I want to thank everyone who replied to this thread... In the end, I am going to go for the 80D.

I really loved everything about the IQ of the 6D, but the usability wasn't there for me (right now). Call it a combination of my shooting style and my own lack of lenses.

I can use the 80D today and get better results out of the equipment I already have. In a year or so, I will look into maybe a steal on a new/used 6D or even a 6D2... By that time I should hopefully have a couple more FF lenses and the whole FF thing will make more sense.

I am loving the 80D though! Thank you everyone

d said:

Aww you visited some cool places, jd7! Where about is that beach in image 470?

d.

Click to expand...

I did indeed!

That beach is in Vernazza, Italy.

jaayres20 said:

edoorn said:

glad you like it! And nice to hear a real world experience.

From what I've understood, the 1dx II isn't actually much better at 12.800 (look very similar) than the 1DX but you think otherwise?

DPAF sounds quite useful! How do you experience very low light focus? This is an area in which I think 5d3/1dx focus system could be improved for our type of work.

I've been contemplating a 1 series (i've shot weddings in the past with a 1d3, IV and 1ds III) but if the 5d IV will give me most things I need (dpaf, improved sensor and better low light focus) that might be a better and lighter weight option for me (and hopefully with silent shutter similar as 5d III). Still, tempting )

Thanks for posting this!

Click to expand...

I definitely think that ISO 25,600 is really close to 12,800 on the 1DX. I would have really stayed away form 25,600 on the 1DX. Now I am happy to use it on the 1DX2. I think above 25,600 starts to be iffy for me. However a PJ would use it gladly.

This camera really shines with it's AF both OVF and DPAF. The DPAF is better than advertised in my opinion. It focuses instantly in any lighting scenario. I am sure if you pointed it at a black wall in the dark it might have issues, but other than that it is great!

Click to expand...

Wow, I'm really psyched to hear that about the DPAF! I went in store to try it on the 80D and I thought it was fantastic for stills. Didn't get to try it on moving subjects or low light however. I think I'll keep the money I was about to spend on a Sigma 20 1.4 Art and buy the next FF camera Canon makes with DPAF (can't afford a 1DxII so either 5DIV or ? 6DII ?). Thanks for sharing your experience!

dilbert said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Canon continues to pursue Cinema. I expect that they are seriously considering production of one. Anamorphic Zoom lenses are expensive and usually rented. They have become very popular, so everyone is throwing their hat in the ring.

Click to expand...

I must admit that after reading the page at RED (link above) I am somewhat confused about why they should be so popular? Or is it just a "anamorphic is in vogue" thing?

Click to expand...

Here, read this: http://petapixel.com/2014/05/07/shooting-anamorphic-lens-dslr/

My Kirk plate for the 1D X works perfectly on the 1D X Mark II.

Kirk PZ-150 plate.

neuroanatomist said:

ahsanford said:

Also: that's a 300mm f/4 lens in the picture below. Tiny! (I don't know Nikon lenses, how was this witchcraft possible? Is this is DO design like Canon's?)

Click to expand...

Yes, Nikon has a 300mm f/4 PF VR, PF = Phase Fresnel, their version of Canon's DO lenses. At least Nikon's pace of innovation is improving – it took them several decades to copy Canon's use of fluorite in supertele lenses, it only took them about a decade to copy DO lenses. In what has become sadly typical for Nikon, they launched the lens then soon temporarily suspended shipping it and issued a recall (for a flaw in the VR system). It was supposedly only a firmware fix, but required owners of the new lens to ship it to Nikon for the update.

Click to expand...

Kind of bummed in the video -- Chris brought the 200-500 f/5.6 VR but never showed it in action.

- A

Heads do clog easily. I've compared leaving my Epson 3880 turned on (Clogs in 2 or 3 days) to turning it off right after use (clogs after a month).

You can purchase head cleaning solutions and empty cartridges that you can use to purge / flush heads so they can be stored.

This is from The InkjetMall where I purchase cone inks for my 3880, but I expect you could use the pink stuff in empty Canon cartridges too. If you can refill empty tanks with this flush liquid, it might work fine for Canon or any other brand.

http://shop.inkjetmall.com/Shop-By-Ink/PiezoFlush-Desktop/

http://www.inkjetmall.com/tech/content.php?151-Initial-Fill-Procedures-for-Epson-Pro-Model-Printers

takesome1 said:

My experience with the 5Ds R is that it is very accurate and precise and if I were you I would want it to be as well.

Click to expand...

My 5DsR has excellent AF. I almost always use a fast shutter speed hand held, at least 2x focal length or faster if light allows.

CanonFanBoy said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I recently purchased a large reflector, I have not had time to try it out for macro use, its throw away cheap.

I admit its klutzy, so I do not have high hopes for it as far as macros.

http://www.amazon.com/Fomito-Universal-Collapsible-Magnetic-Speedlight/dp/B016CY5FC0?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00

Click to expand...

That is too cool! If you use it for portraits please let me know what you think of it. The catchlights are very nice I think.

Click to expand...

I use it for portraits and I like it a lot. The best part is when folded it takes a small amount of room, so you can always have it with you.
The catch light has a small break at the top, I fix that in post.

Re: Images for EOS Rebel 750D & EOS 760D Appear

Thank you very match for help. And whether there is an official forum Canon?

One more vote for the Yongnuo ring flash. Works excellent for macro distances and I hate to say it, but for the cost it's a no brainer. The "hate to say" is because one has to laugh a little when $100 is considered nothing. Just shows how expensive this hobby/field can be.

privatebydesign said:

j-nord said:

privatebydesign said:

That is why I specifically included the comments "how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot", those subjective elements are moot. However, anybody claiming something as definitive as "I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR" has zero credibility unless they can post something that gives that opinion some substance and validity, and some context of your personal output size expectations and quality demands would give relevance. Delivering 30,000 images a year means nothing other than you could give us some workflow pointers if they are passport sized images, if, for instance, you don't see a difference from the 24-70 until you go above 14" x 21" prints then that gives context.

Though all in all the use of the 5DS is overstated from a resolution point of view, sure it is there for some of the pixel peepers, but real world tests to non photographers don't care.

Click to expand...

Now, apparently, we are arguing about arguing. I automatically assume people with 5DSRs are pixel peepers and/or want huge prints and/or want to crop heavily so I can't fathom why I need to mention this in every single post on the subject. To me, it's a given.

Click to expand...

And again you reply with nothing to back up your opinion of the unsuitability of the 24-70 f4 on the 5DS/R, or any context as to what you consider "huge prints"..............

Click to expand...

It's not that I disagree with your critique of how to properly present an argument. I feel there is enough context that I don't have to go further.

Received order 1 yesterday. Held up by Bank Holiday . Still great service from Canon and UPS

I have never considered mirrorless an option for me and I probably will not buy one. However, with the technology Canon has now, if they wanted to, they could make a very nice FF mirrorless camera with best in class autofocus. I really never thought that their DPAF would be faster and more accurate (especially in extremely poor light) than their OVF autofocus.

Don Haines said:

yet because Canon sells the 7D2 with a claim of toughness, to leave it out would be a dis-service to potential buyers....

Click to expand...

But I don't see that as DPR's remit, I don't go there for a one-stop all-encompassing review.
As dilbert (and others) have said, how do you define 'toughness'? Waterproof, bounceability off a rock face? Does the durability needs of a wildlife photographer match the needs of a paparazzo? I would prefer to hear those comments from eople relevant to what I do (in my case, the likes of Andy Rouse) than some lab-coated person working to a protocol that I have no idea is relevant to me.

Similarly, Add a test to the 80D for video under challenging conditions.... and that test would be different than testing the 1DX2 video under challenging conditions because different cameras face different challenges

Click to expand...

So if the challenges are different, and if the expectations are different then the testing has to be different and if you do that, what conclusions could you draw to say whether body A is better than body B?
And what if the test exceeds the capability of the camera and DPR are left with a trashed body? :-X


That, I think comes to the core of it. I see DPR as a (hopefully) objective way of comparing cameras. You are talking about a review of 'will this body do what I want it to do' which is a different question. And having done quality testing in different arenas I am a great believer in sticking to what your remit is, which is where I think DxO is starting to go wrong because it is trying to extend its conclusions beyond what the testing regimes enable it to.
Rishi has said they want to extend their testing but they are doing it very cautiously to make sure that their conclusions are robust.

Shame about the SD reader, I am another who now and then just wants to dump a card into my mac for upload while out and about, its handy! But not the end of the world I know, sometimes speed is not required, just ease of use.

retroreflection said:

No.
Light is best thought of in terms of stops.
Resolution is the same. If you need more than 24, you need 50. Or 100.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree, however sometimes half a stop also counts. 24 to 36 MPIX does make a visible difference.

I think the path to 100 MPIX - yes Canon thank you for leading the way - will go over 70 pr 75 MPIX.

dcm said:

The $700 brick (similar to a $50 laptop brick) is only $399 on Amazon. You'll also need the DC coupler which lists for $350, only $249 on Amazon. Think I'll wait a while on these. Two batteries should be sufficient.

Click to expand...

The manual says the ACK-E4 AC adapter kit can still be used with a reduction in viewfinder shooting to 8 fps. The ACK-E4 is only $94 at B&H, compared to $249 for the DR-E19 plus $399 for the AC-E19. If you don't need 14 fps when shooting on AC power the ACK-E4 seems like the way to go.

Thanks for the kind words guys, I'm glad people are enjoying the photos!

- David, the sun has only just left us but talk of the snow melting makes me want a bit of warmth from that strange yellow glow in the sky!

Nikon Fine Tune - FoCal Perspective

As expected:

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2016/04/nikon-d500-automatic-af-fine-tune/

"Summary

There’s a fair amount of detail in this blog post, so I wanted to give a summary of the initial findings.

On the surface, the D500’s automatic AF Fine Tune system does a fair job of quickly calibrating the autofocus system. In reality, however, the need to manually repeat calibrations to iron out variability in results extends the time taken. The need for absolute perfect focus before calibrating introduces a large amount of variability to the results and the lack of consideration for the overall autofocus system (mechanical, optical and electronic together) leads to suboptimal choices by the camera.

If you want to get your AF Fine Tune in roughly the right area without a computer handy, the D500’s auto AF Fine Tune is great. Otherwise (perhaps not surprisingly) we’d recommend to use FoCal!"

Mt Spokane Photography said:

If you want to shoot wildlife by remote tethering, what capabilities does each camera have? I find this kind of information difficult to come by.

Click to expand...

There are likely multiple ways. One is to install their smart remote app, with which you can control it via a smartphone using WIFI. It's, in my experience (which is with the A7R2, not the A6300), not particularly useful since I couldn't figure out a way to drive focus. If they let me touch my phone screen to pick a focal point, that would be slick.

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-F00002

Thanks, all.

Still no response from Sigma. The lack of response from their site and the lack of helpfulness from their repair center has quite chilled me. I guess I'll see what B&H has to say.

TeT said:

Is the tape a personal preference or potential branding issues with your clients...? just curious...

Click to expand...

Sometimes you shooting in places when you don't want to "bling" to much, and to much attention its not good.
And White Canon's Logo is very shiny

Have you tried contacting Canon directly? I buy my extra batteries directly from them and as it has just come out they may have some stock of both the old and new.

Serious question.

What’s the appeal of using a service like this? A tank & reels, changing bag, and some chemicals gets the film developed.

Is it the consistency of having a developing machine get the timing down to the second?
Are the chemicals getting hard to come by?
Is it getting the scans back too?

As for the scans, the medium (2048x3072) that’s included seems small, and going up to 4492x6774 adds $10 to the order. So it wouldn’t take too many of those to pay for a film scanner.

Granted, I haven’t developed film since 1996, but it wasn’t a huge deal then. That’s why I’m asking.