>>3634868>Fuck me I thought you were using film, why is your photo so grainy?Looking at the exif, he was at ISO 400 (not bad), but it also says exposure compensation 3. Not sure if that directly translates to 3 stops or if it's like "three positions in the exposure compensation setting" (which would be 1 or 1.5 stops, depending on how the camera is set up) or "the raw processing software increased the brightness by three stops" or something else, but it's possible that it means he was effectively shooting at ISO 3200, which looks about that grainy on a 5D classic, so that tracks.
>>3635272>That shit never works, the flange distance on the EF mount is longer than just about any other so you can never properly use old lenses with it.You are wrong.
The EF mount has one of the shorter flange-focal distances of the 35mm SLR mounts. It can easily mount Nikon F or M42 or a few other types of lenses with no loss of infinity focus.
>>3634425>are longer lenses (e.g. 135) easier to focus manually on camera than shorter (e.g 50)?No. Longer lenses will generally have shallower depth of field (although that's also more strongly affected by the camera-to-subject distance and aperture), and shallower depth of field will make it harder to accurately manually focus.
In any case, the way your camera's stock focusing screen is made, you CANNOT accurately manually focus with an aperture wider than f/2.5 using just your eyeballs. The focusing screen will literally not show depth of field shallower than that because of the way the microlenses of the focus screen are set up. So, either get a replacement focusing screen with a split-prism patch as suggested by
>>3634857or keep your aperture at f/4 or smaller (note: larger number = smaller aperture, so f/4 is smaller than f/2.8) as suggested by
>>3634832.
Also, DoF is shallower when you're closer to your subject, so taking a step back will also make it easier to focus.
