Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Thanks to Bryan for the excellent review of 6D

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    165
    @Dave: I got the 24-105 kit, as that seemed like a good walk-around. Even though I know that on FF, the f/4 lens will actually be 1/3 stop faster than my old f/2.8 zoom was on a crop, it still felt like I might be missing out on wider aperatures, though. That is why I got the 85 f/1.8 to kind of fill in for that, plus it gets me back to the portrait length the 50 f/1.8 used to give me on crop.

    @Busted: A lot of options indeed, none of which are a Pulitzer with my name on it though. I will keep the crop body as a 2nd camera, so I can use 2 lenses at the same time. Probably the long lens on the crop and a short lens on the FF, so I have the widest range covered.

    I may sell the 17-55 lens.

    Also, forgot to say in response I like the 1.4x mk3 TC. I never owned any other TC, so I have nothing to compare it to. I personally can't see any degradation in IQ, but then I don't analyze the results beyond saying "I like it" or I don't like it." . It was often too long before on my T3i, but I may be using it more now with the FF.
    Last edited by Scott Stephen; 12-21-2012 at 10:24 PM. Reason: Missed a question
    Canon 6D, Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro; Canon 24-105 f/4 L ; Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (unused nowadays), EF 85 f/1.8; Canon 1.4x TC Mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ flashes

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,178
    Scott, I too am keeping the t3i to have two cameras/lens going at the same time. I see it has the 24-105 on the FF and the 70-200 on the crop as the standard config.

    One thing I did notice w/ the 5dIII and the 24-105 vs. the t3i and 17-55..... weight. So, my x-mas pics will be likely the t3i & 17-55. smaller, lighter, etc.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    165
    Busted: Yes, weight. 6D is lighter than 5D, but still quite heavy with 24-105 or 70-200. I am going to apply the 2% cash back from B&H I earned on these purchases towards a much more sturdy tripod. I already have their Oben monopod, which is solid as a rock. I now want the Oben tripod + Oben ballhead which is rated to support 17.6 lbs. That is a higher weight rating than 90% of the tripods B&H sells, and it is definitely the least expensive of the few other ones that sturdy.

    I am really loving the 6D, B/T/W, though I have not had the chance to really do anything major with it. My biggest like is the way it shoots acceptable-looking test shots at ISO 3200 and 6400, whereas on the T3i it looked pretty grim (poor detail, noticable noise) at even 800. But also the little things, like how you can adjust ISO in 1/3 stops instead of just whole stops. And I definitely notice the shallower DOF.
    Last edited by Scott Stephen; 12-22-2012 at 05:07 PM. Reason: spelling
    Canon 6D, Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro; Canon 24-105 f/4 L ; Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (unused nowadays), EF 85 f/1.8; Canon 1.4x TC Mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ flashes

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Stephen View Post
    Busted: Yes, weight. I now want the Oben tripod + Oben ballhead which is rated to support 17.6 lbs. That is a higher weight rating than 90% of the tripods B&H sells, and it is definitely the least expensive of the few other ones that sturdy.
    I too stepped up the tripod gear for the 5diii - just got one of the "mid brands" tripods that has a machined aluminum platform, 4 section, CF rated for 13 lbs - which for my hiking around purposes seems MUCH more stable than the cheapy carbon fiber I had been using. The top section of the legs is 29 mm or just over 1 1/8th inches is diameter - which seems to be the key w/ the machined aluminum platform. i think I paid 140 w/o head.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •