I didn't say otherwise?
My point is your spanking a load of money on a FF sensor, get the glass on there which will out perform it so you are not limited by the glass. Why risk restricting it?
If only we all had the money to do so
Looking to get into full-frame...
- Thread starter Stuff
- Start date
If only we all had the money to do so
I didn't say otherwise?
My point is your spanking a load of money on a FF sensor, get the glass on there which will out perform it so you are not limited by the glass. Why risk restricting it?
Because contrary to popular belief there is actually much more to good photo's than sharpness. The digital age and 200% zoom in photoshop seems to have left us all obsessed with sharpness when for me the major advantages of full frame ie better depth of field control and dynamic range will be just as noticable using my ancient 70-210 f4 as they would be with a brand new 70-200 f2.8 L
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
... for as little cost to myself as possible!
Canon ideally. I'm thinking maybe a 5DMkI? Are there any better options for that kinda money?
Also, I'm currently perma-suspended from the 'bay, so any recommendations for where to buy with good prices would be awesome!
Apart from a few drawbacks to be aware of, the 5D classic would be a really good choice, especially in terms of IQ at lower ISO, where it punches way above it's weight in terms of sharpness and MP, most probably due to a thin AA filter over the sensor unlike camera's like the D700 or 5Dii which lowers their effective MP count.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
I didn't say otherwise?
My point is your spanking a load of money on a FF sensor, get the glass on there which will out perform it so you are not limited by the glass. Why risk restricting it?
Why risk shooting 35mm, surely you should be using a digital back on medium format - think of the quality, how can you compromise?
Plenty of non L glass which is plenty good enough - 100 f/2 being a case in point, 100 macro being another, the L gets you weather sealing and IS, image quality isn't much changed for several hundred pounds extra.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
DOF/Perspective were my main two reasons, then I was excited by the Viewfinder, and then the increased effective sharpness when shooting wide open, however I'm actually going backward slightly in terms of dynamic range and Mp's, not that I'm really bothered, it's just the D7K has amazing DR.
Again, missed the point.
If you look at my shots you see I'm very much a lots of depth of field and popping colours kind of person. However, sharpness and IQ can be the deciding the factor between keeping and image or binning it, with L your going to improve that chance.
Also don't give me the argument 'having the best gear doesn't ensure you get good photos' because that's obvious. However, would I be able to take the photos at the standard I do with lower quality camera equipment? not a chance
35mm is an industry standard format which anyone/everyone/customers is happy with
I didn't say there isn't non L which is good enough, which lots seem to think I'm saying. I am saying however that having L glass quality DOES make a noticeable difference to the final image.
I totally agree, I use a LOT of non L glass, even lots of old lens, and they are perfectly capable of resolving the sensor of the MkII. Of course, the L might/could do better I'm sure, but I have a LOT of lens that give me 1 pixel details, even in the corners.
What modern Canon glass give you is stronger contrast and "Canon" colors, both of which I find boring, really.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
35mm is an industry standard format which anyone/everyone/customers is happy with
And medium format isn't? There are good reason not to use MF for general wedding shots but those aren't them.
I didn't say there isn't non L which is good enough, which lots seem to think I'm saying. I am saying however that having L glass quality DOES make a noticeable difference to the final image.
What you're saying is good glass is better than bad glass, of course it is. But good glass doesn't exclusively or universally mean L glass. Plenty of photographers better than any on here still using 85/1.8 and similar because the L options don't offer value for money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Or they prefer lighter and faster AF lenses that delivers 95% of the IQ.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Another good point for Canon primes yes, the 50 and 85 L are deathly slow to focus, by necessity yes given the amount of glass to shift and need for accuracy with such a narrow focus plane but still...sloooow...
I tried the 85L on the 5D2 and then straight away switched it to the 1dIII - Massive difference in focusing speed, why would that be?
Oh and for the record, I use an 85/1.8 and will be getting the 50/1.4 soon as I don't think their L bigger brothers are worth anywhere near the money they command
Oh and for the record, I use an 85/1.8 and will be getting the 50/1.4 soon as I don't think their L bigger brothers are worth anywhere near the money they command
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I tried the 85L on the 5D2 and then straight away switched it to the 1dIII - Massive difference in focusing speed, why would that be?
Oh and for the record, I use an 85/1.8 and will be getting the 50/1.4 soon as I don't think their L bigger brothers are worth anywhere near the money they command
Some AF systems are geared more for speed at the expense of a little accuracy...
Some have both, I know there are well documented issues with the 1D3 when it was first released, but mine was spot on
It is the main reason I struggled with lesser bodies was going from 95%+ keeper rates in sports to 60-70% was disappointing. The 7D is at around 85%+ although every now and then it will just hit everything, but I think the wind direction and speed, moisture content of the air and sunlight refraction has to be just right...
It is the main reason I struggled with lesser bodies was going from 95%+ keeper rates in sports to 60-70% was disappointing. The 7D is at around 85%+ although every now and then it will just hit everything, but I think the wind direction and speed, moisture content of the air and sunlight refraction has to be just right...
sorry are you saying the 1Dmk3 - one the most popular/sucessful sports cameras of its time - has less accurate AF than a 5Dmk2?
The 1DMK3 had notorious focussing issues when first released, which drove many pro photogs to the Nikon D3.
The 5dMKII just has antiquated AF that was already old on the 5DMK1.
granted, but post recall it was back to form
I seem to have kicked up a nice discussion here!
ANYWAY! I've done something I may regret... I've applied for a 0% credit card over 15 months, and if it's accepted... a brand-spankin' 5DMkII might be on the cards...
I did that with the 60D. When it's paid off the 5DmkIII will be out and I'll do it again, and my sister will have a new 30D to play with