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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 15 Oct 2010 (Friday) 00:55
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "What should I do?"
Sell: MkII All The Way!
83
37.7%
Don't Sell: IQ is great for what you do
105
47.7%
Other opinion
32
14.5%

220 voters, 220 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Buyers Remorse? Canon 7D

 
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,248 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 8
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:14 |  #196

Nickc84 wrote in post #11146961 (external link)
Your interpretation seems more about the gear and "L" lenses vs. a talented photographer. How did people ever shoot weddings before 5d2/1d4 hit the market?

bw! yep

One word:

Film.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,600 posts
Gallery: 1637 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4437
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:27 |  #197

K6AZ wrote in post #11146978 (external link)
One word:

Film.

But with most film's inferior ISO/ASA, wouldn't one argue that all these years... professional photographers have been providing inferior products to their wedding clients? All the grain... the noise!

Again, just my opinion, but there is waaaaay too much focus on gear. I never once looked at my wedding album under magnifying glass. I'm sure the photographer could have provided me with a 40x60 print of great quality, but I'm not narcissistic, I'm not a celebrity, therefore, I don't need to know how much IQ "could have been" printed to fill my wall.

It is clear that "more-than-sufficient" is not good enough for you. That's your prerogative. But in that same sense, if that's the reasoning, then one should be shooting medium format, or at the very least shooting with the Nikon D3x over the 5D2/1DsIII. It's FF, it has more pixels, Nikon glass (maybe expensive) but for wedding, have quality glass as well. 14-24 is unmatched. They've come out with high quality primes. If nothing but the best, then in 35mm-equiv DSLR format, then at this moment, wouldn't the D3x be it and anything less being not the best?

(Whereas IMO, and much of others, 7D is sufficient. 1DsII is sufficient, 1DsIII/1DIV/5D2/5D/1DI​II/50D/40D/30D are all "sufficient".) I certainly wouldn't stop at 1DIV/5D2 and call them the best.


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 284
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:32 |  #198

K6AZ wrote in post #11146729 (external link)
To be honest this argument gets boring. Usually it involve those who only have the 7D. And this argument with variations goes back to the film days between high end cosumer SLRs and the pro bodies. Weddings are serious business and I've seen plenty of people go through a lot of grief with photographers not using the correct tools. I'm not impressed by web sites, anyone can set up a site and call themselves pros. I've dealt with pro photographers for over 20 years and none of them that I hired for my work used consumer grade gear.

By the way, I'd be saying the same thing about someone who only had a 5D2 doing sports. While it is doable and fine for amateurs it's not the correct tool for sports. For this application you wouldn't get an argument from me for using the 7D.

There are pro wedding photographers that have been posting here on POTN for years that use 7Ds, but don't let that stop you. ;)


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:48 |  #199

K6AZ wrote in post #11146729 (external link)
To be honest this argument gets boring. Usually it involve those who only have the 7D. And this argument with variations goes back to the film days between high end cosumer SLRs and the pro bodies. Weddings are serious business and I've seen plenty of people go through a lot of grief with photographers not using the correct tools. I'm not impressed by web sites, anyone can set up a site and call themselves pros. I've dealt with pro photographers for over 20 years and none of them that I hired for my work used consumer grade gear.

Yes, I'm sure this guy (external link) has had a lot of grief when using his 7D for weddings when he could be using his 5Dmk2 instead (hint: he has both and therefore knows of what he speaks), and that his statement that the 7D makes for a better overall wedding camera is just to convince his competition to go with an "inferior" camera so that all their customers ditch them and go to him instead... :rolleyes: :lol:

By the way, I'd be saying the same thing about someone who only had a 5D2 doing sports. While it is doable and fine for amateurs it's not the correct tool for sports. For this application you wouldn't get an argument from me for using the 7D.

So image quality isn't of paramount importance when shooting sports, is that it?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tancanon58
Senior Member
Avatar
965 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: southern california
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:50 |  #200

I was thinking about selling my 5D2 for 1D4 but after getting 7D I have changed my mind since I know that 5D2 IQ is the best.


Bodies: 5D MkIII/ Oly ED-M5/ G10
Lenses: Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 Di VC /and some Panny and Oly lenses.
Flash: Canon600EX RT.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:52 |  #201

K6AZ wrote in post #11146729 (external link)
To be honest this argument gets boring. Usually it involve those who only have the 7D. And this argument with variations goes back to the film days between high end cosumer SLRs and the pro bodies. Weddings are serious business and I've seen plenty of people go through a lot of grief with photographers not using the correct tools. I'm not impressed by web sites, anyone can set up a site and call themselves pros. I've dealt with pro photographers for over 20 years and none of them that I hired for my work used consumer grade gear.

Another poster raised an excellent point.

Why is the 7D not good enough, but the 5Dmk2 is good enough, when you can get significantly better image quality than either with medium format?

Why aren't you insisting that people should use medium format for weddings?

What specifically makes the 5Dmk2 good enough when it's possible to do even better than that?


I mean, what self-respecting wedding photographer would feel right about selling his work done with the clearly inferior 5Dmk2 when he could instead have done it with a clearly superior medium format camera? Such a photographer should hang his head in shame. :lol:


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JBF
Goldmember
Avatar
1,492 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY
     
Oct 22, 2010 17:55 |  #202

There is no doubt in my mind that the 1 series cameras have superior sensors. My 1D mark II N is much sharper and has more clarity than my 7D. My 1D Mark IV is superior to the Mark IIN. I am not really happy with the quality of the 7d but for what I do with it, which is, its used mostly for web shots and some print at small sizes, it does just fine. If I wanted to do fine art I certainly would not use the 7D.


JBF
Canon 7D, Canon 1D Mark IV, Canon 24-105L f/4, Canon 35L 1.4, Canon 200L f/2.8, Canon 70-200L II IS f/2.8, Canon 300L f/2.8IS, 580ex Flash, 430ex Flash, 1.4X Converter. Bunch of other crap! I want the new 500mmL and the 200L f/2.0

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,248 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 8
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Oct 22, 2010 18:11 |  #203

jwcdds wrote in post #11147023 (external link)
But with most film's inferior ISO/ASA, wouldn't one argue that all these years... professional photographers have been providing inferior products to their wedding clients? All the grain... the noise!

Again, just my opinion, but there is waaaaay too much focus on gear. I never once looked at my wedding album under magnifying glass. I'm sure the photographer could have provided me with a 40x60 print of great quality, but I'm not narcissistic, I'm not a celebrity, therefore, I don't need to know how much IQ "could have been" printed to fill my wall.

It is clear that "more-than-sufficient" is not good enough for you. That's your prerogative. But in that same sense, if that's the reasoning, then one should be shooting medium format, or at the very least shooting with the Nikon D3x over the 5D2/1DsIII. It's FF, it has more pixels, Nikon glass (maybe expensive) but for wedding, have quality glass as well. 14-24 is unmatched. They've come out with high quality primes. If nothing but the best, then in 35mm-equiv DSLR format, then at this moment, wouldn't the D3x be it and anything less being not the best?

(Whereas IMO, and much of others, 7D is sufficient. 1DsII is sufficient, 1DsIII/1DIV/5D2/5D/1DI​II/50D/40D/30D are all "sufficient".) I certainly wouldn't stop at 1DIV/5D2 and call them the best.

RE film, digital just didn't cut it until recently as somewhere around 2004. Some will argue over which body finally broke the film barrier but one thing is certain, the first DSLRs were quite inferior to film. I stuck with film until late 2004 when I bought my first DSLR.

RE sports, a small loss in IQ is acceptable to be able to track moving subjects. I've tried the 5D2 on birds in flight and the 5D2 just can't match the AF that the 7D has.

I consider myself fortunate not to have to rely on promoting myself as a pro. I have no desire to deal with people as a photographer. It seems I have to post this often, a lot of these threads seem to deteriorate into competitions among those who want to turn pro. As I said earlier this debate has been going on for thirty years that I have been involved in photography and I'm sure this won't be the last thread where it's hashed out. One thing is for certain, my opinion is set in stone as far as what is currently out there in 1.5/1.6/2x crop bodies. At some point this may change, I'm particularly interested in seeing how the new Sigma works out. I won't be buying one, I'm all in on Canon glass and I'm not switching systems again.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Oct 22, 2010 18:35 |  #204

K6AZ wrote in post #11147191 (external link)
RE sports, a small loss in IQ is acceptable to be able to track moving subjects. I've tried the 5D2 on birds in flight and the 5D2 just can't match the AF that the 7D has.

But that just means you have to work harder as a photographer, right?

I mean, it's not like people couldn't shoot birds in flight until the 1D and 7D came on the scene... :rolleyes:


If the small loss (your words) in IQ is acceptable to be able to track moving subjects better with a 7D than with a 5Dmk2, then why isn't that small loss similarly acceptable to be able to nail your focus nearly every time with every autofocus point when shooting a wedding, particularly if you're shooting it in "photojournalist" style where the demands on the autofocus system are likely to be greater?


And more to the point, why does that small loss in IQ make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable with respect to the resulting portrait and wedding shots? Is your claim that the customer will somehow see the difference when it's so small?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imjasonbassett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Oct 22, 2010 18:41 |  #205

Well you guys are beginning to get far into defending cameras and what not. So that's my que to exit.. but...

I will say this.. the wideness on FF cameras is awesome for me. The "reach" or whatever terminology doesn't cause a debate....... is great for sports & moving subjects. Sure, it can work both ways...

I stand side by side next to some of most known photographers.... and most of them swear by full frame for agencies and whatnot. And WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT.. SOME OF THE HIGHEST, reputable agencies will not cast a photographer that doesn't use full frame.

2 of which in Miami. Now .. yes.. some of them have no clue what that even means.. LOL.. but someone high up spoke greatness of the resolution and quality of FF. And that is what is in demand. But I even walked in with a rented 1D III.. and 2 guys next to me had medium format. And told me I had no chance.. and oddly I didn't get a gig.. but i surely had far better work.

You may not look under a microscope.. but in the "industry".. it happens. Now, not everywhere, but I also ran into the trouble of "too much noise" in a photo.. when I was going for that look. I even added more noise to resemble "film grain".. and I had to fix it to their liking for print.

You guys are speaking very much of weddings.. something I am getting into now, but only experienced 1. So maybe I'll know about that part, later.

Whatever ;) Back to the "friendly" debate of dick measuring.


www.jason-bassett.comexternal link
Tools: 5D mkii, 135L,
35L, 100mm Macro 2.8
sold HERE :) [I] (70-200 F4, 17-40, 85mm 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, Canon 135L, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 24-70L Einstein640, Kacey Dish + Grid, Cybersyncs, 5D classic)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,248 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 8
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Oct 22, 2010 18:49 |  #206

kcbrown wrote in post #11147285 (external link)
But that just means you have to work harder as a photographer, right?

I mean, it's not like people couldn't shoot birds in flight until the 1D and 7D came on the scene... :rolleyes:

If the small loss (your words) in IQ is acceptable to be able to track moving subjects better with a 7D than with a 5Dmk2, then why isn't that small loss similarly acceptable to be able to nail your focus nearly every time with every autofocus point when shooting a wedding, particularly if you're shooting it in "photojournalist" style where the demands on the autofocus system are likely to be greater?

And more to the point, why does that small loss in IQ make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable with respect to the resulting portrait and wedding shots? Is your claim that the customer will somehow see the difference when it's so small?

Because weddings are unique. They're one of the most important events in many people's lives and someone offering their services as a paid photographer should use the best equipment available if offering wedding services. Yes, this is my opinion and I'm just a cranky old goat who is quite stubborn. As I've stated many times now this debate won't end here but I'm already burned out on this episode. For those who believe the 7D is good enough for weddings they're entitled to their opinions as well.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Oct 22, 2010 18:57 |  #207

K6AZ wrote in post #11147339 (external link)
Because weddings are unique. They're one of the most important events in many people's lives and someone offering their services as a paid photographer should use the best equipment available if offering wedding services.

Ah, so you do agree that any self-respecting wedding photographer should ditch their 5Dmk2 and use a medium format camera instead, since the 5Dmk2 is not the best equipment available while the medium format camera is.

And if they can't do that, then at least they should ditch their 5Dmk2 for a Nikon D3x, since it is superior to the 5Dmk2.

Right?


Oh, and we haven't even talked about portraits yet...


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
34,264 posts
Gallery: 88 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4284
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Oct 22, 2010 19:01 |  #208

Okay, I used my daughter as an unwilling participant in a quick (wasn't so quick, at least not for her) test between the 7D and 5DII. I used my 70-200 2.8 and used the same settings on both, in exposure, picture style (portrait), both AWB, both center point w/expansion, and noise reduction (standard), I just changed the focal length to try to frame the same in each shot.

No post processing, direct results comparing the two. What I noticed are slight color and exposure differences though they were set the same. I used 1600, which the 5DII won't even break a sweat, but others seem to not like the noise on the 7D here, so it seemed to be a fair compromise.

You can see the DOF differences because of the longer FL on the 5D, which is neat, and also the smoother overall complexion of the 5DII. Probably the only 2 things that stand out to me anyways.

No post processing, first the overall scene, then crops...


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



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


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imjasonbassett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Oct 22, 2010 19:02 |  #209

kcbrown wrote in post #11147373 (external link)
Ah, so you do agree that any self-respecting wedding photographer should ditch their 5Dmk2 and use a medium format camera instead, since the 5Dmk2 is not the best equipment available while the medium format camera is.

And if they can't do that, then at least they should ditch their 5Dmk2 for a Nikon D3x, since it is superior to the 5Dmk2.

Right?


Well.. he said available. From what I understand from most medium formats.. There is a convenience factor of digital. Prices go way up due to time. Then you need a film scanner..... and the time/frame is tedious.
Then post work in Photoshop..

DSLR's provide (5D mkii vs medium format) image quality close to the MF in large print... and the advantage of lenses as well.

The beauty of film is worth it, but not practical for this setting.


www.jason-bassett.comexternal link
Tools: 5D mkii, 135L,
35L, 100mm Macro 2.8
sold HERE :) [I] (70-200 F4, 17-40, 85mm 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, Canon 135L, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 24-70L Einstein640, Kacey Dish + Grid, Cybersyncs, 5D classic)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
34,264 posts
Gallery: 88 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4284
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Oct 22, 2010 19:02 |  #210

Now the same post processing action I usually use on my lower ISO shots, ran on both. Again the color/exposure differences seem to cause a bigger impact on auto-level? The 5DII seems truer to life though, I will say, even though I used the same settings on both.


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



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


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

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

17,584 views & 0 likes for this thread
Buyers Remorse? Canon 7D
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
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 natt_ac121
678 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.