway) My college has a bunch of 60Ds and they feel like actual cameras, the 600D is far too small for my hands and my little finger hangs off without the battery grip. Also the 60D has better native features like more ISO choices, custom WB and in built gyroscope for levelling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Go look up shots with the 85mm f/1.2L. Words can't express how much I love that lens. When I hit focus :P Lens of the gods.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Has anyone used the 135mm 2.8 soft focus? I didn't know it even existed before today and based on this link, I'm...curious about what it's really good for: Can't see this being useful for anything in this digital age. I can kinda see its use back in the 90s/early 2000s but no reason to get it anymore unless you really want to get that effect in-camera.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I paid less than that for the lens itself (granted, I bought it from someone ere but it was in as-new condition) Suuuchh a good lens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
At the end of the day, I would always choose full frame over crop when given the choice. I've shot 60D and 600D for years but always love using my friend's 5D2 so much more. It's probably due to coming from a 35mm film background, I just love the bigger viewfinder.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Yeah but it's 100% of an APS-C sized sensor so it'll be smaller than a 5D (I think!)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Smaller than that of an equivalent lens on a full frame camera, but it's still the full view for the adapted focal length. If you put an 80mm lens on a 5D and a 50mm lens of a 7D you'll see the same thing through both viewfinders. mclifford82 posted: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. I know you'll see the full thing but I'm pretty sure the viewfinder in the 5D/6D/other full frame cameras is physically bigger than that in an APS-C
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:
Truth. Should be in the thread title imo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:There's also the older 200 f/1.8(!) I am salivating at the prospect of this. Thing must be huge. e: Ha yep   DOF seems incredible from the stuff I'm looking at on Google Images Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I'd ask to see if there were any really out-there lenses that more experienced people knew of and coveted, but I hadn't seen or read about because they were so outside of most people's budgets. Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 Or the Kubrick Barry Lyndon-series lenses 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:22
|
|