|
What happened to the 70D/7D2 announcement that was supposed to be imminent like a month ago?
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:That's too bulky. A 400mm f2.8 prime would bee an ideal walk around lens with good low light performance. You don't want to stand out from the other tourists with a fancy lens like that, so you have to carry it in a fanny pack and you have to use your popup flash with every shot.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Inf posted:It's one of those topics I've decided to not argue with people about. If they want to keep shooting jpeg, that's not my problem. Not having to ever worry about your color balance setting ought to be enough to convince most people. dakana posted:The 85 1.8 is one hell of a value. Holt crap this lens owns. Yes. My absolute favorite lens. They could paint a red stripe on it and charge twice as much, and it'd still be a good buy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Boneitis posted:I've been wondering about something like this. Does stopping down the aperture improve the image quality over lovely optics and lenses? Like, will a top of the line Canon lens that is shooting at 2.8 always be better than a knock-off lens that costs a tenth as much shooting at 22? At 22, you'll start running into diffraction effects. Image quality is affected by lens aberrations at low f-numbers, and diffraction at high f-numbers. The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, usually somewhere around f/8 or f/10. How the different lenses compare would require some sperging out over MTF charts that don't matter anyway because most of my photos end up compressed to hell on Facebook. I've gotten great results from my kit lens at f/10.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Don't know how reputable this place is (the ad appeared in my gmail sidebar), but this place is selling them for a bit over $2300: http://www.rythercamera.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=42083&gclid=CMCLuY3zhLgCFQik4AodlUgAHg
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Erwin posted:What's the general consensus on the 18-135 lens that you can get bundled with the 70d? If I'm not mistaken, it's the $549 model on Amazon, right? Seems like a nice walk around lens, which is something I don't really have. I have a Sigma 10-20 for the wide end, but nothing decent between that and 50mm, and it's nice to not have to swap lenses if I'm just playing dumb American tourist. The 18-135 is a perfectly good lens, especially when stopped down. I wouldn't use it indoors, but I've gotten some good landscape shots with it.  IMG_3179 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr  IMG_2912 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
bisticles posted:No doubt, the 135 prime is magic. There is something rewarding about setting up a shot with a focal length in mind and working your composition around that, too. Elite Taco is selling one in the buy/sell thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=157#post418249845 I got mine from the refurb store, and it's definitely my favorite lens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Shellman posted:I suspected he might be a little stubborn when I came home with one of these and he told me he bought a Canon so he could use Canon lenses, not Sigmas. Sweet lens. Take better pictures than him and then rub 'em in his face.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
erephus posted:
Don't forget about low tech options. A $10 reflector could've easily fixed up a shot like this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
If I'm on the lookout for a used 5d3, are eBay and the Canon refurb store the best places to look? The Canon refurb prices dropped a bit, so that's starting to look like a good option.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
5D Mark III bodies going for $2,695 on Amazon, I just ordered one: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/go/Amazon/EOS-5D-Mark-III/p=3868&m=20&d=5 My state just started charging sales tax on online orders. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Finally got a 5D3, and it's a dud. Error code 40, which seems to be some kind of battery/electrical problem. I'm using a battery that my 60D is perfectly happy with. Anyone else had this problem?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:From last page- don't remember if anyone replied to this but just saw this on CanonRumors. Apparently the new firmware in the 5D3 checks for authentic Canon batts, nominally to avoid "counterfit" batteries but apparently affecting other 3rd party replacement batteries as well. That's really lame of Canon. Both of the batteries I tried are authentic Canons, including one that came in the same box as the camera, so I'm sure that's not the issue here though. Sent the camera out for repair today (and of course booked a video gig this weekend  ). If it's not back in time for a wedding I'm working in early January, I'll really be pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:If you're a working photographer and have enough equipment points for CPS, get CPS. Don't wait in line like a scrub. Aw, 1 point shy of gold. Yeah, they're clearly loving with you with the points. None of the crop bodies are worth anything, but a bunch of EF-S lenses are?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 17:07
|
|
)
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's also a couple very well respected third-party wide-zooms, but I don't know enough to tell you which are good and which are bad. I think the 12-24 was one of the better ones, but I'm not really sure. For crop cameras, the Sigma 8-16 is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Here are few I've taken with my 8-16. IMG_2299 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr  IMG_2593 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr  IMG_3456 by Jabba the Hutt, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
drat, it's going to take a while to figure out the autofocus system on the 5d3. I'm so used to doing center point + recompose.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Hey now, T2i was my first camera and I stand by the fact it's an awesome first camera. My first camera was a 60D. I had to use my work's T3i a few months ago, and it felt really crappy. It just wasn't comfortable to hold, and the camera's features felt weirdly gimpy. All else being equal, I think the XXD line is a better first choice if you're reasonably sure you want to throw your money away into the photo pit. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Haggins posted:It's not worth the chance that that it will screw up your once in a lifetime shot. That's one photo of a tree that won't end up in the "For every image there is a story..." thread. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Uh, at 16mm you're mostly trying to avoid people looking like bobbleheads or weird Gumby-aliens. I wouldn't even think of doing portraits on anything shorter than 30mm on a crop camera, and you start hitting a sweet spot around 50-85mm. Here's an oft-posted page about how longer focal lengths really make portraits look nicer: http://neilvn.com/tangents/composition-for-full-length-portraits/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I can't speak but for what I've read in my own research, but I've seen a few places call a "typical" pro kit the 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8. Pfft, a real pro would also have a 200-500/2.8 in their kit to cover the long end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Adding to 50 vs. 85 chat, I've got a trip to Iceland planned in a couple months and I want to get a new lens before I go. Right now the lenses I have are the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and the Canon 50 1.8. I probably won't be shooting many (if any) portraits over there, but for closeups/DOF, am I going to want to upgrade to the Canon 50 1.4 or the Canon 85 1.8? I'll have landscapes covered with the wide end of my Tamron. I've read reviews on the 50 1.4 vs. the 85 1.8 and they both seem like great lenses in the same price range, but I haven't been able to tell which would be the better buy. I had both the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 50 1.8, and I rarely used either of them. About 90% of the time I was using either the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 85 1.8. I hate noisy focusing motors, and the colors and contrast weren't as good with the cheaper lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
I'd stick to faster lenses since you can't push the ISO on the 5dc as well as newer cameras. The 135/2 is my absolute favorite lens, it's basically stuck on my camera permanently. I got mine off the Canon refurb store for something like $800, and it's a real bargain for the amount of cool poo poo you can do with it.   
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Can you go even wider again? I'm usually dragging my DSLR to places that are epic landscapes or structures, being able to capture more would be great. I've already got plenty of lenses on the tight side. Sigma 8-16
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Haha, here's a good way to compare crop vs. FF. A year ago, I took a photo of a friend's concert with a 60D + 85/1.8. She played in the same venue last night, and I happened to be sitting in the same place with a 5D3 + 135/2 which gave me the same field of view. While the crop camera makes a decent photo, the improvement of the 5D is dramatic. 60D + 85/1.8, ISO 6400  5D3 + 135/2, ISO 8000  I always liked the 85/1.8, but it's definitely lacking in sharpness wide open, and it has a fair amount of chromatic aberration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Of course - it's at least a stop less luminance noise (if not more), and much less patterned (since the 60D had the same patterned noise as all the 18mpix canon aps-c's) , and on top of that it's like 25% more pixels, so even after cleaning you can be left with more detail than the 60D without any cleaning. I am in no way trying to say crop sensors are superior or even close to equal to FF in low light ability - I only brought up that sometimes they are perfectly adequate for the task if you're not super picky and don't need huge results. I'm not and I don't, so I like shooting crop Yeah, I agree. I still carry my 60D around plenty of times since it's so much more portable. I posted the comparison because it was a really bizarre coincidence that I had an unintended controlled experiment with a year time gap. I'm not super spergy about sharpness and image quality... here's another comparison from the same set. Under even lighting conditions, it's hard to tell the difference between the two cameras: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
mrlego posted:For some reason looking through the viewfinder of a Nikon D3200 was amazing, quite a bit better than the 7D's or even the 5D. Something about the size of the viewfinder's image and the clarity. I only had the 5D to compare at that moment though. Otherwise I find Nikon's bodies too busy and weirdly laid out. I'm guessing the diopter adjustment was off on the 5D.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted: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. I don't have this lens myself, but I've heard the AF mechanism is susceptible to damage if you put it away with the lens in the extended position. That's something I might not have been careful about, and I'm gentle with my gear.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
The focus motor went bad in my 40mm pancake, and Canon is quoting $112 for the repair. I like having the lens around, but the repair doesn't really seem worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
I wish my 5d3 had a touch sensitive flip screen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I'm guessing a zoom lens that covers something like 20-70 and has a big aperture would be way out of my budget? Tamron 24-70/2.8. You can find them for about $1000.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Barrel distortion is one of those things that might be completely irrelevant depending on what you're trying to photograph, and can often be corrected in post anyway.Mathturbator posted:Word. I have almost all Canon L-lenses below 400mm, and the 10-year old 35L is the one that is on my camera 90% of the time. 90% of the time I only have 2 lenses in my camera bag: the 135/2 and the 35/1.4.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
The 18-135 actually isn't that bad of a lens for landscapes or outdoor travel shots. Just beware that it's too short for wildlife and too slow for weddings. If your dad already has lenses that he likes, I'd just buy the camera body only.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Shux posted:Thanks for the replies. How about giving him an 85/1.8? It's a good-quality, versatile mid-range lens that you can pick up for relatively cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
I use my 135/2 a lot for low-light concert venues. I also used it when I was in the front row when Joe Biden was giving a speech and I was way closer than the press pool area. It was compact enough for me to not feel weird about putting it through the security screening.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
I thought the live view focusing and touch screen of the 70D would be kind of gimmicky and useless. I bought one for work along with the Canon 17-55/2.8, and it's actually really nice.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Fuuuuuuuuck. I just impulse bought a TS-E 24 II. Goodbye, money.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:There's lots of worse things you could have spent your money on rashly I feel like I've kinda been stuck shooting the same poo poo with the same lenses all the time, so I'm looking forward to trying some new techniques. Plus I need a good landscape lens for my vacation this summer.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Cool, thanks. That book will definitely save me a lot of time farting around with the lens taking grotesquely out of focus images.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:32
|
|