-= 80D owners unite! Discuss and post photos

Squa7ch2112 wrote in post #18695447
I know on the 7D Mark II it's under the fourth tab on the AF part of the menu. "VF display illumination". Default setting is auto, switch it to on and the points should always light up.

JPoll56 wrote in post #18695473
Ok thanks just found it in the manuel page 424
C. Fn 11- 15 option 1
will change it from default to be on constantly regardless of ambient light.

Excellent. Thanks for the info.

Michael456 wrote in post #18700188

Hosted photo: posted by Michael456 in
./showthread.php?p=187​00188&i=i106456036
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by Michael456 in
./showthread.php?p=187​00188&i=i71599779
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Interesting. I have the 100-400 and am looking at the 100L macro. Detail on both of these shots looks good but how much did you have to crop off the different shots to arrive at the posted sizes. It would be fantastic if you could post uncropped resized original shots so I can compare them side by side. Trying to get some idea of the relative magnification of the two shots / two lenses.

Thanks

Rod

Not a sports camera...psh, indeed...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2aLH​1Pz

45 auto focus points and 7 fps continuous shooting, more than enough for sports if you ask me lol

Squa7ch2112 wrote in post #18700558
45 auto focus points and 7 fps continuous shooting, more than enough for sports if you ask me lol

I just use single spot af for motorsports. But 7 fps is plenty since the action is predictable

RodS57 wrote in post #18700235
Interesting. I have the 100-400 and am looking at the 100L macro. Detail on both of these shots looks good but how much did you have to crop off the different shots to arrive at the posted sizes. It would be fantastic if you could post uncropped resized original shots so I can compare them side by side. Trying to get some idea of the relative magnification of the two shots / two lenses.

Thanks

Rod

No problem, here are both shots uncropped:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Michael456 wrote in post #18700990
No problem, here are both shots uncropped:

Hosted photo: posted by Michael456 in
./showthread.php?p=187​00990&i=i190042153
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by Michael456 in
./showthread.php?p=187​00990&i=i39257997
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I believe I wasn't quite at (but close to) the lense's MFD for either of them.

Thanks.
I am surprised. I was expecting a much larger difference.

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #18701774
Thanks.
I am surprised. I was expecting a much larger difference.

Rod

Larger difference in what?
Just to be sure: you do realize that the two photos do not show the same moth/butterfly species?

RodS57 wrote in post #18700235
Interesting. I have the 100-400 and am looking at the 100L macro. Detail on both of these shots looks good but how much did you have to crop off the different shots to arrive at the posted sizes. It would be fantastic if you could post uncropped resized original shots so I can compare them side by side. Trying to get some idea of the relative magnification of the two shots / two lenses.

Thanks

Rod

Rod,

I went through the same exercise a few years back b/w the 100L and the 100-400 II, thinking that I'd sell the macro since the 100-400 II brought a "pseudo-macro" capability to the table. Bottom line: the zoom is superb, but if macro is your focus, it can't do what the 100L can. Close, but not quite. The 100L is a Swiss-army knife prime lens, very versatile due to the f/2.8, great IS, obvious macro and also its ability to perform as a splendid portrait lens too.

All that being said... I'm contemplating selling my 100L because I'm not doing macro as much anymore, have a 70-200 2.8, 85mm and 135mm for portraits, and the 100-400 II will work in a pinch if I need a bug shot

Michael456 wrote in post #18702252
Larger difference in what?
Just to be sure: you do realize that the two photos do not show the same moth/butterfly species?

MatthewK wrote in post #18702321
Rod,

I went through the same exercise a few years back b/w the 100L and the 100-400 II, thinking that I'd sell the macro since the 100-400 II brought a "pseudo-macro" capability to the table. Bottom line: the zoom is superb, but if macro is your focus, it can't do what the 100L can. Close, but not quite. The 100L is a Swiss-army knife prime lens, very versatile due to the f/2.8, great IS, obvious macro and also its ability to perform as a splendid portrait lens too.

All that being said... I'm contemplating selling my 100L because I'm not doing macro as much anymore, have a 70-200 2.8, 85mm and 135mm for portraits, and the 100-400 II will work in a pinch if I need a bug shot

OK, see if this makes it clearer: take a picture of a penny for example with both lenses at MFD. How does the magnification compare? For example will I see

100L - penny is 75% of frame
100-400 - penny is 40% of frame

Just trying to get an idea of the real world difference. I have experimented with macro using the 100-400. Going to get the 100L anyway. Don't have a 'fast' prime and this expands my capabilities. Ok, I know F2.8 isn't fast but it is faster than anything I have right now. Currently only have zooms.

Thanks

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #18702387
OK, see if this makes it clearer: take a picture of a penny for example with both lenses at MFD. How does the magnification compare? For example will I see

100L - penny is 75% of frame
100-400 - penny is 40% of frame

Just trying to get an idea of the real world difference.

Here are shots of a 1 Cent coin with both lenses, both times at MFD. The coin diameter is 16.25 mm:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have a Canon 80D along with Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.

I'd like to eventually upgrade the 17-50 with a 24-70 2.8. Following that (a few years later probably) would probably be an upgrade to a full frame body.

I've heard that it would not be good to put a 27-70 lens on a crop body like the 80D. The reason given was that this is a "full-frame lens" and would result in some vignetting in the images on a crop body. I've not seen that with the 70-200, so would it happen on the 24-70?

What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you