|
harperdc posted:I think the OP needs a "Why you should stop worrying (and learn to love the Nifty Fifty)" section, especially after the derail in the last thread. Just don't y'know, drop it from a height of more than two inches 
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
xzzy posted:Just ignore him if it bugs you, he treats the entire forum like it's some kind of Pentax holy ground. Gettin' dangerously close to rule 2a here. The thread in general, I mean.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Ok this is legit pretty funny, now I guess resume talking about how the T3 is terrible or whatever it is you people do in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
hey canon-havers there's something special about your 50 1.8 ...it has fewer aperture blades than my dealextreme spaghetti portioning device yeah 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Dont you just.. like.. get used to how much spaghetti you use? Do you cook it once a year or something or is this your first time? Look sometimes a dude gets a thing from dealextreme and just wants to come troll the Canon thread ok.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I've not tried the Tamron but the Canon is truly exceptional. Besides the close range / intimate shots at the wedding where a wide is required the 70-200 keeps you out the way, allows great portraiture at a distance and is so sharp you may cut yourself. IS for poor or dark lighting. If you're on Nikon, the 80-200 2.8 is dirt loving cheap now and the price difference is well worth losing 10mm on the short end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Piquai Souban posted:Post more pig race. Every time I look at that picture something new delights me. This, except not in the form of a polite request. Post more pig race. Promptly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
This is why Arctic Butterflies exist, so it spins the everloving poo poo out of the bristles for a full 30 seconds before you wipe the sensor, then you do it again after to get all the crud off it. Shockingly really effective. Also the hilariously big warnings about "DO NOT loving TURN IT ON WHILE IT'S IN YOUR CAMERA".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:It's a nice photo, but my eye keeps getting drawn to the blue analog cable coming out of his laptop. Dude needs to get a laptop that isn't poo poo. some people need to project things with lower-tier projectors, stop goddamn analogshaming
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Go google pictures from each lens, especially stuff shot wide-open. The 1.2 is also presumably not a tremendous piece of poo poo that falls apart if you breathe on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Sony probably isn't going to sell it to Nikon, and they'll be keeping the low light crown to them selves with that. Sony will sell whatever Nikon cares to buy, because their (awesome) niche low light sensor doesn't even have close to the demand to keep a fab operating 24/7.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Tamzooka what in the gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
Istari posted:Well that's simple enough. Thanks. The battery is also going to go to poo poo really fast. Remember, it's not unmanly to stuff batteries down your pants to keep them warm.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:ultraviolet inception? I'm thinking the best solution here is dipping the ends of lenses in five minute epoxy. It's called 'optical resin', scrublord.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I thought it was pretty ok so long as you know it's mostly manual focus and is garbage for stills. Wasn't one of its selling points supposed to be that it wasn't garbage for stills? I mean I'm not saying it's not, but I remember hearing that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I wasn't fine with Canon's lack of commitment to high quality crop sensors. You and the rest of the world, dude. 2009 called, want sensor back, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Preferably whisky. There are whiskies especially made for photography equipment, but they are more expensive than 18 year old single malt scotch, even though they are 3 year whiskies. But at least, if you pay the price for photography whisky, you know you're using the right stuff. This is a real funny post, and to the dude who reported it (not gonna name & shame or anything), y'all narrowly avoided a reversal of fortune for reporting a post that funny.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Whoever you are, you should self-probate for a week in shame (and get a sense of humour). Dude's not wrong though, 12-year-aged whisky is about the right vintage for a Canon sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:Somebody nearby is selling a 5Dc on CG for...$120?? Buy that poo poo and Dremel the serial number off it immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 02:41
|
|