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"

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

LiquidRain posted:

- Autofocus is quiet but quite slow compared to Canon's. I may have microAF adjustments to do with mine as I was shooting tonight at a party with it open around f/1.8 and a lot of people came in soft looking, even if they weren't moving. I wasn't having those issues in the similar situations the night before at f/1.4, strangely.

I also own this lens and a 7D and I agree with you completely about the AF. The bummer is, though, that the effect of back- or front-focusing is unpredictable enough that setting microAF adjustments was kind of useless.

At least on my copy. Don't get me wrong -- I still get a lot of tight, in focus photos. But I'd get more if the AF was more perfect.

# ¿ May 17, 2013 17:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 23:38

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

I'd personally go for the 24-105 just based on the fact that even 40mm is pretty tight on a 550d. You might have an easier, more enjoyable time with a single zoom lens than with a bunch of primes. The 24-105 L is a pretty drat nice lens.

# ¿ May 17, 2013 23:46

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

mclifford82 posted:

Am I correct that only Canon speedlites are compatible with the additional speedlite controls such as 2nd curtain sync?

No, I don't think so. I've got a Metz brand flash and it does 2nd curtain sync on my 7D.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2013 18:30

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

TheQat posted:

Can anyone summarize why the 1DIII is still $1200 used (same price as a new 70D with twice as many pixels)? I think I know in principle but it just kind of blows my mind

Compared to the 1DIII, the 70D has a couple of features that are superior: bigger screen, better video, more megapickles. But the 1DIII is a completely different animal aimed at a totally different kind of photographer. Higher FPS, vastly superior AF system, much better controls, better ergonomics, weather sealing, much better build and construction, more rugged, bigger viewfinder, two card slots, and so forth.

Given a choice between the two cameras, I would choose the 1DIII over the 70D any day, but it's not for the pickles. It's for the subjects that I'm likely to shoot.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2013 17:40

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Erwin posted:

Wasabis are cheaper on Amazon and they're real.

Just seconding this -- I've never had a problem with a Wasabi.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2013 22:53

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Whirlwind Jones posted:

What type of wildlife? Isn't the 7D pretty much ideal for wildlife shooters?

EDIT: Not ideal, but preferred? I thought the added reach was more important than going full frame most of the time.

The 1D IV isn't full frame, it's a 1.3x crop. The increased autofocus performance with a 1D4 would absolutely (in my opinion) make up for the slightly wider crop.

Edit: For 1500 bucks, drat, how could you pass that up?

Sneeze Party fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Apr 29, 2014

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 04:23

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

erephus posted:

7D Better AF <-> Articulate Screen 60D

Focus is not bad om the 60D.

If you are looking at recording video, have you considered the 70D? You have the good things from the 7D and the good thing from 60D and that with a touch interface on the screen and faster focus on live view.

I bought a 60D right when they came out as an upgrade to my Pentax K10D. Kept it for a week, returned it, and bought a 7D instead. The AF on the 60D was not nearly as good as I was hoping for it to be... but this was a primary concern for me, because I was planning on shooting a lot of action. Video wasn't a primary concern.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 14:20

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Abe's of Maine has the Canon 6D import model currently for $1299, which lacks WiFi and GPS but is otherwise the exact same camera as the US model. The import model doesn't come with the regular Canon warranty.

I bought one last week, and they called me up to upsell me on the US model. I wasn't planning on doing it, but after getting the guy (Jeff) down to $1599, I decided to go ahead with the upsell.

Just thought goons might want to know.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2014 17:22

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Aside from my 6D coming in a "Kit" box with the kit lens removed, I didn't really have a problem with their service. But yeah, I did have to put my principles aside for the deal.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2014 17:35

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

ShadeofBlue posted:

Most of the benefits you list don't have anything to do with the crop, though, they just happen to be true for most crop cameras (except the ISO thing). There's no reason why cropping would improve AF speed, ISO or reach, those are dependent on the AF module and the sensor, neither of which change by cropping. Faster FPS is definitely something that they could have built in though. The shutter would have to handle the faster speeds of course, but moving the data off of the sensor and on to the card should go faster in crop mode. The only benefit then is file size and occasionally the framing if you know you will have to crop in post anyway, assuming the viewfinder darkens or blacks out the unused portions of the image.

Cropping may not "increase AF speed" exactly, but it could change the available AF points while at the same time making it easier to frame and track a subject, which could, under the right circumstances, "increase AF speed." For example, shooting a bird in flight at 100 yards with spot focus, or shooting a moving motorcycle with zone focusing, or any number of other scenarios.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 17:27

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

ShadeofBlue posted:

From your specific examples, you seem to think that by using crop mode your viewfinder image gets magnified, but it doesn't, as far as I know. I mean, if I'm wrong about that, then you have valid points, but I think it would take some impressive engineering to fit a zoom mechanism into the viewfinder like that, and I don't think any camera manufacturer has done that for an optical viewfinder.

Well, when you put it like that. I was just thinking about shooting with a 1D or a 7D... but I guess on a camera with multiple crop modes, unless you had some kind of magical way to swap out the prism, then I guess it would just make the image in the viewfinder smaller.

The live view would still be "zoomed" so to speak.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2015 05:30

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

blowfish posted:

and you can even register a different af point (I haven't figured out how though)

It's on this page. What's even cooler, in my opinion, is that you can set the two buttons to automatically switch between zone focus and spot focus, or between smaller-zone focus and whole-zone focus. Here is an explanation on how to set that up.

Sneeze Party fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Mar 9, 2015

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 14:15

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

I'm in the market for a new lens. My currently most-used lens is a very old Tamron 28-75 f2.8, which I've been very happy with, and I'll be selling soon...

My main complaint about it is focusing speed, and I'd like to purchase a lens with better focusing speed. Currently, I'm trying to decide between a used Canon 28-70 f2.8L, or the newish Tamron 24-70 F2.8. The price difference, used, between the two lenses, is about $200 or $300 depending on the quality rating on KEH, with the Tamron being the more expensive option.

Is there going to be a huge focusing speed difference between the Canon 28-70 and the Tamron 24-70? The extra 4mm doesn't make a huge difference to me.

Sneeze Party fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Mar 17, 2015

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 14:37

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

timrenzi574 posted:

The new Tamron is very nice, and the IS on it is awesome. You can usually find grey market ones from CDN sellers very cheap in the US right now, and a lot of them come with a long term third party warranty to cover the fact that they are grey market. I got mine for sub 700, with a 10 year mack warranty on it.

I stumbled across a deal on a Canon 28-70 F2.8 for $425 and it was just too much of a great deal to pass up. The body is a little scuffed up but it works flawlessly. The Tamron looks like a better lens all around, but I'm on a pretty tight budget.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2015 02:39

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

annapacketstormaya posted:

70D has the 7D's AF system AND DPAF/flippy screen/wifi. It's not magnesium and has one less FPS but who cares. It doesn't have a nipple/joystick controller which may matter more if you're used to a 40D.

I'm very sad I have a 60D instead.

The 7D does not have the 70D's AF system. The 70D has the same number of AF points laid out in the same manner as the 7D, but it doesn't have the same ability to lock and track subjects. The actual focus performance in real-world situations is going to be drastically different between the two cameras.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2015 14:14

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

What's the consensus on the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L? The original can be had for about $1000 used, and it has IS. Between it and the Sigma 150-500, which is the better choice?

# ¿ Aug 4, 2015 14:29

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Ryand-Smith posted:

Hey guys, because I did pricing and found out that the 6d and (older) L series glass is shockingly cheap, anyone in here use the 24-105 F/4 l ior the last gen 28-70 lens, and how is the 6D vs say a 5d mark II/III, just for idle curiosity.

I own a Canon 28-70 2.8L and it's treated me really well. The deal is that it's less sharp than the 24-70s from both Tamron and Canon, and it focuses a little slower, but it's still got excellent contrast and sharpness. The 24-105 is going to be sharper at the edges, at least past 5.6 or so, but you're sacrificing a lot of speed to get there. However, when you step down the 28-70, it's sharp at the edges,too.

If you can get a good deal on the 28-70, it's certainly worth checking out. Pretty much all of the photos in this album I just painstakingly created on Flickr are shot with the 28-70. Please note, I am not a spectacular photographer, but it should still give you some idea.

Edit: Also, having owned a 6D prior to my 5DIII, the 5DIII is better in nearly every single way. The 6D focuses better in lovely light if you use the center point, but other than that, I just couldn't live with it. Coming from a 7D, the ergonomics and the autofocus performance were just terrible.

Sneeze Party fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 4, 2016

# ¿ Feb 4, 2016 15:29

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

windex posted:

I own a 5D3, but even I wish it didn't start to look like poo poo around ISO 3200. You can push a 6D past that.

Also your photos are pretty fine for framing. I do not shoot weddings but I shoot a lot of people at events both indoors and out. Two things stood out.

One, it looked bright outside during that wedding, but fill flash technique would've helped bring forward your subject on a number of those photos in the shade, and would not have influenced the shade much. When outdoors like that in the shade I would have probably tried to shoot at ISO400 f/8 to f/16, down as low as 1/100 if required. If you have a 5D3, learning how to use a 600EX-RT or equivalent Yongnuo flash would basically extend your photography skills a lot, preferably in manual mode, preferably in manual flash mode but even with ETTL and flash exposure compensation -0.6 to -1 EV you would go far being lazy.

Two, when taking photos of a man and a woman in virtually any setting as joint subjects, either insure you have a ton of DOF (stop down) to get the entirety of your foreground subjects in focus or focus on the woman's eyes. This is really just sexism but for serious, gender bias heavily influences people's perception of a shot, and people will totally disregard out of focus manface.

Thanks for the tips. I go back and forth between wanting everybody to be in focus, and wanting a kind of dreamy feel and bokeehhhh. But hey, I'm still learning. I had a flash with me, actually, but I really needed to be better versed in how exactly to pull off the fill effect that I wanted.

Also, I disagree about the ISO quality. Maybe it's just that I came from a 7D, but to me, the 5D3 looks great at 3200. Past 3200... well, it's salvageable to about 6400.

And to the gentleman who mentioned the wifi on the 6D -- yeah, that's the one feature that I truly miss.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2016 02:07

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

The focal length of a 50mm f1.8 lens is 50mm regardless of the camera that it's mounted on. You're just flat-out wrong. Now you're talking about a lens with a 33mm focal length versus a lens with a 50mm focal length.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 15:14

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Nomenclature posted:

Seriously, read before posting, ok?

It's okay bro, I know how hard it hurts to be wrong on the forums from time to time. Happened to me once, too. It's a hazing ritual. You'll get through it.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2016 03:11

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

I'm planning on selling a Canon 28-70 2.8, but I can't find the Buy/Sell/Trade thread. Am I blind, or is it gone?

# ¿ Feb 29, 2016 02:33

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

astr0man posted:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3759085

Thanks. Guess I was blind.

# ¿ Feb 29, 2016 04:50

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

I've never seen such an underwhelmed response in this thread to a major Canon release.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2016 18:11

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

BetterLekNextTime posted:

I think I'm doing it wrong

Hambooger-9553 on Flickr

I did get some other shots, but I had to laugh at myself and my thinking on a MF wide angle- oh just set it to near infinity focus and f/14 or something- and practically the first thing I shoot is a cow inside the MFD of the lens.

Is this with the Rokinon 14mm?

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 16:42

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

timrenzi574 posted:

It's shorter, lighter, and the AF actually hits most of the time. So yes, it's better. It's also more consistently built (as in, remarkably consistent performance according to Lensrentals tests vs the mediocre 1.4)

@ 1.4/1.6./1.8 it's low contrast and hazy

@1.8 the 1.8/STM is low contrast and hazy

@2 they both start to pick up a little bit better contrast, and beyond that they keep getting better and better. So the faster aperture isn't really much of an advantage since it's blah image quality there. All in all the 1.4 is a waste of money.

Calling either of these lenses 'low contrast and hazy' wide open is pretty hyperbolic. Both perform really, really well wide open. Are they as good as the Sigma Art? No. Are they still very high contrast, sharp lenses? Absolutely. And having owned both the 1.8 and the 1.4, the 1.4 focuses significantly faster than the 1.8 in my experience. I don't think that the 1.4 is a waste of money at all.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2017 15:55

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

timrenzi574 posted:

These are simple double gauss designs that date back to FD mount. Wide open they are very dreamy looking and low contrast - that's not hyperbole, it's a fact. They are also razor sharp stopped down and resolve a ton of detail while remaining tiny and light. That's the tradeoff you make with such a simple lens design.

And the AF on the new STM model of the 1.8 is an order of magnitude more accurate than the 1.4 is, even if it remains a little slower. The old coffee grinder 1.8 is not what I'm talking about here.

Dreamy? Sure. Low contrast? I mean, kind of, but there's this pixel-peeping culture in photography these days where anything that isn't tack-sharp straight out of the camera is somehow deeply flawed and unusable. And if we are going to pixel-peep, a 35-37 on DxO is absolutely not "unsharp." Wide open, each of these lenses is on par with a 24-70 2.8 II wide open. That's not too shabby.

All of the EF mount 50s produce absolutely usable images right down to their widest aperture. That's all I'm saying. The below photo is of a very, very fast moving subject, shot at f1.6, and a 100% crop of the focus point (his eyes).

Boone is a Little Crazy by Sneeze Party, on Flickr

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 15:20

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

timrenzi574 posted:

This isn't so much a case of obsessing over the sharpest of sharp as a case of saying "the 1.4 and 1.8 are both okay but not all that sharp, so spending 3x as much money on the 1.4 is a bad cost proposition"

Except that 1) used lenses exist, 2) the 1.4 is as sharp at 1.8 as the 1.8 is at 2.8. Also, if that was really your argument, you went about it in a pretty funky way. What with calling the lenses hazy and what not.

Sneeze Party fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Sep 18, 2017

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 14:23

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

Ouhei posted:

Is the general consensus to stay away from the 50 1.4? I had the first version of the 1.8 back when I had my 60D and while it was too tight for normal use on the crop body, I remember liking it as a portrait lens.

A lot of people in this thread are saying to stay away from the 50mm 1.4. That doesn't make any sense to me, what-so-ever. It's sharper than the 50 1.8, it focuses faster and more accurately than the 50 1.8, and it doesn't 'break if you breath on it' as another poster stated. It's a good lens, and if you can find a good used copy of it, you can get it for a good price. Mine was $120 on Craigslist.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2018 14:24

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

hope and vaseline posted:

If you want to compromise with a little less on the long end, there's also the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4, and it's $300 less (new) than the canon. This has been my walkaround lens for a little under a year now. Good sharpness, though not quite as good as the Sigma 17-50 2.8, and has a little bit of a weird distortion at 70mm, but otherwise I really like it.

The 17-70 also has a pretty decent Macro ability, even at 17mm. You can get some pretty interesting results with it.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2019 17:24

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

hope and vaseline posted:

I love the idea of fuji's lineup but the lack of third party lenses is a deal breaker for me

edit: though the x100f is super tempting as a pocket camera to have

Lots of fuji owners use Canon adapters/lenses.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2019 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 23:38

Sneeze Party: Apr 26, 2002; These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.; Toilet Rascal

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.

I just need to decide whether I can afford to do this or not. I�ve already got a 7d2 for wildlife (mostly what I shoot), so this would be mainly landscape, macro, and occasional portrait-type stuff. The extra resolution would be the biggest selling point, or at least that�s probably the one thing that would allow me to get prints that i couldn�t get with the 6d. I�m assuming there�s not that big of a jump in dynamic range but I suppose I should look at that too. The AF and ergo would be nice but not worth the money in itself.

If the AF and ergonomics aren't important to you, then it may not be worth the money. I don't know, though. The AF on the 5DIV is leaps and bounds better than the AF on the 6D, in my opinion. I've used both fairly extensively, and after using the IV, I'd never want to go back to the 6D.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2019 19:36

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"