5DII has this fellow longing for his XSI

Please excuse me if it's been posted before, but here is an interesting take on one person's jump into full frame:

http://www.extremeinst​ability.com/topic-full-frame.htm
"I can get better images from a rebel XSi and my 10-22 EF-s!"


Found it while searching 17-40 'crop vs. full frame comparison'. Thinking about upgrading to a 5DII myself (from a 350d :!. For what it's worth, I don't think his listed gripes would bother me.

Anyway I'm dying to hear what y'all's take is on this.

id hang back a bit and see if the 5D3 comes out at a good price,

and also keep the 350 as a back up camera.

I just bought a 5DII and I have no regrets. My 17-40 is actually sharper on my 5D than on my T1i. As for crop vs ff...I am keeping my T1i to have the best of both worlds

meh. To each their own.... full fame isn't for everyone... it depends on what you shoot... I shoot a lot of sports, so fast AF is king for me... I can't say I have much of a desire to go to full frame... I'd like the high I noise handling... but... wouldn't we all? If we could have noise free images at 12,600 ISO, we'd still want more....

Exactly. For me this just shows how wildly different our priorities can be. For me I know a 5D is where I want to be. And I'm definitely keeping my 350D until it croaks! Still a capable little guy.

gorby wrote in post #13002957
Please excuse me if it's been posted before, but here is an interesting take on one person's jump into full frame:

http://www.extremeinst​ability.com/topic-full-frame.htm
"I can get better images from a rebel XSi and my 10-22 EF-s!"


Found it while searching 17-40 'crop vs. full frame comparison'. Thinking about upgrading to a 5DII myself (from a 350d :!. For what it's worth, I don't think his listed gripes would bother me.

Anyway I'm dying to hear what y'all's take is on this.

you will find any and all opinions on the internet!
I would gladly trade my XSi for a 5DmkII any day

I shot 35mm for years, and am now a happy owner of a 23mm sensored T2i. Why? Because when shooting 35mm I usually tended to crop the photo's anyway. The APS-C crops it for me automatically.

I like it that way. Aboslutely no reason for me to go back to 35mm at this point and time.

David

Thank you for showing me this link, now I know to avoid anything ever written by that person.

It makes sense for his particular situation, others will need the low light option that a ff gives (weddings being 1 example) yet others need the reach of a crop (birds, animals etc) so everyone should get the tools that fit their needs and not because someone else says its great.

Originally I read the OP's post, but didn't have time to read the information found on the link. I've now gone back and read page provided by the link.

I believe this person has the same legitimate gripes about 35mm (Full Frame) that people have been having for years; image sharpness through the entire frame while wide open as well as vignetting. Yes, one can stop down once or twice, but then one gains DOF which tends to be the opposite of what some photographers want.

Best Regards,

David

Unclear on the concept - the logic of blaming a FF 5D2 ( $2500 camera) for the weaknesses of his (copy of the) 17-40L (an $800 lens). With a 24L II, or a Zeiss Distagon 21, the story might be a bit different

The crop cameras and lenses have generally yielded significant better bang for the buck. That's what the author of that article discovered the hard way.

But sometimes, there's no substitute for full frame. If you really need the shallow depth of field it can give you, then full frame becomes a necessity. If you really need the high ISO performance now and are willing to use a shallower depth of field to get it, then full frame is the way to go.

But if you don't need either of those things specifically, then a crop camera will work for you just fine, and will even bring its own set of advantages to the table (autofocus system which covers a larger portion of the frame, the possibility of using lighter lenses to achieve the same or better telephoto performance, etc.).


Bottom line: always choose the right tool for the job. As technology advances, that tool is, increasingly, the crop camera. It will never equal the potential of full frame for certain things, namely depth of field, resolution, and high ISO capability, but as technology improves, the difference in the latter two will become increasingly irrelevant (one need only print so large, and one generally need only go so high in ISO).

The guy is an idiot...

1. He complains of some optical vignetting, some of which happens a lot with wide lenses in particular, and especially zooms. This is nothing new and not related to the camera at all. Okay, it might be made a little more obvious by a digital camera, than with film in the past. But there have been "center spot" filters available to correct this on film for decades, very pricey. A 58mm Hasselblad Center Spot will set you back $500 for example.

But you don't need to go to that expense with 5DII. The camera has peripheral illumination correction to help with optical vignetting. I doubt the writer of that article ever discovered that feature on the camera. That involves reading the user manual or other learning resources, and actually wanting to know how your gear to it's full potential.

2. He complains of corner/edge softness. Well, you know, when you blow up an image from a 5DII to 100%, that's equivalent to about 5 feet wide. That might be fine if you were looking at the image as a print, hanging on a wall, from a "normal"viewing distance of 5 or ten feet away. But when you are sitting 18" from it, staring at your computer monitor, you'll see every little flaw. I'd also question his particular copy of the 17-40L... But realistically it is the cheapest wide L available... And it is a zoom. Wouldn't be surprised if he had a $25 UV filter on it, to protect it from air touching the front element, or something like that. And did he use the hyperfocal distance to take those shots he shows as examples?

Anyway, anytime you are working with new gear you have to spend some time learning it's optimal settings and uses, if you want to get the very best out of it. Chances are he'd have probably gotten better results if he'd backed up a few paces and used a less wide setting on the lens, which looks to have been easily possible to do in the example images. Or just get a smaller format camera that crops off the edges and corners of the images (the 10-22 and several other crop specific lenses are pretty amazing... he's holding the FF camera and lens to pretty high standards!).

The problem with the Internet is that anyone can "publish" their thoughts, even when they are ill conceived and idiotic. This is a good example of that. Not that the 5DII is a "prefect" camera... it's not. But blaming a camera for the inherent faults of the lens and/or how you're using it is just plain dumb.

I've updated from a Rebel XT to the 5D Mark II. You certainly will NOT be disappointed. My problem is I had a 10-20mm Sigma that I could not use with the 5D Mark II so I ended up buying a 40D (I couldn't use that Rebel XT anymore because of it's inabilities at the higher ISO levels and the 1.8 LCD screen).

You don't have as many crop lenses as I have so you may not miss the crop lenses as I did. You've got a pretty good start there with the L series glass. You'll love them even more with the 5D Mark II.

As for the link, I also believe that this guy just popped the lenses on and didn't use the camera to it's fullest ability which is a shame because the photos he took would have come out much nicer if he had played around with the settings a bit.

Why bother arguing? I've learned from justifying my purchases and questioning other people's purchases... it gets everyone nowhere.