Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
Thread started 15 Jun 2009 (Monday) 02:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

GKPE 7 - And Still Going! Still Friendly and Still The BEST!

 
this thread is locked
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 30, 2010 04:10 |  #9856

I've used 7D, 40D, 5D, 5DII, 1D3, and D700 for weddings, which is a mix of every condition you can find, including action in low light (dancing).

I found the 5D I/II series reasonably accurate to focus, focus consistency was good though not as good as say a 1 series. Focus speed and general operation speed just felt slow, even though it was fine, I didn't enjoy using it. Focus speed and operation speed is why I didn't get a 5D.

The 7D focuses fast, but it wasn't as consistent as i'd expect from a camera that costs that much. The 40D was much the same, even though its focus system was totally different. Focus consistency is why I got rid of those cameras.

The 1D3 was generally fast to focus and focused accurately in good light. In low light the focus speed slowed down and wasn't as accurate. The 7D was more accurate and faster to focus with a 70-200 in low light, I shot them back to back with the same lens in the same wedding reception. I didn't get a 1 series because of price, and because the 1.3X crop format doesn't match up with the lenses well for what I do and how I do it. I'd have had to swap lenses more often than with full frame or 1.6x crop, both of which have lenses that match.

The D700 operation speed is very good, and focus speed is good to very good in low light. It's a bit slower to focus in low light, but it's still faster than the 5DII. Focus accuracy is phenomenal. Any out of focus images are because of operator error, not because of the camera. The things I don't like about it are that the control layout seems to have been designed by a mad man, though i'm pretty used to it now, and that the SB900 lock digs into my forehead when it's mounted on the camera.

I don't care whether someone calls a body a pro camera or not, I just care if it gets the job done. Cameras are tools to me, not toys. Sometimes it really does come down to the equipment. I do wonder if the problem was with the lenses, rather than the bodies, though I had four 17-55s, a 24-105, 50 F1.4, 100mm macro, 70-200L, and probably others as well. The 70-200 and 100mm macro were really great performers, they rarely had any focus problems on any body. It was the 17-55, 24-105L, and 50 F1.4 that I mostly had trouble with.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
manipula
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,290 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: English Wookie in Wellington, NZ.
     
Sep 30, 2010 04:27 as a reply to  @ post 11006293 |  #9857

RobDickinson wrote in post #11006069 (external link)
5D2 is unfortunatly a bit of a relic due to its AF system, the one reason I didnt buy one.

Do not agree. The 5D2 AF system is simple, but no relic. Personally I didn't buy one because I think much of the reason it's such a fantastic camera is there in the older version, and I didn't see $4500(ish) as valid money to spend for the occasional times I need bigger files or high ISO.

Potisdad wrote in post #11006100 (external link)
Exactly why Canon didn't really upgrade the AF in the 5D II.

Once again, I disagree. Anyone who's shot with the original 5D and the current one will know there's a world of difference in the AF performance, even if it's the same layout driven by one processor.

tim wrote in post #11006128 (external link)
Canon doesn't seem to realise yet that they're not the only game in town. Nikon are taking market share from Canon in some market segments.

True. You Tim, are one of, frankly, a fair few in the past few weeks jumping ship that I've dealt with. Without fail, all those who've come to see me to try out cameras or to discuss their thoughts etc have all done it with legit reasons, most of which centre around reliable image results or AF. That said, in the same rationale, I think both of them are ignorant to the advances Panasonic and Sony are making, and it's only the niche approach or poor processing that prevent them suddenly battling with cameras which comprehensively outgun their traditional approach. Sony are *so* close to getting it right but keep missing, and Panasonic, if they'd decided to do SLR's properly would by now have the fear of god up the big two.

RobDickinson wrote in post #11006142 (external link)
Now they have the D700/D3 stuff AND new 24,35,50 and 85 primes and a better UWA and a better 24-70 they should be doing well.

Doesn't though, get around the fact Nikon lenses cost a heap more. :(

Moppie wrote in post #11006176 (external link)
Any competent photographer should be quite capable if picking up any SLR from either brand and shooting perfectly acceptable images in any situation.
Any brand differences are purely subjective and come from the realm of gear heads who pass their own failings on to the gear.

Both agree and disagree here. Any good drummer could make a set of pots and pans sound amazing you know... That said, and I say this as a friend Moppie as you know, but that last sentence is a bit BS and willy-waving. There's *way* more to it than that.

RobDickinson wrote in post #11006185 (external link)
Except the 5D2 sucks for focusing?

No it doesn't.

For what it's designed to do, it has one of the simplest and most reliably accurate systems anywhere.

Remember that much of the wailing over 7D AF performance comes from problems related to two camps. 1) It's so complex users not used to the options and adjustability of it, dick around and cock it up til they don't know which way is up. 2) I believe there's a hint of 1D3 about it's performance, as in some bodies smoke it, some don't get it right. And yet that's an AF system 'superior' to most other Canon bodies...

Entirely horses for courses, there's a lot to be said for the more simple, less 'mess-upable' 9 point AF systems.

Moppie wrote in post #11006197 (external link)
Only if you listen to people who have never used one and don't know what they are talking about... I think those who do understand and those who don't separates the photographers from the gear heads.

Kinda correct again I think, but erm, maybe a bit OTT! ;)

(I know I'm guilty of over-exagerating things at times too...)

RobDickinson wrote in post #11006203 (external link)
The center point is fine, the others just arnt especialy in low light.

Mevunky wrote in post #11006230 (external link)
Correct, they hunt really badly in low light. I had forgotten this when using one the other day, was forced to use center point as it just wouldn't lock very well on anything other than the center point (yes yes focus recompose I know...). It's also much slower in general but the high ISO in the dark is really nice so you can't have it all :(

Nothing to do with gear heads imo, just people use their camera's in different ways and its also hard to see the short comings until you have used a better focus system on a regular basis.

I don't do anything complicated or sophisticated in general but I do want my camera to focus in a practically dark room, pubs and parties in general with whatever focus point I select.

I can see both sides of that argument. Frankly the fact technology brings greater and greater options to the party is obviously a good thing and progression, and I don't think it's wrong to expect some high end spec to actually function properly. The bit I find more allarming is the trend within photography for the tech to be the reliance, and for less and less actual skill to be involved. Call me a luddite if you like (and you'd struggle cos I'm 30 not 70) but frankly you need to ask questions if when the tech's removed the ability to take images falls flat on its face. You move away from having skills then to being an operator.

I saw a photo a few weeks back taken on an M8 Leica, of a dragonfly hovering mid-air shot at f/0.95. That's on a manual focus rangefinder for those who don't know. The photographer was 27, and trained on digital, and had to work backwards into film and older style cameras. The photos was average, the skill was amazing. If having 85 point AF driven by three processors takes away the potential for that kinda skill, then photography is having a bad day.


Some people will laugh at this, but in all honestly I never really open my mouth and spout off seriously, usually only in jest, but I have to say after selling cameras for two many years now, and through stuff from a D30 onwards, to literally every end of the spectrum of users, I feel better placed to comment on this stuff than most.

Truth is any SLR these days is pretty fecking amazing, and allows stuff to be shot in such a convenient way, it shocks most people going back to shooting on a film camera how hard it is. There's merit in needing the performance whatever SLR offers for the few, those whose income or once in a lifetime moments depends upon it, but for most, arguing about noise, AF performance etc is basically irrelevant. Most people who can demonstrate a regular need for the differences between camera X and camera Y are pros or very close, the rest frankly are blowing smoke up whoever's ass it is.

The scary thing is though, genuine talent is being lost more and more with advances in Photoshop and camera tech. People seem to expect more, to be less skilled and propped up more, and the number of people who take their skills from a high level and utilise the advances in tech to push themselves and their images further forward instead of sitting relatively still but making the job easier for themselves is worryingly small.

Oddly photography isn't bound by the need to be the world's best at anything, frankly as much as personally I love to push myself further and further, someone who takes a snap, smiles and doesn't shoot again for six months has just as much right to own a camera as anyone. I just think when arguing the toss about finite details, you might as well argue the toss about the finite details (or lack of them) appearing in the actual photographer and their images too.


Cheers, Dave.
www.manipula.co.nz (external link) :: Gear list for the nerds (external link) :: flickr (external link) :: ModelMayhem (external link)
:: insert scathing quip here! ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
momentz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,471 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
     
Sep 30, 2010 04:43 |  #9858

manipula wrote in post #11006362 (external link)
The scary thing is though, genuine talent is being lost more and more with advances in Photoshop and camera tech. People seem to expect more, to be less skilled and propped up more, and the number of people who take their skills from a high level and utilise the advances in tech to push themselves and their images further forward instead of sitting relatively still but making the job easier for themselves is worryingly small.

I agree, although I don't think it's scary. In a professional world it's what separates those who are good enough, from those who are great. Those who are great will do well from photography, those who are good enough will only ever be just good enough.


Canon EOS
Eos is the Titanic goddess of the dawn, who rose from her home at the edge of Oceanus, the Ocean that surrounds the world, to herald her brother Helios, the sun.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manipula
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,290 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: English Wookie in Wellington, NZ.
     
Sep 30, 2010 04:50 |  #9859

momentz wrote in post #11006393 (external link)
I agree, although I don't think it's scary. In a professional world it's what separates those who are good enough, from those who are great. Those who are great will do well from photography, those who are good enough will only ever be just good enough.

True. Yet as a general trend for photography it's bad. Bit like cooking in America, you *can* go get fresh ingredients and make whatever dish properly like most of us do, or just buy it pre-made packs, already half done. Encouraging laziness and a reliance on other things to do the work, and the slow but sure dying of a craft. Great for actual chefs, not so much for cooking as a whole.


Cheers, Dave.
www.manipula.co.nz (external link) :: Gear list for the nerds (external link) :: flickr (external link) :: ModelMayhem (external link)
:: insert scathing quip here! ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tag141
Goldmember
Avatar
3,233 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Trans Trans Tasman?
     
Sep 30, 2010 05:23 |  #9860

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i164.photobucke​t.com …4/Pulicords/pop​corn-1.gif (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pleb1024
Senior Member
Avatar
313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Ex Christchurch, New Zealand. Now Atlanta, GA, USA
     
Sep 30, 2010 12:12 |  #9861

tag141 wrote in post #11006472 (external link)
[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Pass some here....

Thats got to be a record for the most text posted in quite some time...


7DMkII | 7D | 450D | Canon 18-55 IS | Canon 55-250 | Canon 100-400L MkII | Canon 100-400L | Canon 24-105L | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | Tokina 11-16
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weka2000
Is that a 300mm in your pocket?
Avatar
20,889 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 234
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Auckland
     
Sep 30, 2010 14:41 |  #9862

Potisdad wrote in post #11006100 (external link)
You want full frame - buy a 5D
You want speed - buy a 1D (plus $4000)
You want both - buy a 1Ds (plus another $4000).

Aint that the truth :)

I loved my 5D but the 1Dmk2 was way quicker to focus and my 1Dsmk3 gives me everything in 1 body, and yes I was willing to pay the price for it. However it will be a long time before I upgrade as there is just no point.

I was a gear head, now im trying to be a photographer :)


To Dave

Photographer vs Graphic Artist. Its swinging to far to Graphic Artist. So Based on Aarons comments you want to make money you follow the trends.


https://500px.com/tony​searle/galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 30, 2010 15:24 |  #9863

Potisdad wrote in post #11006100 (external link)
Exactly why Canon didn't really upgrade the AF in the 5D II. Why lose sales of 1 series cameras by giving the 5D everything?

You want full frame - buy a 5D
You want speed - buy a 1D (plus $4000)
You want both - buy a 1Ds (plus another $4000)

You want full frame - buy a 5D
You want speed - buy a 1D (plus $4000)
You want both - buy a D700 (NZ$3900 total)

See, I fixed that for you :p :)


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1042
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Sep 30, 2010 16:24 |  #9864

Thats the problem!

I realy seriously considered the D700 but the price of the decent FF glass just put me off. I knew I'd never end up with the 24-70 or the 14-24 etc.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weka2000
Is that a 300mm in your pocket?
Avatar
20,889 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 234
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Auckland
     
Sep 30, 2010 16:39 as a reply to  @ RobDickinson's post |  #9865

Yes Nikon does have some nice glass 14-24F2.8 and 200-400F4. However its not worth me selling up.

Tim how much did you loose with your swap over?


https://500px.com/tony​searle/galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 30, 2010 16:53 |  #9866

The Nikon zooms are pretty amazing, i'm getting sharper images than I ever did with my Canons. I did go to full frame though, and for some reason that seems sharper than crops. 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 are all fantastic, and fingers crossed the Sigma 50 F1.4 will work well once I get in to see Dave. The Nikon 70-200 VR looks a lot less stable through the viewfinder than the Canon version, but in practice the images are just as sharp. I want to play with flare, too, but I just can't get my nano coated nikon zooms to flare. I'll have to buy a cheap older lens to play with that.

I don't know how much more the Nikon gear cost me over what I sold me Canon gear for. I transitioned from prosumer gear with five good lenses to pro gear with three lenses, and I kept two EX speedlites, so it was an upgrade as well as a change. I'm going to guess a few grand.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Potisdad
Senior Member
Avatar
667 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Auckland NZ
     
Sep 30, 2010 17:08 |  #9867

tim wrote in post #11009574 (external link)
You want full frame - buy a 5D
You want speed - buy a 1D (plus $4000)
You want both - buy a D700 (NZ$3900 total)

See, I fixed that for you :p :)

Ha true!

But the price of Nikon glass kills it for me. All the lenses are more expensive and they don't have an equivalent to the 70-200 f4, which is the perfect weight/range for my use. They only recently introduced an f/4 wide angle zoom...

To get the same range and quality on Nikon FF that I get currently with Canon would cost more.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 30, 2010 17:22 |  #9868

Yeah, Nikon is more expensive, but that wasn't a significant consideration for me. I need reliable tools. It's like the guy who builds houses all day, every day, vs the home handyman. My tools are mid priced, they do the job well enough, but they'd probably break with heavy use. Builders will probably buy the best tools, use them constantly, and they'll do a great job.

You often get what you pay for.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Potisdad
Senior Member
Avatar
667 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Auckland NZ
     
Sep 30, 2010 17:35 as a reply to  @ tim's post |  #9869

It will be interesting to see if Nikon lens prices drop as their market share increases and they ship more units - spreading R&D cost more.

On the other hand, Canons newest lenses are priced similarly. I bet when they finally upgrade the 24-70 the price will skyrocket.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1042
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Sep 30, 2010 17:46 |  #9870

tim wrote in post #11010070 (external link)
I did go to full frame though, and for some reason that seems sharper than crops.

Equivelance. If you use the same quality lens on a FF vs a crop your using a much larger area (and lower pixel density usualy), imperfections are less relevant so you end up with a better image.

Though usualy a crop is using the best/center part of a lens its putting it under more strain due to higher pixel density.

(ignoring vignetting etc).

So IMO the 10-22 is a better lens than the 17-40 but due to equivelance it will produce better images on a FF camera than the 10-22 will on a crop.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

696,568 views & 0 likes for this thread
GKPE 7 - And Still Going! Still Friendly and Still The BEST!
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is socrbob
939 guests, 277 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.