New Canon full frame?

jonneymendoza · 2 Aug 2012 at 20:02

James J said:
Barely a price difference? Can get a second hand 5D mk ii for around £1000 now and for that price its a bargain. If the cash is available though or wanting to buy new, the Mk iii is the no brainer.

Brand new its 1.4k/1.5k and on the 5d3 its 2k brand new

James J said:
I agree the price is a joke, but sadly canon have adopted a daft price policy with the launch of the 5D mk iii which forced the prices of the newest lens releases up by crazy amounts also. Some good third party lenses are starting to come through though. The tamron version is meant to be a nice piece of kit, even on FF cameras and is a fraction of the price. Just depends if you want a red ring on the end of the lens I suppose!

Actually, the 5d3 came out the exact same amount as the 5d2 in "yen" Blame the recession

D.P. said:
The thing is though the only real reason to go full frame is to get the shallow DoF or the improved low light performance. Putting slower lenses on a FF makes no sense. The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens, moving to a budget canon FF with a 24-105 f/4.0 wont get you that much.

hence, as I said before, there is always a place for crop sensor cameras.

On FF, u get about a stop better ISO performance and about a stop in apparture(that f4 lens on a FF "looks" like f2.8 on a crop if u know what i mean).

In other words, if your use to shooting in f2.8 on crop, it will "look" the same on f4 on FF plus u get better ISO performance as well.

James J · 2 Aug 2012 at 20:24

jonneymendoza said:
Brand new its 1.4k/1.5k and on the 5d3 its 2k brand new

Actually, the 5d3 came out the exact same amount as the 5d2 in "yen" Blame the recession

On FF, u get about a stop better ISO performance and about a stop in apparture(that f4 lens on a FF "looks" like f2.8 on a crop if u know what i mean).

In other words, if your use to shooting in f2.8 on crop, it will "look" the same on f4 on FF plus u get better ISO performance as well.

I wouldn't buy a brand new 5D mk ii though as its just not worth it. However a second hand one is still a very nice proposition for the cost. Like I said, if buying brand new, get a mk iii as its not much more. If cash is an issue, get a second hand 5D mk ii.

An Exception · 2 Aug 2012 at 20:30

probably a better idea to just sell the 7d to fund a mkiii. That way the Op get's one exceptional body that can be used in pretty much any situation, rather than two mediocre ones, that only excel in specific scenarios.

dannyjo22 · 2 Aug 2012 at 20:45

D.P. said:
The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens, moving to a budget canon FF with a 24-105 f/4.0 wont get you that much.

Yeah that's why I've been undecided for so long. I'm not about to go FF and lob a 24-105 on when I've had the lovely 17-55 for a couple of years.

I think it will come down to buying a FF when the 24-70 is a comparable price to the MK1. It has to be £800 too expensive right now, the 70-200mk2 came down nicely so hopefully that will too.

Ksanti · 2 Aug 2012 at 20:57

I agree that one 5D3 is better than the two mismatching bodies, but the 5D2 is not a mediocre body for the last time and it's utterly pointless to keep trying to convince people that it is. Go tell the thousands of professional photographers who made their living with the 5D2 that it's mediocre? It was good enough that I can't think of a single D700 portraiture shooter off of the top of my head, and can't think of anybody swapping from a 5D2 to a D700 with its god-sent AF system and dynamic range, or to the 1DS3. The 5D2 excels at portraiture, landscape and video work which is hardly restrictive.

The 5D3 and D800 are substantially better cameras, but the 5D2 is rightfully a legend and not just out of being a 'poor man's MF'.

An Exception · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:03

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

D.P. · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:03

jonneymendoza said:
Brand new its 1.4k/1.5k and on the 5d3 its 2k brand new

Actually, the 5d3 came out the exact same amount as the 5d2 in "yen" Blame the recession

On FF, u get about a stop better ISO performance and about a stop in apparture(that f4 lens on a FF "looks" like f2.8 on a crop if u know what i mean).

In other words, if your use to shooting in f2.8 on crop, it will "look" the same on f4 on FF plus u get better ISO performance as well.

No, you wont get better ISO performance because your lens is 1 stop slower so you have to bump the ISO up by 1 stop and you are exactly back where you start.

Ksanti · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:11

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

As a body perhaps, but the Canon lens lineup was better for those users. Perhaps the body itself was archaic in some ways, but the thousands of professional photographers and the fact very very few famous/truly successful portrait photographers used D700s in comparison to the 5D2 shows that the areas where it's 'mediocre and archaic' weren't significant enough to warrant swapping systems or buying into flagship bodies.

Raymond Lin · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:11

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

Mediocre compare to cameras 100 years ago or cameras 10 years ago or cameras now?

Somebody please post that Reuter 100 photos again, and count the number of photos taken with the mediocre and archaic camera that is the 5D (hell, why not just the original 5D!) vs the cutting edge that is the D700

D.P. · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:13

Ksanti said:
I agree that one 5D3 is better than the two mismatching bodies, but the 5D2 is not a mediocre body for the last time and it's utterly pointless to keep trying to convince people that it is. Go tell the thousands of professional photographers who made their living with the 5D2 that it's mediocre? It was good enough that I can't think of a single D700 portraiture shooter off of the top of my head, and can't think of anybody swapping from a 5D2 to a D700 with its god-sent AF system and dynamic range, or to the 1DS3. The 5D2 excels at portraiture, landscape and video work which is hardly restrictive.

The 5D3 and D800 are substantially better cameras, but the 5D2 is rightfully a legend and not just out of being a 'poor man's MF'.

I know lots of people who dropped the 5DMKII for a D700 due to AF, metering, shadow banding, lack of proper weather sealing, etc.. It was certainly popular with landscape shooters on a budget, and they coped the DR/banding issue by careful use of filters or multiple exposures. Some of them used a Nikon 14-24 via an adapter to avoid the Canon 16-35. Some changed to the Nikon D3X, when they were making a living out of selling high quality landscape photos the cost was justified.

The 5DMKII has a good high res sensor with good high ISO performance and mediocre DR and terrible shadow issues. If the rest of the camera and sensor limitation were not an issue to one's style then it was a superb camera.

I don't see why some people feel the need to defend it or praise it like some kind of gift from God, or showing how it has been widely used by many people so must be amazing. By the same logic the iPhone must be one of the best cameras in the world because so many people use it for photography. The fact that it was cheaper than a 1Ds3 explains a large part of the users!

Raymond Lin · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:17

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.

D.P. · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:17

Raymond Lin said:
Mediocre compare to cameras 100 years ago or cameras 10 years ago or cameras now?

Somebody please post that Reuter 100 photos again, and count the number of photos taken with the mediocre and archaic camera that is the 5D vs the cutting edge that is the D700

It is a completely irrelevant stat, loom how many people take photos with an iPhone on Flickr. Many of the most valuable and significant photos ever made were done on film cameras. Go back a few years ago and the top Reuters photos will be from a mix of 4MP DSLR and film cameras....

If you are going by users then the Canon 300D must be a far better camera :confused:

D.P. · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:23

Raymond Lin said:
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.

I'm not knocking the camera, simply stating facts. :confused:

It doesn't change anything, a camera is simply a tool. Why do you get worked up when someone says something factual and negative about a camera you use? You don't have to justify or defend the camera- we have seen how great your photos are and how talented you are in getting the best out of it.

Raymond Lin · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:23

It's relevant because these people who's livelihood depends on it choose that camera.

Why?

It might not be the best on paper, never claimed it was, but it's not as bad as you "read every charts and lab tests ever published without any first hand experience" made it out to be.

jonneymendoza · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:25

D.P. said:
No, you wont get better ISO performance because your lens is 1 stop slower so you have to bump the ISO up by 1 stop and you are exactly back where you start.

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.

An Exception · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:28

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

jonneymendoza · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:29

Raymond Lin said:
It's relevant because these people who's livelihood depends on it choose that camera.

Why?

It might not be the best on paper, never claimed it was, but it's not as bad as you "read every charts and lab tests ever published without any first hand experience" made it out to be.

chose the 5d2? if teh 5d3 was out at teh time they would probably choose that

Anyways i thought we was done discussing this?

jonneymendoza · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:31

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

the 24-105 is cheaper then teh 17055 f2.8 aint it?

do u mean by including teh camera body switch too?

FF aint cheap thats for sure.

me personaly im going all prime with my ff setup with just the 70-200 as my zoom.

my dream setup is 24L 35L 50L 70-200f2.8L

good?

Ksanti · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:31

D.P. said:
I don't see why some people feel the need to defend it or praise it like some kind of gift from God, or showing how it has been widely used by many people so must be amazing. By the same logic the iPhone must be one of the best cameras in the world because so many people use it for photography. The fact that it was cheaper than a 1Ds3 explains a large part of the users!

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.

D.P. · 2 Aug 2012 at 21:33

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.