New Canon full frame?

[D.P.]

which is my point if u bothered reading ie the f4 lens acts just like a f2,8 lens.

You dont lose anything going from a 17-55f2.8 on a crop, to a 24-105L f4 on FF.

^^^
I think DP's point is that you spend allot more, but don't actually gain anything (noteworthy) with that setup.

yes, I think we all agree here. You don't gain much moving from a crop with good fast glass to a FF with slower glass.

You have to look at the inverse, a 24-70 2.8 on FF would need a 16-55mm f/1.8 to give the same DoF and low light performance. Well you can buy a 50mm f/1.8 prime fine, but not as flexible, at the wide end there is nothing out there.

 

[jonneymendoza]

i doubt many sports togs use a 5d2 for two reasons. AF and fps.

i see many use what looks like 1d/Dx pro bodies

 

[James J]

What an utterly retarded argument. The 1DX makes a D700 look like a toy in comparison, yet is anyone with a braincell daft enough to call it archaic because a new state of the art camera is better? The people ****ging off the 5D line (primarily mk ii) haven't even used them and tend to live on the internet reading reviews on websites that try and make out that the differences between two completely different systems make life and death changes to images.

Newsflash, they don't. A good photographer can make even a crap camera look good and produce stunning images and thats known simply as experience.

 

[Ksanti]

Fair enough, and many photojournalists and agencies may have been simply backing up 1D stocks, but that still doesn't change the fact that I can't think of a single D700 portrait shooter (Pretty sure Brenizer shoots a D3/s/4, doesn't he?) and it's not like I only follow the work of Canon shooters as a point.

 

[An Exception]

I on the other hand don't see why people keep knocking a camera that is 3 years old with an AF that is 6 years old, and a camera I bet none of you have ever used for a paid gig, ever.

May be I should start knocking how rubbish the D2N is.

Objectiveness, logic & reason are all qualities that make a worthwhile discussion, unfortunately I'm actually surprised to see your posts contain little of it. At first I thought it was intentional, now I'm unsure, I guess I just expected more.

I'm not familiar with D2N, likely it is rubbish, tbh prior to the D3 there would be no way I would even consider Nikon. Even until relatively recently Nikon's lens line-up was weak in comparison. Things obviously began to change for the better.

Why am I not talking about D2N or any other old Nikon camera?

Because my reply was to a poster considering his options between 7D 5D etc.

DP has already covered the remaining holes in your logic, so I won't elaborate further.

 

[James J]

Not many photo journalists make such a simple choice - often the camera is not theirs to begin with, many other factors come into play. The cameras are often the agencies, the agency may not have the budget for 1DsMK3, the agency may have had a large amount of Canon lenses so a swap to a D700 was not feasible, they may have had a special deal direct with Canon to get discounts. Same applies to solo photogs, for whatever reason they might be hevily invested in Canon glass so the swap to nikon may not have made sense, maybe they could not afford to upgrade to the 1Dsmkiii. One of the big issues in swapping systems is not just the cost but the knowledge of the system and the natural ability to find and operate all controls and menus - a pro photo cannot be fiddling lost on a new camera's control so they stick with what they know.


I have used the 5DMK2 plenty of times, the AF and metering were plain bad. For my landscape work it would have been a nice camera to own for me, disappointing that the AF was worse than my lowly D90. I actually looked at switching to Canon and a 5DMKII a few years ago before I was too invested in Nikon, decided to wait on rumours of a Nikon D700 and glad I waited. Then decided to purchase more glass rather than going FF without the lenses I needed.

With what glass? If you put a crap lens on the 5D mk ii it brings out the worse in the autofocus and a good lens makes it perfectly useable without issues. Takes skill to use it, not a two minute dabble in a shop.

 

[Ksanti]

With what glass? If you put a crap lens on the 5D mk ii it brings out the worse in the autofocus and a good lens makes it perfectly useable without issues. Takes skill to use it, not a two minute dabble in a shop.

Call the 85L a crap lens? It depends a lot on the lens, yes, but it's not down to whether the lens itself is good or not. The 135L autofocuses very well on the 5D, as does the 70-200 from the brief play I had with one, but the fast Canon primes, which are a lot of the appeal to their system, do end up highlighting the weak points of the 5D2 AF.

 

[James J]

Sigh we should all just agree to disagree to be honest. Theres no arguing with some people and I'm not a fan of ignorance either.

Its quite clear that theres a divide on here thats as bad as the graphics card forum with people who will blindly defend their purchases due to the amount of money they cost. Too few of us are actually objective and used BOTH systems properly, so the arguing is utterly pointless as its just linking reviews and videos from people who try and justify their opinions with other peoples :S

I'm out anyway. Sad to see the forum in this state -.-

 

[James J]

Call the 85L a crap lens? It depends a lot on the lens, yes, but it's not down to whether the lens itself is good or not. The 135L autofocuses very well on the 5D, as does the 70-200 from the brief play I had with one, but the fast Canon primes, which are a lot of the appeal to their system, do end up highlighting the weak points of the 5D2 AF.

85L is a slow lens, not a crap lens Also rightfully slow as F1.2 having accurate focus requires a far more accurate algorithm compared to F1.4 and above! Theres a few low end lenses (especially macro!) that are awful in low light on a 5D mk ii, yet they also don't improve on other bodies either due to just the lens being turd in that sort of conditions.

The sigma 105mm F2.8 is a good example of what I mean.

 

[Ksanti]

Edit: looks like you were talking to someone else xD

To be fair the 1.2 /could/ be a lot faster at focusing than it is. Yes it's a lot of glass and yes it has to be very accurate, but the tech is around for an 85 1.2 to focus a lot faster than the current one does.

 

[D.P.]

It's only been provoked by An Exception's recent vendetta against it. We've all been comfortable saying the AF is the main weakpoint of the 5D2, but it's not a dealbreaker for 99% given the lenses it allows the use of, its resolution, and its video performance.

That's not the same logic at all. The point I was making is that plenty of professional photographers make their living with the 5D2, i.e. have chosen it as the best possible piece of equipment for their photography with their budget. You can only make that judgement of the iphone compared to other phones, and from the iphone 4 onwards the camera has been pretty good, and its main asset is its convenience.

If it was just because it was cheaper than the 1DS3, and the 5D2 was as much of a turd as An Exception makes it out to be, you'd have seen many more D700 portrait photographers. The D700 was its rival, and from general impressions and a quick look around for figures on the internet, the 5D2 outsold the D700 almost 10 to 1, even taking into account the high-end consumer users of the 5D2 due to it's MP count and spec sheet, the 5D2 was far more popular with professionals than the D700, and that's a fact.

The 5D2 sold far more than the D700 for sure, I don't think the difference is as big as you say (10:1). Even if it was it is meangless due to so many other variables. there are more canon shooters otu there full stop, so even if the same % of canon users purchased a 5D2 as Nikon users a D700 you would still expect far more 5D2 sales. Then there is the whole issue of getting locked in a system, not just financial but also the knowledge and understanding learned in a system. The number 1 reason to to switch systems for a pro is not cost but having to learn controls and intricacies from scratch, things like focus ring directions, mounting and unmounting lenses, knowledge of the menus, terminology. That alone accounts for many reason why Cannon sold a 5DMKII instead of people swapping to a Nikon D700. And the people who purchased a 5dMKII obviously didn't have the budget for a 1DsMKIII so the financial cost of swapping is very important.
Other things that may screw the stats were things like 1Ds owners buying a 5DMKII as a backup, people buying it for video. Sales , marketing and hype greatly contributed, people purchased it thinking it was the best thing since sliced bread when they may have been better served by a Canon 7D, keeping with the 550D, moving to Nikon, buying a 1DsMKII etc.

I wouldn't take sales figures as a measure of the ability of a device. Look at Games consoles, e.g. how well the Wii has sold. Lots of factors.

One of the undeniable and bug factors is that there is a majority of Canon pro photographers due to historic reasons. Nikon used to have the biggest market share but they lost sales when the technology move to AF and Nikon was slow, they lost some sales with the move to digital even although nikon were first they didn't push fast, Nikon lost more share when canon had FF cameras with the best sensors in existence while Nikon's sensors were clearly behind and only crop. Now technology wise things have totally changed, but that does;t mean every pro photo will just jump ship overnight. Canon isn't doing anything bad enough for that yet, perhaps as time goes on and their sensors fall further behind Sony/Nikon and their lens prices go ever higher then more people will move to Nikon? Who knows.

 

[ElDude]

I'm really starting to wonder if certain people are trying to see how far they can go with their arrogance and ignorance before being banned. It really is a complete disgrace, the attitude and condescension being shown towards some people.

It's even more ironic when you consider the quality of work some people put out and have done for years whereas others are just starting out, or at least really look that way.

The lack of respect being shown is amazing from some keyboard warriors. Seriously, some should stop and think about how they'd speak to someone in person before being so utterly obnoxious. Seriously, I'm baffled why the moderators haven't intervened yet. Are there any anymore?

 

[dannyjo22]

I'm really starting to wonder if certain people are trying to see how far they can go with their arrogance and ignorance before being banned. It really is a complete disgrace, the attitude and condescension being shown towards some people.

It's even more ironic when you consider the quality of work some people put out and have done for years whereas others are just starting out, or at least really look that way.

The lack of respect being shown is amazing from some keyboard warriors. Seriously, some should stop and think about how they'd speak to someone in person before being so utterly obnoxious. Seriously, I'm baffled why the moderators haven't intervened yet. Are there any anymore?

+1.023

 

[Ksanti]

Canon isn't doing anything bad enough for that yet, perhaps as time goes on and their sensors fall further behind Sony/Nikon and their lens prices go ever higher then more people will move to Nikon? Who knows.

Yeah I think that's the point - we're not arguing whether the 5D2 or the D700 are better cameras, we're arguing if the 5D2 is as truly awful as An Exception thinks it is. If it was, then people would have had no hesitations jumping ship. I'm not interested in having yet another 'which is better' discussion, and no, sales wouldn't be evidence in that debate, but from how awful An Exception is saying it is, you'd expect it to have tanked in sales and no pro photographer worth their salt to have touched it.

Also imo I reckon most pros are familiar enough with cameras in general for the switchover to not be that big of a deal in terms of familiarity - getting used to my 5D after a D5000 only took about an hour with the camera. The lens investment could be a pain particularly with the hassle of selling it all, given particularly buying second hand you basically won't make any loss on sales.

As for the sensor tech, I'm not sure. Sony's pushing ever further into the market and if they get into a position where refusing to provide sensors to Nikon could benefit them (i.e. having enough of a lens lineup to drag pros away from either system by having sensors as good as the D800's) could well leave Nikon with no real response. I don't know much of the legal side of things but it's definitely a possibility, depending on how badly Sony want to get into the market.

 

[D.P.]

Fair enough, and many photojournalists and agencies may have been simply backing up 1D stocks, but that still doesn't change the fact that I can't think of a single D700 portrait shooter (Pretty sure Brenizer shoots a D3/s/4, doesn't he?) and it's not like I only follow the work of Canon shooters as a point.

I can't think of a single 5dMkII wildlife or landscape photographer.
I'm not sure that is a valid argument.

Photographers with a web presence I like the most are Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, Nasim Mansurov and Moose Peterson - all use Nikons. My favourite photographer of all time, Gallen Rowell used Nikons.

What does that tell you, not much really.

 

[An Exception]

Yeah I think that's the point - we're not arguing whether the 5D2 or the D700 are better cameras, we're arguing if the 5D2 is as truly awful as An Exception thinks it is.

High resolution and video is where it excelled at, everything else is mediocre and archaic. Fact.

 

[Ksanti]

I can't think of a single 5dMkII wildlife or landscape photographer.
I'm not sure that is a valid argument.

Photographers with a web presence I like the most are Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, Nasim Mansurov and Moose Peterson - all use Nikons. My favourite photographer of all time, Gallen Rowell used Nikons.

What does that tell you, not much really.

Again, I'm not saying that one is better than the other; it certainly wouldn't be a valid argument there, just that the 5D2 isn't so god awful that nobody in photography touches it.

 

[D.P.]

WRT to Sony-Nikon sensors, Sony would be somewhat screwed if Nikon stopped getting sensors fabbed at Sony given current market share (Sony's facilities are veyr expensive and they need a very high throughput to keep costs down). A lot for the sensor development and tech is shared so soem of what is making the Sony sensors great atm may come form nikon, Nikon are also making great sensors without input from Sony (D3/d700, D3s, D4), so I am not worried short term.

Of course we can look back at history to the time of the D80/D200/D2 and realise that things can go downhill.

 

[D.P.]

Again, I'm not saying that one is better than the other; it certainly wouldn't be a valid argument there, just that the 5D2 isn't so god awful that nobody in photography touches it.

Of course not, many many people use it sucesfulyl. Raymond's photos are amazing and proof positive of the camera's ablities in the right hands.

 

[ElDude]

Of course not, many many people use it sucesfulyl. Raymond's photos are amazing and proof positive of the camera's ablities in the right hands.

And if you search google, there are people that use it in wildlife and landscape photography too. A very quick search also found a lot of people talking about it on forums too, and in constructive ways too