5d mark II vs 20d?

Hey friends,

I'm making a video about the importance of good lenses and lighting over amazing camera bodies.

Photo one was shot with a 5d Mark2 and a 16-35 2.8L II

And photo two was shot with a $350 20d with the 18-55 (non is) kit lens...
But this time with a $600 alien bee lighting rig.

$4500 camera and lens vs $950 of crap we found on craigslist for our video.

Would you have been able to tell?

5dii and 16-35L:

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

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

I'll link to the video when its up

Wow just think of all the money your going to save people.........

RianFlynn wrote in post #8210880
Hey friends,

I'm making a video about the importance of good lenses and lighting over amazing camera bodies.

Photo one was shot with a 5d Mark2 and a 16-35 2.8L II

And photo two was shot with a $350 20d with the 18-55 (non is) kit lens...
But this time with a $600 alien bee lighting rig.

$4500 camera and lens vs $950 of crap we found on craigslist for our video.

Would you have been able to tell?

5dii and 16-35L:

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

20d + kit lens:

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

This doesn't prove anything. Your demonstration is pointless.

It's a test done in good will, rian, but these cameras aren't just meant for studio work, remember! That said investing in good light comes before investing in good gear;

"beginners worry about skill, pros worry about gear, masters worry about light"

5D mark II vs the 20D wins no contest for us nature photographers. Good light is prime, though, for any shooting scenario. You can shoot a thousand dollar shot with a powershot sx100 (I have) if the light is just right. A combination of good skill, good gear and good light = master photographs.

IMHO this states that cameras aren't that important. It's the skill of the photographer that gives the wow-effect to a photo

Karl Johnston wrote in post #8210944
It's a test done in good will, rian, but these cameras aren't just meant for studio work, remember! That said investing in good light comes before investing in good gear;

"beginners worry about skill, pros worry about gear, masters worry about light"

5D mark II vs the 20D wins no contest for us nature photographers. Good light is prime, though, for any shooting scenario. You can shoot a thousand dollar shot with a powershot sx100 (I have) if the light is just right. A combination of good skill, good gear and good light = master photographs.

Yeah this video is made for portait photographers. If i were a nature guy I would have put a $900 70-200 2.8L on a 20d and a $80 55-200 5.6 on a 50d.

the people that will be watching this video are people who are interested in portraiture

Suedezu wrote in post #8210935
This doesn't prove anything. Your demonstration is pointless.

It shows that a $350 camera can keep up with a $4500 camera if you have about $600 in lighting. The fact that its even close is unreal to me.

Ha ha well lets blow those babies up to 100%. Not a very straight test. Compare the two cameras in a straight shoot out, same light. Just a joke not interested in such a test. Of course I shot images with my 10D years ago that is mindblowing(to me anyway) but to try and compare it with my 1D III would be a joke. There is just no comparison. IQ, high ISO usability, write speed, buffer and a zillion other little things that has improved in leaps and bounds over the years.
Try another test for your movie, put the two cameras on a table and let a thousand photographers walk past the table and choose which camera they prefer. See if you get one hit on the 20D.
edit; oh you could use the 5D II to make the movie if the quality on your handycam is not good enough

Goshawk wrote in post #8210970
Try another test for your movie, put the two cameras on a table and let a thousand photographers walk past the table and choose which camera they prefer. See if you get one hit on the 20D.

Yeah... i would prefer a $4500 camera over a $350 camera. DUH!!!


Which one should a beginner interested in portraiture buy? My point is that you can get awesome results without breaking the bank

Rian

RianFlynn wrote in post #8210964
Yeah this video is made for portait photographers. If i were a nature guy I would have put a $900 70-200 2.8L on a 20d and a $80 55-200 5.6 on a 50d.

the people that will be watching this video are people who are interested in portraiture

I gotcha! In that case you're 100% right and I agree with you.

Skill
Gear
Light
=
the recipie to a Good photo. In that order...can't shoot if you dont have any skill or knowledge...cant shoot if you dont have any gear...cant shoot if you dont have any light !

Hand in hand they compliment each other

But you're right...bare 5Dmark II vs a 20D with some filters and lights = better shots, in theory...if you know what you're doing.

100% crop from the 20d

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

I think the point is not that 20D is better or equal to 5D II, rather what a good light can do to your photo and i cenrtainly agree to that although I will still prefer to use my 5D (classic) with good lighting than my 20D.

Yes I know I think we all taking this with light humor.

RianFlynn wrote in post #8210973
Yeah... i would prefer a $4500 camera over a $350 camera. DUH!!!


Which one should a beginner interested in portraiture buy? My point is that you can get awesome results without breaking the bank

Rian

Easy with the DUH, all in light humor friend.
Even if they both cost the same
I think not