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"

«‹›2 »

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

At the risk of exposing myself to further ridicule for not knowing everything about my 1dx -- is there anything that anyone can think of that would cause the camera to severely underexpose each picture? I went out shooting yesterday and every single shot has a histogram like this (auto-iso, so it's not that I'm specifying ISO 100 either):

I usually shoot using spot metering, but it doesn't seem to matter what I pick as all the shots came out like this.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 16:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:11

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Casu Marzu posted:

Did you accidentally dial down your exposure compensation if you're shooting Av?

I also reset everything to factory defaults just now and still the same.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 16:47

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Boneitis posted:

I mean, the only way to make each picture consistent is to shoot full manual mode. The meter on my camera always tells me to overexpose by literally four or five stops. It could be that your camera is doing the same thing and wants all the pictures to be taken really underexposed. That being said, the easiest way to learn how ISO affects what and when to change it is just to take pictures of the same thing or roughly the same thing, changing the settings, and comparing the two. If you're shooting a 1dx, then the ISO performance is going to be pretty outstanding as compared to my lovely little T1i, so you can push it probably pretty considerably. From the settings that it shows, it seems like the lighting conditions were fairly good. But (take this with a grain of salt, I have never shot birds or wildlife), it seems to me like you could have shot with a little faster shutter speed and come out with a brighter picture, because it doesn't seem that the bird is going to take flight any time soon.

But don't worry about not knowing everything about your camera. It took my months to learn everything about one of the smallest functionality wise camera

It's not that I'm a camera newbie, but the 1dx is fairly new for me. In terms of settings this underexposing is a recent change. Prior to yesterday I could shoot anything and have my histogram come out perfectly balanced. There's no reason for my camera to underexpose that bird shot I posted since it had plenty of options to increase exposure, so I suspect either I've changed some setting that is directing the metering to do this or my camera is broken -- which also wouldn't surprise me since I did trip this winter and get to watch as my 1dx & 600mm smashed into an ice-packed road. Before I send it in I want to make sure it isn't user error.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 17:03

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Platystemon posted:

I know that you reset the camera to default settings, which should have fixed this, but two things that could cause underexposure and haven�t been mentioned are highlight priority mode and the focus screen setting. The former is under the second shooting menu. The latter is under the fourth custom function menu.

I went out shooting two days ago and the problem was gone. :iiam:

I think I'm going to send it in for a checkup anyway.

TheAngryDrunk posted:

Anyone got $11,799 burning a hole in their pocket?

http://fstoppers.com/have-money-to-burn-canons-new-200-400-f4-l-usm-announced-for-11800

Finally.

I know people are going to throw money at this like it's the second coming of Christ, but this has to be the worst value for your money out of the entire Canon lens lineup.

# ¿ May 14, 2013 15:37

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Pablo Bluth posted:

At least one person thinks it's worth it: http://andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

If I could get one for zero dollars I'd say it's worth it too!

Keep in mind I'm not saying it's an amazing lens or that it doesn't serve any purpose. I'm just saying for that price it is horrible value for your money.

# ¿ May 14, 2013 19:37

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

bisticles posted:

Did you read that article?

Yes. It doesn't change the fact it's horrible value.

# ¿ May 14, 2013 19:57

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

TsarAleksi posted:

to say it's not exactly what was needed (and asked for) by a large group of photographers is completely asinine.

Good thing I'm not saying that.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 01:36

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Reading what you guys wrote about the TS-E 24mm has weakened my will. You guys are evil.

quote:

Order #4389 (Pending)
Order Date: Friday 05 July, 2013 Order Total: CAD$220.50

Products Base Final
1 x Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
Option's
*Rent : 14 Days with Damage Waiver
+ CAD$210.00

# ¿ Jul 5, 2013 18:43

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

demonachizer posted:

Do other people not find the push/pull zoom mechanism annoying on the 100-400?

It seems to be a love/hate thing with people. I'm in the love camp. It feels natural and intuitive. Also, the whole "dust pumper" reputation has got to be some rumour Nikon started. I've used mine for years now and if there's dust in there it certainly doesn't show in the image.

Buying the lens, using it for the trip, and then selling it used is probably the same cost as renting it for the trip. 100-400 is a pretty useful range if you don't already have glass to cover that distance. You might find yourself hanging on to it.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2013 04:53

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

I have no idea what the sigmas resell for, but the fact I can sell all my most expensive Canon glass for the nearly the same price I paid for it (or in some cases even more) is now a significant factor in my choice of lens purchasing as well.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2013 19:09

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

smallmouth posted:

Red Alert! Stop using and recommending counterfeit batteries!

IT COULD DESTROY YOUR CAMERA SAYS CLEANCUT NON-THREATENING WHITE GUY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYnDFclziU

But what about 3rd-party batteries that don't try to pass themselves off as counterfeits?!? Will my camera still kill me if I used them?

# ¿ Sep 26, 2013 17:54

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Price around $2000

Haha. Maybe a year after release.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 21:34

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Wario In Real Life posted:

Reminder that the 7D is a crop sensor. Even with the features listed in the wish list, more than 2k is getting into weary territory for a crop.

There's a massive pool of people who are waiting for version 2 specifically because it's a crop (me included). Some of those people have given up the wait and gone for the 70D, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a new 7D priced at $2500-2700 for the first year, nor would I be surprised to see it sell like crazy at that price. Sports and wildlife shooters aren't holding off on $3000 full frames because of the price.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 21:52

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

IanTheM posted:

The 7D prices I'm seeing these days (800ish) are really fair for a weather sealed pro body,

The 7D isn't weather sealed though. It's got better sealing than the models below it, but you still wouldn't want to be shooting with it in a light rain unprotected.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2013 18:47

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

LiquidRain posted:

I've done this plenty of times. I believe the official line is "weather resistant." Don't take it out in a hurricane, but light rain shouldn't kill it.

On the flip side, I killed my 7D doing the same. Compared to a Rebel or something the 7D has better sealing, but compared to a true weather sealed body like a 1-series the 7D falls very short. Moisture can get in everywhere.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2013 19:27

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Seamonster posted:

Tamron 150-600mm is getting me AMPED UP. Sure its f/5-6.3 but if it can maintain 5.6 up to 400mm and at least challenge the 100-400mmL there then holy balls. Also less than $1100??? And the price is sure to drop too, just look what is happening to the 24-70mm 2.8 VC. Must...have...reviews....

Broken english, but still useful: http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/

I think Tamron are going to sell a lot of these.

[edit] Just found actual picture comparisons
http://camahoy.com/2014/01/06/tamron-sp-150-600mm-vc-sp-usd-vs-canon-ef-400mm-f5-6l-usm/

800peepee51doodoo posted:

a cheaper, newer competitor should devalue those some. I'm hoping that the rumours of a sigma 500 and 600 f4 are true for similar reasons.

I hope they wait a bit. I'm planning to sell my 600 for a 500 mk ii this year.

InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jan 11, 2014

# ¿ Jan 11, 2014 15:41

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Seamonster posted:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866

So maybe it might not destroy the 100-400mm @ 400mm 5.6 but less CA across the entire zoom range and that sick, sick 600mm of sniper reach is just so drat sexy. Also read somewhere that it does indeed maintain 5.6 up to 400mm (like 411mm I think?)

I've been following the growing enthusiasm for that lens in other forums with interest. The price is just ridiculous for what you get. I think Canon is going to see a huge drop in sales of their 100-400.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2014 15:00

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

A COMPUTER GUY posted:

No 7D2, Canon?

They need a new sensor first.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2014 22:35

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

One Swell Foop posted:

I have a T1i and I'm about to meet a guy on Saturday to buy his 7D (+ CF card) for a little over CAD$700 so I can do bird photography with more likelihood of getting birds in flight in focus and with better ISO performance and image quality. Great plan or terrible plan?

E: I have the 100-400 L lens already.

Great plan.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2014 14:15

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

The new 400 looks pretty swanky
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/the-new-canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii/

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 15:42

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

1st AD posted:

7Dmk2 announced.

Eagerly waiting for some high-iso samples.

[edit]

quote:

super tele EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II ($6,899)

Yuck.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2014 16:48

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Yuck at price or the lens? Cause that lens looks great. MTF's are comparable to 300 2.8 IS II. Price is poo poo but, you know, Canon

Yuck at the price. I don't know why you wouldn't just go for the 300 f/2.8 if the 400 was in your price range.

Back to the 7D2 -- AF at f/8. Yay!

# ¿ Sep 15, 2014 18:26

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

This seems like a really sweet deal http://www.vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/276732/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-body-w-ef-2470mm-f40l-usm-standard-zoom-lens.aspx

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 17:24

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Did anyone else preorder a 7D2?

# ¿ Oct 28, 2014 15:52

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

I am going to take up Canon on their 7D2 preorder deal where you can get the 24-70 f/4 for $399. I don't even know much about that lens, but it fills a hole in my lineup and seems like a great deal.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2014 16:48

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

DaveSauce posted:

On a completely separate note: Does anyone know of good software to control the camera from a PC? I tried something called EOS Camera Movie Record that is supposed to be able to take videos, since the older cameras can't do it natively. However, the software complains that the camera doesn't support LiveView, so it just craps out and refuses to do anything further. Which is a shame, because it looks like you can control just about every aspect of the camera via USB.

Mainly, I'd love to be able to control this via PC for astrophotography. I don't care about taking videos at all, so it annoys me that the software doesn't even bother trying since the camera can't support LiveView. I could hack together an intervalometer no problem, but PC control would be much better, especially if I can control everything and save the images directly to PC. Even better, if it IS the SD card slot that's the problem, AND I can control the camera entirely over USB, then I wouldn't bother trying to fix it and I would keep this camera around solely for astrophotography.

http://www.backyardeos.com/default.aspx

# ¿ Nov 4, 2014 18:44

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

dakana posted:

I realize you really can't make a faster zoom in that range without the price being just stupid

Even if you could bring the price down, the weight would be a huge problem still. The 100-400 is a great walk-around size. The 200-400 -- not so much.

It's a great entry point as a wildlife lens, I'm just curious how well it will do against the 150-600 zooms. If the birding groups I'm part of are representative of the main buying group for a lens like this then the Canon marketing dept. has their work cut out for them.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 00:01

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

My wife's early Christmas present arrived a few days ago: 7D2 and 24-70 f/4. Yesterday we put the lens on for the first time and it wouldn't focus. Then it started making a lawnmower-type sound and showing "Err 01 communication with the lens failed". Tried on my other camera bodies with the same effect.

I guess that's why the lens was $400 with the 7D2 preorder.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2014 19:05

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Mightaswell posted:

*edit* found these:
Pixel level sharpness

I'm a bit late, but I just wanted to point out what a stupid comparison this is.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 22:57

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

rolleyes posted:

So, Samsung seems to have scored a bit of a coup.

What kind of review is this? The author has done a whole series of tests to show how Samsung's newest offering does a better job than Canon's 2008 full frame camera body.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2015 15:07

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

rolleyes posted:

I have no idea whether or not that's true as I'm no expert, but that's the rationale provided.

You can compare yourself here: here to see how wrong he is.

I don't know why but basically everything about that review bothers me. You shouldn't compare a brand new camera body against something that is 6+ years old. You shouldn't compare pictures from different camera bodies with different lenses and draw any conclusions about the body specifically. You shouldn't compare pictures that aren't at the same focal length.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2015 16:17

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

What new technology is around that would allow Canon to offer a 53MP sensor that's the same size as normal full frame sensor? I haven't been paying attention.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 16:41

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Seamonster posted:

Time for a revival of the canonailure? 53 mp FF sounds great for cropping those wildlife/sports shots

I'm not sure why this is. If the sensor has the same pixel density as their usual crop sensor, then wouldn't cropping a 53MP image down to 20MP produce basically the same image a crop body would?

# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 22:04

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

-Regular sensitivity: ISO 100-6400

This is the weirdest one

# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 16:36

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

LiquidRain posted:

I imagine the actual target audience for this camera (landscape/studio) won't care so much about a lack of high ISO.

I've got no idea what kind of features landscape/studio shooters want in the next generation canon body (aside from huge resolution), but would they really use the 1.3/1.6 crop modes? This sounds like a feature put in for wildlife/sports shooters, and they aren't going to touch a body that has that ISO range. It seems like a strange mix of features.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 17:17

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

TheAngryDrunk posted:

Everything you could possibly want to know about the new cameras:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5Ds.aspx

quote:

The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as 5D III.

Sigh

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:02

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

What I'm still really curious about is the 1.3 and 1.6 crop modes. Since it's confirmed now that there no change to FPS, ISO, or AF in these modes why would anyone use them and what kind of shooter are they intended for?

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:24

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

maxe posted:

So my shortlist has come down to ;

Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
and mayyyybe
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM - if I can get some change from $3k

In your position I'd be buying the new 100-400. If budget is a concern then I'd be buying the old 100-400.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2015 16:32

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

I guess it depends on what you're shooting. For anything wildlife I'd rather have a 100-400 that can go to 560. The 70-200 is a beautiful lens though if that's your primary shooting range. I just put a 2x on my 70-200 to see how bad AF is affected, and while it hunts forever in low light it snapped to focus instantly as soon as I tried in a better lit environment.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2015 18:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:11

InternetJunky: May 25, 2002

Haggins posted:

Is it a Canon 2x and if so, it's a mark III? I've read that the II wasn't all that great but the III is good.

Yeah, Canon 2x version 3.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2015 21:18

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"

«‹›2 »