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"

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

woot fatigue posted:

What's the consensus on mounting Nikon lenses on Canon? I'm looking at a PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 that gives 8mm of shift...

There's also a Leica/Schneider PA-CURTAGON-R 35mm F4 that shifts but I can't really find anything in the way of reviews.

I've mounted plenty of Nikon lenses on my 10D and 5D2 without issue. I can also say that I once owned the PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 and it worked great on my 5D2 with an adapter... but it's no 24mm TS-E. pseudonordic has my former PC-Nikkor now and I'm pretty sure he does stitched panoramas with it, so you should ask him how he likes it for that purpose.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 22:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:59

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

woot fatigue posted:

Yep, I think I'm going to go with the newer, black-knob version of the PC-Nikkor 35/2.8. It's got 11mm of shift and goes to f32 for under $400.

Well under $400. I got mine for $220 and sold it to pseudonordic for the same amount, I think.

edit: it was the black knob version.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 22:15

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Is there an SLR out there aside from the 60D and 70D that has a top LCD that isn't a rectangle?

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 20:50

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Paul MaudDib posted:

They were pretty steeply priced for most users. I understand wanting to price it for the FF crowd, but they could have released a crop sensor version if they wanted something more downmarket. They hardly even seem to try with their crop lineup and I don't get it, since soccer moms aren't buying full frame.

The NEX 35/1.8 is $450 and that's probably the competitor for a stabilized 35mm prime. You pay a bit more, but you get film/full frame and SLR-level autofocus. It's slightly but noticeably cheaper than the Sigma 35/1.4. I think it's probably priced about right.

Until Sigma rolls out a new 35mm f/1.0 OS or something, of course.

Soccer moms don't buy primes.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2013 04:26

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Mr. Despair posted:

Yes, no one should consider options from other companies besides canon.

Surely it isn't as if this is a manufacturer-specific thread...?!?

# ¿ Sep 20, 2013 19:03

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

xenilk posted:

But for someone who does no video footage and no sports, is it worth pitching ~2500$ more?

Only downside I see is no dual card slot and having a non-fiberglass cover? I think I can live with non 100% VF (I mean MKII has 96%)

As I understand it, the 6D autofocus system is much closer to that of the 5Dii than to that of the 5Diii. Since you don't care about video and already own a 5Dii, don't bother getting a 6D.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 21:15

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Mathturbator posted:

I've been away from this game for about a year, so I'm not up to date on anything.
Is the 5DIII a worthy upgrade from a 5DII?

The 5DIII came out more than a year and a half ago :raise:

# ¿ Nov 11, 2013 22:03

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Djimi posted:

Well I pulled the trigger and got the 5DMkIII. It arrived and I am hoping to use it tonight at a club and see how it does in a dimly lit scene. ISO 1600 used to my max setting indoors, I'm hoping to use 6400 tonight. Any owners with opinions on where noise becomes unacceptable?

Anywhere from 400 to never depending on your definition of "unacceptable."

# ¿ Jan 1, 2014 00:29

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

bisticles posted:

Only reason I'd suggest a 5D2 over a 6D would be if you needed dual memory cards. I had a failure ONCE and it's still enough to make me paranoid.

the 5D2 has one CF slot and zero SD slots.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2014 17:24

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Somehow, I don't think that the a7's target market includes sports/bird photographers.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2014 16:38

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

evil_bunnY posted:

Clearly the only users who demand decent af performance.

I guess now that AF has been invented, nobody can take manually focused pictures of moving subjects.

I'm not saying sports and bird photographers are the only people who use AF, just that those are the only people for whom AF performance is paramount, and they're not the ones buying the a7. Everybody I know who bought an a7 did so to use manual focus legacy glass on it, and not just for still life photos.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2014 16:47

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Adapting other system lenses is a nice added feature but when its your only option its a pretty bullshit system. I honestly can't fathom why y'all are defending it.

I agree that it's bullshit for Sony to rely on adapted lenses, but were the people whining about it going to buy an a7? Can people honestly not fathom that it might appeal to somebody else, though?

In any case, what started all this is Haggins complaining about there not being a 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 for the a7r. Well, there's a Minolta autofocus A-mount 24-70 and 70-200... I guess no 14-24, but there's a 17-35.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2014 18:14

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Thumposaurus posted:

I picked up a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 at a thrift store for $1.
Is it worth tracking down a FD-EF converter to use on a modern dslr or should I not bother?

Don't bother. With a glassless adapter you lose infinity focus and with a converter with glass you lose image quality and get a teleconverter.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 20:42

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Mightaswell posted:

*edit* found these:
Pixel level sharpness

The 24-105 is garbage at 24mm so this is not at all surprising.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 23:58

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Laserface posted:

SO i have had my Tamron 18-270 repaired twice for lovely focusing on non-centre focus points and even after sending my camera to Tamron with the lens and having it calibrated specifically to my camera it still focuses like garbage unless you're using centre focus.

Is this just a thing with non-canon lenses or what?

It's a thing with cheap lenses.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 05:45

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Laserface posted:

yeah, it wasnt cheap.

So how many weeks have you been interested in photography? :kiddo:

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 18:27

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Nomenclature posted:

Seriously, read before posting, ok?
I covered this multiple times. And if you still don�t believe it, it is something you can prove for yourself at home in several ways.

Going back to your example again: Take a crop lens and put it on a FF body. Since the image circle is feeding fewer pixels (in other words, every pixel gets more light than they would on an APS-C sensor), if the light the lens brings in at that FOV and f-stop were as much as the light a FF lens brings in at that f-stop, you would expect to see the cropped portion of the image be a stop brighter than a FF lens with the same FOV and aperture. But you don�t.

Or take a FF telephoto zoom lens and put an APS-C body on it. Choose some framing and f-stop and take a photo. Keep in mind that the lens/camera setup is throwing away about a stop of light that isn�t hitting the APS-C sensor. Now, grab an APS-C lens and find the same framing. What f-stop did you need to get equivalent exposure? It should be the same as the FF lens� f-stop. Now, calculate the aperture sizes. Your APS-C lens� aperture diameter should be 1/crop factor of your APS-C sensor times your FF lens� aperture diameter. So, you can see that your camera displayed the same brightness with both lenses, even though you know that you threw away a stop of light with the FF lens.

Or FFS, just buy or rent a Metabones Speed Booster. At a given FOV and f-stop, a FF lens will give you an extra stop of light with the Speed Booster. Either that extra stop of light comes from the FF lens bringing in more light at a given FOV and f-stop in the first place (and the Speed Booster just lets you not throw it away with a crop sensor), or it comes from magic. And if it�s the latter, I�ve wasted my life working in science, so I really hope that�s not the case.

And if you are still proposing some other mechanism, please at least show some math to support it!

No, you. You're wrong. Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Optics-5th-Eugene-Hecht/dp/0133977226/

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 20:01

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Nomenclature posted:

Wow, it's almost like I was always talking about equivalent FOVs, and allowing the focal length to change in order to match FOVs. The fact that a textbook confirms that an f-stop is exactly what I already said an f-stop is changes nothing.

Seriously, make falsifiable statements about the behaviors of lenses on different sensors if you want to keep this an actual discussion.

Wow, it's almost like you just ignore people who know better than you!

Seriously, reread the image :allears:

MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Feb 16, 2016

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 20:30

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Nomenclature posted:

Again, if you think that you have some information that invalidates something that I have said, explain it using math and falsifiable statements.

Here you go:

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 20:43

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Nomenclature posted:

�The flux density at the image plane varies as (D/f)^2.�
^That is the part of the textbook that you need to understand, but I don't think you do.

Your f-stop gives you the intensity per unit area of the light. Your light meter gives you a reading of that intensity.

Now, if I place light of that intensity over a large area, and I divide that area into buckets that catch the light, I will catch a certain amount of light per bucket.

Now, if I place light of that intensity over a smaller area, but keep the same number of buckets, each bucket must be smaller and will therefore catch less light.

If the former was a FF sensor and the latter was an APS-C sensor, you can see that each "bucket," or "pixel" will receive less light at the same intensity. Thus, either the sensor or the image processor must amplify the signal more. Now are you getting it?

Intensity is expressed per unit area. You're real dumb.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 21:57

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

I'm also going to be selling my Canon gear, though it's not just because of the other Canon users in this thread!

# ¿ Feb 17, 2016 00:31

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

congratulations on postulating the concept of signal to noise ratio.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2016 05:41

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

THis is how the came up with Rebel isn't it?

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E78OnfyQiWo

# ¿ Feb 20, 2016 02:48

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

iSheep posted:

Mad Max shot a lot of their chase scenes on the 5dMk2 iirc.

Might be a safe bet to assume they were running magic lantern on those cameras.

Major studio productions also have people whose only job is setting manual focus.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2016 00:27

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Laserface posted:

I know lenses are marketed as EF or EF-S, but what is the actual difference? is a 50mm EF lens on a crop body going to have a different crop to a 50mm EF-S lens on the same body?

I know that an EF-S lens on a full frame body results in vignetting, but doesnt that imply that the focal length is different on an EF-S lens to an EF?

No, it just means the image circle is smaller. That's it. Focal length is a fundamental physical property that has no direct relation to the size of film/sensor a lens is capable of covering.

# ¿ May 17, 2016 01:07

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

somnambulist posted:

I recently had an art show, and I was printing at large sizes (40"x60" ) and I noticed it started to get a little pixelated at that size (im using the 5d Mark III). I've been eyeing the 5dsr, do you think it would be a good investment or do you think I should wait for something better? I know the dynamic range is pretty much the same, but the added resolution is appealing. I'd love some thoughts.

Shoot 4x5. Way better dynamic range and way larger prints.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 18:37

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

somnambulist posted:

Can you explain this a bit more? I'm a little confused.

Also, it's suggested a leaf lens would change the sync speed capabilities? Can someone explain why a leaf lens couldn't be made for say, a DSLR?

Leaf shutters top out at 1/500 or so. There's also the issue of lens/body synchronization - just look at the Rube Goldberg poo poo medium format digital cameras have to do for sync.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2016 21:32

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

The underlying premise that you need a full-frame camera if you're getting paid for photography is false. If your budget is limited, spending the money on more/better lenses will make much, much more of a difference.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 20:29

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

InFlames235 posted:

Thank you! This will be a noob question as I literally have only a kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8 but it looks like the new 16-35 has USM. Isn't that the same as IS?

USM is a kind of focus motor. IS is optical image stabilization.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2017 21:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:59

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

It's not the weather sealing. Canon calls it a "soft touch electromagnetic release" and it's on all of the higher-end bodies. It makes it a lot easier to go back and forth between a half-press for AEL/AFL and a full-press.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 18:14

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"