Yes, Yes I did. (Camera related)
 

I know we have some camera buff on here so thought I'd share.

I purchased a DSLR in Mirrorless camera tech days. Seems all the manufacturers are jumping ship to the newer mirrorless tech. I must be weird as I just picked up a lightly used Canon 1DX Mk iii.

Oh well, I love it. It's blindingly fast, robust and suits me just fine. Plus I like the optical viewfinder.

It is a beast though. Much heavier than the mirrorless counter parts. My camera bag is now over 22 pounds, doh!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1679940257.jpg

Trying to learn wildlife photography. Its gonna be a challenge. Whole different skillset required from landscape work.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1679940320.jpg

Nice body- and lens!
I think the mirrored bodies will have many years of good use, and great value.

I've got an R5, but my 5d3 works solid. Sometimes it's nice to step back off the cutting edge of tech and get a much greater bang for the buck.

I also like one can use all the canon L glass like that 1.2 50mm.

Enjoy!

Love the 50 1.2! One of my favorites.

That thing has a wicked fast frame rate buffering rate too.

I wouldn't even know how to shoot that many fps.

That's one of the reasons I got it. Fast wildlife captures. The frame rate, combined with back button auto focus is really cool. Takes a little getting used too but I'm adapting.

Kind of curious about the upcoming Canon R1 series. Probably will way up there price wise though.

Yeah, I don't even want to know what that's gonna run for. :D

It is just cool and amazing how far digital cameras have come. Just 20 years ago digital cameras were stupid expensive, and produced a pitiful image.

We have an old Canon EOS 5DS R that we have had for many years. We just don't have a need to upgrade as it makes such a great image. We have made aerial photos and make 40x60 prints and the customers all walk right up to it mounted on their wall and marvel at how sharp and clear it is.

As a geezer that remembers the days before digital, and the fastest color film worth using was ASA (before ISO) 160 and Tri-X at ASA 400 was the de facto go to film for photojournalist. Now just crank a dial to ISO 6,400 and shoot amazing noise free color photos in low light.

It looks like a neat camera, have fun with it.

You can now set it to "Auto ISO" in manual mode. Set the aperture, set the time and let the camera pick the iso within a pre set limit if wanted. Very useful for fast moving subjects in changing light conditions.

Begin geezer voice:

Why, back in my day, when I first got into photography (1968) I borrowed my dad's Miranda viewfinder camera. It was old already, and had no light meter. I did have a mentor that taught me to set the ASA to the film speed, and just adjust the aperture to adjust for the light conditions. So high speed Ektachrome, ASA 160 meant set the shutter speed to the nearest shutter speed setting of 160 so 1/125th of a second. at F-16 for full sun, no clouds. I learned to hold my hand out fingers spread out and look at the shadow of my hand. If I saw 5 distinct finger shadows, F16 was the go to setting. If the finger shadows were fuzzy F-11. If there was hardly any shadow, F8. No shadow at all, F-5.6. I bought the cheapest 35mm SLR from the base hobby shop, and a 50 mm, and a 200 mm lens. I used up a lot of film learning. And if in doubt, bracket the exposures. It was not until the 1972 era that I got a camera with a light meter built in, but I still had to set the exposure manually.

End Geezer voice.

In 1969 my photography mentor was hired to photograph a wedding on Fort DeRussy in Hawaii. It was the height of the Viet Nam war. Soldiers were allowed to have TDY in Hawaii and Fort DeRussy was a common place to keep them. One guy had his girlfriend fly in from Iowa, and they got married on the beach. My buddy had to be the best man and the witness, so I had to photograph the wedding. I was paid $10 or $20 bucks, I honestly don't remember but it was my first professional photo job. All I did was shoot a roll of 36 exposures, and hand it to the bride. She had to get them processed when she went home. I shot hundreds of weddings in my career. Never again.

Hey Eric, did you happen to check how many shutter actuations it has had? I'm assuming it's used. Edit: I see you said it was lightly used.

Less than 40k. Wasn't worried about shutter count although this one is fairly low. Replacement shutters are inexpensive. Until they quit making them :)

What is it you like about the 1.2 lens?
Reason I ask is, I have a Nikkor 50 1.2 manual focus lens I've adapted to my Sony's. I've found the DOF so shallow as to be almost unusable without a tripod if I want a sharp shot. It works well stopped down but is rather heavy to be carrying around just to use it stopped down when my Series E 50 1.8 can give me just as much sharpness without the weight.

This is an older video on canon 50mm lenses. It compares the 50's from the canon lineup in a variety of stops.

I've got the 1.4 and the 1.2. Overall, they are both awesome. The 1.2 really gives that extra bokeh quality at 1.2, but for weight, price, and everyday shooting, the 1.4 really is probably the more realistic choice. If I'm out in bad weather, or letting my daughter take pics- 1.4

But if I'm trying to get a really good shot- out comes the 1.2

Kai's a bit of a top gear flair from about a decade ago- love or hate, but his bokeh pics were helpful.
edit- now that I'm rewatching the video years later, perhaps there are better videos lol- but- his comments on near the end of the video are pretty accurate. I do find myself grabbing the 1.2 often- 'just because' though, even though it is the slowest to focus of the bunch (but not noticably so- it's just more 'solid').

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/44FqqE6ukjY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks Leaky, I'll have to look at that later when I have more time.
Appreciate it.

Bokeh!!!

I shoot many different subjects. Lots of creative ways to use limited DOF. The 1.2 has decently quick auto focus, not super fast like some but workable. Its also great as an astrophotography lens although I would generally use about 21mm here. The 1.2 is very sharp, even wide open.

Yes, the 1.8 versions are great, lightweight and sharp. The 1.4 version from Canon is not so good. Well, not as sharp as the others anyway.

I've had the 85 f1.2L for while too but sold it. It has incredible Bokeh but the auto focus was so painfully slow I ended up selling it and going back to the 85 F1.8 version. Surprisingly, the 1.8 version is fairly heavy as well.

I had similar lens. FD 55 f1.2 S.S.C. (radiocative!).

85mm is one trick pony. Great portrait lens...and that's it.

I picked up a Canon E05 Rebel for cheap.

It is lightweight and large but not thrilled about it:
-It eats batteries like cookie monster. Maybe 1/2 hr use time after being fully charged. New batteries.
-Doesn't want to take a photo (freezes with the button pressed) even in 'auto mode' in lower light or when too close.
-Photos look good but still not up to modern cell phone quality.

Canon erased my Win10 printer drivers which are "no longer supported", rendering my printer into a brick.Damn you Canon all to double hockey sticks.

When you get into BIGGER lenses be prepared to make a radical choice:
1). Cheaper knockoffs have manual focus. Need a stand and a remote trigger mechanism. Might miss the moment.
2). OEM lenses with internal motor focus get into the ten thousands.
3). All might be affected by weather and storage and time.

Two FF nikons in the house - and the oldster D700 is just a sledgehammer. Wow is it heavy. That reminds me - does anybody want a Pentax 67, if not for photography maybe for weightlifting?

Probably not unrelated, I usually just travel with my little canon G9x. Gets it done and it has capable "manual" controls that have good ergonomics. And it fits in a pocket. The nikons and of course the pentax stay home...