# New Camera Day - Canon 70D



## Philligan (Mar 4, 2014)

Well, I finally got one.  Henry's had them on sale for $1149, which was cheaper than ordering online (even from Amazon.ca) and about the same price as smuggling one over the border. 





It feels so much better in my hands. I love the extra room and heft it has. The 50/1.4 finally balances really well - I'm sure the 75-300 (and any other large lenses when I get them) will balance a lot better, too. 

I love the buttons, and can't wait to get the battery charged so I can get a feel for them and program what I need to. I think it defaults to back-button AF, so I'll turn of the shutter button AF if need be, and I think I'm good to go.

Here are some crappy cell phone pics trying to compare the two. This looked better in my mind when I thought to do this.  The lighting in our rental is brutal, the few windows we do have face brick walls.


----------



## Promit (Mar 4, 2014)

Awesome. The 70D really shows the Rebel for the toy it is. Personally I'm not a big fan of how Canon handles lenses -- they _reeeaaallly_ push you hard towards full frame optics (ex 17-40L) and then bait you into a 5D purchase since you've got the big glass. Of course if we're just talking about raw quality the lenses are phenomenal. Not too fond of Canon's video either, same deal again. They really want you to buy the big full frame cameras and they don't take the video seriously on the crop sensor models. Of course there's a whole culture now of using Canon lenses on non-Canon video cameras.

The 70D always felt really nice in the hand though, and it's great that you essentially get most of a 7D for cheap. The AF system is great. You did make one mistake though -- you can no longer blame crappy photos on the camera  Put it to good use, learn all the ins and outs, and take some great photos. Should be great time for lots of outdoor work soon. Maybe even some BIF work? The 70D can handle it.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 4, 2014)

Promit said:


> Of course there's a whole culture now of using Canon lenses on non-Canon video cameras.



Yeah, they've got some cool lenses, but they seem to be mostly concentrated either awesome L lenses or newer kit lenses. All the semi-pro grade lenses seem to be super outdated.

Funny you say that, because the next lens I'm planning on getting is the Sigma 18-35.


----------



## Promit (Mar 4, 2014)

Oh man, the 18-35 looks insane. Thinking of picking one up myself, plus a speed booster to m4/3 for when I'm doing video. I saw some people saying the 18-35 doesn't make sense with primes, but I see it the other way around -- especially when doing run and gun type video.


----------



## Rook (Mar 4, 2014)

Congratulations dude! now get a bloody 23 or 35 haha, I don't know how yu can stand using that 50 all the time SO TYT.

I kid, it's a lovely lens, but srsly get a 23 or something 

Awesome cam, 70D is such a beast.


----------



## Tang (Mar 4, 2014)

Dude, the body looks ffuuckkking killer. Really happy for you.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 4, 2014)

Rook said:


> Congratulations dude! now get a bloody 23 or 35 haha, I don't know how yu can stand using that 50 all the time SO TYT.
> 
> I kid, it's a lovely lens, but srsly get a 23 or something
> 
> Awesome cam, 70D is such a beast.



I'm used to the 50, but it's really tight.  It's not bad for street stuff because I'm used to being a few steps back, but it sucks for indoors. I'm really thinking Sigma 18-35 because it looks awesome, and I can avoid swapping between primes (I don't really want to use the zoom to compose, but at a wedding where I need to get shots I think it would still be nice to have).

The other thing I was thinking about was the Sigma 30mm 1.4 Art, or a 24, 28, or 35 from Canon. The 24 and 28 both seemed older like my 50, and I'm not crazy about buying old tech - I like the 50, but it could be sharper, focus more smoothly, and be tougher.

And the 35 is F2 with IS - still not bad, but I'd prefer a 1.4 so I can keep my shutter speed up. From the sounds of things, I'm gonna be mostly doing like candid, photojournalist-style shooting at weddings, especially the receptions.

The Sigma seems perfect because of the 1.8, and 35 is just long enough for portraity stuff, while the 18 end is just wide enough to get a little bit of distortion. I'm not totally set on it, but it's what I'm expecting to buy when I can afford a lens.



Tang said:


> Dude, the body looks ffuuckkking killer. Really happy for you.



Thanks dude.  So far so good. We're working on dinner and the battery's almost charged. And I've got a midterm tomorrow. 

Fun fact: I tried a D7100 before I paid for the 70D, because literally everyone from back home shoots Nikon, and I like the idea of better shadow recovery. But I just couldn't get along with the feel of it in my hands. It felt more cramped and boxy. And the AF-On button was over to the left instead of the right, which felt too weird haha.


----------



## Rook (Mar 4, 2014)

That 18-35 could be fun, it's just shy of the range of a wedding standard 24-70 and brighter too, can't comment on the quality of the lens though.

You'll just be straight shooting 7fps now for the rest of your life hehe.


----------



## straightshreddd (Mar 4, 2014)

Congrats, man. Let's see some sample shots. Some excellent and successful indie films have been shot on these, if I'm not mistaken. Could be the 7D.

I want a DSLR so bad. Is worth it to just save and get one of these, or work my way up from something simpler/cheaper to get my feet wet? It will be primarily for shooting film, but photos as well.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 4, 2014)

Well, got 'er all set up. Back-button AF is on, and for now I've set the Custom mode to shoot Large JPG instead of RAW, for family snapshots and stuff. I took a bunch of those in Florida, and haven't really had the time to batch-process 2000 raw files.  JPG would be great because I could pick out the RAWs and throw them where they need to be, then just slap the JPGs onto a flash drive and play them on the TV.

Another fun thing: there's a tiny, unlabelled button sort of on the underside of the lens mount - kinda in between the grip and lens mount. Right now I've got that set to enable Servo AF when I press it and the AF button, and keep the standard AF mode to One Shot. 



Rook said:


> That 18-35 could be fun, it's just shy of the range of a wedding standard 24-70 and brighter too, can't comment on the quality of the lens though.
> 
> You'll just be straight shooting 7fps now for the rest of your life hehe.



That's what I was thinking. I'd like a little more reach, like the 17-55, but the 1.8 aperture is worth more to me than 2.8 + IS. 

The only thing I'm worried about is the talk of dodgy AF, even on the Art lenses. I'll probably just try one out in store. The 18-35 would be cool, or just the 30 1.4. I'll try just 30 on the kit T3's old kit lens and see how I get along with that vs having some zoom.

It would be nice if I could stick to Canon. I'd really consider a 24 or 28, but f2.8 + IS means some crazy slow shutter speeds, not the greatest for people photography. If I stick with Canon it'll probably be a 35, because f2 is close enough to 1.8, and I've got the IS if I want it.



straightshreddd said:


> Congrats, man. Let's see some sample shots. Some excellent and successful indie films have been shot on these, if I'm not mistaken. Could be the 7D.
> 
> I want a DSLR so bad. Is worth it to just save and get one of these, or work my way up from something simpler/cheaper to get my feet wet? It will be primarily for shooting film, but photos as well.



Thanks dude.  I'm not too too sure, but I know the big one I heard about was Silent House. It was Spanish, or Portuguese, and they used a 5D mkII. I'm bummed - they claimed the whole movie was shot in one take, but the 5D can't film more than 30 minutes in one go. 

Honestly, I regret starting with the T3. If you're not sure how much you'll like photography, I don't know if I'd suggest jumping to the 70D, just because at ~$1200 for the body only that's a ton of money. Like buying a DC800 and hoping you'll like 8 strings. If you didn't really get into it, and were outside of your return period, you'd either be selling it at a loss or you'd have a really big, heavy, expensive point and shoot hanging around.

If I could do it again, I would have started with the T3i (T5i if I had the extra cash). It's a lot sturdier than the T3 and has a bit better AF, and I think a few more buttons. One of those would grow with you longer, and if you find out early on you really like photography and want to stick with it, return it and get the 70D.


----------



## Promit (Mar 4, 2014)

straightshreddd said:


> Congrats, man. Let's see some sample shots. Some excellent and successful indie films have been shot on these, if I'm not mistaken. Could be the 7D.
> 
> I want a DSLR so bad. Is worth it to just save and get one of these, or work my way up from something simpler/cheaper to get my feet wet? It will be primarily for shooting film, but photos as well.


The Canon 7D is kind of a shoddy video camera. People use it, sure, but I think that's due to convenience or ignorance. A 5DII is amazing for video, but none of the crop sensor Canons produce nice looking video without taking drastic steps.

Sony has pretty decent video (SLT or NEX), Nikon has good video quality but the bodies have stupid obnoxious bugs that ruin it. Panasonic has absolutely the best video quality, by a long shot, if you're open to mirrorless cameras. I use an SLT-A77 for a lot of my field work as it's versatile and has great usability for both photos and videos. Also use a GH3 a lot for more controlled shooting. Depending on your budget, a G6 might be a solid compromise.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 4, 2014)

I've never had a desire to shoot video, but I was still curious about the 70D's live view shooting, and so far I really dig it. It confused me for a while, because I'm pretty sure the focusing and metering parameters are independent to the ones for the viewfinder (so I set everything how I wanted normally, switched to live view, and had to set everything for live view through the touch screen).

It focuses about as fast as the mirrorlesses I've used, and even in the shitty low light in our rental (with the lights on at f1.4 and 1/80th I'm still hitting ISO 6400), it didn't really hunt at all. I'm looking forward to it for tripod shots, and for flipping the screen out and pretending to mess with settings to take sneakier candid shots.


----------



## metal_sam14 (Mar 4, 2014)

Congrats man, looks awesome! Really makes me want to upgrade my 650D (t4i)

I am also pretty keen on that sigma 18-35, all the test shots I have seen are seriously good looking and it would solve my lust for a faster lens that isn't a prime.


----------



## Promit (Mar 5, 2014)

Philligan said:


> I'm looking forward to it for tripod shots, and for flipping the screen out and pretending to mess with settings to take sneakier candid shots.


Gonna warn you right now as someone who has a lot of mirrorless: that doesn't work. People don't buy it.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 5, 2014)

Oh man, I just discovered the silent mode. I always heard that the silent mode was still loud - I found the silent mode in the settings, and there were three options. Going between the three, I couldn't hear a difference, and was pretty bummed.

I just found out that I was choosing which silent mode to use, not actually setting it to silent. I set it to silent and it's probably half the volume, and a lot softer sounding. Probably gonna leave it on silent pretty much all the time, unless I wanna go nuts with the bursts.


----------



## Rook (Mar 5, 2014)

Silent increases shutter lag, hence why it isn't the default.

I agree though, silent works pretty well for me. Less of a *CLACK* and more of a *shwapap*


----------



## Tang (Mar 5, 2014)

My camera doesn't need a silent mode. It's default is silent


----------



## Philligan (Mar 5, 2014)

Tang said:


> My camera doesn't need a silent mode. It's default is silent



Take your silent shutter and in-body focus motor and get outta here then.


----------



## Tang (Mar 5, 2014)

All jokes aside, you should definitely see a huge increase in the quality of your files.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 6, 2014)

Yeah, I've been taking shots of Dawn around the house  but it's been a busy week and I haven't had time to get out and actually shoot yet. We're going back home tonight, though, and I don't work til Saturday, so I'm hoping I'll have some time tomorrow.

As much as megapixels don't really matter, I'm looking forward to seeing how much more detail I can get with almost double the file size.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 6, 2014)

Just for kicks, I took some awful cell phone pictures comparing the 70D to Dawn's SL1/100D. Both with 50s - Dawn's got the plastic fantastic. It doesn't look like *that* much of a size difference, but man, you can feel it.


----------



## Tang (Mar 6, 2014)

Does that control wheel select focus points by turning or is there am up-down-left-right feature to it?


----------



## Philligan (Mar 6, 2014)

Tang said:


> Does that control wheel select focus points by turning or is there am up-down-left-right feature to it?



There's an 8-way d-pad within the wheel. The wheel itself is awesome - on the T3, in manual, you'd have to change the shutter speed with the only click wheel, and hold a function button to change the aperture with the same wheel. 

The D-pad's a little awkward to reach, and I'd love to try a 5D with the nub toggle, but it's still a huge improvement and I could definitely live with it.


----------



## Rook (Mar 8, 2014)

It just looks like a 6D, only the 6 has no magnify buttons on the too right, just a single one by the Q button that makes the wheel toggle zoom.

The 5D3 nobby nob is ok, I prefer the D Pad personally. Even the 5D2 has a nicer joystick than the 5D3 I think haha, we use 5D3's at my work. 2 5D3's, the 24-70 2.8 IS II, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 16-35 2.8, faptastic.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 8, 2014)

Rook said:


> 24-70 2.8 IS II, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 16-35 2.8, faptastic.



Hooray for holy trinities. My dad got my T3, and he's looking at the budget trinity: 18-55, 55-250, 50 1.8. 

As much as I shouldn't buy tonnes of gear I can't afford, I think my ideal wedding setup would be 70-200 F4 L for ceremonies, so I can not get in the way, and 18-35 1.8 for receptions, so I can get close and still keep the shutter speed relatively high.

I'm hoping I can swing the 18-35 in a couple months or so, and if I get paid at all for shoots in the summer it's going towards a 70-200.


----------



## Rook (Mar 9, 2014)

Sounds like a solid plan.


----------



## Tang (Mar 9, 2014)

I'm second shooting a wedding next month and my plan is to rent a K3 (dat switchable AA filter), the Sigma 35 1.4 and Pentax's 77 1.8. All primes, baby. 

Phil, when do you start shooting weddings?


----------



## Philligan (Mar 9, 2014)

I forget, I think he said May? I've gotta double check haha. I move back to Sarnia at the end of April (we're moving back into our parents' houses for the next school year to help save for the wedding), and I think they start pretty much as soon as I get home.

There's one good camera shop in Sarnia (pretty much like Henry's only local, and the guy who owns it is super nice) and I think it more caters to pros, so I'm really hoping they do rentals. As long as it's under $100, I think I'm gonna rent the 18-35 for the first wedding if they have it, and if not, I'll get the 17-55 2.8IS.

I figure I'll try a zoom for a wedding, and depending on how much zooming I do, maybe I'll try a prime for the next one. I just know I'll have some trouble shooting a wedding entirely on a 50mm on a crop sensor.


----------



## Rook (Mar 9, 2014)

Having shot events (not weddings :O) even though I'm a big prime guy I wouldn't risk it, when time matters and you just gotta nail the shot, I always borrow zooms.

Not saying you should, but my artistic vision only matters a little bit, it's 95% just get the damn shot hahaha. I don't think I could be doing with the pressure of shooting a wedding right now haha! Just shooting events you wouldn't think were such a huge deal is tense enough, I don't need the stress hahaha.

I'd say you have two great ranges there, in 35mm terms the 24-70/70-200 combo is bread and butter for weddings and events, sling a second body over your shoulder with a nice prime if you want maybe.


----------



## Promit (Mar 14, 2014)

Weddings are all about the 2.8 zooms - ultrawide, standard, and tele. Of course those are heavy and expensive but oh well.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 14, 2014)

Promit said:


> Weddings are all about the 2.8 zooms - ultrawide, standard, and tele. Of course those are heavy and expensive but oh well.



On a full frame they'd be perfect, but since it's a crop, I'd like something wider and with a wider aperture to get the same feel. Hence the Sigma 1.8. 

In a perfect world, I'd have the 6D and 24-70 2.8. But, sadly, that's out of my budget, and I can do the 70D and Sigma for around the price of a 6D body alone.

I saw earlier this week that the 6D's on sale at Henry's, too, and I came *so* close to checking it out, but I reminded myself that I'd be screwed as soon as I want a quality zoom. 

I'll hopefully be done school and settling into a career job by the time the next generation of full frames comes along, so we'll see what happens then.


----------



## Tang (Mar 14, 2014)

Promit: definitely agree about 2.8 zooms being the standard for wedding work. The only reason I'm rolling with primes when I second shoot is because my main really likes my work and primes are what I tend to favor. If I were main or solo shooting you bet your ass I'm zooming all day.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 14, 2014)

^I'd love it if I ended up being fine with primes for weddings. The range a zoom gives you is nice, but I basically learned how to take pictures on a 50mm, and I'm used to moving around to get the shot I want. I have more trouble remembering to zoom. 

That's kinda what I'm thinking with the 18-35. I can use the zoom when I need, and when I'm just out shooting for fun, I've basically got 18, 24, 28, and 35mm 1.8 primes all at the same time.


----------



## Promit (Mar 14, 2014)

18-35 seems like an awesome wedding lens to me.


----------



## Rook (Mar 16, 2014)

^Agreed.

Realistically, if I got offered a couple of wedding jobs I'd invest in a used 70-200 IS (version 1) or a non IS version, both can be had for well under half the cost of the IS2, and You can cover the 24-70 range with all sorts of options. I'd say the ultra wide end would be very much a luxury, I'd sooner buy a second body than worry about that.

I'm still thinking about the XT-1, the two 2.8 zooms for that have been announced but now word on price yet, looking forward to that.


----------



## ovlott (Mar 16, 2014)

Congrats on the new Camera! My girlfriend has the same one and loves it to death. Henry's definitely has some awesome deals on used gear.


----------



## Philligan (Mar 16, 2014)

Thanks man! Yeah haha I keep trying to find used stuff through them but it goes so fast. I'm really digging the 70D, but now I really want one of these and a 6D in tandem.


----------

