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"

«‹›3 »

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

InternetJunky posted:

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

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

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.

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

# ¿ May 14, 2013 19:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:40

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I believe CF cards have on-board controllers whereas SD cards are simplified and offload more to the camera. Of course, if you want to discuss stupidly fast, stupidly expensive, go over to the Nikon thread and find some D4 owners using XQD cards.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2013 13:29

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Saint Fu posted:

Canon is seriously retarded in that they prevent you from downloading EOS Utility if you don't have the CD key. Seriously, who keeps CDs anymore? For anyone else who finds themselves with this problem, this video explains the work around.

When I had that issue a couple of years ago, I downloaded v1.00 from Japan, which has no such issues, then upgraded to the latest version.
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/sdl/data/dpp100-e.exe

# ¿ Aug 31, 2013 10:26

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Shellman posted:

So what's the general consensus on 6d vs. 5dmk3? Most of the photographers I've talked to talk up the 6d as a cheaper option that they would rather use than the 5dmk3. It seems like the primary advantage of the mk3 is less shutter lag and a poo poo-gently caress-ton of AF points? I'm so used to focus-recompose using the center AF point that I'm not sure I'd really even use them, but who knows. Then again, the mk2 and mk3 are both sold out from Canon's refurb program...

Question mostly because the roomie rented a 6d and now I want to skip a vacation and grab one.

Ultimately, I think the answer to 6D vs 5DIII has less to do with the merits of the cameras and more to do with the financial situation of the individual. Unless you're desperate for GPS+wifi, or are a worshipper at the Church of DXO, the 5DIII is the better body. So it's a question of whether in the long-run �850 is significant cash.

As the saying goes, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you. So I'm not sure I'd hold off buying the 6D just in case you might be able to buy the 5D3 at some unknown time in the future.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2013 08:21

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

rcman50166 posted:

Anyone have opinions on the medium format camera that Canon is working on? Does anyone have a guess as to what it might cost? There isn't much information to go by, but it's pretty exciting nonetheless. My guess is that it will be more expensive than an equivalent Hassie.

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/19/rumor-canon-hopes-to-launch-a-digital-medium-format-system-in-2014/

Well it hasn't been picked up by CanonRumors, so it's probably true!

# ¿ Sep 16, 2013 08:26

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Seamonster posted:

And the viewfinder. Sure its only a little bit but there's something to be said for 100% coverage.

And a joystick, for that easy selection of AF points.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2013 20:35

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I have a set by Hahnel, I have no complaints about them. That said I haven't had them long enough to comment on lifespan.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2013 10:35

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

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

A 1DIV seems to go for about half the price of a new 1DX, and in turn the III seems to be about half again. 1 series cameras a different enough beasts that the question of merit versus a new 70D/7D/6D/other has no simple answer, and hence they can maintain price on desirability vs supply. My impression from a habit of checking listings of second-hand is that the supply of used 1DIV and 1DXs is pretty sparse, which can only help to keep the price of a 1DIII slighty higher.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2013 22:48

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

800peepee51doodoo posted:

A word of warning on the extenders, if you go that route - 2x extenders slow AF focus speed by 75% along with dropping your aperture 2 stops. You can really only use them on f2.8 lenses if you use anything but a 1 series body.

I'm not sure anyone has ever really loved the x2 extender. With the right lens, the 1.4x can be part of a combo that is as good as anything else out there, and people will sing its praise. By comparison, the suggestion of using a x2 seems to be, without fail, caveated with a warning about slow AF and loss of sharpness.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2013 22:54

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

There's a new OS X Canon-compatible shutter count app on the Mac App Store for $1.99. Assuming it is updated as new models come out, it beats paying EOSCount multiple times.

Or you can use gphoto2, which is open source. (I'm up to about 35k in 34 months of 7D ownership)

# ¿ Oct 25, 2013 13:15

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

It's also easier to get lots of gushing praise of flickr by posting some HDR puke and posting it to award-five love-in group than it is by uploading something innovative.

Once you've got gphoto working, you can use it to do all sorts of things with a tethered camera.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2013 20:23

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Yes, I was being entirely po-faced and not at all flippant.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2013 21:27

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I can believe everything in that apart from 'very good ISO performance'

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 19:41

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

800peepee51doodoo posted:

The on-camera buffer can handle 94 jpegs or 15 RAW photos.

Correction: 130 and 25 respectively since the big 2.0 firmware release.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 20:21

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

If you can't afford even a second-hand 500/600/800 don't ever try one. They're like crack.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2013 10:11

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I loved my 100-400 until I got to try a 500mm f4. Now it's like a marriage where we have to stay together for the kids.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2013 23:03

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Does it misreport the aperture at 600mm to keep autofocus working beyond f/5.6?

Edit: appears that is unnecessary. AF stops working below f8 not above f5.6.

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 22, 2014

# ¿ Jan 22, 2014 20:15

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

That sentence didn't make sense! AF stops working at and above f8 not above f5.6.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2014 22:32

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Shellman posted:

I'm sure this has been asked before, but any recommendations for telephoto (probably zoom) on a full frame? Seems like 70-200 f/4 L non-IS is basically the bare minimum for entry. Is there anything comparable to the 55-250 for crop, or are the cheap ones mostly crap? I don't do a TON of work that the 24-105 isn't long enough for, but it'd be nice to have the longer end of the range covered.

You didn't specify a price range, so I'll suggest that the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x would be a flawless choice...

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 08:29

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

The 100-400 was released in 1998 so it's IS is seriously due for a refresh. (And then there's the 400mm f5.6 which doesn't even have IS on account of nothing have been updated since 1993. But I'm sure Canon would rather release a 500mm f4 III...)

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 23:18 on May 7, 2014

# ¿ May 7, 2014 20:57

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

triplexpac posted:

I'm still kind of new to the word of lenses, so I'm curious... how much of a difference is there between the Canon 40mm and 35mm? I'm on a full frame.

If you don't mind getting your information from the dark side, they have a lens simulator. Bear in mind that their DX format is 1.5, whereas Canon's APS-C format is 1.6.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 20:35

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

So any excitement over the new 100-400? The MTFs certainly look promising.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 21:54

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

BetterLekNextTime posted:

I think i'd want to see how it takes TC's. If it + a 1.4x is noticeably better than the Tamron, I'll start looking harder at it.

If you believe the MTF charts, it appears the mkII wearing a 2x is equal to the naked mkI.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 01:48

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Given they've now also split the 700D in to both a 750D and a 760D, they'll be selling 12 different bodies. They've clearly misunderstood the desperate pleas to "copy Sony".

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 09:18

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

TheAngryDrunk posted:

For some reason the new EOS-M won't be sold in North America.

Because North American 'soccer moms' are proving reluctant to to buy a camera that isn't as oversized as their SUV. (Didn't the M2 also get 'not sold'?)

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 10:28

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Increasing the fps in the crop modes would have required an upgrade to the mechanics of the mirror movement which Canon evidently didn't want to do.

The 1.3 and 1.6 might not increase the fps but if you know you're only interested in the centre portion, it means you're buffer will last longer, you'll get more photos on the memory card and Lightroom will be faster at the end. It's only a software feature so it won't have been that much of a burden on the engineers, gives the salesman something extra to mention and will have no adverse effects if you never use it. Nikons have a similar 1.6 crop mode which the camera enters if you put on a DX lens, it might not mean as much given the EF-S situation but Canon probably didn't want to be left out.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 21:39

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

IanTheM posted:

Why spend $3.5k on a full frame camera when that Sigma is such a big part of your lens collection, anyway. A 7D2 will give you more pixels with the same DR for cheaper.

A 7D2 won't give you more pixels. The 5Ds sensor is, give or take, the same pixel density as the 7D2 but scaled up to fall frame.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 23:22

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Canon put together a 51 page guide to the AF options...
http://downloads.canon.com/camera/brochures/EOS_7D_Mark_II_AF_guide_CUSA_9-2014.pdf

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 10:10

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Official Canon servicing for lenses ends about five years after end of production. A browse of Wikipedia suggests the 17-35 was replaced circa 2001, so your local official Canon repair centre will almost certainly turn you away. There are plenty of independent repair centres out there, that might take a look. Only a phone call to them of them will give you an idea of if they will and the cost (if something is broken, then successful repair will depend on them having access to being able to another lens they can salvage the part from.). The other option is to sell it on ebay as a dead lens, somebody will buy it, either to try to fix it or for donor parts.

The 17-40 was the first lens I ever got, back when I joined the DSLR revolution with a 20D. It's a solid rather than spectacular lens. I can't comment on the comparison to the Tamron.

Unless you're shooting action and you're after the larger buffer, 8fps and more autofocus modes, I'd go for the 70D.

# ¿ May 17, 2015 10:18

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

timrenzi574 posted:

That 200-500 looks pretty sweet. And nice aggressive pricing move by Nikon there. It weighs 2lbs more than the 100-400 II though which is a significant increase (but 500 f/5.6 what can you do)

The fact it's a constant f/5.6 and doesn't manage f/4.5 or f/5.0 at the wide end does makes me think it's on the less generous end of f/5.6 but just enough not to be closer to f/6.3 at full zoom.

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Aug 4, 2015

# ¿ Aug 4, 2015 21:31

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Bubbacub posted:

It's like half the price of the Canon 100-400.

It's also two-thirds the price of their own 80-400. Unless as a company they've decided to cut their margins, I reckon it's going to be the story that it's lens that has sacrificed a lot for price. I think it's impact will be felt more on the sales of the Tamron and Sigma budget 500s than either the 80-400 or 100-400.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2015 20:50

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

red19fire posted:

Am I insane to want to jump ship from Nikon to Canon? I use a pair of DF's, 24-70, 70-200 for work, and I think I could work a straight horse trade to get a pair of 5d3's and the same lenses. I find myself preferring the color of my colleagues who shoot 5d3's even though I'm sure I can replicate it in post processing, and they come up far more often when I work as an assistant.

Not loving the bullshit shutter either, it appears to be made out of balsa wood.

<insert derisory comment about their sensors>.

Canons regularly outnumber the rest in competitions, be it World Press Photos, Landscape of the Year or Wildlife Photographer of the Year, and on the touchline at any major sport event. If owning a Canon is insanity, there's an epidemic in the upper echelons of photography. The sensor issues over dynamic range and low ISO noise are seriously overblown on the net, in all other regards their bodies are as good or better than anyone's and their lens designers are on a serious roll at the moment.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 08:43

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Seamonster posted:

I'm still angry Nikons have that 200-500 5.6 VR. And at a not exorbitant price too. I guess that would explain the flood of Nikon tamzookas on ebay.

I'd find the 200-500 a more interesting proposition if wasn't targeted even below Nikon's own 80-400, thus indicating a higher level of compromise in the name of price.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2015 21:16

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

What's the property of mirrorless that makes it inherently superior for your needs?

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 18:59

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Will we see a full frame mirrorless from Canon any time soon? They're not going to want to introduce and maintain yet another line of new lenses, so it'll be EF mount. That will leave them will the same long flange distance so will negate the size reduction aspect of removing the mirror (and I'm not sure they'd want to enable people to use non-EF lenses). So it'll be driven by the desire to go 'full time live-view', which is something I think they'll want to do from a video perspective. I think they'll do that first in one of the ASP-C lines, in the same way they used the 70D to introduce dual-pixel. I'm less sure they''ll be motived to do the same with a full-frame, with their efforts in the high-end video segment being around the C series (which is high-end and mirrorless, but Super 35mm). If they do a 1D C successor, that would be a candidate for going EVF but that'd be niche (expensive, heavy, bulky)...

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 22:51

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

alkanphel posted:

Not any time soon but eventually. And if their EOS-M is any indication, the first few versions won't be that amazing either. It wouldn't make sense to keep the same FFL distance because that makes the mirrorless camera exactly the same size as the existing DSLRs. So I do think they will release a new line of lenses for it because there are very few EF lenses I would want to put on a mirrorless camera too.

But smaller isn't the only reason for switching to mirrorless+EVF. Canikon's problem is there is no easy way for them to switch that doesn't either annoy their large user base (by depreciating EF before the majority are ready to go EVF) or increase their costs by developing and maintaining more lens lines. I do think that EVFs will eventually replace all OVFs, but we're not there. I can simply imagine a scenario where Canon aren't ready to commit to a new mount, but do an EVF version of a body for the video benefits. They effectively already do so with their C100/C300/C500 video cameras.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2015 20:28

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Plus EVF increase the power consumption, yet a smaller body decreases the space that can be allocated to a decent size battery. The battery in an A7ii is 1020mAh compared to 1865mAh in a 5DIII.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2015 20:56

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I'm not sure that's a physically likely scenario.

(f-number) = (focal length) / (diameter of aperture opening)

I think you get slight variations because you can oversize the glass slightly to improve edge performance (vignetting, edge softness, etc). Plus the manufacturers do round both focal length and aperture to the nearest nice number. But for every lens actually on the market, divide the focal length by the max aperture and you won't be far off the diameter.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 09:43

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Canon don't want to discuss low ISO DR improvements in too much detail because that would admit a weakness on a bunch of bodies they're still stelling. Canon's other issue is holding back features for product differentiation, especially over video features. But they're still market leaders and making profit. Plus their lens department are kicking arse at thd moment.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2016 18:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:40

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Hardware differences are one thing, but the refusal to include things like an inbuilt intervelometer, focus peaking, zebra stripes, GPS and wifi together do smack of protecting cashcow lines (cinema bodies) and accessories.

But most of these don't really hold people back, their camera system 'works and works dependably' and they have an unrivalled lens lineup. So they stay as #1.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2016 18:56

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"

«‹›3 »