NOCD!

[KuruPrionz]

New Old Camera Day. 

 

Canon 6d body. 

 

Budget was a consideration, so was current lens stash. I have not been shooting much but it seems that could change. Somehow I've bumbled into two lovely sisters who want to shoot. That will be fun. 

 

I have a Canon T2i that I bought new over 10 years ago. Somehow the center connection in the hot shoe got pushed down in the middle enough that many flashes will not work and my Elincrom SkyPort won't work either. I don't use on-camera flash for anything but triggering strobes and the one Canon 420 EX that does work on the shoe has TTL that cannot be shut off. If I use it to trigger strobes it creates a dark image by taking over on the exposure. Worthless!

 

My last full frame was a Canon 5d back in around 2007, I am amazed at how much better the image quality is on the 6d, the noise reduction is also much better and the viewfinder is SO much nicer. Live View with zoom and movable focus points makes using vintage lenses easy and accurate as long as you go with a tripod. The 5d didn't have Live View and anything above ISO 400 got really noisy - pattern noise which is ugly as sin.

 

There are better cameras but not for under $500 in Canon. If I owned other lens brands it might be different. I do have 3 vintage manual focus Pentax lenses but you have to cut the aperture adjustment lever that the camera uses or the mirror on the Canon will hit it, not good. I did that on my Pentax 135 2.5 becauuse it's cosmetically pretty beat up but my 50 1.4 and 28 2.8 are both pretty clean inside and out so I hesitate to mangle them. I may reconsider since they are great lenses and this is the camera I'll be using for as long as possible. It would be different if they were rare, expensive lenses. 

 

I also have a manual focus Tamron 135 2.8 that is Nikon mount. I have both Nikon and Pentax to EOS adapters. All the Pentax lenses work fine on the T2i. Maybe the T2i with the Pentax 50 1.4 becomes my low light camera. I have Canon 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 that work on the 6d so maybe no on the T2i. 

 

 I bought used this time, eBay. I chose my seller well, the camera looks like it's barely been used. So far it all seems to be working fine. 

[KuruPrionz]

Of course, now somebody has listed a 6d body on craigslist locally for $200 with a cracked screen and supposedly otherwise in working condition. 

I'll be looking at it tomorrow morning. Maybe it's a backup, maybe I'll just sell the other body and go cheap. I do like Live View for manual focus lenses, zooming in on a point you've chosen after opening Live View can really make life easier since you can just pop the shutter once you've got it sharp. 

 

Nevermind, I've decided to pass on this one. 

[RichieP_MechE]

Nice! The 6D was my first full frame body - it served me very well over the years. I've since upgraded to the R5, but still have my 6D around just in case.

[KuruPrionz]

1 minute ago, RichieP_MechE said:

Nice! The 6D was my first full frame body - it served me very well over the years. I've since upgraded to the R5, but still have my 6D around just in case.

 

Nice! As is always true, lenses make the images. I've owned some L lenses - 16-35 2.8, 17-40 f4, 70-200, both 2.8 and 4.0. 

The one I really miss and may try to find another is the 135 2.0L, that is a beautiful lens. 

If my shoot plans work out I may have to get one. The Tamron 135 is not bad at all but only manual focus and the "magic" that the 135 L created isn't quite there. 

[Mike Martin]

On 5/9/2022 at 5:08 PM, KuruPrionz said:

 

Nice! As is always true, lenses make the images. I've owned some L lenses - 16-35 2.8, 17-40 f4, 70-200, both 2.8 and 4.0. 

The one I really miss and may try to find another is the 135 2.0L, that is a beautiful lens. 

If my shoot plans work out I may have to get one. The Tamron 135 is not bad at all but only manual focus and the "magic" that the 135 L created isn't quite there. 

 

Consider the Sigma 105mm f/1.4
It is simply an amazing lens. Without question the sharpest lens I have.  
The 135L can be purchased for a lot less $800 used if not less but it is also a 1996 design. I believe it might have been a touch soft on a higher resolution camera like my R5 which is why I saved for the Sigma and I haven't been disappointed although the weight is hard to handle.

[KuruPrionz]

3 minutes ago, Mike Martin said:

 

Consider the Sigma 105mm f/1.4
It is simply an amazing lens. Without question the sharpest lens I have.  
The 135L can be purchased for a lot less $800 used if not less but it is also a 1996 design. I believe it might have been a touch soft on a higher resolution camera like my R5 which is why I saved for the Sigma and I haven't been disappointed although the weight is hard to handle.

Thankns Mike, I've no aversion to third party camera lenses, many of them are excellent.

The reviews are very positive. I'm sure I'd love the Sigma. I know I loved the Canon 135. 

 

I'm a hobbyist at this point so I'll be using what I have. Neither the Canon 135 f2 or the Sigma are in my budget range at this point in time. So it goes...

[KenElevenShadows]

Not only do I have no hesitation to third-party lenses, I also know that many of those third-party manufacturers make OEM lenses for camera manufacturers. Regardless, there's so much available to us now. I know I keep saying this, but I truly believe we are living in a Golden Age of photography. We have such great equipment and tools at hand, and so many people are taking photos that push the boundaries of what's possible, producing magnificent results.

[KuruPrionz]

8 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Not only do I have no hesitation to third-party lenses, I also know that many of those third-party manufacturers make OEM lenses for camera manufacturers. Regardless, there's so much available to us now. I know I keep saying this, but I truly believe we are living in a Golden Age of photography. We have such great equipment and tools at hand, and so many people are taking photos that push the boundaries of what's possible, producing magnificent results.

Yes, the equipment has never been better and processing images in the digital realm allows incredible transformations to occur.

Hopefully, attitudes have changed. I was an early adapter to Photoshop, version 1.07, and I remember an online discussion in the mid-2000s amongst the "select few" photographers on Model Mayhem. The topic was that people who used Photoshop were merely "graphic designers". They were all pretty proud of themselves for not using Photoshop and yes, quite a few of them were very good photographers despite their archaic attitude. 

 

I posted that the meaning of the word "photography" originates from two Greek root words - "photos", which means "light' and "graph", which means "write". 

"Writing with light". I then pointed out that one could write with light using Photoshop alone, without a camera. Thus, a Photoshop user IS a photographer since they are writing with light. 

 

It wasn't very popular, to put it lightly. 🤣 Ruffled a few feathers. Made me laugh too. 😇 

I think things have "lightened" up a bit since then and Artists are more free to create now.