lens question

[D.P.]

i have 18-70, 50mm prime, 70-300.

Im umming and arring about wether to buy a new camera, im not sure the d70 is working 100%, tbh i think the sensor needs cleaning, afaik i need to send it to nikon for this, and pay £100 or so for the privelige ?

Im kind of swaying towards a 5dmk2, it does full 1080 video which is ideal for my dissy, and amazing features and is FF, and cheaper than the "superior" D700...

You can clean the sensor yourself, cost about 10p a time once you have some pec pads and eclipse fluid.

What makes you think you need a new camera? And I highly doubt changing brands will do anything beneficial to you. There are some specific advantages and disadvantages between Nikon and Canon that only Pros really worry about.

If you want to record 1080p video then buy an HD camcorder...

 

[D.P.]

I don't mind the small range, it's a wide angle at the end of the day and I would rather take the time and change the lens for better sharpness and a wide aperture for low light work. A 10-24/12-24/10-20 would just overlap with other lenses, therefore making the extra lens a little bit pointless. As Amp34 says, pair it with a 17-55 as I'm trying to do (funds permitting), it works out quite well.

That is fine, but a 10-2x makes a great walk about lens allowing you to leave the 17-55 brick in the car.

Of course, this really only matters if you are hiking any considerable distance and want to go light.

You also have to consider that the 2.8 is not that useful for many people. A tripod will always trump any extra stop of glass and a major use for wideangle lenses is landscape work where smaller apertures are used.

 

[bigredshark]

A 10-24/12-24/10-20 would just overlap with other lenses, therefore making the extra lens a little bit pointless. As Amp34 says, pair it with a 17-55 as I'm trying to do (funds permitting), it works out quite well.

See that's where I disagree, I wouldn't carry the others, the 17-55 (on crop bodies) or 24-70 (on full frame) range is one which tends to be popular with 'prosumers' who're still on the cover every mm between 17 and 200 bandwagon (and have too much money).

If you're shooting full frame or film then you could shoot for weeks with a 17-35 and 70-200, for crop bodies the 12-24 and 55-200 range are the equivalents (the second being less well covered). That's what most pro's do as well (not that that's a flawless indicator of the best option I know, just saying).

That's not to say the 17-55 isn't a good lens (I have one from a time when the ultrawide DX zooms weren't yet available), it's not at all bad (though perhaps not quite good enough for £1000 of glass compared to Nikon's other zooms).

 

[Amp34]

What makes you think you need a new camera? And I highly doubt changing brands will do anything beneficial to you. There are some specific advantages and disadvantages between Nikon and Canon that only Pros really worry about.

If you want to record 1080p video then buy an HD camcorder...

Most people don't have £20k+ just lying around for a videocamera. If you are interested in videography and taking more than just holiday footage the 5D II and 7D are ideal, they are FAR cheaper than their comparable videocameras and are so good they are being used to in the production of TV series and major films.

Unfortunately for Nikon users the cameras aren't quite as far along as the Canon cameras, with a lack of 1080p for one so if he is really interested in it then a swap may be a good idea. However I have no idea what the next Nikon will have with regards to video capabilities.

That is fine, but a 10-2x makes a great walk about lens allowing you to leave the 17-55 brick in the car.

Of course, this really only matters if you are hiking any considerable distance and want to go light.

You also have to consider that the 2.8 is not that useful for many people. A tripod will always trump any extra stop of glass and a major use for wideangle lenses is landscape work where smaller apertures are used.

Usually trump an extra stop, bit like saying IS is always useful. The 11-16 is a bit more of a speciality lens than the more standard wides but then Tokina do the 12-24 f/4 as well that competes with them. It's obviously not going to be used fully by everyone, doesn't make it a bad lens* As for smaller apertures, you're half right, usually you will be using the likes of f/8 but in reality in the 10-15mm sort of range you could just as easily use f/4 as the dof would still be around 3ft to infinity, which covers about 99% of situations. The lens very useful for a variety of things, incuding landscape, night shots, star scapes, cityscapes at night, indoor shots etc. The extra 1 to 2 stops can really help in darker conditions or when you need to collect more light. Yes you can use a tripod for some of the situations but that's not always possible, and either way it's no different to people spending a small fortune of super fast primes like the 50 and 85 f/1.2.

*In fact it is pretty special if you look at it in technical terms. Is there any prime lens that can get anywhere near that wide and fast? It's a bit like the Sigma 12-24 on full frame, spectacular.

 

[bigredshark]

anything over iso 250 and its silly! ruins images. i remember borrowing a tripod and taking some long exposure shots at fistral beach of the waves under the low full moon. On the lcd they looked great, got home and full of noise, completely ruined! lowest was iso 300 and even that was noise city.

Why were you shooting as ISO300 on a tripod? That's a good example of a time when the limited ISO performance shouldn't matter too much anyway, indoors or hand held I can understand but landscapes at night on tripod you should be able to shoot that ISO100, f16 or so, as I remember the D70 has bulb mode and supports up to 30 minute exposures...

 

[bigredshark]

Unfortunately for Nikon users the cameras aren't quite as far along as the Canon cameras, with a lack of 1080p for one so if he is really interested in it then a swap may be a good idea. However I have no idea what the next Nikon will have with regards to video capabilities.

Then again Canon are lagging when it comes to the photo part of the equation, the 5DII is in serious need of a better AF system and in general they're loosing out to Nikon on the high ISO performance. Swings and roundabouts really, for full frame I like Nikon today and for crop I like Canon at the moment.

Video - well, it's a capability. There are issues with rapid panning in the samples I've seen and fitting it out with all the appropriate hardware for serious video usage and to handle audio soon makes it more expensive than the headline figures suggest. That said, the House episode is impressive.

For me I don't care much, shooting video to a decent standard is hard and beyond me, I take photos.

 

[Amp34]

I pretty much agree, I wasn't putting Nikon down, just saying Canon have the upper hand with regards to video. Having said that I would suggest there is nothing really wrong with the 5D II AF system, it does what it's supposed to do, AF accurately on slow/still images. The 5D II wasn't designed to do fast action and neither was the AF (doesn't mean Canon couldn't have put a better AF system in though).

WRT rapid panning, that's very much not an issue if you use it in a similar way to a £20k video camera, obviously using it as a "aww baby is running around" snapper is going to cause issues. Cost wise yes, however all you really need is a tripod for most shots (see above, they aren't designed to take video fo your kids in the park or handheld of the tour guide nattering in front of a ruin) so most of the time there is no real extra IMO (at least with regards to the videos I've seen, that do just that).

I really want to get either the 5D II or 7D, partly for the video feature, it's something I'd love to try my hand at properly.

 

[D.P.]

Unfortunately for Nikon users the cameras aren't quite as far along as the Canon cameras, with a lack of 1080p for one so if he is really interested in it then a swap may be a good idea. However I have no idea what the next Nikon will have with regards to video capabilities.

No, in my opinion canon cameras are currently lacking behind Nikon's cameras for the most part., e.g. where is the full frame camera with professional focusing in a small body, or the super high sensitivity FULL frame sensor?. There really isn't a big difference worth debating.
Unless all you care about is video. But we are talking about STILL picture cameras where the ability to record 1080p video is neither here nor there for most people.

You can pick up a an HD capable handy cam for less than the price of a lens.

If you really care about HD video using 35mm sensor and lenses then it is best to wait for the dedicated video bodies with ergonomics and functionality aimed at video, rather than having something shoved into a still camera which doesn't belong there.

 

[Amp34]

I already covered the first paragraph, I was talking about the video option...

You can also pick up a compact for less than the price of a 50mm f/1.8, what's your point? It will have 12-14 MP so it must be just as good as a 1D or D3 right?

Or just have a look at what the 5D II has been used for recently, an entire episode of House for one. The beauty of having HD video in a standard camera body is you don't have to buy two things to do one job.. You don't have to carry those two things round either and as most videography is done on a tripod most of the rest of the equipment is not necessary...

Personally you sound like you need to go back to using a pinhole camera and silver halide paper, you obviously don't seem to like the idea of progression, even 35mm film digital must stir up your hatred, let alone digital.

 

[bigredshark]

Having said that I would suggest there is nothing really wrong with the 5D II AF system, it does what it's supposed to do, AF accurately on slow/still images. The 5D II wasn't designed to do fast action and neither was the AF (doesn't mean Canon couldn't have put a better AF system in though).

Arguably yes, if you see the 5DII as a landscape/portrait body and AF speed isn't important and the subject never moves then yes there's nothing actively wrong with it.

But it's a very basic system, and it's not a cheap body, compared to the D700s AF for instance it's a huge disparity. If you consider it a specialized single use body and accept you need a 1D series for sports/movement that's cool but personally I think a nearly £2000 body should do better.

 

[Amp34]

Totally see where you're coming from, and in fact if I had the money I would probably sell my Canon gear and go for ever a D300s or D700, although the lack of the higher quality video mode on the Canons would be a drawback.

 

[D.P.]

I already covered the first paragraph, I was talking about the video option...

You can also pick up a compact for less than the price of a 50mm f/1.8, what's your point? It will have 12-14 MP so it must be just as good as a 1D or D3 right?

Or just have a look at what the 5D II has been used for recently, an entire episode of House for one. The beauty of having HD video in a standard camera body is you don't have to buy two things to do one job.. You don't have to carry those two things round either and as most videography is done on a tripod most of the rest of the equipment is not necessary...

Personally you sound like you need to go back to using a pinhole camera and silver halide paper, you obviously don't seem to like the idea of progression, even 35mm film digital must stir up your hatred, let alone digital.

"You don't have to carry those two things round either"
By that logic you would just by an 18-200mm lens, because why have 2 different lenses to do different things when 1 lens does everything right?

The point is, the 18-200 compromises on lots of things and as serious amateurs we prefer dedicated tools. A wide angle lens, a normal lens, primes, a telephoto zoom. etc. etc.
A Video camera and a Still camera are very different tools to do different things that have different constraints and have different characteristics. Ergo, if you really care about either you will buy separate hardware with dedicated functionality.

Otherwise you are not so fussy about Both and can compromise, usually letting one of the functions drop. This is the case for video in low end DSLR, the main function is still photography. At the pro level SLR there is no real place for video.

No I like progression in DSLRs. Video is not progression. thats like putting a fridge in a car and selling it as the best of both worlds, private transport plus home food preservation in one.... Maybe it is nice to reach into the back to grab a cold drink ona long drive but the loss of passenger space and the need to exit the kitchen into the garage is a bit of a pain!

Anyway, taking good photos is proving hard enough, my attempts at video are laughable. Mastering both is an extreme challenge I imagine.

 

[bigredshark]

A Video camera and a Still camera are very different tools to do different things that have different constraints and have different characteristics. Ergo, if you really care about either you will buy separate hardware with dedicated functionality.

I have to say that was my first reaction too but having thought about it more and seen the results I'm struggling to justify it, yes it's not as good as a RED camera for video but it's better than just about anything in a similar price bracket. The rapid panning thing is a pain and the whole recording video on a CMOS sensor causes a few issues too but it's still very good for the price.

If you were an indy film maker you could buy a couple of these bodies, a few lenses and the various other bits needed to kit them out for video work (audio gear, special grips etc) and shoot a professional looking HD feature for less than £20k. That's really amazing stuff.

Now for me, I'm looking for the best camera and I think being tempted by an HD video mode is just silly. You're compromising on the off chance you get into video stuff...but that doesn't mean it isn't a great video option in it's own right.

The 5DIII could be quite something if Canon get it right...