Jump to content

orly_andico

Members
  • Posts

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>Thanks Don. That data point (<1 second startup from sleep of an XT-1) is actually something that is useful to me.<br> It's still not great, but probably something that can be lived with.<br> What's the battery life like?</p>
  2. <p>Brian Southward, everyone on this forum is afflicted with First World problems. Your point being?</p>
  3. <p>Hm. Sounds like there isn't actually a solution for my specific itch..</p>
  4. <p>Zane, for some reason, even with WiFi and GPS turned off, the 6D (slowly) drains its battery when sleeping. Not true of the 5D and my old 40D.<br> Gerry, switching the camera on is a separate action with a separate switch. It's one extra thing to think about. When walking around, I don't want to think about turning the camera on and off. I just want to trigger the shutter whenever I want. Leaving a mirrorless on while walking around drains the battery faster (although my only mirrorless was a GF2 and that was pretty old - so I don't know what's the effective battery life of a modern mirrorless if you never turn it off).</p>
  5. <p>That's my concern, the 1-second wakeup time. My current small camera (Canon G5X) has about 1.5 second startup time. It can be lived with but the user experience is still far from even an ancient Canon DSLR like my old 40D.<br> Ironically I like the behavior of the 5D (classic) more than the 6D. The 6D can't be left turned on for months (things like WiFi and GPS drain the battery).</p>
  6. <p>I've had a variety of Canon DSLR's and I can just leave them not turned off, they sleep after a while but are immediately ready to go even weeks later with a half-press of the shutter.<br> Unfortunately Canon kit with L lenses is bulky. I would like something with a 24mm or 28mm fast prime, <strong>but that never needs to be turned on</strong>, i.e. it should be ready to go immediately like the Canon.<br> Does such a beast exist?</p>
  7. <p>I believe the 5D can still stack up to somewhat more modern reduced-frame bodies. End of the day, it's the cheapest entree into full frame. If you can live with the sluggish interface, mediocre LCD, mediocre high ISO (compared to a 6D/5D3) you will be happy. I am. (and I have a 6D)</p>
  8. <p>I used a 40D for years. It's a bit newer than the 5D but the interface is very similar.<br> You get used to mediocre high ISO performance..<br> I have a 6D, then got a (dirt-cheap) 5D Mk 1 as backup. Guess what.. all those years with the 40D mean I feel more comfortable with the 5D. Sure the 6D has amazing high ISO. But I've gotten so used to topping out at ISO 1600 (actually never going over ISO 1250) that the 5D does the job just as well.<br> Besides that's what flash is for. If it's too dark for a fast prime and ISO 1250, it's too dark for interesting photos.<br> One thing I really hate about the 6D is that if you leave the GPS on, it will flatten the battery. The 40D (and 5D) can be left powered on for months and they go to sleep and don't drain their battery.<br> So 90% of the time when I pick up the 6D, the battery's dead. While the 5D is alive.<br /> But then.. I use mostly fast primes (and the 16-35/4L IS) so I don't really use high ISO that much.<br> Also. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Has anyone seen the new Leica full frame that doesn't even have an LCD screen? talk about going minimalist. I'd buy one if I could afford it. The 35 Summilux is amazingly small and amazingly good (the 35/1.4 Canon I'm using is a huge misshapen lump by comparison)</p>
  9. <p>Well.... I have a 6D. Then I bought a 5D (original) for $300-ish just to have a second body I could mod without fear (put in a split-screen viewfinder).<br> I'm not a professional or anything, and tethering is not a use case I have. So given my usage, the 5D isn't significantly worse than the 6D. Yes the ISO could be better - but I used a 40D for many many years, so I'm used to bad high-ISO performance. The screen is bad (worse than the 40D) but it's not killing me. The interface is slow, etc. etc. but all things that can be lived with.<br> etc. etc. I could live with a 5D. It should be alarming to Canon than a 10+ year old camera is still this usable.<br> Again someone who counts on their images for their livelihood etc. could find much to recommend the 6D. But me, I wouldn't give up a 5D + 70-200 for a 6D + 85.</p>
  10. <p>I got a modified Ec-L for my 5D classic. (from FocusingScreen.com) this was a spendy focusing screen, not those cheap Chinese ones.<br> the 5D doesn't have Live View. What I noticed is that with fast lenses (e.g. 135mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4) AF is more accurate than using the split screen, unless you're stopped down to f/5.6 range.</p>
  11. <p>having just gotten back from a holiday...<br> i think the 18-135 is ok. use the 70-200 when you need more reach. and if you need even more reach, just crop. The T5 has lots of pixels.<br> but i bet you will not be using the 70-200 much. It's a hassle swapping lenses particularly in precarious situations, and the 70-200 is no lightweight. you may often find cases where you head out the door, think about bringing the 70-200, and decide not to.</p>
  12. <p>.. environmental portraits was also what I had in mind. But guess what.. when traveling, you don't do very much of those. And when you take portraits at f/1.4, nothing of the background is recognizable (I tried). And background context is kinda important when traveling.<br> <br /> As for the fashion show.. well that's not quite the same thing as travel.<br> <br /> For landscapes, sure you can use it - stopped down quite a bit. Since I also have the 16-35 f/4 (which is amazingly sharp wide-open), the 35 f/1.4 is redundant for this use case.</p> <p>Again, when I say the 35/1.4 is a gimmick for travel, this is in the context of my personal experience traveling and <strong>also carrying the 16-35/4</strong>. Because (1) when traveling you'll often be stopped down a lot; (2) the 16-35/4 is very, very sharp wide open so is perfectly usable at f/4 when you need it (but most of my photos were at f/5.6 to f/8 anyway)</p>
  13. <p>After snagging a 300/4L non-IS, I started drooling about getting a 500mm lens.<br> Seems that the old 500/4.5L non-IS is still a good choice at around $2200 used. Sure it's got no IS, but the types of use cases for this lens benefit from a faster shutter speed (higher ISO). And one can't have everything..</p>
  14. <p>When you're at your daughter's recital, your daughter is the subject, so it's OK if everything else gets blurred out by the f/1.4. Ditto for taking a photo of a statue.</p> <p>But if you want to take a photo of an entire church aisle, or an altar, f/1.4 will give you very limited DOF. It is better than having no photo? yes. But the 16-35 with it's IS will give you deeper DOF even at a much slower shutter speed. Obviously this solution won't work for a piano recital due to motion blur, but for my specific use case, IS trumps f/1.4 (frankly even f/4 has too-narrow DOF, so I often ended up with f/8, and 1/8 second).</p>
  15. <p>to clarify - i find the 35/1.4 not useful for general travel, where you want deep DOF, when you also have the 16-35.<br> i certainly don't think the 35/1.4 is useless, and i'm definitely keeping mine - it's just not useful when you don't need f/1.4 - f/2.8 and you already have another slower lens covering the same FL.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...