potn AUSSIE CLUB #2: mindless chatter from a land where women glow and men plunder

Alice: I love the IS and the reach of the 24-105L, but I do a fair bit of lowlight shooting so f2.8 is more useful for me than IS is.
I like the weight difference that the 24-105 has over the 24-70

yabbie wrote in post #5081199
Why do you guys want a 24-70 rather than a 24-105? I'm thinking about switching - but only thinking at the moment...pending some trials.

For me and what I shoot, I'd take f/2.8 over f/4 IS any day. I don't need the reach (that's what the 135 f/2's for) and IS at 24-70 range for what I shoot isn't really required.

What Luke said about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is right. If you're intending staying on crop... that lens is sensational.

tangcla wrote in post #5081031
I'm still hoping to get the 5D soon that's why I'm looking at the 24-70.

Why?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, but in bang-for-buck terms the x0D's are pretty much impossible to beat.

I once wanted to go full-frame, but when I sat down and weighed up the costs/benefits, it didn't make sense.

Eventually I hope to pick up a 5/6D with $10k worth of prime lenses, but until then there's nothing I could do on a 5D that I can't do just as well on a 30D ...

Worth thinking about IMO

linarms wrote in post #5081439
Why?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, but in bang-for-buck terms the x0D's are pretty much impossible to beat.

I once wanted to go full-frame, but when I sat down and weighed up the costs/benefits, it didn't make sense.

Eventually I hope to pick up a 5/6D with $10k worth of prime lenses, but until then there's nothing I could do on a 5D that I can't do just as well on a 30D ...

Worth thinking about IMO

I'd have to agree... Unless you are doing a lot of landscape work and need UWA, there's not a lot of reason to go FF. I also think the 5D is rather dated in terms of pixel density (although it does a good job of hiding it) and you'll only get the equivalent resolution of a 6.3MP crop camera out of it. I think you'd have to go to a 1DsMk2/Mk3 before you start getting more worth from FF.

Slim pickings from Saturday. Hopefully Chris will chime in with some extras soon

#1

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

linarms wrote in post #5081439
Why?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, but in bang-for-buck terms the x0D's are pretty much impossible to beat.

I once wanted to go full-frame, but when I sat down and weighed up the costs/benefits, it didn't make sense.

Eventually I hope to pick up a 5/6D with $10k worth of prime lenses, but until then there's nothing I could do on a 5D that I can't do just as well on a 30D ...

Worth thinking about IMO

I agree with the x0D series being better bang for buck... espsh with the release of the 40D.

For me, I just like having 35mm being 35mm and so on... and the slightly larger view finder at the time (went from a 30D)... and the DoF changing.

there's a few rambles here too : http://nslog.com …full_frame_vs_c​rop_sensor

photobitz wrote in post #5081758
I also think the 5D is rather dated in terms of pixel density (although it does a good job of hiding it) and you'll only get the equivalent resolution of a 6.3MP crop camera out of it. I think you'd have to go to a 1DsMk2/Mk3 before you start getting more worth from FF.

Not sure what you mean here?

Lower pixel density is better, as it increases the light collecting ability of each photosite. The 5D sensor is hard to beat and I hope they don't add too many more pixels to it in the next version.

wakko wrote in post #5081777
I agree with the x0D series being better bang for buck... espsh with the release of the 40D.

For me, I just like having 35mm being 35mm and so on... and the slightly larger view finder at the time (went from a 30D)... and the DoF changing.

there's a few rambles here too : http://nslog.com …full_frame_vs_c​rop_sensor

There are certainly benefits

You just can't get a crop equivalent of 24mm at f/1.4 ...

And the viewfinder is nice, for sure.

But ... is it worth the cost?

I shoot dual cameras professionally, and last time I did the maths, it wasn't. For me. But if I was shooting a lot of landscapes or REALLY REALLY wanted razor-thin DOF at wide angles, it would totally be worth it.

wakko wrote in post #5081777
I agree with the x0D series being better bang for buck... espsh with the release of the 40D.

For me, I just like having 35mm being 35mm and so on... and the slightly larger view finder at the time (went from a 30D)... and the DoF changing.

there's a few rambles here too : http://nslog.com …full_frame_vs_c​rop_sensor

Being built around a format comparable to 35mm has it's advantages I guess.

linarms wrote in post #5081794
Not sure what you mean here?

Lower pixel density is better, as it increases the light collecting ability of each photosite. The 5D sensor is hard to beat and I hope they don't add too many more pixels to it in the next version.

So you would rather have a 5D than a 1DsMk2?

All I mean is, if I am forking out $3500 for a current model FF body, I would rather it be able to resolve more detail than my $1000 3 year old crop body.

linarms wrote in post #5081794
Not sure what you mean here?

Lower pixel density is better, as it increases the light collecting ability of each photosite. The 5D sensor is hard to beat and I hope they don't add too many more pixels to it in the next version.

I predict 16mp... just 40D's sensor x1.6

linarms wrote in post #5081849
There are certainly benefits

You just can't get a crop equivalent of 24mm at f/1.4 ...

And the viewfinder is nice, for sure.

But ... is it worth the cost?

I shoot dual cameras professionally, and last time I did the maths, it wasn't. For me. But if I was shooting a lot of landscapes or REALLY REALLY wanted razor-thin DOF at wide angles, it would totally be worth it.

Well for me the cost was negligible as the 30D I had sold for $2400. Now, if it was 40D vs a new 5D, i'd most likely take a 40D due to the significant cost difference.

But again, that's debatable again due to the number of primes i have.

photobitz wrote in post #5081907
So you would rather have a 5D than a 1DsMk2?

All I mean is, if I am forking out $3500 for a current model FF body, I would rather it be able to resolve more detail than my $1000 3 year old crop body.

It really depends on whether or not you're cropping the middle out of your 5D image, doesn't it

I'm assuming that you're using a different focal length rather than cropping, in which case the 5D outresolves 8MP cameras easily.

In any case, the limiting factor these days is generally the lens rather than the sensor. I wish they'd stop adding pixels. I'd rather they take advantage of advances in noise control on larger pixels. The high-ISO results would be unbelievable.

And for the record, well-resolved 8MP images are more than enlargeable enough for my liking

linarms wrote in post #5081439
Why?

I know, but the bokeh that the fullframe sensor can offer at the same lens and aperture, it's just completely different...

tangcla wrote in post #5082005
I know, but the bokeh that the fullframe sensor can offer at the same lens and aperture, it's just completely different...

Just making sure you weren't planning to go that way just because you could.

I sure hope you take advantage of that bokeh

tangcla wrote in post #5082005
I know, but the bokeh that the fullframe sensor can offer at the same lens and aperture, it's just completely different...

yeah that's the DoF thing... but yeah.... depends what you shoot really

linarms wrote in post #5082000
It really depends on whether or not you're cropping the middle out of your 5D image, doesn't it

I'm assuming that you're using a different focal length rather than cropping, in which case the 5D outresolves 8MP cameras easily.

In any case, the limiting factor these days is generally the lens rather than the sensor. I wish they'd stop adding pixels. I'd rather they take advantage of advances in noise control on larger pixels. The high-ISO results would be unbelievable.

And for the record, well-resolved 8MP images are more than enlargeable enough for my liking

Actually I was referring to cropping, but you're right, there's no reason a 5D won't measure up compared to any newer body. I've had some portraits done in 12"x16" prints that came from a 5D and they are excellent. To be honest, I still give my 10D quite a lot of use (and get excellent images from it too) even though it is considered a bit of a dinosaur. So, I'm not saying that the 5D is not a good camera. I just don't think it is worth the extra cost (new).

Hopefully the price of a second-hand 5D will drop after they bring out the next model. Then everyone can have FF on standby.