|
I just bought a 6D (it was 30% off with the 24-105L, how could I not?!) - and it turns out the provided software really hosed up not only my computer, but the rest of the network. As long as "Canon EOS UPNP Service" was running, all computers had trouble using the network - the wireless routers were unusable, pings between devices (not running the service) on the wired network were in the 3-4 digit milliseconds, and it lasted until I killed the service. Great job Canon!  I've been running around rebooting everything for hours, and was on my way to do a test of the wiring in all the network cables when I stumbled over the process
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:If the Canon wireless transfer works via UPnP, is there some third party solution for it? Or is there any indication of Lightroom possibly enabling wireless transfers in future? Having the same problem, I'll just make do without that feature I think. However, one sentence 6D review: usable pictures at ISO12800 WTF?!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Where did you get this for 30% off? I am hoping to pick one up around July/August if money is there. Man I would love to get that combo for 30% off. It was in Norway, and the offer ended last Saturday - basically I got 6D + 24-105L for 16999 NOK, which google tells me is approximately 2970 USD - and I see B&H have it for 2400 USD  Usually the camera costs around 15k NOK and the 24-105L around 7-8k NOK. I just wish I'd picked up the 40mm f/2.8 while it cost 600 NOK after cashback 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Inf posted:Maybe this is also why the WiFi destroys your battery life, whereas something like an iPhone has no problem. Constantly flooding the network with "HAY GUYS I'M HERE LET'S TRANSFER SOME PICS!!! HAY GUYS I'M HERE LET'S TRANSFER SOME PICS!!! HAY GUYS I'M HERE LET'S TRANSFER SOME PICS!!!" etc It's the software on the computer causing the problem - it destroyed my network while wifi was disabled on the camera
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Amok posted:You might be able to order from some European store, the prices are way lower here (Finland specifically, but they seem to be the same in mainland Europe as well.) For example, an EOS 600D + 18-55 kit is around 470 EUR or less, which is 3850 NOK or thereabouts. Probably won't be much cheaper when you factor in the shipping, 25% VAT on the cost of the item + shipping, and 130 NOK (if you're lucky) import fees
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I know this, but I thought them being part of EFTA meant you wouldn't get buttfucked on duties. Oh well. Anything that crosses the border worth more than 200 NOK (1000 NOK if it's labeled as a gift) is subject to VAT (no real duties outside that for electronics, but, well, 25% VAT). This leads to a hilarious price gap - if the item is worth 199 NOK, you pay, well, 199 NOK + shipping to get it home to you. However, if the item is worth 201 NOK, you pay 201 NOK + shipping + (25% of 201 NOK + shipping) + import fee. The import fee is 130 NOK for "simplified imports", but some shipping companies can really gently caress you on that by choosing the "slow" import, which can easily cost 500-1000 NOK on top (Example in Norwegian - short gist is that be bought an item worth 348 NOK and got 983 NOK in fees and VAT on top of that). I bought the Chromecast recently, and because I had to use a resender so I could have an US address, and the CC cost 230 NOK or so, I had paid around 700 NOK before it was in my hands. That was a short derail, but in that context, Norwegian prices aren't "that" high. Of course it's way cheaper if you visit an EU country and buy the item there EDIT: Typical formula for estimating the Norwegian price for an object is to take (US price in NOK) + (25% VAT) + (10% on top). When the dollar was around 8 NOK/USD (currently 6 NOK/USD) we typically just multiplied the US price by 10, so that's what I do without thinking still. dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I think it's more the fact that, unless you're shooting black and white, digital at higher ISOs looks much worse than film (or it used to anyway). With high-ISO film, you just had lots of grain but with digital you start getting weird colour issues. Like, if you bump up any of the Canon T3i/550D/60D sensors to over 6400, the colors start looking awful. Saying that, the 5D3 and newer models are all starting to look really good a super high ISO. high iso noise on my 6D looks way better than the noise on my 550D (I mean the look of the noise, not "how high I can go before the noise is too much"); it's more like grain than rainbow pattern
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:This. 85 1.8 should be one of those lenses every Canon shooter buys (I still haven't bought one 'cos I keep borrowing it from a friend like a cheapass). It's such a good lens. The only thing I dislike with my 85 1.8 is the (sometimes severe) green/purple fringing when wide open, but at least it's correctable in post. EDIT: vvvv But yeah, that contrast 
dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Your mileage will vary of course, but I've found that upwards of 6400 is perfectly usable. I've successfully taken usable pictures at 12800 ISO; I think the general ISO noise/grain is more pleasant than on my old camera, it's mostly grayscale, rather than random rainbow colors. (Now that I wrote that out, I think I've posted to the same effect earlier in this thread) This photo is taken with the 24-105 f4L at 1/80 sec, f/4, ISO 8000 (click for larger size):  Only adjustments are white balance/cropping/resizing in Lightroom, no noise reduction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It all depends on lots of factors too - what purpose do you need it for, was it properly exposed, being smart about nr and sharpening , etc. I'm perfectly happy with 12800 pics from my 70d and M if I'm just making 4x6 and 5x7 prints or 1000pix wide for Facebook posts or email. If it was underexposed to begin with the noise will look much worse when you raise it. But properly exposed, you can be gentle on the nr for detail areas, very aggressive in oof areas, mask your sharpening well and it comes out looking great. It's mind blowing to me sometimes how little light you can use to get a photo nowadays. Of course, but I love that on the 6D I can keep the ISO on "auto" for 99% of the time, while on my 550D I'd be a bit annoyed if I went above 800. The problem - at least on the 550D - was that even with careful processing afterwards, you could see the rainbow-effect in the scaled down/final picture.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Weird, it's the same sensor as the M and ACR makes the chroma noise not an issue at all on those. If I had a FF I'd probably shoot at 52k no problem, I'm that guy I might be too focused on pixel-peeping Regardless, how the ISO works is one of the best things about the 6D (I can't say if the 5D3 - or even 5D2 are as good/better, I've never tried them) In some cases I think the 6Ds ISO grain adds to the picture rather than destroys it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Took an ISO 12800 image, 100% crop, no modifications done to it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I need some second opinions!  I was just about set on buying a telezoom for my 6D - I've actually ordered the Tamron 150-600 (which was heavily discounted), but they can't give me a delivery time yet. In the mean time, I've been checking the local websites for used camera gear, and found someone selling the 400 f/5.6L for about the same as I'll pay for the 150-600, and I'm going to test that tomorrow. Is the lack of zoom on the 400mm a problem for generic nature photography? My other option is a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, for about 50% more, but then I don't get quite the same reach (without buying extenders), but it's about 66% of "new" price for a 1.5 year old used lens (some cosmetic damage). However, this last one I can't try out in person (without travelling a few hours), so I'm wondering "what questions should I ask"? I'd like to get at least a few recent RAWs taken with the lens - or is it best just going and seeing it "live"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:The Tamzooka will make you very happy. Image stabilization becomes an significant feature for anything beyond 300mm and apertures smaller than f/4, IMO. The 400 5.6 is a great lens but no IS means its really starting to show its 800peepee51doodoo posted:I'd probably stick with the Tammy because of the longer reach, zoom and IS. The optics by all accounts are great for the price too. The prime would be good if you expect to be at the long end the vast majority of the time anyway, like for birding/wildlife and that's all you plan to use it for. It's really light, too, which helps for hiking and makes it easier to handhold. I wouldn't go with the 70-200L II, at least not for nature/wildlife. It's too short and extenders would degrade your AF performance and IQ to the point that you would have been better off with the Tammy or the 400 prime anyway. Yeah, the 70-200 wouldn't be to scratch the long reach itch, more because it was such a good price for it - and I've wanted one for a while. I got to play with a friend's Sigma 150-500 and 70-200L II with 2x extender, and I wasn't really happy with either. Both were quite capable, but just...I don't know...too many "almost right" photos. The Sigma was sharp as hell around 300mm, but dropped off close to 500 (and by all comparisons it seems he has a good lens, not one of the early softer ones); the Tamron is reportedly worse at 600 than the Sigma is at 500, but better at all other lengths. The 70-200 w/extender focussed really slowly, and sometimes couldn't find focus unless I "helped" it; all the images also had slight "auras" around bright edges. The 150-500 (used) would be half the price of the Tamron, but I was kinda set on the Tamron from the start - the 400L I saw randomly stuck in my mind due to seeing this review. I'll still test the 400L tomorrow I think, but I also think I'll just stick with the Tamron (even if it's lacking that red ring).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 19:07
|
|
. I'm honestly surprised the prices on them haven't fallen to, say, 200mm 2.8 (prime) levels.
|
dorkanoid posted:Yeah, the 70-200 wouldn't be to scratch the long reach itch, more because it was such a good price for it - and I've wanted one for a while. I tested the 400L, and it's VERY sharp, and focuses fast and well. I'll try to get to test the Tamzooka before my order processes fully (they've already taken my money ), but won't be able to try it outside, on my camera, so, yeah.So yeah, I bought the 400L, picking it up on Tuesday
dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
I picked up the 40mm f/2.8 since it was heavily discounted (with the cashback, it was less than half price) and...I should've bought this years ago Good sharpness, low CA, and tiny 100% crop of the above
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
I have GPS off on my 6D; I can leave the camera in the "on" position for weeks, and still have battery left.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Since we're on the subject, which lens would be best suited for portaits out of 24-105L, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 (or 400/5.6L  ).I could probably test, but I'd like to see some opinions I may be able to borrow one of the 70-200s, too; I think 4L IS dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:If you're talking strictly portraits, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 and the 70-200 are perfectly fine. On crop, a 50 would be about the equivalent of the 85. I own/can borrow those lenses, hence the rather specific question - this is on the 6D, so it's full frame, though as I take it, the main reason to use a longer lens is to give the subject more pleasing proportions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Talked with a lady at borrowlenses, she said that Tamron just put out an update that the 150-600 production is so lagged that no one will be getting any deliveries before October. Then I'm really happy I went with the 400 f/5.6L instead - this thing is sharp
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
mrlego posted:Care to post some examples? I feel it's my next purchase. Here's a set of bird pictures (some in the middle are 85mm f/1.8 bizarrely enough, and some of the later are taken with 70-200 + 1.4x extender, a combo I borrowed - but the EXIF should point you the right way; for the record, I was missing my 400L the whole time I shot with the 70-200 )Some 100% crops (click for full size)   EDIT: One more: 
dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
mrlego posted:Very nice! I see you're using a full frame. For myself I've noticed my 200mm is way too short coming from a T3i/1DII so I figure the 400mm 5.6 will cover my sport/animal shooting needs. I've been cropping a lot to get good composition. I've had it with the 70-200mm for nature. That's a great picture though! Now I want to visit a pig race I actually brought my 550D too, for the first day; however, I preferred the autofocus of the 6D, and 400mm rather than "640mm" was a better fit for the distances involved. It's just as sharp on crop The second day a friend called me and told me that it was a good day for bird photos; sadly I only had my camera and the 40mm, so I borrowed his 70-200 IS II and 1.4x extender. It was "ok" when resized for web, but the pictures from the 400L are significantly clearer. Out of the 580 pictures I took that first day, I kept 58 in that gallery, and that culling was mostly due to basically having shot 6-10 pictures in series of each subject; only a handful pictures were out of focus or otherwise unusable (or uninteresting, not faulting the lens for that!). All in all, it's very good for the price (compare, for instance, to its longer/faster L siblings). A few shots with the 550D;  
dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Just wanted to add my respect for this picture. It is awesome. I agree Any more details/EXIF on this? You mentioned cropping for composition, so I guess this is taken at quite a distance (based on the DOF) at f/8 or higher?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I need advice for getting a telephoto lens for an upcoming trip to Alaska (leave in ~10 days). I currently have a 6D and 60D, and a 70-300L. I ordered the Tamron 150-600 a couple months ago but it's not likely to get here before I leave. I'll be gone for 3 weeks, which makes rental of even a relatively cheap lens close to $200. It depends on what you're expecting to shoot, but IS doesn't save you from all kinds of blurring issues, especially when it's getting darker. I've used the 400/5.6L extensively over the last few weeks, and it shines at 1/800 or faster on the 6D (where IS doesn't really matter); I find the extra range I get with my 550D is countered by the worse AF and ISO perfomance - I'd often rather crop the image extra rather than using the 550D. I haven't tried the 70-300L, but I tested Sigma 150-500, and the 400L focuses faster, and is sharper (of course it's also double the price). That being said, the 150-500 was more than sharp enough (especially at 300-400mm), and is more versatile.  Grey heron by lejordet, on Flickr the log shown is the in the middle of this cellphone picture (may have to click to see full version)  (Nexus 5, close to 40mm equivalent I believe) dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Thanks for the input. I ended up jumping the gun and getting the 400 last night. I have a huge "hole" in my setup between 105mm and 400mm, and I'm considering the 70-200 4L IS, but not sure. I think I'll have a look at the 70-300L too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:99% of the time I'm shooting fashion & portraits outside. I've been using my cheapo 50mm 1.8 and it's usually fine, but I wouldn't mind an upgrade. Anyone have any recommendations around $500 or less? On what camera? Preemptive suggestion of 85mm f/1.8!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Sorry, knew I forgot something! Well, you'd have to back up a few more steps than with the 50mm; I guess in a pinch the 40mm f/2.8 could be used - but otherwise for that price you're looking at the 50mm f/1.4s from Canon/Sigma.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
I've recently bought a lot of manual lenses for my 6D (and 550D) - are there focusing screens that help facilitate manual focus, but won't break the regular autofocus dots? Primarily for the 550D, as I'm less concerned about something going wrong with that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
 this is hilarious  (that's an Industar 50-2 on an m42 adapter) EDIT: 
dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Ugh yes m42... My brain has been slowly betraying me over the past week. get an adapter with a focus confirm chip, makes things much easier. edit: I have this one, works nicely (that's sold out, but gives the general idea) next-day-edit: I haven't seen any indication that the mirror would hit the lens, as they don't protrude beyond the adapter (I'm using a 6D and 550D) for any of the lenses I own. The helios lenses - I have 3 of them - have an awesome look.  Note that some adapter/lens combos won't let you focus to infinity, not sure why yet, but I assume poorly made adapters. The linked adapter focuses to infinity on all my lenses - it also presents itself as a "1-65535mm f/1.4" lens. dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I've been using the Flaat style for that; though it's probably meant more for video, it makes the picture on the camera screen look fairly close to what I see when I first import it to Lightroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Anyone here have the 400mm L super-tele prime? I'm tempted, and badly need something more than 300mm for wildlife & bird shots. Do you feel like the (as far as I can tell, based on reviews) remarkable sharpness is worth the lack of IS and slower aperture? I'm trying to decide between the 400L and something in the same ballpark from Sigma or Tamron. I know I can get more reach and/or IS for around the same price, but I have this problem with pixel-peeping... I have the 400/5.6L, which I assume you meant. Basically, for any day time shooting I'm at 1/1000 to 1/2000 and f/8 anyhow, so I've never missed the IS, and it's sharp as hell on both FF and crop. The pictures that are blurry, I'm not sure IS would have helped with. I did test the Sigma 150-500, for what it's worth, and found it sharp around the 300-400mm range, but the sheer convenience of the 400L being 1kg lighter, and even sharper, made the choice easy for me. (At the time, the 150-600 had just come out, and they had some delivery issues, I believe, so I never got to try one out - I had pre-ordered one, but cancelled when I found a used 400L at the same price point.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:What ISO do you end up shooting at? I'm lucky to get up over 1/500 without having to blow the ISO way over the top most of the time. Yes, if you're shooting at 11am in July in the wide open 1/1000 is no big deal. Yeah, I'm shooting with my 6D, so hitting ISO 3200 isn't much of a problem. Looking at my files, it seems I'm typically in the 1/500-1/2000 range, f/5.6-f/8, and ISO 100-1250  Willow warbler by Lars Erik Jordet, on Flickrf/5.6 ISO 1250 1/1000s zeroprime posted:Do any of you use online resources like DXOMark and the-digital-picture.com for comparing lens quality prior to a purchase? I like the field maps that DXOMark does and it's cool to see uniformly shot sample photos the way digital picture shows them on top of each other, but how good/accurate are these online tools? I'll admit I'm a bit of a pixel peeper, but with the 400L that means I can "crop some more range" out of it, even if I use my FF camera.  Grey heron by Lars Erik Jordet, on Flickrthat heron's on the log to the left of the center in this photo:  (cell phone, I guess 40mm equivalent) EDIT: Ah, that's actually one of the few I took with my 550D, but still! If the Sigma 150-600 had been out at the time, I'd seriously considered it though! dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Thanks. I have the 400 already but am tempted to get some kind of faster, stabilized 70-200ish zoom for sports and general outdoor use. Just wondering if I could conceivably lose the 400 in favor of a TC if I did so. (Love the 400 though.) Having tried the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the 2x III (borrowed, since I didn't have my 400/5.6L with me), it's a workable (though much heavier, and more expensive) combo - however, the caveats are that you get less contrast, and slight "auras" around bright objects. AF is OK (but nothing like the 400).   
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Cool, thanks for sharing. Yeah, I think they'd been better if I'd underexposed them slightly. That combo takes awesome pictures, but when I "shoot as if it were the 400" I get results like that, and miss my 400. Personally I'm using the 6D, so AF is fast as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 05:25
|
|