• Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
    2,522 replies, posted
Basically the only big differences between the cameras are build quality. It's like comparing the canon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 Both are very similar (1.4 is slightly better in a few ways) but the 1.4 has a much better build. [editline]11th October 2012[/editline] That's how I'm thinking about it at least...
If you are planning on sticking with canon I would say the 60D, the 7D is built better but it's still two years old and expensive and frankly the performance wasn't stellar when it came out. The nicer viewfinder is a big difference though, as well as better AF. Body is huge though and heavy. Personally I can't stand APS-C tunnel viewfinders so depending on how important that is to you I would say the 7D is good.
Gained a 50mm 1.4 for a canon fd mount, for a pound today :D
Thanks a lot for all the help and opinions, I appreciate it. It'd going to be a few months at least before I can upgrade, just started thinking about it.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;37996062]Is the 7D full frame? I'm just trying to think about what would be the most optimised upgrade from a 450D... getting a 550D doesn't seem like a worthwhile jump, for example[/QUOTE] Get something in their enthusiast range (50D/60D). It'll be a nice upgrade in processor and image sensor, you have a more readily accessible interface, they're build nicer and you get a larger viewfinder. Or if you are actually looking for full frame, wait it out until the 6D is in stores (or wait a little longer until people start selling 6D second hand).
I would advise the mk2 over the 6D. For pretty much every reason unless wifi and GPS are high priority
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38002122]I would advise the mk2 over the 6D. For pretty much every reason unless wifi and GPS are high priority[/QUOTE] I'd like to think the 6D would have improved autofocus over whatever is allegedly wrong with the 5DMkII, or at the very least because buying new things is great and how every good citizen should support their economy! After all, ending is better than mending.
It has like 11 AF points with 1 cross Can't say that I'm optimistic about that in the slightest
Okay. I don't think I'll ever be able to make a decision on a lens. What I might have to do is go to Camera Company and try a lens for a day, and if I don't like it, return it.
30mm 1.4 do it
Picked this bad boy up last week: [img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/546874_4640273566086_301070504_n.jpg[/img] Vivitar 75-260mm 4.5 m42 mount. I'm in love but it's fucking heavy. Test shot with no in camera processing or post: [img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8319/8057584165_4e02386a6b_h.jpg[/img]
finally got my battery grip and 50mm 1.8 for my 550d. I am ready to take on the world
New gear just arrived at school and I'm stoked. Got a Zoom H4n, another t3i (5 in total now), and another NTG-3 Rode. It's extra great because there's no spartan news next week so I get to tinker with all the new gear!
i checked out a rode today because i'm doing a video shoot for the choir department i can't tell if it's better than than my sony condenser i currently have (it is stereo but they are both shotgun so it hardly matters) the jiggly bits on the rode bother the shit out of me it won't stay in place. probably just going to use the sony mic it stays in place and seems to be more sensitive, so i'll probably just use that. disappointing for me right now
Might be looking into getting the 5D Mark III very soon, just finished my tax return and I'm set to get a nice sum to go towards purchasing it. Although I am heavily considering the EOS M when it's released, just for something small to carry around as opposed to the 7D at the moment.
Sigma 30 1.4 vs Canon 28 1.8 is confusing because reviews differ. And I'm worried about the Sigma's quality control since some have focusing issues and are generally soft.
I think DigitalRev has a video which directly compares the 2 (and another one). If I remember correctly that's where I got the idea from that the 28mm is pretty "eh".
[QUOTE=Grimezy15;38017734] Although I am heavily considering the EOS M when it's released, just for something small to carry around as opposed to the 7D at the moment.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't consider it. It has the slowest AF of any mirrorless camera, least amount of external controls, 2 lenses with none planned in the future at the moment, no plans for canon to make an EVF for it, no plans for a more professional model, AND the big selling feature of the M is use with EF lenses, but [url]http://sonyalphanex.blogspot.com/2012/09/nex-canon-lens-autofocus-adapters-coming.html?m=1[/url] The nex 5R is a much more capable camera for less money. Has none of the same cons as the M, And better image performance to boot.
[QUOTE=Fake-XM;38019447]I think DigitalRev has a video which directly compares the 2 (and another one). If I remember correctly that's where I got the idea from that the 28mm is pretty "eh".[/QUOTE] That DigitalRev video is [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoN1GDhRjDg]this one[/url] and compares the Canon 35mm f/2, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.2 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4. That's where I learned it has nice bokeh but is actually pretty soft. It's all about the f/1.4 aperture with the Sigma, and while that is attractive to me (since my ISO range is limited), [url=http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm]Ken Rockwell[/url] seems to think otherwise. At a certain point he just says [quote=Ken Rockwell] If you shoot Canon, forget this Sigma and get the superior Canon 28mm f/1.8 EF for less money. [/quote] While The Digital Picture, which I trust more or less, says [quote=The Digital Picture] What are the alternatives? Well, the closest comparable lens Canon makes is the full-frame-DSLR-compatible Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens. These two lenses are more similar than they are different. The Canon 28 is 2/3 stops slower, shows more CA and flares even more easily. The Canon is lighter and slightly less expensive. Image quality is very similar.[/quote] This is confusing. Did Ken Rockwell have some bad luck with Sigma's quality control or is the lens really not that good? Ken praises the Canon for quick and accurate focusing, among other things, while TDP primarily mentions the Canon is slower, shows more CA and flares more easily.
I don't take Ken Rockwell serious at all and wouldn't base a opinion for buying on something he says (he also reviews things he actually has never even used...). Because according to Ken Rockwell, the best Nikon FX lens would be the Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G. Nuff said. But the main problem I have with Ken Rockwell is that he does not have a unbaised opinion about things, and he also flames on (almost) everything that is third party.
Only third party thing he has reviewed well was the tokina 11-16 IIRC
He's extremely sensationalist and does everything he can to get website traffic = $$$. Everytime he reviews a new camera it becomes the "the best camera in the world". [Quote]I use mostly the P (Professional) mode.[/Quote] [Quote]I know no pros who own a tripod. Why would they want one? Who wants to carry it around, much less have his compositional options encumbered by having to move this big rig from spot to spot?[/Quote] [Quote]The Canon EOS M is the world's first serious mirrorless camera.[/Quote] His website can be pretty informational though, some good stuff on there if you go deep.
Going to buy the Canon 50mm f/1.8 tomorrow! Cant wait to get my hands on it, I was going to buy the f/1.4 but I really don't see much improvement in the images it produces to make me want to pay that much more for it. I haven't been out using my camera very much lately so hopefully this 50mm will get to start again.
I'm thinking about buying the Pentax K30 , I have old lenses from a k100d and Kx. Since I have a small budget. What do you guys think? ( I have a k100d body right now, and a Kx lens)
I just bought a Pentax K20D and I can not fault it at all, I don't know how it compares to a K30, but The K20D is lovely.
Yes, however the k5 is about an extra $450. What's the k30's reputation for low light photography? Right now the k100d is just horrid. I understand it is about a 6 year old camera. There's not a chance I can get picture that isn't horribly grainy indoors with incandescent or fluorescent lighting. Even in day light using iso 200-400 leaves pictures grainy at 100% zoom. This is with a macro, 18-50mm and 18-125mm lens.
Okay, so I've been primarily using Ken Rockwell for lens reviews, just because he's reviewed so many of them. But I guess you guys don;t care for him that much. What other sites do you guys use for lens reviews?
Anyone have any experience with recording with the H4n? Also, I decided I'm getting a flash before a new lens. I just need a cheap one that will work for basic portraits. Nothing above $200 (is that possible)
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;38042743]DPreview, DxO, and (my preferable one) Photozone.de But yeah, most of what Rockwell says is just bullshit that it's not really worth sifting through to find the few words of wisdom.[/QUOTE] I see. Thanks.
[QUOTE=DuCT;38043147]I see. Thanks.[/QUOTE] Don't forget [url=http://the-digital-picture.com/]The Digital Picture[/url] if you're a Canon shooter. This guy has reviewed almost every Canon camera and lens (including some third party stuff). In my eyes, he's trustworthy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.