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"

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Great OP. I had no idea my 60d was so terrible.

May want to update it a bit in regards to the Rebels as the T2i and T2i have the same sensor but the T4i and T5i (lol) have a definitely better one.

# ¿ May 11, 2013 20:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 09:28

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

fivre posted:

If you buy the 60D you will never be able to take good photos. Never.

Should've just saved money and got a T3

# ¿ May 11, 2013 21:30

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

rcman50166 posted:

Haha, what? It really isn't a terrible camera. The fact that people complain about it being plastic and having different controls than it's predecessors (I mean seriously?) means they aren't spending enough time, you know, taking pictures.

Ha, I was being sarcastic. I moved up from a T2i so the 60D is better in literally every way for me. Never used a 50D so I can't compare the two.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 05:17

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Electric Bugaloo posted:

Take the extra money you'd spend on a 60D and buy her some digital photography classes at your local art school/college.

How many classes can you get for $100? The 60D has come down in price a lot.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 18:56

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Electric Bugaloo posted:

This would have been awesome to know from the beginning. It completely changes my perspective and response. From the way you had presented the scenario the first time, it seemed to me like your mom didn't really know how to use anything more complicated than a simple rangefinder. Now it seems like she'd be right at home with a good SLR, just as long as it wasn't digital. That's a totally different kettle of fish dude.

If the whole issue is shifting her from film into digital, then there are a ton of inexpensive resources that are ideal for her. The camera shop I mentioned in an earlier post has a $30 course specifically geared toward getting proficient film shooters comfortable with their new dSLRs. Ask any decent camera shop around and they should be able to point you toward some kind of resource. If they've been around for more than a decade and a half, then the mass exodus of old people from film to digital has been an important part of their business history. There are also a lot of books out there for this purpose.

I'm not totally sure if this voids my old suggestion or not. On the one hand, I think that the whole 'film-->digital' hump is tiny compared to understanding the mechanics of photography and your mom would probably be fine with a new dSLR in a few weeks or months. If that's the case, then maybe- why not get her a 60D or 7D now? It sounds like she'd milk the features over something like a Rebel once she figured out where they were. She'll be able to have fun shooting for the next few years and be totally comfortable with the camera when she goes to the Galapagos. As for which of the two, the 60D is probably more than fine. It's probably going to be replaced with a 70D soon, so I'd maybe wait until then to either get the new model or get the old model for less money. In fact, you could get two 60Ds for (quite) roughly the price of one 7D, depending on the kit lens situation. You know, that's not a bad upgrade from a 30D either....

On the other hand, her trip is still in a few years. The 30D might be fine for her at this moment as an introduction to the perks of digital.

Yeah, I can completely empathize with that.

When I'm out with friends they often make me the photo camera guy with their no-name brand point and shoots for group shots. "Here, take a picture!" and they just hand it to me. Everything is so God drat tiny you can't easily read what anything is and I don't spend time in automatic modes so GOD drat IT KEVIN HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE TINY WHEEL IS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE GOBLIN MINING FOR IT TO BE IN PICTURE TAKING MODE.

# ¿ May 13, 2013 18:26

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

HookShot posted:

This but with HP. If I ever have to use another HP printer in my life I think I'll just stab myself in the face and save myself the trouble.

I used to work as tech support for HP.

I will never buy one because they terribly built and support staff have their hands tied so it is almost impossible to offer good service.

"[ts posted:

xenophobe" post="415813409"]
So, today, I bit the bullet and bought a better than decent lens. After reading a ton at different sites, and weighing my finances, I bought the new Tamron 70-200 vc. I think I could bludgeon someone to death with it. that said, the AF speed beats the crap out of the 70-300 Canon I replaced with it, quieter too. I still need to import the few pics I took today to go pixel peeping (yeah, I fall into that crap sometimes) but so far I'm not upset. The other option in my price range was the canon 2.8L non IS, and as much as I'd like the white casing, everything I've read says this lens matches for image quality.

How is the image quality? I got the 70-200 non-IS 2.8. Things ways a ton but takes superb photos. Takes a while to focus but on my 60D it hasn't missed focus after it found it. On my Rebel it did a few times. Great image quality regardless.

doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 28, 2013

# ¿ May 28, 2013 20:36

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Paul MaudDib posted:

Buy a Brother laser printer and if you need prints go to Walmart or something.

Laser printer supremacy

Haha, this is exactly what I have done. :hf:

They're cheaper than everything else and their support is just as good (bad) but they're cheaper.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 21:34

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

Costco.

I hear good things, probably because the staff there makes a wage they can actually live off of.

Personally I go to London Drugs for photos but I'm in Canada. I loathe Walmart and will avoid shopping there as much as possible.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 22:56

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Huxley posted:

As a bargain hunting beginner, how much would I be giving up getting a used 400D vs a T2i? Bodies on eBay for the 400 run around $150 and for the T2i around $350. I assume kit lenses aren't worth the $50-100 difference, right?

Get the T2i for the love of God if you plan on learning how to use a DSLR

# ¿ May 31, 2013 02:36

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

fivre posted:

All Canon crop sensors perform the same. If you trust the graphs, the T3 is actually one of the best performers! With NR on they're different, but that's only for in-camera JPEG processing, correct?

Supposedly the 7dii still isn't coming out for a while, but the 70D is scheduled for July. What I'm saying is you should buy my 60D so I can buy a 6D.

T4i has a better processor that reduces noise comparatively to the T3i and below if I remember right.

Also I just went from a T2i to a 60D and it is such an improvement, so yes upgrade to this man's 60D.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 23:55

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

fivre posted:

It does have a newer processor, yes. I just don't know if that matters for RAW noise. Does the camera apply any noise reduction to RAWs, or only to JPEGs?

I assumed it was both but now that you mention it I honestly don't know. As far as I'm aware the 60D is superior in literally every other regard beyond the DIGIC IV vs. DIGIC V.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2013 06:26

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

I don't shoot JPEG or raw. I SHOOT

MOTHERFUCKER

# ¿ Jun 11, 2013 03:35

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

I've only ever heard people say it I-S-O.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2013 04:27

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Some off-brand ones are actually better and hold a larger charge.

http://sterlingtek.com/

Throw in a couple of these extra power ones into a grip and you can basically shoot until the end of time itself.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2013 00:35

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

casa de mi padre posted:

This is almost as good as the racist against black people HP facial recognition software

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 20:32

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Cameron posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5JzfCoUSUI

All camera reviews should be this amazing

Edit: 70D looks like the loving bomb for video if the new AF in Live works as promised. I wonder if my Tamron lenses will be compatible. :ohdear:

doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jul 2, 2013

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 18:40

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

1st AD posted:

I don't know why chasing video autofocus is such a big priority for manufacturers. Every time I've used it on any system it's awful and does a bad job of actually tracking moving things. On a small sensor camcorder you can kind of deal with it since the depth of field is so deep, but on even m4/3 it looks really clunky.

People using a DSLR as a video camera are going to want lenses with a smooth focus ring with a long throw. And they're probably not going to want to drop the kind of money Canon wants on those cine-primes

If you're doing something professional sure but people buying cameras just to record photos/video for family are probably very happy with a super simple "press face to focus" and getting some mediocre (instead of brutally awful) tracking.

Edit: think of it a "P for professional" mode for video

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 19:31

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Erwin posted:

I've been holding off on a new camera knowing this was coming out. Hooray! What are the chances that a 60d battery grip will work on it? Did the 50d grip work on the 60d?

Physically it is a different size so I'd say none for the grip. It uses the same batteries though so at least you can reuse those from you 60D.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 20:15

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Rageaholic Monkey posted:

Oh my god, I love NMA stuff but I've never seen them do a camera review before. That was even better than watching DigitalRev

And that Asian guy blogging with the DigitalRev sign over his computer...was that supposed to be Kai? He was a few hundred pounds and Kai's a stick!

Is Kai the one who has named his wireless network Cuntflaps? The is pretty much the only thing I remember with there 5D M3 preview a while back. NMA got the tone right for DigRev I guess.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 23:00

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

HookShot posted:

Seconding this motion!

I bought mine for $650 a few months ago then it dropped a week later and it ended up being $600 does that help?

# ¿ Jul 17, 2013 17:35

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

sildargod posted:

There is an ad floating around the various classifieds here for a Canon Xs with kit lens and bag for $500. How do I respond?

I'm always baffled by stuff like this. How on Earth do people think they'll get that much for a camera that is now completely out-classed in every way by newer and cheaper cameras! But "ooohhh a bag!"

# ¿ Aug 22, 2013 16:23

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Captain Apollo posted:

So if I want to make the jump to a full frame from my t3i, I should be looking at the 5dmk2 to balance savings and the step up?

5D or 6D yes

# ¿ Aug 29, 2013 20:22

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Arvid posted:

I just want to add to the love for the 7D in here. It really is a very good camera, the only shortcoming it had for me was the high ISO performance. 3200 was the highest i felt like using before the amount of noise in picture just became too much.

I think this is pretty standard for the Digic 4. My T2i and 60D basically can't go above 3200. Well they can but I pretty much have to make the photos black and white in post otherwise they look like garbage unless I'm super lucky with lighting.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 17:34

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Haggins posted:

That's the problem, Canon crop sensors really haven't changed much since the 50D (which wasn't much better than a 40D). It sounds like the 70D isn't going to be any better either, so we're all still hosed. I'd like to stick with crop but Canon is making it difficult. I think the 7D2 is going to be our last hope for something better.

I thought the 70D was a low-light improvement like the 6D and 5D3?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 22:36

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Seamonster posted:

The 60D is cheap enough that people even thinking about rebels should really take a close look at the used market. Good for buyers but my resale value

Having gone from a T2i to a 60D I can recommend it, especially if you have big hands, for the improved physical feel alone. The slightly bigger size over the Rebel changes from "too big to be compact but too small to be comfortable without a grip" to "drat good without a grip."

At used prices it's a great deal and easy to justify even as a first DSLR (I still love my T2i though and keep it as a handy backup).

# ¿ Sep 20, 2013 17:44

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

mobby_6kl posted:

Where's the bayonet?

# ¿ Oct 24, 2013 16:21

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Hopped on a Photoprice.ca group buy special of a EOS 6D body w/ 24-105mm for $2,400 shipped with tax.

Finally getting into that sweet, sweet full frame.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2013 23:49

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Mightaswell posted:

Is there a saneal camera where you live? These have been $1699/2249 in store for the past couple weeks.

I live in Canada so that's the cheapest I've seen it, including taking into account ordering from the US (which even with shipping fees/duties can be cheaper).

That site's showing $2400 before tax for me though.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2013 05:36

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

6D arrived along with the 24-105L

First full frame and L glass. Jesus stepping up from a 60D is phenomenal and the wireless iPhone trigger looks like it'll be pretty fun. How's the video on it?

Now I should probably sell off my 550D. I've got a 3rd party grip, 2 3rd party batteries (1 official), 18-55 kit lens and a 55-250 zoom. Any idea how much I could get for it? I may pick up the Canon 50 1.4 so I could probably toss my nifty 50 into that mix.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 19:44

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Oh man this wireless shooting through my iPhone on my 6D is pretty awesome to show off but I can't think of much use besides *~selfies~*

# ¿ Dec 11, 2013 07:57

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Claw Massage posted:

Ive used the eos remote app to shoot family portraits, for firing off the camera for night sky/landscape shots, macro shots, etc. Its pretty useful all around and unbelievably reliable. Its nice to not have to wonder where the remote shutter cord is (as long as you have your phone on you).

Its also useful when I was on vacation and away from a computer to upload photos. I just fired up the ipad and transferred photos that way.

Ah that's good to know. I only just tried it out for a few minutes.

Shame it has that horrible focus hunting as it's in Live Mode when using you phone as a shutter remote.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2013 17:57

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Claw Massage posted:

...I know you can touch the screen and tell it where to focus but that's about it.

Weird, that didn't seem to work for me. It just focused on the centre square thing.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2013 19:05

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

To note if you're doing bird/wildlife photography a crop sensor essentially gets you 1.6x extra reach compared to a full frame (ie. a 200mm lens on a 6D is 200mm but on a crop sensor, say 60D, it's effectively 320mm on a 6D).

# ¿ Dec 12, 2013 17:54

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Infinite Karma posted:

The crop sensor is mathematically no better than a full-frame if you're going for reach. The "extra" reach is because the sensor only captures the center 60% of the image, which is exactly the same as if you cropped that percentage of pixels from the center of a full-frame. A full-frame sensor has the same pixel density as a crop-frame, it's just a bigger area being exposed.

Yeah, comparing a FF shot with an equivalent crop sensor focal length and your FF will look better.

Still, whether you want to drop an extra grand at least to bump up to full frame, especially if you're shooting sports/wildlife, I'd say it's something to consider. Plus the 60D has dropped in price a hell of a lot and is an excellent camera.

doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 12, 2013

# ¿ Dec 12, 2013 19:10

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

EPICAC posted:

I though the pixel densities were lower on FF. By my calculations the 70D has ~48K pixels/mm2, and the 5D3 has about ~26K.

I'm pretty much out of my element as to the technical aspects of FF to crop but I was under the impression that crops and FF are essentially the same but the crops are physically smaller (thus cheaper). So the density is the same but the surface area is smaller, so less light can hit the crop resulting in the FF producing the superior image (especially in low-light).

Am I embarrassingly off base?

# ¿ Dec 12, 2013 19:18

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Canon 1.4 arrived and took some test shots with my 6D. It's beautiful.

Jolarix posted:

What 'Class' of SD card should I get for my Canon SL1? Is Class 10 enough for the occasional burst shoot, and amateur video?

Class 10 will do 1080p on DSLRs so I'd assume so. They're all pretty cheap now, so no reason not to get a decent brand too.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2013 23:09

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Mr. Despair posted:

canon 1.4? That's a pretty vague way to describe a lens.

Sorry, Canon 50mm f1.4. Didn't know there was another 1.4 lens by Canon.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2013 23:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 09:28

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Seamonster posted:

Ughh my 60D resale value

At least fewer people will be suckered into rebels for their first camera

Hey now, T2i was my first camera and I stand by the fact it's an awesome first camera. :colbert:

# ¿ Jan 7, 2014 22:24

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"