|
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 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:26 |
|
Casu Marzu posted:Did you accidentally dial down your exposure compensation if you're shooting Av?
|
# ¿ May 12, 2013 16:47 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2013 17:03 |
|
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 think I'm going to send it in for a checkup anyway. TheAngryDrunk posted:Anyone got $11,799 burning a hole in their pocket?
|
# ¿ May 14, 2013 15:37 |
|
Pablo Bluth posted:At least one person thinks it's worth it: http://andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174 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 |
|
bisticles posted:Did you read that article?
|
# ¿ May 14, 2013 19:57 |
|
TsarAleksi posted:to say it's not exactly what was needed (and asked for) by a large group of photographers is completely asinine.
|
# ¿ May 15, 2013 01:36 |
|
Reading what you guys wrote about the TS-E 24mm has weakened my will. You guys are evil.quote:Order #4389 (Pending)
|
# ¿ Jul 5, 2013 18:43 |
|
demonachizer posted:Do other people not find the push/pull zoom mechanism annoying on the 100-400? 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 |
|
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 |
|
smallmouth posted:Red Alert! Stop using and recommending counterfeit batteries!
|
# ¿ Sep 26, 2013 17:54 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Price around $2000
|
# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 21:34 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 21:52 |
|
IanTheM posted:The 7D prices I'm seeing these days (800ish) are really fair for a weather sealed pro body,
|
# ¿ Nov 11, 2013 18:47 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 11, 2013 19:27 |
|
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.... 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. InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jan 11, 2014 |
# ¿ Jan 11, 2014 15:41 |
|
Seamonster posted:http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2014 15:00 |
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:No 7D2, Canon?
|
# ¿ Feb 11, 2014 22:35 |
|
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?
|
# ¿ Feb 14, 2014 14:15 |
|
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 |
|
1st AD posted:7Dmk2 announced. [edit] quote:super tele EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II ($6,899)
|
# ¿ Sep 15, 2014 16:48 |
|
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 Back to the 7D2 -- AF at f/8. Yay!
|
# ¿ Sep 15, 2014 18:26 |
|
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 |
|
Did anyone else preorder a 7D2?
|
# ¿ Oct 28, 2014 15:52 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 4, 2014 18:44 |
|
dakana posted:I realize you really can't make a faster zoom in that range without the price being just stupid 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 |
|
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 |
|
Mightaswell posted:
|
# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 22:57 |
|
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 |
|
rolleyes posted:I have no idea whether or not that's true as I'm no expert, but that's the rationale provided. 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 |
|
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 |
|
Seamonster posted:Time for a revival of the canonailure? 53 mp FF sounds great for cropping those wildlife/sports shots
|
# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 22:04 |
|
-Regular sensitivity: ISO 100-6400 This is the weirdest one
|
# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 16:36 |
|
LiquidRain posted:I imagine the actual target audience for this camera (landscape/studio) won't care so much about a lack of high ISO.
|
# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 17:17 |
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Everything you could possibly want to know about the new cameras: quote:The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as 5D III. Sigh
|
# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:02 |
|
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 |
|
maxe posted:So my shortlist has come down to ;
|
# ¿ Feb 19, 2015 16:32 |
|
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 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:26 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Feb 19, 2015 21:18 |