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 20 Nov 2010 (Saturday) 19:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

tell me the truth

 
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,774 posts
Gallery: 246 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 843
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
Nov 21, 2010 08:23 |  #16

Delija wrote in post #11320348 (external link)
The idea is to learn photography - it's never about the equipment, it's about experience and knowledge. Which are not for sale.

It's "never" about the equipment? No, that's just wrong, otherwise you'd be shooting with the toy camera that you got as a kid for redeeming UPCs from Cracker-Jack boxes. It is MOSTLY the person behind the camera, but the equipment plays a significant role.

Also, replacing one dSLR with another FF dSLR will not negatively impact experience or knowledge, it actually opens the door for more varied experience and knowledge, so I don't know how you can use that argument to sway someone.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sorarse
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Kent, UK
     
Nov 21, 2010 09:02 |  #17

To the OP and his original question. I moved from a 40D to a 5DII, but kept the 40D as a backup. Since owning the 5DII I haven't used the 40D at all, and that includes a trip to Valencia to watch the final MotoGP of the season, a genre of photography that the 5D is supposedly weak in.


At the beginning of time there was absolutely nothing. And then it exploded! Terry Pratchett

http://www.scarecrowim​ages.com (external link)
Canon PowerShot G2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShadowCaver
Senior Member
Avatar
278 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: NE Hoosieranna, MO Ozarks
     
Nov 21, 2010 10:20 |  #18

I'm no expert, just a goofy fella w/ a 50D, who also has some thoughts of "some day" having a FF body,,, so have also been reading, learning, trying to understand what the extra $$$ of a FF brings to the table - for me and my needs. And a lol - reminds me of years past when I shot 35mm, played in a darkroom, and also had thoughts of "some day" getting a something like a Mamiya RZ67, etc. So hopefully someone w/ more knowledge will correct me if any of the following is inaccurate / misleading.

One difference is the DoF [depth of focus] - the 7D (for example) can achieve a greater DoF, when compared to a FF, such as a 5D MarkII, for a given same FoV [field of view].

But conversely, if not at the same FoV, and still using these two camera bodies in an example, with the 5D, and using a 50mm f/2.8 and you're 10 feet away from your subject, the resulting DoF will be between 9.08' & 11.1', giving a clear focus of 2.06'.

Grabbing the 7D, and again using a 50mm f/2.8 from same distance (10') your DoF would be between 9.39' & 10.7' for focus of 1.29 ft. Therefore more shallow... which could be good or not so good,,, depending upon your desires / needs.

In addition though, and maybe much more important, the FoV is now cropped (some say magnified, or enlarged,,, which honestly IMHO is malarky), and the image appears as if shot with a 80mm lens.

So now lets say there is the desire to achieve the same framing as a 50mm on a FF, then you'd have two choices on your 7D - either one being a potential compromise:
a) Move further away from your subject, which will give an extra depth of focus of 1.3'... good or bad? Your decision.
b) Change optics on the 7D, use a wider lens, which in this example would be a 31mm lens which however now will provide an increase in the DoF... again, good or bad?

So, nutshelling all this - factor in what is more critical for your style + needs, and if the costs to achieve what you desire are worth the dent in your wallet, plus the extra size, weight, etc.

Also worth noting from http://www.the-digital-picture.com (external link)
Model FOVCF Sensor Pixel Size Pixels/Megapixels Viewfinder DLA
Canon EOS 7D 1.6x 22.3x14.9mm 4.​3µm 5184x3456 18.0 1.0x 100% f/6.8
Canon EOS 5D Mark II 1.0x 36.0x24.0mm 6.​4µm 5616x3744 21.1 .71x 98% f/10.3

Lastly, check out the following info here: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …al-camera-sensor-size.htm (external link)


50D | 70-200 f4 L IS | 100 f2.8 L IS | Tokina 11-16 AT-X Pro | 17-55 | B&W 67mm CPL
 iMac |  MacBook

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joe1946
Member
46 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Millstone,NJ
     
Nov 21, 2010 10:28 |  #19

Delija wrote in post #11320348 (external link)
Not sure what this means.

Most people learned arithmetic in grade school. 1.6 x X= Y

Do you need to have the effective focal length printed on the lens to know how it will "act"?

Besides, film cameras are all "full frame"....anyone who has never used a film camera and therefore doesn't know what a particular focal length will look like on 35mm film (same as a full frame sensor) compared to a crop sensor camera is (IMO) a beginner - and should probably buy a used cheap film camera and shoot film at least for a while...for countless reasons - rather than jump to a full frame digital.

The idea is to learn photography - it's never about the equipment, it's about experience and knowledge. Which are not for sale.

Peace,
D.

Is my 6x7 Pentax film camera a full frame ? :lol:
http://www.pbase.com/c​ameras/pentax/67_ii (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Nov 21, 2010 11:03 |  #20

twoshadows wrote in post #11320681 (external link)
"Superior" is very subjective. It's a different camera with different capabilities. But the truth is, if you don't know why you need/want a 5DmkII then maybe you don't need it.

I would go along with that.

The IQ difference (in strict technical quality) isn't a huge jump, however FF allows for shallower DoF and that can bring in a pretty large aesthetic advantage, if you are shooting for subject seperation etc.

I started with a 20D, then added a 5D a year later. More recently, I replaced the 20D with a 40D. For me, having a crop and a FF isn't about differences in IQ (such as noise etc) it is more about having two very different cameras which excel in different fields.

Yes, the 5D has a little better IQ than the 40D, but that is not the big issue (I have never considered the 40D to be producing low quality, so I am happy with that aspect in either camera). The issue is that for portraiture etc (particularly on location) or for nature shots where you want to pick something out from the background, then FF makes a big difference in lifting the subject out. So, the 5D is my goto camera for all such shooting and produces a much more aesthetically pleasing result.

However, when shooting action or birds, the situation is reversed. The 40D becomes the goto body due to the better AF, higher frame rate, greater pixel density giving extra reach (good for birding), etc.

I wouldn't be without either, and (unless the tech changes the advantages around) will eventually replace them with a 7D and 5D mk.II

At the end of the day, the image is about the photographers ability and the aesthetics, not some slight difference in technical quality. You can get great images with either camera, but each will make life easier for you in certain fields. For true greatness, you need to know how to get the best from your tools, but also have the right tool for the job.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tomme
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Norway
     
Nov 21, 2010 11:46 as a reply to  @ sandpiper's post |  #21

I sold my 50D to buy a used 5D ( not the mk2 ) and I do NOT regret It ( love the viewfinder on the FF ) :lol:


Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
V-Wiz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,255 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
     
Nov 21, 2010 12:55 |  #22

I went from a T1I to a 5d mkII. It was a huge difference in IQ


Gripped 5D Mark II l 24-105 F/4 L l 70-200 F/4 L l Tokina 12-24 F4 l 50mm 1.8 l Sigma 600 Mirror l B+W KSM CPL l B+W 6stop ND filter l Hitech 0.6 GND l YN-468 Flash l Kenko Pro 300 1.4 TC l Induro Tripod, Vanguard 250 Ballhead.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XFaega
Member
Avatar
168 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
     
Nov 21, 2010 13:02 |  #23

Do this ask your friend to let you barrow his 5D MK II for a day and see how you like it. I think the best way to tell if you like the item is to have a hands on experience. We all can give you our options but it all comes down to you. I went from a 40D to the 5D MK II for the FF. And I'm glad I made the jump. I didn't ask anyone if I should get the 5D MK II. I had a chance to buy the 1D MK IV but the 5D MK II was just as good in IQ for far less in price and got the FF feature the 1D MK IV didn't have. Not anyway go out and try it before you buy it. But I can say is you won't regret it. Good luck.


Canon EOS 5D MK II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 87
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Nov 21, 2010 13:03 |  #24

Tough call... depends upon what you need to shoot most.

For sports and birds in flight, the 40D will out perform the 5DII. Mostly you will have a lot more missed focus with 5DII, whenever trying to track and shoot moving targets. The faster they are moving, the more problems you'll have.

For scenics and relatively tame birds on branches, the 5DII's image quality will blow away the 40D.

As noted, full frame allows you to maximize control over depth of field, there is about a stop shallower DOF with FF, compared to 1.6X.

High ISO performance is sort of subjective. 5DII will do up to ISO 6400 usably, IMO. 40D I'd likely try to keep to ISO 1600 or lower (same with 50D, now with 7D/60D I'd use up to 3200).

I use 1.6X croppers (currently a pair of 7D most of the time) along with full frame (5DII). That maximizes the usefulness of my lens kit and covers the different situations I need to shoot. I used 5DII alongside 50D for a while... The subtle differences between control layout always worried me, but I survived. Control layout of 7D and 5DII is more similar, altho the 7D has a few more buttons.

Once shooting and working with them, 40D/50D and 5DII are actually more similar. AF display/features and menus are nearly identical (except that 5DII AF is slow by comparison). Different batteries and chargers are a bit of a minor thing when using these particular models together.

Oh, and 5DII will fill up memory cards and hard drives a whole heckuva lot faster than 40D!


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spamster
Senior Member
Avatar
914 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 25
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Nov 21, 2010 13:09 |  #25

I have a 5D Mark 2 and 7D. If I find a good shot that doesn't require the reach. I put down the 7D, take off the lens, put it on the 5D and take the exact picture on FF instead. I went from a 400D (XTi) to 5D Classic and found it to be the best decision. I love FF to death, but that's also because I love portaiture. Love FF, just love it.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XFaega
Member
Avatar
168 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
     
Nov 21, 2010 15:39 |  #26

amfoto1 wrote in post #11321866 (external link)
Oh, and 5DII will fill up memory cards and hard drives a whole heckuva lot faster than 40D!

I think that's why the 5D MK II and rest of the cameras has the option to change the size of file you want to use. So that has no relavents.


Canon EOS 5D MK II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
philwillmedia
Cream of the Crop
5,253 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Nov 2008
Location: "...just south of the 23rd Paralell..."
     
Nov 21, 2010 15:59 |  #27

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Well, after 26 posts, someone had to do it.

Apologies to Jack Nicholson


Regards, Phil
2019 South Australian Country Press Assoc Sports Photo of the Year - Runner Up
2018 South Australian Country Press Assoc Sports Photo of the Year
2018 CAMS (now Motorsport Australia) Gold Accredited Photographer
Finallist - 2014 NT Media Awards
"A bad day at the race track is better than a good day in the office"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Delija
Goldmember
Avatar
1,095 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 21, 2010 16:55 |  #28

[QUOTE=anthony11;11320​729]SLR's mostly are, but not all [/quote}
Sorry - I meant 35mm SLRs.

anthony11 wrote in post #11320729 (external link)
That's a bad idea. Developing and printing is expensive, and you have neither quick feedback nor EXIF data in the print to remind you when you get it at what FL it was shot.

A "bad idea"? Yes, developing and printing cost money (I wouldn't necessarily say "expensive") maybe a worthwhile investment to get people to slow down and do things right. And if using black and white, not "expensive" at all...and black and white is IMO the best way to develop technique using light and shadow.

Using film pretty much forces photo students while developing camera skills to slow down and really think about composition and exposure and the use of light and shadow. They won't just use a "shotgun" approach and take 100 pictures in the hopes of getting one decent one. A monkey can do that.

Exif data? The ISO/ASA is going to be the same for each roll of film, so the photographer will know that. If it's important to keep track of shutter speed and aperture for every frame, frame numbers have been on cameras for more than the last 100 years. Before they had mechanical counters like EVERY SLR, they had little windows that showed the frame number on the film's paper backing. Add that to the use of a pencil and paper and there you have it. All the information you can possibly need. And really more if you add in readings from a light meter, the angle of the sun, what kind of filter may have been used, etc., etc. Elements that EXIF never shows.

Shooting film is a slower and more deliberate way of taking photos. Does that help develop technique? I think it does, you may feel differently. We are both entitled to our opinions. But I won't say "bad idea"...I'll just say I feel the way I do and explain why, which is what I tried to do. I think the EXIF argument should be over.

It was a suggestion. I realize that for a lot of younger people its very likely that they may never have used film (SLR as I originally meant, but thinking about it now - possibly ANY film at all).

Point and shoot digital cameras have been common and at least somewhat affordable for about 10 years. So a 20 year old who picked up his or her dad's then new 2mp digital camera at age 10 or a 15 year old who started at 5 could easily have never used any kind of film camera. Younger kids may not have even ever seen a film camera up close and possibly never will.

Top film schools like USC, UCLA, Northwestern, Miami, Texas, and every Ivy League school all teach using film - for several reasons. Some of which I refereed to, also the great majority motion pictures are still shot with film -

You don't need to argue with me - it's just how it is.

Arguing and telling me something is a "bad idea' is constructive how? I thought these forums were meant for -the exchange of information as well as opinions and ideas and meant to be helpful, not confrontational.

Feel free to disagree, but to tell me I'm wrong and what I said is a "bad idea"? LOL You want to argue, do it with your friends or with people who you know or know about. That would certainly not include me.

I have a degree from one of the above mentioned film schools with graduate work in journalism that included photo-journalism courses at the very largest of the Ivy League programs. I also worked in the industry for over 40 years. I'm sure that to many their knee-jerk reaction will be that I am a "dinosaur" and behind the times.

I guess that's true - I haven't worked on a motion picture since last June, so maybe the world has changed dramatically since then. But if that's the case then people are spending over $40K at some of the (private) schools I mentioned each year to learn obsolete technology. :) My parents got off a lot cheaper when a college education was a lot more affordable..not me though - my daughter graduated from Northwestern in 2007 with a degree in journalism - my average cost over the four years was $46K per year plus travel. But she got a job offer with ESPN before she even graduated and now makes enough money that it was a very good investment.

anthony11 wrote in post #11320729 (external link)
Okay, let's see you use my G6, where ISO 400 is unusable, to acceptably freeze my 2 old's indoor antics. Heck, this afternoon at the playground I even had to go to ISO 3200 to get acceptable SS with my 24-105. Let's see your ego manage that with a G6. Really. I want to see you do it.

No idea what you are even talking about.

First off.....I'll say it again. I MEANT TO SAY 35MM SLR FILM CAMERAS!!!!

But that being said, I don't know a thing about the G6 - is 24-105 what the 35mm focal length equivalent is on that camera? Are you even talking about a Canon G series camera or something else? If it's a Canon "G", then isn't that a digital camera? (I really don't know) -if it is, I don't even understand your question, let alone you "challenge" ???????

I have never used a film camera with a smaller than 35mm format. As a little kid I remember having a cheap twin lens reflex camera, but it was a manual camera - and it took 120 film which was the standard for small cameras (the film all Kodak Brownies used for over 60 years)..IIRC, the film was 56mm in height and larger in width depending on the aspect ration of the camera and lens. Since the pictures I still have are square, I'd say the negatives were 56x56mm -

I have however used larger more modern medium format film cameras..still have a old Hasselblad 500c I got for my college graduation gift from my dad (who was a photographer)... and just sold my SpeedGraphic 4x5 less than a month ago...I used large format (8x10) film cameras in my very first job out of college and guess what? A 135mm lens on a 500C camera is not long enough (for my style of shooting) to be used as an effective portrait lens. A 135mm lens on a large format camera would be a wide lens. So does it matter what is printed on the camera lens? Having a "full frame" camera like a 5D doesn't mean that a 50mm lens will look like a 50mm lens SHOULD look, it just means it will look how a 50mm lens will look on a 35 (36)mm sensor (or a frame of 35mm film). It is no more or less "right or wrong" on an APS-C or APS-H or a medium format film or digital camera or a large format film camera (which are still used every single day for product photography) - nothing is "right or wrong"...just different.

If you want to think this is about "ego", fine...I'm not the one here challenging anyone or telling anyone what can and can't be done with a particular camera. If you want to debate the use of studio lighting or how to best use natural light, then fine - I'll go back and forth with you on that all you want since it's what I know about and got paid to know about. But I have no friggin' idea what a G6 is let along what it can do. What would make you think I would? And what would that have to do with my statements that using a film camera can be a useful teaching/learning tool or that the focal length of a lens doesn't mean jack as far as being meant to be "proper" only for what YOU consider a "full frame" camera?
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:


Wow, what a nice picture! You must have a really great camera!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
7,082 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3283
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Between the palms and the pines.
     
Nov 21, 2010 17:04 |  #29

I never shot with a 35mm slr, only 1.7x, 1.6x, 1.3x and FF Dslrs. Never took a class in photography. I've been shooting for 7 years and teaching for 1. Digital is the new, great teacher and it doesn't take film to slow someone down so they're doing it right.


xgender.net (external link) Miss Julia Grey (she/her/Miss)
OST, API, PPP & MLI explained (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Delija
Goldmember
Avatar
1,095 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 21, 2010 18:32 |  #30

twoshadows wrote in post #11322960 (external link)
I never shot with a 35mm slr, only 1.7x, 1.6x, 1.3x and FF Dslrs. Never took a class in photography. I've been shooting for 7 years and teaching for 1. Digital is the new, great teacher and it doesn't take film to slow someone down so they're doing it right.

OK....can you explain WHY "digital is the new great teacher"?

I agree it does not require film to slow someone down so they are doing it right...but human nature being what it is, it is more likely than using digital.

I'm impressed that anyone can have never used a 35mm film SLR and somehow KNOW that a dSLR is a superior teaching tool.

I don't doubt that you are the DaVinci or Einstein of photography who is self taught and can teach without a formal education. But your you lose credibility by making a statement of fact based on an opinion with no personal experience to substantiate your claim.

If you can't see the absurdity of making a such a claim, I don't know what to say. You may as well tell us that while you have never tasted ice cream, it is a superior desert compared to cake.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can I ask how old you are? (and get an honest answer)

D.


Wow, what a nice picture! You must have a really great camera!

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

6,277 views & 0 likes for this thread
tell me the truth
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 irishrover61
754 guests, 227 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.